Calm Posted October 30, 2019 Posted October 30, 2019 3 hours ago, Bob Crockett said: I mean, a pregnant mom can go in and pay $1000 to murder her fetus and get away with it under the law, but be paid $20,000 for a baby? Off to jail. And if moms could sell their babies without interference, how many of them would pay to murder their fetuses? How many women get pregnant in order to have abortions? Do you believe there wouldn’t be a significant number of women getting pregnant solely to sell their child?
The Nehor Posted October 30, 2019 Posted October 30, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, longview said: If there were informal options for the women undergoing the abortion procedure with the choice of being anonymous or peripherally involved, there would be many more who would be willing to carry to term and hand over the child to intermediaries such as church or foundation or some intimate network. The waiting list for "adoptive" parents is tragically way too long. CFR that there are not such options. You want mothers to be able to informally give an infant to anyone? You can drop an infant off at a hospital or fire station and give them up that way no questions asked. You can adopt out privately and probably get medical expenses covered. You can surrender the child to CPS right after birth and give up parental rights. There are all kinds of options. Abortions are not soughy because there is no way to give away a baby so it is abortion or raise it. They are sought because pregnancy is painful and inconvenient and even risky and then most birth mothers have an understandably hard time giving away a child after birth for obvious reasons. An expectant mother wanting to give a child up for adoption has a lot of options. Many can get living expenses and all medical costs paid for. The reason this nut is so cheap is he is charging only a little below market and is skimping on that care and is how he is making so much more money than most adoption lawyers. Why is he housing expectant mothers as far away as Arkansas in crowded homes? Too many too close might look suspicious? That looks like smuggling. Also there is the wire fraud charges.......looks like he is hiding the money trail too. 2 hours ago, Bob Crockett said: I'm not talking about "all sorts of laws." I'm talking about consenting adults here. Abortion, or adoption? They are tied together at the hip. OK to let a consenting woman murder her fetus, which in my opinion is a direct assault upon minorities, but not OK to let her avoid abortion and instead contract to sell her child for money? There is absolutely nothing in the scriptures prohibiting a mother from giving her child to a loving home for adoption. There is no evidence that any of Mr. Peterson's adoption clients were anything other than loving and capable parents. And plenty of evidence he was pocketing an obscene amount of money by skimping on maternal care, violating the law, hiding this income, and holding people hostage. The adoptive couples might be great. The birth mothers were not treated fairly. Picking this scumbag as a poster child for adoptions over abortions is a really weird hill to die on considering there are lots of adoption agencies out there that are not smuggling in pregnant women and holding them hostage with minimal medical care. If you were campaigning for them to be allowed to adopt out babies from an impoverished part of the world I would be cautiously on board. Instead you pick someone who is making millions off of them. There is also a dangerous precedent to be set if having and adopting babies gets lucrative enough. Surrogacy is already odd. Do you want people intentionally getting pregnant because it gets them free room and board for a year and medical care? With no cap on what the adopting parents can pay it could go there. Is creating human life irresponsibly for profit a noble goal? 3 hours ago, Bob Crockett said: One thing that really troubles me is the way the government has intervened to oppose and frustrate the will of consenting adults in the adoption process. So many deserving families and parents cannot adopt because, well, it is immoral for a mother to be paid for her baby. I mean, a pregnant mom can go in and pay $1000 to murder her fetus and get away with it under the law, but be paid $20,000 for a baby? Off to jail. And if moms could sell their babies without interference, how many of them would pay to murder their fetuses? When these mothers get on a plane to come to the US, are they not consenting adults? Do they not know what they are doing? Although a passport is required for Marshallians, they can come and go in the US all they want, and are almost as free to come to the US as Puerto Ricans. I heard a radio interview a week ago of one of the families benefited by Mr. Peterson. He painted an entirely different picture of what is said in the charging documents. He recounted how he and his family had regular posts and discussions with the pregnant birth mother, and how they keep in touch after the birth and after the mother returned to the Marshall Islands. Peterson operates only open adoptions. He described how the birth mother was housed in the US, how she came and how she returned. He described the compassion of Mr. Peterson. He said that the obstacles were smoothed expertly by Mr. Peterson. We have marshallian adoptees in the ward next to mine, so I can see how the process worked for them in that case. If it weren't for oppressive government interference, there would be many more adoptions into loving families. Fewer murders of fetuses. Does the state have an interest in preventing "human trafficking?" That is such a loaded and oppressive phrase which means almost nothing to me. The problem is not that they are paid to give the child up. That is dependent on state law. Reasonable expenses can be covered. There are some legal grey areas though because many adoptive parents cover care and even housing and then the mother has the baby and finds she is unwilling to give the child up. This leads to a sticky legal situation. Does she have to pay them back? You cannot sign a contract guaranteeing you will give up a child in the future. Again with the abortion comparison. Somehow allowing baby smuggling is preventing abortion? NO! "Human Trafficking" means nothing to you? What the hell is wrong with you? This is a less horrific form than babies used as prostitutes for the depraved or teenagers forced into brothels or people forced to labor without pay hidden from the world but it is smuggling humans illegally for profit. Converting human life into property. You know, Cain's approach to the world. 