Is Adoption a Means of Providing Care for children Who need it?

Question

OR a business providing children for those who feel entitled to have one?

Has consumerism in the west led people to believe that if they can afford 'it' they deserve to have 'it' - even when 'it' is a human child?

Answer 1

Hello! I whant to do friends in the EUA.

Because I'am from that Brazil

I whant to understand Engish.

my add in the e-mail  [e-mail]

Thanks!

Answer 2

It should be about providing care for children who need it. Sad thing is that is not how it goes. If it was there would be fewer adoptable children in foster care and less coercion with newborn adoptions. Some people really don't want to parent but I still feel that they are in the minority. If it was all about the children more SW's would be in the business of promoting foster to adopt when in reality they are very aware that the bucks are in newborn adoption. Notice the SW's around here appear to be working for agencies and not child and family services for the most part?

Adoption has become about finding children for parents. Just look around at the vast amount of Dear Birthmother profiles on myspace and similar sites. Are these people truly looking to help out a child in need or are they looking to help out their own needs?

Answer 3

Ideally, it's a system for MATCHING UP babies, children, even teens who need a home, who's mothers feel they cannot parent, chose not to parent, with a stable parent/couple who can provide the child with a good home, and AS A RESULT may be providing a childless couple with a family member to raise, love, and cherish..

But the focus, of course, should be on what's best for the child.. and the child's needs..

infertile people are not trying to snatch other people's children.. I take great offense at some of you inferring that.. It's not true, they are simply looking to be MATCHED UP with a child who DOES need a home..

And p.s.. news flash that I hope penetrates your bubble..there will always be babies who, from birth, need a home because their mother CHOSES not to parent them. These children ARE out there.. PAPS are just looking for them..

Nah, just kidding ... OF COURSE all PAPS are just trying to harass some poor pregnant woman (who isn't even sure if adoption is what she wants), to give us their child.. That goes without saying, right?

learn to be balanced.. learn to listen..I agree with the person who said this question (not so much THIS question, but most posts by a handfull of adoptees on this forum) REEKS of bitterness

Answer 4

Adoption is mean to providing akids who needs anyway the adoption use for business liek A. jolie adn Brad pitt use for business

Answer 5

Adoption means taking care of the child as your own. It is not a part -time job. The responsibility for you loving this child is a life time.

Answer 6

Isn't a child whose  biological parents cannot(or will not) parent for any reason in need of care?

Adoption has been around since the beginning of time. When and who decided it was only to be for children who were orphans?

Would you rather that a child whose parents would or could not parent just abandoned their baby in the elements. like some cultures used to?

Your definition of what adoption "should" be is extremely narrow.

Answer 7

A lot of people adopt, from all walks of life

Both are sick way of looking at adoption

The truth is, they are women who get pregnant, for one reason or another, can not rise the child.  Instead of aborting the child they have

There are many couples, who for one reason or anther, can not have their own children

Adoption is not for everyone

That is why some people get abortions, and other keep their children

Some couples got to sperm banks or eggs or surrogate, for a child

Some just do not have children

If both partys are will, aboption is a good thing

They way you see it, is sick

Answer 8

Noone says a person shouldn't judge if s/he hasn't been in the shoes of a person who can't conceive.  Well, I can't conceive.  By no means, though, do I think more children should be available so I can have one.  It's no about me.  I'm an adult.  If I don't end up with a child, then it's up to me to deal with the fact that it turned out that way.

However, adoption is supposed to be about finding homes for children who don't have legal families for whatever reason.  There are many ways to "provide care" for children who need it.  If there are children who can stay with their families, they should.  That doesn't necessarily mean with their parents, if their parents truly don't want to raise them or truly cannot raise them.  But, a child has more family than just his/per parents.

I'm infertile, but again, it's not about me.  It's about the children and their families.

Answer 9

Interesting how adoption seems to be SO misunderstood these days-  Adoption is a great alternative for women who know for sure that they cannot parent- and for parents who cannot conceive. Providing care for children- is the best answer of the two- because that is what those of us who adopt want to do- we care about children, and just because we cannot have our own, that does not mean that we need to feel entitled to have one. We love Children enough to want to provide a loving home- and birth parents love their children enough to give them life.

Answer 10

adoption is a wonderful way to give a child a great life if the parent cannot give it  the life it needs,  such as if a teen girl got pregnant and had a baby, its a wonderful thing to do!!   adoption is the best option!!

Answer 11

YES ADOPTION IS A MEAN of Providing Care for children Who need it .I DONT THINK ANY HUMAN BEING CAN ADOPT A CHILD ONLY FOR THE SAKE THAT THEY CAN AFFORD IT IF THEY CAN THEY R NOT NORMAL HUMANS

& PEOPLE WHO THINK THAT THIS CHILD IS NECESSARY TO HAVE THE SUPPORT OF PARENTS AND BECAUSE OF THAT REASON IF THEY R ADOPTING A CHILD IT IS VERY CORRECT

Answer 12

Both.

A child's need is sometimes in the eye of the beholder.  At what point do the physical/emotional needs of a child warrant encouraging/coercing the parent(s) to relinquish?  If one child would have a "better life" with a different set of parents and/or in a different country - why not any and all children whose lives could be "better" in an upper middle class Western family?  Is a child better off because their parents can buy them a new car, the latest clothes, their own iPhone?

If the purpose is to "provide care" for a child - then why not sponsor the child in his/her original family in his/her home country?  Or sponsor the whole family to start their own microbusiness?  But some people don't think that way.  They feel entitled to a child - by whatever means - and have the money to back up the desire - all the while telling themselves, their children and others that they are doing it for the poor child who would otherwise never have this opportunity.

It is especially telling when the aparent-to-be only wants an infant, especially an infant that they can pass off as their own (similar ethnicity).  THAT has very little to do with the "best interests of the child".

And the agencies price according to demand.  "Hard to place" children are discounted.  If you want a bargain - you'll have to settle for second best.  

If only people of modest means wanted to adopt - the agencies wouldn't have any motive for being in business, and no desire to go overseas - it wouldn't be profitable enough.  So much for "the best interests of the child".  

There would be just as many poor kids in need of a better life and just as many people willing to give them a better life.  But if they can't come up with the bucks - they may as well forget it.  If you have to ask - you can't afford it.  The "entitled" few have driven the price up.  

And the higher the price - the more they feel entitled.  How dare the mother change her mind?  How dare the father claim his "rights"?  We have a lot invested in this.

Answer 13

Adoption has worked out to be the later, however it should the commitment to the care, no, lifelong responsibility for the life of a child and care/mentoring during its ages of dependents.  

Speaking to your last rhetorical Q, its less the consumerism of the west, and more the red tape of adoption agencies.  Feel me?  One.

Answer 14

Are you asking what it was SUPPOSED to be, or what it has turned into?  I always thought of adoption as giving a home to a child who needs one.  I've always wanted to adopt.  But by the time I met my husband, I had seen just about everyone I know give birth, and about half of them almost died from one thing or another.  Giving birth scared me...so, adoption became a way to not only give a home to a child in need, but also a way to avoid my fears.  And, of course, we WANT a family, whether our children come to us via adoption or not.  We had a lot of misconceptions about adoption when we first started the process (about 2 years ago).  I remember the first time I heard a caseworker say that their purpose is finding homes for children, not a child for us...at the same time I thought "well, that makes me feel unimportant", and also, "that's exactly the way it should be".  My husband and I have put a whole lot of time and effort into making sure we're doing the right thing for the right reasons, and every time something "uncomfortable" came up, we worked through it.  So, when I felt unimportant, I recognized those feelings, accepted them, and worked through it, so that now I'm able to say...well, I AM unimportant in this process.  This is about a child's needs, not mine.  I'm an adult.  I meet MY needs MYSELF; not through my children.  

But in answer to your question, I think there are a lot of misconceptions about adoption.  Most PAP's that I know of are looking to fulfill their own needs.  Granted, I am, too...but my "needs" continue to evolve with the information I get.  The most important "need" here is the child's needs.  My needs don't even factor in anymore...or, I suppose I could say my needs have absolutely nothing to do with our adoption.  Those are two completely separate beasts.

Answer 15

This just reeks of bitterness. Unless you've been in the shoes of someone who is unable to have children, don't judge. I'm sorry that you had such a bad experience in your life regarding adoption, but here's my advice:

get counselling!

Trying to constantly prove your point on Y!A isn't getting you ahead emotionally.

Answer 16

Adoption isn't just for  those of us who can't conceive but for those of us who have biological children who want to open hearts and home to a child that isn't biologically ours.    I know of plenty of parents with biological children who have opened their hearts and home to children.  

Adoption isn't an easy path to navigate.  You are fingerprinted numerous times, have to answer lots of questions from the adoption agency, attend parenting classes, they come an visit the home to make sure that your home is sound and that you have room for the child and more.  I wish that some parents who have biological children have had half of the stuff that my husband and I have gone through.

I don't  feel "entitled' to have my children.  I feel honored that "they" selected us.

Answer 17

I would certainly like to think that adoption is a way of giving care to children who need it, And i would also like to think  that adoption is giving children parents too.

Answer 18

Ideally, it's the first.  But it has become the second.  People are willing to sink their life savings into fertility procedures that rarely work, "outsource" to surrogate mothers in India, place ads on the  internet, pay a woman's medical expenses and be her best friend for up to nine months, ask OB/GYNS to break patient confidentiality, pay upwards of $40,000 in "fees"--anything to get that healthy white infant and "complete their family."  There are some pretty egregious abuses of the system out there, but the things I just listed are pretty much considered normal.  

In the Baby Scoop Era, people got used to having an infant readily available to them.  Adoption has changed, and a lot of current PAPs refuse to change with it.  They want a cute cuddly perfect baby they can pretend they gave birth to, and some will literally do anything to get it.  Many people do feel entitled--jog around Yahoo answers any given day and you'll find people who complain that the baby they "deserve" costs too much money, takes too long to obtain, requires them to jump through too many hoops, and why do they have to use a stupid agency anyway, can't some incubator (sorry, woman) just sell them her flesh and blood directly--for cheap?

Adoption has NOT been around since the beginning of time.  Fostering has, but the industry that takes babies from one set of women, changes their names and locks their identities away, and invents a fiction about their having been born to another set of women is a twentieth-century invention--one it's time we reformed.