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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

It's also a lot more traumatic. I was adopted as an infant and my birth mother sought me out after I was 18. She had never got over it even though she got married later and had more children. Also really upset my nice Christian adoptive family (who I was already on shaky terms with as being adopted isn't that easy and I had a lot of identity issues around it).

It's just so much easier to find biological relations now so the idea of adopting a baby without having potential connections to their whole biological family just isn't that easy now. Between the dna sites, the ancestry sites, social media and adoptee forums, and on-line information (property taxes, addresses etc.) pretty much anyone can find any biological relative they want.

If these laws go through I think we're going to see a lot more single moms than there were pre Roe v Wade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't think the Catholics or Evangelicals really care. They want what they want and think God is on their side.

And, yes, I am Christian, but I don't want to force my beliefs on others. It's not how they think, however. It may be best for them to get a nasty surprise when most women don't want to give their babies up to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't think the Catholics or Evangelicals really care. They want what they want and think God is on their side.

And, yes, I am Christian, but I don't want to force my beliefs on others. It's not how they think, however. It may be best for them to get a nasty surprise when most women don't want to give their babies up to them.

I think they will mind though when their sons and husbands have to pay child support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Republicans used to be able to run literal sweatshops because poor women were having 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 kids before they turned 40. Those bodies allowed for cheap manufacturing at extortionist rates. Now there’s a labor shortage AND they’re unionizing. The business leaders are terrified. How can they make hundreds of millions in profits while giving each floor worker a high salary?

Answer: More babies, lower worker age (McDonalds now accepting teens as young as 14), and lock them into backbreaking labor with no education.

McDonalds is going AI/Robotic/Automated, so they don't need the cheap labor.

Great, and I hope agriculture will follow suit with automation. Let the machines do the menial and hard labor.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

Really? Some of the religious nutters like to go into places like Haiti and steal black babies.

[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.

OP here. I’m Catholic too. My daughter goes to an extremely conservative Catholic school. The majority of them have very large families. They pray Novenas, pray 24/7 outside the “local abortion mill” for one month of the year, take the yearly trip to the pro-Life rally in DC and routinely refer to abortion as murder in school assemblies, even with the lower grades present. And they are staunchly against birth control. We went to weekly mass at the church affiliated with the school for a full year so our daughter could attend their formation program.

They are right in the demographic to celebrate the Supreme Court overturning Roe but only ONE of those families has adopted a bunch of kids and they were from Ethiopia and Ukraine.

So back to my original question, who are all the people who are looking for large amounts fresh American babies to adopt? I don’t see them. I think PP who said conservatives want to create a felon class for cheap labor that can’t vote is probably right. I just don’t know where this baby stealing stuff is coming from.

Many people gave up on adoption when it became harder to adopt healthy white babies without the potential interference of the birth mother in the kid’s life. Less people would feel compelled to commit the grievous sin of IVF if they could go down to a mother baby home and leave that day with a healthy white infant. The tens of thousands of dollars that are currently going to the IVF doctors would instead go to the Catholic Church and other religious entities facilitating the “adoptions”. The ever grateful parents would raise their kids in the church. The 1950s-1970s were the glory days of the Catholic Church in America, and no doubt what they are trying to bring back now that their own attendance is in the toilet and many people feel they lost any moral credibility long ago.

Roberts bought two children from Ireland himself. Who knows what their mothers were subjected to.

That is a disgusting thing for you to say. I don't care what your issues are with the Catholic church (and you can't seem to give it a rest) or Roberts, but keep his children out of it.

[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.

OP here. I’m Catholic too. My daughter goes to an extremely conservative Catholic school. The majority of them have very large families. They pray Novenas, pray 24/7 outside the “local abortion mill” for one month of the year, take the yearly trip to the pro-Life rally in DC and routinely refer to abortion as murder in school assemblies, even with the lower grades present. And they are staunchly against birth control. We went to weekly mass at the church affiliated with the school for a full year so our daughter could attend their formation program.

They are right in the demographic to celebrate the Supreme Court overturning Roe but only ONE of those families has adopted a bunch of kids and they were from Ethiopia and Ukraine.

So back to my original question, who are all the people who are looking for large amounts fresh American babies to adopt? I don’t see them. I think PP who said conservatives want to create a felon class for cheap labor that can’t vote is probably right. I just don’t know where this baby stealing stuff is coming from.

You are seeing families who have children, not people without children. So of course there are no adopted children. Or maybe you just don't know the kids who were adopted. Very conservative Catholics are not likely to cross racial lines either. Join an adoption group and find out how difficult it is to adopt a child who looks like you (assuming white).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Republicans used to be able to run literal sweatshops because poor women were having 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 kids before they turned 40. Those bodies allowed for cheap manufacturing at extortionist rates. Now there’s a labor shortage AND they’re unionizing. The business leaders are terrified. How can they make hundreds of millions in profits while giving each floor worker a high salary?

Answer: More babies, lower worker age (McDonalds now accepting teens as young as 14), and lock them into backbreaking labor with no education.

Agree with you but will also say that when I was 15, McD's employees largely consisted of kids 15-early 20s. This was decades ago. McD's jobs were not envisioned as long-term employment but for HS and college students. But factories have shuttered or shifted to another countries and McD's became an employer of adults - so much the better as these are often older, more mature workers who can't quit in a fit of pique with a family at home.

[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.

OP here. I’m Catholic too. My daughter goes to an extremely conservative Catholic school. The majority of them have very large families. They pray Novenas, pray 24/7 outside the “local abortion mill” for one month of the year, take the yearly trip to the pro-Life rally in DC and routinely refer to abortion as murder in school assemblies, even with the lower grades present. And they are staunchly against birth control. We went to weekly mass at the church affiliated with the school for a full year so our daughter could attend their formation program.

They are right in the demographic to celebrate the Supreme Court overturning Roe but only ONE of those families has adopted a bunch of kids and they were from Ethiopia and Ukraine.

So back to my original question, who are all the people who are looking for large amounts fresh American babies to adopt? I don’t see them. I think PP who said conservatives want to create a felon class for cheap labor that can’t vote is probably right. I just don’t know where this baby stealing stuff is coming from.

You are seeing families who have children, not people without children. So of course there are no adopted children. Or maybe you just don't know the kids who were adopted. Very conservative Catholics are not likely to cross racial lines either. Join an adoption group and find out how difficult it is to adopt a child who looks like you (assuming white).

Meant to add, the hardcore religious are sometimes motivated to do as ACB did. A gold star.

[Anonymous]

Adoption agencies are FOR profit. Of COURSE they want more product in which to sell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OP here. I’m Catholic too. My daughter goes to an extremely conservative Catholic school. The majority of them have very large families. They pray Novenas, pray 24/7 outside the “local abortion mill” for one month of the year, take the yearly trip to the pro-Life rally in DC and routinely refer to abortion as murder in school assemblies, even with the lower grades present. And they are staunchly against birth control. We went to weekly mass at the church affiliated with the school for a full year so our daughter could attend their formation program.

They are right in the demographic to celebrate the Supreme Court overturning Roe but only ONE of those families has adopted a bunch of kids and they were from Ethiopia and Ukraine.

So back to my original question, who are all the people who are looking for large amounts fresh American babies to adopt? I don’t see them. I think PP who said conservatives want to create a felon class for cheap labor that can’t vote is probably right. I just don’t know where this baby stealing stuff is coming from.

Many people gave up on adoption when it became harder to adopt healthy white babies without the potential interference of the birth mother in the kid’s life. Less people would feel compelled to commit the grievous sin of IVF if they could go down to a mother baby home and leave that day with a healthy white infant. The tens of thousands of dollars that are currently going to the IVF doctors would instead go to the Catholic Church and other religious entities facilitating the “adoptions”. The ever grateful parents would raise their kids in the church. The 1950s-1970s were the glory days of the Catholic Church in America, and no doubt what they are trying to bring back now that their own attendance is in the toilet and many people feel they lost any moral credibility long ago.

Roberts bought two children from Ireland himself. Who knows what their mothers were subjected to.

That is a disgusting thing for you to say. I don't care what your issues are with the Catholic church (and you can't seem to give it a rest) or Roberts, but keep his children out of it.

Ireland doesn't allow international adoptions. So how did two corporate lawyers get two Irish babies?

Square that peg.

[Anonymous]

I'm honestly having a difficult time delineating the line between legit adoptions and human trafficking. It's really really blurry, particularly in the space for international adoptions.

Can anyone explain it to me like I'm 5?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm honestly having a difficult time delineating the line between legit adoptions and human trafficking. It's really really blurry, particularly in the space for international adoptions.

Can anyone explain it to me like I'm 5?

Well if the Catholic Church is involved I’d certainly suspect trafficking. That institution has been the source of human rights violations, corruption and greed for centuries. It really is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OP here. I’m Catholic too. My daughter goes to an extremely conservative Catholic school. The majority of them have very large families. They pray Novenas, pray 24/7 outside the “local abortion mill” for one month of the year, take the yearly trip to the pro-Life rally in DC and routinely refer to abortion as murder in school assemblies, even with the lower grades present. And they are staunchly against birth control. We went to weekly mass at the church affiliated with the school for a full year so our daughter could attend their formation program.

They are right in the demographic to celebrate the Supreme Court overturning Roe but only ONE of those families has adopted a bunch of kids and they were from Ethiopia and Ukraine.

So back to my original question, who are all the people who are looking for large amounts fresh American babies to adopt? I don’t see them. I think PP who said conservatives want to create a felon class for cheap labor that can’t vote is probably right. I just don’t know where this baby stealing stuff is coming from.

Many people gave up on adoption when it became harder to adopt healthy white babies without the potential interference of the birth mother in the kid’s life. Less people would feel compelled to commit the grievous sin of IVF if they could go down to a mother baby home and leave that day with a healthy white infant. The tens of thousands of dollars that are currently going to the IVF doctors would instead go to the Catholic Church and other religious entities facilitating the “adoptions”. The ever grateful parents would raise their kids in the church. The 1950s-1970s were the glory days of the Catholic Church in America, and no doubt what they are trying to bring back now that their own attendance is in the toilet and many people feel they lost any moral credibility long ago.

Roberts bought two children from Ireland himself. Who knows what their mothers were subjected to.

That is a disgusting thing for you to say. I don't care what your issues are with the Catholic church (and you can't seem to give it a rest) or Roberts, but keep his children out of it.

Ireland doesn't allow international adoptions. So how did two corporate lawyers get two Irish babies?

Square that peg.

They used the law to make it happen. How interesting.