|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
the_beaver
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2004 6:10 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| dogbert wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Exactly which parts do you agree with? Please elaborate. Do you mean the parts where he makes up stories to support his position? Or the parts where he flames people? |
No, I mean this part:
1. Put an emergency ban on all international adoptions until reforms can take root.
2. Start a public relations campaign recruiting domestic host and foster families. [and offer liberal monetary and other support]
4. Improve the public education system so that private tutoring is a luxury and not a necessity (very hard)
5. Improve the welfare system with the explicit goal of keeping families together.
6. When the ban is lifted, enact stiff requirements on adopting families including,
b. A child can not be exported until all domestic seekers have been filled.
If you look past the flames and the personal feelings, much of what Drakoi advocates is in line with the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, which has been ratified by thirty-nine nations, although not yet by either the R.O.K. or the U.S.A. |
La la land. Confusionism has little space for not-of-the-blood pseudo family. It'd be an incredible fight to get Koreans used to the idea of adopting an unrelated kid (although there is a strong precedent of sonless elder brother families adopting a younger brother's son).
Last edited by the_beaver on Wed Sep 29, 2004 6:25 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2004 6:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dogbert wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| dogbert wrote: |
| "Drakoi" is certainly getting a lot of heat for his views, but I, for one, agree with a lot of what he says. |
Exactly which parts do you agree with? Please elaborate. Do you mean the parts where he makes up stories to support his position? Or the parts where he flames people? |
No, I mean this part:
1. Put an emergency ban on all international adoptions until reforms can take root.
2. Start a public relations campaign recruiting domestic host and foster families. [and offer liberal monetary and other support]
4. Improve the public education system so that private tutoring is a luxury and not a necessity (very hard)
5. Improve the welfare system with the explicit goal of keeping families together.
6. When the ban is lifted, enact stiff requirements on adopting families including,
b. A child can not be exported until all domestic seekers have been filled.
If you look past the flames and the personal feelings, much of what Drakoi advocates is in line with the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, which has been ratified by thirty-nine nations, although not yet by either the R.O.K. or the U.S.A. |
Actually though, that is not what Drakoi originally said. He called adoption "baby selling" and for "sexual fetishes". Even if he now advocates some of what the Hague Convention says, he appears to being doing it for the wrong reasons.
As for your stipulations those would be very hard to take solid root in Korea (to name just one country). The reasons for this have been discussed ad nauseum already. What it all boils down to, is that people who would love to have a child, but can not have one of their own would have to wait even longer for one. Also that this would create a even bigger "black market" and put more children at risk. The present system is imperfect, but destroying it is not the answer. Institute reforms yes, but slowly in a graduated fashion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dogbert
Joined: 29 Jan 2003
Location: Killbox 90210
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2004 6:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| the_beaver wrote: |
| Exactly which parts do you agree with? Please elaborate. Do you mean the parts where he makes up stories to support his position? Or the parts where he flames people? |
| dogbert wrote: |
No, I mean this part:
1. Put an emergency ban on all international adoptions until reforms can take root.
2. Start a public relations campaign recruiting domestic host and foster families. [and offer liberal monetary and other support]
4. Improve the public education system so that private tutoring is a luxury and not a necessity (very hard)
5. Improve the welfare system with the explicit goal of keeping families together.
6. When the ban is lifted, enact stiff requirements on adopting families including,
b. A child can not be exported until all domestic seekers have been filled.
If you look past the flames and the personal feelings, much of what Drakoi advocates is in line with the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, which has been ratified by thirty-nine nations, although not yet by either the R.O.K. or the U.S.A. |
| Beaver wrote: |
| La la land. Confusionism has little space for not-of-the-blood pseudo family. It'd be an incredible fight to get Koreans used to the idea of adopting an unrelated kid (although there is a strong precedent of sonless elder brother families adopting a younger brother's son). |
This issue is far larger than just Korea.
And, FYI, there actually exist Korean families that have adopted unrelated children and there are civic groups formed by them to advocate such adoption. In fact, one was recently in the news for a protest it made. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the_beaver
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2004 6:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dogbert wrote: |
| And, FYI, there actually exist Korean families that have adopted unrelated children and there are civic groups formed by them to advocate such adoption. In fact, one was recently in the news for a protest it made. |
Didn't deny that there are a few -- just not a whole lot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2004 6:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dogbert wrote: |
| the_beaver wrote: |
| Exactly which parts do you agree with? Please elaborate. Do you mean the parts where he makes up stories to support his position? Or the parts where he flames people? |
| dogbert wrote: |
No, I mean this part:
1. Put an emergency ban on all international adoptions until reforms can take root.
2. Start a public relations campaign recruiting domestic host and foster families. [and offer liberal monetary and other support]
4. Improve the public education system so that private tutoring is a luxury and not a necessity (very hard)
5. Improve the welfare system with the explicit goal of keeping families together.
6. When the ban is lifted, enact stiff requirements on adopting families including,
b. A child can not be exported until all domestic seekers have been filled.
