Can we have some counter arguments please instead of just agreeing with each other?
I don't think adoption is actually that good an idea as it is made out to be. There are drawbacks to adoption which we try to overlook because of the thought that it's a 'noble thing', 'beautiful relation' etc. Maybe it is noble and beautiful, but at the same time the drawbacks shouldn't be overlooked.Adoption end of the day is a lottery. Some kids will win for whom we can croon all we want about how lucky he/ she is to get a loving family, but sadly most kids will lose. A person adopting an orphan child can't adopt all the orphan children, neither will all orphan children get adopted. As much as we want it to be otherwise, as much as we want every family who can afford it to adopt a child, it's not going to happen.
So, what is the next best alternative? Is adopting one child out of a hundred orphans, showering him/ her with all the love while others continue to live their life of neglect, the way to go? Afterall, on what basis did the lucky child get chosen? This is not some scholarship that we award to the most meritorious. The child got chosen randomly and by sheer luck.
This is a question of someone's life, millions of lives to be precise. And if we believe that all life are equal, then the very concept of choosing someone to be loved while others continue to be deprived goes against the very essence of all life being equal.
Introverted children are usually not adopted. Not so good looking kids are usually not adopted. Those who are slightly grown up are usually not adopted. Don't they deserve a better life like we are trying to give the chosen few orphans? Is it their fault that they are introverted or not so good looking or grown up?
Do we really think that a kid who failed to capture our heart with it's cuteness doesn't deserve a better life? Do we really think that a slightly grown up child doesn't need help and can make it on his/ her own just because they are now 8 or 9 years old? Unless they get the education they deserve, how can they make it? And meaningful education doesn't stop at 8 or 9 yrs. It goes on till 21-22 yrs atleast. But we easily overlook them, we decide that they don't need our help, the cute looking 6 months old baby who is smiling at me and making cute noises needs my help, so lets give him a better life and bask in the glory that I've given someone a chance at a better life with everyone else patting my back. But maybe at the same time we should also reflect on those introverted children, not so good looking children, the slightly grown up children who lost out on having a better life.
If the purpose is to give a better life to orphans, how is the purpose served and how does the situation change at all, if a lucky few hogs the lion's share while the vast majority is left to fend for themselves from whatever leftover that can be salvaged. Unless all or atleast most of them are pulled up to a certain standard, we can't say we've made any difference.
Instead, wouldn't it be much better to donate what we can, money, time, any item that can be used, so that they can be shared equally by all the kids? A dozen children may get deprived from getting a king's life, but atleast a thousand children will be saved from leading a life of complete deprivation.
Edited by souro - 10 years ago
comment:
p_commentcount