[notch656a]

If you simply go by the metric of putting a kid in the home where they are best off, then we can dispense with saying the biological or adopted parents are "necessarily" where the kid should be. We now know you don't think children are "necessarily" better off where they are wanted. Instead perhaps we can use your metric, and assign child to a home where they're "better off" after birth rather than to their biological parents or the person who wants to adopt them. This system could mean assigning the child to an entirely different country and culture at birth "in the interest of the child."

>Continuity may be more important

Continuity is not the only factor at play here. Continuity can turn into a bad thing where you're continuously somewhere where you aren't wanted.

> and the state of “wanting” a child in your home is not some simple boolean value. It’s intellectually dishonest to pretend it is.

The article is about families "un-adopt" a child. It's intellectually dishonest, and ignorant, to make this statement in the context of an article where it's so incredibly into the boolean "false" state of wanting.

[TameAntelope]

Shuffling kids around based on whichever home would be “best” for them according to an evolving situation is a terrible idea.

Two parents, ideally their parents, is best. Absent that, continuity is the next best thing. Moving kids out of homes they’re not in danger in is a bad idea, as the article explains.

[notch656a]

I reject the notion continuity with an unwanting parent is always the "best thing" and I've read quite a few anecdotes from people raised in such a situation that they wished the parents who didn't want them would yield to someone who did. Sure anecdotes don't prove it's always the case, but it shows it's not never the case either. Once again, continuity can turn into a bad thing if the continuous state is "unwanted." I'd rather spend at least _some_ time with people that want me than all my time with people that don't.

>>A kid is not better off...

>Shuffling kids around based on whichever home would be “best” for them according to an evolving situation is a terrible idea.

You're now contradicting yourself. Earlier you were worried about the kid being where they were better off. Now you say that's a terrible idea. You lack continuity.

[TameAntelope]

I am not worried about a kid being where they are theoretically best off, I'm worried about moving kids out of situations that are "below the line" of tolerability. The goal of having these adopted children thrive is secondary to the goal of raising them to the age of 18 with the highest chance of avoiding problematic damage.

Your idea of moving children from home to home in a search for their "best" home is not a viable one, and you know that. The fact that you continue to argue is a product of your inability to discuss this rationally, not due to some genuine concern for doing what is, overall, best for these children.

[notch656a]

>Two parents, ideally their parents, is best. Absent that, continuity is the next best thing.

>I am not worried about a kid being where they are theoretically best of

Again you contradict yourself. Earlier you were worried about what's "best." Now you claim you're not. The fact that you continue to contradict yourself is a product of your inability to discuss this rationally (nor with 'continuity'), not not due to some genuine concern for doing what is, overall, best for these children.

>The goal of having these adopted children thrive is secondary to the goal of raising them to the age of 18 with the highest chance of avoiding problematic damage.

Spending a childhood with a family that doesn't want you presents the possibility of higher "problematic damage" than having the option to move to one that does.

[TameAntelope]

What I wrote isn't contradictory, but if you can't figure that out, there's no point in continuing this discussion.

[notch656a]

Repeatedly engaging in your contradictory arguments isn't really something you should act on, nor is it something society ought to let you indulge. We're in agreement, there isn't much point in allowing you to indulge in these fallacies further. Adios.