Adopted children should be able to find out who their parents are
Global Justice Alliance

Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Adopted children should be able to find out who their parents are

  1. #1
    Administrator Honored Elder jeriddian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Midland, Texas
    Posts
    8,054

    Adopted children should be able to find out who their parents are

    If there was any doubt as to whether this should be so, you should read this story about a British couple who married, both of whom were adopted as infants, then found out they were twins.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22612314/
    "Say the Word"

  2. #2
    Registered User Regular Member Sir Sebastian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    186
    Sounds like a plot from a soap opera. Truth really is stranger than fiction.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  3. #3
    Registered User Exalted Member Fireand'chutes77's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    The Old Dominion
    Posts
    2,946
    Yagghg..... That's just.... gorchy....
    Carpe Navi: Because you never know when you'll get to go boating at government expense again.

  4. #4
    Super Moderator Honored Elder campy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Klein Innsbruck
    Posts
    7,411
    What if we give them the right but they decide not to ask? Mandatory genetic testing for all couples would be better.

  5. #5
    Registered User Exalted Member Fireand'chutes77's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    The Old Dominion
    Posts
    2,946
    Quote Originally Posted by campy View Post
    What if we give them the right but they decide not to ask?
    Ummm, they don't ask? It's a free country. If something pops up later, after they were offered the chance to test, tough cookies.

    As far as mandatory things go, I think a better use of taxpayer dollars would be to add a blood test that checks for STIs to the standard battery of tests that newborn babies go through. The results would be added to an ID card, and later a driver's license, which would indicate the bearer as "clean" or "infected." All STIs - AIDS, syph, gonorrhea, chlamydia, ect - have to come from someplace; they don't just pop out of thin air. Someone has to be an original carrier. If they screened babies at birth and identified which ones where carriers from the start, they could begin the slow process of weeding out STIs. This wouldn't prevent the initial (or 2nd, 3rd, or 4th) batch from getting STIs, of course, since there would already be millions of carriers out there, but if done long enough, those infected would eventually die out.

    Granted, this would pretty much destroy any chance those who were initially carriers of ever having sex, but it would hopefully begin to stamp out STIs, and slow down their mutation into superbugs just enough to give science time to catch up.
    Carpe Navi: Because you never know when you'll get to go boating at government expense again.

  6. #6
    Administrator Honored Elder jeriddian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Midland, Texas
    Posts
    8,054
    Quote Originally Posted by Fireand'chutes77 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by campy View Post
    What if we give them the right but they decide not to ask?
    Ummm, they don't ask? It's a free country. If something pops up later, after they were offered the chance to test, tough cookies.

    As far as mandatory things go, I think a better use of taxpayer dollars would be to add a blood test that checks for STIs to the standard battery of tests that newborn babies go through. The results would be added to an ID card, and later a driver's license, which would indicate the bearer as "clean" or "infected." All STIs - AIDS, syph, gonorrhea, chlamydia, ect - have to come from someplace; they don't just pop out of thin air. Someone has to be an original carrier. If they screened babies at birth and identified which ones where carriers from the start, they could begin the slow process of weeding out STIs. This wouldn't prevent the initial (or 2nd, 3rd, or 4th) batch from getting STIs, of course, since there would already be millions of carriers out there, but if done long enough, those infected would eventually die out.

    Granted, this would pretty much destroy any chance those who were initially carriers of ever having sex, but it would hopefully begin to stamp out STIs, and slow down their mutation into superbugs just enough to give science time to catch up.
    Actually, the term, medically, for those infections is STD's (not to be confused with StD obviously.....:P....but I suspect you knew that.) And most states actually do have a mandatory testing for syphilis and gonorrhea when applying for a marriage license. There is discussion now about adding AIDS and the other diseases to the list, although I think some states have already done it. I haven't checked up on that stuff in a long time.

    As to tracing down the source of the infections, believe me when I say that is an incredibly monumental task that has been fought for the last 150 years ever since epidemiology became a major concern of the study of medicine. It just isn't possible to completely eradicate these diseases with the reality of human interaction and the biology of the bugs, unfortunately, although that should not stop us from trying. The cost of doing it is tremendous however, which is a major impediment to succeeding.
    "Say the Word"

  7. #7
    Registered User Exalted Member Fireand'chutes77's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    The Old Dominion
    Posts
    2,946
    Quote Originally Posted by jeriddian View Post
    Actually, the term, medically, for those infections is STD's (not to be confused with StD obviously.....:P....but I suspect you knew that.)
    Yes, I did (), but I still am tending to say "STI" in this forum's context to avoid confusion.

    Funny, I thought professionals were started to trend more toward "STI," since the term is less ambiguous. Granted, I got my information from Wikipedia, but...

    Quote Originally Posted by Wikipedia, "STD"
    Increasingly, the term sexually transmitted infection (STI) is used, as it has a broader range of meaning; a person may be infected, and may potentially infect others, without showing signs of disease.
    Carpe Navi: Because you never know when you'll get to go boating at government expense again.

  8. #8
    Administrator Honored Elder jeriddian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Midland, Texas
    Posts
    8,054
    Quote Originally Posted by Fireand'chutes77 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jeriddian View Post
    Actually, the term, medically, for those infections is STD's (not to be confused with StD obviously.....:P....but I suspect you knew that.)
    Yes, I did (), but I still am tending to say "STI" in this forum's context to avoid confusion.

    Funny, I thought professionals were started to trend more toward "STI," since the term is less ambiguous. Granted, I got my information from Wikipedia, but...

    Quote Originally Posted by Wikipedia, "STD"
    Increasingly, the term sexually transmitted infection (STI) is used, as it has a broader range of meaning; a person may be infected, and may potentially infect others, without showing signs of disease.
    Not to my knowledge. I've yet to hear that term be used instead of STD which is what I was always taught, but then I haven't been in medical school for 20 years now, so they may have started changing some of the terms around... ....again. They love doing that in the infectious disease department for some silly reason.
    "Say the Word"

  9. #9
    Registered User Veteran Member Ace Ian Combat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Near the Middleton Pet Cemetery
    Posts
    504
    Quote Originally Posted by jeriddian View Post
    If there was any doubt as to whether this should be so, you should read this story about a British couple who married, both of whom were adopted as infants, then found out they were twins.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22612314/
    Well... that's disturbing. An honest mistake, but still unnerving.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] I don't want to be the one the battles always choose... but inside I realize that I'm the one confused... Breaking the Habit, by Linkin Park

  10. #10
    Administrator Senior Member Greenmandmz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    The New Republic
    Posts
    262
    Quote Originally Posted by Ace Ian Combat View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jeriddian View Post
    If there was any doubt as to whether this should be so, you should read this story about a British couple who married, both of whom were adopted as infants, then found out they were twins.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22612314/
    Well... that's disturbing. An honest mistake, but still unnerving.
    Not just that, but sad too. I mean, what are the chances of something like this happening? I completely agree with jeriddian about adopted kids having the right to find out who their biological parents are. That way situations like this, though incredibly rare, wouldn't happen.

    I mean, can you imagine what those twins must be going through right now? I imagine the initial shock was traumatic enough when they found out they were brother and sister. I'm sure they'll be able to work through it, but it's definitely going to take some time. Maybe they'll be able to look back on it years down the road and even laugh about it a little. A sense of humor will be will key working through something like this.

    Even so, my heart goes out to them.
    Gah! Quit mocking me. -AinoMinako
    [I]

    Kim & Ron: Best of friends!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •