Confused—wealthy white women want supply of non-white babies?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some say that is reasoning behind Amy Comey Barrett’s “supply of domestic infants” remark.

Why would rich white women be interested in creating a supply of non-white babies to adopt? I thought it was less likely for a non-white baby to be adopted than a white one? If these whites women are infertile, wouldn’t they just go to a fertility clinic? This is 1940 anymore.

Doesn’t make sense to me.

Not sure what you’re talking about but if you think it’s easy to adopt a healthy infant or baby in this country, join the years long queue.

It’s easy and no wait if you’re open to a black child. There is only a shortage of you want a nonblack baby.

Not understanding. You mean people are not allowed to wish to parent a child who looks somewhat like them?

Previous comment was slick: comparing an age 8 or 10 child to an infant or baby. Takes away much of the early childhood developmental nurture aspect .

Wow. Big comprehension issues.

A lot of people on this forum are dense af.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some say that is reasoning behind Amy Comey Barrett’s “supply of domestic infants” remark.

Why would rich white women be interested in creating a supply of non-white babies to adopt? I thought it was less likely for a non-white baby to be adopted than a white one? If these whites women are infertile, wouldn’t they just go to a fertility clinic? This is 1940 anymore.

Doesn’t make sense to me.

Not sure what you’re talking about but if you think it’s easy to adopt a healthy infant or baby in this country, join the years long queue.

It’s easy and no wait if you’re open to a black child. There is only a shortage of you want a nonblack baby.

Adopting a baby is totally different from adopting a foster child of whatever age.

You’re dense af. There is a lot of black babies available for adoption. That’s what I’m saying.

There actually are not. Glad you never had to go to an adoption process to find out how long it takes to adopt a baby (<1 yr old).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I worked in international adoption many years ago. There was an unspoken recognition that white Americans would rather adopt white or Chinese ("white adjacent") babies from overseas, with all of the hassle and expense that involves, than adopt U.S.-born Black children.

DH and I are just beginning to consider adopting (I’m pro choice, not one of these whackjobs who is hoping for an increased “domestic supply of infants”) and literally my only hesitancy in adopting a Black child would be that I would afraid that I would not do a good enough job connecting said child to his or her culture. It would be very important to me to not muck that up.

But you're confident that you won't f^ck up connecting an Asian or Eastern European child to their cultural heritage? Or just won't care as much?

Well there’s all that racism around every corner so need to manage that daily.

Basically being a white savior, really doing it right, would be too much work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some say that is reasoning behind Amy Comey Barrett’s “supply of domestic infants” remark.

Why would rich white women be interested in creating a supply of non-white babies to adopt? I thought it was less likely for a non-white baby to be adopted than a white one? If these whites women are infertile, wouldn’t they just go to a fertility clinic? This is 1940 anymore.

Doesn’t make sense to me.

Not sure what you’re talking about but if you think it’s easy to adopt a healthy infant or baby in this country, join the years long queue.

It’s easy and no wait if you’re open to a black child. There is only a shortage of you want a nonblack baby.

Not understanding. You mean people are not allowed to wish to parent a child who looks somewhat like them?

Uh-huh, and you want us to "understand" your desire to endanger the lives of women who do not wish to be pregnant so that you can satisfy your Aryan dreams? And ignore your dancing around the issue that GERMANY adopts AA children from US because of, e.g., your internalized racism in the name of your desire for said Aryan baby? Seriously?

You’re crazy.

You are a bigot, own it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some say that is reasoning behind Amy Comey Barrett’s “supply of domestic infants” remark.

Why would rich white women be interested in creating a supply of non-white babies to adopt? I thought it was less likely for a non-white baby to be adopted than a white one? If these whites women are infertile, wouldn’t they just go to a fertility clinic? This is 1940 anymore.

Doesn’t make sense to me.

Not sure what you’re talking about but if you think it’s easy to adopt a healthy infant or baby in this country, join the years long queue.

It’s easy and no wait if you’re open to a black child. There is only a shortage of you want a nonblack baby.

Adopting a baby is totally different from adopting a foster child of whatever age.

You’re dense af. There is a lot of black babies available for adoption. That’s what I’m saying.

There actually are not. Glad you never had to go to an adoption process to find out how long it takes to adopt a baby (<1 yr old).

Not to mention the money required. We looked at domestic open adoption and agencies consistently said it would cost $30k plus. People have no idea what they’re talking about when they say, “just go for adoption!”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some say that is reasoning behind Amy Comey Barrett’s “supply of domestic infants” remark.

