Don't you think poor people should mandatorily put their children up for adoption?

Question

I've heard a lot of people say things like 'money doesn't replace a parent', etc, but some money is necessary in order to actually live and survive. If children are given up for adoption they will have parents AND an opportunity to make something of their lives.

Obviously anyone who abuses a child should have the child taken off them, but don't you think people living in extreme poverty should have to do the same?

Answer 1

This has got to be the dumbest most closed minded thing I have ever heard in my life...beyond racism, beyond....wow..anything.  Wow...that's just stupid

And I'm a HAPPY adoptee and a birth mom

Answer 2

If the poor people's in ability to provide for their child's needs jeopardizes the child's health then usually the social workers will step in and take away the children. But just being poor is a bad reason to take children away from the parents. I mean who will determine how much money is enough?

It should be handled on a case by case basis.

Answer 3

I grew up in a house with no heat or electricity, and barely any food. Yet somehow I grew up to be a smarter and better human being than you. Its funny how life works isn't it?

The answer is no.

Answer 4

youre very judgeMENTAL!

Answer 5

NO!  THAT IS INSANE! Poor people have as much right to have babies as "Rich" people.  ALLAH(Subhanna wa ta'ala) tells us that we shouldn't get abortions for fear of poverty because ALLAH(Subhanna wa ta'ala) provides wealth for each new baby born from unexepected places.

Answer 6

I agree with Vey Hawt. Amen brother!

Answer 7

No.  The only case where adoption should be mandated is if the child is in harm.  No one should be forced to have their child removed from them unless they are doing something to harm the child.  

As someone who cannot have children, I know the pain I have personally gone through with not being able to get pregnant.  I cannot imagine forcing someone to make an adoption plan for their child if that is not the decision they want to make.

Answer 8

I feel sorry for narrow-minded people...

Answer 9

No.  What the heck is wrong with you?

I'm just curious--are there any other aspects of human existence you think we should deny the poor, or should they simply have to function as breeders for the rich infertile?  And why not imprison the poverty-stricken woman-cows while they're pregnant so they won't smoke or drink while they're carrying someone else's baby?  We could force feed them a perfectly nutritious diet and milk them so the adoptive parents won't have to buy formula.

And when they're no longer fertile, shall we bring back the workhouses and let them go die there, Mr. Scrooge?

Answer 10

Hmmm yeah.  And let's see, who's a nice, "fit" rich person who could take these poor kids... Britney?

LOLOLOLOLLLOOLLOLLOLLLL!!!

Thanks for the morning laugh, I think I had my ab workout for the day Sash!  Think I'll go make a Noodle-salad now.

Answer 11

There was a study that was done that found that children are better off living with birth parents, even if a little disfunctional, then living in foster care.  I do not think that this would solve anything, and certainly would not be in the best interest of the child.

Answer 12

That's why the government has so many great programs available to low income families...from financial support to housing to parenting support

Answer 13

Oh yes, fabulous idea, fabulous. You are right, Mary should have given Jesus up for adoption, look how poor she was, she obviously ruined his chances at making anything of his life.

Let's see, who else...  H.G. Wells. Sojourner Truth. Dwight Eisenhower. Vincent Van Gogh. Harriet Beecher Stowe. Marco Polo. Louis Armstrong. Michael Faraday. Abraham Lincoln. Lousia May Alcott. Ben Carson.

Yup, they all should have been given up for adoption to escape their poverty, maybe then they could have made something of themselves.

Answer 14

I thought being obese was the last USA bastion of bigotry, but I was wrong.  Now, it's the poor.

A child belongs to the one who gave it birth regardless of economic status.  The Bible says, "Better a bowl of soup where love is than a feast where there is discord."  Children grew up in the depression--my mom and dad were among them--without a sense of deprivation and became productive members of society.

If the child is being abused or neglected, then certainly, social services should step in, but otherwise, MYOB (mind your own business).

Answer 15

No one man or woman should have to give up their children. But since the woman has all the rights (sad fact) who would like to tell them woman to give your child up just because your not rich. Not me.

Most people with the income your talking about don't spend any time with their children anyway some maid does it. So give the child to the maid. Or better yet take them away and put these poor worthless children in foster homes (one after another) and not let them have a sence of belonging and love then I will tell you what you will get one sad lonely child kinda like the young man that went into that mall and shot  a dozen of people before he killed hisself. I have meet more rick kids on drug than poor one because they can afford them. Get real

Answer 16

Absolutely not.  I sure hope you don't find yourself in a financial crisis, with a baby on the way.  Eating your own words is a vile meal, indeed.

