Adoption made easy
By Chris Jungle

A lady in New York starved one of her kids to death while she fed the other six. Her claim is that she didn't love that other one. It never came into her mind to put the child up for adoption. There has been a call to make the adoption process easier, so that more families can take in a new member. I agree that the adoption process should be easier, and the perfect model for this is already in effect. Adopting a child should be as easy as it is to adopt a dog. The Humane Society had done a wonderful job giving the joys of a pet to families, so by expanding their capabilities, the same rules and regulations that they have for matching dogs to owners could go to kids and families.

There would still be the standard fee that the Humane Society charges with each child. It ranges from twenty-five to fifty dollars. As long as the parents get all of the shots on the child, they should be allowed to keep them. I think the part about getting kids fixed would have to be optional but strongly encouraged. The main thing the adoption process does is put a child with a family. Unfortunately with every child (like every dog), there is a chance that they get poor owners. They may get underfed, under appreciated and overworked, especially after the initial honeymoon period ends and the child is no longer the cute pup it used to be.

Another downside to adoption is that some kids won't get picked, and if by age 12 they aren't, they will have to be put to sleep. Some people may consider this cruel, but let's face it, kids lose a lot of their attractive qualities by a certain age just like dogs. They need to keep room for the cute cuddly five-year-olds that have a much better chance of being chosen. Putting the kids to sleep is much more humane than letting them out onto the streets wild and untrained. What would most likely happen if they did is that they would end up breeding with others, putting more kids into the adoption centers. Sure, a few might go on to have successful lives in some way, but on the whole, letting unwanted kids loose would be detrimental. Therefore, putting them to sleep would still be the most humane thing to do.

Some may complain (as they do today) that the restrictions at the Humane Society are too much for them, but they still want a child. Thankfully, along with the Humane Society, there would also be a Child Pound where the regulations are next to nothing. Shots and fixing the child would be recommended but not enforced. As long as a family is willing to take the child home and pay a small fee, the transaction would be done. The risk is that the owner would not really know where the child has been. It could have been abused and ran away from home, it could be retarded or have certain mental deficiencies, or it could have been malnourished to where it has physical problems. This may not bother some potential parents because I have seen dog owners with schizophrenic dogs that are frightened to be touched. The owners just smile and say "That's just his way." As long as the kids are cute, many mental and physical problems will be accepted by their owners.

The Child Pound would also have other duties like keeping stray kids off the streets. As long as parents keep tags on their kids, the pound will call them when they pick up the child. This would keep those rowdy teenagers off the streets after certain hours leaving the streets clear for all adults to enjoy the night fearlessly. The pound would not be have the nice facilities that the Humane Society has, but it would be a place to store more kids.

A side rule could be put into effect concerning kids. If a dog is reported three times for biting people, it must be put to sleep. While kids don't get reported for biting very much, three arresting offenses should merit strong consideration for the same punishment. Even if the three arrests were not the fault of the child, much like dogs biting for protecting their property, the children still would be seen as a danger to society. Losing a child because of this reason can be distressing, but the parent can always get a new child to replace them. Perhaps, they should try a tamer breed the next time, though.

I, personally, like the idea of the easier adoption policy for political reasons. The talk of the election has been about protecting our children from dangers and helping our families. I'm single, and at the moment, it does not look like a family is part of my near future. Right now, it is difficult to find women that readily want to bear my child, and I so much want to be included in the thoughts of our political leaders. Since they aren't focusing on single independent souls struggling to polish their writing skills, I figure it would be easier to be recognized if I just got a family. This new adoption plan would make it possible for me to start right away. I am looking for a Hispanic, Asian, Anglo mixed breed with good bone structure. Sex doesn't matter, but I would prefer a child near six years old. If anyone is giving one away, let me know. I promise I'll feed it.

Chris Jungle rooted for Ted Danson while watching the Emmys Sunday night.

return to the Shut up, I'm talking page
return to the LIES home page
return to the A&A home page