U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting > Adoption
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-16-2013, 07:58 PM
 
1,486 posts, read 574,561 times
Reputation: 1030
Quote:
Originally Posted by nj185 View Post
Re: The OP - I disagree that the study cited in the OP "blames" anyone. Instead it points out that assumptions surrounding the birth parents based on 'culture of poverty' beliefs can effect the way adoptive and prospective adoptive parents view their role in the adoption experience, and can effect the narrative they create for their child.

It notes that the adoptive parents in the study hold varying beliefs on the reasons birth families relinquish children. As the conclusion states:

"This research provides information on how adoptive parents perceive birth parents and the use of culture of poverty arguments. Findings can help adoption agencies evaluate and revise how they prepare adoptive parents, portray birth parents, and counsel adoptive families. This is particularly important for families with open adoptions to maintain good relationships with birth families as well as those without that connection since they must rely less on facts and more on adoptive parent narratives about birth parents."

My take from the study was that adoption by nature is based on financial inequity; thus the adoptive parents' views on poverty frames how they view themselves in the process, certain assumptions on their child's inherent potential, and the narrative created for their child.
You summed it up well.

The second article was interesting because it was challenging the stereotypes:

Educational Leadership:Poverty and Learning:The Myth of the Culture of Poverty


Quote:
Excerpt:
The socioeconomic opportunity gap can be eliminated only when we stop trying to "fix" poor students and start addressing the ways in which our schools perpetuate classism. This includes destroying the inequities listed above as well as abolishing such practices as tracking and ability grouping, segregational redistricting, and the privatization of public schools. We must demand the best possible education for all students—higher-order pedagogies, innovative learning materials, and holistic teaching and learning. But first, we must demand basic human rights for all people: adequate housing and health care, living-wage jobs, and so on.
He mentions the deficit theory as being prevalent in school districts and here is some more about that theory:

http://www.edchange.org/publications...rnful-gaze.pdf

http://www.edchange.org/publications...onnections.pdf

http://mckayschooleducators.wordpres...eficit-theory/

http://www.education.com/reference/a...deficit-model/

http://www.edchange.org/publications/MTE.pdf

It is relevant to this discussion because self esteem does play a part in preventing teen pregnancy in that when one feels one has a future, then one is more likely to be careful about sexual matters. If one is being taught by teachers that prescribe to the deficit theory, i.e. teachers who feel it is one's fault or one's family's fault that they are poor, that isn't exactly helpful to one's self esteem and one then "lives up" to others low expectations. If we look at the outcomes of children who are taught by inspiring teachers who have taught in poor districts (along the lines of fictional inspiring teachers like Sir in "To sir with love" for example), one suspects that the pregnancy rates might be lower in students from those school classes because the students would feel like they had more of a future beyond parenthood. In fact, when one looks at a lot of the inspiring stories of people who have risen from poverty, many will attribute it to having had an adult who believed them - whether a parent, teacher or other person.

For example, it might be worth tracking the outcomes of students who are being educated by these charter schools:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/...ion/55695558/1

http://www.rsed.org/about/Our-Story.cfm

I think we are all agreed that education is important but I also feel that general improvement in earlier education itself can help reduce teen pregnancy.

Last edited by susankate; 05-16-2013 at 09:08 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-16-2013, 09:02 PM
Status: "Much Ado About Nothing" (set 10 days ago)
 
1,733 posts, read 1,608,529 times
Reputation: 1932
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714 View Post
Then it isn't PERCENT. Percent is out of one hundred. 70% would mean 700 out of 1000.

70 out of 1000 is 7%. Big difference from 70%.

So yes, a decline from nearly 12% to 7% is cutting it basically in half. It is MUCH better and yes it is a statistically significant improvement in one generation.

Almost all demographics are reported out of 1000s due to the need for significant figures.
Why are you still on this? I've already corrected my statement. Now, you're stating incorrect percentages in relation to what we're discussing. . 70 out of 1000 is 7% but that's about it. You can't take this figure and apply it to what we're discussing here. It's just 70 out of 1000 teens experience a pregnancy in the U.S.