8 hours ago, longview said: Let not the inquisition slacken its fervor - - - (the government HATES competition, whether it be from criminals, white collar cutting corners, private or informal adoption agents, etc) - - - They aren't competing with the government. The government only gets children whose parents surrender their rights or who they take away for abuse or neglect. This has nothing to do with the kinds of adoptions Petersen was involved in (illegal) or even legal private abortions done through agencies. You can usually get adoption costs from foster care covered by the government. Government is cheaper. The idea that government is making money off the foster care and CPS system is a fever dream that could only be believed by someone so deluded by their worldview that they cannot imagine government doing anything else but profiting. The whole program is a money sink because we do not want kids stuck in homes where they are abused and we do not want children abandoned in the streets. Don't let those pesky facts get in the way. I already contradicted this and pointed out how the system works but you still assert this mindless ignorance. Why? The government wants to adopt kids in foster care out so much they will cover most of the costs and sometimes even cover expenses for the kid to a degree until they become an adult. They have no relation to private adoptions. Private adoptions are favored by most who want to adopt because they generally involve healthy babies and they are willing to pay a large premium for that. If you go to foster care to adopt you are more likely to get crack babies and toddlers and kids with deep psychological issues. Babies get adopted quickly. Toddlers get adopted regularly. Older kids up to tweens have an outside chance of adoption. God help the poor teenagers stuck in the system (that is not taking the name of the Lord in vain; it is an actual prayer). I keep thinking I should adopt a teen or two out of the system as an act of mercy. If government was half as oppressive and greedy as you suggest they would mandate that all babies must be surrendered to them so they would get the healthy babies and be able to adopt them out and charge big bucks. They don't. Edited October 30, 2019 by The Nehor 3
longview Posted October 30, 2019 Posted October 30, 2019 3 hours ago, The Nehor said: CFR that there are not such options. You want mothers to be able to informally give an infant to anyone? You can drop an infant off at a hospital or fire station and give them up that way no questions asked. You can adopt out privately and probably get medical expenses covered. You can surrender the child to CPS right after birth and give up parental rights. Yes I am aware of the option to drop off a newborn at hospital or fire station. I do not have direct knowledge but I have a suspicion that these women birthed without the benefit of medical professionals (unless they had nurses or midwifes helping at their apartment). I also suspect that if they had birthed at a medical facility, they would have been subjected to a lot of red tape and governmental annoyances (do you know if that is the case?). It really feels like the whole setup is rigged to push more teens and women in trouble into the abortionist hell hole. 7 hours ago, Bob Crockett said: If it weren't for oppressive government interference, there would be many more adoptions into loving families. Fewer murders of fetuses. Does the state have an interest in preventing "human trafficking?" That is such a loaded and oppressive phrase which means almost nothing to me. I strongly agree. 3 hours ago, The Nehor said: You can usually get adoption costs from foster care covered by the government. Government is cheaper. The idea that government is making money off the foster care and CPS system is a fever dream that could only be believed by someone so deluded by their worldview that they cannot imagine government doing anything else but profiting. It is NOT a question of the government making money in this scenario (although many entities love making like bandits in some places, such as asset forfeitures or charging $80K for some adoptions) but they love the enormous power they get to wield over hapless families. I have seen WAY too many horror stories of CPS abusing their power and making abysmal placements for children being subjected to cruel or depraved foster parents. Sometimes the separation is NOT the judicious thing to do (it is better to leave the children with their parents if they are not hurting them while they grapple with other legal problems). It is happening all around the country. (And we read of other countries like Germany persecuting families for wanting to home school their children, etc). I agree with this statement (possibly attributed to George Washington): "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force. Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master; never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."
Calm Posted October 30, 2019 Posted October 30, 2019 (edited) 6 minutes ago, longview said: I also suspect that if they had birthed at a medical facility, they would have been subjected to a lot of red tape and governmental annoyances (do you know if that is the case?). Safe Haven laws allow for infants up to 30 days and since mothers usually go home pretty quickly after delivery, this does not prevent mothers who have received medical care from using them. A lot of the red tape is to give fathers the right to take custody of a child as I understand it. Do you believe rights of fathers should be ignored or at least limited in favor of easing up adoption? Edited October 30, 2019 by Calm 1
longview Posted October 30, 2019 Posted October 30, 2019 5 minutes ago, Calm said: Safe Haven laws allow for infants up to 30 days and since mothers usually go home pretty quickly after delivery, this does not prevent mothers who have received medical care from using them. A lot of the red tape is to give fathers the right to take custody of a child as I understand it. Do you believe rights of fathers should be ignored or at least limited in favor of easing up adoption? If the mother wants to give up her baby to adoption, why would she not want to give the child to the biological father? Unless she knows him to be a reprobate. This kind of situation is a lose/lose proposition for the father. The "family unit" is broken. It would be very difficult to adjudicate. I don't have all the answers but I believe the government is too often WAY too annoying. Since the mother is risking her life and wellbeing with carrying and bearing the child, I consider her rights to be superior to Bubba (she is greatly burdened but the man has very little invested, he can, like a bee, move from flower to flower).
