as any tightly bonded monogamous family units would serve as well, for the best interests of children.Again, not any tightly bonded monogamous family unit would serve as well. Any configuration might make do quite well, but some configurations are better then others. No, I disagree. It is not the configuration, as long as the configuration does not prevent the provision of care that is needed for a child to thrive. It is what the parent figures do. We shouldn't be focusing on any characteristics of prospective or actual parents, other than their capacity to provide what the child needs in order to develop optimally.
As long as the world population is being maintained it doesn't matter.I would avoid the term "maintained" as it is suggestive that it must be maintained at current levels. Also, saying "it doesn't matter" suggests that any sort of future for humanity is as good as any other. I'm not sure if you really think that is the case. I certainly don't.
It's overpopulation that is the problem and anything that reduces it is an advantage, wherever it's happening.Culture plays a large part in overpopulation. Tightly bonded monogamous heterosexual nuclear family units are part of the solution.
How about picking up a couple of African or Asian orphans and raising them to even out the odds? It sure beats producing more kids in the western world and increasing the world population.We have an obligation to all children who are born into the world. But we do not have an obligation to all adults who want to birth children, particularly where they are not committed to raising them. Steps must be taken to provide adoptive families for such children. Steps must also be taken to avoid the future occurrence of such "less then ideal" situations. How would you go about doing that? Lois
No, I disagree. It is not the configuration, as long as the configuration does not prevent the provision of care that is needed for a child to thrive. It is what the parent figures do.Again, it is the provision of care AND the innate bond with its biological parents. Arguing for the importance of care does not, in any way, contradict the value of the biological bond.
We have an obligation to all children who are born into the world. But we do not have an obligation to all adults who want to birth children, particularly where they are not committed to raising them. Steps must be taken to provide adoptive families for such children. Steps must also be taken to avoid the future occurrence of such "less then ideal" situations.How would you go about doing that? First off, we need to let go of the whole “just as good" and “equal" rhetoric. There is a permissiveness that is implicit there and that is far reaching in terms of its impact. Many who birth children don't even try to plan families for them. In the black community, for example, there is a strong culture of young (often teen) girls having children deliberately out of wedlock without any belief in the value of fathering. This desperate problem needs to be confronted. Family planning education and birth control are necessary. The ideal informs us that casual usages of IVF (in vitro) fertilization should also be banned, for both heterosexual and homosexual pairings, with the exception of technologies that allow married heterosexual partners to bring into the world a child that is their shared biological offspring. For couples that wish to have a child and are unable, application for adoption of children who are in need should be encouraged. Understanding the ideal and striving for the ideal also means keeping biological ties as factors worthy of consideration in determining best adoptive situations. Although there may be some exceptions for homosexual adults who offer orphans a better situation then they might have otherwise. Although that is not an argument in support of gay marriage. Just some cases of gay parenting. It is to say that many alternative situations might be considered as best for an adoptive situation, including but not limited to single parents, etc.
No, I disagree. It is not the configuration, as long as the configuration does not prevent the provision of care that is needed for a child to thrive. It is what the parent figures do.Again, it is the provision of care AND the innate bond with its biological parents. Arguing for the importance of care does not, in any way, contradict the value of the biological bond. We are certainly, as humans, generally speaking, biologically predisposed to connecting with helpless human infants and young children. That many (perhaps most) parents experience this acutely and intensely with their own offspring is also not in doubt (in my mind). However many biological parents do not. People who are not biologically related to a child can also experience this innate connectedness with a child. That bonding is critical for any child's early optimal development. So your question, I think, comes down to whether this innate predisposition for connectedness occurs sufficiently in biologically related parent/child dyads in comparison to non-biologically related parent/child dyads. I suggest that this innate tendency for connectedness does not always occur in biologically related parent/child pairings. And often, biological parents did not want to be, and were ill-prepared to be parents. Presumably persons who adopt, are more consistently prepared to be parents than are the broad population of biological parents of children. Also, IMO, an adoptive parent who is bonded with a child, and provides for the child's safety and stimulation needs, is NO LESS an ideal parent than one that is biologically related.
... Understanding the ideal and striving for the ideal also means keeping biological ties as factors worthy of consideration in determining best adoptive situations...One should be careful that their idealism does not cross into the realm of supporting impractical, dysfunctional and potentially abusive ideology. e.g., you suggest banning IVF except for married heterosexuals, apparently based on your conviction that biologically related heterosexual parents are, in general, MORE IDEAL, than any other configuration. I say NO. Heterosexuality and the closest possible biological relatedness are factors that do not, of themselves, make a parent "more ideal". What makes any parent ideal, is early bonding, and their actualized potential to provide for the safety and optimal physical and mental stimulation for their child. (Every other factor is secondary to that. i.e., any other factor is relevant only to the extent that it relates to that.) You can't be a MORE IDEAL parent, simply, by sharing, as much as half, (of the small portion of genes that are not common to all humans) with the child. You can't be a MORE IDEAL parent, simply, by being heterosexual rather than homosexual.
So then Tim, while we both agree that a guardian’s child raising skills and love for the child that they take care of are very important, I also consider that the unique bond between a child and their biological parents has some degree of relevance that is greater than absolute zero. You on the other hand, believe that it is utterly and completely irrelevant. An utter blank slate hypothesis. Is that correct?
I should not have to convince you, then, that a connection to biological parent is more important then having someone (anyone) there caring well them, or having excellent parenting skills or whatever, since those are not necessarily things that we disagree about. I should only need to convince you that there is some relevance to the connection between a child and their biological parents, however small. Just some amount that is greater then zero. Does that sound fair?
If there is ANY small degree AT ALL to which biological relatedness can be said to have value for children then I am right and you are wrong. In order for you to be right and me wrong, you must demonstrate an “absolute zero" value.
Does that sound fair?
So then Tim, while we both agree that a guardian’s child raising skills and love for the child that they take care of are very important, I also consider that the unique bond between a child and their biological parents has some degree of relevance that is greater than absolute zero. You on the other hand, believe that it is utterly and completely irrelevant. An utter blank slate hypothesis. Is that correct?That is not correct. My stance is that the critical bond between a child and a parent is not unique to parent/child dyads that are comprised by a biological parent and their child. Also, simply being a biological parent does not insure the parent will establish such a bond. So any relevance of the similarity of genes in the parent/child dyad (on establishing the bond) is secondary (to the establishment of the bond itself), and its secondary relevance depends on whether it supports or does not support the early bonding. Another thought: Most humans may very likely be inclined, in certain circumstances to bond as a parental figure with an infant. So the prevalence of effective parent/child dyadic relationships among biological parent/child dyads, could be an artifact of the prevalence of biological parents typically being the first humans to be present and involved with their particular children.
If there is ANY small degree AT ALL to which biological relatedness can be said to have value for children then I am right and you are wrong. In order for you to be right and me wrong, you must demonstrate an “absolute zero" value. Does that sound fair?If by "fair", you mean just, equitable, and the whole truth, then nope, not really. Embrace the nuance. It is not to be feared.
So any relevance of the similarity of genes in the parent/child dyad (on establishing the bond) is secondary (to the establishment of the bond itself), and its secondary relevance depends on whether it supports or does not support the early bonding.We never necessarily disagreed about this point. But we are not talking about "establishing the bond itself." We are comparing two situations in which that "bond" is equal, and asking if there is one is more ideal then the other. Do you not get this or are you deliberately obfuscating?
So any relevance of the similarity of genes in the parent/child dyad (on establishing the bond) is secondary (to the establishment of the bond itself), and its secondary relevance depends on whether it supports or does not support the early bonding.We never necessarily disagreed about this point. But we are not talking about "establishing the bond itself." We are comparing two situations in which that "bond" is equal, and asking if there is one is more ideal then the other. Do you not get this or are you deliberately obfuscating? If the bond is equal, and the ability and motivation to supply the other key nurturance is equal, then the parent/s are equally ideal, regardless of sexual orientation or degree of genetic matching. Do you not get this? Or do you have some other agenda?
Equal: 1. Having the same quantity, measure, or value as another.
If two things are equal one cannot be more ideal than another, Humpty.
Edit: On further reflection, by definition ideal means perfection, therefore “more ideal” is a meaningless term. OQ is arguing semantics because he has no logic to back his hateful beliefs. See post#1 in this thread to remind yourself how this started, and how far off track OQ has taken his arguments.