About international adoption?
I think we all agree that many countries entail serious changes like improved form care, access to birth control and abortion, the removal of the stigma of single motherhood, promotion of adoption in-country, education for adjectives, etc...
but no one can seem to answer this question. Until adjectives this change comes about, and it may be a very long time back it does, what should be done with children who have no family to stir to? Do they not deserve any opportunity they can get?
It seems whenever a question roughly IA comes up the stock response is they lose culture, should be kept by a family member, adoption in their home country... but at hand are situations where these are not options. So what then?
I feel that countries should (and many do) try to find a home in-country first before making a child available to IA.
In response to hayesbrat's comment: There be a total of 312,237 foreign-born emigrations and IA adoptions in 2001. In that same year there be 4,025,933 live births. That's a ratio of 13:1, it's hardly the people emigrating that are cause the overpopulation.
The fact of the matter is, international adoption is not helping significant numbers of children. A small fraction are one helped, but all those resources are pouring out to make that small fraction possible. And the rest starve and are not person helped.
A social worker who facilitates adoption told me that many of the prospective adoptive parents that she know who consider international adoption are doing it so that the children cannot search for their family later on.
Some population may consider IA for good, but misguided reasons. And some people clearly don't. But let's not kid ourselves into thinking that it's even a provisional solution to the problem. It's not. Many more children continue to suffer than are ever adopted. Fix that. Source(s): Living life as an adoptee soon at a time
Its quite simple, actually. When culture stop paying for humans, countries will have to change their policies. That's it. Its simple. IA, like domestic newborn adoption, works on a supply and emergency premise.
Until these countries stop this inhumane baby selling business (thank you Korea), donate to a children's aid charity. If infertiles are still drooling to be parents, they can adopt an older child or a child from foster care here..What? That's not what they want? Oh yeah.that's why we own human trafficking. As long as we pay for babies, why would a government stop the barbaric practice? Source(s): Think globally, perform locally.
I believe international adoption is helping the very young children. But, there are tons older children out on the streets of third world countries just trying to survive. They are labeled outcasts and recurrently lead violent lives and die violent death. Many older chilldern suffer.
Maybe we could help by assisting their parents with undo arms as they come to the USA for a better life?
Are you lower than the assumption that American adoptee's never leave America?
im sorry im confused whats the question ?
Adoption is good if there going to a fitting home i think everybody needs a family
If in-country assistance fail, then why should a kid need to be adopted purely to get the same assistance. What should happen is international fostering, and later the child's life won't be based on the lie to be exact adoption.
Here is how it should work:
1. Familes should keep their children.
2. Children should be cared for by other inherited members if it is not possible for the parents to raise the child.
3. Domestic adoption should take priority over international adoptions. Korea realizes this and i.e. why they are halting international adoptions after 2012.
International adoption should be the LAST resort.
ETA: Foster programs and domestic adoptions CAN happen presently. I don't know why that answer is not good enough. It seems resembling it's easy for people to pick at what other people read out but I don't see these folks coming up with suggestions either. Obviously the point is to tell those against IA to shut up because IA HAS to surface now because change takes too long. If everyone subscribed to this good-for-nothing way of thinking, nothing would ever get done. Stop ranting.
Also, for those those who think that all actual orphans and children unable to be domestically adopt in these countries should be internationally adopted, why don't you think indistinguishable for foster children in United States? Shouldn't they be adopted out elsewhere? Face it. IA is a multi million dollar business.
edit: I am not trying to hint foster care programs are currently in place. I am saying I don't infer it would take years to accomplish. Exactly what was your solution? If your solution is that IA continue on as it is, I cannot and will not draw from on board with that. Sorry.
eta: There really is still no solution provided by you. That is incredibly vague. Aren't the question more about providing more specific answers? This particular question is nil more than a justification for why IA should continue. The other was asked by a biased IAP who have shown in this forum she thinks IA should continue.
Answers: Once again, not a soul is questioning what *should*, in an ideal world, be going on. Of course, there needs to be changes. But once again, why are IAP's demonized when near are children *right now* with no alternatives? Please, what is your solution *for this moment in time*? Should those kids just stay here, and too bad for them? Or should we work, long term toward stopping IA in desire of better social structures within these countries, and be supportive of *ethical* adoption in the interim?
No one could answer my question, as the asker pointed out, when I posed it surrounded by my last response...I'm hoping someone can answer it now. We're talking exceptionally short-term here, *before* those things are in place. What happens to the kids who are there right presently? They are people, and should be entitled to basic human rights, which include health effort and education.
And for those who believe that *legitimately* orphaned children should not be removed from their country, I will point out that many, many adults from those same countries apply for refugee status contained by the U.S. and Canada every day. While I believe that the best case scenario is to always try to hold on to the kids with parents firstly, extended family next and inwardly their own country, third, when these three are not possible, is adoption not a better option than a child remaining in an orphanage where on earth there are limited options?
I agree beside the asker. I feel that we are all waxing philosophically going on for what *should* be, but have yet to come back down to mud to deal with the situation that *is*. In my opinion, it's two pronged: work long occupancy to end the need for IA, work in the meantime to do what is contained by the best interest of the kids and their immediate needs. Stop unethical adoption, baby-buying, child-trafficking. Zero tolerance. Ensure that only legitimately orphaned children can be adopted, etc., etc., etc...
ETA: Kate, children in foster consideration in the US and Canada (and elsewhere, but this is where I live) have their straightforward needs met. There are situations in orphanages (not all, I realize) where on earth these kids do not.
Also, many of these countries don't have a foster care system. That's the integral problem.
Oh, and it takes months to just approve a parent to foster in an established system. Some of these countries don't even enjoy a blueprint for one. How would you like to implement this in the next week so that the kids who are not currently reception care have a foster home to go to? I offered a solution. I look forward to audible range yours. I would love it if there were foster homes available now, but here are not. And in many cultures, fostering and domestic adoption are nearly non-existent because they are not culturally accepted.
I am not a proponent of IA man a *solution*, but again, I think for right now, it is stopgap. By right now, I don't close-fisted the next ten years, either. When I say "short term", I connote SHORT term.
ETA: Kate, re-read my answer, and you'll find the following:
"In my opinion, it's two pronged: work long term to appendage the need for IA, work in the meantime to do what is in the best interest of the kids and their instantaneous needs. Stop unethical adoptions, baby-buying, child-trafficking. Zero tolerance. Ensure that simply legitimately orphaned children can be adopted, etc., etc., etc..."
I *never* implied that it should be left as is, nor did I say that! Did you even read any of my answers?? I'm not a huge proponent of IA, I'm only saying that there have to be a slightly more gradual change, or a *lot* of children are going to fall through the cracks. And those kids are no less entitled to have their basic needs met than children who are born into untenable situations 10 years from now. They will not discontinue to exist simply because some adoption practices are unethical, or because someone living a very comfortable life on the other side of the world think IA is abhorrent. They're still there, with or minus your support.
This whole question was asking going on for short-term solutions, while awaiting long-term change...Who said anything at all about departure IA as is??
ETA3: You guys, for the umpteenth time, I agree that programs need to be funded to *prevent* IA, and to (ideally) stop it.What I'm asking how to address the kids that are there *right now*. Not, as in subsequent year, as in, this very minute. Many of those kids need things, resembling medical attention, and affection. Do you have millions of bucks in your back pocket to progress and fix a whole village tomorrow? Again, I'm talking in the region of kids that are legitimately orphaned, no one coming back for them. Once again, in plentiful of these cultures, the people simply don't *want* to foster, or adopt. So, what do we do about those kids? How do we make sure that they not lone get adequate medical attention and education (in context near their culture, not necessarily a "western" education), as well as the opportunity to form a healthy attachment to someone so they have resources into adult years? Once they turn 18, they still need support.
i think they should be kept within their own country unless necessary. the US is overpopulating as it is and we are running out of room to hold on to bringing people over. If it comes to it where thats not an option next its fine.