Calm Posted October 30, 2019 Posted October 30, 2019 (edited) 4 hours ago, longview said: the mother wants to give up her baby to adoption, why would she not want to give the child to the biological father? Because the father knows who she is and she worries he might try to get her involved over the years or involve her until he meets a new partner and then bar her from contact. Because she is vindictive and wants to deprive him to hurt him. Because she just wants to ‘wash her hands’ of the whole thing and not risk being reminded because the father lives in her neighborhood. Because she has dreams for the kid as growing up rich or whatever and could care less about the father’s wishes. Maybe she is a bigot and found out something about the father’s family she dislikes. I could keep going on, but think my point is demonstrated that if the mother is self centered, the father might be a great guy even if she doesn’t want him to have custody. Or the mother might not be so selfish, but rather fearful it would be too hard seeing her kid grow up without her if the father lives nearby. Edited October 30, 2019 by Calm
smac97 Posted October 30, 2019 Author Posted October 30, 2019 (edited) 16 hours ago, Bob Crockett said: Quote First, the solution to a problematic law is to undo the law. Not break or circumvent or flout it. Second, there are all sorts of laws that prohibit "consenting adults" from engaging in mutually consensual behavior. Third, there are likely substantial public policy reasons for the treaty. Fourth, the purported "consenting adults" are not the only ones that have a vested interest in regulating adoption. I think it's off the mark to juxtapose problematic adoptions with abortion. Way too extreme. Way to pliable a means of justifying all sorts of problematic behavior. Conduct X (illegal adoption) being less morally problematic than Conduct Y (abortion) does not ameliorate or justify Conduct X. I'm not talking about "all sorts of laws." You are attempting to find fault with a law that prohibits behavior between "consenting adults." I am pointing out that there are plenty of laws that fit this characterization. Quote I'm talking about consenting adults here. Abortion, or adoption? First, as I said before, this is too extreme and too pliable. Abortion is worse that unethical adoptions. The worseness of the former does not justify the latter. Second, we are not speaking of "abortion, or adoption." Nobody is disputing that adopting a child can be a wonderful and beautiful thing (I have three adopted siblings). But it is also a process susceptible to corruption, which is why it is regulated by the laws of the land. The news items provided in this thread illustrate several issues about Mr. Petersen's adoption business which, if established, seem very troubling. For example: "Another birth mother said a fixer for Petersen coerced her into staying in an isolated house in Arkansas." This seems like a possible instance of "undue influence." Would you agree? Another: "Petersen is accused of smuggling more than 40 women from the Marshall Islands into the state over a three-year period to have their babies there." "Smuggling" is, I grant, a loaded term. Nevertheless, could there have been illegal or unethical conduct in these events? Another: "Prosecutors Say Paul Petersen & His Associates Bribed Pregnant Marshallese Women to Give Up Their Babies For Adoption." The per capita GDP for the Marshall Islands is $3,866, compared to the U.S. per capita GDP of $62,869. Are we really prepared to say definitively that the expectant mothers involved gave meaningful "consent?" That the parties had equal bargaining positions? That no undue influence was utilized? Another: "A Treaty Between the U.S. & Marshall Islands Restricting Adoption Was Established to Prevent Marshallese Women From Being Exploited." Well? If this treaty was violated, over and over and over again, is that an issue that warrants attention? Don't we "believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law?" (AoF 1:12) Another: "Many of the Marshallese women who associated with Petersen reportedly didn’t know that by putting their babies up for adoption, they would sever all ties with the children, according to an investigation by the Honolulu Civil Beat." Is there a possibility that fraud was involved? Fraud involving the severing of parental ties to children? I can think of a very few species of fraud that are more morally reprensible. But just a few. Quote They are tied together at the hip. With respect, they are not. And there are a lot more factors in play than just adoption v. abortion. Quote OK to let a consenting woman murder her fetus, which in my opinion is a direct assault upon minorities, but not OK to let her avoid abortion