U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting > Adoption
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 10-02-2012, 09:57 PM
 
9,137 posts, read 9,220,068 times
Reputation: 28605

Advertisements

Quote:
This is what I am talking about when I say that there's urgent need for reform. If people have had wonderful experiences, fine. I am happy for you! Honestly. At the same time, adult adoptees have every prerogative to dislike the adoption industry and its insidious lobbyists; by making arguments personal (and calling us incessantly "bitter and angry with bad experiences", they try to minimize and discredit our messages and criticism.

We are asking for your help in changing something that is truly unethical. Children should not come with $25,000 price tags, or have their adoption fees be related to their nationality, gender, or race. Lists are online, out there, and shameless. It's sick.

It all depends what you're willing to turn your back on, and how you're willing to spin it.
Its no more "sick" than making people pay for medical care and, of course, that's the model we follow in America. Not that I agree with it, but that 's what we do. How about funerals? Why should you have to pay for that service? Shouldn't everyone be entitled to a decent burial or cremation for free? How about a college education? Why should I have been required to pay for that? Food at the grocery store? I could starve without it. There is absolutely no justification in making me pay for the food I need to avoid starvation.

Than there are those who think its sick to have so many poor women raising kids who are getting TANF, Medicaid, food stamps, WIC, and housing subsidies from hard-working taxpayers. I'm sort of up-in-the-air about this. I think everyone ought to be entitled to some assistance, but there are states where over half of all baby deliveries in the hospital are paid for by Medicaid and there's just too much of it.

Look guys, I know you think letting people adopt from an agency and paying fees of $25,000 is sick. I can spout opinions about a lot of things that I think are sick too. Your opinions are not universally shared. Nor are mine. If you want to change the law than go out and get a majority of people to side with you. If you do that the legislature will listen and change law. Until than, all of us will continue to have different opinions about what is sick and they may be quite different than yours.

 
Old 10-02-2012, 10:24 PM
 
10,366 posts, read 8,361,533 times
Reputation: 19114
There are neutral ways of inquiring about situations with which the inquirer is unfamiliar - and then there are other ways, which imply wrong-doing, guilt by association, and general negativity. Good writers, journalists, and lawyers are quite familiar with these literary tricks of the trade, but others, less trained in the use of words, may not spot them as readily.

A lot of this form of writing has appeared on this forum recently, usually in regard to adoptive families, adoption agencies and non-profit special needs adoption advocacy ministries such as Reece's Rainbow.

Marymarym and Susankate, if you truly had questions about Reece's Rainbow, would it not have been more productive to have first addressed them towards the RR leadership, rather than posting quite loaded statements here, where the majority of posters - and other readers - may have no familiarity with Reece's Rainbow or the conditions in the orphanages and institutions where the children with special needs who are listed on RR reside?

Did you make any effort to learn about Reece's Rainbow for yourselves prior to writing your earlier posts? When you read a very critical online article which was not written by a parent who had adopted with the assistance of Reece's Rainbow, but which instead was written by an anti-international adoption activist who made dubious, ugly, but easily checked claims about the veracity of RR, did you accept that article as absolute truth, or did you make an effort to learn more? Did you go to any primary sources in your online research about Reece's Rainbow?

I read that article, and posted here in response, as that article was riddled with factual errors and obvious attempts at guilt by association, something I felt needed to be made apparent.

Marymarym, when you claimed that Reece's Rainbow was breaking Ukrainian law by posting photographs of children who were eligible for adoption on its website, I replied that this was not the case, as Reece's Rainbow not only uses pseudonyms for all the children in Ukraine, but also does not identify them by country. Your reply was to the effect of "Oh, so that's how they get around the law, then."

How can you now claim that such a response was anything but judgmental and cynical?

After I replied that obviously Ukraine has no problem with Reece's Rainbow, as RR posters of waiting (and found) children are prominently displayed in the ministry of adoptions in Kiev, you had no response.

Until now.

I think your very defensive responses continue to speak for themselves. I do not doubt that you care greatly about corruption in adoption, but I urge you not to confuse corruption with the good done by ministries such as Reece's Rainbow. They are saving lives. Real lives, real children, real families - not just arguing incessantly online with those who might otherwise be some of your best allies, not spending endless hours admonishing those of us in the western world to somehow change the societies and governments and institutions and dysfunctional families of the developing world so that all families and societies everywhere will achieve a sort of Golden Age in which all families are loving, happy, and healthy and no child ever is ever placed in an orphanage for any reason.

