Why do people blindly think that a child must be an "orphan" to be adoptable?

icehockeymom7

I know that in international adoption (we adopted from China) the term "orphan" is used just to mean the child's biological parents could not be found and therefore the child was deemed an "orphan". I guess it is kind of a semantics thing, as the only true "orphan" is one whose parents have died. But for purposes of international adoption, they refer to children in orphanages as orphans. In my mind, an orphan is a child whose parents cannot raise him/her for whatever reason. But I guess you are right....that really isn't a true "orphan" if the child's bio parents are not deceased.

Mei-Ling

Because they are led to believe that children have ended up in orphanages because they are orphans.

It's not necessarily true, just what they have been told. And without evidence to the contrary, there is no one to question as to what they have been led to believe.

I believe there are parents who actually aren't really parents and whom do not wish to parent. Yes, I believe that is possible; I have heard of cases where the young teen gets pregnant and loves her child - BUT does not want to parent. Loving a child and being able to parent that child are two very different things that are applicable or non-applicable in various situations.

There are people who "prize" their drugs or alcohol over their infants ("Oops, sorry, I didn't mean to get pregnant!") and whom end up giving those infants away for adoption.

Then there are people who just don't... care. They want to forget they are responsible for the infant they created, place that infant for adoption and viola! All their problems are fixed - they can party away during all their post-secondary years or whatever and not give a sh1t about the life they brought into the world. "Oops, unplanned pregnancy! Well, adoption is an adoption and there's someone who actually wants to parent so no big deal, I'll just hand over the infant that my body created!"

I believe those situations exist. I really do. I don't pretend to understand them, but I acknowledge that they exist and that in these cases - adoption IS the best option for someone who clearly does not wish to parent. Regardless if they love their child but just absolutely REFUSE to parent - even with social services, even with family and extended relatives supplying help, even with encouragement that they COULD be a good mom - then I say go for adoption. Because there's no point in keeping a child with a parent who never wanted that child.

The thing is, Kristy, I also believe that those cases (of a mother NOT wanting to parent whatsoever) don't exist as often as people claim they do.

Please understand that I am not naive - I do believe there are mothers who got pregnant by accident, who "like" their drugs and alcohol and partying or who value their education "more" than the infant they gave birth to.

I just do not believe that those cases happen as often as people like to make them SOUND on here for the sake of argument.

LaraSue

I don't know. I think any child who is placed for adoption is obviously a child needing a home.
And just as some people don't believe that there are that many women who place children because they "like their drugs and alcohol, or value their education more than a child" (there are many other reason a women might place a baby) I don't believe that as many women are coerced to place. I am not saying it doesn't happen, but it isn't the case in every infant placement.

Dreamweaver ILF posse 2009

Dunno...VERY FEW children in the adoption world are 'orphans'

Kazi

IMO, a child is "adoptable" when there is no one in the biological family who is willing or able to raise them. There will always be people who do not wish to be parents despite all of the resources offered to them. Eliminating infant adoption will not change that.

In some international adoptions, they have to use the word "orphan". Don't ask me why? It is crazy.

âš¡Energyâš¡

There's also a little thing called "responsibility" and if you don't want it, then you have several options including birth control, the morning after pill, sterilization, and as a last resort abortion. If you can't give away your five year old then you shouldn't be allowed let alone encouraged to give away your newborn, especially when there is evidence that an infant needs to be with its own mother in the critical first year of life or suffers irreparable emotional trauma.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: