Luxor4u

Five are arrested and the hospital manager is running fugitive in a case where an estimated 300 babies were sold for roughly $570 each.

Egyptian police said on Sunday they had broken up a child trafficking ring that sold almost 300 babies for $570 each or less.

A police official said they arrested five suspects, including two nurses and a doctor working at the Cairo hospital where the babies were sold for almost three years. Police are searching for the hospital manager who escaped arrest.

The official said the network also performed caesarian operations on women who had left it too late for an abortion of an unwanted child in exchange for allowing the doctors to sell the babies, usually to couples who could not have their own children.

Adoption is illegal in Egypt, which adheres to Islamic law in some family matters. Some couples have sought to bypass the ban by buying children.

In 2009, an American couple received a two-year jail sentence after a court convicted them of buying a child from an orphanage.

Abortion is legal where it is deemed necessary for the health of the mother.

Source: http://english.ahram.org.eg/News/57789.aspx

$171,OOO can go a long way when running an orphanage:quote:
Adoption is illegal in Egypt, which adheres to Islamic law in some family matters. Some couples have sought to bypass the ban by buying children.
So what does one do with a load of little 'bast***s ?
'Try to give them the best future possible...'simple...

Adoption illegal in Egypt? then something is wrong somewhere!!!!

"Adoption illegal in Egypt? then something is wrong somewhere!!!!"

Why's that, then?

Fostering is legal in Egypt, and I am sure also here in the West within the Islamic community, however adoption is not. A child must retain its family name for life.

Strange attitude to adopt,
after all, we adults only breed vehicles for Souls. ( in case you didn't know ), so we never "own" our kids.
Although, It's ALL our responsibility to ensure the children are OK.

As with most religious rules of the East, they can seem quite strange on the surface, but make alot of sense when you look at the times and places they were set in.

Some children have no 'family name' to retain because they are illegitimate and/or abandoned. As they cannot be adopted by another family they are effectively without family and 'name' and seriously socially disadvantaged as a result. That's what is wrong with the fact that adoption is illegal in Egypt.

In times past it did, indeed, make sense for adoptions to be illegal. The population was smaller and with poor record keeping about births generally, and the fact that there was likely to be no information available with regard to most abandoned children, there was a possibility of inadvertantly incestuous marriages. This would obviously not be an issue nowadays with DNA testing available.

There have also been, and I believe still are issues about adoption and property rights. Islamic people seem to place a high emphasis on property remaining within the extended family (perhaps why marriages between first cousins are commonplace), or at least within the bloodline. It would be unlikely, even if adoption were legalised, for an adopted child to be able to inherit from the adoptive parents, which would also make them socially disadvantaged.

Personally, I do have views on this, because arranging adoptions in England was a large part of my professional role. Hence, I understand how important it is for children to grow up with a sense of identity and belonging. A successful Adoption can offer this in a way that Fostering, even if long term, cannot. Adopting a child requires a good deal more commitment than fostering and is not undertaken as a paid occupation. When children are legally adopted, they tend to feel more valued and secure as they have a sense of permanence within the Adoptive family.

Would I like to see Adoption legalised in Egypt? Yes, but only if it were to be implemented fully with Adopted children sharing same rights as natural children. This would require a massive change of mindset amongst the population and a reviewing of values, which if no longer strictly relevant, are traditional and therefore entrenched.

At the risk of sounding very 'PC', I don't believe that it is our place to persuade people of other cultures to adopt our own practices in situations which are so very personal, and in direct opposition to their religious and cultural norms.
I can even think of someone on here who might describe this attitude as smacking of 'imperialism', and that would never do, would it?

At $57O a pop, who's moaning about being politically correct, imperialism ? sounds more like good old capitalism should the truth be known...

Teddy, I'm not trying to persuade people of our cultures to adopt our practices. In fact, despite my previous career I have avoided all involvement with anything to do with childcare in Egypt and intend to continue to do so. I was merely expressing an opinion on a website used almost exclusively by Europeans. A forum,in fact, on which various aspects of Egyptian culture are frequently discussed and opined upon. I DO think it's a shame that orphaned and abandoned children in Egypt aren't really offered any opportunity to overcome their difficult start in life and I think I am entitled to express such an opinion here without it being suggested that I am an 'imperialist'. I prefer to think of myself as a 'humanist'. You express your views freely enough when it suits you and I reserve the right to do the same.

Who2 wrote:At $57O a pop, who's moaning about being politically correct, imperialism ? sounds more like good old capitalism should the truth be known...

