|
Post by jemand on Apr 21, 2009 9:36:52 GMT -5
pretty sure Justflyingin wasn't saying it's bad to take needed public monies to support one's self and one's children, just pointing out an inconsistency in biblical interpretation that allows QF to take one passage "literally" and another not so.
|
|
|
Post by charis on Apr 21, 2009 9:55:54 GMT -5
pretty sure Justflyingin wasn't saying it's bad to take needed public monies to support one's self and one's children, just pointing out an inconsistency in biblical interpretation that allows QF to take one passage "literally" and another not so. Yeah Jemand, I understand its nothing personal. It did hit the buttons- having heard waaaay too much judgment about our consumption of government and natural resources just because we happen to have big family. And providing for one's family IMO includes availing oneself of government programs for which one legally and morally qualifies. We have rendered unto Ceasar by paying our taxes. When we get a benefit from Ceasar, we hold our head up high and do so without guilt. I do not consider it inconsistent with biblical teaching.
|
|
|
Post by jadehawk on Apr 21, 2009 12:45:58 GMT -5
It did hit the buttons- having heard waaaay too much judgment about our consumption of government and natural resources just because we happen to have big family. And providing for one's family IMO includes availing oneself of government programs for which one legally and morally qualifies. We have rendered unto Ceasar by paying our taxes. When we get a benefit from Ceasar, we hold our head up high and do so without guilt. I do not consider it inconsistent with biblical teaching. while I agree that once you do have a large family, you have every responsibility to care for them as well as humanly possible, nobody happens to have a big family, which is what I tried to explain in my first post. sometime before having all those children, something happened: either you just really like having babies, or you become part of a cult that demands that you have a lot of them, or you're born into a culture/religion that demands many children, or you end up with a husband who doesn't give you a choice... no matter what the circumstance, someone somewhere made a choice that is seen in the modern world as very irresponsible, and as such is subject to justified criticism. the point is to put the blame where it belongs though, not just at the most obvious culprit, i.e. the mom. It would never occur to me to blame a woman who doesn't get a choice or has no access to b/c; or a family in a culture where having many children was seen as essential for survival/success in life (pastoral and very basic agricultural societies, for example, where children are the main workforce on the farm/with the herds, and the only form of social security). Doesn't mean I can't support efforts to change those attitudes to bring birth-rates to a more sustainable level. Similarly, just because I'd never criticize a person who didn't have much choice, I have every right to criticize those who have many children just because they like having more and more of them, just as much as I'm justified in criticising Hummer drivers who just like driving gas-guzzlers. Actually, I'd think criticism on baby-collectors is more justified simply because once they have a crowd, they always will, while the Hummer-collector can ethically still be convinced to give the gas-guzzlers up AFTER he acquired them. This kind of social pressure is how progress in a society is achieved. And I know that it's limiting personal freedom to tell other people how many kids they can have, or what cars they can drive, but the more people there is, and the more resources per person all those people use, the less freedom we will have. (compare it to living by yourself in a big mansion in the middle of nowhere, where you can do whatever you want, vs. living in a small house with a bunch of roommates where everybody has to play by the rules or else the whole thing descends into chaos and everybody ends up miserable) It's pretty much undeniable that we as a species are outbreeding our capacity to sustain ourselves, and while the effects of that are most visible in poor countries, everybody contributes to the problem. and large western families doubly so, because they are westerners, i.e. they consume the largest slice of resources, and they're a large family, thus adding to our dangerously fast population growth. basically, you're free to make unsustainable choices, and I'm free to criticize you for it, but the more we strain our resources, the less of any kind of freedom we'll have (or more precisely: our children and grandchildren will have)
|
|
|
Post by jadehawk on Apr 21, 2009 12:54:20 GMT -5
If I truly believed that they were caring for the individual, I'd be convinced. Unfortunately, it appears to me to be often more about religions, money, etc. Remember after the tidal wave in Malasia, was it? Many people wanted to adopt the kids who were left without parents, but they called a halt. At least in Poland, they still do let people adopt internationally. I'm not against them being careful. They need to be. But, if someone from the US, for example, wants to adopt an orphan in China, for instance, I think it is great (even if the child is being adopted is being put in a religion I don't like). Why am I glad? Well, I can't help but think that in the U.S. there will be many chances that this child would never have had in their own country. The same goes for the Ukraine, or Poland, for that matter. In the Ukraine, the kids in the orphanages are poor. By comparison, our children's homes in Poland are quite well off, I'm sure. We've been able to host a couple of people who have recently adopted from the Ukraine and stopped here on their way back to the states while they got paperwork done at the embassy in Warsaw. I could wish that anyone wanting a child in the US could just come over here and get them. There see to be so many kids over who don't have parents. Your heart would break if you could see it, too, I'm sure. the reason a lot of the tsunami-affected countries blocked adoptions from abroad was because it quickly became apparent that enterprising little bastards were giving away children who WEREN'T orphans away for a profit, i.e. it turned into a kind of child-trade. so the governments blocked the adoptions until the chaos could be sorted out, children and parents could be reunited, and rule of law was restored to prevent kidnappings. Child-trade is also the reason many other countries block international adoptions. And then there's just plain old politics, which is a big issue with China, but much less so everywhere else
|
|
|
Post by xara on Apr 21, 2009 13:26:07 GMT -5
I think some of the concern is about adopting from other countries. I remember when Madonna adopted a child from I forget where there was a lot of discussion about whether she had used her celebrity to bypass that country's laws about foreign adoptions. There have been a number of discussions I have run across online lately regarding adoption. There was an article and long discussion about this topic recently on RHRealityCheck.org. It was called The Lie We Love. www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/12/11/the-lie-we-loveAnother blog on RHRealityCheck and discussion is here www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/12/15/the-adoption-consensusThere was another blog on Shakesville about adoption shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/03/breaking-silence-on-living-pro-lifers.html Not everyone who adopts should be a parent though. One of my best friends was adopted by a wealthy couple who also adopted an autistic boy. Her adoptive mother is extremely manipulative and according to my sister who is a psychologist her mother has a borderline personality. They should never have been given responsibility for a houseplant, let alone a child. But they are a wealthy, white couple so they were allowed to adopt. And my friend has had a lot of problems over the years because of her adoptive family which have even required legal intervention to fix. I know other people who are adopted and are fine and well adjusted, as well as a friend who was repeatedly told she was an accident as were two of her three brothers and that only the youngest was wanted. It is a complex subject and there is really no one answer that will fit everyone or every situation. But in general I think people need to think long and hard about WHY they want kids as well as what they have to give to kids before they have them. I don't have any because I would not be a good mom. I adore my nieces but have no desire to be a parent. But I have also said that if I ever develop a maternal instinct (not likely) that I would take in an older kid that needed a home. I think it is more responsible to take in a stray or a shelter pet than buy one from a pet store. Why would I treat a child less responsibly than I treat animals? Xara
|
|
|
Post by rosa on Apr 21, 2009 13:48:19 GMT -5
If people's pocketbooks and hearts are big enough for another baby, why not sponsor a poor family so they can stay together, instead of stealing the babies of people who "can't care for them"? To me, that's the test. If people are being charitable, they should be charitable. if they want to buy babies, that's a different issue.
The adoption industry in the US started with families like Vyckie's losing their children. A family with little resources could have their children voluntarily or involuntarily placed in orphanages, where they might be able to get them back if their situation stabilized and no richer people had chosen them yet. We don't do that anymore, but it's the situation in China and Guatemala and a lot of other countries. (In parts of China, if you can't pay the second-child fine, your kid goes into the orphanage until you can pay. Or until the orphanage sells your daughter to some westerner for thousands of dollars.)
|
|
|
Post by rosa on Apr 21, 2009 14:06:56 GMT -5
Thank you for the links, Xara. The first article especially is a really good, concise summary of international adoption issues.
