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.
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.
AND for you to say it's a fact that the US is superior is arrogant and exploitative. Have you been to Seoul? It's a very modern city much like the ones in the US. Poverty is a fact in all countries including the US. It doesn't mean they can't "properly raise, educate and train" their children.
Don't speak for adoptive parents. You get real!
Korean adoptions are down because S.Korea has become an economic world player. It's an industrialised country now. I'm not sure that the anyone classifies S. Korea as a "Third World Country" anymore.
I am typing on a Samsung compurter, my televisions and cell phones are all Samsung and one of my cars is a Kia. My Korean daughter wants a small Kia - can't think of the model. The point, someone is designing these vehicals and computers and other devices. Other people are building them.
Anyway since the 80s S.Korea has changed and not surprisingly, Korean adoptions are down. Abortion is still illegal in Korea but more Korean young woman are using birth control. They are not keeping their babies, they are having less of them out of wed lock. America is the country where teen pregnancy is glamorized. Only one that I know of.
I believe S.Korean literacy is above that of the US. No one ever suggested that people in S.Korea can't take care of their children.
Teenagers in any country do not in general make good parents. They make great students though.
...
As far as the Bible OrphanMinistry is concerned, I have no use to send money to save an orphan in another country. I live in New York State, born and bred and raised here, adopted here, right in my own city of birth. Yep. An orphan right here in America. No one bothered to save this orphan or her four older half orphan siblings after our mother died. No, just shove adoption at the remaining parent, don't bother to help him keep his family together. No. There is another, more deserving, more capable, more wealthy husband and wife who have been childless for so long who so desperately need a child to love. They believe in the Bible, too, so it's all good.
If there was a remaining parent, then you weren't an orphan. Also, for me, the "parents" are the ones who raise you. No matter who gave birth to me, my parents are the ones I've known for the 51 years of my life.
Giving birth doesn't make someone a parent. Parenting makes someone a parent. I think CraigCreek's terms are dead-on.
If there was a remaining parent, then you weren't an orphan. Also, for me, the "parents" are the ones who raise you. No matter who gave birth to me, my parents are the ones I've known for the 51 years of my life.
Giving birth doesn't make someone a parent. Parenting makes someone a parent. I think CraigCreek's terms are dead-on.
Anon, you are free to define your family on your own terms but you do not define families for others.
There are dictionaries for that purpose.
An orphan is a child who has lost one or both of their biological parents. If you are separated from your family, you have lost both of your bio-parents regardless of whether you are raised in an orphanage or by two adoptive parents.
Last edited by thethreefoldme; 09-25-2012 at 07:55 AM..
a: one that begets or brings forth offspring b: a person who brings up and cares for another
As you can see, giving birth does make someone a parent. Also, parenting makes someone a parent. It is possible to have multiple types of parents (biological, adoptive, step, foster, dead, alive) & for all of them to be equally important.
Responding with two different posts, to the same post, doesn't make either of your posts any more valid, or my post any less valid. See, this is why I prefaced it with "ALSO, FOR ME." Those three little words have meaning. Perhaps you might visit your dictionary and explore that.
I wasn't dismissive of anything. This is a forum where people are invited to share opinions. I shared mine.
If there was a remaining parent, then you weren't an orphan. Also, for me, the "parents" are the ones who raise you. No matter who gave birth to me, my parents are the ones I've known for the 51 years of my life.
Giving birth doesn't make someone a parent. Parenting makes someone a parent. I think CraigCreek's terms are dead-on.
Most children that grow up in orphanages are not orphaned because their parents died. In fact a minority of orphans have had both biological parents die. Most orphans are orphaned because they were either abandoned by their biological parents, who are still living, or were taken from their biological parents by the state due to abuse/neglect. Therefore it seems rather silly to focus on one narrow definition of being an orphan. It's like only accepting the birth definition of a parent. Just like parenting and not giving birth makes someone a parent, being abandoned, and not death, is what makes someone an orphan.
Anon, you are free to define your family on your own terms but you do not define families for others.
There are dictionaries for that purpose.
An orphan is a child who has lost one or both of their biological parents. If you are separated from your family, you have lost both of your bio-parents regardless of whether you are raised in an orphanage or by two adoptive parents.
I've never used the term "orphan" to describe someone who's been adopted. For example, I tell people I used to be an orphan, or that I'm an ex-orphan, but not that I am still an orphan today. IMO, the definition of "orphan" implies a child that has no one to raise them. Someone who was orphaned but then later adopted I would refer to as an "adoptee".
I wasn't dismissive of anything. This is a forum where people are invited to share opinions. I shared mine.
But you were. Telling Kaykee she is wrong to identify as an orphan is dismissive. & once you make a general claim like "giving birth does not make someone a parent," that is dismissive too.
Responding with two different posts, to the same post, doesn't make either of your posts any more valid, or my post any less valid. See, this is why I prefaced it with "ALSO, FOR ME." Those three little words have meaning. Perhaps you might visit your dictionary and explore that.
I wasn't dismissive of anything. This is a forum where people are invited to share opinions. I shared mine.
You are very correct in saying that you prefaced your first paragraph with "also, for me" making it clear that you were offering your very valid opinion of whom you considered your parents.
However, in the next paragraph, you then said
Giving birth doesn't make someone a parent. Parenting makes someone a parent.
which came across more as a statement and I believe that is what threefoldme was addressing.
I've never used the term "orphan" to describe someone who's been adopted. For example, I tell people I used to be an orphan, or that I'm an ex-orphan, but not that I am still an orphan today. IMO, the definition of "orphan" implies a child that has no one to raise them. Someone who was orphaned but then later adopted I would refer to as an "adoptee".
I think there is room to self-identify here however one prefers. IMO (if you define orphan as a child who lost or was separated from their biological parents), being cared for by a couple does not make you any less of an orphan than being cared for by a foster parent or other caretaker. I suppose ex-orphans could also be those who are reunited with their displaced parents? It is interesting to think about but I guess I come from a place that if Kaykee identifies as an orphan than that should be respected.
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.
