Wednesday, February 21, 2007



Under what circumstances would any of you place your child up for adoption? Am asking this because recently I found myself on the wrong side of a debate. Am well aware that many parents place their children for adoption if they really are unable to provide for them or if other circumstances dictate that they do. I don't have a problem with the principle/s although I don't know if I would be able to make such a decision. If you think about it the decision making could be seen as a tremendous act of love since you are giving the child an opportunity for a better life. Some may argue that life is best with blood relatives and it in an ideal world it would be the case.

Am a bit saddened about a child that was recently placed for adoption. Let's just say the reason is so poor that it almost seems callous. I wish I could give more details but I'll err on the side of caution and simply say there are times when family can be the enemy.

if illness, finances or some other stuff stops you from being able to properly provide for the welfare of the child it could be an option.
I think adoption should be the last resort.

Because no matter how good intention your decision may be, at some point the kid is going to want to know why you just couldn't try a little harder, and no matter what reason you give, it will sound a bit selfish...
Hmm, I kinda feel like would I prefer to put my child up for adoption where some care would be taken to ensure that s/he gets put into a proper home, or would I leave him/her with family JUST because they're family with no guarantees that they'd take care of my child.

I think there's an expectation that because someone is family that they'll treat your offspring better than a stranger would, and we've seen many, many cases where that is simply not true.

I was watching on the news last night about a mother who won custody of her kids and had them living in a house with no plumbing, dead animals, shitting in a corner, peeing in bottles, etc. Take a look at the pictures, then tell me that those children wouldn't have been better off in a state-run facility!

And remember that other incident in NJ where the woman left her kids with her sister and found one of them dead, and the other (an 18 yo so malnourished he only weighed 90 lbs.)?

Sometimes family is NOT the best option.
I think adoption is a much better alternative to abortion. And sometimes children need to be taken away from the parents for their own sake.
Adoption should be allowed, if tahe parent is unfit, unable, financially although that reason doan really fly in the Caribbean, if the parent is too young, had the child under unsual circumstances, eg, force raped or something similar.

Adoption offers a family a chance at a child they cannot have. I have a good friend who just adopted a baby after she and her husband tries for so many yrs.
Though, I never say never, I would hope to not ever have to do so.
It would be a tough decision I'm sure. I don't know what I would do but know that I would want the best for my child no matter what.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?