Yes, if I have the means I would surely adopt another child. They may not be my biological children but I will love them as my own. It is hard but I am willing to face the challenge of rearing up one.
I know that the time, love, and care that I have to give them should be doubled because these children have undergone a lot of trauma in their lives that they tend to be more insecure but I know I will be able to handle them with the help of my husband. Children are gifts from God, they are precious, innocent and most of all they are source of joy. They are the ones who energize the family.
They inspire us and they mirror our yesterdays. They help remind us that we were children once too and that we should not forget to play and have fun and children will bring the child within us. I can just imagine the joy I feel every time my daughters and I play around.
And by adopting one, I know that it would make a big difference in the child's life. That I could give him a sense of hope that he will see the world as a better place to live instead of a cold place to dwell.
I likely wouldn't. While I love trendy things that are in style, I'm not sure this is the type of trendy I'm interested in. Don't get me wrong; I don't have a problem with it at all.
I just don't think it will be as trendy when the child turns 18. If you could somehow guarantee the trendiness for a couple of decades or more, my opinion might change.
No, first these celebrities are using the babies/kids as jewelry for social status. Second there are enough children in orphanages right here in this country. Let's start taking care of the home front first.
All this aid concerts for foreigners and we have people starving at home. Let's have an aid concert for the people of Appalachia who have trouble meeting their food and medical needs.
On the one hand, I'm not entirely sure that the motives of celebrities like, say, Angelina Jolie are entirely pure. Too often, there's this undercurrent of "Look at my foreign baby, aren't I so awesome for saving him? " SNL did a nice skewering of this a while back: hulu.com/watch/66314/saturday-night-live... For me, however, I might consider it.
I'm seriously considering adopting a child anyway because of health reasons. I certainly wouldn't turn down adopting a child from an impoverished country if that turns out to be the best option. I wouldn't specifically pursue it, though.
There's plenty of poverty in the United States, after all. Adopting one child won't cure poverty anywhere. What it will do is make a child's life better, and that sort of thing doesn't depend upon location or borders.
If I have the means and if I just can afford it, I would build my own orphanage. I won't need to travel around the world because it'll just waste a lot of money. I will help first my own poor countrymen.
There are a lot. If I need to travel and broadcast to the whole world that I'm adopting children, it's not an act out of charity but just for fame.
I would adopt a child if I had the means. I'm not sure it would be from another country. I just can't see going outside the country to adopt a child when there are so many children here who need homes.
There are all ages of children in the foster care system who don't have families and who are eligible for adoption. I would start there if I was going to adopt. Charity begins at home.
:).
No. Philanthropy is too often telescopic. (OK, I borrowed that wording from the name of a chapter in ''Bleak House'', by Charles Dickens.
I admit it. ) Too many people are traveling the world and going to unnecessary expense and using up resources unnecessarily, in the name of helping the needy. Maybe they use helping as an excuse to travel.
Maybe they know it will bring them more publicity, if they go halfway around the world to help. We don't need to go to another country to find people who are in need. There are impoverished children right here in my own town.
What does it say about me if I ignore them and go gallavanting around the globe in search of other needy people to "help"? If I had a steady income that I was pretty sure would keep coming, then I probably would adopt a few kids. Local kids.
They need my love and support just as much as kids on the other side of the globe do.
If your adopted child lives overseas, she must leave her native country to come live with you. You are responsible for all your child's needs. Sponsoring a child is different because it allows children to remain with extended family and friends in their home countries.
You provide vital financial assistance, and you have the opportunity to write letters and develop a close relationship. You can even visit your sponsored child if you want! Child sponsorship can be an excellent alternative to adopting a child for some people.
Even though Compassion can't help you adopt a child, we can help you change a child's life and provide hope for the future and for all eternity. Rather than adopt a child, consider sponsoring a child through Compassion. You'll be providing relief from poverty and demonstrating the love of Jesus.
Food and clean water as neededEducational opportunitiesHealth care (regular health checkups, immunizations, medicine and more)The opportunity to experience God's love and learn about JesusAn intimate relationship with you through letters, photos and prayers. You can even visit your sponsored child in his or her native country! When you sponsor a child, you are linked with one particular child who will know your name, write to you and treasure the thought that you care.
Only $38 a month, which is much less than the cost to adopt a child.
I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.