Why would rich white women be interested in creating a supply of non-white babies to adopt? I thought it was less likely for a non-white baby to be adopted than a white one? If these whites women are infertile, wouldn’t they just go to a fertility clinic? This is 1940 anymore.

Doesn’t make sense to me.

Not sure what you’re talking about but if you think it’s easy to adopt a healthy infant or baby in this country, join the years long queue.

It’s easy and no wait if you’re open to a black child. There is only a shortage of you want a nonblack baby.

Adopting a baby is totally different from adopting a foster child of whatever age.

You’re dense af. There is a lot of black babies available for adoption. That’s what I’m saying.

There actually are not. Glad you never had to go to an adoption process to find out how long it takes to adopt a baby (<1 yr old).

Not to mention the money required. We looked at domestic open adoption and agencies consistently said it would cost $30k plus. People have no idea what they’re talking about when they say, “just go for adoption!”

That’s what my sister’s shady grove IVF cost. The two families I know who did domestic adoption - one flew to FL and the other to OK - had newborns in a couple of months, way less than a pregnancy, and the adoptions were finalized within 2 weeks of the birth before the even left the state. I’m both families, they were contacted by the agency about baby #2. They literally didn’t wait at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a serious question no snark intended. There is a PP on a rant that white people should adopt black, but not white babies. What is the reason black babies are not all adopted by black people? PP feels this is a need whites are obligated to satisfy. Makes no sense.

Where on earth did you read that??
Mehta is being said is that the majority of babies that need to be adopted are black.

And black people do adopt but on average have far less resources than whites.

The majority of people looking to adopt are white. The majority of children/babies that need to be adopted are black.

What is not clicking for you??

But you didn't respond to PP's rant concern. Why are whites obligated to meet that need? Makes no sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some say that is reasoning behind Amy Comey Barrett’s “supply of domestic infants” remark.

Why would rich white women be interested in creating a supply of non-white babies to adopt? I thought it was less likely for a non-white baby to be adopted than a white one? If these whites women are infertile, wouldn’t they just go to a fertility clinic? This is 1940 anymore.

Doesn’t make sense to me.

It's coming from the assumption that it's still 1960 and those unable to conceive would choose adoption because there were no other options available.

That's not true today due to the success of IVF. And IVF is almost always the preferred choice.

In fact, the number of people truly wanting to adopt infants in the US is not in fact as large as it might seem.

There are in fact many people who will not pursue adoption for their own personal reasons no matter who many babies are available, the race of the babies or the costs involved.
People who want to adopt advertise this to others. People who don't want to do so are not advertising that to others because it is often not a comfortable conversation and it is really no ones business. This is why you rarely hear about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some say that is reasoning behind Amy Comey Barrett’s “supply of domestic infants” remark.

Why would rich white women be interested in creating a supply of non-white babies to adopt? I thought it was less likely for a non-white baby to be adopted than a white one? If these whites women are infertile, wouldn’t they just go to a fertility clinic? This is 1940 anymore.

Doesn’t make sense to me.

They aren't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some say that is reasoning behind Amy Comey Barrett’s “supply of domestic infants” remark.

Why would rich white women be interested in creating a supply of non-white babies to adopt? I thought it was less likely for a non-white baby to be adopted than a white one? If these whites women are infertile, wouldn’t they just go to a fertility clinic? This is 1940 anymore.

Doesn’t make sense to me.

It's coming from the assumption that it's still 1960 and those unable to conceive would choose adoption because there were no other options available.

That's not true today due to the success of IVF. And IVF is almost always the preferred choice.

In fact, the number of people truly wanting to adopt infants in the US is not in fact as large as it might seem.

There are in fact many people who will not pursue adoption for their own personal reasons no matter who many babies are available, the race of the babies or the costs involved.
People who want to adopt advertise this to others. People who don't want to do so are not advertising that to others because it is often not a comfortable conversation and it is really no ones business. This is why you rarely hear about it.

The people I know who adopted had several failed IVF’s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a serious question no snark intended. There is a PP on a rant that white people should adopt black, but not white babies. What is the reason black babies are not all adopted by black people? PP feels this is a need whites are obligated to satisfy. Makes no sense.

Where on earth did you read that??
Mehta is being said is that the majority of babies that need to be adopted are black.

And black people do adopt but on average have far less resources than whites.

The majority of people looking to adopt are white. The majority of children/babies that need to be adopted are black.

What is not clicking for you??

