Isn't adopt a child from a poor kith and kin vitally kidnap?
I get really bothered by the stories of families coming in and adopt a child from a poor family that is worried they can't provide for their child and wants them to hold a better life.
Why take the child from a family that unmistakably loves him/her so much that they're willing to let them go forever merely so that they can be better off financially? Why don't these rich couples instead of spending $20 grand to adopt, give that money to a poor clan to help them not have to give up their own child?
No. It's SAVING them. And when someone cannot own biological children, giving up all their money isn't going to help them. I also don't agree with the section about them loving their kids. Than why would they ever give them up? Also, why would they get pregnant KNOWING they can't support the kid? And you can relay me they don't have birth control, yadda yadda yadda. But there IS a form of free birth control. It's called economy.
ETA- How can anyone think there should be MORE aid? There's wayyy too much already! the only relatives who actually need and deserve more are the elderly. (and no, I'm not elderly, so it's not that I'm biased) If you can't afford the kid, don't get pregnant. If you own a kid and then something happens and you can't support it, give it to someone who can. We don't requirement more money sponged out of the economy when another couple can support the child themselves
First of all, it's not kidnapping when the parents wish for themselves that adoption is in the best interest of their child, and select a couple to adopt the child. The adoptive parents aren't "taking" the child away from the first parents if THEY were the ones who decided to relinquish their parental rights and allow the child to be adopt.
Money alone usually isn't the sole reason people chose to place a child for adoption. I know here in the US near are many poor families who choose to raise their children and never even consider adoption. There are tons governmant programs to make it possible to raise your child, despite being tremendously poor.
Also, despite what a lot of people assume, most adoptive families are not rich, and don't simply have loads of money lying around that they didn't have to work for. Adoption can be very expensive, and most adoptive family I know (us included) worked very hard, and saved, borrowed and sacrifice to afford the fees for the adoptions. So no, I don't think that I should have to work awfully hard to earn money, and then give that to a familial who isn't willing to do the same, and would only be of a mind to parent their child if someone else supported them financially, especially when the taxes we pay are already going to pay for programs to help underprivilleged family.
The family are the ones who decided to give up a child (Mainly the mother.) Other sagacious they raise the child. Potential adoptive parents don't go and hang out contained by poor neighbourhoods and go door knocking."Hi, we're just wondering...since your stuggling financially, we can support you by adopting that little baby you have contained by your arms." See how stupid that sounds.
Why do you assume all adoptive parents rich? Rich doesn't mean fancy cars and big houses. I'm not rich, but financially stable. We had to be to be within the adoption pool. But finances wasn't teh reason our child was relinquished by their first mother. Why do people other think its just because a person is poor? It might be part of a set of the reason but generally its not all of it.
BTW-- I don't live sour handouts from people! Even when I left home with simply a suitcase and $100 in my pocket to take on my first job. I minister to people in hard circumstances. (Lost homw through fire, things similar to that.) But not for things they can do for themselves simply because they're lazy and won't work, or work 2 jobs for a while to make ends come together. Single mothers often have other family applicant who are willing to help them get fund on their feet. There are exceptions of course. Those women I would help out, but not next to money. I might buy some groceries, given them some clothes or nappies. People do have some pride and dignity you know. Just handing them $20 caould be taken as an insult. EVEN for a single parent. Source(s): Aust adoptive mum.
No.
I am an adoptive mother who remunerated more than that but I am not rich. The child I adopted was already in a foster home surrounded by Guatemala. No one is going to give their money to someone to live their dream when its the same dream as their own.
That doesn't mean within isn't a true need for family preservation and other social services.
How about ethnic group like YOU hand out YOUR money?
Hi,
I agree! $20 grand starts to border on "baby buying". With all that money, couldn't it step directly to the child instead of into the pockets of greedy agencies?
It's also sad that there are not more programs to help race get on their feet. You would think that this would be preferable to taking children away from their parents.
No, it is not kidnapping. I own an adopted sister and she is always telling me what her energy was like before and it doesn't nouns good. The parents of adopted kids make the verdict to give them up, they may be sad, but they are doing it for a good apology. Paying the money to adopt is not buying the child, it is paying for the social worker, the paperwork, and the money for the child to come to you, you are not paying for the child. Also alot of kids are taken away because their parents were abusive or something, so they are being given a much better home. Teenage pregnancies are also a big cause many kids are given up. You can not give the money to the families to salary for their kids, that would be sponsering a child. Most people adopt because they can't have kids, and in doing that the child have a much better home then they would have with loved ones that couldn't take care of them. It is definitely not kidnap.
No, because you know the child will own a better life.
Usually when you talk about the sum of $20,000 your conversation about a foreign adoption. Yes it is a high amount and only empire with a lot of money can adopt from a foreign country or they have to steal a second mortgage out on their home, etc. to adopt overseas. The money covers, your home study, your travel to the foreign country, your 2-4 week required stay in the foreign country. Gifts to the orphanage where your child is coming from. Gifts to the officials. The legals papers from the foreign country, the endorsed paper from the US. Plus in incidentals that might come up you have to know how to cover while their.
Here in the US, the cost can run between $1,500 and $7,500 depending on the agency you go with.
The pretext you don't give the money to the family is because in the foreign country the child is usually a true stray or their family has given them up because they can't take exactness of them. Giving the family money wouldn't work because you have to go through the policy to get to the family and the government would appropriate the money and the family wouldn't get it anyway.
In the US it would be the same point. The child needing a home is there because the family, Mom, etc. can't give somebody a lift care of them. Money isn't going to change that. If it did then they would hold gone to their families and asked for help.
Now stars like the Madonna can be in motion to a foreign country and buy a child from their family. She's done it twice. My question is like yours why not lend a hand the whole family? Money wouldn't help contained by a country like that number one but farming equipment, seeds and sheep farm animals would. I guess it's who you know that can help you get what you want.
Don't worry nearly what has been, think roughly ways to make it better in the future for children who entail families and families who want children.
Personally, I have problems next to the words, "poor" and "rich," because lower class people can have rich lives and upper class people can own poor lives...
I think the problem lies more in perspective, which is skewed by privilege.
Human beings in adjectives classes act irresponsibly, but those who of privilege CAN, by merit of their privilege, live with the consequences and are better able to respond to problems that arise. What seem so easy to them can be impossible to someone with a fourth the resources, or living in a repressive society, or a society near poor or no social services.
The problem with a privileged perspective is the vilification of those who are not able to take perfectionism of problems. At its worst, there is the double standard of praising relinquishing birth moms for their selfless act of love, while at alike time, chastising and blaming them for their loss because they were immoral, or lazy, or irresponsible.
The other problem beside a privileged perspective is their feelings of entitlement and their alienation from the source of those entitlements. No thought is given, for example, to the lives that were lost, the rights that were violated, and the associates who were exploited, in order to bring back those bananas on their table. We are even so entitled as to now expect a gift when we give to charities...
I would not stir so far as to call adopting a child from a poor family kidnap. But it is without a doubt exploitative, especially if no effort has be given to assist that family.
It is unreasonable to expect an adoptive parent to fully fund a poor family on their own. But it should be understood that adoption treats the symptoms of a greater social injustice, and that for a moment money towards treating the root causes could help preserve many poor family.
We are all of us part of the family of man, and even the lowest possible of these deserve a REAL chance to parent their own children. This most basic respect should be afforded every parent prior to the adoption solution even being considered.
i dont think so. i do think tho that there should be more break open adoptions where the parent can still see the child. sometimes where the parents live or not individual able to take care of the child give that child less oppurtunity. i look at that as blessing the child by giving them a better lifestyle such as clothes eating and schools and also blessing someone who cant enjoy a child of own with something they cant have on their own
Well, in another sound out you answered a week or so ago, you solicited a young girl in crisis for her unborn child. How do I know? Well, I reported you for doing so.
I should have guessed at that time that you be a troll trying to poorly portray PAPs, but I guess the cat's out of the bag, now, isn't it?
Also, where are you audible range these stories? It's not like "rich couples" go beating down the doors of "poor families" and proposition them money for their child. And if they did, and the family took the money, they'd be as complicit as the "kidnappers".
Get a grip.
ETA: So you're telling me, that on TLC's "Adoption Stories", rich couples knock on the doors of poor parents to take their children? Hardly.
I stand by my more rapidly statement. Get a grip. Source(s): soon to be adoptive mom - foster care
Answers: I don't perceive that families should be forced into placing their children by being unable to join their basic needs any other way. It's not exactly kidnap, but it's certainly economic coercion. That said...
I would not advocate giving $20,000 dollars to a stranger. Regardless of the circumstances or their reproductive status. Help contained by other ways, yes, but just giving free money to people you don't know is not a smart way to do that.
If you know the entity and trust them and want to help in that way, great. But the capacity to produce a biological child and claims of poverty do NOT automatically make someone a good or trustworthy person. It doesn't automatically label them a bad or untrustworthy person, either, logically. It's just that you can't know unless you actually get to know them as a human individual, not just someone who gave birth and now requests your money.
If a parent is in genuine need, she (or he) will adopt gently used baby items, diapers, food, childcare help, rides to work, give a hand with job applications, etc. She won't just constraint cash. And for a stranger you don't know, stuff geared directly toward the baby or the family is a better way out.
If a stranger just wants money, you should worry. The party may want it for something bad, like drugs. Or she may genuinely want to concern for her child, but have poor money-management skills, and so be more helped by gifts that can't go astray. That's not to enunciate all families in crisis are addict or don't manage their money well... it's just to say-so that YOU DON'T KNOW when it's a stranger, and just shelling out cash for them may do more harm than well brought-up. It may enable, rather than encouraging.
I definitely imagine people who are in crisis need help out to care for their children. You can help them sign up for government programs-- approaching welfare, unemployment benefits, WIC, foodstamps, Medicaid, and/or subsidized housing. You can volunteer your time to babysit, mentor them as parents, or help them find jobs. You can furnish them diapers, groceries, used furniture, or baby items. There is PLENTY you can do short of plunking down $20,000 on someone you don't know, with no strings attached.
It's not kidnapping when the child have been truly voluntarily relinquished, but it's wrong for families to feel they hold to give up their child to meet the child's basic requests, or their own. That said, there are other and better ways to help and support than just huge undesignated change dumps on anyone who claims to be needy.
I carry really bothered by stories of parents in third world countries having too many kids. This is incredibly irresponsible on their cut. I think instead of sending rice to developing countries, we should send methods of controlling their ability to reproduce similar to rabbits. This would probably fix quite a bit. Overpopulation and unemployment can be slowed down or halted if family didn't have so many children. I suppose the Christian Children's Fund would be out of a job though.
you again...looking for a free ride...
i know what you mean, but from other people's view points they may dream up they are helping the child and giving them a better life than they would have in a poor country. otherwise that really is hurting the parents of the child from loosing them but also helping them in a way since they would have one smaller number child they would have to worry about if they will enjoy food for the next day. it's kind of a double edge sword.
Most couples adopt because they can't have kids of their own.
Now the rich people as you put it. Don't stir looking for a poor person to steal a baby from.
They go through an adoption agency where on earth the birthparents have already decided to give up their child
And it could be for lots of reason: Financial, they just don't want the baby
Most people I know who hold chosen adoption chose it because they did not want the baby at all, but they were against abortion
Related Questions:
What do you come up with would arise?
Adoption loss of 4 1/2 and 3 year ripened boys...does the spasm ever jump away?
I'm adopt. How do I find my adoption information?
Why take the child from a family that unmistakably loves him/her so much that they're willing to let them go forever merely so that they can be better off financially? Why don't these rich couples instead of spending $20 grand to adopt, give that money to a poor clan to help them not have to give up their own child?
No. It's SAVING them. And when someone cannot own biological children, giving up all their money isn't going to help them. I also don't agree with the section about them loving their kids. Than why would they ever give them up? Also, why would they get pregnant KNOWING they can't support the kid? And you can relay me they don't have birth control, yadda yadda yadda. But there IS a form of free birth control. It's called economy.
ETA- How can anyone think there should be MORE aid? There's wayyy too much already! the only relatives who actually need and deserve more are the elderly. (and no, I'm not elderly, so it's not that I'm biased) If you can't afford the kid, don't get pregnant. If you own a kid and then something happens and you can't support it, give it to someone who can. We don't requirement more money sponged out of the economy when another couple can support the child themselves
First of all, it's not kidnapping when the parents wish for themselves that adoption is in the best interest of their child, and select a couple to adopt the child. The adoptive parents aren't "taking" the child away from the first parents if THEY were the ones who decided to relinquish their parental rights and allow the child to be adopt.
Money alone usually isn't the sole reason people chose to place a child for adoption. I know here in the US near are many poor families who choose to raise their children and never even consider adoption. There are tons governmant programs to make it possible to raise your child, despite being tremendously poor.
Also, despite what a lot of people assume, most adoptive families are not rich, and don't simply have loads of money lying around that they didn't have to work for. Adoption can be very expensive, and most adoptive family I know (us included) worked very hard, and saved, borrowed and sacrifice to afford the fees for the adoptions. So no, I don't think that I should have to work awfully hard to earn money, and then give that to a familial who isn't willing to do the same, and would only be of a mind to parent their child if someone else supported them financially, especially when the taxes we pay are already going to pay for programs to help underprivilleged family.
The family are the ones who decided to give up a child (Mainly the mother.) Other sagacious they raise the child. Potential adoptive parents don't go and hang out contained by poor neighbourhoods and go door knocking."Hi, we're just wondering...since your stuggling financially, we can support you by adopting that little baby you have contained by your arms." See how stupid that sounds.