and instead contract to sell her child for money? I am strongly opposed to elective abortion. I agree with you as to its terrible effects upon minority populations (that was, after all, the original intent of Margaret Sanger when she founded Planned Parenthood). Nevertheless, we cannot correct the wrongfulness of abortion by compounding it with the wrongfulness of unethical and illegal (and possibly coerced and fraudulent) adoptions. Quote There is absolutely nothing in the scriptures prohibiting a mother from giving her child to a loving home for adoption. Again, nobody is contesting the beauty of adoption in the generalized, abstract sense. And again: “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.” I concede that there are theoretical, extreme situations in which deliberately disobeying the law can be morally just (the classic "Jews in the Attic" conundrum being a good example). However, I don't think we have that here. Instead, we have an American lawyer making millions by (apparently) arranging unethical/illegal adoptions of babies by exploiting expectant mothers from a very poor country. Quote There is no evidence that any of Mr. Peterson's adoption clients were anything other than loving and capable parents. I don't think anyone has criticized the adoptive parents. As noted above, I have three adopted siblings. I love them all dearly. I grew up with them, so I never differentiated between them and my biological siblings. In my youth I was an equal opportunity jerk to all of them. 😁 From what I know if their circumstances prior to their being adopted, it is clear that they benefitted from growing up in a two-parent, religiously observant, alcohol-and-drug-free, financially-modest-by-American-standards-but-still-far-better-off-than-most-of-the-world family. My parents conducted these adoptions in accordance with the law. These laws, though far from perfect, include safeguards against the risks and actualized harms being discussed in this thread. The process for adopting babies from poorer countries by citizens of richer countries has all sorts of ways to become corrupted and abused. And I don't think we can excuse that corruption and abuse by adopting an The-Ends-Justify-The-Means mindset. Thanks, -Smac Edited October 30, 2019 by smac97 3
longview Posted October 30, 2019 Posted October 30, 2019 1 hour ago, smac97 said: As noted above, I have three adopted siblings. I love them all dearly. I grew up with them, so I never differentiated between them and my biological siblings. In my youth I was an equal opportunity jerk to all of them. 😁 From what I know if their circumstances prior to their being adopted, it is clear that they benefitted from growing up in a two-parent, religiously observant, alcohol-and-drug-free, financially-modest-by-American-standards-but-still-far-better-off-than-most-of-the-world family. I am curious. What years were the three adopted? How much out of pocket did your parents pay for each? If this is too personal, just disregard.
smac97 Posted October 30, 2019 Author Posted October 30, 2019 8 minutes ago, longview said: I am curious. What years were the three adopted? During the 70s. 8 minutes ago, longview said: How much out of pocket did your parents pay for each? Dunno. Probably not much. My parents were living in Hawaii at the time. Poor as church mice. Thanks, -Smac
longview Posted October 30, 2019 Posted October 30, 2019 6 hours ago, Calm said: Because the father knows who she is and she worries he might try to get her involved over the years or involve her until he meets a new partner and then bar her from contact. Because she is vindictive and wants to deprive him to hurt him. Because she just wants to ‘wash her hands’ of the whole thing and not risk being reminded because the father lives in her neighborhood. Because she has dreams for the kid as growing up rich or whatever and could care less about the father’s wishes. Maybe she is a bigot and found out something about the father’s family she dislikes. I could keep going on, but think my point is demonstrated that if the mother is self centered, the father might be a great guy even if she doesn’t want him to have custody. Or the mother might not be so selfish, but rather fearful it would be too hard seeing her kid grow up without her if the father lives nearby. All a can of worms. Responsible or irresponsible, foolish or well meaning, the mother has a degree of accountability. I just think most situations is better handled by the immediate family. Sometimes people will resort to the church for assuaging the difficulty. Both provide for more personable interactions to attempt a more equitable outcome. Government agencies too often are impersonal "cookie cutters" and tend to be too bureaucratic and rigid.
pogi Posted October 30, 2019 Posted October 30, 2019 There has been an update with the case: https://www.ksl.com/article/46664151/federal-judge-releases-arizona-man-accused-in-adoption-smuggling-scheme A federal judge is releasing him from Federal custody with a GPS monitor. He is barred from working with adoptions and restricting travel to Arkansas, Utah, and Arizona, and is not supposed to have contact with witnesses or co-defendants. 1
Bob Crockett Posted October 30, 2019 Posted October 30, 2019 3 hours ago, smac97 said: For example: "Another birth mother said a fixer for Petersen coerced her into staying in an isolated house in Arkansas." This seems like a possible instance of "undue influence." Would you agree? So, a capable adult, who is free to come and go in the United States, is "coerced" into "staying in an isolated house in Arkansas?" When I was on my mission, was I "coerced" into staying in a rat-hole of an apartment in Blue Island, Ill., or was it my own choice? I was obviously coerced. Quote Another: "Petersen is accused of smuggling more than 40 women from the Marshall Islands into the state over a three-year period to have their babies there." "Smuggling" is, I grant, a loaded term. Nevertheless, could there have been illegal or unethical conduct in these events? "Smuggling?" Marshalese are entitled to come and go at will in the United States, and stay as long as they want, if they have a passport. Almost like Puerto Ricans. What does this mean -- "smuggling?" It is like somebody saying that somebody smuggled me into Washington State. Quote Another: "Prosecutors Say Paul Petersen & His Associates Bribed Pregnant Marshallese Women to Give Up Their Babies For Adoption." The per capita GDP for the Marshall Islands is $3,866, compared to the U.S. per capita GDP of $62,869. Are we really prepared to say definitively that the expectant mothers involved gave meaningful "consent?" That the parties had equal bargaining positions? That no undue influence was utilized? So you can say the women are too stupid? They can't make reasoned decisions when faced with the offer of money? Government should step in and protect these capable adults from themselves? Is there any evidence of a mother complaining of the loss of her child? Any? I haven't read the charging papers, but I'd like to know. Quote Another: "Many of the Marshallese women who associated with Petersen reportedly didn’t know that by putting their babies up for adoption, they would sever all ties with the children, according to an investigation by the Honolulu Civil Beat." Is there a possibility that fraud was involved? Fraud involving the severing of parental ties to children? I can think of a very few species of fraud that are more morally reprensible. But just a few. Here, my knowledge of the situation breaks down. But according to a radio interview I heard from a man interviewed on Fox Radio, the adoptions are all open and relationships continued. Is there a mother really complaining here; is named as a complaining witness by the feds? I'd like to know that. Or is an oppressive government, egged on by adoption agencies controlled by the government, making the claims here? Quote nd there are a lot more factors in play than just adoption v. abortion. I am strongly opposed to elective abortion. I agree with you as to its terrible effects upon minority populations (that was, after all, the original intent of Margaret Sanger when she founded Planned Parenthood). Nevertheless, we cannot correct the wrongfulness of abortion by compounding it with the wrongfulness of unethical and illegal (and possibly coerced and fraudulent) adoptions. Adoption and abortion are often discussed in the same breath. The easier the adoption, the less likely the mother will murder her fetus. Common-sense. However, if you are in the adoption business you will want to make sure you throw up as many obstacles as possible to create barriers to entry. You can see this everywhere -- beauticians, barbers, lawyers, private investigators. Once those barriers are up, abortion/murder is the easy way out. How do you think this would be handled in societies without an oppressive government? A mother would be persuaded to let her child go to another couple for consideration, which may include money. Result? Birth mother happy to not have to raise a child. Childless couple happy. And, under ordinary tort law, if the birth mother were somehow deceived, she'd get her child back. Everybody's happy. But no, that doesn't happen here. Instead, the child would be more likely murdered in the womb.
smac97 Posted October 30, 2019 Author Posted October 30, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said: So, a capable adult, who is free to come and go in the United States, is "coerced" into "staying in an isolated house in Arkansas?" It appears that this may have happened, yes. Quote When I was on my mission, was I "coerced" into staying in a rat-hole of an apartment in Blue Island, Ill., or was it my own choice? I was obviously coerced. Sarcasm doesn't help. Quote "Smuggling?" Marshalese are entitled to come and go at will in the United States, and stay as long as they want, if they have a passport. From this article: Quote 5. A Treaty Between the U.S. & Marshall Islands Restricting Adoption Was Established to Prevent Marshallese Women From Being Exploited Under federal law, it is illegal for citizens from the Marshall Islands to travel to the United States for the sole purpose of giving up their babies for adoption. The United States and the Marshall Islands first entered into an agreement called the Compact of Free Association in 1983, as explained in the federal indictment against Petersen. In 2003, the agreement was amended to include the stricter regulations concerning adoption. The change was made in order to prevent Marshallese women from being exploited, as explained by the Phoenix New Times. Adoption from the Marshall Islands increased substantially during the late 1990s. The New Republic reported that in 1998, fewer than 2,000 babies were born in the Marshall Islands; it was estimated that 143 of them were put up for adoption. What is your response to this point? Quote So you can say the women are too stupid? No. Please do not misstate and distort what I have said. Please answer my questions: "Are we really prepared to say definitively