Politics, Current Events & Hot Button Issues

[Nyctimene]

That's not any more responsible than aborting. In both cases you're not raising the child yourself. With abortion at least you aren't dumping your 'problem' on someone else. Only a fraction of the amount of children given up end up adopted. Others are in government care for the rest of their lives.

And adoption doesn't solve the problem of still having to go through an entire pregnancy which is unsafe for most teenagers.

[stayclassy]

---

Nyctimene wrote:
That's not any more responsible than aborting. In both cases you're not raising the child yourself. With abortion at least you aren't dumping your 'problem' on someone else. Only a fraction of the amount of children given up end up adopted. Others are in government care for the rest of their lives.

And adoption doesn't solve the problem of still having to go through an entire pregnancy which is unsafe for most teenagers.

---

Couldn't have said it any better. Love this.

[lilibells]

Mostkids who are adopted when they are babies do NOT end up in foster care. Putting-on purpose- your children in foster care would be "dumping your problem on someone else". Adoption is not their are parents who want children and cannot have them. I would like to be done with this conversation but I would also like you to at least try and respect my opinion.

[Callipepla]

---

lilibells wrote:

Mostkids who are adopted when they are babies do NOT end up in foster care. Putting-on purpose- your children in foster care would be "dumping your problem on someone else". Adoption is not their are parents who want children and cannot have them. I would like to be done with this conversation but I would also like you to at least try and respect my opinion.

---

The statistics as of 2010 are that there are over 400,000 US children in foster care. There are PLENTY of children in foster care who already need a loving home, so there is no reason to keep pumping babies into the system, making it harder for the children who are already here. 

Yes there are people who cannot have kids, but just because they wont take a mixed race, african american, handicapped, or older child does not mean we need to keep this statistic rising.

[boomtiing_ox]

---

Callipepla wrote:

---

lilibells wrote:

Mostkids who are adopted when they are babies do NOT end up in foster care. Putting-on purpose- your children in foster care would be "dumping your problem on someone else". Adoption is not their are parents who want children and cannot have them. I would like to be done with this conversation but I would also like you to at least try and respect my opinion.

---

The statistics as of 2010 are that there are over 400,000 US children in foster care. There are PLENTY of children in foster care who already need a loving home, so there is no reason to keep pumping babies into the system, making it harder for the children who are already here. 

Yes there are people who cannot have kids, but just because they wont take a mixed race, african american, handicapped, or older child does not mean we need to keep this statistic rising.

---

THIS.

There would be less children in foster care if people didn't  want to adopt just white babies.

[Nyctimene]

Lilibell, it's not about respecting your opinion. I do respect your opinion. I (and others) are trying to debate your opinion and give you more information. We're not bashing you or arguing with your right to an opinion. There's a subtle but important difference, and if you abandon the debate whenever someone doesn't instantly agree with you then you're going to have a very tough life ahead of you because few times will people ever instantly agree with something you say, especially something 'hot topic' or controversial.

Adoption can be wonderful and the creation of 'Open Adoptions' has certainly helped a lot with the number of children that go into foster care. 20 years ago it used to be that if you wanted to give your child up, you signed them away to an agency at birth and later on that agency may find them a parent and you would never know and have no part in that process. Now with 'Open Adoptions' you can pick parents, often meet them and [sometimes] recieve updates on your child.

BUT...

From my statistics 37% of the adoptions in the US in 2012 were 'foster care' adoptions which means the child(ren) sat in foster care for some period before they were adopted. 38% were the more desierable 'private domestic adoptions' which means biological parent to adoptive parent adoptions where there's no foster care involved. Usually done through a privately hired lawyer or a private (non governmental) agency. So it's almost a perfect 50/50 split on kids adopted from foster care versus kids adopted 'privately' from birth (no foster care involvement).

Open Adoptions have flaws too. I was just talking to several biological parents who put their children up for OA and are now being severely dicked around by the adoptive parents. Generally the rule or at least the idea and 'spirit' of OA is that the biological parent gets routine updates such as updated photos and an email or typed letter with information. But in one case the parents are refusing to give updated photos of her children. In another the parents decided to abruptly move cutting off any chance of that mother seeing her child again. In another the adoptive parents have been very on/off with when she (the biological mother) can visit. The biological parent(s) has no legal right once she signs the adoption paperwork so the adoptive parents technically have the right to do all of the above but it goes against the moral/ethical spirit of OA, but it happens all the time.