But you didn't respond to PP's rant concern. Why are whites obligated to meet that need? Makes no sense.

No one implied that white Americans are obligated to meet that need. If your interpretation goes that way that’s on you. You’re dense af.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some say that is reasoning behind Amy Comey Barrett’s “supply of domestic infants” remark.

Why would rich white women be interested in creating a supply of non-white babies to adopt? I thought it was less likely for a non-white baby to be adopted than a white one? If these whites women are infertile, wouldn’t they just go to a fertility clinic? This is 1940 anymore.

Doesn’t make sense to me.

It's coming from the assumption that it's still 1960 and those unable to conceive would choose adoption because there were no other options available.

That's not true today due to the success of IVF. And IVF is almost always the preferred choice.

In fact, the number of people truly wanting to adopt infants in the US is not in fact as large as it might seem.

There are in fact many people who will not pursue adoption for their own personal reasons no matter who many babies are available, the race of the babies or the costs involved.
People who want to adopt advertise this to others. People who don't want to do so are not advertising that to others because it is often not a comfortable conversation and it is really no ones business. This is why you rarely hear about it.

The people I know who adopted had several failed IVF’s.

IVF has a very low success rate. And frankly, it’s not a right to have a healthy biological child. That’s the conversation that needs to be had.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some say that is reasoning behind Amy Comey Barrett’s “supply of domestic infants” remark.

Why would rich white women be interested in creating a supply of non-white babies to adopt? I thought it was less likely for a non-white baby to be adopted than a white one? If these whites women are infertile, wouldn’t they just go to a fertility clinic? This is 1940 anymore.

Doesn’t make sense to me.

It's coming from the assumption that it's still 1960 and those unable to conceive would choose adoption because there were no other options available.

That's not true today due to the success of IVF. And IVF is almost always the preferred choice.

In fact, the number of people truly wanting to adopt infants in the US is not in fact as large as it might seem.

There are in fact many people who will not pursue adoption for their own personal reasons no matter who many babies are available, the race of the babies or the costs involved.
People who want to adopt advertise this to others. People who don't want to do so are not advertising that to others because it is often not a comfortable conversation and it is really no ones business. This is why you rarely hear about it.

The people I know who adopted had several failed IVF’s.

IVF has a very low success rate. And frankly, it’s not a right to have a healthy biological child. That’s the conversation that needs to be had.

Exactly and there is no right to rent a woman's womb or exploit poor women for their eggs, either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some say that is reasoning behind Amy Comey Barrett’s “supply of domestic infants” remark.

Why would rich white women be interested in creating a supply of non-white babies to adopt? I thought it was less likely for a non-white baby to be adopted than a white one? If these whites women are infertile, wouldn’t they just go to a fertility clinic? This is 1940 anymore.

Doesn’t make sense to me.

It's coming from the assumption that it's still 1960 and those unable to conceive would choose adoption because there were no other options available.

That's not true today due to the success of IVF. And IVF is almost always the preferred choice.

In fact, the number of people truly wanting to adopt infants in the US is not in fact as large as it might seem.

There are in fact many people who will not pursue adoption for their own personal reasons no matter who many babies are available, the race of the babies or the costs involved.
People who want to adopt advertise this to others. People who don't want to do so are not advertising that to others because it is often not a comfortable conversation and it is really no ones business. This is why you rarely hear about it.

The people I know who adopted had several failed IVF’s.

We decided not to adopt, after failed fertility treatments. We decided not to progress to IVF either. If you run out of money, you run out of money. Maybe we will do foster care in the future, but that's a while different scenario that we have to be ready to take on.

I think the rich Republicans don't realize that most of us don't have the money floating around to do these things. If limiting abortions goes through, there will be lots of American babies available to adopt internationally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a serious question no snark intended. There is a PP on a rant that white people should adopt black, but not white babies. What is the reason black babies are not all adopted by black people? PP feels this is a need whites are obligated to satisfy. Makes no sense.

Where on earth did you read that??
Mehta is being said is that the majority of babies that need to be adopted are black.

And black people do adopt but on average have far less resources than whites.

The majority of people looking to adopt are white. The majority of children/babies that need to be adopted are black.

What is not clicking for you??

But you didn't respond to PP's rant concern. Why are whites obligated to meet that need? Makes no sense.

No one implied that white Americans are obligated to meet that need. If your interpretation goes that way that’s on you. You’re dense af.

You're the "dense af" one. Read what she wrote. Or are you the PP?