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.
Money changes hands & a human being is handed over - how is that not human trafficking? Seriously? Mark's justification for adoption costing so much money is that we live in a capitalist society so people will try to profit from everything including adoption & healthcare. If money is taken out of the equation, like in Australia, adoption virtually ceases to exist because no-one is profiting. You are kidding yourself if you think that calling them "agency fees" makes the money changing hands any more ethical.
I have a great idea. All people who believe that adoption is being done unethically in the USA can move to Australia where they have the "right" laws in place. All those who believe that adoption in the USA is pretty much ethical with perhaps the need of some minor repairs (opening records for adoptees) can stay here.
My being facetious here is to make a point. Many of you people who advocate the cause of "adoption reform" seem to forget that all they have is an opinion. Other people have other opinions. In our system, you have the right to present your views to state legislatures and to Congress. When they are convinced your opinions are indeed the right ones they will change the laws. What could be more fair? You have the same right to vote as I do.
The fact that an adoption system resembling that of Australia has not been enacted in even one of the fifty states speaks volumes.
With respect to "money changing hands" how would you propose to have any adoption at all if there was no money to pay for offices, utilities, insurance, and salaries for people running an adoption agency? America is a "cash economy" and I didn't make it that way. Of course, maybe that is your point--stop all adoption by simply defunding it.
BTW, what makes you think you have a monopoly on truth and wisdom when it comes to labeling anything "ethical"?
You repeatedly strip-quote whatever I have to say. I don't know if its the lack of integrity or an inability to read for comprehension. However, you've demonstrated it again and again whenever I post.
Quote:
Equating the cost of food or medical care to human trafficking is pretty asinine, whether you're poor or not
.
This is an excellent example of what I just said above. My whole point is that if you are going hungry, the fact that people insist you pay for food is going to strike you as a hell of a lot more unfair or unethical than if someone's adoption fees are $25,000. If you can't afford antibiotics and insurance won't buy them for you, you may well die of pneumonia. Again, much more unfair than whether adoption fees are $25,000.
You want this discussion to just be about adoption. You want to make a series of hyperbolic comments about how "unethical" adoption is in America. You don't supply any objective criteria for determining what is or what is not ethical. No, we are all supposed to believe that it is because its privately conducted and money changes hands. What you don't get is that people can have entirely different notions than yours of what is "ethical" and what is not. You are not some font of moral righteousness and goodness.
Quote:
You act as though US laws are a good barometer for what is ethical in adoption, & that it can be the only barometer for what is ethical. But in order to substantiate your assumption you would actually have to provide evidence that American adoption laws are more ethical than Australian adoption laws. I'm curious, what exactly is your problem with the current Australian adoption laws?
If you live in America than American laws are what we have that govern adoption. Love em or hate em that's just a reality. You are the one advocating change. You are the one saying what we have here is unethical. You are the one saying we must change the current system. Does it strike you as unusual in this situation that YOU bear the burden of proof of demonstrating that adoption laws in this country are wrong and should be changed? Do you think there is something wrong or unfair when you advocate replacement of these laws with those of a country that has a population of 30 million and is 8,000 miles away from our borders of asking you to clearly prove what those laws are and that they would be better?
That's the way it works. You want change than show that the change you want is better than what we have. Don't ask me if I've studied Australian adoption laws. And again stop acting like you have some monopoly on determining what is "ethical" and what is not.
Yes, of course, because the United States is a paragon of ethicis & never violates human rights. The amount of money that changes hands is the issue - it does not cost $20,000 to file some legal papers & provide some counseling. But I'm not going to waste my time anymore since you think ethical practices are a matter of opinion.
Last edited by keribus72; 10-04-2012 at 02:52 AM..
I have a great idea. All people who believe that adoption is being done unethically in the USA can move to Australia where they have the "right" laws in place. All those who believe that adoption in the USA is pretty much ethical with perhaps the need of some minor repairs (opening records for adoptees) can stay here.
My being facetious here is to make a point. Many of you people who advocate the cause of "adoption reform" seem to forget that all they have is an opinion. Other people have other opinions. In our system, you have the right to present your views to state legislatures and to Congress. When they are convinced your opinions are indeed the right ones they will change the laws. What could be more fair? You have the same right to vote as I do.
The fact that an adoption system resembling that of Australia has not been enacted in even one of the fifty states speaks volumes.
With respect to "money changing hands" how would you propose to have any adoption at all if there was no money to pay for offices, utilities, insurance, and salaries for people running an adoption agency? America is a "cash economy" and I didn't make it that way. Of course, maybe that is your point--stop all adoption by simply defunding it.
BTW, what makes you think you have a monopoly on truth and wisdom when it comes to labeling anything "ethical"?
Tried to rep you but could not. I am all for this! EXCEPT short of being against any adoption, the ANTI Folks will not be satisfied.
The do not like domestic adoption, Adoptions in America, international adoption, older child adoption, adoption from teen aged mothers not ready to parent, adoption that is cross cultural..REALLY ANY ADOPTION!
They hate it! I have tried to find common ground but the thing is, it comes down to flesh and blood" as being the litmus test of family. The litmus test of LOVE.
Love have no litmus tests. Love is love. It covers all. DNA, ethnicity, blood and all of that....It means nothing. Animals are able to parent the children of other species.
However humans are incapable of parenting the young of the same species?
Tried to rep you but could not. I am all for this! EXCEPT short of being against any adoption, the ANTI Folks will not be satisfied.
