there is so much talk in our left circles about world injustice. Which is cool, but I want to rant about where that actually hurts me in person. So there's starving children in this world right? There are orphans, children who grow up in a state of war, and seeing family killed, there are unsanitary conditions for kids, there is abuse neglect, TV, environmental toxicity and all these tons of things that make us ashamed of our race when we think about the next generation. Ok, we all know this.
But I can't just adopt some children. Children are left to die all over the world, but I can't come in and save a few of them. Why not? Because I don't have the income, the spouse, the home ownership, and the tens of thousands of dollars to go through the red tape.
There it is right there, infront of our eyes, there are dying children and people who would love to parent them, but a lot of red tape between the two parties. All this for the stated purpose of “ensuring that the child receives the right home for their needs” and apparently, living in a commune won't fit those needs so it's better off to have this child grow up in total poverty.
I know, there is a problem of child trafficking for labor purposes. And there is no clear way for me, even if everyone that knows me could vouch for me and say that I would be a good father and I'm not starting a “Sebastopol's independent local sweatshop” it's not enough. Even though I spent 5 years in graduate school studying child development, it still doesn't matter. I can't prove that all I want is to love children and learn from them, show them the world and gently support their development where they need it. Raise them in nature around kind people only, away from TV, drugs, crime, and refined sugar. I can't prove any of these things, and there isn't even anyone to prove it to. The system has all the power.
I'm kinda stuck on this injustice and I'm not being proactive about my fatherhood.
Maybe I need to transcend my self and just donate my money to help children rather than be the person who gets to love them. Maybe that's more effective.
I'm sad.
Can anyone relate?
Neshamah
10-07-2007, 09:40 AM
I'm sure your children will lead better lives than those raised by Angelina Jolie, Madonna, or any of the other celebrities selecting children around the world. Personally, I think marriage (or at least a formal paired relationship) should be a prerequisite to raising children (which is why I do not think the government should restrict gay marriages.) People are different so the definition of civil union ought to be broad enough to cover all of the contractual relationships people might want to enter into.
Lots of money, home ownership, and lawyers should not be prerequisites. It seems regulators should only ask, is this orphan better off where he is, or where he is wanted? In many cases, the orphan will be far better off where he is wanted. When it comes to abortion, there should at the very least be incentives for victimized women to bring their children to term. Personally, I think children conceived simply out of carelessness ought to be available for adoption. If it came to a vote, I'd rather see adoption rules that are too flexible than too rigid, so long as children were never taken from willing parents.
~ Neshamah
Dynamique
10-08-2007, 12:10 PM
Over the past eight years, I've been involved in adoption issues -- second hand, fortunately. Based on this experience, I offer these three observations on this thread:
1. Overseas adoptions are fraught with fraud and problems. Selling these children to whoever will pay for them has become a major industry. Children in troubled countries are much better served staying in their native culture and language rather than taking out a few on a piecemeal basis. If you want to help these children, supporting humanitarian organizations trying to effect long-term change and stability in troubled countries is the best investment of your energy and money, IMO.
2. If your desire to help children is genuine and based on altruism rather than emotional needyness or other unresolved issues, then become a foster parent! There are thousands of children in California alone who need a stable, loving, long-term living situation. Fostering-to-adoption is an excellent option. Going through the foster parent training will show that you are serious about this and, if you pass, qualified to raise children who do not share your DNA. Raising someone else's children is very different from raising your own children -- don't fall for the "it's just the same" myth!
3. Neshamah (below) seems to be operating on some early 20th century patriarchical thinking here. This is the old "punish them for having sex by forcing them to relinquish the child to 'better' people" paradigm. What if the biological parent(s) don't want to have strangers raising their children? Do they not have any rights here? Are they conveniently out of the equation?
It sounds to me like Neshamah is proposing forced pregancy and relinquishment, something the extreme-right "christian" crowd in the US has been trying to do since 1974. Wake up Little Susie by R. Solinger is a good read if you want to educate yourself on politics of pre-choice sex and pregnancy.
In a perfect world, every pregnancy would be a wanted pregnancy. Having universal/nationalized medical care in this country would go a long way toward making that goal. It would also help those who have an accidental pregnancy be able to keep and parent their child. I suspect that is *one* of the reasons why we do not have nationalized medical care here.
-- Kirsten
Personally, I think children conceived simply out of carelessness ought to be available for adoption. If it came to a vote, I'd rather see adoption rules that are too flexible than too rigid, so long as children were never taken from willing parents.
~ Neshamah
gil
10-08-2007, 10:13 PM
Kristen,
you're right on, the foster system is an awsome alternative to adoption, it feels to me like a more sincere one where you take children who really need your help and would thrive with a good parent.
adoption might feel to people like it's closer to having their own child than fostering, but if the point is helping the child than there are plenty of kids in need of foster homes.
and you are right that donating to organizations overseas that are helping orphans is the most altrusitic act. but I don't think that wanting to parent a child is an unhealthy case of neediness. I admit that I want to love and be loved, and of course that's motivating me to want children not just the concern for their wellbeing. but that's kinda how love is in general, and the key is balance between care and love.
I was mostly feeling upset about how large the system is and how rigid the rules are, but I'm greatful that the rules are there or child labor traficing would really take off and we would go back to the era of slavery in this country. I just feel a little lost in this system since there is no way for people's intetnions and personality to be known so we are anonymous statistics in a wold of laws when it comes to things like immigration and adoption.
thank's for your reply.
ThePhiant
10-09-2007, 09:00 AM
Gil
I suggest you go to a foster parent interview so you can get educated on what it really is like to raise children.
LuLu
Kristen,
you're right on, the foster system is an awsome alternative to adoption, it feels to me like a more sincere one where you take children who really need your help and would thrive with a good parent....
Neshamah
10-09-2007, 11:11 AM
What if the biological parent(s) don't want to have strangers raising their children? Do they not have any rights here?
Ideally parents should raise the children they conceive, even if they are conceived recklessly. However, if the reckless parents do not want to raise their child, then better the child be adopted than killed. The government is too clumsy to enforce this, but just because it should not be legally enforceable does not mean it is not true.
Rights do not come without responsibilities. Consensual sex is a right, but it comes with responsibilities, and that includes being responsible for any offspring, whether intended or not. If the father abandons his responsibilities, it is unfair to expect the mother to take up his share alone, and she would be justified in not bringing the child into the world. However, if his neglect does lead to abortion, he should be held accountable. (Whether the government should hold him accountable is a separate question.) If neither parent is taking responsibility for their child, then neither has the right to say who raises her.
It sounds to me like Neshamah is proposing forced pregancy and relinquishment, something the extreme-right "christian" crowd in the US has been trying to do since 1974.
I certainly do not support forced sex, nor do I think any parent should be forced to relinquish their child so long as they are making the effort to be a parent, no matter how ineffective their efforts may be. The State can be terrifying to a young mother who is trying to get back on her feet. Worrying about food and housing is bad enough without worrying that some government agency will come and take your child away.
For the child, as well as for the new parents, I think adoption is preferable to a foster home. Children ought to have stability, and better willing but learning parents (whether biological or adoptive) than perfect foster parents who could legally be forced to relinquish their child.