As for adoptive parents, I don't think they're as 'perfect' or 'selfless' as people think. For instance, if they really wanted a baby as much as many of them cry and whimper and whine that they just 'want a child to love' why don't they take a 'child' (2-5 years old) instead of a [newborn] baby? Why don't they take a Hispanic or African-American baby? The proven fact of the matter is that most adoptive parents are married, middle class whites that want perfectly healthy white newborn babies ONLY. If they have to wait 10 years and bypass 500 other children to get that white baby they'll gladly reject all those healthy kids because they're 9 months old instead of 0 months, or potty trained instead of still in diapers, or caramel skinned instead of lily white. There's nothing wrong with any of those kids but in the eyes of those supposedly selfless, loving adoptive parents they're 'damaged goods'. So basically a lot of adoptive parents are racist, shallow, entitled jerks who want a designer baby. In many cases at agencies they're given pictures of babies waiting to be adopted to flip through like a Sears catalogue.

And just because the adoptive parents pass psychological screens at the time of adoption doesn't mean that they'd pass those same screens 5, 10, 15 years down the line. Plenty of children are abused and neglected post-adoption. I was. I know others that were too. There's no updates or visits from the agency or social workers once the paperwork is signed and certified. Can you imagine the psychological damage and trauma growing up having everyone tell you how grateful you should be to have a family, to be one of the few adopted, to have such wonderful parents who would adopt a child -- except that they're abusive and/or neglectful and your 'shiny new home' is not better and often even worse than the home you were supposedly 'saved' from? It's not a rare story. Adoptive parents are human beings and like anyone situations can change. People can lose jobs, relationships can break down in bad ways, even many adults start taking drugs as adults. Lots of things can change them into 'bad people' that maybe they weren't at the time of adoption.

This is why it's hard to simply the complex issue of adoption down into simply "Adoption is good!" or "Adoption provides infertile couples with babies!" and why lots of people -- often adoptees who have BEEN through these issues and pain -- resent people who try to break it down and minimize the pain involved. A pain that does not go away with time and usually lasts and causes issues for a lifetime.

So once more, it has nothing to do with not respecting your opinion. I just doubt you know a lot of these statistics or important subtlties to the issue.

[hotjamale]

"Then why'd you have sex if you weren't ready for a baby. Or maybe your protection didn't work; there are always risks. You shouldn't just have sex whenever you want then just abort the baby. If you don't want a baby.....and remember their is always adoption."

Well, my dear, I had sex because I am ready for sex. Sex does not equal baby. If I shouldn't have sex I want, when should I have sex? I have learned A LOT about myself, become significantly more confident about my body, who I am, and what my sexual preferences are since I've begun having sex. Sex has contributed to me having a very healthy relationship with my boyfriend. Why on earth would I not have sex - even though I want to - because I don't want a baby? Wouldn't the reasonable thing in that situation be to use PROTECTION? Of course protection can fail, of course sex has risks - please, enlighten me on what in life doesn't come with risks? Pregnancy, birth and especially parenting when you aren't ready to be a parent comes with significantly more risks than protected sex does.

In two weeks, I am scheduled to have an abortion. Does that make me an irresponsible person who now deserves to go through an entire pregnancy just to in the end give that baby away, or to keep the baby that I don't want, just because I accidentally got pregnant? No. I don't think it does. Maybe, just maybe, I'm actually caring and selfless enough to realize the BIGGEST problem in the world currently is over-population, there are millions of children all over the world who don't have parents, and I am going to live a lower quality life than I expect for myself if I choose to have and keep this kid.

This is NOT me killing a child, the way I see it, is getting rid of a parasite. It's a big bundle of cells - cannot think, can't breathe, it CANNOT live without being attached to me. It's not a human. If you had ringworm, would you get rid of it? Kind of an extreme point, but to me, this fetus feels like a parasite and I have no desire to have anything to do with it. Not me being cruel, irresponsible, or whatever else - that's me being RESPONSIBLE and seeing it for how it is... a bundle of cells. Not a human, not a thinking, breathing, seperate, healthy life, a big bundle of cells that make me feel like sh*t every morning.

