Thoughts on Adoption

Started by franciszver, March 02, 2013, 02:42:30 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

totiusque

I took the OP to mean what are your thoughts on adopting children who have already been put up for adoption, not whether it is better for the birth mother to raise the child or not.

Adoption in itself is obviously a wonderful thing, since many children are either in orphanages or in foster homes passed on from one family to the next.  This is even more true in third world countries where children are often abused and mistreated.  I have an ex-girlfriend whose parents adopted a girl from China born with a physical disability, and she was placed in a high chair all day with no one to pick her up or let her play around.  Not only that, but she was severely malnourished.  She wouldn't have made it another year in that environment.
"Whenever anything disagreeable or displeasing happens to you, remember Christ crucified and be silent."
—St John of the Cross

Theophilus

I think adoption red tape/regulations should be decreased so more kids could be adopted faster.  What are there, 2 million couples waiting to adopt?  I know a handful of childless couples that would or would have like(d) to adopt but say it's too expensive (not sure how much it costs).  I think Erin thinks that the women who put their kids up for adoption are bonded to them but I have worked in the ER where women deliver and they don't want anything to do with the baby, they don't even want to look at it.  In my opinion, the best thing for that baby is to go to a couple who is waiting with open arms.
"Only little children and those who are like them shall be admitted to the Heavenly Banquet."–St. Therese of Lisieux
"Because he hath therefore scattered you among the Gentiles, who know not him, that you may declare his wonderful works, and make them know that there is no other Almighty God besides him."

OCLittleFlower

Quote from: erin is nice on March 03, 2013, 06:57:08 PM

How you feel about your flesh and blood child is nothing like buying a house.

Feelings aren't the point -- they're almost never the best way to make a choice.  My point is that the law allows postpartum women to make decisions, even ones that can't be taken back.  They don't have a ban on marriage for 90 days after giving birth, either, now do they?

Quote from: erin is nice on March 03, 2013, 06:57:08 PM
Further, you've commented on the statistics about children raised by single mothers-- The divorce rate is at least 50%, so an adopted child still has a very good chance of ending up being raised by a single mother. And a single mother will not necessarily stay single.

The divorce rate is highly misunderstood in terms of individual risk.  The 50% is also contested, anyway.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1989124,00.html
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/05/19/15-ways-to-predict-divorce.html

While I can't find specific stats on adoptive parents -- I'm willing to make an educated that their marriages are more likely to survive because adoptive parents are screened and tend to be more affluent than all couples in general.

-- currently writing a Trad romance entitled Flirting with Sedevacantism --

???? ?? ?????? ????????? ???, ?? ?????.

erin is nice

I'm pretty sure that affluent couples don't divorce less than the poor unwashed masses. And I know all about the adoption screening process, and it is not a good indicator of a lifelong marriage. Besides, if a couple who was looking to adopt was asked about marital problems, I highly doubt they'd be honest.

The love a mother has for her child is the best reason to keep him, and do her absolute best to take care of him. Convincing women that love means giving your baby to someone "better" is cruel and manipulative.

I have no problem with drug addicts having their parental rights terminated, or other parents who are clearly a danger to their children. This would provide plenty of children for adopting couples.

stitchmom

Quote from: TTBG on March 03, 2013, 10:52:45 PM
I think adoption red tape/regulations should be decreased so more kids could be adopted faster.  What are there, 2 million couples waiting to adopt?  I know a handful of childless couples that would or would have like(d) to adopt but say it's too expensive (not sure how much it costs).  I think Erin thinks that the women who put their kids up for adoption are bonded to them but I have worked in the ER where women deliver and they don't want anything to do with the baby, they don't even want to look at it.  In my opinion, the best thing for that baby is to go to a couple who is waiting with open arms.

There is no need to supply the "demand" of healthy newborns for adoptive parents.

As far as easier, I can't imagine a what "legal trouble" there is when a mother and father find adoptive parents and are ready to relinquish their rights to the adoptive parents.

Theophilus

Quote from: stitchmom on March 04, 2013, 08:25:43 AM
Quote from: TTBG on March 03, 2013, 10:52:45 PM
I think adoption red tape/regulations should be decreased so more kids could be adopted faster.  What are there, 2 million couples waiting to adopt?  I know a handful of childless couples that would or would have like(d) to adopt but say it's too expensive (not sure how much it costs).  I think Erin thinks that the women who put their kids up for adoption are bonded to them but I have worked in the ER where women deliver and they don't want anything to do with the baby, they don't even want to look at it.  In my opinion, the best thing for that baby is to go to a couple who is waiting with open arms.

There is no need to supply the "demand" of healthy newborns for adoptive parents.

As far as easier, I can't imagine a what "legal trouble" there is when a mother and father find adoptive parents and are ready to relinquish their rights to the adoptive parents.
Maybe I wasn't clear enough.  I'm saying once a baby's abandoned, why go through so much foster care when there are couples that are waiting to adopt.  The people I know that have adopted recently have all said there's a lot of waiting, and "maybe it's going to work" and paperwork.  Countries like China and India where boys are preferred like to abandon the girls.

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/bric-yard/only-2518-millions-indian-girls-abandoned-2009-were-adopted
This link headlines "
Only 2,518 of millions of Indian girls abandoned in 2009 were adopted--90% of India's 11 million abandoned children were girls

http://globalvoicesonline.org/2012/04/03/videos-female-gendercide-and-infanticide-in-india-and-china/

One other problem in the US is that some of the couples waiting to adopt want a baby who is healthy and white , so right there a lot of kids are not wanted.
"Only little children and those who are like them shall be admitted to the Heavenly Banquet."–St. Therese of Lisieux
"Because he hath therefore scattered you among the Gentiles, who know not him, that you may declare his wonderful works, and make them know that there is no other Almighty God besides him."

OCLittleFlower

Quote from: erin is nice on March 04, 2013, 08:15:08 AM
I'm pretty sure that affluent couples don't divorce less than the poor unwashed masses.

Statistics would indicate otherwise.  Being at the very least not destitute improves the chances of marital success.  And if you are totally broke, there's no way to afford the legal fees and such associated with adoption.

Quote from: erin is nice on March 04, 2013, 08:15:08 AM
And I know all about the adoption screening process, and it is not a good indicator of a lifelong marriage. Besides, if a couple who was looking to adopt was asked about marital problems, I highly doubt they'd be honest.

They dig a bit deeper than just asking "How's your marriage," at least with international adoption.  Domestic, well, it depends on the agency, etc.  Even so, I can't imagine a couple on the brink of divorce choosing to go through all of the paperwork and waiting.

Quote from: erin is nice on March 04, 2013, 08:15:08 AM
The love a mother has for her child is the best reason to keep him, and do her absolute best to take care of him. Convincing women that love means giving your baby to someone "better" is cruel and manipulative.

Love isn't a good reason to make lifelong descisions -- at least not as a sole reason.  Nope, not even marriage, no matter what secular society says.  And true love is self-sacrificing anyway -- look at Christ, look at Mary.  Any "love" that prompts a woman to raise a child single, with no money, with no prospects, is a very selfish, taking sort of love.

Quote from: erin is nice on March 04, 2013, 08:15:08 AM
I have no problem with drug addicts having their parental rights terminated, or other parents who are clearly a danger to their children. This would provide plenty of children for adopting couples.

A couple issues with this --

1) It isn't just about providing babies/children for adopting couples.  It's about the welfare of all children.  And a truly loving (in the self sacrificing sense) mother will place her child if she isn't the best home for that child.

2) When rights are terminated, it's still often a slow process to an adoptive home.  And foster to adopt can get a bit messy, with the parents hoping to adopt taking the child in before rights are terminated.  Which is all well and good the first time around -- but how do you explain to your exisiting kids that "this might be your sister, hopefully, in the future."  It leads to a lot of hedging your bets and conflict between attaching for the good of the child and holding back for the good of everyone in case the placement doesn't work out.

3) Many families, rightly, wrongly, whatever -- are hesitant to adopt the children of drug addicts due to prenatal exposure.
-- currently writing a Trad romance entitled Flirting with Sedevacantism --

???? ?? ?????? ????????? ???, ?? ?????.

OCLittleFlower

Quote from: TTBG on March 04, 2013, 02:30:09 PM
One other problem in the US is that some of the couples waiting to adopt want a baby who is healthy and white , so right there a lot of kids are not wanted.

There are a lot of complex issues with that.  Personally -- my husband and I are open to toddlers with mild to moderate health issues. 

Race, though, is a complex issue for us because of racism in my husband's family.  The choices (post-adoption) would boildown to watching our child be mistreated or at best never quite accepted OR driving a wedge between him and his family.

For many families, adopting a child with a serious health condition is just too much -- be it due to finances, or other reasons.  Imagine you live in a house where all the bedrooms are upstairs.  Unless you move, it might be impossible to adopt a child who will always be wheelchair bound.  Most homes don't have doors wide enough for wheelchairs, or might not have ramp access.  And then there's the special car with the wheelchair lift.  There are families who can provide all that, and families who can't.  And God bless the ones who can.
-- currently writing a Trad romance entitled Flirting with Sedevacantism --

???? ?? ?????? ????????? ???, ?? ?????.

erin is nice

Quote from: OCLittleFlower on March 04, 2013, 02:57:08 PM
Quote from: TTBG on March 04, 2013, 02:30:09 PM
One other problem in the US is that some of the couples waiting to adopt want a baby who is healthy and white , so right there a lot of kids are not wanted.

There are a lot of complex issues with that.  Personally -- my husband and I are open to toddlers with mild to moderate health issues. 

Race, though, is a complex issue for us because of racism in my husband's family.  The choices (post-adoption) would boildown to watching our child be mistreated or at best never quite accepted OR driving a wedge between him and his family.

For many families, adopting a child with a serious health condition is just too much -- be it due to finances, or other reasons.  Imagine you live in a house where all the bedrooms are upstairs.  Unless you move, it might be impossible to adopt a child who will always be wheelchair bound.  Most homes don't have doors wide enough for wheelchairs, or might not have ramp access.  And then there's the special car with the wheelchair lift.  There are families who can provide all that, and families who can't.  And God bless the ones who can.

They can't because they choose not to. If you give birth to a child, you don't know if he will be healthy or not, and if he isn't, you just have to deal with it. You don't get to decide what you can or can't handle.

OCLittleFlower

Quote from: erin is nice on March 04, 2013, 07:20:52 PM
Quote from: OCLittleFlower on March 04, 2013, 02:57:08 PM
Quote from: TTBG on March 04, 2013, 02:30:09 PM
One other problem in the US is that some of the couples waiting to adopt want a baby who is healthy and white , so right there a lot of kids are not wanted.

There are a lot of complex issues with that.  Personally -- my husband and I are open to toddlers with mild to moderate health issues. 

Race, though, is a complex issue for us because of racism in my husband's family.  The choices (post-adoption) would boildown to watching our child be mistreated or at best never quite accepted OR driving a wedge between him and his family.

For many families, adopting a child with a serious health condition is just too much -- be it due to finances, or other reasons.  Imagine you live in a house where all the bedrooms are upstairs.  Unless you move, it might be impossible to adopt a child who will always be wheelchair bound.  Most homes don't have doors wide enough for wheelchairs, or might not have ramp access.  And then there's the special car with the wheelchair lift.  There are families who can provide all that, and families who can't.  And God bless the ones who can.

They can't because they choose not to. If you give birth to a child, you don't know if he will be healthy or not, and if he isn't, you just have to deal with it. You don't get to decide what you can or can't handle.

It's true, but it's an over simplification.  For one thing, the chance of giving birth to a severely handicapped child is slim.  For another, insurance through work doesn't always cover the preexisting conditions of an adopted child -- even if they would cover the exact same condition in a biological child.

And some things -- like drug exposure -- are under the biological mother's control.   One of the conditions my husband and I aren't open to is HIV+ -- something a theoretical biological child of ours would never be born with.

And yes, it is a choice, but it's a choice that should be made wisely.  Yes, sometimes difficulties happen and there's nothing we can do but make the best of a tough situation.  But that doesn't mean we need to go looking for difficulties in every case.
-- currently writing a Trad romance entitled Flirting with Sedevacantism --

???? ?? ?????? ????????? ???, ?? ?????.

erin is nice

Quote from: OCLittleFlower on March 04, 2013, 02:49:05 PM
Quote from: erin is nice on March 04, 2013, 08:15:08 AM
I'm pretty sure that affluent couples don't divorce less than the poor unwashed masses.

Statistics would indicate otherwise.  Being at the very least not destitute improves the chances of marital success.  And if you are totally broke, there's no way to afford the legal fees and such associated with adoption.

Quote from: erin is nice on March 04, 2013, 08:15:08 AM
The love a mother has for her child is the best reason to keep him, and do her absolute best to take care of him. Convincing women that love means giving your baby to someone "better" is cruel and manipulative.

Love isn't a good reason to make lifelong descisions -- at least not as a sole reason.  Nope, not even marriage, no matter what secular society says.  And true love is self-sacrificing anyway -- look at Christ, look at Mary.  Any "love" that prompts a woman to raise a child single, with no money, with no prospects, is a very selfish, taking sort of love.

Quote from: erin is nice on March 04, 2013, 08:15:08 AM
I have no problem with drug addicts having their parental rights terminated, or other parents who are clearly a danger to their children. This would provide plenty of children for adopting couples.

A couple issues with this --

1) It isn't just about providing babies/children for adopting couples.  It's about the welfare of all children.  And a truly loving (in the self sacrificing sense) mother will place her child if she isn't the best home for that child.

2) When rights are terminated, it's still often a slow process to an adoptive home.  And foster to adopt can get a bit messy, with the parents hoping to adopt taking the child in before rights are terminated.  Which is all well and good the first time around -- but how do you explain to your exisiting kids that "this might be your sister, hopefully, in the future."  It leads to a lot of hedging your bets and conflict between attaching for the good of the child and holding back for the good of everyone in case the placement doesn't work out.

Obviously the foster care process needs to be changed. I think everyone can agree on that.

I disagree with your belief that material wealth is important in determining whether one would be a good mother. There are plenty of married couples with "no money, and no prospects"-- should they give up their babies to "better" families too?

I understand that you are upset because you feel like these women don't deserve children, and you do deserve a child (because you have been oh so good), but in the words of Clint Eastwood-- deserves got nothin' to do with it.

Kaesekopf

Quote from: erin is nice on March 03, 2013, 07:35:58 AM
THIS! We have to remember that there are a lot of very intense hormonal changes immediately after giving birth, and it is not an appropriate time to make such a huge decision. Most women suffer some level of post-partum depression, how can they decide to give up their babies in that state?

I honestly don't care about "fairness" to adoptive parents. They should stop acting like they have the right to someone else's child just because they think she is "unfit".

Or is it more for the fit, less for the unfit, OCLF?

Quote from: erin is nice on March 05, 2013, 06:27:41 AM
Obviously the foster care process needs to be changed. I think everyone can agree on that.

I disagree with your belief that material wealth is important in determining whether one would be a good mother. There are plenty of married couples with "no money, and no prospects"-- should they give up their babies to "better" families too?

I understand that you are upset because you feel like these women don't deserve children, and you do deserve a child (because you have been oh so good), but in the words of Clint Eastwood-- deserves got nothin' to do with it.

Erin, we don't need these kinds of personal attacks involved in these discussions.  Take a day off from posting here. 
Wie dein Sonntag, so dein Sterbetag.

I am not altogether on anybody's side, because nobody is altogether on my side.  ~Treebeard, LOTR

Jesus son of David, have mercy on me.

OCLittleFlower

Quote from: erin is nice on March 05, 2013, 06:27:41 AM

Obviously the foster care process needs to be changed. I think everyone can agree on that.

Fair enough.

Quote from: erin is nice on March 05, 2013, 06:27:41 AM
I disagree with your belief that material wealth is important in determining whether one would be a good mother. There are plenty of married couples with "no money, and no prospects"-- should they give up their babies to "better" families too?

Money's important.  After all, kids need to eat.

If I were destitute enough for food stamps, etc, and married, there would be total abstinence in this house.  Instituted by my husband, actually -- he isn't a believer in taking any chances as far as not being able to care for a child goes.

And yes, there have been married couples who have placed their children in another family due to hardship.  It's very sad, of course, but it might be for the best.   Though at least with a married couple the child has an extra level of safety net that comes from having two parents.

Quote from: erin is nice on March 05, 2013, 06:27:41 AM
I understand that you are upset because you feel like these women don't deserve children, and you do deserve a child (because you have been oh so good), but in the words of Clint Eastwood-- deserves got nothin' to do with it.

You understand very poorly, then.

I'm concerned about the children. 

But then, you're resorting to personal attacks rather than addressing my points...
-- currently writing a Trad romance entitled Flirting with Sedevacantism --

???? ?? ?????? ????????? ???, ?? ?????.

stitchmom

Quote from: OCLittleFlower on March 04, 2013, 08:11:55 PM
Quote from: erin is nice on March 04, 2013, 07:20:52 PM
Quote from: OCLittleFlower on March 04, 2013, 02:57:08 PM
Quote from: TTBG on March 04, 2013, 02:30:09 PM
One other problem in the US is that some of the couples waiting to adopt want a baby who is healthy and white , so right there a lot of kids are not wanted.

There are a lot of complex issues with that.  Personally -- my husband and I are open to toddlers with mild to moderate health issues. 

Race, though, is a complex issue for us because of racism in my husband's family.  The choices (post-adoption) would boildown to watching our child be mistreated or at best never quite accepted OR driving a wedge between him and his family.

For many families, adopting a child with a serious health condition is just too much -- be it due to finances, or other reasons.  Imagine you live in a house where all the bedrooms are upstairs.  Unless you move, it might be impossible to adopt a child who will always be wheelchair bound.  Most homes don't have doors wide enough for wheelchairs, or might not have ramp access.  And then there's the special car with the wheelchair lift.  There are families who can provide all that, and families who can't.  And God bless the ones who can.

They can't because they choose not to. If you give birth to a child, you don't know if he will be healthy or not, and if he isn't, you just have to deal with it. You don't get to decide what you can or can't handle.

It's true, but it's an over simplification.  For one thing, the chance of giving birth to a severely handicapped child is slim.  For another, insurance through work doesn't always cover the preexisting conditions of an adopted child -- even if they would cover the exact same condition in a biological child.

And some things -- like drug exposure -- are under the biological mother's control.   One of the conditions my husband and I aren't open to is HIV+ -- something a theoretical biological child of ours would never be born with.

And yes, it is a choice, but it's a choice that should be made wisely.  Yes, sometimes difficulties happen and there's nothing we can do but make the best of a tough situation.  But that doesn't mean we need to go looking for difficulties in every case.

Any child in the system should have medicaid and a certificate of credible coverage would be enough for the parent's insurance company to cover it. If they are coming out of foster care and have special needs, I believe in most states they stay covered under medicaid.

OCLittleFlower

That doesn't apply to international adoptees, though.  So adopt a handicapped child out of a foreign orphanage where they barely get care, and you're at the mercy of your insurance company here in the States.  At least here in California, they don't want people bringing in kids that will be a drain on the state, so you have to be able to provide it yourself (through insurance or your own money, but not through state aid).

I don't know much about medicaid -- we don't have it here, we have something called MediCal instead.  Do they cover things like widening doorways?
-- currently writing a Trad romance entitled Flirting with Sedevacantism --

???? ?? ?????? ????????? ???, ?? ?????.