As many of you who have read this blog know, I have some trigger topics. Gay rights. Child rights.
This morning I was looking through my email. I saw an article on Yahoo's front page that caught my eye. (HERE) It was about a father losing custody of his children and them coming up to be adopted because of his weight.
Now, normally on Saturdays, I am off to a pet rescue adoption event - provided I'm in town. Today I just don't have the time or the stamina - this new job is wearing me out! But, in thinking about this man's rights to have his children, I'm reminded of a conversation I had with Scottie somewhat recently. You see, to adopt a dog or cat from this rescue organization, there are certain requirements: One must have a stable home capable of having the animal. For instance: placing a high energy large breed in an apartment is a poor combination. Secondly, if you've had a pet in the past, what vet. was used? We will check with the vet to be sure there were no abuse issues. There are costs involved in adopting - mostly to help cover the neuter, shots and microchip - so to a small extent, financial ability to care for the pet is sort of considered. Long end of the deal: we want to be sure placing a pet in this person's home is a good "forever" match.
So, let's consider the requirements for having a child: Man. Woman. Sex. 9-months and a lot of sweat. Bingo, it's a baby. How to care for it? How to afford it? Well, rarely does that come up. It's a slope that once started down becomes dicey at best. For instance, can we tell someone they are not allowed to have a child because they are very overweight? That's what happened to this man.
What would be next? You can't have a child because you don't make enough money? What constitutes enough money? Should one have to be married to have a child? Hetero only? What if the government decided that we would need a license to have a child - like we need to drive a car, a boat, have a dog? Could we have racial profiling used to steer acceptance? How big of a mess could this become?
And in amongst this mess are all these small souls who had no real vote in the matter of coming into the world and want only to be cared for and loved. Who can now love and care for them? Can a gay couple - male or female pair - adopt them? Love them? Help them grow into great people? Well, not really - the power mad declare that a child is best raised in a loving environment of hetero persuasion, don't you know. Which is much like saying that everyone should drive a brand new four wheel drive who live in snowy environments.... great to say, but unlikely to occur. And, failing to provide what they deem ideal, then the answer must be the limbo of foster care?
I guess in the end, I have no answer to any of this. Should that man lose his progeny because he is overweight? What is good enough reason? What really ought to be is that we as a people become responsible for our decisions, grow up, and do what is right. Until then, I guess we are going to be at the mercy of a government agency convinced it knows what's best - no matter how asinine.
What do you think?
5 comments:
Hi Randy,
it is not that easy.
I think, that there is a right to paren, but this has to go hand in hand with responsability to act in a responsible manner on behalf of the kid.
I 'll give two examples:
the first: I made a blogpost
on http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m4kxeoesUm1rw4rgfo1_500.jpg.
I can only say: parents don't own their kids.
This is some oldttestamentarian view on children.
the second: When I bacame an orphan ind the aftermath of WW2,I happend to come to to a family taking me in as a fosterparents. They got money from the state for doing so until I was eighteen. Some considerable amount was not spent for my wellbeing but for the inheritance of their own kids, When the foster parents dinally died. This could happen cause noon controlled how the money was spent.
how would you call that?
and finally to heavy weight-father:
I cant say yes or no, knowing only such a few fact about the childrens situation.
for instance:
1. When did those fights with other people end?
2. When did the man start loosing weight - cause his heavy overweight doen't not seem to be some kind of illness?
3. Was his loosing weight just induced, when the kids were taken away from him?
4. How were his two sons influenced by their father weighing 520 pds?
These examples just leave us with more questions than answers.
It is all questions, how far "parents" - or Foster-parents" are responsible for the well-being of their upsprings
So I deeply question the responsiblity of "parents" calling their own sons or daughters names because they are gay.
But this mostly seems to be a problem among the oldtestamentarian "christianity" led society. - and those Society-managers acting politically on behalf of those, who think to profit by this fight of human rights.
caring hugs
<3 miles
Hello My Friend Miles;
So glad to hear from you. You are so right, parents don't own their kids. I sometimes even struggle with the concept of owning my dog... Owning creates the freedom of disposing. But there are some who have that too close in mind. I just saw a story on the news of a politician in California who was video'd whipping his son with a belt for dropping a ball while playing catch.
Discipline requires love. It is to teach, to educate, to encourage and direct. It requires love because it isn't about creating a cookie-cutter copy, but to develop a great person.
I don't know what can get in the way of that. I have known heavy people, I have known thin people... weight just doesn't seem an issue for me. Care, love, discipline. These are a matter of the heart and mind, not the body.
I don't know any answers, and I am so glad you wrote your thoughts. You definitely had a much different upbringing than I did, and surely a different view. I am just so afraid that the government gets too involved, and almost equally concerned that the government would become callous to our young people.
Caring hugs to you, as well!
randy
Hallo Randy,
I would agree with Miles.
I put the formula "for the good of the child" as a top priority.
This is also with us in a bad way.
This "child welfare" has been sacrificed in the past 30 years, the conservative image of the family and the cost of Jugenhilfe / youth care guide.
Gruß Nikki
My question is this. Would all overweight parents be treated the same...or just perhaps the poor ones?
I can attest that having a female and male parental structure is not always the best, just as having multiple parents is not always the best.
It is not the rights of the parents, but the children we need think of. I don't have all the solutions, But I know it stops being right when children are though of as things that are owned, instead of people. Hugs
Hi Nikki and Scottie;
There are some interesting extremes that come with kids and parents: if we are enamored with "what is best for the kids", we can remove children and place them into some presumed "ideal". The other side of that, is that we fail to see a child as a real human being deserving of our care and respect. Like everything in life, we need common sense and balance - the two things government agencies typically lack.
hugs!
randy
Post a Comment