« Shotgun Advice Needed | Main | Connection Between Modesty and Beauty »

March 16, 2006

Comments

laura beall

This is sad - catholic charities (oxymoron) would rather place children into home of abusive catholics that have their check books out - instead of good homes that are non catholic or gay - and YOU know it - a reformed catholic

Miss Kelly

Catholic Charities is hardly an oxymoron. Catholics have throughout the ages famously helped the poor and indigent. They're established many thousands of schools, hospitals, orphanages, clinics, homeless shelters, food kitchens, etc. around the world.

In this case, they want to place a child with a mother and a father. Sounds reasonable and desirable to me. Catholic Charities did not limit placement of children in non-Catholic homes.

laura beall

You should learn you facts - in the late 60's thru late 70's that is exactly what they did - and you know it - it is not for catholics to decide to hide the legal rights of woman with regards to their babies and they sell them. laura
I know of 100's that they did this to. A fact is a fact and can not be disputed.

miss kelly

Hello Laura, that's a deep wellspring of anger you've got there. Are you one of the children who ended up with abusive parents?

Children have few legal rights now, and they had less in the late 60's/early 70's. What the Catholic Charities did back then doesn't interest me a great deal, and was probably the norm for any all adoption agencies. No agencies were placing kids in homes with gay parents back then.

Were some children placed in abusive homes by CC? Sure, I bet there were some, but I also bet most kids were put in good homes. Children continue to be placed in abusive homes today, under the statrun foster programs. Agencies across the U.S. have scandals with children under state care being abused and even murdered. Can you spare some anger for those agencies too, or is your anger reserved for CC?

No single women or children had the legal rights that they have today. The norm was back in the 50's and 60's to take babies away from single moms. There was a social stigma to being a single mom, something we might want to bring back, given all the difficulties faced by children in a home with no father and reduced economic resources.

You talk of the legal rights of women being "hidden" back then. What of the lgal right of a child to be brought up in a stable home with two parents? Why are adult's rights greater than children's rights?

laura beall

So catholics have the right to determine what is best for a child - then go into people's homes and take their kids if you find something better - hou sad and pompous is that? And "giving" as you claim catholic charities is - hate to be the bearer of bad news, but giving 50% of what you receive, isn't giving, it is taking.
Besides you don't give anything, you pass on "some" of the monies people give you. laura
Angry - I am more saddened that you think you can decide where a child so be - studies have proven that adoption is not in the best interest of the child 95% of the time. You really should check on fact before thinking you are entitled to choose the destiny of a child. Shame on you. laura

The comments to this entry are closed.

September 2011

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  
Blog powered by Typepad