Well, biological ties are BS anyway, I myself have seen biological parents who walked out on their kids and adopted parents who've loved their kids unquestioningly, you grow attached to people because of your affection for them, not because of blood. Blood gives you relatives, loyalty gives you family.

[quote]i despise homosexuals and liberals, and i am against all forms of adoption.[/quote] RC this is really getting old. Har Har Har, you mock the Right and the religious in your posts. It stopped being funny a long time ago.

ITT: Newbitches not knowing who rc is

Alrighty so it's only taken me a day longer than I thought <.< Hopefully this turns out a little more coherent than the last post. First things first, as I said on the last one - Families with adopted children are by no means less legitimate than families with biological children. The difference that [i]can[/i] occur is if a less than ideal bond is formed between the Parent and Child, this would *typically* be because of the parent, although it isn't necessarily their fault. For the first hypothetical, we'll go with a newborn who is basically handed straight to the adoptive parents after the hospital discharges them both. The adoptive mother wouldn't be breastfeeding as she hadn't just been through pregnancy (Biology basics and all that) and so the baby would be raised on formula. This can impact on the maternal bond that forms as there is less direct skin contact/breastfeeding. I *could* drag out a few studies if you wish, but it would be easier to take my word on this, either way is fine it just saves me a bit of typing and this isn't an authoritative text on adopted children, just what I learned in Psychology at A Level. So this then leads to the second stage of the hypothetical, this is based off Mary Ainsworth's Strange Situation study which I'll copy/paste a summary of in the spoiler here- [spoiler]http://0.tqn.com/d/psychology/1/5/Q/I/strange-situation.jpg See picture for how it goes, description of the types is as copied off wikipedia. Lol. [b]Secure[/b] - (Infant) Uses caregiver as a secure base for exploration. Protests caregiver's departure and seeks proximity and is comforted on return, returning to exploration. May be comforted by the stranger but shows clear preference for the caregiver. (Caregiver/mum) Responds appropriately, promptly and consistently to needs. Caregiver has successfully formed a secure parental attachment bond to the child. [b]Anxious[/b] - (Infant) Clingy, unable to cope with absences of the caregiver. Seeks constant reassurances. (Caregiver/mum) Excessively protective of the child, and unable to allow risk-taking, and steps towards independence. [b]Avoidant[/b] - (Infant) Little affective sharing in play. Little or no distress on departure, little or no visible response to return, ignoring or turning away with no effort to maintain contact if picked up. Treats the stranger similarly to the caregiver. The child feels that there is no attachment; the child is "rebellious" and has a lower self-image and self-esteem. (Caregiver/mum) - Little or no response to distressed child. Discourages crying and encourages independence [b]Ambivalent/resistant[/b] - (Infant) Unable to use caregiver as a secure base, seeking proximity before separation occurs. Distressed on separation with ambivalence, anger, reluctance to warm to caregiver and return to play on return. Preoccupied with caregiver's availability, seeking contact but resisting angrily when it is achieved. Not easily calmed by stranger. In this relationship, the child always feels anxious because the caregiver's availability is never consistent. (Caregiver/mum) Inconsistent between appropriate and neglectful responses. Generally will only respond after increased attachment behavior from the infant. (There is a fourth category called disorganised for kids with strange reactions/behaviours but that's not relevant here really, at least for the hypothetical) [/spoiler] So the infant is found to be Avoidant because the maternal bond isn't as strong (Please note, this is the hypothetical and not typical of all adoptive parents by any means, I'm just explaining how it is possible for the bond to be weaker/how it can affect the child) it isn't as strong because there was not the hormonal cocktail and the whole pregnancy process which would typically set the mother up to form a bond with the child (Again, I could pull up some studies if people wish but it's simpler to keep it brief for the side points) and because of less skin-contact bonding that would have occurred through breastfeeding (In this case, not all formula babies. I just want to point this out again) Now because the infant's attachment type is avoidant rather than the 'ideal' secure one, this is what can lead to (In theory) some of the problems adopted children encounter with their parents when they eventually find out they are adopted. 'You didn't love me like your own son/daughter' and heartbreaking stuff like that, which would be horrible for the parents to hear because whilst it clearly isn't true there is that tiny seed of detachment/doubt that is likely to be present (In this hypothetical). This then leads into that stigma/caution that some people would encounter when adopting (My theory, this doesn't apply to everyone) is that fear of rejection from the child they raise. Which I can only imagine would be just about the worst thing an adoptive parent could hear from the child they raised. So hopefully this is coherent enough to read, I tried to keep it less textbook and more explanatory but if anything seems wrong/confusing just say and I'll see if it's me making a silly mistake or me being incoherent. This is all basically the accepted theory for attachment/bond forming in early infanthood. Some suggestions on how to mitigate these potential problems later in life, should you choose to adopt (This is just my thoughts and not anything official, nor have I actually raised an adopted kid myself - obviously - but yeah, take from it what you will) Being honest with them from a reasonably early age, explaining about adoption and why it's nothing strange and it doesn't mean that they aren't your child/you aren't their parent As much as possible, spend time playing and embracing the infant (If adopted at that age) to maximise the bond formed, on both sides of the equation. Which is a horribly scientific way of saying, play/feed/change your damn baby ._. [spoiler]Apologies for all the bracketed explanations, I just feel the need to say that it's just some gai on teh inturnetz and not a parent/child psychologist talking <.<[/spoiler]

I think that extreme conservatives and religious fundamentalists should have their kids taken away and adopted ti liberal, preferably gay, families.

OP was adopted and is now gay

It's my belief that whether you're related to them by blood or not is pretty meaningless. If people are important to you and you love them than it's all that matters. Blood is only blood, nothing more.

All adopting parents are somewhat weird and odd in some way. I know this because my father was adopted and I have a few adopted friends. They're still legitimate.

My friend was used as an ashtray by his real parents. Cps took him, and he was adopted by a really nice old couple, and he turned out great. I don't see adoption being terrible, unless you have millions of dollars to adopt overseas, when there are kids here just as unfortunate as others in 3rd world countries. Adopted 3rd world kids seem to be a fad amongst richies

Possibly. But adoption is the only form of parenthood I can condone.

[quote]any newfriends who want to know my opinion, just remember that i despise homosexuals and liberals, and i am against all forms of adoption.[/quote] But wouldn't conservatives be [i]for[/i] adoption, since they're against abortion?

Most of the time, I see adopted kids and families living better than nuclear families. The love is stronger because of the known negligence.

And if you are a semi old member you would know that rc is actually very liberal and used to defend gays. What ever happened to verbatim? Did he ever pass geometry? [spoiler]remember silent bob? I never liked the guy[/spoiler]

Are they less legitimate? Not at all, anyone who thinks that should be slapped with a baseball bat. With nails in it. Do they sometimes lack the same closeness from biological children? Sadly, sometimes yes. I would rather have good adoptive parents than lousy biological ones, who they are doesn't matter (To address the underlying point here) but what kind of parent they are does.

Implying conservatives believe adoption is illegitimate. You're an idiot.

If people can love an animal more than a human being I don't see why they wouldn't love a child that they have paid/ are paying a lot of money for. I'm hoping whatever family I decide to bless my kid with is going to treat her right and like one of the family.

It's true that there's a biological connection between a child and his/her birth parents, but that doesn't make an adoptive family any less legitimate in my eyes.