u/Arktikos02

TLDR: **Legislation to be introduced to Victoria’s parliament on Tuesday will allow adopted people to have both their birth and adoptive parents included on their birth certificates for the first time. Under the current law, people who have been adopted in Victoria are issued a new birth certificate with their adoptive name and the name of their adoptive parents. Integrated birth certificates have been recommended by several state and federal inquiries over the past decade and have already been introduced in South Australia, Western Australia and New South Wales. The attorney general, Jaclyn Symes, said the legislation would enable adopted people aged 18 and older who wished to update their records to access a certificate that 'better represents their own story'. The Victorian registry of birth, deaths and marriages will begin work to develop integrated certificates, which are expected to be available by late 2023. 'We know we can’t change the past but we can try repair the damage caused,' Symes said.**

View Poll

View Poll

So this is based on apparently a real thing some turtle shops do or something. Apparently when you order a turtle or something you can get an optional little thing on the order to pay a bit of an extra expense to have water as part of the order so that the turtle can drink and anyone who picks the option to save money and not have water included will have their order immediately canceled and if they agree to the water their water is actually not added to their charge and the water is completely free.

So I was thinking that they should do that as well. This is obviously supposed to be included in some of the other things I would like agencies to do as part of the gatekeeping method but here's a few others.

For example after the adoptive parents are a bit emotionally exhausted but are waiting, they could be given the option to speedrun the process.

Basically they would be offered a discount that would remove the home study, the background checks, and maybe some other expenses. Leaving them with just the agency fee and the lawyer fees. They would be shown the new money. If they accept the offer & the contract the adoption will be immediately canceled and they will be essentially given either some kind of citation that will follow them everywhere or they could be banned from all future adoptions in either an entire radius or maybe even the entire state or country.

They need to prove that they won't give in to the temptation of a cheaper option for the sake of their own comfort. They need to understand that something is basic as background checks and home studies are not unreasonable. Now I understand that there can be debates about what other gatekeeping methods there should be but things like the home studies and the background checks do cost money, they don't cost money for no reason, it's because a person is going to another person's home and that person's time costs money. It's because doing a background check costs money.

Now I first want to illustrate that I am not saying that they should have their own biological children just because they want children. They are not owed children and they should not simply have another person's child. I am also not saying that disabled people shouldn't be able to adopt simply because they are disabled. However, here are the reasons why I think that the reason why a person wants to adopt is simply because they don't want to pass on their genetics is because,

First off, it creates a savior mentality. Just like a lot of other savior mentalities, this can be dangerous because it puts the focus onto that person and not on to the actual child.

The second reason is because that child is not actually immune from any kind of condition that they are supposedly trying to save children from. Adoption does not mean that they don't have a lack of bad genetics, it just means oftentimes that they don't know about those genetics. While I do not have a terminal condition, I do want to point out that if a person had to choose between having a chronic condition or a terminal condition versus having that same condition exactly but also having a parent who had the same condition and thus they understood how to help their child, wouldn't suffering with knowledge be better than suffering without it?

The third reason is because you can't then tell your child that genetics don't matter when the reason why you adopted was literally because of genetics and that you felt like it mattered. How can an adoptive person both say that genetics don't matter and then also make a life-changing decision based on genetics? What they really mean is that some genetics matter more than others and that some genetics should be prioritized over others. Adoption has been used as a tool of eugenics and as a means of enabling the idea that some people are just more worthy of families than others, which is in part an ideology that comes from eugenics.

And the fourth thing is that whether or not the person knows it or not, they are casting judgment, and whether or not they are casting judgment on themselves or on other people doesn't matter when you bring a child into your home who has unknown genetics. What if that person had a condition and that condition doesn't show up until later in life, like let's say adulthood, and it's very uncomfortable to live with but it's not deadly, so it's chronic but not deadly. That person doesn't want to pass it on, which they've made that choice and that is their own judgment, but they adopt a child and that child ends up having it. They have unknowingly cast judgment upon that child and that birth parent. That child doesn't deserve that because that relationship between them and their birth parent is complicated and of their own.

Again, I am not saying people should have children when they don't want to or if they don't think they could produce a child that they think they would want to have. That is perfectly fine, but you don't get to make that decision for other people, and you don't get to use adoption as a sort of fix as if it's going to fix anything.

