Adoption

Imagine you are in mid-thirties (Don't if you are ) and you don't have any kids (Don't if you don't ), so you decide to go through adoption. Which of these options sounds better to you and why?

1) A newborn baby who for sure has lost both parents.

2) A boy/girl who has shown a bright future while he/she is studying in the middle school.

3) Other. Please explain.

I'd go with option #1, a newborn. Because I really like kids and I'd love to see them grow and be with them from "the beginning." Plus, if you adoptated a child in middle school, I think it'd be harder on them to adjust to new parents, whereas a new born, they don't know that you're not their biological parents until you tell them. And for those wondering, yes, if I ever adopted a newborn baby I would tell them they were adopted and that I was not their biological father.

So you are cool with the age gap Irish?

Absolutely. My mother had me when she was 33 (she was 34 3 months after I was born). I've actually thought about adoption if I never get married. I really want a family and family is very important to me

Is the age gap a big thing? A lot of people have kids in their 30's. There's a 39 year age gap between me and my ma.

My mother was 35 when I was born as well. I've never had any problem with that and never even wished to have a younger mother but I actually hate it to be in late 50s when my child is graduating from college which I hope he/she attends in the first place. I think I'd cope with a hard adjusting middle school bright kid just for that. I don't know.

I think that Adoption is a fantastic thing! Anyone who sincerely wants to adopt a child and raise them has a HEART OF GOLD! A beautiful thing! As for your options AFS, tough for me to choose between them, as I love ALL children! So I guess that I would take all three!

But for someone else who has to make that sort of a choice, I would say that it is totally up to them. They would have to consider what their own life entails, what the probable outcomes may be by the choice that they make and which situation would suit their own life, and the child's life, the best. That's a tough choice to make, but I am sure that if someone's heart is really in the right place and they weigh all of the options, they will no doubt make the correct decision. Hey let's face it, just truly wanting to adopt any of those kids is the right decision within itself!


Don Cardi

Very well put Don Cardi! But I really want to know what everyone thinks. There might be angles that I cannot see where I stand. This is what I hope to do when my finances are in order.

Can I just ask you something...what way would you have of being absolutely certain that a newborn has 'for sure' lost both parents?

I am assuming you would word it this way because you wouldn't want the birthparent(s) turning up to regain custody once the child is older.

And, to respond to # 3 - would foreign adoption (Chinese/Russian/Guatemalen...) be a consideration?

Apple

Yes, this is the reason. It's happened a lot with people I know actually. It torn them apart really badly.

Yes, absolutely.

I'm off to bed now, but you guys carry on and I catch up with your comments in the morning.

Yes, absolutely.[/QB][/quote] http://www.allforchildren.org

If I was young I would want foremost (if possible) the new born baby. Although I wouldnt be too concerned if the birth parents were alive or dead really, maybe I'm just naive

If I was older I would be happily prepared to adopt an older child also (wether or not they were doing well in school with a bright future on the horizon ) Though I would still enjoy a new baby. (My grandson was born last year and new babys a great, but boy are they hard work )

I dont really understand what you mean by other do you mean like handicapped or problematic and such like? If so I would have to consider if I had the skills and ability to give the child what he/she needs.

I think it's wonderful for anyone to adopt a child and raise it as best they can. I think when my home is finally 'empty' if ever, I'll just have to foster kids cos I'll be too old to adopt!

Me and Capo are thinking about adopting a wee Scottish Terrier whos parents were viciously drowned. Obviously that's not going to happen until we're married though.

I think that if God didn't bless me with the ability to have children, I would be willing to take any child He was willing to give me. As every expectant mother, I would pray for that child to be healthy, but we can't always know what life will throw our way, can we??

Personally I would adopt the older child, simply because I would feel like he/she would have less of a chance to get adopted. Every child deserves a loving home.

That being said, I would love to adopt a child someday, but with two on the way it won't be anytime soon.

What I say is not meant for you, this is what I would do.

If I am in my 30s, how will I be sure that I will never have kids of my own in future? I cannot be sure. Unless there is a medical problem (with me if I were single or with either of us if I were not single). My sister's friend adopted 3 months ago after years of unsuccessful fertility treatment, but she is pregnant now! Her father, who himself is a gyno doctor says that when people are more happy and stress free, there is a higher chance of conception.Ok, I digressed too much.
However good natured we are, there is a biological reality that we must accept. Any mother would show much more affection and care for her biological child, compared to a adopted one. It may not be immedietely preceivable, but subconsciously acting on their decisions. This will create a lot of problems. The point I am trying to drive at is that I will consider adoption ONLY if I am sure that I will not have my own children in future.

