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.
What would you say to the couples that pay tens of thousand of dollars and never bring a child home? Is it legal to take these couples monies and say, "so sorry, you're one of the unlucky ones?" Statistics show huge numbers of couples try to adopt and fail. They all lose monies and feel they been screwed over. .
Yes, actually that's just too bad. As the poster above said, you aren't buying a child. There's no entitlement here. Children are not a commodity, like cars or new houses.
And yes, it's going to be even harder as many more countries close their doors to adoption. That is just.too.bad.
Regarding infertility, I strongly believe people should be counseled about starting a family as soon as they possibly can while they are still young. That might mean a little less focus on career, perhaps not getting that PhD or not getting that promotion. It might mean living in an apartment for longer and putting off buying a home. It might mean other kinds of sacrifices. I realize not everyone can do this. I realize that not everyone gets all their ducks in a row (partner, finances, house) or they may have circumstances in their life that make it difficult to be a parent when they are young. But still, we need to be counseling young people to start having kids as soon as they can, if possible (if they actually want kids), instead of thinking "I can always just adopt". Because adoption is not easy, it's very hard and very expensive. You yourself have stated that huge numbers of couples fail at adoption. That should tell us something.
1. It is an ancient and time honored practice, that fulfils a societal need for both parents and for children.
2. The practice became regulated and professionalized in the 20th Century, as many things did. Most would agree that this is a good thing.
3. Marrying later is also a good thing. Marriage between two well educated and dedicated adults, who do not feel as though they have been deprived of their youth or education, is also a good thing.
Early marriages, before the modern era, often contained an element of human traficking, as teenaged girls were married off to older men, without their concent. Just because a 16 year old can have a baby, hardly means that she should.
The societal outcomes of teenaged pregnancies are dismal and tragic.
4. I know of no one who decided to adopt internationally or otherwise, because Angelina Jolie or Madonna did.
5. Most people choose international adoption because in certain social circles, it has become acceptable, or normative to have children out of wed-lock and without planning. It was always somewhat acceptable in the lower classes. Now, some working class families accept out of wedlock child birth as normative. Since more infants were being kept, people sought alternatives to domestic adoption.
It had nothing to do with "celebrities".
6. Once again, you seem to have a very heavy axe to grind when it comes to the topic of adoption.
"Nobody is forced to adopt"
No they are not. No one is forced to concieve and give birth either.
Adoptive and biological parents do have choices today. Biological parents are not forced to have child after child. We have birth control.
Adoption is another way that people have, and will continue to have children, and build their families.
The best agencies work with prospective parents when it comes to finding the right child or children to add to their families. That is a good thing, don't you think?
No, I do not think that the "antis" have had any effect upon international adoption or upon rules or regulations. I think it is a support group for bitter adopted people, not a social or political group with any clout.
Once again, Priscilla, what exactly is your personal connection to adoption?
Where did you ever get the idea that embryo adoption and surrogacy are less expensive that addotion?
The WANTS of adults should never trump the NEEDS of children. Bios don't get a pass and neither should potential adopters, whatever excuse/reason they make.
One does not have to be directly influenced by unethical practices to speak up. In fact, they may be more credible because they are not getting a benefit. This is how social change happens. Defending the normalization of flawed status quo is understandable, though.
The judgment statements about teenage parents and education only mean we're not helping the teens with parenting, including the grandparents (who obviously didn't wait to have their family) or with education needs.
If we stick with what adoption is for, then barren people won't be preyed upon and neither will pregnant women in less than ideal circumstances.
Adoption is finding homes for children who need them.
1. What about the "trajectory" of the life of a 14 year old in an Eastern European orphanage?
Are you aware that most of them become prostitutes and drug addicts.
This is a very common argument both in the context of international adoptions and local discussions on benefits of foster family vs. institutional care.
Because it is so prevalent, self-explanatory, and ultimately working towards the common good (i.e. dismantling a system that most people believe is inherently wrong), it is rarely challenged. At least here on these boards it seems to be taken for granted.
The downside that I see in this argument is that it ultimately stigmatizes the graduates of orphanages.
Just as a thought experiment, may I suggest the following exercise (for me, it was quite educational, even if a bit insensitive):
Let's say we have a small corpus of data on about a hundred graduates of several Eastern European orphanages (graduation years between 1992 and 2002).
Make an educated guess as to how many of these graduates (as of 2011):
1) have higher education (college or University)
2) are "willingly" unemployed (disability benefits etc. count as "employed")
3) created families
4) are/were drug addicts
5) sold or otherwise lost their government-provided apartment
6) died or are reported missing
7) are suicidal or committed suicide
8) have criminal background (i.e. documented convictions)
Individual percentages are interesting, but ultimately not as important - what we are shooting for is the general ratio of those graduates who demonstrate apparent ability to become regular members of their respective Eastern-European societies vs. those who, in Soviet police-speak, "lead asocial way of life".
Last edited by NoodlePoodle; 05-08-2018 at 09:59 PM..
This is a very common argument both in the context of international adoptions and local discussions on benefits of foster family vs. institutional care.
Because it is so prevalent, self-explanatory, and ultimately working towards the common good (i.e. dismantling a system that most people believe is inherently wrong), it is rarely challenged. At least here on these boards it seems to be taken for granted.
The downside that I see in this argument is that it ultimately stigmatizes the graduates of orphanages.
Just as a thought experiment, may I suggest the following exercise (for me, it was quite educational, even if a bit insensitive):
Let's say we have a small corpus of data on about a hundred graduates of several Eastern European orphanages (graduation years between 1992 and 2002).
Make an educated guess as to how many of these graduates (as of 2011):
1) have higher education (college or University)
2) are "willingly" unemployed (disability benefits etc. count as "employed")
3) created families
4) are/were drug addicts
5) sold or otherwise lost their government-provided apartment
6) died or are reported missing
7) are suicidal or committed suicide
8) have criminal background (i.e. documented convictions)
Individual percentages are interesting, but ultimately not as important - what we are shooting for is the general ratio of those graduates who demonstrate apparent ability to become regular members of their respective Eastern-European societies vs. those who, in Soviet police-speak, "lead asocial way of life".
I don’t think the results would be all that remarkable compared to the results of juveniles growing up in any institutionalized system anywhere in the world. There are plenty of children like that right here in the US with life trajectories that are quite similar if not exactly the same. The main difference would be that large numbers of the kids in that situation here are minorities.
If one wants to cure that social ill, there are plenty of opportunities to do that here. Not that adoption is capable of doing so. The number of children that need a different home/life situation will always exceed the number of people looking to adopt- and that’s true even if they threw out all requirements.
The only real solution is educating potential parents on their options including birth control and making it easy for them to access help with family planning and/or parenting when they need it. When all else fails, adoption is always still an option but it isn’t a solution to the underlying problem.
So it happened in the past. And now you say, "undue pressure and coercion that still goes on today. Also, people in third world countries sometimes have their babies kidnapped and sold to orphanages." So if this is occurring, it should be reported. Domestic adoption issues can be reported the state police or FBI. International adoption issues can be reported to the US State Department - Office of Children Services..
They often are reported. This is why many countries are closing down their international adoption programs. Because they there are too many abuses going on with the system.
Do some research on adoption. It is not always the happy little fairy tale everyone wants to believe that it is.
So it happened in the past. And now you say, "undue pressure and coercion that still goes on today. Also, people in third world countries sometimes have their babies kidnapped and sold to orphanages." So if this is occurring, it should be reported. Domestic adoption issues can be reported the state police or FBI. International adoption issues can be reported to the US State Department - Office of Children Services.
So is this something your seen first-hand or relayed to you via a third party? I would also point out that the law cannot deal with issues in the past, but only in the present and only if they are reported in the appropriate amount of time after the incident occurred.
The coersive tactics for adoption today are legal, just like the grooming tactics that sexual predators use for their target, is legal. Both are not ethical. The first can lead to the unnecessary fragmentation of a family which has ripple effects, and the other can be crime against a child. In both instances, a human is the prize.
Here are three coersive tactics to obtain a non-orphaned infant:
Identifying a pregnant woman as birthmother is coercion.
Having potential adopters in the room, while she is given birth is coercion.
Buying her clothes, gifts, medical care, in exchange for a baby is coersion.
They often are reported. This is why many countries are closing down their international adoption programs. Because they there are too many abuses going on with the system.
Do some research on adoption. It is not always the happy little fairy tale everyone wants to believe that it is.
I'm not sure I believe that. According to the INS under James Ziglar, Cambodia international adoption were stopped due what he described as "widely spread corruption." However, only one agency was ever indicted, (https://www.cambodiadaily.com/news/b...e-in-us-44238/) and convicted. To date there have been no additional indictments. Ethiopia is another example. They indicted four people in one agency and now all Ethiopia adoptions are forbidden. (https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/four-...tes-connection)
The Hague Treaty has been determined as the source of many countries shutting down. Cambodia is a co-signer of the Hague Treaty in 2006. As of 2018, Cambodia still has not been able to meeting the requirements of Hague and many observers believe that Cambodia will never be able to comply with Hague.
Latest update from the DOS - https://travel.state.gov/content/tra...ons-from0.html
And while I strongly support the indictment of criminals hurting all parties of adoption, I don't think we should prevent countries from having adoption as an option for children that the country is not prepared to care for locally.
I also think the US should not criticize third world countries, when clearly the US has a great deal of work in cleaning up it's own adoption programs.
The coersive tactics for adoption today are legal, just like the grooming tactics that sexual predators use for their target, is legal. Both are not ethical. The first can lead to the unnecessary fragmentation of a family which has ripple effects, and the other can be crime against a child. In both instances, a human is the prize.
Here are three coersive tactics to obtain a non-orphaned infant:
Identifying a pregnant woman as birthmother is coercion.
Having potential adopters in the room, while she is given birth is coercion.
Buying her clothes, gifts, medical care, in exchange for a baby is coersion.
I would point out that several states have made these types of assistance in DIA illegal. I would also point out that residents of these states mostly adopt in states other than their home state, as adoption agencies habe determine that these two states have completely unworkable adoption laws. What does that say about these adoption agencies?
Yes, actually that's just too bad. As the poster above said, you aren't buying a child. There's no entitlement here. Children are not a commodity, like cars or new houses.
And yes, it's going to be even harder as many more countries close their doors to adoption. That is just.too.bad.
Regarding infertility, I strongly believe people should be counseled about starting a family as soon as they possibly can while they are still young. That might mean a little less focus on career, perhaps not getting that PhD or not getting that promotion. It might mean living in an apartment for longer and putting off buying a home. It might mean other kinds of sacrifices. I realize not everyone can do this. I realize that not everyone gets all their ducks in a row (partner, finances, house) or they may have circumstances in their life that make it difficult to be a parent when they are young. But still, we need to be counseling young people to start having kids as soon as they can, if possible (if they actually want kids), instead of thinking "I can always just adopt". Because adoption is not easy, it's very hard and very expensive. You yourself have stated that huge numbers of couples fail at adoption. That should tell us something.
I will take note of your support to defraud potential adoptive couples. How can adoption agencies that are complacent in this practice be acting in anyone's "best interest?" And what other areas to you support defrauding others?
I couldn't agree more about your statement on infertility. My question back to you, is how is society going to support women or couples in this task to ensure more couples can protect their fertility and have children at a younger age? Many couples cannot support themselves until their mid 30s, the age at which many problems occur with infertility.
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.
