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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The whole adoption thing is a way to justify taking away a woman's freedom to decide whether or not to have an abortion. ACB talked about it in her confirmation hearing. I have heard that in some circles a few adopted kids is a status symbol. Adopting brown and black kids is a way to Rebrand themselves and then being able to send them to private schools is just the cherry on the top. Again, ACB at hearing talking about her adopted kids as if she recused them from some sh!thole country.

OP here. I think you have a point about it just being an excuse to outlaw abortion and contraception because adoption is an option. Sadly though, I don’t believe there really is a high demand for all the non-white babies who will be born. Or much demand for the disabled babies. Those American kids will probably not get adopted.

The number of rich conservative families who want adopted children as a status symbol is just not that many IMO. And they can already get them from overseas. OTOH, I know plenty of conservatives who are not rich who adopted minority and SN children from other countries. They said it was too expensive to adopt domestically btw. Adopting internationally was a big financial strain to them. I think they were motivated by genuine desire to do something good. However, I don’t think there’s that many of them either.

I guess there’s just a lot of average Americans who find abortion really hard to stomach and there’s these craven power hungry people who have found a way to exploit those intense feelings so they can create a cheap, powerless slave class to exploit since we took bald-faced slavery away from them decades ago. Abortion vs Adoption must be a straw man. I really don’t think the people behind this care how many babies are aborted OR adopted. It’s f’d up.

[Anonymous]

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.

You may not know anyone, but I do. My cousin married a Catholic and went really deeply into her husband's brand of Catholicism for awhile. A mutual friend of ours had an abortion and my sister was furious about it because "she could have just had the baby and given it to my childless friend Mary who really wants a baby." She absolutely did think that abortion should be illegal because there were people out there who wanted to adopt, and that our friend should've had to gestate and deliver that baby because someone else wanted it. And she wasn't raised with that mindset; she 100% picked it up from the Catholics she was hanging around with. And little handmaiden ACB obviously also thinks in this very warped and twisted way. Of course this isn't how all Catholics think, but some of them definitely do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The babies and mothers of color can die in horrific poverty. It’s those white babies being aborted they’re worried about.

100% accurate.

[Anonymous]

Carrying a baby to term and then giving it up for adoption is a rough haul. As much as they want to drag women back, it's not pre-1973 anymore. Women can have a baby on their own, use dna testing to establish paternity and get child support deducted automatically from the biological father. Anyone who is fantasizing about all these babies being put up for adoption forgets that the technology and social mores around single parenthood and women's careers have changed. Pro-choice Dem lawyers should offer pro bono child support counseling to single pregnant women who have decided against abortion (or have restricted abortion) to match the 'adoption counseling' they get from the anti-abortion republicans. Make the men remember they have to pay for the children they want women to bear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The babies and mothers of color can die in horrific poverty. It’s those white babies being aborted they’re worried about.

100% accurate.

Statistically, its a bad strategy since minority babies are more likely to be aborted.

[Anonymous]

ACB is right. Just do your 9 and drop the infant off at a fire station or a Chipotle or wherever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ACB is right. Just do your 9 and drop the infant off at a fire station or a Chipotle or wherever.

Where it will be put into the foster care system because no rich white woman is adopting a kid with no medical history.

[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.

You may not know anyone, but I do. My cousin married a Catholic and went really deeply into her husband's brand of Catholicism for awhile. A mutual friend of ours had an abortion and my sister was furious about it because "she could have just had the baby and given it to my childless friend Mary who really wants a baby." She absolutely did think that abortion should be illegal because there were people out there who wanted to adopt, and that our friend should've had to gestate and deliver that baby because someone else wanted it. And she wasn't raised with that mindset; she 100% picked it up from the Catholics she was hanging around with. And little handmaiden ACB obviously also thinks in this very warped and twisted way. Of course this isn't how all Catholics think, but some of them definitely do.

There’s no way to know but would Mary have wanted the baby if your mutual friend’s baby wasn’t white? Because Mary could go adopt or foster a non-white baby right away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The babies and mothers of color can die in horrific poverty. It’s those white babies being aborted they’re worried about.

100% accurate.

Statistically, its a bad strategy since minority babies are more likely to be aborted.

I guess the minority babies are just supply for the slave class. They haven’t said that part out loud yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ACB is right. Just do your 9 and drop the infant off at a fire station or a Chipotle or wherever.

Indentured servitude of the surrogate handmaids. That's your plan?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: Carrying a baby to term and then giving it up for adoption is a rough haul. As much as they want to drag women back, it's not pre-1973 anymore. Women can have a baby on their own, use dna testing to establish paternity and get child support deducted automatically from the biological father. Anyone who is fantasizing about all these babies being put up for adoption forgets that the technology and social mores around single parenthood and women's careers have changed. Pro-choice Dem lawyers should offer pro bono child support counseling to single pregnant women who have decided against abortion (or have restricted abortion) to match the 'adoption counseling' they get from the anti-abortion republicans. Make the men remember they have to pay for the children they want women to bear.

If they are living in a conservative Catholic or Evangelical bubble, they may not be thinking of any of this.

Most women who go through with nine months of pregnancy don't want to give their babies up, unless they live in a Catholic or Evangelical bubble.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ACB is right. Just do your 9 and drop the infant off at a fire station or a Chipotle or wherever.

Indentured servitude of the surrogate handmaids. That's your plan?

Not my plan, it seems to be the GOP plan.

[Anonymous]

Perhaps couples seeking adoption should get kids already in the system. There is no adoption argument until there are no children in the foster system.

[Anonymous]

Right now, there is still a lot of shame in giving a child up for adoption. You imagine the child seeking you out when it reaches adulthood, explaining to you that all its problems come from the rejection by their birth mother. Better just to hunker down and raise it yourself than face that possible future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Carrying a baby to term and then giving it up for adoption is a rough haul. As much as they want to drag women back, it's not pre-1973 anymore. Women can have a baby on their own, use dna testing to establish paternity and get child support deducted automatically from the biological father. Anyone who is fantasizing about all these babies being put up for adoption forgets that the technology and social mores around single parenthood and women's careers have changed. Pro-choice Dem lawyers should offer pro bono child support counseling to single pregnant women who have decided against abortion (or have restricted abortion) to match the 'adoption counseling' they get from the anti-abortion republicans. Make the men remember they have to pay for the children they want women to bear.

If they are living in a conservative Catholic or Evangelical bubble, they may not be thinking of any of this.

Most women who go through with nine months of pregnancy don't want to give their babies up, unless they live in a Catholic or Evangelical bubble.

We need to remind them of this. Remind them that they can change the laws but it won't change the women and they have more power now.