Related Questions:
Why do they do the adoption scam on me, i compensated but child never come?
Do you ruminate Y/A adoption?
We adopt twin girls from China?
but no one can seem to answer this question. Until adjectives this change comes about, and it may be a very long time back it does, what should be done with children who have no family to stir to? Do they not deserve any opportunity they can get?
It seems whenever a question roughly IA comes up the stock response is they lose culture, should be kept by a family member, adoption in their home country... but at hand are situations where these are not options. So what then?
I feel that countries should (and many do) try to find a home in-country first before making a child available to IA.
In response to hayesbrat's comment: There be a total of 312,237 foreign-born emigrations and IA adoptions in 2001. In that same year there be 4,025,933 live births. That's a ratio of 13:1, it's hardly the people emigrating that are cause the overpopulation.
The fact of the matter is, international adoption is not helping significant numbers of children. A small fraction are one helped, but all those resources are pouring out to make that small fraction possible. And the rest starve and are not person helped.
A social worker who facilitates adoption told me that many of the prospective adoptive parents that she know who consider international adoption are doing it so that the children cannot search for their family later on.
Some population may consider IA for good, but misguided reasons. And some people clearly don't. But let's not kid ourselves into thinking that it's even a provisional solution to the problem. It's not. Many more children continue to suffer than are ever adopted. Fix that. Source(s): Living life as an adoptee soon at a time
Its quite simple, actually. When culture stop paying for humans, countries will have to change their policies. That's it. Its simple. IA, like domestic newborn adoption, works on a supply and emergency premise.
Until these countries stop this inhumane baby selling business (thank you Korea), donate to a children's aid charity. If infertiles are still drooling to be parents, they can adopt an older child or a child from foster care here..What? That's not what they want? Oh yeah.that's why we own human trafficking. As long as we pay for babies, why would a government stop the barbaric practice? Source(s): Think globally, perform locally.
I believe international adoption is helping the very young children. But, there are tons older children out on the streets of third world countries just trying to survive. They are labeled outcasts and recurrently lead violent lives and die violent death. Many older chilldern suffer.
Maybe we could help by assisting their parents with undo arms as they come to the USA for a better life?
Are you lower than the assumption that American adoptee's never leave America?
im sorry im confused whats the question ?
Adoption is good if there going to a fitting home i think everybody needs a family
If in-country assistance fail, then why should a kid need to be adopted purely to get the same assistance. What should happen is international fostering, and later the child's life won't be based on the lie to be exact adoption.
Here is how it should work:
1. Familes should keep their children.
2. Children should be cared for by other inherited members if it is not possible for the parents to raise the child.
3. Domestic adoption should take priority over international adoptions. Korea realizes this and i.e. why they are halting international adoptions after 2012.
International adoption should be the LAST resort.
ETA: Foster programs and domestic adoptions CAN happen presently. I don't know why that answer is not good enough. It seems resembling it's easy for people to pick at what other people read out but I don't see these folks coming up with suggestions either. Obviously the point is to tell those against IA to shut up because IA HAS to surface now because change takes too long. If everyone subscribed to this good-for-nothing way of thinking, nothing would ever get done. Stop ranting.
Also, for those those who think that all actual orphans and children unable to be domestically adopt in these countries should be internationally adopted, why don't you think indistinguishable for foster children in United States? Shouldn't they be adopted out elsewhere? Face it. IA is a multi million dollar business.
edit: I am not trying to hint foster care programs are currently in place. I am saying I don't infer it would take years to accomplish. Exactly what was your solution? If your solution is that IA continue on as it is, I cannot and will not draw from on board with that. Sorry.
eta: There really is still no solution provided by you. That is incredibly vague. Aren't the question more about providing more specific answers? This particular question is nil more than a justification for why IA should continue. The other was asked by a biased IAP who have shown in this forum she thinks IA should continue.
