Should it be easier to adopt a child?

towel401

So right now there are millions of unwanted kiddies around the place and the supply is clearly greater than the demand so why is it so much trouble for the few unfortunate souls who actually want to take care of one of these screaming brats?

like there is endless amounts of paper work, vetting where they come into your house and root through your stuff to make sure you are an honest hard working citizen who embraces the New World Order, DRM and the cashless society. nobody over 40 need apply, in some countries anyway. so after years of messing around with bureaucracy you finally get some brat that even its mother can't be arsed taking care of.

really I think you should be allowed to sell kids on ebay. it would prevent abuse anyway because an abused child isn't worth as much as a brand new, untouched one. you'd no longer be able to put "BNIB" in the title of the listing.

it would promote research into cryogenics because it means investors will be able to buy up loads of kids when the prices are low, freeze them in for a couple of years and sell high? what u think

My name is URL

If nothing else, I think that single people should be allowed to adopt. It's disgraceful that there are limitations on that regardless of the means a person has to care for a child.

MagicMarker

Upward Spiral wrote: »

If nothing else, I think that single people should be allowed to adopt. It's disgraceful that there are limitations on that regardless of the means a person has to care for a child.

Single people can adopt.

My name is URL

MagicMarker wrote: »

Single people can adopt.

That's better!

*dusts self off

galwayrush

Yes, but harder for people like Madonna trying to adopt a baby as a type of fashion accessory.

MagicMarker

galwayrush wrote: »

Yes, but harder for people like Madonna trying to adopt a baby as a type of fashion accessory.

It's only a matter of time before they're carried around in a little handbag.

The_Conductor

towel401 wrote: »

So right now there are millions of unwanted kiddies around the place and the supply is clearly greater than the demand so why is it so much trouble for the few unfortunate souls who actually want to take care of one of these screaming brats?

like there is endless amounts of paper work, vetting where they come into your house and root through your stuff to make sure you are an honest hard working citizen who embraces the New World Order, DRM and the cashless society. nobody over 40 need apply, in some countries anyway. so after years of messing around with bureaucracy you finally get some brat that even its mother can't be arsed taking care of.

really I think you should be allowed to sell kids on ebay. it would prevent abuse anyway because an abused child isn't worth as much as a brand new, untouched one. you'd no longer be able to put "BNIB" in the title of the listing.

it would promote research into cryogenics because it means investors will be able to buy up loads of kids when the prices are low, freeze them in for a couple of years and sell high? what u think

As an adopted person- I think you are a cruel and heartless person, and I hope that if you do ever apply to become an adoptive parent that your application is shown the contempt it deserves and thrown into the nearest shredder.

Adoption is supposed to be in the best interests of the child- not to cater for a fad. Children are not fashion accessories, the responsibilities they bring cannot be underestimated.

Regards,

SMcCarrick

towel401

smccarrick wrote: »

As an adopted person- I think you are a cruel and heartless person, and I hope that if you do ever apply to become an adoptive parent that your application is shown the contempt it deserves and thrown into the nearest shredder.

Adoption is supposed to be in the best interests of the child- not to cater for a fad. Children are not fashion accessories, the responsibilities they bring cannot be underestimated.

Regards,

SMcCarrick

the current system seems to be on the lookout for the perfect parent which is of course impossible. sure make them a fashion accessory and they have a better chance of ending up with a rich family who will buy them expensive iProducts i don't really see the problem with this

MagicMarker

towel401 wrote: »

the current system seems to be on the lookout for the perfect parent which is of course impossible. sure make them a fashion accessory and they have a better chance of ending up with a rich family who will buy them expensive iProducts i don't really see the problem with this

You fail at trolling.

towel401

MagicMarker wrote: »

You fail at trolling.

really? i couldnt care less about how many lil kids madonna imports, chances are they will have a much better life than at home. its just all the guys that cant afford to adopt that are complaining.

994

MagicMarker wrote: »

Single people can adopt.

Single women, you mean.

The_Conductor

994 wrote: »

Single women, you mean.

Since 2007 single people can adopt in Ireland. Men and women.

MagicMarker

994 wrote: »

Single women, you mean.

A single man or woman can apply to adopt a child. Whether or not they are successful is another story.

wolfpawnat

I had a little boy not too long ago, and because I didn't have help from home (I still don't) but then I decided to look at my options, keeping it and giving it up for adoption.

The truth is there are nowhere near enough children for the families that are approved. I was told only 10-15 children a year are adopted by non-family members in Ireland each year.

Lobelia Overhill

I think they need to prune the number of "qualifications" you need in order to adopt. I've heard of people being asked to list 10 people whom they can call on in an emergency - why?

Your age shouldn't be a factor (unless you're 90 or something), especially if you're willing to adopt a child that's not a days old baby...