This is not about whether or not this hypothetical person should have a child because I am not saying they should. I am saying they should not adopt because their only reason for adopting is because they want a child but just not a biological child because of their genetics. No.

So if you can get pregnant this means having biological kids but if you can't get pregnant it means either getting someone pregnant or using a surrogate but it has to be through birth. It can't just be you acquiring two legal kids.

Also it has to be kids produced after the date of announcement so even if you have kids already you have to produce two more at minimum.

Then you get a free house of your choice anywhere in the country or countries you have citizenship of.

And for the sake of the hypothetical yes, the program is legit and is being offered to every person over the age of 18 who is a citizen of your country.

View Poll

So I say for whatever reason but I should point out that advertising or billboard laws still apply, it has to be in a place that already allows billboards and it has to be at a place where there is already a billboard. Basically let's say you have an opportunity to have a billboard spot for a year and you can put whatever you want on it that could go on a billboard, what would you want to put on it?

​

And the billboard does not need to even be in your country, you are allowed to put ads on billboards in other countries as well because billboards are basically ad space.

This may also be something that is similar with donor conceived people although not quite the same but I'm not going to be talking about that, I'm talking about adoption.

​

Basically because a lot of people adopt because of infertility, I imagine that seeing their adoptive child be pregnant, a state that they could not obtain themselves, I wonder if that may cause some behavioral issues that may make situations more unpleasant or uncomfortable. Obviously I think that pregnancy in general can sometimes awaken aspects of Family Dynamics that can be unpleasant sometimes. Milestones in life do tend to do that sometimes but I'm wondering how that is specifically for adoptive parents. Especially because I would not be having my own biological kids.

​

So I'm curious if this is something that you've noticed or anything. And obviously it depends on the AP as well. Different people react differently so I'm just wondering about in general.

​

Especially when it comes to pregnant adoptees and what kinds of things they should potentially prepare for especially if they know that their adoptive parent simply adopted as a cover-up for infertility without having to face the insecurities of their infertility first.

So it can be on the internet or it can be in real life and it's not a comparison like comparing trans people to predators or groomers or whatever. I'm talking about where a person is trying to be supportive and ends up just making an insensitive comparison.

​

Basically it would be like if a person talked about their mental health issues and mentioned that they were depressed and then the other person responded by saying that they understand how they feel, they get sad sometimes too.

So just for some context this is based on a Reddit thread somewhere else. Here is the scenario.

A friend of yours gets pregnant through rape and is unable to have an abortion and so the only option they see is adoption because they don't want to be tied to this person and they don't want to deal with this person but the problem is is that it was not obvious rape. It was still very much non-consensual, so it's not ambiguous, but it's hard to get evidence. Going through the court system to handle the rape case is its own matter which she's having a hard time with and right now she just wants to put the kid up for adoption. However the problem is that the father has put himself on the punitive father registry putative father’s registry. The father and mother are not married by the way. She doesn't want to deal with this and so she got the recommendation and is thinking of just going to an agency that won't use the family registry which is illegal. She doesn't want to have to pay child support and be tied to this person. She thinks this is unfair.

My question is, knowing that abortion is completely off the table whether it be due to laws, personal family situation, or whatever, what would you say to this person who thinks that it's a good idea to look for an adoption agency that is willing to not use the father registry even though you believe her that she was raped?

Link

So what that means is that the upfront cost of adoption would be lowered because some of the costs would be through government subsidies instead. These expenses do not guarantee that an adoption will be finalized but they would be towards the process. They would be things like lawyer fees, home visits, or stuff like that. Because a home visit does not guarantee that an adoption will be finalized that does not mean that these expenses will guarantee an adoption but they will lessen the upfront costs for people who want to so that more people can try.

View Poll

And she is fully healed and fully vaccinated so she's not going to die of any condition that she would have died from at that time.

View Poll

And we are assuming that the only barrier to the study is financial incentive so that means that let's say some person who has a lot of money is willing to give that money to fund a study. So you cannot produce the results obviously but you can fund the study and the study will be created and stuff like that. It obviously has to be a study that is possible to be done both within legal limitations and scientific ethics limitations but in terms of any study that you could fund, which would you want?

Don't worry about any other limitations, go nuts.