Advertisements
Advertisements
Viewing Single Post
I find it interesting that opponents of international adoption always seize on the cry "They aren't REALLY orphans. Their families are just poor!" Then they suggest that the truly socially responsible thing to do is to just 'throw money at the problem' -- support a poor family instead of adopting a poor family's child.
No one ever suggests that the children adopted domestically are not orphans either. They are from foster care (where presumably the government has already 'thrown money' at the problem to enable the parents to take classes, finish their education, etc.) or they are signed over by single mothers who feel unable to parent despite the large number of available government assistance programs.
So maybe they should re-film the ending of Juno and instead of a loving couple taking the baby into their home, they could just pay the daycare bills while Juno finishes High School and maybe the tuition when she goes to college. They could use all the money they would have lavished on their baby to buy Juno a car and put a down payment on her first apartment. By the time her child was six or seven, she would be financially ready to be a parent. Wouldn't that be so much better? (Sarcasm intended.)