5 ms·

> the few kids who do need real homes You have to be kidding me. Do you know how many kids are literal orphans in sub-saharan Africa?

bluGill 6y ago
No. I know that most counties won't let you adopt those orphans though because of how hard it is to be sure they really are.
lazyasciiart 6y ago
Did you know that UNICEF defines "orphan" as a child with at least one dead parent? Globally there are estimated to be about 15 million "double orphans", and 90% of them live with extended family. Of those that don't, frequently there is extended family or at least known families of their own culture/ethnicity/country who could take them in if given financial support - which is not only cheaper than adopting them from the US, but doesn't cut their ties to home. Aside from that, more than 90% are over the age of 5. Almost none are actually babies, and of course children orphaned at birth may have inherited AIDS or have other health issues due to whatever killed their parents. Adopting a healthy foreign baby from the US is more likely than not to involve some form of human rights violation just to make them available to you. https://www.soschildrensvillages.ca/orphan-crisis-sub-saharan-africa2 https://www.soschildrensvillages.ca/orphan-crisis-sub-sahara... https://www.unicef.org/media/orphans https://www.unicef.org/media/orphans
- jtbayly 6y ago
  So I assume you also advocate prohibiting mothers giving their children up for adoption in the US? Meanwhile, we literally sell babies with impunity which we euphemistically call "surrogacy."
  - lazyasciiart 6y ago
    That is a bizarre and incorrect assumption, but if you weren't trying to start a fight then you might have made the reasonable assumption that I think there are problems with the way adoptions work in the US as well, and if you want to adopt within the US you should still be prepared to put a lot of work in to identifying the ethical way to do so. Start with the assumption that you should absolutely not be planning to move the child to a different country or even state as soon as you've adopted.
    - jtbayly 6y ago
      The difference between us is that I believe in adoption – where a child becomes part of a new family - whereas you apparently do not. Moving is hard on children, not so much on infants, much more so on teens. But the idea that parents ought to be prohibited from moving is a truly radical idea.
      - lazyasciiart 6y ago
        The difference between us is that you are making an effort to jump to the stupidest possible claim you can think of, like here where you have managed to read "should not plan to" and twisted it into "should be prohibited from".
        jtbayly 6y ago
        When you say that people need to be ethical, and then give your only example and say that they “absolutely should not...” I think it’s fair to say your claim is that it should not be done.

bluGill 6y ago

No. I know that most counties won't let you adopt those orphans though because of how hard it is to be sure they really are.

lazyasciiart 6y ago

Did you know that UNICEF defines "orphan" as a child with at least one dead parent? Globally there are estimated to be about 15 million "double orphans", and 90% of them live with extended family. Of those that don't, frequently there is extended family or at least known families of their own culture/ethnicity/country who could take them in if given financial support - which is not only cheaper than adopting them from the US, but doesn't cut their ties to home. Aside from that, more than 90% are over the age of 5. Almost none are actually babies, and of course children orphaned at birth may have inherited AIDS or have other health issues due to whatever killed their parents. Adopting a healthy foreign baby from the US is more likely than not to involve some form of human rights violation just to make them available to you. https://www.soschildrensvillages.ca/orphan-crisis-sub-saharan-africa2 https://www.soschildrensvillages.ca/orphan-crisis-sub-sahara... https://www.unicef.org/media/orphans https://www.unicef.org/media/orphans

jtbayly 6y ago
So I assume you also advocate prohibiting mothers giving their children up for adoption in the US? Meanwhile, we literally sell babies with impunity which we euphemistically call "surrogacy."
- lazyasciiart 6y ago
  That is a bizarre and incorrect assumption, but if you weren't trying to start a fight then you might have made the reasonable assumption that I think there are problems with the way adoptions work in the US as well, and if you want to adopt within the US you should still be prepared to put a lot of work in to identifying the ethical way to do so. Start with the assumption that you should absolutely not be planning to move the child to a different country or even state as soon as you've adopted.
  - jtbayly 6y ago
    The difference between us is that I believe in adoption – where a child becomes part of a new family - whereas you apparently do not. Moving is hard on children, not so much on infants, much more so on teens. But the idea that parents ought to be prohibited from moving is a truly radical idea.
    - lazyasciiart 6y ago
      The difference between us is that you are making an effort to jump to the stupidest possible claim you can think of, like here where you have managed to read "should not plan to" and twisted it into "should be prohibited from".
      - jtbayly 6y ago
        When you say that people need to be ethical, and then give your only example and say that they “absolutely should not...” I think it’s fair to say your claim is that it should not be done.