What do you ponder of this? In a domestic adoption, should in that be an agreement that if the mom change her?
mind and decides to raise her baby that the PAPs should be forced to financially support the ethnic group until the child turns 18.
Maybe if PAPs realized that they may be forced to pay if the mom changed their minds there would be smaller amount salivating PAPs trying to take other people's babies.
NOP not at all! If the bio-mom changes her mind and decide she wants and is able to parent that child then she should do it by herself!! Im not paying somebody else to bring to the fore their own child!
If a woman gives birth and wants to keep her child after she must be able to look after him properly, she could turn to the govt for help if she needed to but even that is temporary-it's supposed to be surrounded by place till the mom gets back on her feet.
If a woman cannot look after her own child consequently that's that.
And I dont think any of us is looking to "Steal" anyone's child.. I dont go into the grocery store and take a little one out of her stroller-that would be "stealing/kidnapping"
I would ADOPT a child who is in NEED of a home.
If PAP have money that's great, if the Bio-moms dont have money after that's too bad! They should work like everybody else... how do think PAP find their money?? They win it a PAP Lotto? Nop, they work extremely hard, they give up certain things surrounded by order to be able to raise a child properly.
So starts the latest scam - offering a child for adoption, raising the hopes of a childless couple, then "shifting your mind" and screwing the couple out of money for the next 18 years? Yeah, people are going to want adjectives those children born to parents who don't have the money, or conditions suitable to raise them, if they think they are going to be screwed over by greedy self centered bio donors, i.e. not what being a parent is about. If you want to keep them, work out ways YOU can support them. If not, don't hold any more!
Sounds like you are willing to traffic in babies. that's sick!
Playing such cruel games next to other people and your innocent child speaks to such a poor moral upbringing.
Since you enjoy asked three (or more) questions all essentially the same I'll only just cut and paste part of one of my earlier answers.
To hold such an altruistic view of things and say that you shouldn't adopt unless you are also prepared to support the woman who changes her mind is individual breeding a system where children are placed for adoption so that the parent can change their mind and win the adoption lottery. I'm not saying that parents shouldn't be capable of change their minds but I'll be darned if I'm going to play the odds by wanting to adopt. I pay my taxes to support the programs they can use in need holding a gun to my head, emotionally when we decide to adopt. Those same tax dollars also turn to paying for DSS adoptions and other social service programs such as foster care and welfare already. That combined with what I already donate is plenty as far as I am concerned. If they want to back out, then fine. Do so and take authority of the programs that already exist. All you are suggesting is the creation of another social program.
ETA: Who says that prospective adoptive parents can't have babies? My wife and I have AND we own adopted. Your logic, like the rest of your question, is flawed.
ETA: Sure, and plenty of nation do donate and pay taxes. Lets hear about how much YOU have given previously you start telling the rest of us what to do. Be careful when you stand on a soapbox.it can be slippery.
Salivating PAPs trying to steal babies? You expect those poor infertile couples who have been trying for years to have a child and have suffered the pain of not being competent to? Or those wicked souls who are not infertile but think its better to give a house to children whove been abused or neglected than to make new children themselves?
You hold some issues. Source(s): happy adoptee with fertile APs, evil BPs and 3 sets of infertile aunties and uncles.
Wow. So what you're doing is advocating fraud, right? Women who are pregnant and want someone else to take care of them for the rest of their lives should only just hoodwink some rich people by asking them to adopt her baby, then "Change her mind" and agree to them pay for everything?
Uhm.wow... yeah, that's all I have to say aloud on that.
Maybe if you didn't give false hope to someone who can't enjoy their own child, they wouldn't be salivating over yours. Why should they pay for your kid that you were going to give up to set off with?
How is the PAPs fault if a mother changes her mind anyway? They are freshly trying to adopt an unwanted child.
Answers: I am not understanding this.
Though I am totally against unnecessary newborn surrender and adoption...why would the PAPs have to be forced to reimburse the nmom for 18 years? Is this suppose to be a deterrent for PAPs, so they won't go hunting for newborns?
I think a better solution, would be that PAPs cannot engross a pregnant mother UNTIL at least 6 weeks after the mom has given birth. This gives the current mom time to adjust and heal from the birthing experience and really get to know her new kid and time to really ponder if surrender is truly the choice she wants for herself and her baby.
Actually, I really detest the amounts of money involved in adoption. I don't approaching pg moms asking for $$$$, nor PAPs offering it. I also detest the huge amount of $$$$$ that agencies are charging for newborns. When money is involved...it's nothing but *business*. And I don't believe anyone should be in the *business' of taking nor offering to pay packet for human beings.anywhere.
ETA: OP...what are you going on about? Are you a mother who recently 'changed her mind'? Why on earth do you believe that populace should be forced to monetarily support other people? Sorry, but your question and 'detail' doesn't sit well next to me. Source(s): Me..a mother who surrendered a long time ago.
I am a former PAP, now and AP. I'm not sure why I am supposed to pay for someone else to raise a child. Feel free to convey your money to me if it makes sense. I didn't steal anyone's child. My child was freely given by a mother who decided not to lift her. Her concerns were not only financial.
Nope, I construe the first parents should have to pay the pap's child support for 18 years. After all, it is their responsibility right?
Are you serious? No way,if the bio mom take the child back,she is the one who needs to support it,she will be raising it...
There are all kind of wrong in this question.
NO NO NO NO
I can just conjure up all the morally corrupt people who would get pregnant intentional (who never had any intention of relinquishing) just so they could hit (as Randy put it) the adoption lottery.
You seem to be overcome with the idea that people owe you a living for a line... NO ONE DOES! Source(s): Perhaps you should stop wasting time on Yahoo and get your entitled *** a job.
LOLing
ROFLing
ahhhh.
NO.
This is funny; you are so wrong.
GIRL what are you smokin! You seriously need to obtain real. You must be young or something because, you don't have a enormously good concept of reality.
We will let you settle up for all the families that can't afford to take thought of the children they have and see how it goes. LOL!
PFFFFFFF!!
My DH and I pay everyday for single mothers/fathers to angle their kids and have time off working to do so! My taxes are divided up somewhere along the way by the governing body to provide them with a pension.
Baby bonuses (for every child any mother has she get the bonus) and other allowances for parenting such as medicare. I've been paying for them their basics since I was 16 and earn my first wage. Even now as an adoptive parent my husbands taxes pay for welfare along with millions of others surrounded by the workforce no matter how rich or poor they are.
If they want more they can go to a local charity. I think your theory is a bit out there and doesn't have any merits. If you're out for a sh*t stir you succeeded! Source(s): Aussie adoptive mum.
Related Questions:
Im adopt what do i do?
Adoptive parents and Adoptees?
Has anyone give the tot up for adoption?
Maybe if PAPs realized that they may be forced to pay if the mom changed their minds there would be smaller amount salivating PAPs trying to take other people's babies.
NOP not at all! If the bio-mom changes her mind and decide she wants and is able to parent that child then she should do it by herself!! Im not paying somebody else to bring to the fore their own child!
If a woman gives birth and wants to keep her child after she must be able to look after him properly, she could turn to the govt for help if she needed to but even that is temporary-it's supposed to be surrounded by place till the mom gets back on her feet.
If a woman cannot look after her own child consequently that's that.
And I dont think any of us is looking to "Steal" anyone's child.. I dont go into the grocery store and take a little one out of her stroller-that would be "stealing/kidnapping"
I would ADOPT a child who is in NEED of a home.
If PAP have money that's great, if the Bio-moms dont have money after that's too bad! They should work like everybody else... how do think PAP find their money?? They win it a PAP Lotto? Nop, they work extremely hard, they give up certain things surrounded by order to be able to raise a child properly.
So starts the latest scam - offering a child for adoption, raising the hopes of a childless couple, then "shifting your mind" and screwing the couple out of money for the next 18 years? Yeah, people are going to want adjectives those children born to parents who don't have the money, or conditions suitable to raise them, if they think they are going to be screwed over by greedy self centered bio donors, i.e. not what being a parent is about. If you want to keep them, work out ways YOU can support them. If not, don't hold any more!
Sounds like you are willing to traffic in babies. that's sick!
Playing such cruel games next to other people and your innocent child speaks to such a poor moral upbringing.
Since you enjoy asked three (or more) questions all essentially the same I'll only just cut and paste part of one of my earlier answers.
To hold such an altruistic view of things and say that you shouldn't adopt unless you are also prepared to support the woman who changes her mind is individual breeding a system where children are placed for adoption so that the parent can change their mind and win the adoption lottery. I'm not saying that parents shouldn't be capable of change their minds but I'll be darned if I'm going to play the odds by wanting to adopt. I pay my taxes to support the programs they can use in need holding a gun to my head, emotionally when we decide to adopt. Those same tax dollars also turn to paying for DSS adoptions and other social service programs such as foster care and welfare already. That combined with what I already donate is plenty as far as I am concerned. If they want to back out, then fine. Do so and take authority of the programs that already exist. All you are suggesting is the creation of another social program.
ETA: Who says that prospective adoptive parents can't have babies? My wife and I have AND we own adopted. Your logic, like the rest of your question, is flawed.
ETA: Sure, and plenty of nation do donate and pay taxes. Lets hear about how much YOU have given previously you start telling the rest of us what to do. Be careful when you stand on a soapbox.it can be slippery.
Salivating PAPs trying to steal babies? You expect those poor infertile couples who have been trying for years to have a child and have suffered the pain of not being competent to? Or those wicked souls who are not infertile but think its better to give a house to children whove been abused or neglected than to make new children themselves?
You hold some issues. Source(s): happy adoptee with fertile APs, evil BPs and 3 sets of infertile aunties and uncles.
Wow. So what you're doing is advocating fraud, right? Women who are pregnant and want someone else to take care of them for the rest of their lives should only just hoodwink some rich people by asking them to adopt her baby, then "Change her mind" and agree to them pay for everything?
Uhm.wow... yeah, that's all I have to say aloud on that.
Maybe if you didn't give false hope to someone who can't enjoy their own child, they wouldn't be salivating over yours. Why should they pay for your kid that you were going to give up to set off with?
How is the PAPs fault if a mother changes her mind anyway? They are freshly trying to adopt an unwanted child.
Answers: I am not understanding this.
Though I am totally against unnecessary newborn surrender and adoption...why would the PAPs have to be forced to reimburse the nmom for 18 years? Is this suppose to be a deterrent for PAPs, so they won't go hunting for newborns?
I think a better solution, would be that PAPs cannot engross a pregnant mother UNTIL at least 6 weeks after the mom has given birth. This gives the current mom time to adjust and heal from the birthing experience and really get to know her new kid and time to really ponder if surrender is truly the choice she wants for herself and her baby.
Actually, I really detest the amounts of money involved in adoption. I don't approaching pg moms asking for $$$$, nor PAPs offering it. I also detest the huge amount of $$$$$ that agencies are charging for newborns. When money is involved...it's nothing but *business*. And I don't believe anyone should be in the *business' of taking nor offering to pay packet for human beings.anywhere.
ETA: OP...what are you going on about? Are you a mother who recently 'changed her mind'? Why on earth do you believe that populace should be forced to monetarily support other people? Sorry, but your question and 'detail' doesn't sit well next to me. Source(s): Me..a mother who surrendered a long time ago.
I am a former PAP, now and AP. I'm not sure why I am supposed to pay for someone else to raise a child. Feel free to convey your money to me if it makes sense. I didn't steal anyone's child. My child was freely given by a mother who decided not to lift her. Her concerns were not only financial.
Nope, I construe the first parents should have to pay the pap's child support for 18 years. After all, it is their responsibility right?
Are you serious? No way,if the bio mom take the child back,she is the one who needs to support it,she will be raising it...
There are all kind of wrong in this question.
NO NO NO NO
I can just conjure up all the morally corrupt people who would get pregnant intentional (who never had any intention of relinquishing) just so they could hit (as Randy put it) the adoption lottery.
You seem to be overcome with the idea that people owe you a living for a line... NO ONE DOES! Source(s): Perhaps you should stop wasting time on Yahoo and get your entitled *** a job.
LOLing
ROFLing
ahhhh.
NO.
This is funny; you are so wrong.
GIRL what are you smokin! You seriously need to obtain real. You must be young or something because, you don't have a enormously good concept of reality.
We will let you settle up for all the families that can't afford to take thought of the children they have and see how it goes. LOL!
PFFFFFFF!!
My DH and I pay everyday for single mothers/fathers to angle their kids and have time off working to do so! My taxes are divided up somewhere along the way by the governing body to provide them with a pension.
Baby bonuses (for every child any mother has she get the bonus) and other allowances for parenting such as medicare. I've been paying for them their basics since I was 16 and earn my first wage. Even now as an adoptive parent my husbands taxes pay for welfare along with millions of others surrounded by the workforce no matter how rich or poor they are.
If they want more they can go to a local charity. I think your theory is a bit out there and doesn't have any merits. If you're out for a sh*t stir you succeeded! Source(s): Aussie adoptive mum.
Related Questions: