This Is Our Social & Cultural Issues Thread

[femmefan1946]

For a good idea of normal looking people on television, you don't have to look much further than the cast of Coronation Street, which has been running on ITV in Britain since 1960.

The actors Helen Worth, Barbara Knox, and Sue Nicholls are none of them classic beauties, to say the least, and yet in the soap opera have all had multiple husbands and lovers, when past 50 or even 60. Julie Goodyear played Bette Lynch as the hottest sexpot on the Street for decades. Again, Google their images.

The show also had a transwoman character who was married to a straight male character, by an Anglican priest, before same sex civil marriages were available in Britain. She was played by a woman. And a dowdier pair you never saw. More transgressive, in my opinion, than Rocky Horror Picture Show.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, PRgal said:

In talking to kids about death:  I'm actually surprised they had THAT many questions.  The oldest is eight or so.  I'd think kids her age would have a much better idea - even those who live in very sheltered environments.  Or did Catholic school ruin me?

What surprises me in pretty much every single tv or movie discussion with kids about death is some kid (or adult) shockingly asks if someone else is going to die, and the respondent does not say, "Of course, we're all going to die.  And there is no knowing when."  

[biakbiak]

It also surprises me the kids haven't asked earlier because they most likely know "Grandpa Miguel" isn't Randall's dad so the question would probably have occurred to them before.

[ClareWalks]

I don't relate to the "wow, it's so hard to talk to kids about death" thing. My mom, for as long as I can remember, has spoken very matter-of-factly about death, that it happens to everyone, that it will happen to her, and most importantly that when Mom dies we will be FINE. She told us whenever it came up that we would miss her and be sad but we would be fine. I think that's what kids really want to know, is that they will be okay if someone they love dies. My mom still isn't dead, but we joke about it a lot, much to my mother-in-law's horror (she isn't as cool with the concept, haha).

[ChromaKelly]

I think the "kids asking about death" was done to highlight Kevin's awkwardness/screwing things up with the kids, and TV writers not always writing kids in age-appropriate ways. Asking randomly about death is more if a 4-5 year old thing. Although my 8 year old has sort of a weird death/how long do people and animals live thing. But he's an odd kid. Every day it's questions like "How old would George Washington be if he was still alive?" "How old will you be when I'm 30?" "How old was (cat who died) when she died? If she was a human, how old would she have been?"

[ChromaKelly]

Bringing over the Pushy Man/Pushover Woman topic from the episode thread.

There's division over whether Toby is in the wrong for being so pushy and invading Kate's football-watching ritual, and then dominating the situation with inviting a friend, pausing the TV, and following her home to demand to know why she left - and those who feel it was on Kate to give him a firm "no" and stick to her guns about this being her thing.
I fall in the Toby's being an ass category. I already find him too pushy and overwhelming. If Kate said she likes to watch football alone, just say okay and back off. I get that he wants in on her life, but continuing to pester her about it, and then inviting someone over was too much. I find him way too much of a space invader, trying to be in on every aspect of her life. Girl can't even sing in the shower without him trying to finagle his way into that.

[Guest]

I agree but something about them writing Kate as such a victim just rubs me the wrong way.  It's like the message is that she and Toby aren't really a good match but she's supposed to buck up and change because she should be flattered that a man is interested in her at all.  

I'm afraid her character arc is going to be insecure churchmouse to strong, confident woman, and that just feels like a lame stereotype and not really accurate about who Chrissy Metz is conveying, either.  

[ChromaKelly]

3 minutes ago, Winston9-DT3 said:

I agree but something about them writing Kate as such a victim just rubs me the wrong way.  It's like the message is that she and Toby aren't really a good match but she's supposed to buck up and change because she should be flattered that a man is interested in her at all.  

I'm afraid her character arc is going to be insecure churchmouse to strong, confident woman, and that just feels like a lame stereotype and not really accurate about who Chrissy Metz is conveying, either.  

ITA with all of this. I also think they are going to make it be that Toby gives her the push she needs, yada yada.
It feels off to me to say that Kate needs to be more firm in her no's to Toby. I think Toby needs to learn to back the eff off. But, I do think this is going to be all "Kate breaks out of her shell and finds her place in the world".

[ZuluQueenOfDwarves]

I hope Kate's ultimate act of newly developed confidence involves dumping Toby and standing on her own two feet. Toby feels like he wants her to be a certain way and doesn't value who she already is. He also uses gestures as a substitute for truly getting to know someone. 

I hope Kate spends this season becoming disillusioned with Toby and breaking up in the finale. I hope she spends a season or two single and getting really comfortable with that. And if she gets into another relationship I hope it's with someone who genuinely brings out the best in her as opposed to someone who tries to decide what the best in her will be. 

[Enigma X]

We all know I dislike Toby, but Kate needed to stick to her guns in that situation. I have said "yes" to doing something when I really meant "no" before, and that was all my fault. With that said, Toby needs to acknowledge that he was rude. He didn't seem to even ponder that he was rude. This is why Toby annoys the fuck out of me.

[chocolatine]

3 hours ago, ChromaKelly said:

Although my 8 year old has sort of a weird death/how long do people and animals live thing. But he's an odd kid. Every day it's questions like "How old would George Washington be if he was still alive?" "How old will you be when I'm 30?" "How old was (cat who died) when she died? If she was a human, how old would she have been?"

My little brother was exactly like that, also at age 8. After a few months he moved on to another subject he was obsessed about - airplanes.

[BoogieBurns]

On 10/27/2016 at 0:38 PM, chocolatine said:

My little brother was exactly like that, also at age 8.

Strange fact that I remember, my 6th grade teacher said, "Sixth graders are most afraid of heights, and third graders are most afraid of death." So that must be the year that kids know enough to realize people die, but also remain very afraid. Luckily, most of us grow out of it. 

[JunebugWA]

I am taking it to this thread instead of the episode thread regarding Randall's GT programs. 

Growing up, my school had different classes for different levels, starting in 3rd grade. For example, there would be 3A (high-level), 3B (above-average), 3C (average)- you got the gist.  And then, the city decided to create a (public) school for the gifted students, starting at 5th grade. However, the spaces were very limited - only 30 for each grade level. So, there was a competition to get into the school -- I competed at the end of 4th grade and got in at the beginning of 5th grade. Throughout the year, the school district would hold about 3 competitions - the students had to constantly compete to stay in. I was in for 5 years. I enjoyed the higher level of the curriculum but man, it was stressful!!. Once I got to HS, I decided not to compete anymore and went to a regular HS. 

Randall seems to enjoy challenges so he probably would have stayed at the GT school throughout HS. 

Edited November 3, 2016 by JunebugWA
Correct grammar is important! :)

[topanga]

2 minutes ago, JunebugWA said:

I am taking it to this thread instead of the episode thread regarding Randall's GT programs. 

Growing up, my school had different classes for different levels, starting in 3rd grade. For example, there would be 3A (high-level), 3B (above-average), 3C (average)- you got the gist.  And then, the city decided to create a (public) school for the gifted students, starting at 5th grade. However, the spaces were very limited - only 30 for each grade level. So, there was a competition to get into the school -- I competed at the end of 4th grade and got it at the beginning of 5th grade. Throughout the year, the school district would hold about 3 competitions - the students had to constantly compete to stay in. I was in for 5 years. I enjoyed the higher level of the curriculum but man, it was stressful!!. Once I got to HS, I decided not to compete anymore and went to a regular HS. 

Randall seems to enjoy challenges so he probably would have stay at the GT school throughout HS. 

That does sound stressful. And it sounds like you constantly had to prove that you were "worthy" to be at that school. I certainly wouldn't have enjoyed it. 

[PRgal]

2 minutes ago, JunebugWA said:

I am taking it to this thread instead of the episode thread regarding Randall's GT programs. 

Growing up, my school had different classes for different levels, starting in 3rd grade. For example, there would be 3A (high-level), 3B (above-average), 3C (average)- you got the gist.  And then, the city decided to create a (public) school for the gifted students, starting at 5th grade. However, the spaces were very limited - only 30 for each grade level. So, there was a competition to get into the school -- I competed at the end of 4th grade and got it at the beginning of 5th grade. Throughout the year, the school district would hold about 3 competitions - the students had to constantly compete to stay in. I was in for 5 years. I enjoyed the higher level of the curriculum but man, it was stressful!!. Once I got to HS, I decided not to compete anymore and went to a regular HS. 

Randall seems to enjoy challenges so he probably would have stay at the GT school throughout HS. 

We weren't segregated like that, but all of us (well, most of us) had to take the gifted test in Grade 4.  Apparently I scored in the 99+ percentile in some sections and nearly flunked others.  That was all my teacher told my parents.  There was no suggestion of some sort of learning disability which would "cause" something like this, which would have likely been caught had I just been a few years younger.  At the end, I'm technically ADHD (the "official" diagnosis, which came in middle school or so), but my parents somehow think I may be on spectrum.

[Enigma X]

Even back in the '80s, Chicago had gifted public schools and programs. I was in a regular public elementary school's gifted program in the 80s, but tested into my gifted public high school in the 90s. At that high school, they had four different levels of "giftedness," but you were not automatically set at one level. For instance, if you were okay with math you took regular math classes but if you excelled at English you were placed in a higher level. In fact, most of the private schools in Chicago were regular schools that had gifted programs and accepted all those who could pay and placed them in the appropriate classes for their learning levels. I don't think traditional boarding schools are as big in some American cities as they are in others (East and West Coasts).

With that said, I think the structure we had relieved some of the stress, even though a "C" would shift would shift which level of course you would take next term, and a "D" in a class at the lowest rung would get you shifted to a "regular" high school if tutoring did not help.

[PRgal]

52 minutes ago, Enigma X said:

Even back in the '80s, Chicago had gifted public schools and programs. I was in a regular public elementary school's gifted program in the 80s, but tested into my gifted public high school in the 90s. At that high school, they had four different levels of "giftedness," but you were not automatically set at one level. For instance, if you were okay with math you took regular math classes but if you excelled at English you were placed in a higher level. In fact, most of the private schools in Chicago were regular schools that had gifted programs and accepted all those who could pay and placed them in the appropriate classes for their learning levels. I don't think traditional boarding schools are as big in some American cities as they are in others (East and West Coasts).

With that said, I think the structure we had relieved some of the stress, even though a "C" would shift would shift which level of course you would take next term, and a "D" in a class at the lowest rung would get you shifted to a "regular" high school if tutoring did not help.

Yeah, but can have different types of "gifted" (i.e. by subject) in middle or high school, but it's not typical in elementary school since you spend the entire day in one class (okay, a bunch of us were pulled out for "gifted math" at one point, but it was a pilot project at my school and only lasted one year.  We were in Grade 3 and doing long division - basically working a grade or so above level). 

[jeansheridan]

On 10/21/2016 at 1:26 PM, Tooch said:

Absolutely. It's a fine line for the writers to walk though, because they probably don't want to put the lovely actress through the wringer of having to act out things that have likely happened to her in real life. Though really, the life of a fat woman of her size is rich with story possibilities. It's one thing to be a bit overweight but when you reach Kate's size there is a lot that's just legitimately so difficult, and dealing with society's treatment is one of them. 

I would think she would welcome a chance to "go through the wringer" just like Sterling K Brown is doing  with his story line.  She's an actor and actors use all their experiences to enhance their performances.  

But I also don't want her issues to be entirely about her weight.  There's her issue about her dependence on her twin (which I found interesting in that at the pool the two child actors barely interacted indicating they weren't always as bonded).  And her apparent lack of job experience although she's clearly bright.  And her tunnel vision, not taking into account how her boyfriend might respond to her stalking his ex-wife.  I will admit I was happy they resolved that in just one scene.  These are people who actually talk to each other which is nice.

[SlackerInc]

As promised in the episode thread, I'm going to reply to a couple posts about adoption here.

@JudyObscure said:

Quote

 

I don't think adoption agencies want people to be filthy rich, just well off enough to provide  decent care for the child.  It's certainly not all about money, my brother and his wife were well off but couldn't adopt because they were "too old," when she was 37 and he was 50. But whether affluent or not, I think people adopt because they want to give a home to a child who might otherwise be raised in an institution.  There are countries where war and disease has produced thousands of orphans.  I can't imagine why you would be "unsympathetic," to their desire to help these children.

If you think American babies are snatched from unwilling mothers these days, I doubt that.  It's not Ireland in the 40's. Most of the stigma is gone and our society is very supportive of poor single mothers; Aid to Dependent Children (welfare), food stamps, subsidized housing, Medicare, Medicaid, and in some states, free pre-school and college tuition for the mothers.

 

This post is full of straw men.

(1) I didn't say adoption agencies "want people to be filthy rich".  I said more affluent than the majority of Americans.  It may surprise a lot of people, but if your household (all earners in the family combined) brings in $57,000 a year or more, you have a higher income than the majority of Americans.

(2) Nor did I say no one with a lot of money would ever get turned down.  There are obviously other factors, and the demand is higher than the supply, especially for infants (which is, IMO, a big part of how we get social pressure on young or poor mothers to give up their babies).

(3) I never said it was like Ireland in the '40s or anything close.  It's not even like America in the 1960s.  And I'm glad times are changing.  But the social pressure is still there, albeit more faint, and in some regions and social classes more than others.  I would like to see it eliminated altogether.

As for your claims about social programs, a lot of affluent conservative people imagine the social safety net to be much greater than it actually is (and grouse endlessly about this imaginary net, in my experience).  This too varies greatly from state to state.  In conservative Kansas, for instance, where Governor Brownback has bankrupted the state government by slashing taxes on the rich and discovering the Laffer Curve doesn't work after all (yet he still narrowly got reelected, because the state is so red), even people with intellectual disabilities (what used to be called "mental retardation") face a seven year wait to get help from Medicaid.

And your reference to "Aid to Dependent Children (welfare)" (actually Aid to Families with Dependent Children or AFDC) is twenty years out of date.  That program was ended in 1996 and replaced by Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF), which has time limits: 24 months of aid before the parent is required to get a job, and a 60 month lifetime limit overall.

@PRgal said:

Quote

Regarding adoption:  So what do you propose same-sex couples who don't want to use a surrogate or sperm donor do if they want kids?  What about straight couples who cannot have children due to health concerns?  Just don't bother having kids because it wasn't meant to be?  And don't get me started about international countries closing off...

Yes, I propose they live with the fact that life sometimes doesn't all work out the way you might wish.  It's not the responsibility of fertile pregnant women living in poor communities or poor countries to make these affluent Westerners' dreams come true.  And I applaud those countries that have closed this off.  I am also glad to see they are increasingly cracking down on surrogacy.

[PRgal]

45 minutes ago, SlackerInc said:

@JudyObscure

 

@PRgal said:

Yes, I propose they live with the fact that life sometimes doesn't all work out the way you might wish.  It's not the responsibility of fertile pregnant women living in poor communities or poor countries to make these affluent Westerners' dreams come true.  And I applaud those countries that have closed this off.  I am also glad to see they are increasingly cracking down on surrogacy.

So you're saying that people like my husband and me are nothing but "over-privileged brats" (don't worry, I've been called this before) especially because we want children who are of similar background to (one of) us (the Chinese Canadian community in Toronto can be VERY, VERY racist towards certain ethnic communities.  The community can be a bit classist too).  The public, domestic adoption process is also a messy, difficult process, even if it's easier (sort of) to adopt here in Canada.  We are also looking into surrogacy as an option (surrogates in Canada CANNOT be paid and do this purely alturistically).  We want to provide a child with a loving home and that is that.   

Edited December 1, 2016 by PRgal

[SlackerInc]

I'm not going to call you names.

I support that Canadian law.  If someone is willing to do that "altruistically", and they are of sound mind, then I don't object.

But I do object to your (and many other people's) insistence on saying you "want to provide a child with a loving home and that is that".  That may be the entire truth in a very small minority of cases.  But I think for the vast majority of adoptive parents (or those who use surrogates), the real motive is just a desire to have children to raise for the parents' own emotional/societal needs.  I mean, I guess I could claim that I had my own biological children out of a selfless desire to "provide a child with a loving home", but it would be a struggle to do so with a straight face--pretty sure I'd "break" as they say on SNL, and bust out laughing at the absurdity of the claim.

[JudyObscure]

1 hour ago, SlackerInc said:

As for your claims about social programs, a lot of affluent conservative people imagine the social safety net to be much greater than it actually is (and grouse endlessly about this imaginary net, in my experience).  

I am neither affluent nor conservative and I don't "grouse," about the costs. I always vote in favor of tax levies to support these programs.   Whatever acronyms are currently used or your own states problems in getting them moving,  I still say our society does it's best to support single mothers and their children,  particularly since unmarried births have soared since the 1960's and what once was  the responsibility of the two parents, is now often the responsibility of the tax payers.   The cost is far beyond what was originally believed to be a safety net for rare cases.  It's not grousing to be concerned about where all the money will come from.

[HeySandyStrange]

Quote

Yes, I propose they live with the fact that life sometimes doesn't all work out the way you might wish.  It's not the responsibility of fertile pregnant women living in poor communities or poor countries to make these affluent Westerners' dreams come true.  And I applaud those countries that have closed this off.  I am also glad to see they are increasingly cracking down on surrogacy.

I really don't disagree with you statement; adoption and surrogacy shouldn't be business that preys on the downtrodden to give to the rich. Some admittedly horrific things have happened because of the treatment of adoption as a corporation.  I agree there needs to be regulations in place to prevent corruption from happening.

However, not all adoption situations can be boiled down to "Poor innocent parents had their babies snatched by those rich folks." I'm guessing quite a few children are put up for adoption or are in the system because a) they aren't wanted or their parents simply can't (or don't want to) provide for them or b) they have to be taken out of an abusive or unfit environment. And it isn't as if, in most Western countries, there aren't welfare programs to help disadvantaged people (though yes, they could also be better). I'm all for helping families stay together, but I've also seen the adverse affect of this policy when parents are unfit and refuse to change and are given a million and one chances to screw up their kids. Sometimes the birth parents are not fit and there are times adoption would have probably been preferable.

Edited December 1, 2016 by HeySandyStrange

[photo fox]

I don't see why it's not perfectly okay to say, "I want to have a child because I want to be a parent." Just because you can't produce one yourself, you have to provide extra altruistic reasons? Why?

I totally agree that we should give new parents our support - I work with charities that advocate for everything from pumping rooms in schools, to on-campus child care at universities, to more generous family leave policies for moms AND dads. All of those things are SO necessary to help moms - especially young moms - build a better future while keeping their babies if that's what they want. But not everyone does, and for them, I think adoption is a beautiful and loving thing. 

[Bean421]

We've adopted domestically and I am well aware of the complications. Before my son was placed with us we had several "failed matches" where the mother decided to parent. I was so happy they made those choices, coercion should not be a part of this. If a woman is able and wants to parent there should be a way for that to happen. There is already so much loss involved for all members of the triad. Our adoption is semi-open, only because our sons birthmother disappears for long stretches at a time. I would love to keep in contact more for his sake, but I respect her boundaries. 

My problem with the anti-adoption community is painting all adoptive parents as baby snatchers who are so ego driven that they are preying on vulnerable women. That is not the case in the vast majority of situations. 

[Enigma X]

54 minutes ago, photo fox said:

I don't see why it's not perfectly okay to say, "I want to have a child because I want to be a parent." Just because you can't produce one yourself, you have to provide extra altruistic reasons? Why?

I totally agree that we should give new parents our support - I work with charities that advocate for everything from pumping rooms in schools, to on-campus child care at universities, to more generous family leave policies for moms AND dads. All of those things are SO necessary to help moms - especially young moms - build a better future while keeping their babies if that's what they want. But not everyone does, and for them, I think adoption is a beautiful and loving thing. 

Hear! Hear! to all of it but special emphasis on the bolded part.

Edited December 1, 2016 by Enigma X

[SlackerInc]

On 12/1/2016 at 1:35 PM, JudyObscure said:

I am neither affluent nor conservative and I don't "grouse," about the costs. I always vote in favor of tax levies to support these programs.   Whatever acronyms are currently used or your own states problems in getting them moving,  I still say our society does it's best to support single mothers and their children,  particularly since unmarried births have soared since the 1960's and what once was  the responsibility of the two parents, is now often the responsibility of the tax payers.   The cost is far beyond what was originally believed to be a safety net for rare cases.  It's not grousing to be concerned about where all the money will come from.

What does "conservative" mean to you?

Okay, from @Archery in the episode thread, this is a perfect example of the attitude around adoption that I object to:

Quote

I don't think I can overstate the importance of reiterating to an adoptive child that his parents loved him so much that they gave him up.

Gross.  What does this even mean?  It reads to me as "they were peasants, and they had the opportunity for their child to grow up as a blueblood".  If that's not it, then what?  If, as several people are claiming, there is plenty of societal support for poor parents and single mothers, then why would loving a child so much mean giving him or her up?

I'm not "anti-adoption" in the sense of "it should never happen".  Obviously there are some extended circumstances, like the parents die and there are no extended family members who can take the child.  Or the parents are hopelessly unfit.  But nowhere in there can you fit "oh, yeah: your birth parents didn't die, and they were awesome--that's why they gave you up".  No.

[Archery]

That is a ridiculous statement. 

My son's birthmother recognized that she could not raise one more kid.  That with her serious health issues, she could not care for him, nor for his four brothers and sisters, two of whom also had physical and emotional issues.  

You are entitled to your opinion.  And I am entitled to think that your statement is ridiculous and uninformed.  

[Lady Calypso]

8 hours ago, SlackerInc said:

I'm not going to call you names.

I support that Canadian law.  If someone is willing to do that "altruistically", and they are of sound mind, then I don't object.

But I do object to your (and many other people's) insistence on saying you "want to provide a child with a loving home and that is that".  That may be the entire truth in a very small minority of cases.  But I think for the vast majority of adoptive parents (or those who use surrogates), the real motive is just a desire to have children to raise for the parents' own emotional/societal needs.  I mean, I guess I could claim that I had my own biological children out of a selfless desire to "provide a child with a loving home", but it would be a struggle to do so with a straight face--pretty sure I'd "break" as they say on SNL, and bust out laughing at the absurdity of the claim.

Maybe so. I think society definitely puts a huge emphasis on families and the family system in individuals in their 30s and older. It has been considered less normal, I think, when people don't have families of their own at a certain age. There will always be some form of selfishness, if you want to call it that, for people who are adopting or using surrogacy or even having their own biological children. The reasons are never going to be as simple as people would like it to be. I just don't get why people who adopt are so evil if they want to fulfill their own needs if they're also fulfilling the needs of the children they're taking in. I think it's something that goes both ways. 

