It's not fair because there's many kids that need homes and a adoptive family and are denied of that because there's many people that would perfer having birthkids over opening their homes to a already alive child and the child ends up aging out of the system. I'm not making anyone do anything. If alot less people reproduced, there wouldn't be so many kids stuck in foster care/orphanages due to the poor choices of their birthparents. If people stopped having babies for a extended period ( but not permanently), then alot of people would have to adopt if they want to be parents. What alot of people seem to not understand is that family isn't defined by DNA. Family is defined by loving and caring about one another. By birth, a child is yours by genetics. By adoption, a child is yours by love and care.
First you postulate that having less children in general will lead to greater adoption rates. There is no such corellation. In fact, adoption rates have decreased as the birth rates have.
Secondly, you project the fault of the birth-parents of the orphaned child onto other people who want children of their own. There is no logical reason for this, apart from seeking justification where there is none. There are advantages to adoption and it should be promoted, but this is no reason to indict - for lack of a better word - childbirth.
Futhermore you assume that orphaned children are a big problem. In Germany for example a mere 65,000 children are in orphanages, this is 0.6% of all children aged 0-14. There are more than enough people already available to adopt this paltry number. What you want to work on is the social image of adoption, not on reducing births in favor of adoption.
We are already trying to combat the decline of our population, why add to the problem?
Then why won't societies promote adoption? Bring a positive light to it? There seems to be a stigma attached to adoption as people would rather see others have kids instead of adopt them. There are homeless kids everywhere, not just in Germany. If people promote adoption, then people might be more open to it and alot more kids would be adopted. I'm not saying that people should completely stop having kids though.
Adoption is in ill repute because of stories of failure and the hardships that are portrayed in popular media. It is rare for a foster relationship in movie/series/book to be portrayed as harmonious. There are reasons for this, though I doubt that most foster relationships run the course so often portrayed, though it is true that often the relationships are... more difficult.
Societies are built upon values and customs which have developed over centuries. Until fairly recently adoption was practiced mainly with children of deceased relatives or adults (to continue the name, as reward for a service etc). These customs are difficult to break as people in general do not like to change.
In the developed world, the figures for orphans in homes are fairly similar. For example, the US actually has only 2/3 the per capita figure of Germany.
Another issue is 'when' to adopt. If already existing children are too old (late teen/adult) they will not form a siblings bond to the new member of the family, and may well regard the newcomer as unwelcome competition. Ideally, adoption would take place as close to birth as possible, this, however, might not be ideal due to monetary and time constraints.
As for other nations (nations we do not live in), they are none of our business.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for adoption. However, I was under the impression that your opinion was a little one-sided and wanted to provide you with some arguments to the contrary, so that you may ponder on them. Clearly some of the notions you had/have were/are erroneous.
In our discussion we moved from "less people should have children, so that more adopt" to "adoption should be promoted and its social stigma lessened".
Lastly, I would like to add that, in my opinion, the number of orphans would be reduced most by combating the source; parents who fail to take care of their children, young parents who put them up for adoption upon childbirth etc.
Is it normal that I believe that having children is wrong?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
It's not fair because there's many kids that need homes and a adoptive family and are denied of that because there's many people that would perfer having birthkids over opening their homes to a already alive child and the child ends up aging out of the system. I'm not making anyone do anything. If alot less people reproduced, there wouldn't be so many kids stuck in foster care/orphanages due to the poor choices of their birthparents. If people stopped having babies for a extended period ( but not permanently), then alot of people would have to adopt if they want to be parents. What alot of people seem to not understand is that family isn't defined by DNA. Family is defined by loving and caring about one another. By birth, a child is yours by genetics. By adoption, a child is yours by love and care.
--
malkiot
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
Right... You sound rather naive there.
First you postulate that having less children in general will lead to greater adoption rates. There is no such corellation. In fact, adoption rates have decreased as the birth rates have.
Secondly, you project the fault of the birth-parents of the orphaned child onto other people who want children of their own. There is no logical reason for this, apart from seeking justification where there is none. There are advantages to adoption and it should be promoted, but this is no reason to indict - for lack of a better word - childbirth.
Futhermore you assume that orphaned children are a big problem. In Germany for example a mere 65,000 children are in orphanages, this is 0.6% of all children aged 0-14. There are more than enough people already available to adopt this paltry number. What you want to work on is the social image of adoption, not on reducing births in favor of adoption.
We are already trying to combat the decline of our population, why add to the problem?
--
Anonymous Post Author
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
Then why won't societies promote adoption? Bring a positive light to it? There seems to be a stigma attached to adoption as people would rather see others have kids instead of adopt them. There are homeless kids everywhere, not just in Germany. If people promote adoption, then people might be more open to it and alot more kids would be adopted. I'm not saying that people should completely stop having kids though.
--
malkiot
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
Adoption is in ill repute because of stories of failure and the hardships that are portrayed in popular media. It is rare for a foster relationship in movie/series/book to be portrayed as harmonious. There are reasons for this, though I doubt that most foster relationships run the course so often portrayed, though it is true that often the relationships are... more difficult.
Societies are built upon values and customs which have developed over centuries. Until fairly recently adoption was practiced mainly with children of deceased relatives or adults (to continue the name, as reward for a service etc). These customs are difficult to break as people in general do not like to change.
In the developed world, the figures for orphans in homes are fairly similar. For example, the US actually has only 2/3 the per capita figure of Germany.
Another issue is 'when' to adopt. If already existing children are too old (late teen/adult) they will not form a siblings bond to the new member of the family, and may well regard the newcomer as unwelcome competition. Ideally, adoption would take place as close to birth as possible, this, however, might not be ideal due to monetary and time constraints.
As for other nations (nations we do not live in), they are none of our business.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for adoption. However, I was under the impression that your opinion was a little one-sided and wanted to provide you with some arguments to the contrary, so that you may ponder on them. Clearly some of the notions you had/have were/are erroneous.
In our discussion we moved from "less people should have children, so that more adopt" to "adoption should be promoted and its social stigma lessened".
Lastly, I would like to add that, in my opinion, the number of orphans would be reduced most by combating the source; parents who fail to take care of their children, young parents who put them up for adoption upon childbirth etc.
--
MilleBornes
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
You are awesome. Thank you for stating, with better affect, the thoughts I had about this situation