I'm sure what seems idiotic to me is normal to them and likewise, but that's just pure bullhockey. They're not purebred dogs, they're human beings. What future is there for such a people, who value a bloodline over all else?

[sigh]

I don't want to know what happens to the babies and children needing adoption or foster care. Won't even go there because I don't want to see them being thrown away like so much rubbish.

"There, but by the grace of God, go I"

Actually, I read that the reason they didn't want Westerners to adopt the kids, is that they didn't want to put them through leaving their country.
From http://smh.com.au/articles/2005/01/08/1104832358932.html

People around the world have offered to open their homes to these children, sparking a debate about the merits of international adoption.

"It's important, wherever possible, for a child to be in their country of origin, to be with their culture, their language, and also extended family," said Lucy Handford, a spokesman for the British Association for Adoption & Fostering.

"If a child has already lost everything, we feel there is no point in making things worse by imposing a new country, customs and language on it," INICEF spokesman Marc Vergara said.

Here's the problem with UNICEF's "feel good" policy.

The kids are going to have to move somewhere anyway! Just think about it for a minute... If they are orphans - they will not be able to live in the same place and go to the same schools unless someone right there in that place adopts them - period.

If they have relatives, and the relatives want them, they should certainly stay with family. But if they have no one - then they will be moved to some sort of orphanage I would assume or they will have to go live on the streets... gee nice alternative.

But the Muslim orphan sounds exactly like the lower caste members of the culture in India. Basically because they have lost their family they become less of a person. The UN is just wringing their hands thinking that they will lose all those poor children... You know for every child they claim they need to care for - that's just more money coming in for them.

I better stop now.

And here I thought it was just the WE DON'T NEED YOU STINKING WESTERNERS! mentality. Well, unless the topic is money. In which case, that don't stink.

But, ya know what? I'd be even MORE pissed if private adoption agencies brought over the kids and adopted them out smarmy opportunist style, charging five steep figures in fees per child.

THAT would nauseate me. Selling the children should stop somewhere.

I am certain that such Muslim adoption practices made perfect sense way back in the 8th Century. But in today's reality, they need revision.

The pitty is that it is the orphans who will be given the short end of the stick, due to their societies' inability to set aside tradition/principles over the immediate needs of their children.

That is really sad. I know there are many here in the United States that would adopt those children.

A good many of them are older children, Janelle. Not really what most in the US want to adopt.
In the Muslim system of adoption (really more long-term fostering), the 'adopted' children are supposed to inherit from their blood parents (not that it always happens or helps much if the blood kin left nothing).

In some ways, I like their theory better than the way adoption works here.

Full Disclosure: I am also an adoptee.