We wish we could make those changes. It is right and good to advocate for such changes. But it isn't going to happen everywhere, immediately, right now or even tomorrow or the next day or next week or next month or next year...and meanwhile, the children wait. And they suffer.

Family reunification is a wonderful goal - if there is anything left of the "family" to reunite. In the vast majority of cases, there is little left. But there are the children. Their chances of ever returning to their families of origin are next to zero in most cases - far less in the case of children with special needs. I can count on one hand the cases I know of children with special needs who were placed in orphanages by their families - but whose families later had a change of heart and returned for them. Such families deserve praise and support - but they are very, very few. Far more likely, such children will be sent to mental institutions, as I've written here over and over again. More than half of them will die within two years. Fewer than 20% survive five years, in such places.

Children who are "typical" are not institutionalized, but must leave the orphanage at age 16 or 17. The majority of the girls turn to prostitution; the majority of the boys turn to crime. Drug addiction and alcoholism and unemployment and homelessness are the fate of most.

I have little patience for those who criticize families who want to adopt these children as having a savior complex, or who claim that those who support NGOS which work with children in the orphanages and institutions, and with those who've aged out are somehow supporting "the system" which leads to such tragedies.

No.

Those who educate themselves and choose to adopt children from such conditions, those who encourage those adoptive families, and those who do what they can to alleviate the profound suffering of the children who remain behind, do not deserve such criticism, especially when it is couched in passive-aggressive terms which make use of tactics such as guilt by association, implications of wrongdoing where there is none to be found, and claims of expertise about the harm done to children by being adopted, couched in inflammatory writings by largely unknown but supposed "experts", whose poorly documented articles make use of the same shoddy and journalistically unethical methods.

I would continue to urge all who read here to educate themselves, to read widely and without limiting yourselves to one or another point of view. Beware of those who have something to gain, whether it be tangible or intangible, based in the complexities of their own family origins or based on financial gain or fame. Look for those who care about children, and whose lives and work reflect that care, not just in their claims or accusations, but in what they themselves do to make a real, true, difference in today's world as well as in the world of the future, both in this country and abroad.

If you encounter snarky writing, beware. If you find word and mind-games being played, beware. If you find poorly grounded negative accusations of other individuals or organizations rather than proposals and projects for creating positive change, beware. If there is a lack of transparency, or lack of solid evidence of either negative or positive claims, beware. If sources cited have not been updated in five years or more, beware.

Look at the broader picture before hastily joining the latest bandwagon, colorfully painted though it may be and loudly though its calliope may be playing. Look for individuals and organizations who walk the walk as well as talk the talk. They may not have a bandwagon or a flashy calliope at all, but they may be doing great good, quietly but effectively. Decide if you are moved to join or support them.

Be prepared to explain whatever choices you make. They help shape you and define you. Free will and discernment are blessings - use them well, decide for yourself after informing yourself, then have the strength of your convictions.
 
Old 10-02-2012, 11:16 PM
 
1,879 posts, read 1,855,574 times
Reputation: 1462
Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigCreek View Post
There are neutral ways of inquiring about situations with which the inquirer is unfamiliar - and then there are other ways, which imply wrong-doing, guilt by association, and general negativity. Good writers, journalists, and lawyers are quite familiar with these literary tricks of the trade, but others, less trained in the use of words, may not spot them as readily.

A lot of this form of writing has appeared on this forum recently, usually in regard to adoptive families, adoption agencies and non-profit special needs adoption advocacy ministries such as Reece's Rainbow.

Marymarym and Susankate, if you truly had questions about Reece's Rainbow, would it not have been more productive to have first addressed them towards the RR leadership, rather than posting quite loaded statements here, where the majority of posters - and other readers - may have no familiarity with Reece's Rainbow or the conditions in the orphanages and institutions where the children with special needs who are listed on RR reside?

Did you make any effort to learn about Reece's Rainbow for yourselves prior to writing your earlier posts? When you read a very critical online article which was not written by a parent who had adopted with the assistance of Reece's Rainbow, but which instead was written by an anti-international adoption activist who made dubious, ugly, but easily checked claims about the veracity of RR, did you accept that article as absolute truth, or did you make an effort to learn more? Did you go to any primary sources in your online research about Reece's Rainbow?

I read that article, and posted here in response, as that article was riddled with factual errors and obvious attempts at guilt by association, something I felt needed to be made apparent.

Marymarym, when you claimed that Reece's Rainbow was breaking Ukrainian law by posting photographs of children who were eligible for adoption on its website, I replied that this was not the case, as Reece's Rainbow not only uses pseudonyms for all the children in Ukraine, but also does not identify them by country. Your reply was to the effect of "Oh, so that's how they get around the law, then."

How can you now claim that such a response was anything but judgmental and cynical?

After I replied that obviously Ukraine has no problem with Reece's Rainbow, as RR posters of waiting (and found) children are prominently displayed in the ministry of adoptions in Kiev, you had no response.

Until now.

I think your very defensive responses continue to speak for themselves. I do not doubt that you care greatly about corruption in adoption, but I urge you not to confuse corruption with the good done by ministries such as Reece's Rainbow. They are saving lives. Real lives, real children, real families - not just arguing incessantly online with those who might otherwise be some of your best allies, not spending endless hours admonishing those of us in the western world to somehow change the societies and governments and institutions and dysfunctional families of the developing world so that all families and societies everywhere will achieve a sort of Golden Age in which all families are loving, happy, and healthy and no child ever is ever placed in an orphanage for any reason.

We wish we could make those changes. It is right and good to advocate for such changes. But it isn't going to happen everywhere, immediately, right now or even tomorrow or the next day or next week or next month or next year...and meanwhile, the children wait. And they suffer.

Family reunification is a wonderful goal - if there is anything left of the "family" to reunite. In the vast majority of cases, there is little left. But there are the children. Their chances of ever returning to their families of origin are next to zero in most cases - far less in the case of children with special needs. I can count on one hand the cases I know of children with special needs who were placed in orphanages by their families - but whose families later had a change of heart and returned for them. Such families deserve praise and support - but they are very, very few. Far more likely, such children will be sent to mental institutions, as I've written here over and over again. More than half of them will die within two years. Fewer than 20% survive five years, in such places.

Children who are "typical" are not institutionalized, but must leave the orphanage at age 16 or 17. The majority of the girls turn to prostitution; the majority of the boys turn to crime. Drug addiction and alcoholism and unemployment and homelessness are the fate of most.

I have little patience for those who criticize families who want to adopt these children as having a savior complex, or who claim that those who support NGOS which work with children in the orphanages and institutions, and with those who've aged out are somehow supporting "the system" which leads to such tragedies.

No.

Those who educate themselves and choose to adopt children from such conditions, those who encourage those adoptive families, and those who do what they can to alleviate the profound suffering of the children who remain behind, do not deserve such criticism, especially when it is couched in passive-aggressive terms which make use of tactics such as guilt by association, implications of wrongdoing where there is none to be found, and claims of expertise about the harm done to children by being adopted, couched in inflammatory writings by largely unknown but supposed "experts", whose poorly documented articles make use of the same shoddy and journalistically unethical methods.

I would continue to urge all who read here to educate themselves, to read widely and without limiting yourselves to one or another point of view. Beware of those who have something to gain, whether it be tangible or intangible, based in the complexities of their own family origins or based on financial gain or fame. Look for those who care about children, and whose lives and work reflect that care, not just in their claims or accusations, but in what they themselves do to make a real, true, difference in today's world as well as in the world of the future, both in this country and abroad.

If you encounter snarky writing, beware. If you find word and mind-games being played, beware. If you find poorly grounded negative accusations of other individuals or organizations rather than proposals and projects for creating positive change, beware. If there is a lack of transparency, or lack of solid evidence of either negative or positive claims, beware. If sources cited have not been updated in five years or more, beware.

Look at the broader picture before hastily joining the latest bandwagon, colorfully painted though it may be and loudly though its calliope may be playing. Look for individuals and organizations who walk the walk as well as talk the talk. They may not have a bandwagon or a flashy calliope at all, but they may be doing great good, quietly but effectively. Decide if you are moved to join or support them.

Be prepared to explain whatever choices you make. They help shape you and define you. Free will and discernment are blessings - use them well, decide for yourself after informing yourself, then have the strength of your convictions.
Craig, I was referring to the link from BabyCentre, re a post by an adoptive parent.

In regards to RR, I have heard about it many times before, both positively and negatively - with far more positivity about it than negativity, thus I have tried to kept an open mind about them. However, there is one thing I have come across on both the positive and negative sites that has worried me and that is that it seems that quite often a child isn't available for adoption at the time of photolisting. If I just saw this on a negative site, I would take it with a grain of salt but I have seen it quite regularly on very very pro-RR websites. I personally feel that no children should be photolisted unless their bfamily's rights have been terminated.

Btw if I do read negative comments about adoption, I always try to look at the other side and then weigh up both positives and negatives. Sometimes the comments are still justified, sometimes they aren't but by looking at both sides, I have a fuller view.

