Earthquake

[morethanpretty]

Originally Posted by jujuwwhite

I am very much aware of that and that is part of my point. Why is it so hard here to adopt? I see kids returned everyday by dfacs to abusive, neglectful parents while childless couples desperately wanting kids (babies or not) get turned down for stupid reasons such as too old, too poor, house not big enough, car not big enough. Basically stupid excuses.

Maybe you should look into the reasons for the guidelines before dismissing them as "stupid."
Children being returned to bad biological relatives is unrelated to adults being unable to adopt.

[jujuwwhite]

Originally Posted by morethanpretty

Maybe you should look into the reasons for the guidelines before dismissing them as "stupid."
Children being returned to bad biological relatives is unrelated to adults being unable to adopt.

I stand corrected. My wording may not have been the best choice but my sentiment is the same. Yes, the two instances may be different but are related at the same time. When children are taken out of abusive situations and there are no blood relatives who can (or be willing to) take the children into their custody the children are placed in foster homes. Yes, some of the foster homes are not the best places (NOTE I said some not all). However, occassionally children are placed in foster care and are left there for extended periods of time. About the time the children get settled into a family environment and the foster parents decide to make it permanent, somehow the birth parents decide to be parents again and thus starts the vicious cycle all over again.

I do realize that not every situation is the same so please understand I am not trying to group every instance into the same category.

[morethanpretty]

Originally Posted by jujuwwhite

I stand corrected. My wording may not have been the best choice but my sentiment is the same. Yes, the two instances may be different but are related at the same time. When children are taken out of abusive situations and there are no blood relatives who can (or be willing to) take the children into their custody the children are placed in foster homes. Yes, some of the foster homes are not the best places (NOTE I said some not all). However, occassionally children are placed in foster care and are left there for extended periods of time. About the time the children get settled into a family environment and the foster parents decide to make it permanent, somehow the birth parents decide to be parents again and thus starts the vicious cycle all over again.

I do realize that not every situation is the same so please understand I am not trying to group every instance into the same category.

I don't think birth parents should have a "right" to the child (once they've 1st proven untrustworthy.) Each situation should be investigated and decided which is best for the child, stay with stable foster parents, or go back to questionable birth parents? (Can you guess my bias?) Also, I think that if a couple attempting to adopt from a pregnant woman, go through the process, pay for the medical, buy supplies ect ect, and the biological mother changes her mind after an extended period of time, that the couple should be able to recoup some of their losses from that woman who backed out on the agreement. Yes, I think she has the right to change her mind, but not at the detriment of the couple. I think this would cut down on fraud and rash decisions to "keep my baby" once its popped out.

[jujuwwhite]

Hell, Bruce, I would imagine that most of the adults right now would be willing to be adopted too!

[morethanpretty]

1st: A large number of people who are donating and helping in the Haiti crisis probably have regular causes the contribute to. They could be diverting funds from their norm and less pressing issues, or just giving for the Haiti crisis in addition to their norm. That being said, we (the US) have a large amount of disposable income, and there is a lot of selfishness.

2nd: As much as I want our troops in Afghanistan/Iraq to live decently (I have friends there too.) I'd much rather solve the problem of them having shortages by bringing them home. Plus, that sounds more like a supply requisition failure or mismanagement than a lack of funds. Although the troops lives are in danger, a lack of TP and toothpaste isn't nearly as pressing as having a building on top of you.

3rd: Why be upset about US children not getting adopted in favor of foreign children? What about all the parents who goes through loads of cash for fertility treatments and invitro, they could be adopting. Those medical costs add up to probably the cost of adoption or more, can take years, and potentially hazardous to the health of mom. I personally think of adoption (from any country) as being more beneficial to humanity and the child. That's my personal belief and choice, I'm not willing to force it on others.
The "red tape" in the US may suck, but I imagine it helps children from being adopted and really pressed into various forms of slavery, which does happen in countries with less "red tape." Like 'fobble said, its difficult to adopt a newborn in the US because of supply and demand, not just because of red tape.

[jujuwwhite]

Hadn't thought of that aspect but you are probably right. Holding the birth mother financially accountable for her decisons could cut down on scammers who prey on other women's strong desire to become mothers.

[TheMercenary]

I have a kid you can adopt. She's 22 and to big to put back.

[jujuwwhite]

Thanks Mercenary, but when I married capn I became an instant mother to a 30yr old and 2 grandkids.

[Big Sarge]

Bring the troops home? Then what? Do you think the extremists and the jihadist will leave us alone? Didn't they start this mess? The truth is we have forced them to fight in their own back yard and to expend their resources.

The US has led the fight and we are stretched thin. Other nations can lead the way in Haiti. We no longer are the worldest wealthiest nation. We are deep in debt and China holds our "markers". The Central America & Carribean nations can lead the rescue of Haiti.

That being said, I urge everyone to donate to NGOs to help Haiti.

[TheMercenary]

Second.

[classicman]

"I read that 3,000 soldiers are arriving, Marines armed as if they were going to war. There is not a shortage of guns there, my God. Doctors, medicine, fuel, field hospitals, that's what the United States should send," "They are occupying Haiti undercover."

"On top of that, you don't see them in the streets. Are they picking up bodies? ... Are they looking for the injured? You don't see them. I haven't seen them. Where are they?"
Chavez said on his weekly television show.

Alain Joyandet, French co-operation minister, told reporters at the airport he had protested to Washington via the US ambassador about the US military’s management of the airport where he said a French medical aid flight had been turned away.

Wow its sooner than I expected, but apparently the US isn't doing enough or doing it right.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

It would have cost less in lives and money if we had been good neighbors proactively.

Originally Posted by classicman

Wow its sooner than I expected, but apparently the US isn't doing enough or doing it right.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by classicman

You're right: fewer people dies because we did nothing and their houses collapsed on them. Now give more to charity, Einstein.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

You're right: fewer people dies because we did nothing and their houses collapsed on them. Now give more to charity, Einstein.

We gave them nothing? Are you really sure about that?

As recently as 2006 we gave them 163 million according to one site and another has it listed as 55 as recently as 2008.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by classicman

We gave them nothing? Are you really sure about that?

As recently as 2006 we gave them 163 million according to one site and another has it listed as 55 as recently as 2008.

Nothing in terms of the charity that has been pouring in for the last week.