Adoption

Thanks again for the debate Fluer. == Definitions == My opponent does not define the world compulsory, which by the rules of Parliamentary Debate, allow me to do so. According to Random House, compulsory means "mandatory." [1] A 50 British pound (79 US dollar) fine does not make adoption "mandatory." The majority of people would choose to pay the fine rather than adopting since the fine is non-significant whereas adopting a child is a significant undertaking. Where does this leave us? Technically, under the strict rules of Parliamentary Debate, my opponent already loses the debate. He has interpreted this topic as a "plan" topic and offered his plan. Parli rules state that any plan offered must be "topical," meaning that it upholds the wording of the resolution. If a plan is non-topical, the rules instruct you to vote Con. Since my opponent's plan fails to make adoption compulsory, you automatically vote Con. == Objections to the plan == 1) No need There are approximately 65,000 "foster children" in Britain. [2] 74% were living with foster parents, 9% were living in a foster care facility, 6% were living with their actual parents (under State supervision), 4% were living with adoptive parents, and 3% were living in boarding schools. [2] Given that all foster children have a home already, the affirmative plan is unnecessary. There is no evidence that adoptive parents who were FORCED by the State to adopt would be better caregivers than foster parents, who VOLUNTEER to take children. 2) Cost of raising a child According to a new report called "Cost of a Child: From cradle to college 2012," the cost of raising a child in England has risen to 218,000 British pounds (or 345,000 US dollars), which is 9,000 pounds per year ($14,000 per year). [3] Obviously a 50 pound ($79) fine is not going to encourage ANYONE to adopt, given the prohibitive cost. Only a fine larger than $14,000 per year would encourage people to adopt, but such a fine would be excessive. My opponent claims that the burden will be "shared equally" by all classes, but this compulsory adoption policy will be much more burdensome for the people who are barely above the poverty line. 3) Additional problems A study by Wun Jung Kim found that there was a "significant overrepresentation" of children requiring institutionalization among adoptive children. [4] In fact, one of the *primary* reasons families give up children is due to severe mental illness and violence caused by mental illness. According to a report entitled "Families on the Brink: The Impact of Ignoring Children with Serious Mental Illness," 20% of parents said they were relinquishing custody due to their child having serious mental illness. [5] Many foster care children are "problem children," so the cost of raising them (both fiscally and psychologically) goes up. "In many cases, the cost runs as high as $250,000 per year for a single child." [5] In addition, adopting a troubled child is dangerous. News reports abound of foster children killing or attempting ot kill their foster parents. [6] 4) Too many parents, not enough children In England, 237,000 couples get married each year. [7] Yet there are only 60,000 children (total) in need of adoption. How does the government decide which couples need to adopt and which do not? There is no fair way to make such a determination (except self-selection, meaning allowing adoption to remain voluntary). 5) Divorce 50% of marriages end in divorce. Half of all adoptive children will find themselves right back in foster care since after a couple separates, adoption no longer becomes compulsory for them. == Sources == [1] http://www.definitions.net... [2] http://www.baaf.org.uk... [3] http://www.guardian.co.uk... [4] http://www.jaacap.com...(09)65363-6/abstract [5] http://www.nami.org... [6] http://www.cbsnews.com... http://readychurch.wordpress.com... http://www.news9.com... [7] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...