As for this,

but which instead was written by an anti-international adoption activist who made dubious, ugly, but easily checked claims about the veracity of RR

which website are you referring to?

I hope you aren't talking about Yoon's Blur, an international adoptee's website I linked to, and if you are then I think you might be misinterpreting her points of view. However, she doesn't seem to mention RR.

The only other article I found was by Gina Kim and I don't think she mentions RR either.

If you are talking about another article, let me know.

Look at the broader picture before hastily joining the latest bandwagon, colorfully painted though it may be and loudly though its calliope may be playing. Look for individuals and organizations who walk the walk as well as talk the talk. They may not have a bandwagon or a flashy calliope at all, but they may be doing great good, quietly but effectively. Decide if you are moved to join or support them.


And those are the types of individuals and organisations I'm supporting.

Last edited by susankate; 10-03-2012 at 12:45 AM..
 
Old 10-02-2012, 11:33 PM
 
95 posts, read 62,228 times
Reputation: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigCreek View Post
There are neutral ways of inquiring about situations with which the inquirer is unfamiliar - and then there are other ways, which imply wrong-doing, guilt by association, and general negativity. Good writers, journalists, and lawyers are quite familiar with these literary tricks of the trade, but others, less trained in the use of words, may not spot them as readily.

A lot of this form of writing has appeared on this forum recently, usually in regard to adoptive families, adoption agencies and non-profit special needs adoption advocacy ministries such as Reece's Rainbow.

Marymarym and Susankate, if you truly had questions about Reece's Rainbow, would it not have been more productive to have first addressed them towards the RR leadership, rather than posting quite loaded statements here, where the majority of posters - and other readers - may have no familiarity with Reece's Rainbow or the conditions in the orphanages and institutions where the children with special needs who are listed on RR reside?

Craig, the reason I posted the question here is that in virtually all of your posts, you are singing their praises and advertising for this organization. I have no interest in this group, but this group seems to be your only interest. I have no interest in addressing their leadership. If you don't want questions posed about this organization, why do you bring it up in 90% of your posts? It is only natural for someone to ask questions about something you have talked about in length. This is a public forum for discussion. Just because you don't like the text of the discussion doesn't make it a loaded statement. Im fact, it was a question.

Did you make any effort to learn about Reece's Rainbow for yourselves prior to writing your earlier posts? When you read a very critical online article which was not written by a parent who had adopted with the assistance of Reece's Rainbow, but which instead was written by an anti-international adoption activist who made dubious, ugly, but easily checked claims about the veracity of RR, did you accept that article as absolute truth, or did you make an effort to learn more? Did you go to any primary sources in your online research about Reece's Rainbow?

The link that I posted was a post written by an adoptive mother asking for opinions of the organization. She was an adoptive mother, not an anti-anything nor an activist.

I read that article, and posted here in response, as that article was riddled with factual errors and obvious attempts at guilt by association, something I felt needed to be made apparent.

Marymarym, when you claimed that Reece's Rainbow was breaking Ukrainian law by posting photographs of children who were eligible for adoption on its website, I replied that this was not the case, as Reece's Rainbow not only uses pseudonyms for all the children in Ukraine, but also does not identify them by country. Your reply was to the effect of "Oh, so that's how they get around the law, then."

I, in fact , never claimed they were breaking the law. I asked what the objection was as there were multiple websites mentioning allegations. If you google it, you will see for yourself. It didn't take much. My response was that I didn't see the need for posting photos of children at all. To me, this is "advertising" in poor taste, whether the children are identified or not. It's just an incendiary way of tugging at heart strings. This is my opinion.

How can you now claim that such a response was anything but judgmental and cynical?

After I replied that obviously Ukraine has no problem with Reece's Rainbow, as RR posters of waiting (and found) children are prominently displayed in the ministry of adoptions in Kiev, you had no response.

My response was the above.

Until now.

I think your very defensive responses continue to speak for themselves. I do not doubt that you care greatly about corruption in adoption, but I urge you not to confuse corruption with the good done by ministries such as Reece's Rainbow. They are saving lives. Real lives, real children, real families - not just arguing incessantly online with those who might otherwise be some of your best allies, not spending endless hours admonishing those of us in the western world to somehow change the societies and governments and institutions and dysfunctional families of the developing world so that all families and societies everywhere will achieve a sort of Golden Age in which all families are loving, happy, and healthy and no child ever is ever placed in an orphanage for any reason.

We wish we could make those changes. It is right and good to advocate for such changes. But it isn't going to happen everywhere, immediately, right now or even tomorrow or the next day or next week or next month or next year...and meanwhile, the children wait. And they suffer.

