The reason that I think domestic adoption is preferable to international adoption is not because U.S. children are more special, but because (a) you can check out the agency better and be reasonably assured that they are not corrupt, and (b) because it improved the chances that a child can have some connection to his/her birth parents and his native culture.
@EuphrasieF True, but what about a situation where you've got 40 AIDS orphans living in cramped quarters in a third world country? While you make a good point, I'm afraid of how these types of kids could be affected if politics enters the debate.
First of all, adoption is only one solution, and it may not be the best. Take these hypothetical 40 AIDS orphans; you adopt one, or maybe even two, but what happens to the rest? The remaining children see no improvement in their circumstances. What if, instead of choosing to adopt, you choose to set up a fund to help provide all these 40 children with medical care?
@EuphrasieF Why must it be either or? Perhaps a two-prong approach is best. In all my years of working with young people I have never met an orphaned child who was fine with just receiving social services. All the kids I've known who lost their parents wanted that positive, nurturing adult influence and one-on-one attention in their lives. You cannot replace that need with medicine, clothes and scholarships.
Part A: The notion that "Every child deserves a mother and a father" has often been used to browbeat single parents (especially mothers) into giving up their children. Read books like "The Other Mother" and "The Girls Who Went Away," and other books where birth parents tell their stories, and then remember that these sorts of practices are still used in some countries, like South Korea.
Part B:
The reason that I think domestic adoption is preferable to international adoption is not because U.S. children are more special, but because (a) you can check out the agency better and be reasonably assured that they are not corrupt, and (b) because it improved the chances that a child can have some connection to his/her birth parents and his native culture.
EuphrasieF 11 months ago
@EuphrasieF True, but what about a situation where you've got 40 AIDS orphans living in cramped quarters in a third world country? While you make a good point, I'm afraid of how these types of kids could be affected if politics enters the debate.
artsylovelylady 9 months ago
@artsylovelylady
First of all, adoption is only one solution, and it may not be the best. Take these hypothetical 40 AIDS orphans; you adopt one, or maybe even two, but what happens to the rest? The remaining children see no improvement in their circumstances. What if, instead of choosing to adopt, you choose to set up a fund to help provide all these 40 children with medical care?
TBC
EuphrasieF 9 months ago
@EuphrasieF Why must it be either or? Perhaps a two-prong approach is best. In all my years of working with young people I have never met an orphaned child who was fine with just receiving social services. All the kids I've known who lost their parents wanted that positive, nurturing adult influence and one-on-one attention in their lives. You cannot replace that need with medicine, clothes and scholarships.
artsylovelylady 9 months ago
Part A: The notion that "Every child deserves a mother and a father" has often been used to browbeat single parents (especially mothers) into giving up their children. Read books like "The Other Mother" and "The Girls Who Went Away," and other books where birth parents tell their stories, and then remember that these sorts of practices are still used in some countries, like South Korea.
EuphrasieF 11 months ago
well said. very well said.
CaptainLinkx 1 year ago