So then Tim, while we both agree that a guardian’s child raising skills and love for the child that they take care of are very important, I also consider that the unique bond between a child and their biological parents has some degree of relevance that is greater than absolute zero. You on the other hand, believe that it is utterly and completely irrelevant. An utter blank slate hypothesis. Is that correct?
I should not have to convince you, then, that a connection to biological parent is more important then having someone (anyone) there caring well them, or having excellent parenting skills or whatever, since those are not necessarily things that we disagree about. I should only need to convince you that there is some relevance to the connection between a child and their biological parents, however small. Just some amount that is greater then zero. Does that sound fair?
If there is ANY small degree AT ALL to which biological relatedness can be said to have value for children then I am right and you are wrong. In order for you to be right and me wrong, you must demonstrate an “absolute zero” value.
Does that sound fair?