Family reunification is a wonderful goal - if there is anything left of the "family" to reunite. In the vast majority of cases, there is little left. But there are the children. Their chances of ever returning to their families of origin are next to zero in most cases - far less in the case of children with special needs. I can count on one hand the cases I know of children with special needs who were placed in orphanages by their families - but whose families later had a change of heart and returned for them. Such families deserve praise and support - but they are very, very few. Far more likely, such children will be sent to mental institutions, as I've written here over and over again. More than half of them will die within two years. Fewer than 20% survive five years, in such places.

Children who are "typical" are not institutionalized, but must leave the orphanage at age 16 or 17. The majority of the girls turn to prostitution; the majority of the boys turn to crime. Drug addiction and alcoholism and unemployment and homelessness are the fate of most.

I have little patience for those who criticize families who want to adopt these children as having a savior complex, or who claim that those who support NGOS which work with children in the orphanages and institutions, and with those who've aged out are somehow supporting "the system" which leads to such tragedies.

No.

Those who educate themselves and choose to adopt children from such conditions, those who encourage those adoptive families, and those who do what they can to alleviate the profound suffering of the children who remain behind, do not deserve such criticism, especially when it is couched in passive-aggressive terms which make use of tactics such as guilt by association, implications of wrongdoing where there is none to be found, and claims of expertise about the harm done to children by being adopted, couched in inflammatory writings by largely unknown but supposed "experts", whose poorly documented articles make use of the same shoddy and journalistically unethical methods.

I would continue to urge all who read here to educate themselves, to read widely and without limiting yourselves to one or another point of view. Beware of those who have something to gain, whether it be tangible or intangible, based in the complexities of their own family origins or based on financial gain or fame. Look for those who care about children, and whose lives and work reflect that care, not just in their claims or accusations, but in what they themselves do to make a real, true, difference in today's world as well as in the world of the future, both in this country and abroad.

If you encounter snarky writing, beware. If you find word and mind-games being played, beware. If you find poorly grounded negative accusations of other individuals or organizations rather than proposals and projects for creating positive change, beware. If there is a lack of transparency, or lack of solid evidence of either negative or positive claims, beware. If sources cited have not been updated in five years or more, beware.

Look at the broader picture before hastily joining the latest bandwagon, colorfully painted though it may be and loudly though its calliope may be playing. Look for individuals and organizations who walk the walk as well as talk the talk. They may not have a bandwagon or a flashy calliope at all, but they may be doing great good, quietly but effectively. Decide if you are moved to join or support them.

Be prepared to explain whatever choices you make. They help shape you and define you. Free will and discernment are blessings - use them well, decide for yourself after informing yourself, then have the strength of your convictions.

I think that you are not understanding my posts. No one is saying or doing any of the above. I actually find you quite defensive regarding questions about the organization. In fact, I don't think any of my or SusanKate's were at all snarky.
See my inserted comments above
 
Old 10-03-2012, 01:37 AM
 
125 posts, read 131,417 times
Reputation: 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
Its no more "sick" than making people pay for medical care and, of course, that's the model we follow in America. Not that I agree with it, but that 's what we do. How about funerals? Why should you have to pay for that service? Shouldn't everyone be entitled to a decent burial or cremation for free? How about a college education? Why should I have been required to pay for that? Food at the grocery store? I could starve without it. There is absolutely no justification in making me pay for the food I need to avoid starvation.

Than there are those who think its sick to have so many poor women raising kids who are getting TANF, Medicaid, food stamps, WIC, and housing subsidies from hard-working taxpayers. I'm sort of up-in-the-air about this. I think everyone ought to be entitled to some assistance, but there are states where over half of all baby deliveries in the hospital are paid for by Medicaid and there's just too much of it.

Look guys, I know you think letting people adopt from an agency and paying fees of $25,000 is sick. I can spout opinions about a lot of things that I think are sick too. Your opinions are not universally shared. Nor are mine. If you want to change the law than go out and get a majority of people to side with you. If you do that the legislature will listen and change law. Until than, all of us will continue to have different opinions about what is sick and they may be quite different than yours.
So you think it's okay that the agency made my father pay for my original mother's hospital costs for my birth, and my NICU stay, when my original grandfather had already paid them? Great. The AGENCY pocketed what my father paid as cream, back in 1969. That's what agencies/attorneys/middlemen are doing in other parts of the world, and in the United States, as well. I don't think it's okay to buy babies. Isn't that what my father did, quite unwittingly? He was conned out of money he shouldn't have paid. I am not saying that I should not have been adopted, or that I regret being adopted. But ALL of my parents agree that parts of my adoption were very unethical.