IF we discount the above mentioned factor, I would adopt a small baby. But not any arbitrary baby from an orphange. First I would try all my immediete sources. That is, I would ask all my blood relatives if any of them are willing to let me adopt their child. I might possibly be able to offer the child a better living than my relative.They might agree. If that does not work out, then a child of my own race and country(please don't brand me a racist already, there is a logic). Why would I do that? There would be too much social discrimination when it becomes very obvious that a child is adopted. I will have no chance to delay the process of breaking the fact to the child if I go ahead and adopt an african child! Simple logic.
Humans are governed by their genes and environment. When I adopt, the genes are already decided. I cannot change that. But I atleast want some reasonable control over the environment(i.e. nurture). So a small baby is ideal for adoption.

Thanks everyone for comments.

Kris, how are you three doing?! I think once twins are born you wouldn't think about having more children!

Turi, I heard Capo is madly in love with someone else. Sorry mate, I wish I was a guy so we could have made a cute couple and adopt such a child. *Sighs* What's the use, I'm gay and trapped in the body of a woman!

svsg, adopting a foreign baby depends on where you live. If I were living in the States, I might have considered it more strongly. Funny thing is I too know two families who thought they couldn't have any children but a few months after they adopted a baby the wife got pregnant.

Adopting a newborn baby can always arise this question that why not your very own child? I've some reasons; mainly I wouldn't want my own child if I never get married. Why should I bring a half orphan to this world when there are plenty already in need of even a single parent? And as a single parent I could not make it to take care of a child unless I wait a few years more when I'd be doing better financially and the age gap would be something I wouldn't like. Add to that, given that everyone likes to be there for the first step of their child or the first word he/she would say but have you even considered, as a single parent raising a newborn baby would mean cutting down your work hours?

I've this resolution that by age 35 become a financial guardian to a child who is doing great in school so that he/she would be able to go to college and get the best education and be able to stand on his/her own feet. I'm thinking if I never get married, why not adopt that child and help him/her emotionally and educationally with all I know? I think a child who in spite of his/her unfortunate fate is doing the best possible to change his/her fate deserves much more than financial help. What's even better is that, this child would never have that moment of shock and drama when finds out about the adoption.

Afsaneh- Your resolution to raise a parentless child is wonderful! It truly breaks my heart thinking of all the children without homes in the world. For you to give the opportunity of a safe and secure home to another person is an incredible sacrifice that I am sure will give you just as much as it gives the child. That child would be incredible lucky to have someone as caring, smart, and giving as you.

But why, Afi? There's a difference. Your own child has your genes, and carries them further to the future. In a sort, it is your duty before God. If there's no medical problems, why should you deny him/her life? Just because there are orphans? I guess it's better to live a half-orphan than not to live at all. I think we must give them a chance. If I was less shy and upright and wouldn't think it such a sin, I'd have one already!
Speaking about adoption.
Consider, why should people leave a child. No normal people should. Events when the young child loses both parents and has no other relatives are rare. Usually the parents are either alcoholic, or drug addicts, or there's some problem with the child. Of course you can adopt ill child, but that is a commitment that must be well thought over. We have a family in our neighborhood, they adopted two boys, and they said that the earlier you adopt, the better. The more time this child spends without parents, the more reserved he/she becomes, and it may be difficult to wake their abilities later. There are some processes in human psycho that have no recourse, so I understood. Usually the most healthy and able children are adopted at once, on place. What remains - goes to charitable organizations, and the last remaining sometimes to the US. BTW, speaking about Russia, after some monster of an american woman killed a child that was adopted from Russia, there was a strong indignation, and many illegal adoption scandals, so now there's a strong movement against international adoption. They are doing well, and I hope they'll prohibit it finally. Every child must grow in their own nation.
So, what I mean is, when I give birth to a half orphan myself, I at least know that never in my life and especially during pregnancy did I smoke, drink or take drugs, I know who's genes are in this child, I'd look after my health and eat normal food. So, this child has a chance to be much healthier in every respect than any random orphan.

Kris, Thanks a lot. Hearing that from a soon to be mother makes me really thankful. You've no idea how those little ones inside you are fortunate to have such a great mother.

