Poll: About adoption....?

23 year old texas female married

If everything was free then the people that feel forced to give their kids up in the first place because they are poor and can't afford them would keep them and raise them. It would be cool to have a world that didn't revolve around money but that just not the case.

Gaia Raain II

Without money, there would be much, much more of a push to keep natural families intact. And it's not impossible. There are some interesting solutions offered at the end of the second film I've linked below. Even if you disagree with what they are saying, these are both films every person should see. They offer a lot of insight into why our society is run as it is, and how we can make some positive changes.

myst1998

I think if money didn't run the world, then there would be barely ANY children available for adoption as it would mean the parents who only place due to financial reasons (and I would say that's most adoptions) would be able to keep their children.

Even in today's world, there is no REAL need for adoption except that which is created by human desire. If people got together and used their minds creatively, I am sure there would be other options for children who ACTUALLY NEED to be in care... adoption is such a harsh way to give a child a stable and loving environment; it is a guillotine 'solution' and causes more issues than it fixes.

mom to be

Your question has too many what if's. If you really want to change how the adoption laws work and how agencies are run you need to start talking to your legislatures. Giving away things for free is not the way to address adoption. There are already programs that will help pay for the things that a mother needs to raise her child. WIC, HEAP, Medicaid,food stamps, welfare, and other such programs already do this. You can not force people to parent who choose not to parent.

Madam Bari

No, I don't think there would be as many kids relinquished.
And of course there wouldn't be so many agencies. Agencies exist as businesses to make a profit. No profit = No Agencies.

I think more mothers would keep their children if they were actually made aware of the plethora of government help that's available in this country for single mothers. I also think more women would keep their children if society didn't place such a stigma on single motherhood. (See RMG's post above me. I especially love how he pointed out that the woman is the foolish one who didn't use contraception... of course, the man has absolutely no responsibility. Funny... I thought it took TWO people to conceive a child. And, according to his answer, single mothers are incapable of giving a child a decent life. What a bunch of bunk.)

I also think more women would keep their children if they weren't told that they are incapable of mothering their own offspring by agencies that make a profit off of desperate women, be they pregnant and single or infertile and married.

angelica c

is that what the majority thinks? that women give up their children for the money? well i know i didnt....i didnt even have the parents pay for the hospital and drs appointments,,,,,,i did get a stipend of 2500 but thats it, just to cover my missing work for a month............so to answer your question,,,,,yes without money i think adoption would still happen........

Randy B

I really don't see how this is realistic in that everything costs and any business needs to make something, even non-profits. There are always expenses that need to be paid, equipment that needs to be replaced, computers that need to be life cycled...... If there was a way to standardize costs perhaps that would at least settle the costs issue down but I don't see how that would eliminate or lessen a need for adoption. There are always going to be women who have their children taken, there are always women who are going to have choices to make. There are always going to be reasons and needs for adoption.

SJM

There is no such thing as free. However, there is such a thing as reforming our currency, and I definitely agree that the US would be a better place if the monopoly of the Federal Reserve Note ended.

More to your point, however, I do believe that if our monetary system was more stable and competitive, our nation's economic situation would improve and there would be fewer hardships including adoption. Limiting legal currency to one fiat note issued by a single corporation allows a few individuals at the top to play with the rest of us as if we are toys.

BLW_KAM

The world you describe is a utopian socialism. Yes, adoption would decrease dramatically, but humanity would be barely recognizable.

Part of being human is the pursuit of success. If we lived in a socialist world without the entrepreneurial spirit would we have microwaves, Disney World, aluminum foil, or Google? Maybe not. Would humanity be better off without those things? Maybe.

âœ§ â“â“˜â“›â“¨ â™¥ kaelers, emy & bella

I think that adoption would still be going on, but in smaller numbers.
Contrary to the 'all biological moms are saints who were victimized' people on here's view, there are simply some people who do not want to be parents, who have no business being parents, and who don't give a crap about kids even if they gave birth to them.

It's actually an interesting study, this is kind of a side note, but sociologists have long studied African (and other, but mainly African) tribal groups and how orphaned children - or children whose parents are otherwise unavailable or unable to be the primary caregivers - are dealt with by the community. It's almost universal that extended family and friends will adopt the child and raise them, and this has been going on forever with these groups.

I imagine that'd become more common than formal, stranger adoption.

I think in your make believe society, agencies would largely go away, which would definitely be a positive. They'd probably be replaced with a governing body or advocacy organization somewhat like social services which deals with adoptions in those scenarios where needed.

But as it is, even when we eliminate socio-economic threats to keeping biological families together, there's no way to fully remove bad parents, mental illness, cruelty of man, or other conditions in which it's in the child's best interest to no longer live with the biological parent/s. Quite simply, there are some people who are just not supposed to be parents, and unfortunately unless reproduction was also tightly regulated in your communist world, those people inevitably reproduce sometimes.

I don't agree with the idea of a society with no currency (competition is the engine of growth and life would be boring if everyone were the same), but I see the point of it for this argument's sake.

What this discussion comes down to is whether you're an idealist or a realist. These kinds of things are nice fantasies for some people, but that's all they are - fantasies, and they are fantasies that occupy time better spent working toward realistic improvement.

Currency isn't going away, and people will never be wholly equal. We tried that a few times (Russian Revolution ring any bells? China? Cuba?), and it hasn't worked out too well. Total equality breaks people's spirits.
Humans are not above competition yet, and it's not going to happen just because you spread YouTube videos or post about it on Yahoo, LOL.

rxing

adoption isnt about money, it's about selflessness.

durdenslabs

Of course there would be children available for adoption. There are always stupid & cruel people that have children and don't want them.

Foster children HAVE all been abused. That's why we are adopting from foster care - to give a child that really needs it a home.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: