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

[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.

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.

A bit off-topic: I don't know how far you've gone in researching the potential of foster care, but providing temporary respite care can be an excellent way to provide a really needed service that can help you live through just a bit of the reality of foster care before going down that path.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, I understand the idea of having a cheap, plentiful labor force. But some are saying it’s ACB and her People of Praise or whatever that want a supply of babies for adoption is part of rationale for banning IUDs and condoms. I thought affluent infertile women just went to fertility clinics. Maybe it’s just some randos on Twitter spouting off but they are citing historic examples of white women taking indigenous and black babies. Why would they do that?

Look, I don't know anyone who is against abortion so that their friends can adopt babies. That's just not the logic. There are many couples out there who want to adopt, but that's a side benefit, not the reason for being against abortion. I can only speak about my immediate circle of friends, which is largely Catholic, but I personally know about eleven middle class and upper middle class families who have adopted children. Some of these children have been older, harder to place children (through their teenage years) and some have been babies. Very few of the adopted children have been white. Some of the babies have been exposed in utero to various substances and the parents knew this before adopting. A few of my Catholic adoptive mom friends have Ivy degrees, btw.

PP here. I should also add that devout Catholic families don't use IVF. It's against our faith. They might use something like Clomid to stimulate ovulation, but that's it.

I know at least two devout Catholic families who attend conservative Arlington Diocese parishes and have had 6+ kids using IVF.

I am sure you'll question their "devoutness" and no doubt you'll question mine, since I attend a Jesuit parish and went to Jesuit schools. But most Catholics are not what you "fewer and truer" believe. I wish you'd start the schism already.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, I understand the idea of having a cheap, plentiful labor force. But some are saying it’s ACB and her People of Praise or whatever that want a supply of babies for adoption is part of rationale for banning IUDs and condoms. I thought affluent infertile women just went to fertility clinics. Maybe it’s just some randos on Twitter spouting off but they are citing historic examples of white women taking indigenous and black babies. Why would they do that?

Look, I don't know anyone who is against abortion so that their friends can adopt babies. That's just not the logic. There are many couples out there who want to adopt, but that's a side benefit, not the reason for being against abortion. I can only speak about my immediate circle of friends, which is largely Catholic, but I personally know about eleven middle class and upper middle class families who have adopted children. Some of these children have been older, harder to place children (through their teenage years) and some have been babies. Very few of the adopted children have been white. Some of the babies have been exposed in utero to various substances and the parents knew this before adopting. A few of my Catholic adoptive mom friends have Ivy degrees, btw.

PP here. I should also add that devout Catholic families don't use IVF. It's against our faith. They might use something like Clomid to stimulate ovulation, but that's it.

I know at least two devout Catholic families who attend conservative Arlington Diocese parishes and have had 6+ kids using IVF.

I am sure you'll question their "devoutness" and no doubt you'll question mine, since I attend a Jesuit parish and went to Jesuit schools. But most Catholics are not what you "fewer and truer" believe. I wish you'd start the schism already.

+1 My parents are "devout Catholics" -- they have been intensive church volunteers their whole lives as well as involved in community church organizations. They donate a very large portion of their money to the church and to church organizations. But they are more on the left-wing side of Catholics--focus on helping the poor, about injustices, and care about the environment. They disagree with a lot of Catholic bishops. They are against abortions for themselves but they don't feel like they should make the choice for others. They don't give 2 hoots about limiting IVF or contraception. Being devout means being committed to being in a faith community, not blindly agreeing with all they say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, I understand the idea of having a cheap, plentiful labor force. But some are saying it’s ACB and her People of Praise or whatever that want a supply of babies for adoption is part of rationale for banning IUDs and condoms. I thought affluent infertile women just went to fertility clinics. Maybe it’s just some randos on Twitter spouting off but they are citing historic examples of white women taking indigenous and black babies. Why would they do that?

Look, I don't know anyone who is against abortion so that their friends can adopt babies. That's just not the logic. There are many couples out there who want to adopt, but that's a side benefit, not the reason for being against abortion. I can only speak about my immediate circle of friends, which is largely Catholic, but I personally know about eleven middle class and upper middle class families who have adopted children. Some of these children have been older, harder to place children (through their teenage years) and some have been babies. Very few of the adopted children have been white. Some of the babies have been exposed in utero to various substances and the parents knew this before adopting. A few of my Catholic adoptive mom friends have Ivy degrees, btw.

PP here. I should also add that devout Catholic families don't use IVF. It's against our faith. They might use something like Clomid to stimulate ovulation, but that's it.

I know at least two devout Catholic families who attend conservative Arlington Diocese parishes and have had 6+ kids using IVF.

I am sure you'll question their "devoutness" and no doubt you'll question mine, since I attend a Jesuit parish and went to Jesuit schools. But most Catholics are not what you "fewer and truer" believe. I wish you'd start the schism already.

+1 My parents are "devout Catholics" -- they have been intensive church volunteers their whole lives as well as involved in community church organizations. They donate a very large portion of their money to the church and to church organizations. But they are more on the left-wing side of Catholics--focus on helping the poor, about injustices, and care about the environment. They disagree with a lot of Catholic bishops. They are against abortions for themselves but they don't feel like they should make the choice for others. They don't give 2 hoots about limiting IVF or contraception. Being devout means being committed to being in a faith community, not blindly agreeing with all they say.

Either way, you’re paying for it, and the bishops aren’t asking for your opt out. How do you and your parents feel about that?