Anywho, I found the statistics I spoke of earlier. The percentage of teens who become pregnant at least once before age 20 is 34%. 80 percent of unwed teenage mothers end up on welfare. Other interesting stats can be read on this site: Teen Pregnancy Statistics
__________________


For your reading pleasure >>TOS
Where you'll often find me: Parenting Forum and All Its Parts
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2013, 11:49 PM
 
10,493 posts, read 8,176,700 times
Reputation: 14221
It may be me, but I doubt it. Do some folks on this forum think that becoming a teenage "parent" is actually a viable option that leads to some sort of bizarre form of happiness or success?

I would think that most sane adults would not support this trend.

I recently read that over 50% of live birth in the US are to unwed mothers. I do not know how many of these women are over 30, have a profession and planned this pregnancy. Those women tend to do an amazing job.

However, my guess is that so few women have BAs from UCLA and interesting jobs, own a condo and have a safe vehicle.

I think that they are mostly unplanned pregnancies.

I am a huge supporter of children's rights.

Children have the right to be raised bt a person who is financially solvent, and is not a child.

It seems to work best this way.

"Teen" coupled with the word parent, is somewhat of an oxymoron to me. Like "drunk" and "driver". It just doesn't work.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2013, 02:51 PM
 
8,688 posts, read 4,595,270 times
Reputation: 8416
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheena12 View Post
It may be me, but I doubt it. Do some folks on this forum think that becoming a teenage "parent" is actually a viable option that leads to some sort of bizarre form of happiness or success?
Of course it CAN be a viable option. Our president is the child of a teenaged mother. Lots of successful, happy well adjusted people had teenaged parents.

Teenaged parents have unique needs based on their ages that when not met can be disasterous if not met, actually this can be true for any subset of parents. But it is ridiculous to make claims that ALL teenaged parents are incapable of parenting.

Quote:
I would think that most sane adults would not support this trend.
Acknowledging that when given appropriate support (and make no mistake ALL parents need support of some kind or another) the best choice for some teens and their children is to stay together.

What is insane is the notion that it is acceptable to forcibly remove children from their mothers for no other reason than age of the mother.



Quote:
"Teen" coupled with the word parent, is somewhat of an oxymoron to me. Like "drunk" and "driver". It just doesn't work.
Wrong. It may work out less often than other age groups, it may have unique challenges but the idea that teens have no right to choose to parent THEIR children IF they have the appropriate support network is truly astounding.

I have spoken of one of my students multiple time but as she just graduated from the naval academy and came to visit today I will again. Her mother was 18 when she was born. She was not a planned child. Her father was 23. Her parents got married when she was three, and have since had two other children (ironically I suppose one is adopted) and have been happily married for 20 years. BTW both parents went to college and have professional jobs and live in the same upper middle class town I do.

So while they maybe the exception, they are living proof that teens CAN parent and well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2013, 04:37 PM
 
4,261 posts, read 3,143,594 times
Reputation: 11337
Quote:
Why would you expect them to ever reach the rates of countries who have universal health care, much better access to birth control, much lower levels of poverty, etc?
You may have hit this on the money. However, you're making my point for me. A higher birth rate is structurally built into the US culture because of the absence of universal health care. Consequently, even though the teenage birth rate has declined, it hasn't declined enough and this is going to continue to be a problem for this country. Therefore, adoption should be more relevant than ever.

If you have a way to get true universal health insurance in this country, you might well persuade me to support it. The resistance to the Affordable Care Act shows just how far we have to go before this problem will be solved.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2013, 08:28 PM
 
Location: Chicago area
1,065 posts, read 856,664 times
Reputation: 1889
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheena12 View Post
What I am proposing is a societal reexamination of the wisdom of teenage pregnancy. It is not a matter of being traditionally "conservative" or "liberal". It transcends that.

It is a matter of what is good for individuals, and for society as a whole. When a societal ill, in this case parenting while a teen; is slowly accepted and embraced by a portion of society; and the people who accept or practice this universally identified aberration begin to expect "support" from government, or from society as a whole for something that causes a social harm, there is something very wrong.
Interestingly, countries with much less teen pregnancy have far more support for those who do become teen parents. Providing assistance to these parents and their children helps prevent the children from repeating the parent's mistake. A teen mother and her child in Sweden is far better off and far less likely to be a burden on society than their American counterparts because of the support services available to them.
Support services for teen parents have nothing to do with accepting or celebrating the phenomenon. It's simply understanding the reality and trying to make the best of it for the children who had no say in who they were born to. Forced removal of children from young parents will never happen so reality is that there are and will be young people having children. Those children and society in general will certainly not benefit from ending services that helps young mothers finish High School, attend college, support herself and her child, etc.
Stopping programs like WIC and High School programs for teen moms isn't going to lead to less girls having babies or even more adoptions. What it will lead to is increased desperation and poverty and all the ills that come with that. They will just be in a deeper hole which would be even harder to get out of. The current welfare programs that leads so many families to a lifetime of dependence and dysfunctionality isn't positive for anyone either. But the answer is to improve the help, not to stop it.

Quote:
Teenage pregnancy and it's social sequalae, are a shame to our country. I can thing of no other industrialized nation that is moving backwards, to accept and accommodate this ill.
See above.

Quote:
This is a fair question - what sector of society continuously presents us with the greatest number of egregious child abuse and neglect cases?
All abused kids are vulnerable but according to studies upper middle and upper class abused kids are more vulnerable than those in lower classes due to their communities' tendency to deny that it's happening there and families' tendency to put up a front. Abuse in poor communities tend to be easier to spot while upper class abuse tend to happen behind closed doors and fancy facades. Abused upper class kids also struggle with a higher degree of shame and pressure to keep up appearances and are therefore less likely to report the abuse. When they do they are more likely to not be believed.
Due to upper class abuse going unnoticed, hidden and unreported I bet that it happens much more than people believe.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2013, 10:11 PM
 
8,688 posts, read 4,595,270 times
Reputation: 8416
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
You may have hit this on the money. However, you're making my point for me. A higher birth rate is structurally built into the US culture because of the absence of universal health care. Consequently, even though the teenage birth rate has declined, it hasn't declined enough and this is going to continue to be a problem for this country. Therefore, adoption should be more relevant than ever.

If you have a way to get true universal health insurance in this country, you might well persuade me to support it. The resistance to the Affordable Care Act shows just how far we have to go before this problem will be solved.
No the real problem of teen pregnancy is poverty. Until we address that issue we will still have problems.

The problem isn't inherently teenagers having children, its the group of teenagers who are having children and cannot adequately support them. And the idea given in this forum frequently that teenage girls are living high on the hog off some antiquated and false notion of "welfare" is ridiculous.

Countries with less poverty and lower rates of teen motherhood actually typically have BETTER support systems for their teen mothers than we do in this country. The assistance for teen mothers is not enough to break the poverty cycle but enough that they generally won't starve in the street.

If you really want to make a dent in teen pregnancy rates change "welfare" so it can have a real impact on SES, moving those families into the middle class. But realistically many in the adoption industry would not allow it since it further limits that already most valuable of resources, infants available for adoptions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2013, 10:53 PM
Status: "Much Ado About Nothing" (set 10 days ago)
 
1,733 posts, read 1,608,529 times
Reputation: 1932
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714 View Post
No the real problem of teen pregnancy is poverty. Until we address that issue we will still have problems.

The problem isn't inherently teenagers having children, its the group of teenagers who are having children and cannot adequately support them. And the idea given in this forum frequently that teenage girls are living high on the hog off some antiquated and false notion of "welfare" is ridiculous.

Countries with less poverty and lower rates of teen motherhood actually typically have BETTER support systems for their teen mothers than we do in this country. The assistance for teen mothers is not enough to break the poverty cycle but enough that they generally won't starve in the street.

If you really want to make a dent in teen pregnancy rates change "welfare" so it can have a real impact on SES, moving those families into the middle class. But realistically many in the adoption industry would not allow it since it further limits that already most valuable of resources, infants available for adoptions.
Okay. So we magically eliminate poverty. Now what? Not all teens in poverty end up pregnant. But, a large percentage of teens who are pregnant live in poverty. There is a bit of a difference.

How would we move families into middle class? People move into middle class primarily by their own accord (minus winning the lottery or having a rich aunt/uncle ); through hard work and determination, and okay, for argument's sake, I'll throw in a little "luck." Not by an over abundance of social programs. I'm not against helping those who need it. I just don't support the notion of providing a life-long crutch. Promoting unplanned pregnancies and teenage pregnancy with unlimited social programs and no requirement to deal with the consequences of one's actions comes dangerously close to this.

So you believe that the adoption industry wants people to remain poor and impoverished to secure the "valuable" resource, infants, for adoption? Wow. That's something that needs to be further examined: "Let's keep people poor so we can have their babies." Not because poverty costs taxpayers any money, or that unplanned pregnancies and teenage pregnancies are "free" methods of parenting in this country, no, according to you, the end result is an infant for adoption. I've now heard it all.
__________________


For your reading pleasure >>TOS
Where you'll often find me: Parenting Forum and All Its Parts
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-18-2013, 09:29 AM
 
8,688 posts, read 4,595,270 times
Reputation: 8416
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaded View Post
Okay. So we magically eliminate poverty. Now what? Not all teens in poverty end up pregnant. But, a large percentage of teens who are pregnant live in poverty. There is a bit of a difference.
If the goal is to improve the lives of children then we provide better support systems. I said that above.

Quote:
How would we move families into middle class? People move into middle class primarily by their own accord (minus winning the lottery or having a rich aunt/uncle ); through hard work and determination, and okay, for argument's sake, I'll throw in a little "luck." Not by an over abundance of social programs.
The above statement shows a lack of understanding of what created the middle class in the first place.

The middle class has not always existed and is a relatively new phenomenon. In this country, and indeed in most of the developed world the development of the middle class has exactly coincided with the development of the most successful "social program" of all time, public education.

Originally, public education prepared people for typical "middle class" jobs. Now those same public education programs no longer prepare people to enter the middle class. The ticket to middle class requires more than a high school diploma, either college degree or technical training.

Quote:
I'm not against helping those who need it. I just don't support the notion of providing a life-long crutch. Promoting unplanned pregnancies and teenage pregnancy with unlimited social programs and no requirement to deal with the consequences of one's actions comes dangerously close to this.
Again, this demonstrates a lack of knowledge about what social programs actually are. Welfare is not unlimited and hasn't been for over 20 years. The typical adult receiving benefits is limited to a lifetime of 5 years. For teen mothers if more specific supports were added this would likely be enough time to provide the educational opportunities necessary for them to support their children above the poverty line AND THUS MOVE OFF SOCIAL PROGRAMS. Again if the goal is to improve the lives for children this is a better choice than having to chose between starving in the streets or adoption. Because when a mother chooses adoption by default, than no one wins except PAPs, and APs.

Quote:
So you believe that the adoption industry wants people to remain poor and impoverished to secure the "valuable" resource, infants, for adoption? Wow. That's something that needs to be further examined: "Let's keep people poor so we can have their babies." Not because poverty costs taxpayers any money, or that unplanned pregnancies and teenage pregnancies are "free" methods of parenting in this country, no, according to you, the end result is an infant for adoption. I've now heard it all.
I suggest you learn a little bit about the history of this nations social programs. For example, your need to present welfare as unlimited source of income is just wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-18-2013, 11:24 AM
 
1,047 posts, read 777,500 times
Reputation: 1419
If we "magically eliminate poverty" the ultimate result would be that people would do things by choice, based on open access to the things $ can buy.

That doesn't mean that everyone would make good choices, as we know rich and poor both make disastrous and stupid choices. It would mean that everyone would have access to buy preventions & solutions.

Eliminating poverty would also mean that those who believe bad choices are inherent in some "class" of people then might be able to say with some actual authority "those people just make bad choices and have bad values", and blame them directly for their circumstances instead of making assumptions without taking structural roadblocks into account.

Back to the OP - all of the back and forth about poverty, teenage parenting, etc are interesting, but can anyone see how those beliefs, whatever they are, effect the way adoptive parents view themselves? adoptees' birth families? discuss adoption with others and their adopted children?

If you knew that the birth family of your child were very wealthy, wealthier than you by far, [and for those who believe wealth in this country doesn't = class, from whatever your definition of "high class" is]; would that change how you thought & spoke about your adoption? your role? your child?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $79,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting > Adoption

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top