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.
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.
What exactly are you basing your conclusion on? The data I provided earlier came to a completely different conclusion. What they found was that the majority of children in foster care were non white, but the majority of their adoptive parents were white.
There are lists of people who will take ANY baby, even the handicap ones. True, some only want a baby and some will even hire a surrogate so it will be their bloodline but that doesn't mean there are no other people who will take ANY baby.
Then why are so many languishing in the foster care system.
Oh, that's right, it's a baby!
So, you want women to breed for babies.
It really is a fetus and newborn fetish, isn't it?
Adoption isn't the opposite of abortion. I don't know why people bring one up when talking about the other. A woman who doesn't want to be pregnant doesn't care.
Adoption isn't the opposite of abortion. I don't know why people bring one up when talking about the other. A woman who doesn't want to be pregnant doesn't care.
Because the people whom insist that abortion is evil use adoption as a viable solution to unwanted pregnancy when it's not.
** And please don't anyone confuse what I said with what janelle144 said. There was a misquote somewhere, and I'm embarrassed to be quoted as saying the dumb thing she said.
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.
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.
You have no substantiation of that. Just opinion, and sounds very judgmental at that. There are lots of pro-life organizations, and individuals who volunteer their time and their resources to help in these areas, asking nothing in return.
Don't like pro-lifers? Fine. But if you're going to discuss the issue, at least be fair about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
Actually, it is very hard in the US to adopt a baby. That's why parents go to China, Korea, Guatemala, Russia, et al to adopt infants. Some of the difficulty has to do with the US social services systems. It's very complicated, but if these kids were freed up for adoption as infants, they would be snatched up very quickly, handicaps or not. Many of these foreign adoptees have handicaps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
I am very pro-choice, but the above is just not true. Parents travel abroad to adopt kids who have handicaps and are of other races. People are willing to adopt these babies, and would beat down the doors to adopt US babies with the same conditions. The social services systems in this country make that difficult. There is a bias against trans-racial adoptions by social service agencies in the US. There is an emphasis on trying to keep families together that makes it hard for infants to be eligible for adoption. And much more.
Katiana, you are right and I've seen this in my own experience with friends as well as family. We have 4 grandkids that are adopted, two are older, HIV+, all from other countries after adoption here proved to have far too much red tape. It isn't easy to adopt from foreign countries, either, and just as expensive if not more so, but somewhat easier.
** And please don't anyone confuse what I said with what janelle144 said. There was a misquote somewhere, and I'm embarrassed to be quoted as saying the dumb thing she said.
So, so sorry.
I was running out of the house when I posted and didn't check.
No one could think of you like that.
In the unlikely event that the Supreme Court were to overturn Roe v. Wade (see "What if Roe v. Wade Were Overturned?"), it would most likely do so not by stating that fetuses are persons prior to the point of viability, but instead by stating that the Constitution does not imply a woman's right to make decisions about her own reproductive system. This reasoning would allow states to not only ban abortions, but also to mandate abortions if they so chose. The state would be given absolute authority to determine whether or not a woman will carry her pregnancy to term.
There is also some question as to whether or not a ban on abortions would actually prevent abortions. Laws criminalizing the procedure generally apply to doctors, not to women, which means that even under state laws banning abortion as a medical procedure, women would be free to terminate their pregnancies through other means--usually by taking drugs that terminate pregnancies but are intended for other purposes. In Nicaragua, where abortion is illegal, the ulcer drug misoprostol is often used for this purpose. It's inexpensive, easy to transport and conceal, and terminates the pregnancy in a manner that resembles a miscarriage--and it is one of literally hundreds of options available to women who would terminate pregnancies illegally. These options are so effective that, according to a 2007 study by the World Health Organization, abortions are just as likely to occur in countries where abortion is illegal as they are to occur in countries where abortion is not. Unfortunately, these options are also substantially more dangerous than medically-supervised abortions--resulting in an estimated 80,000 accidental deaths each year.
So, doesn't look like preventing abortion would end up in more babies for sale after all. And it also looks like over turning the law would result in more deaths not less. So the argument is null.
What Arus posted in more close in truth than this. Statistics have shown for some time that healthy white infants are snatched-up as soon as they become available, and minority children in the U.S. go unadopted with lighter-skinned children going first, and the darkest skinned children going last or not adopted at all.
What Arus posted about people being unwilling to adopt handicapped children is untrue. I have personal experience both in trying to adopt, and in pediatrics nursing, where I see a lot of adopted kids.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDJD
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.
The people that go to Korea and China to adopt kids are generally not Asian themselves. Nor are the people that go to Guatemala usually Hispanic.
It is patently untrue that people are passing up children of color in the US.
This is very controversial stuff, so I"ll just encourage all of you to read the paragraph that starts with those words.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidkaos2
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 would agree that accurate information is difficult to come by. I will add that while there is a universal preference for sons, virtually ALL kids adopted from China are female.
I also agree that women should not be forced to have children so that someone else can adopt them.
Last edited by Katarina Witt; 03-23-2013 at 08:28 AM..
In the unlikely event that the Supreme Court were to overturn Roe v. Wade (see "What if Roe v. Wade Were Overturned?"), it would most likely do so not by stating that fetuses are persons prior to the point of viability, but instead by stating that the Constitution does not imply a woman's right to make decisions about her own reproductive system. This reasoning would allow states to not only ban abortions, but also to mandate abortions if they so chose. The state would be given absolute authority to determine whether or not a woman will carry her pregnancy to term.
There is also some question as to whether or not a ban on abortions would actually prevent abortions. Laws criminalizing the procedure generally apply to doctors, not to women, which means that even under state laws banning abortion as a medical procedure, women would be free to terminate their pregnancies through other means--usually by taking drugs that terminate pregnancies but are intended for other purposes. In Nicaragua, where abortion is illegal, the ulcer drug misoprostol is often used for this purpose. It's inexpensive, easy to transport and conceal, and terminates the pregnancy in a manner that resembles a miscarriage--and it is one of literally hundreds of options available to women who would terminate pregnancies illegally. These options are so effective that, according to a 2007 study by the World Health Organization, abortions are just as likely to occur in countries where abortion is illegal as they are to occur in countries where abortion is not. Unfortunately, these options are also substantially more dangerous than medically-supervised abortions--resulting in an estimated 80,000 accidental deaths each year.
So, doesn't look like preventing abortion would end up in more babies for sale after all. And it also looks like over turning the law would result in more deaths not less. So the argument is null.
Though Roe won't be overturned, medical technology will eventually render the 'viability' standard unpopular among many choicers. Slowly but surely medical technology will reduce the number of weeks until 'viability.' Then, an artificial womb.
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.
