Should adoption be allowed if...?

Question

The child is taken from an orphanage in India to undergo surgery in the US in a spur of the moment action;

The adoptive mother is addicted to medication, to the point she steals drugs from her own charity;

The adoptive father is only home during the weekends;

The adoptive mother is away from home four months of the year?

Answer 1

yes every child deserves a better chance at a good life!~

Answer 2

Are you talking about John and Cindy McCain

Answer 3

This is just another sad case of where money plays a role.  Even tho- McCain is the one running for office it is his wife that holds the money/funds...she comes from lots of it.

No, adoption should not have been allowed under those circumstances.

Answer 4

Nope. Why give the child to someone that is not capable of caring for the child.

Answer 5

The dates in that article are all screwy, so I do not know what happened and when.  Examples:  

In the 2000 primaries the fact Bridget has a dark skin was both used by McCain as it was used against him.

On May 10, 2001, Operation Sea Angel began: a humanitarian assistance operation in Bangladesh. Cindy McCain spent a month in the country, during which she visited an orphanage in Dhaka, run by the both famous and infamous Mother Teresa. In that orphanage she saw two girls, Bridget...

Apparently they didn't have much debate over Cindy McCain's spur of the moment action and in a perfectly orchestrated article the McCain's told their story about the adoption of Bridget to the Arizona Daily Star on December 25, 1991

According to her own story she quit using drugs in 1992 after having used them for four years, which places the adoption of Bridget, smack in the middle of her drug abuse period.

Mother Theresa died in 1997, so I assume the May 10, 2001 date is in error.

I think it was wacky that they were allowed to adopt, but if the person writing the article wants to have some credibility they should get the dates right, otherwise it is really confusing and takes away from what the author is trying to say.

Answer 6

What disturbs me, is that there are many people on Answers who seem to be fixated on every detail of other people's adoption.  Why is that?  Is this to do with politics, or is it to do with questioning whether adoptions should exist at all?   There are a couple of people who only asks questions in connection with adoptions.   They ask them continually and sadly, they always seem to be of a negative vibe.  Somewhere, something has angered them regarding adoptions and they are fixated on the subject.  Why?  It cannot be positive experiences, because they always seem to be irritated and frustrated.  I find this sad.  

Adoptive mother of five wonderful babies, now extraordinary adults with their own families.

  

Answer 7

niels,

I posted a similar question several weeks back. What disturbs me most is the fact that John McCain has repeatedly stated that he came home one day and Cindy said, "meet your new daughter'. I don't know if he has ever elaborated, but the fact is--if there are 2 parents--both of those parents must complete the paperwork, agree to adopt, etc. Both must be checked out. But when retelling the story, he makes the point of saying he had nothing to do with the adoption until Cindy brought Briget home. Odd and unethical if it happened that way.

At the time Cindy adopted, it was just prior to her addiction and problems...so even if there were a drug test performed, she was not--apparently--hooked at the time. However, the fact that I sit through a year of home visits to make sure my child is adjusting, well fed, growing properly, bonding, and that we are still stable people, etc. is mind numbing when I think about all of the people who visit once or twice, take a child out of his/her home country, and never have to report to or be checked up on by anyone. I know we don't have enough resources...blah blah blah....but someone should be making sure international adoptees are well taken care of and are having their needs met...at least for a few months. IMHO.

<<adoptive mommy through foster care.

Answer 8

no wayy it should not be allowed if they go through all that circumstances whatsoever because part of being adopted is to start a fresh life that is much better but the father is barely home and the mom barely see the child also .thats basically like having no parents.

Answer 9

Dear Neils,

I read about Bridget's adoption for the first time about a year ago. I was horrified. I don't think that this was an ethical adoption by any means and is one more reason I will not be voting for John McCain. Anyone who can feel good about building his family in this way CERTAINLY doesn't give a d**n about mine or yours!

I like to know about the people I vote for and people who care about FAMILY ISSUES (not the lip-service "values" but the REAL DEAL ISSUES) are more likely to get my vote. I wish more people would consider these things when choosing a candidate!

Answer 10

Rich Americans should be allowed to adopt anyone, anytime, anywhere.

ETA: If she was addicted to drugs, the child should have been taken into foster care.  Cindy's home should have been regularly inspected by social workers, she should have been forced to attend drug rehab and parenting classes, and she should have shown CPS that her drug problem was gone before the child was returned to her.  If she failed to do any of  those things in a 12-month period, her parental rights should have been terminated and the child should have been adopted by someone else.

Those are the rules that apply to everyone else, why didn't the same rules apply to Cindy?  Oops, those rules don't really apply to everyone, they're only for young, poor, and/or minoity mothers.

Answer 11

why would you bring a political situation here? john mccain has nothing to do with this adoption category