If you look past the flames and the personal feelings, much of what Drakoi advocates is in line with the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, which has been ratified by thirty-nine nations, although not yet by either the R.O.K. or the U.S.A. |
| Beaver wrote: |
| La la land. Confusionism has little space for not-of-the-blood pseudo family. It'd be an incredible fight to get Koreans used to the idea of adopting an unrelated kid (although there is a strong precedent of sonless elder brother families adopting a younger brother's son). |
This issue is far larger than just Korea.
And, FYI, there actually exist Korean families that have adopted unrelated children and there are civic groups formed by them to advocate such adoption. In fact, one was recently in the news for a protest it made. |
True, but it is also true that a small minority does not make a strong case. Also you did not answer my objections in the second post. And you misquoted the beaver. And Mr. Beaver you misquoted Mr. Dogbert.
Why are you attributing to each other the quote that I said? 
Last edited by TheUrbanMyth on Wed Sep 29, 2004 6:22 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dogbert
Joined: 29 Jan 2003
Location: Killbox 90210
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2004 6:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| dogbert wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| dogbert wrote: |
| "Drakoi" is certainly getting a lot of heat for his views, but I, for one, agree with a lot of what he says. |
Exactly which parts do you agree with? Please elaborate. Do you mean the parts where he makes up stories to support his position? Or the parts where he flames people? |
No, I mean this part:
1. Put an emergency ban on all international adoptions until reforms can take root.
2. Start a public relations campaign recruiting domestic host and foster families. [and offer liberal monetary and other support]
4. Improve the public education system so that private tutoring is a luxury and not a necessity (very hard)
5. Improve the welfare system with the explicit goal of keeping families together.
6. When the ban is lifted, enact stiff requirements on adopting families including,
b. A child can not be exported until all domestic seekers have been filled.
If you look past the flames and the personal feelings, much of what Drakoi advocates is in line with the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, which has been ratified by thirty-nine nations, although not yet by either the R.O.K. or the U.S.A. |
Actually though, that is not what Drakoi originally said. He called adoption "baby selling" and for "sexual fetishes". Even if he now advocates some of what the Hague Convention says, he appears to being doing it for the wrong reasons.
As for your stipulations those would be very hard to take solid root in Korea (to name just one country). The reasons for this have been discussed ad nauseum already. What it all boils down to, is that people who would love to have a child, but can not have one of their own would have to wait even longer for one. Also that this would create a even bigger "black market" and put more children at risk. The present system is imperfect, but destroying it is not the answer. Institute reforms yes, but slowly in a graduated fashion. |
I mentioned disregarding his flames and argumentative language.
Let me advance some things that might disturb you and some others:
1. Infertile couples do not have a right to have a child.
2. Adoption does not, in and of itself, take a child out of risk.
There has been plenty of time to "institute reforms", yet for some reason, little has been done. Well, Roe v. Wade was a reform that did something, wasn't it? It's the reason the supply of adoptable, "non-problem" white babies in the U.S. nearly disappeared overnight.
I humbly submit that the Hague Convention is the type of gradual reform you might support. Perhaps the U.S. legislative branch could see its way clear to ratify it.
Last edited by dogbert on Wed Sep 29, 2004 6:24 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dogbert
Joined: 29 Jan 2003
Location: Killbox 90210
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2004 6:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| dogbert wrote: |
| the_beaver wrote: |
| Exactly which parts do you agree with? Please elaborate. Do you mean the parts where he makes up stories to support his position? Or the parts where he flames people? |
| dogbert wrote: |
No, I mean this part:
1. Put an emergency ban on all international adoptions until reforms can take root.
2. Start a public relations campaign recruiting domestic host and foster families. [and offer liberal monetary and other support]
4. Improve the public education system so that private tutoring is a luxury and not a necessity (very hard)
5. Improve the welfare system with the explicit goal of keeping families together.
6. When the ban is lifted, enact stiff requirements on adopting families including,
b. A child can not be exported until all domestic seekers have been filled.
If you look past the flames and the personal feelings, much of what Drakoi advocates is in line with the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, which has been ratified by thirty-nine nations, although not yet by either the R.O.K. or the U.S.A. |
| Beaver wrote: |
| La la land. Confusionism has little space for not-of-the-blood pseudo family. It'd be an incredible fight to get Koreans used to the idea of adopting an unrelated kid (although there is a strong precedent of sonless elder brother families adopting a younger brother's son). |
This issue is far larger than just Korea.
And, FYI, there actually exist Korean families that have adopted unrelated children and there are civic groups formed by them to advocate such adoption. In fact, one was recently in the news for a protest it made. |
True, but it is also true that a small minority does not make a strong case. Also you did not answer my objections in the second post. And you misquoted the beaver. And Mr. Beaver you misquoted Mr. Dogbert.
Why are you attributing to each other the quote that I said? |
The Beaver screwed up the quotations through his own carelessness and I attempted to straighten the quotes out. I believe I succeeded. If I'm wrong, show me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the_beaver
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2004 6:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dogbert wrote: |
| The Beaver screwed up the quotations through his own carelessness and I attempted to straighten the quotes out. I believe I succeeded. If I'm wrong, show me. |
Good call. I fixed it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2004 6:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dogbert wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| dogbert wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| dogbert wrote: |
| "Drakoi" is certainly getting a lot of heat for his views, but I, for one, agree with a lot of what he says. |
Exactly which parts do you agree with? Please elaborate. Do you mean the parts where he makes up stories to support his position? Or the parts where he flames people? |
No, I mean this part:
1. Put an emergency ban on all international adoptions until reforms can take root.
2. Start a public relations campaign recruiting domestic host and foster families. [and offer liberal monetary and other support]
4. Improve the public education system so that private tutoring is a luxury and not a necessity (very hard)
5. Improve the welfare system with the explicit goal of keeping families together.
6. When the ban is lifted, enact stiff requirements on adopting families including,
b. A child can not be exported until all domestic seekers have been filled.
If you look past the flames and the personal feelings, much of what Drakoi advocates is in line with the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, which has been ratified by thirty-nine nations, although not yet by either the R.O.K. or the U.S.A. |
Actually though, that is not what Drakoi originally said. He called adoption "baby selling" and for "sexual fetishes". Even if he now advocates some of what the Hague Convention says, he appears to being doing it for the wrong reasons.
As for your stipulations those would be very hard to take solid root in Korea (to name just one country). The reasons for this have been discussed ad nauseum already. What it all boils down to, is that people who would love to have a child, but can not have one of their own would have to wait even longer for one. Also that this would create a even bigger "black market" and put more children at risk. The present system is imperfect, but destroying it is not the answer. Institute reforms yes, but slowly in a graduated fashion. |
I mentioned disregarding his flames and argumentative language.
1. Let me advance some things that might disturb you and some others:
2. Infertile couples do not have a right to have a child.
3. Adoption does not, in and of itself, take a child out of risk.
There has been plenty of time to "institute reforms", yet for some reason, little has been done. Well, Roe v. Wade was a reform that did something, wasn't it? It's the reason the supply of adoptable, "non-problem" white babies in the U.S. nearly disappeared overnight.
I humbly submit that the Hague Convention is the type of gradual reform you might support. Perhaps the U.S. legislative branch could see its way clear to ratify it. |
Infertile couples do not have a right to have a child? It seems that the laws of most lands disagree with you. Otherwise we would not have adoption laws. Seriously though, I agree that it is not a 'God-given right' but surely they have the same rights as say gay couples to raise children, or hetrosexual couples. Why should they not be allowed to have and raise children? Only if they are people who would present a danger to the child. How about the child? If the opportunity exists, does it not have the right to a set of parents (at least people who care about it and treat it well)?
I agree that adoption does not put a child out of risk. But there are certain checks and balances in place that put a child at less risk than in the "black market" which would likely get a lot bigger, were international adoption outlawed. Not only would these checks and balances be ignored in the black market, but people who should not have access to children would now have increased access to them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dogbert
Joined: 29 Jan 2003
Location: Killbox 90210
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2004 6:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Infertile couples do not have a right to have a child? It seems that the laws of most lands disagree with you. Otherwise we would not have adoption laws. |
I can only speak for the U.S., but there is no "right" to have a child. There is no right to adopt -- many people are not, in fact, allowed to adopt children. The fact that there is a law does not mean that there is a right.
Even parents of natural-born children can have their parental "rights" terminated by the state.
