No

by Robert Anderson

Created on: November 04, 2008   Last Updated: November 13, 2008

When or before we dissect a child's future, we should take into account the child's, happiness, thoughts and well being, before we impose our, "ever knowing" knowledge without thought, but blinded to our believes as so called, "good citizens". My heart sinks at the thought of misery inflicted or inherited onto a child through no other reason than default. These debates seem to become more surreal as they come along. Now the question is, "should babies with aids be eligible for adoption?" I believe yes, but only in America and the person that started this debate put, "his or her" money where, "his or her" "Hollywood fantasy" mouth is and take two to get the ball rolling. He or she can bake muffins and cookies and serve all this to, "his or her" own children as they mingle with the dying in, "his or her" spacious rainbow garden, behind, "his or her" white picket fence, whilst listening to the tunes of Patsy Klein. Don't bother if the aids child get cut and your child wants to kiss the wound better. Or would you tell that child that if this ever happens, never to kiss, "his or her step brother or sister" better, as he or she will contact a nasty disease that will kill him or her? Or would you have your children wearing rubber glove and face masks as they kiss and cuddle their step brother or sister with a cut from out playing? Or you could mummify your own cut or bruised child. In fact you can all sit around the table like space aliens at meal times if the child has bleeding gums. But the feel good factor would be when you have the toddler in reins, and you can walk it like a fine pedigree dog or pig, "as they have as much life span as one" down your street, showing the neighbours what a kind hearted person you are, and how so much closer to god this makes you feel. What do you do when the novelty wears off and you are faced with a child suffering full blown aids? This is not a very pretty sight as this helpless being, shrinks and fades to skin and bone before your eyes. Would your faith see you through? Or do you surmise to place that child back into medical care and simply pick a new one? If you have a career and busy time schedule, would you be willing to give this up to tend your sick adopted child rather than put it into medical care? Do you surmise that if you were to take on an aids child that your government should subsidise you for loss of earning and pay any medical fees? If so, would these kids not become a meal ticket for the unscrupulous?

At what stage of their illness should we deem acceptable for adoption, and if passed that stage, who should tell them that? Remember they may just have lost their parents or just about to, so do they need this? Or are we merely talking about new born babies for the dried up, brooding motherless that will take any child to love out of frustration and desperation? Would this be enough for a child with very special needs? These children are not puppies and they will die without a cure. It would take a very special parent to cope in these situations. This person would have to lovingly break through a multitude of hurdles stemming from loss, loneliness, abandonment, hurt, frustration and all the physiological difficulties that go with that. America being a total failure in this field if one was to reflect on the Vietnam veterans that returned with similar problems.

In all reality what do you think the percentage would be for the child with aids to be given preference over the healthy child to a family that qualifies for the adoption of children? If you could pick which child to adopt, who would you pick? So should we now be categorising the adoption of children to certain graphic levels as A, B and C. People that don't qualify for a healthy child because they don't meet the criteria can have a sick one under category B. People that don't qualify for A or B can have the terminally ill child as this takes it from the governments responsibility? Does this graph look to you as if it is the wrong way round? It does to me. I read in this debate that someone said we do adopt children with cerebral palsy and sciatic fibrosis? Yes we do, but they are not contagious.

Now lets just say that we adopt out 5,000 children with aids?, "this being a figure from the top of my head" . They go to 5,000 families all over the world. From that 5,000 in their first year, 300 are given back as a mistake and change of mind. Another 20 are taken back from abusive step families. Some 100 die from their illness. One hundred mothers are now traumatised by their loss and are in long term therapy to cope, resulting in alcoholism, divorce and self afflicted violence. Now this is starting to paint a grim picture. Now add a further ten families that have given back their adopted children because they or their healthy child has contracted the aids virus from the adopted child? Within this happening, "and that year" a further 10,000 children have already been adopted out, and there is now an uncertain panic growing within this adopted cycle, as the grim news magnifies and filters out to these guardians. They begin to look to their safety and that of any children they already have. How many from that 15,000 would be held back, mistreated or shunned?

What I am trying to say is that, would it not be better to leave these children where they are with other children and friends that are in the same boat as themselves? For there, they are at least with 24 hour, "trained" carers who understand their difficulties and pain. They are shielded at best from any further trauma from which they already are going through. They don't need the good Christian or, "do gooder" coming along with all their hang ups and complexities. They don't need being pushed and shoved from pillar to post by, "red tape" officials.

They need stability and a good quality to whatever, time scale of life they have left. They need to share their anguish and frustrations with others that suffer the same as them, and can understand them better than anyone else. Now I would like to ask the, "do gooder" a question. Would, "he or she" be willing to see a couple suffering from aids being allowed to adopt a healthy child or even a child with aids? After all they are all gods children and who are we to judge?

Learn more about this author, Robert Anderson.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.