JM, It is not going to be a random orphan, but a child who is doing well at school. I wish I was kind enough to be able to adopt a child regardless of anything at all but I've some standards I'm going to stick with it.

I already mentioned problems a single parent is going to encounter if they adopt/have a newborn baby. Being a tad old fashioned, I don't see how an unmarried person have a duty to God to have his/her own child. What's more, I'm not that snobby about my genes, nationality or anything that we have no choice about it. Once you are what you are, it is great to feel good about it but that definitely is not what's important. What's important and would be what you'd be recognized with are your virtues, your thoughts and your acts.

Adopting internationally would help nations to feel friendlier toward each other. There have been many cases that biological mother has murdered her child. You can never stain the whole goodness because of some cases of unfortunate tragedy. We don't have much choice about where we're born and if our parents are rich, poor, alive or dead. What we can do however, is that if there is a chance and opportunity; make a difference in a fellow human life.

100 years from now, it doesn't matter how we lived, what we had or how rich we were. But if you've made a difference in a child's life, that'd stay a little longer than you in this world. I read this on a mug! I'm thankful for it because it had me thinking since then and I made that resolution. Anyhow, I thought I campaign a little for a good cause.

Plenty of people are unable to have children, does that make them unable to fulfull thier "duty" to God. What about the duty to take care of children without parents? Don't you think God would want that as a "duty"? It is in the Bible that we should all take care of orphans so apparently that's a duty too.

This statement is a huge generalization. Yes, some children are more reserved when they are adopted at an older age. Why woulden't they be? Older children are more wary of strangers and strange situations, making reservation a defense mechanism. It does not mean something is wrong with their abilities.

So you would rather have a child grow up parentless than to grow up in another nation? You brought God into the issue in an earlier comment, or else I never would have, do you think God cares about nations, border lines, or race? I find the statement that every child must grow in their own nation about as silly as a white child should not be raised by black parents. Children know and need love, nothing else matters. To want to prohibit international adoption is incredible selfish in my eyes. If you don't want to adopt an unwanted child, what right do you have to wish others cannot?

JustMe...judging from your posts here I'd say you are a bit limited in your thinking.

I'm not gonna try & change your mind or preach to you or anything like that. You're entitled to your opinions on adoption (foreign or domestic), birth, and 'duty to God'.
But I do want to say that I pity you and anyone who feels similar to the way you've expressed yourself here in this thread.

afsaheh77 - have you taken a look at the link I provided several posts back? While the discussion here has been wonderful and I'm sure very helpful to you...you might want to interact and get feedback from professionals as well.

Good luck!!

Apple

Apple, I'm not American nor live in the US. This organization seems to help Americans or those who live in the US to adopt internationally. But thanks anyway. I might be able to get some great information if I look to it more detailed later.

Yes, I'd say take a look when you have the time. Even if this agency is not right for you it could lead to lots of links which might eventually steer you in the right direction.

Again, good luck!

Apple

Afi you are to be admired, as is anyone who raises his/her own children, let alone adopts a child or two. I would think it is probably better to get a child two years old or less because then you will have the true influence of a parent. You know, a dog or a cat can sire younglings, but it takes quite a bit more than biology to really be a mother or a father. If you love the child and if you raise the child in a sound environment and discipline the child in a consistent and rational way, you ARE the parent of the child and it will not matter if some biologiacl parent comes out of the woodwork some day.

I am blessed with two children (not adopted) so I do not know much about the adoption process. I do know that it is important to have basic information about the child, especially if there are inherited medical issues.

I was adopted as an infant. I have no idea why my birth parents put me up for adoption nor do I care. My adopted parents were and are the best. They told me when I was 9 years old and I didn't have a problem with it. They gave me a wonderful life and I have no desire what so ever to look for my birth parents.
That being said I would love to adopt a baby or an older child. I wouldn't care. I would love to give a child all the love that my parents gave me. But already having 3 of my own and getting up in age I don't know if I will or not.

Af's I say go for it when you feel you are ready. And I applaud you for wanting to do that.

Are you potty trained?

Well I hope you don't have carpet in your bathroom :rolleyes:

Thanks Mig and Don Tom for your input!

