Hypothetical adoption question?

Question

I've often heard people justify adoption as being natural because they saw a newstory where a puppy was "adopted" by a cat or vice-versa, when the natural mama was unable.

My hypothetical question is this: Say the real mama was able to recover from whatever was preventing her from being there. Would you reunite the mama and baby? Does the surrogate mama still retain rights to that baby or should the natural mama get her animal baby back? Should it be up to the baby to decide?

Answer 1

It's a bit pathetic to see someone thumbing down a person's own personal feelings.  How can that be wrong?  

Instead of wasting time on here thumbing down what someone feels, or actual facts (which I've also seen thumbed down), why don't these thumbers use their time more constructively in teaching others about all sides of adoption and what it all involves?

Answer 2

Hi Julie. First of all, I would never justify adoption because of what animals do. Animals eat their young, too, especially if they are malformed. And then you need to go into what kind of animal-mammal, bird, etc. Young birds often imprint at a very young age on whatever is moving nearby. I'm quite sure the mother recovers readily. Baby mammals just don't care about natural and surrogate mamas. Often breeders give young to "good nursers" especially if an animal has a large litter. As much as I think you have valid things to say, this argument is really moot, I think.

Interesting that you give me thumbs down. Is it because you think I'm wrong about the animals? Mama grizzlies with one cub often go home from the salmon run with 5 cubs! Eh. But no, I still don't think this has anything to do with human adoption as I said in the first place.

Answer 3

Your question makes no sense.  Are you talking about adopting a child, or picking out a puppy from the pound?  As an adoptee, I find your analogy offensive.

Answer 4

I think it depends on who the adoptive parents are.-meaning some adoptive parents make sure that their kids have the love and support that they need, by being open and honest with them regarding adoption. these adoptive parents make sure that the child knows about the circumstances regarding their adoption. then unfortunately there are others who feel that the child shouldn't know and they try to bring down the biological mother. these people will use the animal scenrio, which to me as an adoptee i kinda find insulting! I mean just say you wanted a kid, don't try to justify it by using some type of illustration.

Answer 5

why not keep all 3 animals and let them be a happy family

Answer 6

bravo... couldn't have said it better myself.

i know in some countries, they will take a child in but never adopt, because the mother may be going through hard times. they support and help mothers, but do not take babies in to adopt. it's considered barbaric.

Answer 7

It would depend on how long their birthmother was unable to take care of them. Animals are far more adaptive and move on easier and sooner then humans do.  If it was several months then they probably wouldn’t want to go back to her. In the case of Kittens and puppies in several months they would likely been adopted by a family.

The Truth is animals live day to day, they live in the moment.  They mourn yes but then they move on. Take for example an animal who lives in the wild and its baby gets killed, that mother and even father sometimes will mourn their loss but then they will move on. Their not going to be thinking weeks/months later about that baby that they lost.  It’s also about surviving and if they are so emotional devastated for a long time, its likely a predator will get them. Sadness is also viewed as a weak energy and that is not acceptable in packs, prides of animals, for a long period of time.  It is only humans who take care of their weak. In the animal kingdom you’d be exiled out of your group or they would kill you.

There are times where a human might take over some baby animal’s care then when the mother is able to take care of her child again; they slowly reintroduce them back together. If the mother animal was more then cable of taking care of her child then no they shouldn’t be separated however if for whatever reason she wasn’t able to care for her child or in some cases refuses to. Then yes a surrogate mother/father should be brought in for the baby.

I do think it says a lot that many of the lords lesser creature can “adopt” an animal not biological related to them. Or even  something that is not even in their species. Truly love that animal baby and care for it despite no biological connections. Sometimes even speices that are prey and predator.  Sure some animals do kill their young, again only human’s actual care and take care of the weak and crippled. In the animal kingdom its all about the survival and ensuring only the best strongest genes get passed to the next generation.  Humans can and do kill their young as well.

Answer 8

Adoption is permanent.When the birth mother is unable or doesn't choose to raise the child...In that case the adoption is legally finalized at 1 year..In foster care the child is cared for temporarily,& the parents have all the rights to recover the child,unless a judge deems it unhealthy for the birth parents to raise the child,& then the child may be put up for adoption.There arer major differences between the 2 processes.

Answer 9

are you asking about animals or people? for the record do not use the term real mother when referring to a biological mother, i am adopted and my real mother raised me