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.
So - what do we do with the children?? Help the institutions and orphanages with material assistance? Encourage volunteers to work with NGOs to provide extras which should really be basics? Encourage governments to more effectively support children in all situations? How do we change other society's perceptions and long-standing practices of viewing people with special needs as being of no use to "the state", hence of no value at all?
I'd be interested in some answers which indicate some thought has been given to these tough questions.
More than just thought has been given to these tough questions. Some families gave themselves. If you adopt a child, you help one child. These families adopted villages. Both are from my home area, anything given to them makes it to where it is needed.
Last edited by JustJulia; 09-18-2012 at 01:23 PM..
Reason: new members may not post links, sorry
More than just thought has been given to these tough questions. Some families gave themselves. If you adopt a child, you help one child. These families adopted villages. Both are from my home area, anything given to them makes it to where it is needed.
Are you saying that you are for adoption?
Last edited by JustJulia; 09-18-2012 at 01:23 PM..
Reason: removed links
4. I distinguish "unethical situations" in the following way. Certainly, no one should allow a situation where children are literally being kidnapped to meet the needs of adoption. However, I don't necessarily regard it as problematic when poor mothers in these countries choose to place a child for adoption when they receive gifts of money and other commodities for doing so. Many people in our country are oblivious to high degree of poverty and deprivation in the developing world. This may well be a reasonable choice for a poor mother to make under the circumstances. I'm sure this will meet with controversy among some. However, we didn't create these conditions of poverty. They've just always existed.
So, basically it's ok to buy a baby, because the mother is poor?!!!! WOW, just WOW and disgusting!
No that's not OK. But I think Madonna did it. I know she skipped the home study. I don't think any adoptive parents would condone what she got away with. None I know of.
I understand you'd like to change the aspects of society here and elsewhere which lead to children being taken from or given up by birth families. So might we all. But meanwhile, the children are there, right now, today. What is the best solution for them? Is it really best for them to be returned to families which cannot care for them adequately, or for the children to live in orphanages or foster homes? Of course it would be wonderful if families which lack resources or stability could receive whatever assistance is needed to make them more functional - but in this sad world, that's highly unlikely to occur in time to help the children through the brief window of childhood.
Is your objective to acquire a child to build a family, or is your objective to help those children/families? If you give your money to anyone whose priority is not family preservation, helping those communities as a whole, or making sure true orphans/survivors of abuse are raised by loving families within their communities/countries of origin as opposed to abroad then you cannot say you are helping those children/families.
Last edited by thethreefoldme; 09-18-2012 at 06:26 AM..
Is your objective to acquire a child to build a family, or is your objective to help those children/families? If you give your money to anyone whose priority is not family preservation, helping those communities as a whole, or making sure true orphans/survivors of abuse are raised by loving families within their communities/countries of origin as opposed to abroad then you cannot say you are helping those children/families.
This is the equivalent of a living in a dream world. There are so many assumptions built into your thinking its almost incredible. Here are some of the assumptions you make in these statements:
1. That these children have loving families that want to raise them.
2. That the environment in which these children would be raised in within their home countries is a "safe and nuturing environment".
3. That its virtually always best to raise a child in their community of origin.
4. That adequate funding and resources exist to create decent environments in which to raise millions of poor children in Third World countries.
5. That people in other places in the world, will voluntarily part with large amounts of hard-earned currency to pay to keep these children where they are.
Every one of these statements is highly debatable.
#1. The fact that the child is in an orphanage, in and of itself raises a huge question that there is a "loving family" there to raise it.
#2. The situation in many Third World countries is not analogous to living in America, Canada, or Europe. Many of these countries experience wars, high levels of violent crime, governmental corruption, inadequate health care, and poor educational opportunities.
#3. Says who? The fact that we have plenty of international adoptees in America who are happy at least raises a big question about this one. When you consider what was said in #2, you'd have to put on blinders to imagine that's true all around.
#4. If adequate funding existed, the poverty problem in the Third World would be getting better, not worse. Africa is an example of what I'm talking about. The continent used to account for 3% of the world's GDP. Today that figure is less than 1%.
#5. Foreign aid is not popular in the USA right now. Many people would like to eliminate it from the federal budget altogether because they feel the money could be better spent on problems here at home. That's unlikely to change for a long time.
None of us believe that adoption is some kind of "magical solution to Third World poverty". What we do believe is that is a solution for the child who is adopted and that it leaves behind some resources in these countries that would not otherwise be there. You seem to imply that prospective adoptive parents have some kind of moral obligation to give up notions of adopting and instead work with NGO's to improve the lot of all people in the Third World. Why isn't that true of everyone? For example, what are YOU personally doing for these children yourself? Are you doing anything other than advocating against international adoption? If not, I'll suggest you have no moral (or other basis) for telling prospective adoptive parents what they ought to be doing.
No that's not OK. But I think Madonna did it. I know she skipped the home study. I don't think any adoptive parents would condone what she got away with. None I know of.
This is the equivalent of a living in a dream world. There are so many assumptions built into your thinking its almost incredible. Here are some of the assumptions you make in these statements:
1. That these children have loving families that want to raise them.
2. That the environment in which these children would be raised in within their home countries is a "safe and nuturing environment".
3. That its virtually always best to raise a child in their community of origin.
4. That adequate funding and resources exist to create decent environments in which to raise millions of poor children in Third World countries.
5. That people in other places in the world, will voluntarily part with large amounts of hard-earned currency to pay to keep these children where they are.
Every one of these statements is highly debatable.
#1. The fact that the child is in an orphanage, in and of itself raises a huge question that there is a "loving family" there to raise it.
#2. The situation in many Third World countries is not analogous to living in America, Canada, or Europe. Many of these countries experience wars, high levels of violent crime, governmental corruption, inadequate health care, and poor educational opportunities.
#3. Says who? The fact that we have plenty of international adoptees in America who are happy at least raises a big question about this one. When you consider what was said in #2, you'd have to put on blinders to imagine that's true all around.
#4. If adequate funding existed, the poverty problem in the Third World would be getting better, not worse. Africa is an example of what I'm talking about. The continent used to account for 3% of the world's GDP. Today that figure is less than 1%.
#5. Foreign aid is not popular in the USA right now. Many people would like to eliminate it from the federal budget altogether because they feel the money could be better spent on problems here at home. That's unlikely to change for a long time.
None of us believe that adoption is some kind of "magical solution to Third World poverty". What we do believe is that is a solution for the child who is adopted and that it leaves behind some resources in these countries that would not otherwise be there. You seem to imply that prospective adoptive parents have some kind of moral obligation to give up notions of adopting and instead work with NGO's to improve the lot of all people in the Third World. Why isn't that true of everyone? For example, what are YOU personally doing for these children yourself? Are you doing anything other than advocating against international adoption? If not, I'll suggest you have no moral (or other basis) for telling prospective adoptive parents what they ought to be doing.
Yet, prospective adopting parents have the right to decide what is "best" for children of another country?? It's called exploitation.
This is the equivalent of a living in a dream world. There are so many assumptions built into your thinking its almost incredible. Here are some of the assumptions you make in these statements:
You make assumptions that are also incredible:
1. That these children do NOT have loving families that want to raise them.
2. That there are no safe, nurturing environments within their home countries to be raised.
3. That it is not best for children to remain in their community if possible, that Western privilege trumps everything.
4. That adequate funding & resources can never exist to create decent environments, or that adoption is a solution to millions of poor children in Third World countries.
5. That better solutions would not present themselves if adoption was no longer profitable.
Every one of these statements is highly debatable.
Last edited by thethreefoldme; 09-18-2012 at 08:04 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.
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.
