Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree that ALL adoption should be illegal. I have seen it use in a way that the children are just pawns. There is no reason that children cannot be in guardianship relationships. In fact, in my will, I have stated that my parents will become my children's guardian if I die but that they should NEVER be able to adopt them. My children do not need new parents. That is disgusting. They have parents (dead ones, but parents). I don't want the grandparents (or anyone else) being called "mom" and "dad" and pretend that I didn't exist (it's mean to the children!)

And, same with surrogacy -- if you cannot have children, I am sorry but take on a guardianship of an older child. There is a privacy right to have sex/babies but no right of surrogacy. It just devalues older children which is disgusting.

You can see no instance ever when kids should be adopted? What about two gay parents and the non biological parent wants to establish legal parenting rights?

Doesn't even have to be 2 gay parents. A widowed mother remarries and her new husband adopts her children. Happens a lot.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is such a complicated issue.
Is it ok to create a baby who will not have a mother past the first minutes after birth?
Is it ok to leave the baby with the parents who are clearly not able to give her a good life?
Is it ok to deny parenting to someone who isn’t a biological parent but can give the baby so much more than the bio parents?

That’s not complicated at all. Yes it’s ABSOLUTELY ok to “deny parenting” to someone even if they’re wealthier than the child’s biological parents. Or do you think if Elon Musk wants to adopt your child he should be entitled to do so because he can “give them so much more” than you?

You are reducing it all to wealth.
If the bio parents are so poor that they can’t give the child stable housing (even if it’s a small apartment) and nutritious food; if they are so uneducated that they can’t give the child the basics before school; if they are addicted or mentally ill but keep having babies - absolutely the kids need to be adopted.
You seem to close your eyes to a common problem - people have kids but they can’t give them even the basics of stable lives.

No, if bio parents are so poor that they can't give the child stability, then we need to make sure they have what it takes to give that child stability. WTF. Only a cruel inhumane person would think the solution is to take kids away from poor parents. It's a sick society that doesn't help those parents.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, do you all remember Amy Coney Barrett’s note about the “domestic supply of infants” in her rationale of why Roe should be overturned?? Well, looks like there is more effort underfoot to increase this “domestic supply” as international adoptions are more restricted and fewer single moms in America put their kids up for adoption.

This is an ongoing ploy for foster parents to steal kids from biological parents who follow the full plan to get their kids back. Potential parents are going into the foster system deliberately to try to work the system to keep their foster infants. This is horrific.

https://www.propublica.org/article/foster-care-intervention-adoption-colorado

This wouldn't increase the domestic supply of infants. Whether the infant is raised by birth parents or adopted parents, it is still one infant. It doesn't multiply and become two infants when adopted. So ABCs comments have nothing to do with the adoption issues you are presenting.

But we all know that what she meant was increasing the supply of infants that evangelical Christians can adopt. So stealing from the foster system absolutely increases *that* supply.

Do we all know that? I certainly don't. It seems like she just made a straightforward statement that it reduces the domestic supply of infants in a time of declining fertility. She seems like an educated person and most educated people are interested in this topic from an economic standpoint.

Anyone who knows evangelicals and conservative Catholics knows exactly what she meant.

All the SC and Barrett is going to do is increase the number of older kids in foster care or on the street.

Yes, there will be some more "domestic supply" of infants, but most kids will not enter into the adoption or foster care system until they have already been traumatized. Those aren't the kids evangelicals and conservatives want; they are already in high supply right now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, do you all remember Amy Coney Barrett’s note about the “domestic supply of infants” in her rationale of why Roe should be overturned?? Well, looks like there is more effort underfoot to increase this “domestic supply” as international adoptions are more restricted and fewer single moms in America put their kids up for adoption.

This is an ongoing ploy for foster parents to steal kids from biological parents who follow the full plan to get their kids back. Potential parents are going into the foster system deliberately to try to work the system to keep their foster infants. This is horrific.

https://www.propublica.org/article/foster-care-intervention-adoption-colorado

This wouldn't increase the domestic supply of infants. Whether the infant is raised by birth parents or adopted parents, it is still one infant. It doesn't multiply and become two infants when adopted. So ABCs comments have nothing to do with the adoption issues you are presenting.

But we all know that what she meant was increasing the supply of infants that evangelical Christians can adopt. So stealing from the foster system absolutely increases *that* supply.

Do we all know that? I certainly don't. It seems like she just made a straightforward statement that it reduces the domestic supply of infants in a time of declining fertility. She seems like an educated person and most educated people are interested in this topic from an economic standpoint.

She seems like an Aunt Lydia and a dolt.

She 100% is approaching this from the standpoint of a religious extremist who wants women to be under the control of men, or at least under the control of women like her.

The smartest people are not thinking of birth rates strictly in terms of “economics” but of the fact that humans are murdering the health of the planet and fewer people born is healthier.