[stayclassy]

---

hotjamale wrote:

"Then why'd you have sex if you weren't ready for a baby. Or maybe your protection didn't work; there are always risks. You shouldn't just have sex whenever you want then just abort the baby. If you don't want a baby.....and remember their is always adoption."

Well, my dear, I had sex because I am ready for sex. Sex does not equal baby. If I shouldn't have sex I want, when should I have sex? I have learned A LOT about myself, become significantly more confident about my body, who I am, and what my sexual preferences are since I've begun having sex. Sex has contributed to me having a very healthy relationship with my boyfriend. Why on earth would I not have sex - even though I want to - because I don't want a baby? Wouldn't the reasonable thing in that situation be to use PROTECTION? Of course protection can fail, of course sex has risks - please, enlighten me on what in life doesn't come with risks? Pregnancy, birth and especially parenting when you aren't ready to be a parent comes with significantly more risks than protected sex does.

In two weeks, I am scheduled to have an abortion. Does that make me an irresponsible person who now deserves to go through an entire pregnancy just to in the end give that baby away, or to keep the baby that I don't want, just because I accidentally got pregnant? No. I don't think it does. Maybe, just maybe, I'm actually caring and selfless enough to realize the BIGGEST problem in the world currently is over-population, there are millions of children all over the world who don't have parents, and I am going to live a lower quality life than I expect for myself if I choose to have and keep this kid.

This is NOT me killing a child, the way I see it, is getting rid of a parasite. It's a big bundle of cells - cannot think, can't breathe, it CANNOT live without being attached to me. It's not a human. If you had ringworm, would you get rid of it? Kind of an extreme point, but to me, this fetus feels like a parasite and I have no desire to have anything to do with it. Not me being cruel, irresponsible, or whatever else - that's me being RESPONSIBLE and seeing it for how it is... a bundle of cells. Not a human, not a thinking, breathing, seperate, healthy life, a big bundle of cells that make me feel like sh*t every morning.

---

I remember seeing your post about potentially being pregnant and sorry to hear you have to go through this. Hope it's not painful for you!

[boomtiing_ox]

---

hotjamale wrote:

"Then why'd you have sex if you weren't ready for a baby. Or maybe your protection didn't work; there are always risks. You shouldn't just have sex whenever you want then just abort the baby. If you don't want a baby.....and remember their is always adoption."

Well, my dear, I had sex because I am ready for sex. Sex does not equal baby. If I shouldn't have sex I want, when should I have sex? I have learned A LOT about myself, become significantly more confident about my body, who I am, and what my sexual preferences are since I've begun having sex. Sex has contributed to me having a very healthy relationship with my boyfriend. Why on earth would I not have sex - even though I want to - because I don't want a baby? Wouldn't the reasonable thing in that situation be to use PROTECTION? Of course protection can fail, of course sex has risks - please, enlighten me on what in life doesn't come with risks? Pregnancy, birth and especially parenting when you aren't ready to be a parent comes with significantly more risks than protected sex does.

In two weeks, I am scheduled to have an abortion. Does that make me an irresponsible person who now deserves to go through an entire pregnancy just to in the end give that baby away, or to keep the baby that I don't want, just because I accidentally got pregnant? No. I don't think it does. Maybe, just maybe, I'm actually caring and selfless enough to realize the BIGGEST problem in the world currently is over-population, there are millions of children all over the world who don't have parents, and I am going to live a lower quality life than I expect for myself if I choose to have and keep this kid.

This is NOT me killing a child, the way I see it, is getting rid of a parasite. It's a big bundle of cells - cannot think, can't breathe, it CANNOT live without being attached to me. It's not a human. If you had ringworm, would you get rid of it? Kind of an extreme point, but to me, this fetus feels like a parasite and I have no desire to have anything to do with it. Not me being cruel, irresponsible, or whatever else - that's me being RESPONSIBLE and seeing it for how it is... a bundle of cells. Not a human, not a thinking, breathing, seperate, healthy life, a big bundle of cells that make me feel like sh*t every morning.

---

I'm sorry this has happened to you, I hope it goes well and completely agree with what you said.

[Special_K]

How far along are you, if u don't mind me asking hotjamale?