Greenville Craigslist Baby Sale

Not if I have anything to say about it. Which, as far as I know, I don't.

 

Why would I care to rail on anyone taking an orphan in?

I don't care about why your friends did it - at all - the reality is that they paid thousands of more dollars to sidestep hundreds of kids within 250 miles of their home, to adopt a kid internationally.

People have reasons for doing things. Many good. God told them. They like babies of different ethnicities. Take your pick, man, matters zero.

But that's just the reality of adopting kids internationally. It's more expensive and you're doing so by overlooking lots of kids here, who are just as needing and deserving of homes.

That's why I'd make it illegal. We can just disagree. Kudos to your friends for adopting some kid.

 

Sorry, I was using "international adoption" and "private adoption" interchangeably - as they are essentially the same thing, and cost about as much (international = international, private = domestic)

Had they adopted the child via the State, there is a 99.99999999% chance that it would have been for $0.00. It costs much more than that (zero) to adopt internationally or via a private adoption agency. If the baby was a preemie, and they went through a private adoption agency (which typically requires the adoptive parents to pay mom / babies medical bills), I'm shocked it's that low, TBH.

I was merely speaking to the myth that it's more expensive to adopt via an international or private adoption agency, than the foster child / State route.

I'm for as many kids as possible being in good, loving and caring homes, as a general rule. I'd prefer we take care of the kids here, first, but that's all it is - my personal preference.

 

Yes, please also log my name in the "Firmly supports children being adopted into families who will love, care for them, and who do not otherwise have such a home." book of moral standing.

 

It sounds like the child wasn't actually "adopted", but was in foster care, instead.

Because had the child been adopted, the biological mother's rights had to be terminated, first. This means that the biological mother had no more right to come and take the baby back after one week, than any other random person would similarly have the right to do, which is effectively none.

Maybe I'm missing something, and I'm sure that Y2K will sort it out.

 

Addendum. I see where I said a couple of years. I was mistaken. Was 1 year. I checked with the in-laws to confirm. My apologies. Honest mistake.

More on cost, I would be 100% in favor of the only costs incurred by adoptive parents to be the requisite criminal background checks and employment/credit history checks. Zero legal representation/court fees. Use public defenders or other state officers of the court at no cost. I would venture a guess that would be much cheaper in the long run than paying for foster care or state homes.

Again, don't mistake my pro-choice view as being pro-abortion. There's a huge difference. I am 100% against using abortion for simple birth control. There are much better, cheaper and less psychologically damaging methods of birth control out there including the morning after pill.

You'll not find a more willing partner in the quest to lower the number of abortions even to the point of making them unnecessary. My experience on the subject, however limited it may be, is that the majority of abortions are not a magic eraser for a night of irresponsible bliss. My, again limited, experience was it was more of a financial issue/knowing the man involved would be nothing more than a DNA donor. So, make adoptions easier for birth mothers and adoptive parents. Remove the legal cost prohibitive roadblocks for people that wish to adopt. Even $2k isn't chump change to a huge swath of people that would be and want to be great mom's and dad's.

Abortion is with us to stay, I believe. In order to make an impact in terms of lowering the number of abortions, we need to find out why women feel they need to have one and make sure we remove those issues by giving them the support they need to be a good mom. It shouldn't enrich mom's, but it should support them. That's why I don't understand that some politicians that are pro-life also want to cut programs to support these kids and mothers like nutritional assistance and even daycare so a single mom can work and help provide for herself and child. Maybe I'm just an idiot, but I just can't get my head around the idea of pulling out all the stops to eliminate all abortions then as soon as the kids are born, thinking there's not a responsibility to see to the child's well-being. That sounds a lot harsher than I intend, but I don't know another way to express it.

And just for clarity. My in-laws that adopted my niece are anti-abortion in all cases. No exceptions. I might disagree with them, but I completely respect their views. They live their views as their daughter, my niece, is an amazing girl that was conceived from rape. I love her like I love my own kids. I'd take her as my own in a heartbeat if, God forbid, a situation arose to make it necessary.

Again, I'm completely on board with the goal of making abortion unnecessary. But to do that, it is my view that we need to do a better job with contraception education/availability and making sure that the needs of the child are met after birth including holding fathers more accountable. These women aren't being impregnated via osmosis.

 

Some kid. Nice.

I can't think of something single thing I'd make illegal that i didn't think was inherently bad or wrong.

 

They were there for the birth and took the kid home from the hospital and had worked with the mom for months up to the moms new boyfriend mom convinced her to take it back.

No idea of legal position, but they were in the process of adoption. Little girl was a week old when mom took her back.