Before being sarcastic, you might think a bit about this or perhaps consult an attorney or even take a course on Consitutional law.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Seriously though, I agree that it is not a 'God-given right' but surely they have the same rights as say gay couples to raise children, or hetrosexual couples. Why should they not be allowed to have and raise children? Only if they are people who would present a danger to the child. How about the child? If the opportunity exists, does it not have the right to a set of parents (at least people who care about it and treat it well)? |
The problem with this thinking, to my mind, is that it presupposes a certain future resulting from a given path, but in actuality, we cannot predict a child's future. We cannot say that a child raised as a ward of the state is, ipso facto, bound to have a "worse" future than were that child raised as an adoptee. We just cannot know who will now or in the future present a danger to a child, whether adoptive or natural-born. It's a crapshoot.
We cannot say that the loving couple that adopts a baby will not later kill it.
Of course, we cannot say these things about parents of a natural-born child either, which I believe further strengthens my point that we should not always assume that adoption > non-adoption.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| I agree that adoption does not put a child out of risk. But there are certain checks and balances in place that put a child at less risk than in the "black market" which would likely get a lot bigger, were international adoption outlawed. Not only would these checks and balances be ignored in the black market, but people who should not have access to children would now have increased access to them. |
Please don't take this the wrong way, because I enjoy the debate, but before throwing around terms like "black market" in connection with intercountry adoption, please inform yourself about the situation of private adoption in North America today.
That said, I will distance myself from Drakoi in heaping blame on adoptive parents and acknowledge from the outset that there are some wonderful people who have done much to care for their adopted children, whatever their background. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2004 7:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dogbert wrote: |
[
We cannot say that the loving couple that adopts a baby will not later kill it.
Of course, we cannot say these things about parents of a natural-born child either, which I believe further strengthens my point that we should not always assume that adoption > non-adoption.
Please don't take this the wrong way, because I enjoy the debate, but before throwing around terms like "black market" in connection with intercountry adoption, please inform yourself about the situation of private adoption in North America today.
That said, I will distance myself from Drakoi in heaping blame on adoptive parents and acknowledge from the outset that there are some wonderful people who have done much to care for their adopted children, whatever their background. |
I agree with you that adoption is not ALWAYS better than non-adoption. Then again that was never my point. Like I said with loving parents the child has a BETTER chance at happiness, not a guarentee to happiness.
As for your second point I am a little confused. Correct me if I am wrong but you seem to be under the impression that (a) I am equating the "black market" with intercountry adoption or (b) that private adoption is better/worse than the "black market". Regardless I only meant to point out that yes there is a "black market" for children (and I am not talking here just about N.A). Abolishing international adoption would likely increase this market greatly.
Google and type "black market adoption" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dogbert
Joined: 29 Jan 2003
Location: Killbox 90210
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2004 8:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
I can only surmise that you and I are defining black-market adoption differently.
However, that's getting somewhat off track.
Let me ask you this: what do you perceive would be the harm caused by phasing out intercountry adoption? As it stands, this is the course that the R.O.K. has taken. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the_beaver
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2004 2:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dogbert wrote: |
| Let me ask you this: what do you perceive would be the harm caused by phasing out intercountry adoption? |
A whole bunch of kids that nobody will adopt. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dogbert
Joined: 29 Jan 2003
Location: Killbox 90210
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2004 4:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| the_beaver wrote: |
| dogbert wrote: |
| Let me ask you this: what do you perceive would be the harm caused by phasing out intercountry adoption? |
A whole bunch of kids that nobody will adopt. |
How is that harm? You are presupposing that adoption > non-adoption. This is not empirically provable.
And here's something else: even within the U.S. there are children who go unadopted when U.S. citizens decide to adopt Chinese, Korean, Romanian, and Russian children. These are also "a whole bunch of kids that nobody will adopt". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the_beaver
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2004 9:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dogbert wrote: |
| How is that harm? You are presupposing that adoption > non-adoption. This is not empirically provable. |
I'm presupposing that more adoption is greater (as in better) than non-adoption? I guess I am. The orphans in Korea that aren't adopted have almost no chance to attend university or get a good job or do much in middle-class society. Although not all adoptees have hunky dory existences the vast majority of Korean adoptees that I've met have been through university and have the means to live a middle-class existence.
| Quote: |
| And here's something else: even within the U.S. there are children who go unadopted when U.S. citizens decide to adopt Chinese, Korean, Romanian, and Russian children. These are also "a whole bunch of kids that nobody will adopt". |
What the hell does that have to do with the price of tea in China? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
