Universities should prioritise the impact of adoption as debate grows on adoption as a solution for children in out-of-home care

Michael McMahon

Just musing – logic will never sway bigots, but…

Anti Adoption
– The social institution of Adoption is objectively bad because it harms all involved no matter how aware or unaware they or others are of that harm
Pro Adoption
– your bad experience has biased you against Adoption and you are being subjective not objective
Anti
– So you accept Adoption causes harm?
Pro
– Only in a minority – the majority of people are not harmed by Adoption
Anti
– how do you know?
Pro
– because our experience has been good
Anti
– So you are being subjectively biased and not objective.
Pro
– No- a majority of adoptees have not spoken of any harm
Anti
– How do you know – has anyone asked them?
Pro
– only a minority of those involved speak against Adoption
Anti
– only a minority speak for Adoption and the majority of those are adopters
Pro
– Then all you can say is that a minority experience harm
Anti
– How much harm is acceptable to keep Adoption going? 49%? 9%? 1%?
Pro
– A minority
Anti
– so all you can say is that at least 51% of those involved in Adoption don’t experience harm?
Pro
– At least
Anti
– oh how do you know – have you asked them?
Pro
– how do you know that all involved in Adoption are harmed?
Anti
– because Adoption removes the globally recognised human rights of all children by extinguishing their legal identity and removing them from meaningful access to their mother, extended family, heritage and culture, and in some cases, country.
– Because Adoption removes children from the responsibility of the State and places them in the care of strangers without provision of support, ongoing checks or assistance to access their origins.
Pro
– But that may be less harmful than staying in a harmful family situation
Anti
– So all Adoptees come from harmful families?
Pro
– A majority – That’s often why Adoption is needed in the first place
Anti
– So in summary you are saying that 51% or more adoptees came from a harmful family of origin and that up to 49% may have been placed in an adoptive family where they also experienced harm.
– Conversely this could be put as 49% of adoptees may have come from non-harmful families of origin but that up to 100% of those might have been put into harmful families.
Pro
– You are using the lack of data about Adoptees experiences to create a distorted argument based on missing information.
Anti
– so are you, but I don’t suppose your interested in getting that data?
…….
Anti
– hello? Hello?

 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s