Adoption

[Laureate]

Word to "in a sense ure parents are those whom raise you and bring you up. So a parent doesn't necisarilly need to be the person who gave birth to you" Bloomquist, I feel the smae way. I'm not all anxious to meet my birth mom, kind nervous/scared I guess. And I'm mad at her for gving me up, which is kind selfish considering I don't know her true reasons, but thats jus how I feel.

[Sandy]

Not adopted. And I'm glad. But I have some friends that are. Sorry to everyone that was.

that has to be the dumbest thing i have every heard...seriously that is ignorant and pathetic. adoption is a way for the kid to have a better life if at the time the birth parents weren't able to provide them one. it's better than aborting or killing a child in a few years cause handling them is to much. don't feel sorry for anyone that's adopted cause they are probably better off than u

[Laureate]

^Word babe

I responded in the same way on the last page

The fuck does that mean? Why feel sorry for me? I don't want your pathetic sympathy. I'm probably better off than you. The only difference if I wasn't adopted would be I'd be whoring you in Korean instead of English. Of course that isn't the only difference. but you get my point

[inspire]

I don't want to adopt. I'd much rather have a kid of my own. It doesn't feel natural to me.. Having a child with a partner would feel like the two of you creating something together - a product of your love and relationship. Something that you'd have an instant connection and bond with as soon as it was born and you held it in your arms. Pure instinctual love of your offspring.

Adopting a child wouldn't feel the same to me. So I'd only do it if I wasn't able to have children and my wife wanted a child really badly.

[SMZ]

Adoption agencies exist. But they aren't really ever used when you think about. Couples pretty much always want to have a kid of their own. And there are many children up for adoption. Way more then their are families to take care of them. Yet couples don't often look at that option.

And there are a lot of issues about it. Abortion for example. One of the reasons to argue against abortion is that you can always put the child up for adoption. That is all well and good. Aside from the treatment of life (There are a few, wishfull thinking to be isolated, cases of some horrible and tremendous abuse), the fact is rarely are these kids ever adopted. Speaking to this one man once who used the same argument. He had three kids. I asked him straight up, "So someone puts their child up for adoption. You going to adopt it?"

Regardless life always offers choices and hope. No matter how bad your life as an adopted child, or one awaiting adoption, the opportunity exist of your life getting better thru either active effort on your part or pure chance. Either way your lot is infinitely better than a child who is aborted.

Homosexual couples. This other guy trying to tell me the studies are conclusive that kids grow up better with a mother and a father. Nevermind that school shooters have had a mother and father. Nevermind that Hitler had a mother and a father. The studies they referred to only show that kids grow up better with a mother and father when compared to only a single mother or father. Studies have actually shown that children of homosexual couples grow up just fine with two parents of the same gender, and just as adjusted normally as otherwise. So why prevent such couples from adopting?

True, studies can show whatever the researchers want them to show. But this doesn't seem to be a farfetched idea. Of course children raised by a mother and father are not guaranteed to be productive members of society, nor are those raised by a homosexual "couple" guaranteed to have irreversible problems. Yet a child who has both a mother and a father to care for it will mature with greater stability than one who does not. Men and women are different, at many more levels than mere physical makeup. A child needs a mothers nurturing care and a fathers more protective role as well. You may argue that a homosexual couple can fill both functions but this is simply not true. Men and women differ at the basic level of how their brains are wired. A child needs both. Obviously, they can learn to cope with the lack of one or the other but it’s essentially like living with two right ears. It’s possible, but hardly natural, beneficial, or desirable.

And finally, do you plan (or have had) a child naturally or by adoption? And why? (I myself plan to adopt. Give some kid a damn chance in life, and won't be adding to the overpopulation problem.)

I plan to have children naturally merely because I would feel a greater bond with said progeny knowing that they were irrevocably connected to me, if through nothing else than through genetic structure. Besides it would be a shame and a waste for me not to pass these genes on. After I already have my family established I might adopt a child or two but I doubt I would feel the same bond. Oh, and overpopulation is not really a problem. The Earth can support plenty more humans. The problem is mismanagement of resources which will occur I suppose as long as humans govern themselves. Thus I am not too concerned with that issue.

I agree that adoption is not a perfect solution, but as far as I can see it seems to be better than the available alternatives...

[steveontrial]

Adoption is such a good thing in this world of corruption and poverty that many live in, and it should be more popular