Tuesday Highlights

Good morning.

  1. Libya and the UN.
  2. Symptomatic of our modern world?
  3. A slippery slope path suggested.
  4. A anthropology, in a literal sense (a logos of anthropos).
  5. From pro-choice to pro-life, a journey recounted.
  6. The plan all along? The backed-into-a-corner aspects of Obamacare. 
  7. Where is the outrage?
  8. The god gene.
  9. When 1-hour charge is a pretense of workable. It seems to me a industry standard swappable battery is the way to go, that way you can get a re-fueling in minutes not hours.
  10. Blogger=extremist.
  11. Parkour.
  12. Fantasy on Wall Street?
  13. Hostile Op-Ed
  14. 6-months to a year from now, when I note something like this, it will be assumed by my liberal interlocoturs that it never happened because I fail to google and re-locate it. 
  15. A downside to no-fly.
  16. Losing a foster child because of homosexuality.

7 Responses to Tuesday Highlights

  1. Losing a foster child because of homosexuality.

    It’s an interesting case. I’m curious what you think about it. Do you think it was the right decision? Would it matter if the child were gay? Would it be correct to refuse foster parents if they are racist instead of (or probably in addition to) being against homosexuality?

  2. In general the bar is higher for getting a child than having your own. Here in NJ we had a racist couple who briefly made the headlines because he named his kid Adolf and a local bakery refused to make a birthday cake for them. They ended up with DYFS problems but not because of their racism but because there was either other abuse or neglect also going on.

    As the case is described, though, it doesn’t sound like they are the equilivant to racist. Their assertion seemed to be that homosexual activities are unacceptable to them, not homosexuals per sea. I wouldn’t say that alone should bar them from being foster parents but I could see how putting a gay kid with them would be problematic.

  3. JA,
    It is my impression that foster parents are fewer than the number of children in need of the same. This is an entirely uninformed opinion, I realize as I have have no actual knowledge of the number of children vs the number of couples willing to foster. My default response would be that the community in which the child resides is best fit to determine the fitness of the parents to raise a child. From the original reuters article it looks like a higher court (federal equivalent) ruled them unfit. I find that problematic.

    I’ll agree with Boonton on this, I don’t see that this (being Pentacostal) should bar them from being foster parents especially in a world in which the supply of needy kids far outstrips the number of those willing to foster them (as I think is the case).

    It’s unclear how/why putatively racist parents would foster a child of a different race.

    Let me counter a few question for you. Would you have second thoughts about fostering a child to non-liberal Muslims, e.g., going to a Wahhabist influenced Mosque on a regular basis?

  4. Obviously if there are no other options, this option becomes much more attractive. I was assuming there are other options.

    My default response would be that the community in which the child resides is best fit to determine the fitness of the parents to raise a child.

    I don’t see why the child’s “local community” is more fit than the child’s larger (national) community, unless we’re talking about an actual community, and how many of those are there any more? I see no reason to prefer, e.g. state to federal.

    It’s unclear how/why putatively racist parents would foster a child of a different race.

    What about a child of the same race? Would that be okay?

    Let me counter a few question for you. Would you have second thoughts about fostering a child to non-liberal Muslims, e.g., going to a Wahhabist influenced Mosque on a regular basis?

    That sounds like a pretty much identical scenario to me, so like the original case, I’m unsure. I’d prefer the child be placed with more reasonable people, but it’s definitely scary to let the government start deciding these matters. I see some wisdom in matching the child’s religion (if any) to the foster parents’, where possible and reasonable. You?

  5. Well something else my impression is that foster homes are supposed to be temporary places where kids live in a family environment that is not an institution but is not actually their final resting place. Being that its temporary I think a cultural difference may or may not be an issue. If, for example, the birth parents are in the process of getting their act together its probably a good idea not to put the kids in a family that will complicate or undermine the eventually reuinted family. I could see authorities nixing moving a kid to a radically different region, a very different environment etc. on those grounds. If the kid is following a fostercare to adoption route then that’s a different case.

    As for there being a shortage of foster parents, I’m not really sure. We’ve been told by pro-lifers that there’s a shortage not of willing parents but available kids, which is why some US parents go to places like China to adopt kids.

  6. Boonton,
    I’ve a co-worker (one of the owners of the company here) who has adopted two children from China. One of the women at my parish works with an agency offering adoption from Eastern Europe. There is a shortage of infants for adoption and a fear of birth parents getting back and taking the kid away I think that drives much of the foreign adoption. For kids without families (who need foster care and such) who are older or have “problems” (drug addicted mothers are a large portion of this) there is more difficulty getting placed. My wife’s older cousin (unmarried) adopted a child with medical difficulties arising from mom’s drug problems.

    What I’m driving at is that it seems to me that there is a shortage of infants of the “right sort” (healthy and under 6 months without medical complications) there is a shortage of people willing to take a troubled 8 year old (for example) into their house and life.

    JA,
    Actual communities abound and remain in that foreign country, rural America. And I agree I see no reason to prefer state to federal. But that wasn’t my choice anyhow.

    How are you going to “test” a prospective parent for racism? Have them kiss a white man or woman (assuming your racist is not white)?

    I see some wisdom in matching the child’s religion (if any) to the foster parents’, where possible and reasonable. You?

    I think we should be “choosers” only if there is a real choice being made and not just disqualify parents ’cause they don’t fit some image of propriety and leave kids in the cold (so to speak). A lot of foster kids are older so being sensible to the background of the kid is important there, not so much for infants.

  7. I suspect there’s a few options on the table for foster kids. You got big institutions. You probably got ‘factory foster families’ (those that take in a lot of kids) and then small foster families. If the first two are pretty good then you can afford to be really ‘choosey’ with the third. If not then you can’t.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>