Part, I said age gap is important to me; but a negative age difference? :rolleyes: :p

I really think that my sincere belief in everybody's sence of humor misled you. The "GOD" part was a joke entirely, and when I read how seriously some of you took it, that sounds as even a better joke. I really thought smilies imaginary necessity.
Never in my post I said that you shouldn't adopt or take care of orphans. If you accuse me of it, prove it.
All I said is that if I'm able to give birth to a child, and have opportunity, I'd prefer to have my own child, and not to refrain from bringing him into this world for any reasons, including adoption.
And yes I think that it's better to raise the kid in his own nation and race, because once you are what you are, you cannot change your mentality, and the same people with you will underatsnd it better. At least, the child won't be laughed at or pointed at by his peers at school etc. Children are cruel, they naturally have no tolerance to anything outstanding, different from them.
Never in my post did I say either that I think it's better to grow up homeless than be adopted internationally. Why do you honor me with so many opinions that I never expressed?
I think that the best way to grow up is in your nation and home. That's why I think noone should abandon their children to charity of strangers, if they are sane.
As to the question if the God cares about the existence of different nations, yes he does, he devided people so himself. I think it's a great treasure - that we are all so different. It's interesting.
It's a real honor to be a subject to your pity, Apple.
I'm touched and moved to tears, and very proud.
But if you see any real reason to believe my thinking limited, wouldn't you kindly point it out?

JustMe...below is an excerpt taken directly from your original post. While it's true you do not actually state that nobody should adopt or take care of orphans, I'll point out that in MY post I did not accuse you of saying that. I did say that your views on adoption are limited, and they are.

You make black & white assumptions as to the reasons children are abandoned.

You state optimism about international adoption ultimately being prohibited...apparently because a of various scandals and the tragic incident of a woman beating to death a Russian born child.

You also referred to a potentiallly adoptive child as a 'random orphan'. While I suppose that is a technically accurate term...it's also a little bit cold.

While I agree that the BEST scenario for any child would be to be raised in the country/culture in which they were born, that is not always possible and there are millions of healthy, happy children in loving homes today who might be in orphanages or perhaps not even be alive had they remained in what you like to call 'their own nation'. As to nationality, many organizations and parents put a great deal of effort into providing foreign-born children an appreciation of the culture and language from which they were removed as infants or very young children. Yes, there are many cases of other kids teasing and being cruel, as kids will be. However that aspect of prejudice/racism is considered more & more on a proactive basis and there are books/seminars/workshops galore on how to prepare and help children deal with such things.

I also do agree that the EARLIER in life a child is adopted, the better. However if a parent or set of parents has made the decision that they are emotionally and financially equipped to bring into their home and older or special needs child - and this decision is made with the aid of an OBJECTIVE Social Worker - then it is one of the most loving, caring and selfless commitments that anyone can possible undertake.

That goes for people who are physically able to have children of their own children as well as those who are not.

Yes, JustMe...your thinking on adoption is incredibly limited. And I'm betting that unless you do a little more research (which I don't expect you to do) ... it will remain so for many years to come.

And I'm so glad that you feel honored to receive my pity....because you still have it.

Best,
Apple

I do not. I didn't say that my assumptions cover all cases. I just said that these cases are more usual. So they are, there's no secret. Why a normal, healthy, desired child should be abandoned? Only as the result of some tragic consequences, and they don't happen very often. As I also said in that very post you cited, the fact that the child may have problems is not a reason not to adopt him. But, as I said, this must be done consciously, you must be fully aware of the difficulties and responsibility, and you must have proper medical advice, and knowledge to help the child. What's wrong or limited here?
Where did I ever state that all international adoption must be absolutely prohibited?
I've been talking only about such a movement in Russia. I have nothing against your adopting a child from china, which is over-populated, or, say, some African country where children are killed by epidemies and starve.
But I do think that it is advisable to grow where you were born.
Because when you take a child and transport him where you choose, you are depriving him of his nationality, which is unfair to him. If he choses to immigrate, he must do it himself, when he is grown. We do not chose it originally, as we don't our race and gender. But you wouldn't like it if anybody took a little child that is unable to speak for himself, and wilfully changed his sex? Even if he thought that it would be better for a child. When there's nothing vital, I do not see reasons that justify such violation of the child's right to have a choice. We like to have rights, let's not deny them to children and respect their life. Child is not a parcel, or a thing, a subject for import and export. You may disagree, of course, but than I think it will be my turn to pity you.
I hope you are not serious about it. Come on, you don't mean that "efforts of some parents" can make up for the loss of a language and culture that they don't even know themselves?
Nobody doubts. I agree absolutely.
I didn't say that the people who can have children must not adopt them. I said only that I wouldn't deny the life to my own child because I intend to adopt one. There's the difference.
I still fail to see the reasoning for this statement.