The do not like domestic adoption, Adoptions in America, international adoption, older child adoption, adoption from teen aged mothers not ready to parent, adoption that is cross cultural..REALLY ANY ADOPTION!
They hate it! I have tried to find common ground but the thing is, it comes down to flesh and blood" as being the litmus test of family. The litmus test of LOVE.
Love have no litmus tests. Love is love. It covers all. DNA, ethnicity, blood and all of that....It means nothing. Animals are able to parent the children of other species.
However humans are incapable of parenting the young of the same species?
I just don't buy it.
No one has said any of these things on this forum.
What a load of rubbish Sheena. You have not tried to find common ground, in fact you have repeatedly misrepresented the people here who are pro-adoption reform, and now you are doing it again.
Tried to rep you but could not. I am all for this! EXCEPT short of being against any adoption, the ANTI Folks will not be satisfied.
The do not like domestic adoption, Adoptions in America, international adoption, older child adoption, adoption from teen aged mothers not ready to parent, adoption that is cross cultural..REALLY ANY ADOPTION!
They hate it! I have tried to find common ground but the thing is, it comes down to flesh and blood" as being the litmus test of family. The litmus test of LOVE.
Love have no litmus tests. Love is love. It covers all. DNA, ethnicity, blood and all of that....It means nothing. Animals are able to parent the children of other species.
However humans are incapable of parenting the young of the same species?
I just don't buy it.
Oh yes. Sweeping, inaccurate generalizations implying that "they" do not like any adoption is finding common ground. Not one person here has ever said that they don't like any adoption. And you have repeatedly referred to people as "anti-adoption." Would this be an example of how you are working very hard to find common ground? Sweeping generalizations and labeling?
Also, I believe that you have stated how you tried for five or six years to have a biological child. And succeeded. You did all of this before adopting. So one could conclude that if a person was willing to put five or six years of effort into having a biological child, it is quite obvious that "DNA, ethnicity, blood and all of that" is extremely important to that person. So you can stop trying to convince us that you think it isn't.
Last edited by JustJulia; 10-05-2012 at 05:36 AM..
Reason: If you want to talk to A about B, please take it to direct message, thanks
There are some people who are open minded to see all facets of an issue and there are some who will be forever close minded. One thing about history and the world is that it is constantly changing and the most extraordinary changes have been made with the few against the many that think the status quo is good enough. The history of slavery, women's right and gay rights have all taught us that.
"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... "
Seems to me that you are saying that there are many posters on this site that would be easily swayed by persuasive writing or "literary tricks of the trade". Seems kind of arrogant to say that you have spotted such tricks but "others less trained" cannot. It also seems to me that everyone on this forum is quite literate, able to express themselves just fine and capable of comprehending other posts.
Also, you have accused others of false or misleading statements, to which they have posted links to readings that support these statements. In fact, you want others to prove their point, but you have shown no evidence to support your's.
First of all, gcm, you posted your "proof" of costly international adoption from Russia far removed from the post which contained your questionable statement which indicated that ALL international adoptions cost $50,000. This is something which both you and I know is not the case. You have clarified your position since then to indicate that your previous statement applied only to Russia, not necessarily to other countries, but have blamed others for not connecting your two far-distant posts.
Is it any wonder this sort of thing, along with general lack of respect for those who disagree with some of what you've posted, creates confusion, mistrust, and misunderstanding?
marymarym, do you really fail to understand what the difficulty is with writing which is intentionally designed to sway by use of less than honest techniques?
Obviously many here are capable of spotting such writing, but hyperbole, guilt by association, false attributions, negative insinuations, failure to footnote or document one's claims, or documenting with out of date, sometimes out of print or difficult to check sources, etc. should be identified and other readers, no matter how skilled or unskilled, should be alerted and those who use such techniques should be called to account for them. It is a ethical issue, not just one of clarity and avoidance of deliberate obfuscation in writing.
As for literacy, it's quite possible to be fully literate but to have never studied good writing, debate skills, forensics or language (or punctuation and spelling) to any great extent. However, in most cases, these skills ARE learned by those who study writing at the college and/or graduate level. Those who are not fully aware of or who have never been educated to recognize techniques such as those listed above are at greater risk of becoming easily entrapped by shaky arguments which the writer fears cannot stand on their own merit. Such arguments frequently are written quite emotionally, and may make use of one or more of the techniques outlined previously.
It's not just about documentation - it's far more subtle, when done by a skilled writer.
If you want me to cite sources for these statements, I would have to go back to my college textbooks and notes from my professors - actually, I was taught a lot about persuasive writing and the pitfalls associated with it when I was in high school in the 1960s. I doubt that today's students learn much about this in school, unfortunately.
Again, as I have written repeatedly, if one's point of view and beliefs are genuinely held, one should be able to explain and defend them without attacking others personally, as has occurred here lately. Such disrespectful behavior does not lend credence to those who demonstrate it.
As for documentation, a world of material from varying points of view has been linked here recently. I doubt if any one reader or poster has had the time to pursue, much less study each of those links and check them for accuracy and timeliness. Several such links which I checked (concerning adoption from Ukraine) contained serious errors and were out of date, something I noted and questioned here after I had read them. Other articles which I read seemed to be far more professionally written, well-researched, and were both informative and current, and I appreciated being referred to them.
Perhaps accurately and unheatedly summarizing or excerpting some of these lengthy references might be helpful to others reading here, in the interests of both time and of informing and actually helping others, rather than continuously engaging in time-wasting conflict.
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.