Answers: Once again, not a soul is questioning what *should*, in an ideal world, be going on. Of course, there needs to be changes. But once again, why are IAP's demonized when near are children *right now* with no alternatives? Please, what is your solution *for this moment in time*? Should those kids just stay here, and too bad for them? Or should we work, long term toward stopping IA in desire of better social structures within these countries, and be supportive of *ethical* adoption in the interim?
No one could answer my question, as the asker pointed out, when I posed it surrounded by my last response...I'm hoping someone can answer it now. We're talking exceptionally short-term here, *before* those things are in place. What happens to the kids who are there right presently? They are people, and should be entitled to basic human rights, which include health effort and education.
And for those who believe that *legitimately* orphaned children should not be removed from their country, I will point out that many, many adults from those same countries apply for refugee status contained by the U.S. and Canada every day. While I believe that the best case scenario is to always try to hold on to the kids with parents firstly, extended family next and inwardly their own country, third, when these three are not possible, is adoption not a better option than a child remaining in an orphanage where on earth there are limited options?
I agree beside the asker. I feel that we are all waxing philosophically going on for what *should* be, but have yet to come back down to mud to deal with the situation that *is*. In my opinion, it's two pronged: work long occupancy to end the need for IA, work in the meantime to do what is contained by the best interest of the kids and their immediate needs. Stop unethical adoption, baby-buying, child-trafficking. Zero tolerance. Ensure that only legitimately orphaned children can be adopted, etc., etc., etc...
ETA: Kate, children in foster consideration in the US and Canada (and elsewhere, but this is where I live) have their straightforward needs met. There are situations in orphanages (not all, I realize) where on earth these kids do not.
Also, many of these countries don't have a foster care system. That's the integral problem.
Oh, and it takes months to just approve a parent to foster in an established system. Some of these countries don't even enjoy a blueprint for one. How would you like to implement this in the next week so that the kids who are not currently reception care have a foster home to go to? I offered a solution. I look forward to audible range yours. I would love it if there were foster homes available now, but here are not. And in many cultures, fostering and domestic adoption are nearly non-existent because they are not culturally accepted.
I am not a proponent of IA man a *solution*, but again, I think for right now, it is stopgap. By right now, I don't close-fisted the next ten years, either. When I say "short term", I connote SHORT term.
ETA: Kate, re-read my answer, and you'll find the following:
"In my opinion, it's two pronged: work long term to appendage the need for IA, work in the meantime to do what is in the best interest of the kids and their instantaneous needs. Stop unethical adoptions, baby-buying, child-trafficking. Zero tolerance. Ensure that simply legitimately orphaned children can be adopted, etc., etc., etc..."
I *never* implied that it should be left as is, nor did I say that! Did you even read any of my answers?? I'm not a huge proponent of IA, I'm only saying that there have to be a slightly more gradual change, or a *lot* of children are going to fall through the cracks. And those kids are no less entitled to have their basic needs met than children who are born into untenable situations 10 years from now. They will not discontinue to exist simply because some adoption practices are unethical, or because someone living a very comfortable life on the other side of the world think IA is abhorrent. They're still there, with or minus your support.
This whole question was asking going on for short-term solutions, while awaiting long-term change...Who said anything at all about departure IA as is??
ETA3: You guys, for the umpteenth time, I agree that programs need to be funded to *prevent* IA, and to (ideally) stop it.What I'm asking how to address the kids that are there *right now*. Not, as in subsequent year, as in, this very minute. Many of those kids need things, resembling medical attention, and affection. Do you have millions of bucks in your back pocket to progress and fix a whole village tomorrow? Again, I'm talking in the region of kids that are legitimately orphaned, no one coming back for them. Once again, in plentiful of these cultures, the people simply don't *want* to foster, or adopt. So, what do we do about those kids? How do we make sure that they not lone get adequate medical attention and education (in context near their culture, not necessarily a "western" education), as well as the opportunity to form a healthy attachment to someone so they have resources into adult years? Once they turn 18, they still need support.
i think they should be kept within their own country unless necessary. the US is overpopulating as it is and we are running out of room to hold on to bringing people over. If it comes to it where thats not an option next its fine.
Related Questions: