What's more important: finding a family for kids, or figuring out if they need one?

Question

I see people defending unethical means of adoption because "the kids deserve a home just as much as anyone else". But, if they were kidnapped, sold, or created for the sole purpose of being sold overseas, or if the only reason they were "available" was because their parents couldn't afford to feed them...shouldn't it be more important to get those kids back where they belong: their OWN family?

Is it so important to place a kid for adoption, that family preservation should take a back seat? SHOULD we just accept that this kid "must" need an adoptive family, simply because some stranger says they're "available" for adoption? Shouldn't we be focusing on finding ways to keep families together, rather than touting adoption as the answer, when in fact, adoption creates so many ethical concerns?

Which should take precidence: finding a family, or making sure they actually need that new family?

Answer 1

Check out UNICEF's policy on this matter:

http://www.unicef.org/media/media_41918....

Answer 2

Family Preservation should ALWAYS be the main priority. The secondary priority should be truthful information regarding the devastating effects of mother-infant separation.

Answer 3

Families should always remain together if that is at all possible... I don't know of too many adoptive parents who would argue with that. The majority of us want to be parents to children that need a family because they do not have one. My daughter was in an orphanage for 9 months and was abandoned at only a few days old. A finding ad was placed in the newspaper for 6 months and no one came forward. If someone had come forward then we would have accepted that as a good thing.