Anonymous wrote:I agree that ALL adoption should be illegal. I have seen it use in a way that the children are just pawns. There is no reason that children cannot be in guardianship relationships. In fact, in my will, I have stated that my parents will become my children's guardian if I die but that they should NEVER be able to adopt them. My children do not need new parents. That is disgusting. They have parents (dead ones, but parents). I don't want the grandparents (or anyone else) being called "mom" and "dad" and pretend that I didn't exist (it's mean to the children!)

And, same with surrogacy -- if you cannot have children, I am sorry but take on a guardianship of an older child. There is a privacy right to have sex/babies but no right of surrogacy. It just devalues older children which is disgusting.

You can see no instance ever when kids should be adopted? What about two gay parents and the non biological parent wants to establish legal parenting rights?

I agree that ALL adoption should be illegal. I have seen it use in a way that the children are just pawns. There is no reason that children cannot be in guardianship relationships. In fact, in my will, I have stated that my parents will become my children's guardian if I die but that they should NEVER be able to adopt them. My children do not need new parents. That is disgusting. They have parents (dead ones, but parents). I don't want the grandparents (or anyone else) being called "mom" and "dad" and pretend that I didn't exist (it's mean to the children!)

And, same with surrogacy -- if you cannot have children, I am sorry but take on a guardianship of an older child. There is a privacy right to have sex/babies but no right of surrogacy. It just devalues older children which is disgusting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, do you all remember Amy Coney Barrett’s note about the “domestic supply of infants” in her rationale of why Roe should be overturned?? Well, looks like there is more effort underfoot to increase this “domestic supply” as international adoptions are more restricted and fewer single moms in America put their kids up for adoption.

This is an ongoing ploy for foster parents to steal kids from biological parents who follow the full plan to get their kids back. Potential parents are going into the foster system deliberately to try to work the system to keep their foster infants. This is horrific.

https://www.propublica.org/article/foster-care-intervention-adoption-colorado

International adoptions declined years ago as did the ability to adopt and infant. That stopped well over a decade ago.

Nothing in this article is new.
This has always been happening.
You think it has not because you didn’t read a media story on it.
Some cases might local news coverage on occasion at best.

But there is something new in the article. That there are laws being changed to put foster parents at an “equal” footing as biological parents when the historic goal of fostering was the primary goal of reuniting children with their biological parents if the biological parents or next of kin was able to do so. And, yes, the drop in international adoptions is also a factor - even if the drop began years ago, it still takes time for systems to adapt.

I agree this is horrific and will be a serious mistake. However it's not related to pro-natalism. For example I strongly believe in increasing birth, but am not supportive of policies that interfere with family reunification.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is such a complicated issue.
Is it ok to create a baby who will not have a mother past the first minutes after birth?
Is it ok to leave the baby with the parents who are clearly not able to give her a good life?
Is it ok to deny parenting to someone who isn’t a biological parent but can give the baby so much more than the bio parents?

That’s not complicated at all. Yes it’s ABSOLUTELY ok to “deny parenting” to someone even if they’re wealthier than the child’s biological parents. Or do you think if Elon Musk wants to adopt your child he should be entitled to do so because he can “give them so much more” than you?

You are reducing it all to wealth.
If the bio parents are so poor that they can’t give the child stable housing (even if it’s a small apartment) and nutritious food; if they are so uneducated that they can’t give the child the basics before school; if they are addicted or mentally ill but keep having babies - absolutely the kids need to be adopted.
You seem to close your eyes to a common problem - people have kids but they can’t give them even the basics of stable lives.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, do you all remember Amy Coney Barrett’s note about the “domestic supply of infants” in her rationale of why Roe should be overturned?? Well, looks like there is more effort underfoot to increase this “domestic supply” as international adoptions are more restricted and fewer single moms in America put their kids up for adoption.

This is an ongoing ploy for foster parents to steal kids from biological parents who follow the full plan to get their kids back. Potential parents are going into the foster system deliberately to try to work the system to keep their foster infants. This is horrific.

https://www.propublica.org/article/foster-care-intervention-adoption-colorado

This wouldn't increase the domestic supply of infants. Whether the infant is raised by birth parents or adopted parents, it is still one infant. It doesn't multiply and become two infants when adopted. So ABCs comments have nothing to do with the adoption issues you are presenting.

But we all know that what she meant was increasing the supply of infants that evangelical Christians can adopt. So stealing from the foster system absolutely increases *that* supply.

Do we all know that? I certainly don't. It seems like she just made a straightforward statement that it reduces the domestic supply of infants in a time of declining fertility. She seems like an educated person and most educated people are interested in this topic from an economic standpoint.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is such a complicated issue.
Is it ok to create a baby who will not have a mother past the first minutes after birth?
Is it ok to leave the baby with the parents who are clearly not able to give her a good life?
Is it ok to deny parenting to someone who isn’t a biological parent but can give the baby so much more than the bio parents?

Not have a mother past the first 5 minutes? Adoptive parents are parents, too.

I mean gay couples and their surrogate babies

Anonymous wrote:Ok, do you all remember Amy Coney Barrett’s note about the “domestic supply of infants” in her rationale of why Roe should be overturned?? Well, looks like there is more effort underfoot to increase this “domestic supply” as international adoptions are more restricted and fewer single moms in America put their kids up for adoption.

This is an ongoing ploy for foster parents to steal kids from biological parents who follow the full plan to get their kids back. Potential parents are going into the foster system deliberately to try to work the system to keep their foster infants. This is horrific.

https://www.propublica.org/article/foster-care-intervention-adoption-colorado

That’s a sad story with a happy ending but… that’s not what has been happening to most kids in foster care. I’m good friends with a pair of social workers and what they say is the main problem with foster care is nothing like that comparatively dreamy story. Family reunification is the goal in most foster care systems. That means that children are put in foster care as abuse/neglect/drug use dictates, taken out when the parents are able to get themselves organized for a while, then back into another foster care family, back and forth, back and forth, no security, no deep attachments, no safety.

Children should not be taken from their parents willy nilly, but neither should they be repeatedly traumatized if there is a stable family for them. Guardian ad litem is a thing and should be expanded. There is no need to keep breaking the minds of children with the nebulous goal of “family reunification” if that family is what keeps harming them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m getting to the point where I don’t see infant adoption as something that should be allowed. The baby stealing is horrific.

It's always been evil and surrogacy is equally as evil.

A little too extreme there. Adoption is sometimes necessary.

-Pro-choice adoptee who grew up knowing my extremely mentally ill birth parents and thankful I was adopted.

And ends well for the child and the adoptive parents.

Which is more than you can say to many babies returned to birthparents or warehoused in the foster system for years .

I think babies should be placed with a well vetted family, forever family within a very short window. Otherwise the damage is permanent.

And that baby becomes unadaptable because no one wants to adopt an older, possibly imperfect child.

So instead of allowing women to control their fertility, you want to change policy so they are forced to give birth and immediately and permanently relinquish their infant to a better home.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, do you all remember Amy Coney Barrett’s note about the “domestic supply of infants” in her rationale of why Roe should be overturned?? Well, looks like there is more effort underfoot to increase this “domestic supply” as international adoptions are more restricted and fewer single moms in America put their kids up for adoption.

This is an ongoing ploy for foster parents to steal kids from biological parents who follow the full plan to get their kids back. Potential parents are going into the foster system deliberately to try to work the system to keep their foster infants. This is horrific.

https://www.propublica.org/article/foster-care-intervention-adoption-colorado

International adoptions declined years ago as did the ability to adopt and infant. That stopped well over a decade ago.

Nothing in this article is new.
This has always been happening.
You think it has not because you didn’t read a media story on it.
Some cases might local news coverage on occasion at best.

But there is something new in the article. That there are laws being changed to put foster parents at an “equal” footing as biological parents when the historic goal of fostering was the primary goal of reuniting children with their biological parents if the biological parents or next of kin was able to do so. And, yes, the drop in international adoptions is also a factor - even if the drop began years ago, it still takes time for systems to adapt.

Yes, and that’s a horrifying development because adoptive parents are nearly always much wealthier than the birth families. This will be used to force poorer parents to give up their kids. Legalized baby stealing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, do you all remember Amy Coney Barrett’s note about the “domestic supply of infants” in her rationale of why Roe should be overturned?? Well, looks like there is more effort underfoot to increase this “domestic supply” as international adoptions are more restricted and fewer single moms in America put their kids up for adoption.

This is an ongoing ploy for foster parents to steal kids from biological parents who follow the full plan to get their kids back. Potential parents are going into the foster system deliberately to try to work the system to keep their foster infants. This is horrific.

https://www.propublica.org/article/foster-care-intervention-adoption-colorado

International adoptions declined years ago as did the ability to adopt and infant. That stopped well over a decade ago.

Nothing in this article is new.
This has always been happening.
You think it has not because you didn’t read a media story on it.
Some cases might local news coverage on occasion at best.

But there is something new in the article. That there are laws being changed to put foster parents at an “equal” footing as biological parents when the historic goal of fostering was the primary goal of reuniting children with their biological parents if the biological parents or next of kin was able to do so. And, yes, the drop in international adoptions is also a factor - even if the drop began years ago, it still takes time for systems to adapt.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, do you all remember Amy Coney Barrett’s note about the “domestic supply of infants” in her rationale of why Roe should be overturned?? Well, looks like there is more effort underfoot to increase this “domestic supply” as international adoptions are more restricted and fewer single moms in America put their kids up for adoption.

This is an ongoing ploy for foster parents to steal kids from biological parents who follow the full plan to get their kids back. Potential parents are going into the foster system deliberately to try to work the system to keep their foster infants. This is horrific.

https://www.propublica.org/article/foster-care-intervention-adoption-colorado

This wouldn't increase the domestic supply of infants. Whether the infant is raised by birth parents or adopted parents, it is still one infant. It doesn't multiply and become two infants when adopted. So ABCs comments have nothing to do with the adoption issues you are presenting.

But we all know that what she meant was increasing the supply of infants that evangelical Christians can adopt. So stealing from the foster system absolutely increases *that* supply.