Since this was a good ol American kid, was this a kid, or some kid, just to be sure.

Oh, and they've since adopted another child whose father isn't a natural born citzen. Is that cool, or should that kid have been passed over either fully or halfway too?

 

Maybe so, but I think the story how this happened is pretty amazing. The birth mom had decided to give her child up for adoption. As I said before, my wife was on the NICU team that assisted in the delivery. My wife's sister was also a NICU nurse at the same hospital. And a plug for NICU nurses: you want to see folks with huge hearts, get to know a NICU nurse. Back to the story. My niece was tiny. She had a lengthy NICU stay. It's nothing short of a miracle that she is where she is and thriving as she is. These NICU nurses get very attached to these babies over the lengthy stays. That's both great in that they care for these babies as if they were their own, but it's also terrible in that when they lose a baby, the nurses hurt as deeply as the parents. I'll never forget the first baby my wife really became attached to. NICU stay for 6 months or more. Went home & doing great. Then one night she gets dispatched to the ER. It was her "little boy" who had apparently suffered SIDS, but everyone was still trying to save him. That crushed her.

Anyway, these nurses not only get attached to the kids, they get attached to the moms. My niece's birth mom was really going about the adoption the right way, visiting her baby in the NICU, breastfeeding and everything. One day the mom tells my sister-in-law that she has been thinking hard about the adoption thing. She didn't want her baby to go into state custody & her have no idea what kind of people she would be going to. Over the months, birth mom learned about my sis-in-laws struggles to get pregant & eventually learned that she couldn't. The birth mom asked her if she would adopt her baby because then she would never have to worry about if she was going to a good loving home. Of course, she was thrilled because both my wife and sister-in-law had formed a bond with the baby. I'll stop there, but as you can see this was a very unique case. And awesome as hell, I might add. My sister-in-law didn't give birth to her, but she is 100% her mom in every sense of the word. With my wife being at the birth, it all just seemed destined to be.

 

After reading that, is it wrong to have the thought, "Tell him when he's done sucking Trump's *PENIS*(See Edit notes), he can suck mine?"

Asking for a friend.

 

Ok.

We can disagree.

 

I don't know why you are scared to go all in. Do it.

 

So, the mom changed her mind in some allotted window in which she is allowed to do so. Or something else.

My original point stands:
1. If biological mom's rights were surrendered or terminated, she could not have retrieved the baby one week later.
2. That she picked up the kid one week later makes her retention of her parental rights self-evident.
3. That the biological mother retained those parental rights one week later is proof positive that the baby (kid?, lad?, tot?, bundle of joy?, whichever you prefer) was ineligible for legal adoption (two parents, and all).
4. Hence, "your wife's best friend" could not have "adopted a (the) baby", as you said in your post.

The biological mother retrieved the baby because she had parental rights, and your wife's friend did not.

Guardian? Foster parent? Sure, and maybe yes. Adopted? No.

I really like kids. I like helping kids. I like anyone who also helps kids.

I personally prefer that American kids are cared for and given every advantage at having the opportunity to be adopted by American parents in American homes. So much so, that I believe that it should be legally required.

Others may feel differently, and as long as adopting an international child remains legally permissible, should feel free to exercise that option.

As to the baby of the non-natural born citizen - I guess it depends if it was born here, or not. If it was, or even if not, but it was (actually) adopted into an American family - then it's no longer the child of a "natural born citizen", but of Americans, instead. Whether by birth or adoption, it is an American, and as such, I am most glad to see that it was given the opportunity to grown up in a loving American home.

And I'd welcome more of the same, and to back that up as law.

 

Зависит ... можете ли вы выслать мне дюжину случайных ссылок на него?

 

Can you re-phrase this, as I have no idea what you mean?

I've acknowledged your post and answered your questions. I hope you've found it enlightening.

Anything else?

 

I've dealt with orphans in impoverished countries. I find it hard to believe that kids over here are just as in need as some of these poor kids. I don't think you can say adopting more locally is somehow a better act.

 

Конечно, если под «случайными ссылками» вы подразумеваете источники новостей. Но мы оба знаем, что что-нибудь в этом роде будет помечено как фальшивая новость, и я просто буду считаться гребаным психом за то, что у нас есть законные опасения, что наш президент может быть скомпрометирован иностранными путаницами. Я чертовски идиотский болтун. Не обращай внимания.

 

Ok.

It's certainly legal.

 

Oh my gosh! Haha! LOL!

 

But American kids should be taken care of first, and until then, the hell with those other kids, right? They are all just "some kid" and not a 'merican, right?