Just Me I believe your point of view is significantly flawed. If an infant is born in China or the South of India or wherever, and is immediately transported to Ohio, he or she will not be imbued with a "different culture." Ditto if an americn kid is born and immediately transported to some family of Bedouins. Yes, they will look "different" but largely they will be products of the families and societies in which they are reared.

Your reasoning is akin to the reasoning that was behind the miscegnation laws of this country and to the old ethnic tensions in the US which did not die out entirely until the sixties (i.e. a christian should not marry a jew, an an Irish should not marry an Italian etc.)

I think it is rarely the case, when a newborn child is transported from china to Ohio immediately . :rolleyes:
I'm not saying that it is impossible, though. I'm just saying that it's unfair to the child, who cannot decide for himself, to transport him as we wish. We have no right to make such a decision on his behalf.

Just Me-

Your arguments are quite silly. You state that "When there's nothing vital, I do not see reasons that justify such violation of the child's right to have a choice. " and compare adoption to changing the sex of a child.

Every adopted child (when done legally) is given a caregiver or representative who represents their best interest. Children are just that...children! Adoptive parents are searching for the best interest of that child or else the child would not be available for adoption in the first place. I don't see what is so difficult about that fact.

For you to claim that you are against international adoption in Russia shows that you obviously have no clue what the state of adoptive children are in that country along with the surrounding countries of the Ukraine and Khazastan (bad spelling). Why exactly are you against adoption in Russia?

What do you declare as "immediately"? Do you have any memories before the age of 2-3? I doubt it. Besides most adopted children from Russia are under the age of 1.

So since we don't have the right to make decisions on the behalf of children, I suppose I can let my kids do whatever they want right? I mean I couldent possibly deny their right to choose, could I? :rolleyes:

I think it is rarely the case, when a newborn child is transported from china to Ohio immediately . :rolleyes:
I'm not saying that it is impossible, though. I'm just saying that it's unfair to the child, who cannot decide for himself, to transport him as we wish. We have no right to make such a decision on his behalf. [/b][/quote]Roughly 10% of my daughters's school are adopted Chinese. They are thriving and learning and happy and fit in with NO problems (perhaps because there are so many here?). Their options in China as abandoned females were nil. They would have been lucky to get a minimum education.

Though I do have a friend (using money she got from FFC helping him film Apocalypse Now btw, funny link to this board a little) has set up a foundation in China to try to remedy this. She provides education for orphans that DO NOT get adopted: http://halfthesky.org/07AboutUs/usstaff.html

Completely untrue. Yes, you are removing the child from their birthcountry. But you are NOT depriving them of their nationality. That is something that will always be theirs, and again it is up to the parent to provide the information and seek sources to have the child fully appreciate it.

Not completely, no. However, many parents who bother to educate themselves in international adoption do provide as best an appreciation as possible to their children of the country, language and culture in which they were born. And yes, in many case the child is happier, healthier, loved and so much more fulfilled than if they had remained in their country of birth to be raised in an orphanage.

You really can't deny life to a child or anything that doesn't yet exist. Deciding not to become pregnant is just that...deciding not become pregnant (and I'm not talking about abortion, so nobody jump on that...I simply mean choosing NOT to become a parent through pregnancy).

Furthermore, though in most cases people choose adoption because they have found that the cannot have children...there are also many, many cases in which people who could have children physically decide to adopt instead...choosing to give their love and home to a child (or children) already born, alone for whatever reason, and needing a home. Also, more & more people who have already had one or more kids through pregnancy are choosing to have their family grow through adoption, sometimes specifically requesting special needs children who will need some kind of medical care once adopted.

I'm glad you apparently agree with me that those people too are making a wonderful choice, despite your original statement that, "..I guess it's better to live a half-orphan than not to live at all.."

JustMe, you are getting extremely defensive on this topic, and also digging yourself into quite a hole. I suggest you let up on your know-it-all attitude; I don't know how old you are but hope that in the years to come your thinking becomes less limited.

But I won't count on it..

Apple

The US is different than other countries. For example you can only be Iranian if one of your parents have been Iranian. Being born here doesn't qualify you as an Iranian citizen nor living here for a hundred years. As you know US is a multi-ethnic country and one can get a citizenship and fit in well because there are all kind of races living there. Same thing goes for adoption. What is not a problem in the US might be a problem in Russia, Iran or some other country. So what you guys are arguing over is because you don't have any idea how things in different countries are.