that the expectant mothers involved gave meaningful 'consent?' That the parties had equal bargaining positions? That no undue influence was utilized?" Quote They can't make reasoned decisions when faced with the offer of money? Yes, they can. But again, I am asking if the possibility of undue influence is there. Fraud. Coercion. Quote Government should step in and protect these capable adults from themselves? Themselves and their unborn children, yes. In these circumstances, and assuming the general accuracy of the allegations, yes. Quote Is there any evidence of a mother complaining of the loss of her child? Any? I haven't read the charging papers, but I'd like to know. Feel free to research that point. Quote Quote Another: "Many of the Marshallese women who associated with Petersen reportedly didn’t know that by putting their babies up for adoption, they would sever all ties with the children, according to an investigation by the Honolulu Civil Beat." Is there a possibility that fraud was involved? Fraud involving the severing of parental ties to children? I can think of a very few species of fraud that are more morally reprensible. But just a few. Here, my knowledge of the situation breaks down. But according to a radio interview I heard from a man interviewed on Fox Radio, the adoptions are all open and relationships continued. Is there a mother really complaining here; is named as a complaining witness by the feds? I'd like to know that. Or is an oppressive government, egged on by adoption agencies controlled by the government, making the claims here? Again, feel free to research these issues. Or perhaps we will need to wait and see how the case develops. Quote Quote And there are a lot more factors in play than just adoption v. abortion. I am strongly opposed to elective abortion. I agree with you as to its terrible effects upon minority populations (that was, after all, the original intent of Margaret Sanger when she founded Planned Parenthood). Nevertheless, we cannot correct the wrongfulness of abortion by compounding it with the wrongfulness of unethical and illegal (and possibly coerced and fraudulent) adoptions. Adoption and abortion are often discussed in the same breath. The easier the adoption, the less likely the mother will murder her fetus. Common-sense. The higher level of immorality inherent in abortion is not a justification of illegal/unethical/fraudulent/coerced adoptions. Quote However, if you are in the adoption business you will want to make sure you throw up as many obstacles as possible to create barriers to entry. I am not in the adoption business. And I do not want to see undue obstacles or barriers to entry put in place. So your accusations fall flat when asserted against me. Meanwhile, Mr. Petersen appears to have made several million dollars in effectuating these adoptions. There are all sorts of attorneys throughout the U.S. who are in the same line of work, and yet do not run afoul of federal authorities, and state authorities from three different states. Quote You can see this everywhere -- beauticians, barbers, lawyers, private investigators. Once those barriers are up, abortion/murder is the easy way out. Sigh. Nobody is arguing that adoptions should be harder to complete. Nobody is advocating for abortion. You are constructing a massive strawman here. Quote How do you think this would be handled in societies without an oppressive government? I am not much of a fan of government, particularly the feds. It has become a massive bureaucracy, and has intruded into many areas that should be left to the States, or to the People. That said, I am nothing close to being an anarchist. I am grateful to live in the U.S., notwithstanding governmental excesses and overreaches. And in this instance, I can see all sorts of reasons for the treaty with the Marshall Islands. And even if the treaty is problematic in some respects, I do not believe Latter-day Saints can or ought to violate laws simply because they disagree with them. And at present, I am not persuaded that Mr. Petersen was motivated principally by altruism, as evidenced by the millions of dollars he appears to have made. Quote A mother would be persuaded to let her child go to another couple for consideration, which may include money. Result? Birth mother happy to not have to raise a child. Childless couple happy. Unless, of course, there was coercion and/or undue influence and/or fraud involved, in which case the birth mother could be understandably unhappy or regretful or angry. Yes, the childless couple would likely be happy. But what if that happiness comes at the expense of the birth mother being coerced/defrauded? Quote And, under ordinary tort law, if the birth mother were somehow deceived, she'd get her child back. Everybody's happy. But no, that doesn't happen here. Instead, the child would be more likely murdered in the womb. Sorry, but your "It's-okay-to-coerce/defraud-birth-mothers-living-in-poverty-into-giving-up-their-babies-in-illegal/unethical-adoptions-which-also-massively-enrich-a-lawyer-because-otherwise-the-mothers-might-have-aborted-their-babies" line of reasoning does not work for me. Not even a little bit. Thanks, -Smac Edited October 30, 2019 by smac97 2
The Nehor Posted October 30, 2019 Posted October 30, 2019 (edited) On 10/29/2019 at 11:41 PM, longview said: Yes I am aware of the option to drop off a newborn at hospital or fire station. I do not have direct knowledge but I have a suspicion that these women birthed without the benefit of medical professionals (unless they had nurses or midwifes helping at their apartment). I also suspect that if they had birthed at a medical facility, they would have been subjected to a lot of red tape and governmental annoyances (do you know if that is the case?). It really feels like the whole setup is rigged to push more teens and women in trouble into the abortionist hell hole. There is no way of knowing circumstances because of the way safe haven is designed. Most statistics of illegal abandonment of newborns have a 2:1 dead:alive ratio when the infant is found. This is probably misleading as it does not count the dead infants no one finds. There is red tape for adoption. Partially because of a habit late last century of shady adoption agencies targeting hospitals and delivery centers in low income areas and getting