My paying my health insurance to have my sons at the hospital isn't the same as my father paying for my original mother's hospital expenses, because I wasn't double charged. I don't mind paying my taxes, and I work as a Labor and Delivery RN. You aren't going to get me angry by saying that women abuse the system by having babies they cannot afford. I am glad that they are getting the care that they need. I am glad that some of my patients could afford the IVF they paid for, on the other hand. I don't judge my patients by their economic status, but by how they are as human beings.

$25,000-$30,000 is not the real cost for adoption, but what the market will bear when wealthy individuals will step up to the plate, because most of the money goes to profit or as corrupt bilking, as in the case of my own adoption or in gcm's case or many others. It's like hidden bank fees. I think it's wrong, and of course, you disagree. Fine.

Of course nothing in life is free, but it seems to me that bringing up funeral cost and college cost is disingenuous: those are potential costs belonging to families, not to adoption in particular. I am talking about the cost of certain types of adoptions and the corruption involved particularly in those cases.

As others have mentioned (perhaps here or elsewhere), in Australia and in Holland, they have removed profit from adoption. It is possible to do this, but not when people demand babies and fight over them and are willing to have bidding wars. Adoption should be about providing homes for children who need them, and in that case, those of us who are motivated can work together to remove the middlemen and the money from the equation. But there are those who value capitalism and money over all else, and when they're involved, people are sacrificed. Real children in need will be drowned out by rivers of others who are found to meet the need of the demand, and corruption will abound. For example, in Nepal, corruption was rampant to such a degree in adoption that it closed its borders to staunch the flow of stolen children. Corruption happens because $25,000 per child in a country like Nepal is big business. Money is seductive, and children in need are a good product. It works great both ways, as long as no one looks too closely.

So yes, we can agree to disagree about the money aspect being sick, by all means, but your rebuttal to my argument was like apples to my oranges. Just because we have to pay money for things doesn't mean that paying a lot of money is always right, or that I was saying that I expect things to be free. I abhor corruption, not the classes of people it is visited on.
 
Old 10-03-2012, 03:42 AM
 
Location: The New England part of Ohio
18,586 posts, read 23,126,842 times
Reputation: 48552
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
Its no more "sick" than making people pay for medical care and, of course, that's the model we follow in America. Not that I agree with it, but that 's what we do. How about funerals? Why should you have to pay for that service? Shouldn't everyone be entitled to a decent burial or cremation for free? How about a college education? Why should I have been required to pay for that? Food at the grocery store? I could starve without it. There is absolutely no justification in making me pay for the food I need to avoid starvation.

Than there are those who think its sick to have so many poor women raising kids who are getting TANF, Medicaid, food stamps, WIC, and housing subsidies from hard-working taxpayers. I'm sort of up-in-the-air about this. I think everyone ought to be entitled to some assistance, but there are states where over half of all baby deliveries in the hospital are paid for by Medicaid and there's just too much of it.

Look guys, I know you think letting people adopt from an agency and paying fees of $25,000 is sick. I can spout opinions about a lot of things that I think are sick too. Your opinions are not universally shared. Nor are mine. If you want to change the law than go out and get a majority of people to side with you. If you do that the legislature will listen and change law. Until than, all of us will continue to have different opinions about what is sick and they may be quite different than yours.

If I could give you ten rep points for this I would! But alas, this limit is one.

I paid more to birth my son than to adopt my daughter, but the thing is, no amount of arguing is going to change the minds of people who hate adoption! None.
 
Old 10-03-2012, 03:44 AM
 
Location: The New England part of Ohio
18,586 posts, read 23,126,842 times
Reputation: 48552
Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigCreek View Post
There are neutral ways of inquiring about situations with which the inquirer is unfamiliar - and then there are other ways, which imply wrong-doing, guilt by association, and general negativity. Good writers, journalists, and lawyers are quite familiar with these literary tricks of the trade, but others, less trained in the use of words, may not spot them as readily.

A lot of this form of writing has appeared on this forum recently, usually in regard to adoptive families, adoption agencies and non-profit special needs adoption advocacy ministries such as Reece's Rainbow.

Marymarym and Susankate, if you truly had questions about Reece's Rainbow, would it not have been more productive to have first addressed them towards the RR leadership, rather than posting quite loaded statements here, where the majority of posters - and other readers - may have no familiarity with Reece's Rainbow or the conditions in the orphanages and institutions where the children with special needs who are listed on RR reside?