|
|
|
Post by anatheist on Apr 21, 2009 15:02:04 GMT -5
If people's pocketbooks and hearts are big enough for another baby, why not sponsor a poor family so they can stay together, instead of stealing the babies of people who "can't care for them"? WTF? STEALING babies? My biological parents deserted me, and I know why they did and they are complete assholes. They didn't get any money and neither did anyone else because they deserted me. My adoptive parents researched the organization that took me in very carefully. You think I was less deserving to be taken care of than if my parents had sponsored a poor family instead. I find what you've written to be extremely offensive. *** Generally, I think that a couple should choose to wait until they are off government assistance before trying to have children. Welfare isn't existent so that everyone can have the life they want when they want it, it should be so that people who have hit a hard time can get through it with the aim of becoming stable and THEN starting a family or continuing to have children. I can't understand the mentality that says- I'm on welfare, and I'm going to keep having children and welfare will pay for those children too. I can see why someone would use the WIC program for a child while going through some tough times, but not everyone is like that. It's people who are having 3 or 4 or 5 children, all on welfare with no intention of getting off or trying to get a job that I think are abusing the system. And yes, I know people who do that.
|
|
|
Post by jadehawk on Apr 21, 2009 17:22:16 GMT -5
If people's pocketbooks and hearts are big enough for another baby, why not sponsor a poor family so they can stay together, instead of stealing the babies of people who "can't care for them"? WTF? STEALING babies? My biological parents deserted me, and I know why they did and they are complete assholes. They didn't get any money and neither did anyone else because they deserted me. My adoptive parents researched the organization that took me in very carefully. You think I was less deserving to be taken care of than if my parents had sponsored a poor family instead. I find what you've written to be extremely offensive. *** Generally, I think that a couple should choose to wait until they are off government assistance before trying to have children. Welfare isn't existent so that everyone can have the life they want when they want it, it should be so that people who have hit a hard time can get through it with the aim of becoming stable and THEN starting a family or continuing to have children. I can't understand the mentality that says- I'm on welfare, and I'm going to keep having children and welfare will pay for those children too. I can see why someone would use the WIC program for a child while going through some tough times, but not everyone is like that. It's people who are having 3 or 4 or 5 children, all on welfare with no intention of getting off or trying to get a job that I think are abusing the system. And yes, I know people who do that. I don't know what rosa specifically referred to, but I suspect she was talking about international adoptions, where child-trafficking/kidnapping does happen, either by private gangsters out to make a quick buck, or by governments like in china as someone else pointed out. I've actually seen a program about a family in South America (peru, if I recall correctly) who was trying to adopt a young girl out of an orphanage. the thing was that the mother was desperate not to let the girl out of the country, while at the same time not being able to take the girl back home cuz she couldn't care for her either. Now, if the goal of the adoption were to give the girl a better life, wouldn't if have been far more sensible by the European family to support the daughter there in Peru, so she could live with her mother, but also guarantee that she could go to school and escape the poverty (basically sponsoring her)' if the adoption was about having more children, then adopting a child that DOESN'T have parents, or has been completely abandoned would have been the better choice, as well. Instead, what they were doing was creating a dilemma, but assumed that what they were doing was right, cuz of course the girl would be better off with the wealthy European parents, rather than the poor South American ones, right? This is what's called "Imperialism with a friendly face"' as opposed to the "Imperialism with the grim face", i.e. the forceful removal of children from "native" families to assimilate them into Western culture. This is a completely different issue than adoptions of children within the same country/system, from parents who have definitely given up the right to their children, by agencies that do their homework and put the welfare of the child first.
|
|
|
Post by rosa on Apr 22, 2009 10:23:11 GMT -5
Thanks, jadehawk, that is what I was talking to (referring to the earlier post about international adoption, and the links Xara put up). Athiest in the BB, I'm sorry I offended you - I was talking about the cases of international adoption, where investigations have shown that a very large numbers of babies were either literally stolen (some of the cases in Peru are of young mothers attacked, knocked out, and waking up to find someone took their baby to sell to an adoption agency) or parents that would like to parent but are unable to because of poverty. Similar things happens sometimes in the US - if you read some of the birth mother blogs you can find out about a lot of abusive practices by adoption agencies.
That doesn't mean that every adoption is abusive, and of course there are abandoned babies and parents who just aren't capable of parenting, even with support. Adoptive parents who insist on ethical adoptions are not the ones saying "there shouldn't be rules and regulations, it just slows down the process!" or "I want an overseas baby because they come with so much less baggage".
|
|
|
Post by themomma on Apr 24, 2009 0:32:54 GMT -5
This is one of my biggest complaints against a quiver family I know.
It is all "we are leaving it God" while they are using services. I think it is "selective faith" at the least.
We saw Dave Ramsey via telecast tonight and he said too many Christians use "we are leaving it up to God" to not take personal responsibility for what is happening/they are doing with their lives. As a Christian I totally agree.
I actually had a Quiver Full dad tell me if his wife lost it and killed one of their kids they would learn what they could and "move on", leave it up to God....Scary stuff there...
|
|
|
Post by arietty on Apr 24, 2009 1:59:18 GMT -5
For many in this cultic mindset an overwhelming fatalism settles on them.
|
|
|
Post by themomma on Apr 24, 2009 23:19:49 GMT -5
I see that Vyckie linked to my post.
I do NOT hold it against anybody who uses services but it seems that the "leaving it to God" is only applicable in certain areas of their lives.
I see Christians use "leaving it to God" to not take personal responsibilities.
|
|
|
Post by justflyingin on Apr 25, 2009 0:42:53 GMT -5
pretty sure Justflyingin wasn't saying it's bad to take needed public monies to support one's self and one's children, just pointing out an inconsistency in biblical interpretation that allows QF to take one passage "literally" and another not so. Yes, that is it exactly. I'm pointing out that you trust God by not using medical help available to you, saying that "God will provide" for my family size, yet have no problem NOT trusting Him alone for your groceries. I used WIC as well. But I did consider whether or not I was "not trusting God" when I did use it. I also use medical help when needed, whether it is in the area of b/c or stitches when my husband or child has needed it. I also went to a doctor when I had a miscarriage and had a DNC. I believe that person who was truly "trusting God" (as the QF movement describes it) would say that I didn't trust God. There are some things that are natural consequences of actions. It isn't so much a matter of "trusting God" as it is a result of actions. You walk in a busy road, it is highly likely you'll get hit by a car. If you have relations during a certain time of the month, it is far more likely you will get pregnant. The DIRECT command of the Scriptures is that the Father is to provide for the family. If you believe that using "outside" help is wrong in the medical area, then, you should at least be consistent and believe it is wrong in the area of groceries. One is a command "Fathers are to provide for the family" and the other is a derived principle taken from the statement that "Children are a blessing" (about which no one that I know of would disagree--even those who have only 1 or 2 kids). If those people can't provide for the children then they are directly violating a command of Scripture. You are not directly violating a command if you do not have 6+children. Trust. Quit being so selective. If you trust the government to buy your groceries, then at least admit it. Just be consistent in your applications. I have no problem using medical care/help when needed. I think God expects us to be wise. God is clear that He expects us to be as wise as serpents and harmless as doves. Thanks for the link to the article about international adoption...I appreciate it very much. I know that what we need over here is people willing to adopt sibling groups and older kids.
|
|
jo
Junior Member
Posts: 73
|
Post by jo on Apr 25, 2009 21:14:39 GMT -5
Okay, for this topic, I had to register. I'll go post my intro after I respond. But, I have to address this topic.
We're a large family, by any definition of the word we are a large family. By some definitions, we hit the classification of a mega-family with 8 kids, or so I have recently learned.
According to jadehawk, I did something irresponsible to get here. So, which was irresponsible? Two failed methods of birth control or 3 special needs adoptions?
After baby #3, I stood on the cliff of the QF movement and had to decide whether I was going to go there, or follow my dream into special needs adoptions, which by and large the movement is opposed to.
We went with the adoptions. After the second one, our birth control of 4 years failed. Switched birth control after that surprise baby and did another adoption. When I found out baby #8 was coming at the start of the second trimester, the IUD was still in my uterus WITH the baby. When that baby was delivered via c-section, I spent an extra 1.5 hours on the table with my OB's hand inside of me trying to find that stupid thing while she waited for radiology to come take a picture of me on the operating table to make sure she didn't miss it.
I guess the responsible decision would have been to have my uterus removed when we decided we were done having babies back at 3?
And, isn't that the point of this thread? Because I have 8 children, its assumed I HAD to make an irresponsible decision to get here. Except in our case that's not at all true. Health issues contributed to our decision to having no more babies. The same health issues contributed to not wanting to seek surgical sterilization at 26.
I don't think seeking non-surgical birth control constitutes irresponsibility. Furthermore, a family with 3 kids whose birth control has not failed them would NEVER be required to justify and explain how I could end up with one surprise and one shock, have this large family and prove that I did not act irresponsibly.
I also have to prove that I don't rely upon goverment assistance FOR this family, sometimes on a daily basis. There is a terrible assumption that no couple can afford 8 children *without* government assistance. Of course, to adopt you have to prove you can afford the child you are seeking to adopt, but apparently people believe we proved that thrice over and then somehow lost those resources after we adopted them.
Believe it or not, there are large families who can indeed support their children, not by refusing to provide for the needs of those children, not by goverment assistance but simply by their income, resources and management of their funds. We may be the minority but we DO exist.
FTR, there was only one time in our lives when we did qualify for government assistance and that was when DH was underemployed while I was pregnant with our first. It wasn't that way when we got pregnant and he actually got a great job the week after she was born. I got medical assistance to ensure I continued prenatal care but nothing else. We lived on my parents farm and had access to all their food sources. We figured we'd leave other resources for those in actual need of them.
As for the discussions on adoption, I want so badly to respond but don't see any evidence that the negative comments have any basis in reality. As the mother of 2 international special needs boys and 1 from the US fostercare system, all I can really say is that I am far from a baby stealer. In fact I twice paid my life savings for the priviledge of loving children no one else wanted including taking on the 2 most costly medical conditions out there. The third adoption didn't cost me my life savings but taking on a child damaged first by birthparents and then by the fostercare system has cost me my health in ways giving birth never did.
|
|
marie
New Member
Posts: 39
|
Post by marie on Apr 25, 2009 21:28:39 GMT -5
Jo, what a wonderful heart you have. God bless you and your family.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Apr 25, 2009 21:57:06 GMT -5
Jo, bless your heart. You have just illustrated two principles I believe Christianity teaches, which people seem to forget all about: 1. Christianity is about loving one another, not judging one another. 2. Jesus said the one commandment we were given was to love one another. That idea is to govern all the other "commands," which aren't commands at all, but examples or principles of how "love one another" is to be followed. For example, here's a "command" that was mentioned earlier in this thread. "Fathers should provide for their own children" is a guideline for how to live in love, not a rigid rule to be followed no matter what the extenuating circumstances might be. If we read it, "Fathers, if you need help providing for your children, you're breaking God's law," then we're turning into Pharisees who can't see people, only rules. (Note: I am NOT saying anyone here was saying that-- only trying to illustrate my point.) It's wonderful that you two are able to provide for your children and had the resources to adopt special-needs children. If something were to happen so that you couldn't provide, and you needed assistance, that would be ok too. But in our society, women are judged based on appearances, no matter what they do. There's always going to be someone judging. One person may think a woman has too many kids, another may think she has too few. Why can't we just let people make their own choices, give them the benefit of the doubt (particularly when we don't know their individual situations) and accept them as they are? I myself have felt pressured to: Have more kids (I have 2) Stop working part-time and take a more high-powered career Stop working at all and stay home with my kids Home-school my kids Spend more time volunteering at my kids' school And so on, and soon. Contradictory messages; everyone has an opinion, and they all think they have a right to have one about my life. And we're all in that situation. We're all under constant scrutiny as women. In the end all any of us can do is say, "I can't please everyone; I've got to do what I think is best" and leave it at that. And maybe leave it at that for our sisters, too.
|
|
|
Post by mymmeli on Apr 27, 2009 12:27:25 GMT -5
|
|
aimai
Full Member
Posts: 172
|
Post by aimai on Apr 27, 2009 12:52:31 GMT -5
There's a lot of stuff getting conflated here. Its a fact that there are very few actual “orphans” in the third world who “need” a family because their own families “don't care” about them. There are a lot of children whose parents are not able to choose or afford contraception, and there are a lot of parents who can't afford all the children they end up with, and there are a lot of extremely poor communities. But in the absence of those things most people prefer to keep their own children—even their own “special needs” children and most extended families have a tradition of finding a place for children who are temporarily not with their parents or who are true orphans. The opening up of “orphanages” in itself is a sign of moral breakdown in a society since the vast number of these children were either forcibly removed from their families (as in China due to the one child policy) or abandoned because their mothers were not permitted to keep them or couldn't afford to keep them given poverty and patriarchy (claims of new males in their lives, lack of money). I'm thinking there of the situation in Rumania and other places where both contraception and abortion were outlawed leaving individual women and family units no ability to decide for themselves how many children they could support.
I'm the aunt of two wonderful girls from china and I see the need for homes for lots of kids. But the truth of the matter is that the vast wealth of america—which lets even a middle class mother of three or four have the luxury of “spending her life savings twice over” to adopt children from abroad—has a hugely deformative effect on the situation of poor women/families with children to sell, or children to be stolen. Massive trafficking in children goes on all over the world—and has always gone on. Its going on internally in china (and in India) where families throw away girls and end up needing to steal boys. As a gender imbalanced population gets old enough the flow will go the other way and it is girls who will (and are) being stolen to be brides for the generation of sisterless sons their families created.
Abused and abandoned kids are a kind of reverse natural resource—abundant, overflowing, locally produced. The urge to go abroad to “rescue” kids when our current domestic policies produce nearly as many thrown away and abused failures seems to me to be misguided. I mean, I'm all for it in particular circumstances where a particular child needs a home. But I'd rather see some acknowledgement that our romanticization of motherhood, our shamefilled hysteria about female sexuality, our religious fixations like Quiverful are have produced a lot of abused, dysfunctional, reproductively active people who are ending up in a system which is, for all intents and purposes, an “orphanage” right here in the US. That is to say we as a country have a whole lot of work to do to create a situation where there are no unwanted, needy, abused, or special needs but neglected children in this country before we can act as though our personal intervention is needed to save the children of other countries. Working hard at a higher level to eradicate poverty, patriarchy, abuse, forced marriage, ignorance, anti contraception practices, religious bigotry, etc...etc...etc... would go very, very, far to eliminate the population of thrown away/adoptable kids in third world countries. It should be considered a very serious impeachment of all of us that there are children who can't find homes in their own countries. Americans adopting other people's kids is not a solution for the long term. And in many cases its part of the problem.
aimai
|
|
|
Post by jadehawk on May 1, 2009 0:25:05 GMT -5
jo, I'm not saying that you did something irresponsible, I'm saying you've made choices, and as far as I can see, no one forced any of those children on you directly or indirectly, so indeed it was a free choice (rather than the "choices" I've described earlier), and as such, you didn't <b>happen</b> to have a big family, you decided to have a large family. Plus, you've missed my first (I think) post where I already explained that adoption is in my mind indeed the best way for people who want large families. You've also missed the part where I said that once you have lots of kids, it's essential to do everything in your might to support them. I couldn't care less whether you needed welfare for that or not. the only situation where that would be irresponsible would be if one planned more children while not being able to afford the ones that are already there. When I'm talking about "can't afford", I don't mean individual parents for the most part, I mean that we as a species can't afford large families anymore. It would be impossible to give all the children who already exist what we consider a decent standard of living. The more people there are, the worse the quality of life that's even possible for everyone.
And having many children without considering that is shortsighted and yes, irresponsible in my mind. The more children we have, the worse the quality of life will be for those children, regardless of whether the parents are dirt-poor or filthy rich (the consequences will merely hit the richer later than the poorer families)
|
|
|
Post by rosa on May 1, 2009 8:23:11 GMT -5
Charis, you got back as much from the system as you paid in, I promise. Anyone who was born after about 1940 gets way more than they pay in - we're living off the investments of our grandparents right now and not repairing the infrastructure they built. There is a good chance that you live in an area that was electrified by the rural electrification programs, and even if that is not true, any business you do is dependent on roads, bridges, postal service, phone and internet service - all of these, even if they have been privatized, were originally built with public funds. The doctor you would "have plenty of funds" for without having to pay taxes likely trained in a public university and even if completely self- or privately trained, the knowledge she learned and the drugs she prescribed were developed with about 80% public funding (unless you're going to a folk doctor or a traditional Chinese doctor). I had a Nigerian professor who used to call the idea that people produce in a vacuum "American thinking" - he would say, if your bootstraps are so strong, go out into an area with no phone and no reliable mail and no banks, and make your fortune. No American has done this, since European settlement - we were developed as a colony with ties to a manufacturing and banking base "back home".
|
|
jo
Junior Member
Posts: 73
|
Post by jo on May 1, 2009 9:54:48 GMT -5
Aimai the fact that you continue to refer to adoptees as children whose parents didn't want them shows exactly where your opinion of adoption lies, and how ignorant such an opinion is.
No, adoption is NOT the final solution to the world's problems. It is a very personal decision to go beyond merely giving dollars to a problem and instead giving all of you to change the world for ONE child versus the world's children.
Of my 3 sons, the only one anyone could remotely argue his parents 'didn't want him' would be the domestic child. And, his birthparents argue vehemently that they did in fact want him...they just managed to nearly kill him, to neglect him severely and to beat him when they could not handle his extreme medical needs. Those same parents are still parenting 5 full biological siblings a full 4 years after this child was removed from their home now.
No social programs was going to keep this child in his birthhome. His medical needs are severe, beyond even what you would normally consider severe. His mental health issues are just as severe and his Developmental Delays make it impossible for him to function normally. A borderline functional family was never going to be able to support and properly care for him. Yet, the fostercare system clearly shows that professionals who were not emotionally invested in him were not going to do better, in fact they nearly KILLED him when they ignored his medical condition. He needed parents highly trained to manage his medical issues, competent to juggle his mental health and developmental issues and yet emotionally invested enough to want to do the exhausting work of constantly caring and advocating for his needs. In this home, he found that.
My 2 international boys were NEVER 'unwanted' by their families. One was a true orphan, having lost both parents in a war. And yes, of all my children he was the most likely that had war and poverty not broken down the family structures in his nation, he could have remained with extended family. He was blessed with an extended family hard to find in those circumstances, healthy and willing to embrace the nieces and nephews of a dead siblings as full members of the family and not servants as usually occurs in those situations. But, circumstances were such that the disabled uncle could not support 4 nieces and nephews and placed the most vunerable in an orphanage. It was HIS desire that the most vunerable child be given every opportunity to have a full life. It was HIS desire that this child go to America for adoption.
I can speak that with absolute authority and certainity as I've been told this directly from this same uncle as we continue to try and keep this international adoption open through the years and recognize that this child loves and embraces all of us as his family.
My other international son had nothing to do with social failings for his adoption. Yes, his birthmother died in childbirth. His birthfather continued to raise 2 sons in poverty for nearly 3 years, and would have simply continued on in that path. Except for one thing. This child has a severe medical condition that requires expensive medication not obtainable in his birthcountry. Here in America, this child will live a full and normal life. In his birth country, he would not have seen his 20th birthday and every day of his life would have been riddled with pain and agony. He nearly did not make it to America, having spent a week in the hospital in medical crisis immediately after we accepted his referral.
Yes, you could argue that we need to fix the social situation which left his country unable to provide him the medication he needs to live. And, I'm involved in organizations doing exactly that. But, it wouldn't have happened in HIS lifetime. Why should he die because we are supposed to make the altruist decision to change a system while we watch a child die?
His father knew what he was doing. He broke his own heart to guarantee his son would live. He kept informed of his son even after placing him in the orphanage and only disappeared after he knew his son was headed to America...to life. We've tried to find him, tried to get this adoption opened and we can't find him.
The children of China are rarely 'unwanted'. They are victims of a social policy that leaves their parents unable to keep them. Thus, they are placed in public locations so they can be found and cared for quickly. Yes, the one child policy needs reversed. But, what do you propose be done with the 20,000 children abandoned every year until that point? Left to rot in orphanages? Before international adoptions were an option, that is precisely what was happening to those children. Ever seen the documentary "The Dying Rooms"? You should watch it, it might remind you why adoption is a viable part of the solution and not merely predatory child stealing practices.
|
|
|
Post by rosa on May 1, 2009 11:11:47 GMT -5
No one is saying it's "merely" predatory child stealing practices. What we're saying is that the predatory practices exist and that those are the reasons for "all the red tape" and countries closing their borders to international adoptions. It's not just some sort of evil trap in the way of pure, well-intentioned adoptive parents. You're clearly not one of the parents saying "well I can't get a healthy baby domestically, there's so much baggage attached to them, so we went international." So we're not talking about you, unless you're saying that since you did such a good job there shouldn't be any regulation of international adoption.
But those people exist - i've babysat for their kids, and I watch my friends who have problems conceiving come up with that exact same language, and I see those parents attacking birthmom and adult adoptee bloggers for impugning them by implying that POSSIBLY they were thinking about themselves more than the kids.
|
|
aimai
Full Member
Posts: 172
|
Post by aimai on May 1, 2009 11:32:04 GMT -5
I did not refer to children as "unwanted" I specifically challenged the notion that these children are unwanted or orphans and pointed out that in almost all cases children given up for adoption are given up more or less unwillingly because of social, or financial, pressures on their parents or their extended community.
You are suffering from an overdeveloped sense of sainthood and are not reading clearly to boot. I posted that I am, in fact, the aunt of two girls from China. The fact that there are children who get taken away from them by social services in this country, and children whose parents (as I said) are forced to abandon them by poverty or local government rules does not mean that a global solution is adoption by wealthy americans. That is only a stop gap. Its a good one, in many cases, but its not a good one in the long term. In fact creating situations in which adoption away from birth families is not necessary is, in my opinion, the more moral choice for us as a society. I, for example, think better social services, sex education, parenting classes in high school, contraception and abortion services, welfare for women in abusive relationships, etc..etc...etc... plus federally funded in home health care and respite services for parents with special needs children are all part of a proper demographic strategy for us as a country. Merely loosening adoption rules—or trying to force other countries into the wrongful assumption that american adoptive parents are da bomb without proper paperwork, is counterproductive in the long term as well, of course, as completely silly. If there are parents in this country with whom you personally have issue—that you personally think weren't up to the task of caring for your adopted son why on earth would you deny that right to the foreign countries tasked with the job of finding new homes for their own “orphans” or “unwanted children.” How are they supposed to know that those children are going to the perfect parents as opposed to the screwed up ones absent lots of red tape, paperwork, and home studies. The fact of the matter is when a country takes charge of a child (whether this country or any other) it assumes a serious burden to care for that child and to be responsible in all ways for the future guardians of that child. That's no different from the responsibility you assumed when you adopted. In fact, you are angry with your child's birth parents for failing in that task, and angry with the state for delaying or failing in taking the child away from them. Why do you think foreign countries have a lesser duty, or a lesser fear, when turning kids over to American adoptive parents?
aimai
|
|
|
Post by runawaybride on Jan 17, 2010 10:57:04 GMT -5
while I don't believe the Duggar's life is as presented for one hot second, I don't like the anger and malicious crap I see slung at them either. I have friends that are still having as many kids as will happen, and while I find them deluded and I fear for them, I think hate is just wrong. One of our mutual friends who is non quiverfull referenced the "clown car" picture when this man announced yet another pregnancy and it was just cruel.
|
|