The_Conductor

10 emergency numbers is a tad excessive, certainly. I do agree with an age limit however- its a sad fact of life that none of us are getting any younger. Its not fair on either the parents or the child- where the parent is above a certain age (its a generalisation- but it tends to hold). Children are awake at night, and it does take a lot of time and effort to bring a child up. As we get older we do not have the energy that we might have had in our younger years. Adoption is not a method of supplying a child to a couple who are unable to have children- its a method of supplying a good home to child who might otherwise not have it. Adoption has to be in the best interests of the child. It is not in a child's best interests to have parents who do not have the energy and stamina necessary to bring up children.

Mark200

MagicMarker wrote: »

A single man or woman can apply to adopt a child. Whether or not they are successful is another story.

Well I'm sure everyone could apply....



Anyway what's the story with gay couples adopting these days?

MagicMarker

Any couple who wants to adopt need to be married, seeing as gay couples can't marry.......

However, a homosexual person is allowed to adopt as a single parent, and gay couples are allowed foster.

Ostrom

towel401 wrote: »

the current system seems to be on the lookout for the perfect parent which is of course impossible. sure make them a fashion accessory and they have a better chance of ending up with a rich family who will buy them expensive iProducts i don't really see the problem with this

You know nothing of 'the system', nor anything of the importance of its bureaucracy.

Adoption policy is primarily oriented toward the child, every procedure follows by this extension.

The_Conductor

There seems to be a disconnect with people as to what the purpose of adoption actually is. People seem to think the purpose is to satisfy a need in people, a need which can be adoption itself (the specifics aside), a need to have children, an inability to have children, or even more worrying- because its seen fashionable or trendy. The fact of the matter is that the underlying purpose of adoption is to provide a loving caring home for a child who might not otherwise have it. Adoption has to be in the best interests of the child- not simply to satisfy a 'to-do' list on the part of adoptive parents (of which there seems to be several high profile examples).

The vetting procedure for adoptive parents is strict- but put it this way- if you really loved your child, but felt the only way to give your child a better chance in life was to place the child for adoption- and you are doing so purely out of love for your child- surely you would want to know that it is going to have loving parents, and be brought up in a good family atmosphere.

Some people seem to think that money is a motivating factor in adoption- that 'richer' people are more likely to be successfully accessed as adoptive parents. If anything I imagine social workers are far more diligent and careful to ensure in cases where there is visible evidence of wealth- that the love and nurturing a child needs will definitely be provided.

A child needs to feel loved, be motivated by its parents to achieve its maximum potential, learn a decent set of values that will stand to it in life and be a good all-rounded person in general. Some people almost treat their children like they would pets- this is clearly wrong.

Once you get over the anger with the intrusion that the vetting procedures entail- and look at the larger picture and the happy home that you hope to provide to an adoptive child- surely the shortterm annoyances of the vetting process and procedure are entirely understandable and indeed necessary?

wolfpawnat

smccarrick wrote: »

There seems to be a disconnect with people as to what the purpose of adoption actually is. People seem to think the purpose is to satisfy a need in people, a need which can be adoption itself (the specifics aside), a need to have children, an inability to have children, or even more worrying- because its seen fashionable or trendy. The fact of the matter is that the underlying purpose of adoption is to provide a loving caring home for a child who might not otherwise have it. Adoption has to be in the best interests of the child- not simply to satisfy a 'to-do' list on the part of adoptive parents (of which there seems to be several high profile examples).

The vetting procedure for adoptive parents is strict- but put it this way- if you really loved your child, but felt the only way to give your child a better chance in life was to place the child for adoption- and you are doing so purely out of love for your child- surely you would want to know that it is going to have loving parents, and be brought up in a good family atmosphere.

Some people seem to think that money is a motivating factor in adoption- that 'richer' people are more likely to be successfully accessed as adoptive parents. If anything I imagine social workers are far more diligent and careful to ensure in cases where there is visible evidence of wealth- that the love and nurturing a child needs will definitely be provided.

A child needs to feel loved, be motivated by its parents to achieve its maximum potential, learn a decent set of values that will stand to it in life and be a good all-rounded person in general. Some people almost treat their children like they would pets- this is clearly wrong.

Once you get over the anger with the intrusion that the vetting procedures entail- and look at the larger picture and the happy home that you hope to provide to an adoptive child- surely the shortterm annoyances of the vetting process and procedure are entirely understandable and indeed necessary?

+1 - The reason I was considering putting my little fella up for adoption was not to please another family (although it is nice to think they would be happy) but ONLY so he would get the best life possible. Money is not the only aspect to consider, since I didn't feel I had support I was thinking that Aidan wouldn't have a supporting family and that to me is far more concerning than money.

If I had put him up for adoption I would have prefered a family on an average income but completely loving to get him than a family who were loaded but would not care as much!

When I rang the agency to talk to them about considering the adoption all they were concerned about the whole time was the baby. Everything else, including me came second, which was comforting:) These agencies are so strict because they want to ensure a good home for the child, I wish all people could be tested to see about their ability to look after a child!

I met a woman in hospital while having my fella that I say wouldn't raise a tent let alone a child!!!!!

Capt'n Midnight

Yes it should be easier to adopt a child.

Our government used to sell Irish passports for a million pounds each.
Actually it was worse than that all you needed to do was invest a million in this country to get one.

So selling children should attract much needed money into the economy.