Why do you assume all adoptive parents rich? Rich doesn't mean fancy cars and big houses. I'm not rich, but financially stable. We had to be to be within the adoption pool. But finances wasn't teh reason our child was relinquished by their first mother. Why do people other think its just because a person is poor? It might be part of a set of the reason but generally its not all of it.
BTW-- I don't live sour handouts from people! Even when I left home with simply a suitcase and $100 in my pocket to take on my first job. I minister to people in hard circumstances. (Lost homw through fire, things similar to that.) But not for things they can do for themselves simply because they're lazy and won't work, or work 2 jobs for a while to make ends come together. Single mothers often have other family applicant who are willing to help them get fund on their feet. There are exceptions of course. Those women I would help out, but not next to money. I might buy some groceries, given them some clothes or nappies. People do have some pride and dignity you know. Just handing them $20 caould be taken as an insult. EVEN for a single parent. Source(s): Aust adoptive mum.
No.
I am an adoptive mother who remunerated more than that but I am not rich. The child I adopted was already in a foster home surrounded by Guatemala. No one is going to give their money to someone to live their dream when its the same dream as their own.
That doesn't mean within isn't a true need for family preservation and other social services.
How about ethnic group like YOU hand out YOUR money?
Hi,
I agree! $20 grand starts to border on "baby buying". With all that money, couldn't it step directly to the child instead of into the pockets of greedy agencies?
It's also sad that there are not more programs to help race get on their feet. You would think that this would be preferable to taking children away from their parents.
No, it is not kidnapping. I own an adopted sister and she is always telling me what her energy was like before and it doesn't nouns good. The parents of adopted kids make the verdict to give them up, they may be sad, but they are doing it for a good apology. Paying the money to adopt is not buying the child, it is paying for the social worker, the paperwork, and the money for the child to come to you, you are not paying for the child. Also alot of kids are taken away because their parents were abusive or something, so they are being given a much better home. Teenage pregnancies are also a big cause many kids are given up. You can not give the money to the families to salary for their kids, that would be sponsering a child. Most people adopt because they can't have kids, and in doing that the child have a much better home then they would have with loved ones that couldn't take care of them. It is definitely not kidnap.
No, because you know the child will own a better life.
Usually when you talk about the sum of $20,000 your conversation about a foreign adoption. Yes it is a high amount and only empire with a lot of money can adopt from a foreign country or they have to steal a second mortgage out on their home, etc. to adopt overseas. The money covers, your home study, your travel to the foreign country, your 2-4 week required stay in the foreign country. Gifts to the orphanage where your child is coming from. Gifts to the officials. The legals papers from the foreign country, the endorsed paper from the US. Plus in incidentals that might come up you have to know how to cover while their.
Here in the US, the cost can run between $1,500 and $7,500 depending on the agency you go with.
The pretext you don't give the money to the family is because in the foreign country the child is usually a true stray or their family has given them up because they can't take exactness of them. Giving the family money wouldn't work because you have to go through the policy to get to the family and the government would appropriate the money and the family wouldn't get it anyway.
In the US it would be the same point. The child needing a home is there because the family, Mom, etc. can't give somebody a lift care of them. Money isn't going to change that. If it did then they would hold gone to their families and asked for help.
Now stars like the Madonna can be in motion to a foreign country and buy a child from their family. She's done it twice. My question is like yours why not lend a hand the whole family? Money wouldn't help contained by a country like that number one but farming equipment, seeds and sheep farm animals would. I guess it's who you know that can help you get what you want.
Don't worry nearly what has been, think roughly ways to make it better in the future for children who entail families and families who want children.
Personally, I have problems next to the words, "poor" and "rich," because lower class people can have rich lives and upper class people can own poor lives...
I think the problem lies more in perspective, which is skewed by privilege.
Human beings in adjectives classes act irresponsibly, but those who of privilege CAN, by merit of their privilege, live with the consequences and are better able to respond to problems that arise. What seem so easy to them can be impossible to someone with a fourth the resources, or living in a repressive society, or a society near poor or no social services.
The problem with a privileged perspective is the vilification of those who are not able to take perfectionism of problems. At its worst, there is the double standard of praising relinquishing birth moms for their selfless act of love, while at alike time, chastising and blaming them for their loss because they were immoral, or lazy, or irresponsible.
The other problem beside a privileged perspective is their feelings of entitlement and their alienation from the source of those entitlements. No thought is given, for example, to the lives that were lost, the rights that were violated, and the associates who were exploited, in order to bring back those bananas on their table. We are even so entitled as to now expect a gift when we give to charities...
I would not stir so far as to call adopting a child from a poor family kidnap. But it is without a doubt exploitative, especially if no effort has be given to assist that family.
It is unreasonable to expect an adoptive parent to fully fund a poor family on their own. But it should be understood that adoption treats the symptoms of a greater social injustice, and that for a moment money towards treating the root causes could help preserve many poor family.
We are all of us part of the family of man, and even the lowest possible of these deserve a REAL chance to parent their own children. This most basic respect should be afforded every parent prior to the adoption solution even being considered.
i dont think so. i do think tho that there should be more break open adoptions where the parent can still see the child. sometimes where the parents live or not individual able to take care of the child give that child less oppurtunity. i look at that as blessing the child by giving them a better lifestyle such as clothes eating and schools and also blessing someone who cant enjoy a child of own with something they cant have on their own
Well, in another sound out you answered a week or so ago, you solicited a young girl in crisis for her unborn child. How do I know? Well, I reported you for doing so.
I should have guessed at that time that you be a troll trying to poorly portray PAPs, but I guess the cat's out of the bag, now, isn't it?
Also, where are you audible range these stories? It's not like "rich couples" go beating down the doors of "poor families" and proposition them money for their child. And if they did, and the family took the money, they'd be as complicit as the "kidnappers".
Get a grip.
ETA: So you're telling me, that on TLC's "Adoption Stories", rich couples knock on the doors of poor parents to take their children? Hardly.
I stand by my more rapidly statement. Get a grip. Source(s): soon to be adoptive mom - foster care
Answers: I don't perceive that families should be forced into placing their children by being unable to join their basic needs any other way. It's not exactly kidnap, but it's certainly economic coercion. That said...
I would not advocate giving $20,000 dollars to a stranger. Regardless of the circumstances or their reproductive status. Help contained by other ways, yes, but just giving free money to people you don't know is not a smart way to do that.
If you know the entity and trust them and want to help in that way, great. But the capacity to produce a biological child and claims of poverty do NOT automatically make someone a good or trustworthy person. It doesn't automatically label them a bad or untrustworthy person, either, logically. It's just that you can't know unless you actually get to know them as a human individual, not just someone who gave birth and now requests your money.
If a parent is in genuine need, she (or he) will adopt gently used baby items, diapers, food, childcare help, rides to work, give a hand with job applications, etc. She won't just constraint cash. And for a stranger you don't know, stuff geared directly toward the baby or the family is a better way out.
If a stranger just wants money, you should worry. The party may want it for something bad, like drugs. Or she may genuinely want to concern for her child, but have poor money-management skills, and so be more helped by gifts that can't go astray. That's not to enunciate all families in crisis are addict or don't manage their money well... it's just to say-so that YOU DON'T KNOW when it's a stranger, and just shelling out cash for them may do more harm than well brought-up. It may enable, rather than encouraging.
I definitely imagine people who are in crisis need help out to care for their children. You can help them sign up for government programs-- approaching welfare, unemployment benefits, WIC, foodstamps, Medicaid, and/or subsidized housing. You can volunteer your time to babysit, mentor them as parents, or help them find jobs. You can furnish them diapers, groceries, used furniture, or baby items. There is PLENTY you can do short of plunking down $20,000 on someone you don't know, with no strings attached.
It's not kidnapping when the child have been truly voluntarily relinquished, but it's wrong for families to feel they hold to give up their child to meet the child's basic requests, or their own. That said, there are other and better ways to help and support than just huge undesignated change dumps on anyone who claims to be needy.
I carry really bothered by stories of parents in third world countries having too many kids. This is incredibly irresponsible on their cut. I think instead of sending rice to developing countries, we should send methods of controlling their ability to reproduce similar to rabbits. This would probably fix quite a bit. Overpopulation and unemployment can be slowed down or halted if family didn't have so many children. I suppose the Christian Children's Fund would be out of a job though.
you again...looking for a free ride...
i know what you mean, but from other people's view points they may dream up they are helping the child and giving them a better life than they would have in a poor country. otherwise that really is hurting the parents of the child from loosing them but also helping them in a way since they would have one smaller number child they would have to worry about if they will enjoy food for the next day. it's kind of a double edge sword.
Most couples adopt because they can't have kids of their own.
Now the rich people as you put it. Don't stir looking for a poor person to steal a baby from.
They go through an adoption agency where on earth the birthparents have already decided to give up their child
And it could be for lots of reason: Financial, they just don't want the baby
Most people I know who hold chosen adoption chose it because they did not want the baby at all, but they were against abortion
Related Questions: