Campbells/Above Rubies in Mother Jones/Adoption (Merged)

[August]

Even amongst adoptive parents who understood this (and shit, if you're sitting there, bouncing a child, while the mother is having blood taken, you have to be at least partially aware) - the narrative becomes "I'm saving a child from a life of destitute poverty". Sweet sky dog, I've been told this, with the birth mother sitting in the damn room.

Poverty is hard. Poverty is really hard. But poverty does not, in and of itself, mean that you won't have a full, joyous, rewarding, satisfying life. Poverty is not moral failure; poverty does not limit the love that a parent can give a child. Not being poor is no guarantee that a child will be happier; that they will be mentally stable; that they will be fulfilled. Could you imagine adopting domestically to "save a child from poverty"? %&^* no. It would be regarded as profoundly offensive. Saving a child from a dysfunctional home - yes; that happens through the foster system. But from poverty? We would be disgusted as such an idea.

Not to mention that if your aim was to save a child from poverty, take the money you would have spent on food for that child, and send it to their family. Voila, child saved from poverty, and probably a sibling or two, as well. (I know it's not that simple, but you could send the money to a goat charity or a microlender or orphanage enrichment project or pay the salary of a teacher or host students learning better agricultural techniques)

However, I think the non- religious adoptive parents are much more interested in age, health, anonyminity/closedness and looks that can blend. Guatemala was popular because the babies were young, and substance abuse during pregnancy was low. China for health and guaranteed girl, with foster care a bonus before wait times ballooned, Russia and Kazakhstan for whiteness, then fell from popularity because of RAD and FAS.

[jaelh]

Not to mention that if your aim was to save a child from poverty, take the money you would have spent on food for that child, and send it to their family. Voila, child saved from poverty, and probably a sibling or two, as well. (I know it's not that simple, but you could send the money to a goat charity or a microlender or orphanage enrichment project or pay the salary of a teacher or host students learning better agricultural techniques)

However, I think the non- religious adoptive parents are much more interested in age, health, anonyminity/closedness and looks that can blend. Guatemala was popular because the babies were young, and substance abuse during pregnancy was low.

Of course. The idea that if you adopt internationally, it's less likely a birth mother can change her mind, or 'interfere' in your life, if a big motivator.

I want to be clear on something though:

You'll notice in my post I refereed only to "parents who realise this" [ie]. I was not making a blanket suggestion about international adoptive parent motivations. Most adoptive parents just want to be parents. That's why they adopt. But when we know the baby in front of us still has living parents (Etc.. ) there is a strong motivation to find ways to justify ourselves.

On the whole 'just give money instead: that only makes sense if the primary motivation is being a saviour. It never is.

(and if you want the microfinance deconstruction post... Or those damn goat charities. Bah.humbug. )

[Megan]

I'd actually be interested in a microfinance and/or providing an animal charity post, if you're willing to make one (or anyone else). I haven't heard many negative things about those and am curious.

[Stephanie66]

I just read this in Mother Jones. I believe there are several blogs that are mentioned here who have adopted Liberian kids, then sent them off to state custody or back to Liberia?

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... on-liberia

[CynicMom]

That's horrible! Those poor kids. 6-11% of adoptees get sent back???

[mlady]

That was eye opening. I admit I usually gloss over the adoption threads on this forum because I didn't know who the players were, now I can't stop thinking about it.

Building up the army of god through breeding AND adopting. That's about it right?

[Stephanie66]

And they are growing up with no education and abused, with these gigantic expectations about behavior and language skills. I seem to recall that some of the adoptive fundies who have blogs pretty much say the same things, minus the admission of abuse.

Wasn't one of the kids sent away named Isaiah?

[Bethella]

There is already a thread on this. viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16913

[wild little fox]

I lasted up to the "children are so peaceful and happy after a good spanking" and lost my shit.

I NEVER, EVER was "peaceful and happy" after a "spanking". I'm sure a plumbingline is much like a Hotwheels race track, a belt or willow switch. None left me feeling joyful!

[ILoveJellybeans]

Peaceful and happy.......what kind of person (other than people who like BDSM) feels happy after being spanked?

Im guessing that although they arent crying, as fundies beat their kid til they are joyful again because that is the only acceptable emotion, inside they are hurt and confused and really hate their parents.

[Want More Babies]

Peaceful and happy.......what kind of person (other than people who like BDSM) feels happy after being spanked?

Im guessing that although they arent crying, as fundies beat their kid til they are joyful again because that is the only acceptable emotion, inside they are hurt and confused and really hate their parents.

This

I get so tired of fundies saying how joyful their children are after a spanking. Like they are allowed any other emotion they are just protecting themselves the only way they can.