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.