mothers still exhausted and/or on drugs to sign away their child. Also the system allows for dad and then extended family to have first dibs on the child. In many states abortion has more red tape than adoption so I question your conclusion that people get an abortion because they have to sign more paperwork. The hassle they are dodging is the birth and emotional attachment. If you want to adopt out any halfway competent adoption agency takes care of the paperwork for you and it costs you nothing. You usually get money. On 10/29/2019 at 11:41 PM, longview said: It is NOT a question of the government making money in this scenario (although many entities love making like bandits in some places, such as asset forfeitures or charging $80K for some adoptions) but they love the enormous power they get to wield over hapless families. I have seen WAY too many horror stories of CPS abusing their power and making abysmal placements for children being subjected to cruel or depraved foster parents. Sometimes the separation is NOT the judicious thing to do (it is better to leave the children with their parents if they are not hurting them while they grapple with other legal problems). It is happening all around the country. (And we read of other countries like Germany persecuting families for wanting to home school their children, etc). I agree with this statement (possibly attributed to George Washington): "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force. Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master; never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." It is not the question but you are going to go on about it anyways? Civil forfeiture is a scandal but is unrelated. The average cost for adoption from foster care is $2500 or less with many being completely free so not sure why you are bringing up an 80k adoption which almost certainly occurred through an agency or lawyer as an example of government greed. You seem to reflexively blame everything on the government no matter how irrational or unrelated that blame is. Then you go off about CPS as if that has anything to do with this case. You tried this before on page 1 and I countered and pointed out how irrelevant it is to this case and you come right back like a broken record. In any case, no, most family court judges (the ones who usually decide family CPS cases) are not generally powermad sociopaths who delight in ripping apart families. The objective in family separation cases is almost always reunification. I am sure you have found a lot of horror stories. Here is the thing though.......people lie. Are there abuses? Sure. Are they endemic? No. People vent about CPS injustice even when intervention is completely justified. I have volunteered as a CASA as I have mentioned before. I have seen parents who sexually abuse their children weep and garner all kinds of sympathy for how the evil CPS broke up their loving family. I even read a screed about me once. Seems according to dear old mom I am a racist pedophile who was trying to steal children to adopt them myself (which is not allowed in any case). It is amazing how many people think I do not check their Facebook as part of a case. Be skeptical when someone who loses their kids describes why. I never got a case where the kids were removed on a whim. I never had a case where the kids were pulled from the home the first time CPS got involved. I think all of them were reported at least three times first. There are exceptions but they are pretty severe. The foster care system is a mess but CPS does not get its jollies sending kids to bad homes. I am not sure where you got this myth. CPS workers should have a caseload of 3 to 6 families but often have more like 25 each. The stress of the job already eats at them but that combined with overwork and mediocre pay means it is difficult to keep workers. People make noise about protecting children but politicians know very well how shallow that devotion is and CPS never gets enough funding to cover the volume. Who cares if kids are not getting oversight when you can shorten lines at the DMV or buy a stadium for the nearby High School? The politicians also need to stop insisting that privatizing foster care oversight and selection is the answer (often the same owners pick and make money off the foster homes and also own the oversight ensuring quality). Fun place to whistle up some campaign contributions for low level politicos. What the system needs is more good foster parents but there are few ways to attract them. Raising the stipends for fostering tends to attract more bottom feeders. I doubt anyone will be surprised that one of the dorks that occupied the Wildlife refuge a while back that got shot for being a moron made most of his money from foster care. Screaming about the evil government while that is where his income comes from. Hypocritical doofus. It takes a special kind of person to be a good foster parent because you need the ability to love a kid who may not be with you long and balance caring and discipline and the kids often struggle and fight against both. Edited November 13, 2019 by The Nehor 3
The Nehor Posted October 30, 2019 Posted October 30, 2019 1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said: Adoption and abortion are often discussed in the same breath. The easier the adoption, the less likely the mother will murder her fetus. Common-sense. And almost absolutely wrong. 3
Calm Posted October 30, 2019 Posted October 30, 2019 (edited) 4 hours ago, Bob Crockett said: And, under ordinary tort law, if the birth mother were somehow deceived, she'd get her child back. And how long would this process take resulting in disruption of the child’s life and possibly interference with its ability to bond with its mother or anyone else later in life? Are there any cases of fraud you are aware of where it wasn’t able to be proven to the satisfaction of the legal system and therefore no restitution was made? What about costs to pursue legal avenues to get their kid back, especially for those overseas? Edited October 30, 2019 by Calm 1
smac97 Posted November 11, 2019 Author Posted November 11, 2019 Wow. A significant update on this story: Quote A leader in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints says he is “disgusted” by an Arizona elected official and church member accused of running an adoption scheme. Ronald Rasband, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, told The Arizona Republic the church leadership has found the human smuggling charges against Maricopa County Assessor Paul Petersen "sickening." It's the first time an official with The Church has weighed in on Petersen's case. The Quorum is the highest governing body after the president. Rasband says they will also review Petersen's membership. I assume "they will also review Petersen's membership" means a request for the local leadership to do so. Thanks, -Smac
smac97 Posted November 11, 2019 Author Posted November 11, 2019 From the Arizona Republic: Quote A top leader in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints denounced Paul Petersen's adoption scheme as "sickening." Ronald Rasband, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, said Petersen's membership in the church does not exonerate his conduct nor excuse any wrongdoing.“We’re just as disgusted with it as anybody," Rasband told The Arizona Republic in a recent interview. “The details of this case are sickening.” ... Rasband's comments mark the first time the church has taken a public position on the case, which is reverberating with political, cultural and legal implications. He acknowledged the church will review Petersen's membership. Wow. This is indeed an unusual development. Quote Latter-day Saints officials acknowledged Petersen's practice was rooted in his 1998 church mission to the Marshall Islands, where he said he learned the language and began facilitating adoptions. They said a recent inquiry found that individuals within the church community previously had expressed concern about Petersen "and sought to distance" themselves from him years before his arrest. Hmm. I wonder what this means. It also presents an interesting hypothetical, at least. If members of the Church express to a local leader "concern" about the professional activities of another member, does the bishop have a duty to report those "concerns" to law enforcement? Quote Rasband said Petersen's alleged conduct was not sanctioned by the church and said no overlap was found between Petersen's adoption practice and the church’s Family Services arm. “The fact that he’s a Latter-day Saint does not exonerate him,” Rasband said. Hmm. Quote He {Elder Rasband} questioned if Petersen's religious ties would undergo rigorous scrutiny if he was not a church member. Not sure what this means. Quote Church spokesman Doug Andersen said there is no indication the church ever referred families to Petersen, and he was never officially endorsed. Andersen said there was no indication Petersen marketed his business using his church ties. "Some (church) adoption workers were advised by their clients that Petersen was facilitating adoptions," Andersen said. "Family Services was not contacted by Petersen for endorsement, nor did Family Services refer to him. Clients reported their contact was through word of mouth from other couples." So there was never an official hand-off of adoption referrals. Family Services was not involved. But the news reports indicates that Petersen did seem to rely on "word of mouth" from the the local members. Quote Andersen emphasized the church's primary concerns remain with the victims. He called the case very sad. “The alleged behavior is not something we condone," he said. "Our hearts and prayers go out to those expectant mothers and hopeful adoptive parents. However, this remains a matter for law enforcement and the courts, as this individual was not acting in any way as a church leader or representative.” I think this is an important clarification. Quote Andersen said the church will wait to act on Petersen's Latter-day Saints membership. "The church leaves the roles of investigation and criminal prosecution to the appropriate authorities," he said. "When that process is concluded, the church will determine whether to take further action in relation to his membership status." Hmm. So it sounds like Elder Rasband's comments may have been a bit off-the-cuff. Thanks, -Smac 1
Calm Posted November 11, 2019 Posted November 11, 2019 (edited) 17 minutes ago, smac97 said: Not sure what this means. Probably that his religion wouldn't normally be mentioned, but when someone is a Saint that is often part of a news story (usually using "Mormon"). If he had been a baptist, for example, that would likely have not been mentioned for many crimes. I am guessing if someone had a history of missionary work in connection to a later criminal act, any church membership would be mentioned. Edited November 11, 2019 by Calm
ksfisher Posted November 11, 2019 Posted November 11, 2019 16 minutes ago, smac97 said: It also presents an interesting hypothetical, at least. If members of the Church express to a local leader "concern" about the professional activities of another member, does the bishop have a duty to report those "concerns" to law enforcement? It would seem that a bishop, in this hypothetical, has the same duty to report as you or I might. But it would seem like you or I should take the responsibility to report to law enforcement ourselves and not pass the buck on to the bishop. 2
Bob Crockett Posted November 11, 2019 Posted November 11, 2019 Quote Andersen emphasized the church's primary concerns remain with the victims. And who has come forward as a victim?
ttribe Posted November 12, 2019 Posted November 12, 2019 6 hours ago, Bob Crockett said: And who has come forward as a victim? Would you be interested to know that approximately half of the women who were found in one of Petersen's house when he was arrested have now decided to keep their babies? Perhaps that's because they are no longer being coerced. Just a thought. 2
Meadowchik Posted November 12, 2019 Posted November 12, 2019 14 hours ago, smac97 said: Hmm. So it sounds like Elder Rasband's comments may have been a bit off-the-cuff. Thanks, -Smac Yes it does. Isn't it common for the church to suspend judgment on worthiness issues when criminal matters are not yet resolved? Maybe that's more for white-collar crimes.
The Nehor Posted November 13, 2019 Posted November 13, 2019 On 11/11/2019 at 2:22 PM, Bob Crockett said: And who has come forward as a victim? I went and asked the infants but all they did was stare at me. Clearly no crime! 1
Recommended Posts