If I use my own real life example, my sister and I are both adopted internationally because my parents were unable to conceive. I don't know their personal reasons for adopting, but obviously it was either that or surrogacy or IVF in some way. To be honest, I never even asked them if they tried the option of IVF or surrogacy so I don't know that part. Maybe they tried and it didn't work out, or maybe they thought adoption was their best option. But I truly do think that reasons for adopting disappear once these parents have their adoptive children. My sister was adopted right from birth, while I was adopted at six months old. There are many who don't get adopted, and many who get adopted at various points of their childhood. I know that I am living in a much better life than I would have if they hadn't have adopted me. I'm sure a lot of adoptive children are in the same boat, or slightly different ones. My parents have treated me like their own through it all. I'm pretty sure that I'd rather have parents who want me than parents who choose to abandon me at the hospital from birth.

So although I am working on understanding your side (I really am because I'm sure you have a valid point), I think it's tough to really accept that people shouldn't adopt. If people want children to be parents, then why should we judge them for that? For me, that makes me think that they'll be great parents because they want it so badly. Why is that such a bad thing? And of course, correct me if I'm misreading you here! I just think that many adoptees, like myself, feel like we're much better off than with our biological families.  Just like I'm sure there are many of the examples that I think you're trying to get at, where adoption is used for some kind of profit or corrupt reasons. Like many areas, adoption isn't always the best thing. But a lot of the times, it seems like it is. 

1 hour ago, SlackerInc said:

Okay, from @Archery in the episode thread, this is a perfect example of the attitude around adoption that I object to:

Gross.  What does this even mean?  It reads to me as "they were peasants, and they had the opportunity for their child to grow up as a blueblood".  If that's not it, then what?  If, as several people are claiming, there is plenty of societal support for poor parents and single mothers, then why would loving a child so much mean giving him or her up?

I'm not "anti-adoption" in the sense of "it should never happen".  Obviously there are some extended circumstances, like the parents die and there are no extended family members who can take the child.  Or the parents are hopelessly unfit.  But nowhere in there can you fit "oh, yeah: your birth parents didn't die, and they were awesome--that's why they gave you up".  No.

Well, as an adoptive young adult, that statement does not mean that at all. I think the majority of adopted individuals look for answers to their biological families, to know why they gave them up and also why their adoptive families chose them. A lot of the time, those questions can't be answered. So, I think for many adoptive parents, they want to reassure their child in some way that they are loved. I don't think anyone wants someone to tell them that they were abandoned and neglected by their biological family so their adoptive ones took them in because they weren't loved. That's a pretty shitty thing to do or say to anyone. I think it's part of a bigger reason why adoptive parents tell them that they are loved and they were given up so they can live a better life. Giving up a child is probably not easy to many. It's a tough choice, just like it's a tough choice to decide to adopt, to go through all of those steps just to get an adopted child. I know from my parents that it's not an easy experience to go through. 

Sometimes, there are biological parents who are unfit to raise children. Maybe not in the drug addict or alcoholic sense, but maybe they're unfit in that particular time in their life. Maybe they don't want children, got pregnant, and don't want abort their baby. It's more complicated than what you're making it out to be, in my opinion. I think it's easier when you're in the position, whether it's the adopted parent, the adopted child, or the biological parent that gives said child up. 

It's not a black and white situation, obviously. But telling said adopted child that they're loved? Trying to reassure them about their biological parents? It may not be true. Maybe the biological family would be awful people. But if that child can never get answers and if that child feels unloved, neglected, abandoned, or whatever else, it's the adopted parents' job to help them through that in any way that they can. They do the best possible thing for their child, the ones that they love. And that's the simple truth. 

[SlackerInc]

33 minutes ago, Lady Calypso said:

I'm pretty sure that I'd rather have parents who want me than parents who choose to abandon me at the hospital from birth.

