FEOS wrote:
Too many kids need a loving home to not allow people who can provide that to do so.
Absolutely.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
Poll
should gay couples be allowed to adopt?
| yes | 86% | 86% - 37 | ||||
| no | 13% | 13% - 6 | ||||
| Total: 43 | ||||||
An orpanage is no place except a storage center/distribution warehouse for a product ( children) which are marketed and sold for profit. There is no reason it should cost a famly 20-30 thousand dollars to provide a child with a stable and loving home. Someone is getting rich off of this process.Turquoise wrote:
This is an interesting point. To a degree, we already subsidize the process via orphanages. However, it's largely the regulations in place that drive up the cost of adoption. Less regulations would make the process much cheaper.lowing wrote:
Anyone, or couple that can provide love and stability to a child should be able to adopt. This is also one institution where I feel govt. should subsidize. the entire program.
Too many loving and able families out there have the means and desire to adopt a child but are kept down by the unbelievable high costs involved. A child's chance at stability and quality of life should not be road blocked by the inability to pay off the agency holding him. In my humble opinion it is no less than human trafficking..
As for the money changing hands... well, that's just the way the system is. It's not the most moral or ethical way of doing things, but... it's kind of inevitable.
I love the idea of foster homes, but it takes a special family to endure the rollercoaster of emotion that comes with bringing in a child, getting attached, and then giving them up again. We have considered becoming foster parents before but with uncertainty of my job, and the possibilty that I will have to go away again, we decided not to do it. Another factor was taking attention away from our own kids.
Not sure where you are getting your bad feelings about orphanages from. I am really curious to find out why you view the current process as so evil. In my experience, they are providing a very needed service. I would not call the US orphanages a warehouse for children. The older children in the US that are up for adoption are generally pretty screwed up. Look into it sometime. We looked into a couple of kids in the US and were steered away by our social worker. The majority of adoptions in the US are infant adoptions. These are fairly expensive because the birth mother can ask for money. There is also a waiting list so they can ask a fair amount. In reality, the need in the US is very low compared to many other countries. Like I said earlier, right now anyone who can provide a good family life outside the orphanage should be considered as viable adoptive parents.lowing wrote:
An orpanage is no place except a storage center/distribution warehouse for a product ( children) which are marketed and sold for profit. There is no reason it should cost a famly 20-30 thousand dollars to provide a child with a stable and loving home. Someone is getting rich off of this process.
As for the international adoption the money is split up quite a bit between various places. Agency fees, travel/lodging, orphanage donation (China anyways), government fees for applications, and others I am sure I am forgetting.
General cost info.
Yes, it does take a special family to do foster care. Hopefully someday you can still do it. As far as taking attention away from your kids, you might be surprised how much it can bring a family together. We know a couple families that have been doing foster care for a while now. Their families are some of the closest and most loving families we know. Which causes which though? Maybe they are just good families to start and it just carries over still. Maybe they were close families and they got even closer.lowing wrote:
I love the idea of foster homes, but it takes a special family to endure the rollercoaster of emotion that comes with bringing in a child, getting attached, and then giving them up again. We have considered becoming foster parents before but with uncertainty of my job, and the possibilty that I will have to go away again, we decided not to do it. Another factor was taking attention away from our own kids.
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)
Well, again, if there were less regulations hindering the adoption process, the cost would be much lower. Yes, they are making profit if they are a private orphanage, but actually a lot of them are government run.lowing wrote:
An orpanage is no place except a storage center/distribution warehouse for a product ( children) which are marketed and sold for profit. There is no reason it should cost a famly 20-30 thousand dollars to provide a child with a stable and loving home. Someone is getting rich off of this process.
I love the idea of foster homes, but it takes a special family to endure the rollercoaster of emotion that comes with bringing in a child, getting attached, and then giving them up again. We have considered becoming foster parents before but with uncertainty of my job, and the possibilty that I will have to go away again, we decided not to do it. Another factor was taking attention away from our own kids.
In the US, very few orphanages are state-run. In fact, there are very few orphanages in general. We use the foster-care system rather than orphanages. And adopting is hideously expensive, whether adopting domestically or internationally (taking travel costs out of the equation, of course). It far exceeds the costs of biological birth, which is asinine.Turquoise wrote:
This is an interesting point. To a degree, we already subsidize the process via orphanages. However, it's largely the regulations in place that drive up the cost of adoption. Less regulations would make the process much cheaper.lowing wrote:
Anyone, or couple that can provide love and stability to a child should be able to adopt. This is also one institution where I feel govt. should subsidize. the entire program.
Too many loving and able families out there have the means and desire to adopt a child but are kept down by the unbelievable high costs involved. A child's chance at stability and quality of life should not be road blocked by the inability to pay off the agency holding him. In my humble opinion it is no less than human trafficking..
As for the money changing hands... well, that's just the way the system is. It's not the most moral or ethical way of doing things, but... it's kind of inevitable.
That's why I think the one place the government could help would be to subsidize the costs of adoption, since it's government agencies you are normally paying these fees to, anyway.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Yes. Now you all can pick yourselves up off the floor. Morally, I don't agree with the lifestyle. But if the couple is found fit for a child, I'd much rather have that child in a loving home and traveling about the foster system. Reducing the cost of adoption is an idea I've always supported.
This.Shahter wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Too many kids need a loving home to not allow people who can provide that to do so.
Absolutely.
As long as they're good parents idc. Anyone who makes fun of them for their parents can shove it.
About the lifestyle gays have I'm still on the fence. Sure there are undesirable things one could get from being raised by a gay couple, but the same is true about straight people.. So, yea, as long as they're fit to be parents go right ahead I say.
Honestly I am not sure how many orphanages are out there any more. Regardless, adoption comes down to the ability to pay off someone, and I don't think that should be a factor in trying to improve a childs life.Turquoise wrote:
Well, again, if there were less regulations hindering the adoption process, the cost would be much lower. Yes, they are making profit if they are a private orphanage, but actually a lot of them are government run.lowing wrote:
An orpanage is no place except a storage center/distribution warehouse for a product ( children) which are marketed and sold for profit. There is no reason it should cost a famly 20-30 thousand dollars to provide a child with a stable and loving home. Someone is getting rich off of this process.
I love the idea of foster homes, but it takes a special family to endure the rollercoaster of emotion that comes with bringing in a child, getting attached, and then giving them up again. We have considered becoming foster parents before but with uncertainty of my job, and the possibilty that I will have to go away again, we decided not to do it. Another factor was taking attention away from our own kids.
No - three people will have AIDS instead of two...srsly
....not so srsly
....maybe
.... joking
....not so srsly
....maybe
.... joking