Did you make any effort to learn about Reece's Rainbow for yourselves prior to writing your earlier posts? When you read a very critical online article which was not written by a parent who had adopted with the assistance of Reece's Rainbow, but which instead was written by an anti-international adoption activist who made dubious, ugly, but easily checked claims about the veracity of RR, did you accept that article as absolute truth, or did you make an effort to learn more? Did you go to any primary sources in your online research about Reece's Rainbow?

I read that article, and posted here in response, as that article was riddled with factual errors and obvious attempts at guilt by association, something I felt needed to be made apparent.

Marymarym, when you claimed that Reece's Rainbow was breaking Ukrainian law by posting photographs of children who were eligible for adoption on its website, I replied that this was not the case, as Reece's Rainbow not only uses pseudonyms for all the children in Ukraine, but also does not identify them by country. Your reply was to the effect of "Oh, so that's how they get around the law, then."

How can you now claim that such a response was anything but judgmental and cynical?

After I replied that obviously Ukraine has no problem with Reece's Rainbow, as RR posters of waiting (and found) children are prominently displayed in the ministry of adoptions in Kiev, you had no response.

Until now.

I think your very defensive responses continue to speak for themselves. I do not doubt that you care greatly about corruption in adoption, but I urge you not to confuse corruption with the good done by ministries such as Reece's Rainbow. They are saving lives. Real lives, real children, real families - not just arguing incessantly online with those who might otherwise be some of your best allies, not spending endless hours admonishing those of us in the western world to somehow change the societies and governments and institutions and dysfunctional families of the developing world so that all families and societies everywhere will achieve a sort of Golden Age in which all families are loving, happy, and healthy and no child ever is ever placed in an orphanage for any reason.

We wish we could make those changes. It is right and good to advocate for such changes. But it isn't going to happen everywhere, immediately, right now or even tomorrow or the next day or next week or next month or next year...and meanwhile, the children wait. And they suffer.

Family reunification is a wonderful goal - if there is anything left of the "family" to reunite. In the vast majority of cases, there is little left. But there are the children. Their chances of ever returning to their families of origin are next to zero in most cases - far less in the case of children with special needs. I can count on one hand the cases I know of children with special needs who were placed in orphanages by their families - but whose families later had a change of heart and returned for them. Such families deserve praise and support - but they are very, very few. Far more likely, such children will be sent to mental institutions, as I've written here over and over again. More than half of them will die within two years. Fewer than 20% survive five years, in such places.

Children who are "typical" are not institutionalized, but must leave the orphanage at age 16 or 17. The majority of the girls turn to prostitution; the majority of the boys turn to crime. Drug addiction and alcoholism and unemployment and homelessness are the fate of most.

I have little patience for those who criticize families who want to adopt these children as having a savior complex, or who claim that those who support NGOS which work with children in the orphanages and institutions, and with those who've aged out are somehow supporting "the system" which leads to such tragedies.

No.

Those who educate themselves and choose to adopt children from such conditions, those who encourage those adoptive families, and those who do what they can to alleviate the profound suffering of the children who remain behind, do not deserve such criticism, especially when it is couched in passive-aggressive terms which make use of tactics such as guilt by association, implications of wrongdoing where there is none to be found, and claims of expertise about the harm done to children by being adopted, couched in inflammatory writings by largely unknown but supposed "experts", whose poorly documented articles make use of the same shoddy and journalistically unethical methods.

I would continue to urge all who read here to educate themselves, to read widely and without limiting yourselves to one or another point of view. Beware of those who have something to gain, whether it be tangible or intangible, based in the complexities of their own family origins or based on financial gain or fame. Look for those who care about children, and whose lives and work reflect that care, not just in their claims or accusations, but in what they themselves do to make a real, true, difference in today's world as well as in the world of the future, both in this country and abroad.

If you encounter snarky writing, beware. If you find word and mind-games being played, beware. If you find poorly grounded negative accusations of other individuals or organizations rather than proposals and projects for creating positive change, beware. If there is a lack of transparency, or lack of solid evidence of either negative or positive claims, beware. If sources cited have not been updated in five years or more, beware.

Look at the broader picture before hastily joining the latest bandwagon, colorfully painted though it may be and loudly though its calliope may be playing. Look for individuals and organizations who walk the walk as well as talk the talk. They may not have a bandwagon or a flashy calliope at all, but they may be doing great good, quietly but effectively. Decide if you are moved to join or support them.

Be prepared to explain whatever choices you make. They help shape you and define you. Free will and discernment are blessings - use them well, decide for yourself after informing yourself, then have the strength of your convictions.

Beautifully said Craig.
 
Old 10-03-2012, 06:04 AM
 
1,024 posts, read 984,170 times
Reputation: 834
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linmora View Post
"Let's get real. Most adopting parents are not adopting children to cure world suffering. They are doing it to satisfy their own need to have children. And MOST, given the opportunity to have their own biological children, would do so, and not adopt. This altruistic reasoning for adoption is a sham."

Page 9 of this thread also gave me reason to wonder. I just thought that I was doing a good thing for our two wonderful kids and they have brought so much happiness to us. It has been a win-win situation for all of us. Sorry if I've given offense but I'm human and obviously these topics can strike emotional chords. Several posts really did give me an anti-adoption vibe.
That is not anti-adoption sentiment, that is pointing out how hypocritical it is when some (note some) adoptive parents try to act as though adoption alone is actually doing anything to solve the problem of children "languishing in orphanages." To solve that problem you will have to help solve the problems that LEAD to children in orphanages, not just encourage people to adopt. This is not anti-adoption sentiment, either, nor is it saying all adoptive parents should not be parents & instead should give all their money to family preservation. It is saying that these adoptive parents adopt to build families, not to save lives or solve the problems that have led to thousands of separated families.

From the perspective of an adult adoptee, a win-win situation for your adoptive children would have been being born into better circumstances, not being abused, losing her entire family/culture, then whatever else she experienced before she was available for adoption. I hope you can see that is not the same as saying your daughter should have languished in an orphanage, or that you are not a wonderful mother or even the best thing for her given the circumstances, but that it is not exactly the same as a win-win situation.

Last edited by thethreefoldme; 10-03-2012 at 06:29 AM..
 
Old 10-03-2012, 06:06 AM
 
203 posts, read 199,902 times
Reputation: 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
Its no more "sick" than making people pay for medical care and, of course, that's the model we follow in America. Not that I agree with it, but that 's what we do. How about funerals? Why should you have to pay for that service? Shouldn't everyone be entitled to a decent burial or cremation for free? How about a college education? Why should I have been required to pay for that? Food at the grocery store? I could starve without it. There is absolutely no justification in making me pay for the food I need to avoid starvation.
So what is the justification for paying $30-50k to an unregulated third party in return for a human being? Australia has made it illegal for money to change hands in adoption because the country recognizes that this creates much opportunity for greed and corruption. So it can be done.

Also, what is the justification for fee scales? Healthy Caucasian infants go for a lot more than older African American children. Perhaps you feel that it is acceptable to treat adoption as just another facet of a supply-and-demand capitalistic economy. I disagree. You've said here yourself. The adoption industry is no different than, let's see, a hospital, a funeral home, a college or a grocery store. So does this mean that the African American children who cost less than healthy Caucasian infants are nothing more than the latest Rollback at Wal Mart because less people want that particular item and the store has to move product?

What a lot of us have been trying to point here is that the adoption industry operates like a business. A business that supplies children for people willing to pay for one. I don't think that the adoption industry should operate like a hospital, a funeral home, a college or a grocery store. It is my feeling that the adoption industry should focus on finding homes for children who truly need one. The adoption industry should not focus on finding children for people with enough money to pay for the one they want. Because this is what creates fee scales and allows the industry to charge so much. It is quite clear that there are many people out there who would rather pay $50k to get an infant than the basic court fees to get a kid out of foster care. The adoption industry knows this and has structured itself in a way that ensures that those $50k fees keep rolling in. Which, as you pointed out here, is just like any other service-oriented business. The thing with adoption is that the services should be going to THE CHILDREN and not to people willing to pay top dollar to cherry pick the type of child they want.

Once again, I feel the need to point out that I am speaking about the adoption industry here. Not adoptive parents.

Last edited by gcm7189; 10-03-2012 at 06:29 AM..
 
Old 10-03-2012, 06:18 AM
 
1,024 posts, read 984,170 times
Reputation: 834
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
Look guys, I know you think letting people adopt from an agency and paying fees of $25,000 is sick. I can spout opinions about a lot of things that I think are sick too. Your opinions are not universally shared. Nor are mine. If you want to change the law than go out and get a majority of people to side with you. If you do that the legislature will listen and change law. Until than, all of us will continue to have different opinions about what is sick and they may be quite different than yours.
It's funny that you automatically assume we/a good majority of people affected by adoption aren't doing this... Australia changed their adoption process recently so that money no longer is an issue. Do you know why?

Last edited by thethreefoldme; 10-03-2012 at 06:27 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting > Adoption
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:18 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 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, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top