Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
Not quite, white kids just don't make it into the system as much, which might actually back up what you are saying.
"The race and ethnic distribution of children adopted from the foster care system is different from that of children in the general population. Adopted children are less likely to be white or of Hispanic origin than children in the general U.S. population, and are more likely to be black.
One of three children adopted from foster care have been adopted by parents of a different race. Whereas a majority of adopted children are non-white, the majority of these children's adoptive parents are white (73 percent)."
Thing is, I don't care about the race of those children. I care that they aren't being adopted, so percentages aren't as important to me as the "why" are these kids being passed up. The assertion that there are lines of people looking to adopt is false. There are lines of people looking to adopt children that look like they could be their own child, which, naturally, leaves minority children out to dry.
Conversely, poverty is higher amongst minorities, while birth rates are among the highest, so the odds of a minority child being in foster care or up for adoption rises, while people in the position to adopt are looking for white kids.
Also, not that I would ever advocate abortion as a means for reducing crime, but the drop in crime in the 90's has been heavily linked to Roe v. Wade. The 90's were the time that unwanted children would have been in prime crime-comminting years. Thing was, unwanted children were less of an issue... This is fact. Additionally, states that saw the most reduction in crime after Roe v. Wade were the states that made abortion most available.
Thing is, I don't care about the race of those children. I care that they aren't being adopted, so percentages aren't as important to me as the "why" are these kids being passed up. The assertion that there are lines of people looking to adopt is false. There are lines of people looking to adopt children that look like they could be their own child, which, naturally, leaves minority children out to dry.
Conversely, poverty is higher amongst minorities, while birth rates are among the highest, so the odds of a minority child being in foster care or up for adoption rises, while people in the position to adopt are looking for white kids.
I agree that there are more children waiting to be adopted than parents waiting to adopt. Where I disagree, per the data, is that parents are looking for a kid that looks like them. The data just doesn't support that view.
Also, not that I would ever advocate abortion as a means for reducing crime, but the drop in crime in the 90's has been heavily linked to Roe v. Wade. The 90's were the time that unwanted children would have been in prime crime-comminting years. Thing was, unwanted children were less of an issue... This is fact. Additionally, states that saw the most reduction in crime after Roe v. Wade were the states that made abortion most available.
Sounds nasty, I now, bit is the way things work.
Plus there won't be enough people to pay into SS in the future. If you are under 45 you won't see a penny of the SS you pay in today. Yes, it does have it's affects.
I agree that there are more children waiting to be adopted than parents waiting to adopt. Where I disagree, per the data, is that parents are looking for a kid that looks like them. The data just doesn't support that view.
African Americans make up ~13.5% of U.S. citizens, yet African American children make up ~30%. The desire and difficulty of "camouflaging" an adoptive child is not only a white/black issue, but also a black/black issue. If a child is darker than their prospective parents, then this "camouflage" is questioned. This is absolutely an issue in adoption.
Thing is, I don't care about the race of those children. I care that they aren't being adopted, so percentages aren't as important to me as the "why" are these kids being passed up. The assertion that there are lines of people looking to adopt is false. There are lines of people looking to adopt children that look like they could be their own child, which, naturally, leaves minority children out to dry.
Conversely, poverty is higher amongst minorities, while birth rates are among the highest, so the odds of a minority child being in foster care or up for adoption rises, while people in the position to adopt are looking for white kids.
What your stats on that? When I looked for some, it said accurate information is difficult to come by. I read that approximately 6,500 black children a year are adopted by white families but as to how many white people there are waiting for a child who would be willing to adopt a child of another race but are not having one placed with them are not available.
I do value life, the lives of the living. I have worked in non-profit all my life with disadvantaged people, like the homeless. I don't find many conservative "pro-lifers" interested in helping the lives of those people though. Indeed they usually hate them with a passion.
Hogwash.
Quote:
Pro-lifers have a huge interest and concern for children as long as they are still in their mothers' wombs, but once those children are in existence, and are in families on TANF and food stamps, are over-burdening child services and foster care services, they lose all sympathy for them. And once these unwanted children are no longer cute little infants, but angry, neglected, and damaged little 8-year-olds or 13-year-olds, pro-lifers have no interest in them whatsoever.
Liberal propaganda. That's been a liberal slam on conservatives for decades now. Yet while lots of people claim it, there's no proof of it whatsoever. The only "proof" they offer is that if you don't support the existing welfare programs then you hate and don't care about children. It's fallacious logically, politically biased, and purely emotional.
Plus there won't be enough people to pay into SS in the future. If you are under 45 you won't see a penny of the SS you pay in today. Yes, it does have it's affects.
Our entire monetary system is based on expected American births and an increase of immigrants, both of whom are presumed to be contributing. If the relatively small number of abortions that happen in this country cripples us, then we were screwed waaay before then.
And, under 45 isn't getting Social Security unless we kill of the baby boomers as they reach retirement age.
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.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