At an average of $570 a time I should think they would only be covering expenses. Maybe even the cost of delivering the child as the mothers' may well have no means of paying themselves. In fact that the article suggests that Caesarians are performed on the understanding that the child is given up for adoption. Why Caesarian birth is deemed necessary I wouldn't know unless it is considered less traumatic for the mother.

I'm not saying what they have done is right, but if they were out and out profiteers one would have thought they could have 'sold' the babies for much more than that sort of sum. If not in Egypt, then possibly abroad. It is quite possible that they were acting out of benevolence, trying to offer the children concerned a future preferable to the local Orphanage and childless couples their only chance to be parents.

One has to feel sorry for the birth mothers though, but if the babes are illegitimate they are likely to feel the stigma of this within their community and the mother's themselves would be disgraced. It used to be like that in England and Ireland not so long ago. I would venture to express an opinion (if I am allowed) that I am glad it is not still so.

TT, I would have thought that you knew better than to imagine that I would want to gag you, or would discount your opinions, and that my last posting wasn't seriously accusing you of imperialism either! In fact I now think that you're maybe playing the pedantic (faux) martyr; judging by the determined nit-picking of your last two posts.

I too would much rather see such children adopted by a loving couple, than left to the possibly grudging care of financially over-stretched relatives or children's homes. Nevertheless, Egypt and Egyptians have their own way of handling things, and it really isn't our place to interfere in Egyptian family matters, especially as they are currently struggling to make sense of their new-found 'democracy', although I take your point about this forum and most of its members.

Just a guess at the caeserian issue - if they are indeed illegitimate children it probably leaves the mother a better chance of "covering up" the fact she isn't a virgin than naturally birthing a full term baby

just a guess

Sx

Teddyboy, there you go again, suggesting I was interfering this time. I repeat, I was expressing an opinion which I am perfectly entitled to do. It hardly constitutes interference. The Egyptian Child Care Authorities, if and whatever they are don't even know of my existance let alone my opinions so how can I possibly be seen as 'interfering?'. What's more, I am not playing the martyr, pedantic, or otherwise. And there's nothing 'faux' about it. I don't play games like that. And what 'nits' exactly do you think that I'm 'determinedly picking?' Mild sarcasm at most. I felt genuinely aggrieved by your comments, and am sorry that you've just seen fit to compound them. Both of your posts seemed unnecessarily accusative and rude, and I'm surprised because I wouldn't have expected that from you. And as for what 'our place' is or isn't, you make up your own mind what your 'place' is. But please don't presume to tell me what mine is.

Subversion wrote:Just a guess at the caeserian issue - if they are indeed illegitimate children it probably leaves the mother a better chance of "covering up" the fact she isn't a virgin than naturally birthing a full term baby

just a guess

Sx

Well maybe, but what about the scar Caesarian's leave? That might be difficult to explain away I would have thought. An awful lot of Caesarian's seem to be performed in Egypt so maybe they just favour this method of delivery. I tend to think that they may feel that the whole experience of giving birth and then having to part with the baby is likely to be less traumatic if done quickly and surgically rather than the mother having to suffer the rigours of labour. All very sad really, I think.

I think you are right TT..

slight deviation off topic,
The farmers tell me that many years ago, Women could give birth at home, as is the norm.. ( was)
Now they say they need a doctor each time they give birth. The farmers blame the fertiliser for this.

timetraveller wrote:

Subversion wrote:Just a guess at the caeserian issue - if they are indeed illegitimate children it probably leaves the mother a better chance of "covering up" the fact she isn't a virgin than naturally birthing a full term baby

just a guess

Sx

Well maybe, but what about the scar Caesarian's leave? That might be difficult to explain away I would have thought. An awful lot of Caesarian's seem to be performed in Egypt so maybe they just favour this method of delivery. I tend to think that they may feel that the whole experience of giving birth and then having to part with the baby is likely to be less traumatic if done quickly and surgically rather than the mother having to suffer the rigours of labour. All very sad really, I think.

Freely admit I have no idea at all - but would be very interested to hear from anyone who does

What I would say though is that a caesarian scar would be concealed in the pubic hair, not so easily noticed and from what I understand (again not a lot) there isn't a lot of close inspection of girly bits.... harsh generalisation I know - happy to get wrist slapped!

But whatever the logic - I agree very sad - given that the course to conception in a lot of these cases is also its own tragedy

Sx

"What I would say though is that a caesarian scar would be concealed in the pubic hair, not so easily noticed "


Pubic hair is a No No for Egyptian women.

Beat me to it Hatusu. For Egyptian women, Subversion, every little hair below the eyebrows MUST be removed. Many men remove their pubic hair as well.