Answer 17

Ok so when my ex threw me out on the streets during my pregnancy and I was unable to work due to complications I should have been forced to place my daughter? I was couch surfing and living hand to mouth for the duration of my pregnancy as well as the first month of my daughter's life, so she should have been denied her Mother? Now, 22 months later, I have a stable home and income. People do turn their lives around and no child should be made to suffer when a woman finds herself in financial duress. Period!

Answer 18

Being poor isn't a disease...It is a situation, and all situations can change.  For you to sit here and think that because someone is poor they are better off giving there kids up for adoption.  It is sad really.  Alot of the Richest people in the world come from poverty.  Do you have kids?  I do, I have 2.  If I were poor they would be with me no matter what.  Do you know what happens when kids are put up for adoptions, or the state takes them from parents?  They are put in the system.  A lot of those kids never see adoption;  the closest they Might get is a foster home, and believe me most of the time it isn't like you must think.  But sometimes they get adopted to a Good home.  The system isn't completely broken, but it could sure use a overhaul.  To think that poor people can't raise children is just naive.

Answer 19

NO! there are many 'poor' families who lead 'richer' family lives than most.

What an awful suggestion, I hope you don't seriously condone this immoral breach of human rights

Answer 20

People like you should be exiled from a peace loving democracy country.  Your logic is as wrong as Adolf Hitler.  Call me a wacko for asking this, but why don't you do something about the "extreme poverty" you speak of, rather than taking away childen from poor people?

Answer 21

just bc you have money doesn't mean you will be a good parent!

I know ppl who struggle month to month, but they teach their children, the meaning to a happy life with out having or trying to be rich!

I am not rich, but I have enough to raise my child. I teach her to work, not think the world or her parents will buy any thing and everything she whats.

I find the children of rich ppl, don't what to work, expect a pay cheque for sitting on their as* doing nothing. they are a snobbish pain in the as*es!

no offence but each to their own, though ppl in extreme poverty should be given a hand to get back on their feet! Not having their children taken away!

those children will end up fighting, going to jail, and then end up just like their parents! Bc all they were doing is trying to get back to the parents that love them, not to some person they don't know!

Anyway that is what I think!

good luck!

Answer 22

There's is always government help if they choose to ask for that assistance but no i think it should be the parents option if they feel their child would have a better chance with someone else then that is their choice and their business!

Answer 23

This raises a deeper question...  Why are there people living in extreme poverty?  Why are there people who have more money than GOD, but we have people living in such abject poverty?  Perhaps, rather than stealing their children, we should be fixing society so that no one is living in extreme poverty.

Answer 24

OMG - I can't believe that you're asking this question.

Obviously you have NO idea how it feels to be taken from your family - and shoved with complete strangers.

Please read up on ALL sides of adoption.

Answer 25

NO!

Answer 26

no maybe some people who are so busy helping other countrys will open there eyes and realize poverty is so great right here in the good old US OFA  and some day there will be help for people who cant help that there lives are not as fortunate as ours my suggestion to you is this xmas try going to a shelter and feed the less fortunate may be it will make you think about this question.

Answer 27

to measure good parenthood through annual income is faulty. having money doesn't necessarily make someone a good parent, neither does having limited resources makes someone a bad parent.

also, i am a big supporter of providing assistance to parents who are experiencing financial hardships. especially since most are temporary.  i just don't think it's fair to take away children from their parents because they lack the financial means that "we" believe make parents better.

furthermore, i find it an reach that a family living in poverty is abusive to a child.  many parents raised children on modest incomes and did fine.

one more note: the missing varable in this argument is that parents generally love their children.  and i don't think that those with more resources love their children more.

so i do not believe parents should have their children taken simply due to lack of financial resources.  h**l, if we can spend billions of dollars on a war, i find it difficult to understand why we can't offer the support to ensure that natal bonds are not severed due to finances...

Answer 28

How poor is too poor?  What's the cut off point?  It seems that your energy would be better spent in figuring out ways to help people living in poverty change their situations instead of taking away their rights.

Answer 29

You are assuming that the only reason parents place their children for adoption is because of poverty and that just isn't true.

Answer 30

Sure... we'll send them all to your house.

Answer 31

Poverty, abuse, and neglect worked out fine for Oprah Winfrey. Jim Carry talks about his family and living out of their car. Imagine, successful people from poor families that weren't stolen from their parents by the adoption industry!