Prove. It's easy to say offending things. No merit.

But when they are adopted internationally it's difficult to control. Representatives of their native country can help them with little - if anything.
Aren't they people?
It's good when they are. But sometimes they are not. In the same country the rights of the children will be controlled better by officials.
Kazakhstan, I believe. I really have no clue about adoption in Ukraine and Kazakhstan - but then, I don't speak about them.
I don't see any need.

What if they do not bother and seek sources? Do you still say the child will be deprived of nothing? That's obvious he will.

What are you arguing with? I just said that I, personally, would prefer to have my own children, regardless of any possible adoption. What enrages you?
I think you did not understand me, because there's no contradiction in my words. I think that the child with only one parent can live very well, even though he's a "half orphan". It's better to live with one parent than not to exist at all, that's what I meant. Howewer, to adopt a child is a good thing anyway, regardless of having your own children, even many. These statements are not connected.
Why? I do not offend anyone here, steadily asserting that they are limited, without even a single attempt to reason such a statement. Why should I be defensive? I'm saying obvious things, and trying to clear myself from accusations in having opinions I never really expressed.
I never claimed such a thing. There's no logic under this suggestion except your wish to hurt me in any way possible without a cause. I bear you no hostility, and never tried to use as a reasoning to my opinion anything that you might resent. Forgive me, Apple, but it sounds... Defensive.
27.

You are trying to make no sense of my words. I didn't talk about any choice. I've been talking about vital decisions. I placed nationality in the same row with race, face, gender. You cannot make a decision to alter your child's appearance instead of him. You cannot chose his profession insead of him. You cannot chose him a wife when he's 2, as they did in the middle ages. These choices are too important. that's what I meant. And sincerely, I suppose you understood me very well.

JM, to me and some other people, having caring parents are more important than nationality. If a country has nothing against a race why not that kid have a home and parents and then if he/she is not happy go back to his/her own country of origin? I'm sure he/she can make up, say for 18 years. That's the chance I personally would have like to have if I were an orphan. It would have make me really sad to know someone has deprived me of this opportunity.

I don't see any need. [/b][/quote]This statement alone proves your ignorance in Russian and Eastern European adoption. I don't mind that you don't know about adoption, but it does annoy me greatly that you wish to abolish something you obviously know nothing about.

I don't see any need. [/b][/quote]This statement alone proves your ignorance in Russian and Eastern European adoption. I don't mind that you don't know about adoption, but it does annoy me greatly that you wish to abolish something you obviously know nothing about. [/b][/quote]Why, I know lots of people who adopted children, so my information on Russian adoption is from first hands. Where your information origins?

Well, Afi, I think that every adoption, as every human life, is a unique case. I would be sad to know the reverse... Which proves that it's individual, as any choice.

Why, I know lots of people who adopted children, so my information on Russian adoption is from first hands. Where your information origins? [/QB][/QUOTE]

If you know people who have adopted from Russia than I sincerly doubt you would claim to "not see the need" for Russian adoption. I'm sure most people on this board know of adopted children, that does not mean they know alot on the subject. As far as my information origins, I've done alot of research.

I beg to differ. Nationality and being proud of it, is not something we are born with, but something we are taught to be proud and protective of it. It is not in your genes, it is like a behavior you pick and has no worth over family. You are from where your loving family is. You are what you love, period.

Well said Afsaneh

You are what you love, I agree, but I wouldn't link your nationality only with your loving family. Children who have no families, love their countries, and defend them bravely, even if there were no parents to teach them do it.

You are what you love, I agree, but I wouldn't link your nationality only with your loving family. Children who have no families, love their countries, and defend them bravely, even if there were no parents to teach them do it. [/b][/quote]They are taught to do so. I wonder where we were without blood boiling songs dedicated to ones nation. And most often in those songs, they keep repeating names as father, mother, home, hometown, and family. That's how they teach you to like your nation and country for a good cause. But you don't have it in you. All you have is love for family.

If so, why don't you tell what need do you see?
I think that they could be very well adopted in their own country, there's no problem with it, people are even waiting in lists to adopt a child.
If you choose to adopt internationally, why not a child from overpopulated China, or Africa, where the level of life is low, and it's not likely that orphans have much chance to be adopted at all.