So although I am working on understanding your side (I really am because I'm sure you have a valid point), I think it's tough to really accept that people shouldn't adopt. If people want children to be parents, then why should we judge them for that?[snip]

I think the majority of adopted individuals look for answers to their biological families, to know why they gave them up and also why their adoptive families chose them. A lot of the time, those questions can't be answered. So, I think for many adoptive parents, they want to reassure their child in some way that they are loved. I don't think anyone wants someone to tell them that they were abandoned and neglected by their biological family so their adoptive ones took them in because they weren't loved. That's a pretty shitty thing to do or say to anyone.[snip]

It's not a black and white situation, obviously. But telling said adopted child that they're loved? Trying to reassure them about their biological parents? It may not be true. Maybe the biological family would be awful people. But if that child can never get answers and if that child feels unloved, neglected, abandoned, or whatever else, it's the adopted parents' job to help them through that in any way that they can. They do the best possible thing for their child, the ones that they love. And that's the simple truth. 

Okay, first the question "If people want children to be parents, then why should we judge them for that?".  That was kind of my point.  I was pointing out how adoptive parents were being portrayed as sort of these selfless, saintly figures whose motivation was "to give a child a good home".  And I scoffed at that, because they really in the vast majority of cases wanted to have their own biological kids, but this was a backup plan.  (I'm sure there are occasionally people who are perfectly fertile but choose adoption, maybe of older special needs kids or something, because they do actually buy into a worldview that there are enough kids out there who need someone, or that the world is overpopulated, so they should do this instead of creating more people themselves--but I just think that's very rare.)

As for the other point, I just don't buy into that mindset.  Basically, "the truth might be upsetting, so in response to these urgent questions adopted kids have, I will just tell them a bunch of total bullshit."  How long is that supposed to last?  You tell them this when they are five, six, seven--you think they are going to still believe it at ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen?  Seventeen?  How are they then supposed to feel, as it dawns on them that the parents who raised them were feeding them a line of bull to avoid tough questions?  Are they going to feel comfortable going back to them and saying "okay, I'm mature enough now to know that was all a fairy story to make me feel better...but now let's talk about what the real deal was, as far as you know"?  It just doesn't sit right with me.

Now, "zooming back out" to the more general question of adoption.  Again, I'm not "anti-adoption", period, end of story.  But (and let's leave international adoption out of this for the moment, just to keep it a little simpler) I don't like the idea of people going to adoption agencies looking for a baby to substitute for the one they can't have biologically, creating the economic demand on one end, leading to the adoption agency having an incentive to find potential "donors" they can dangle economic incentives in front of.  We all know you can't actually pay women for their babies, right?  Well, kind of.

In my ideal world, the kind of thing you see at that link would be illegal, and it would also be just seen as socially unacceptable.  There would be a general social expectation that if you become pregnant, you get an abortion or you raise your child (with, as I say, help from the community and government if needed), and/or your extended relatives raise the baby.  In my ideal world, if you heard about a baby being adopted, people would go "Wow, so the birth mother and her entire family died in a crash or something?  How sad!"  Or there would be some cases from just terribly unfit families, but we'd all kind of wrinkle our noses about such people creating children for others to raise.  A woman wouldn't just feel it was acceptable or even welcomed for her to find a couple to take her baby and pay "living expenses".  A healthy, non-drug-addicted woman who just wanted to abandon (because that's how it would be seen in my ideal world) her baby to strangers would be looked upon very poorly indeed.

But we are a long way from that world, and that is my issue.  So it's not as simplistic as "anti-adoption" makes it sound as an ideological label.

[chocolatine]

@SlackerInc, have you actually had any first hand experience with unwanted pregnancy? I've gleaned from your previous posts that you are a man, i.e. you have never had, nor will you ever have, an unwanted pregnancy, so it's not your place to dictate an "ideal world" that restricts women's choices in that regard.

[SlackerInc]

Okay, men are to be foreclosed from all such discussions.  Got it.

ETA: I guess then that when state legislatures or Congress make rules around adoption, only the female legislators get to vote?  Or all such laws have to be done by referendums, in which only women get to vote?  But not transwomen, I suppose, since they won't have unwanted pregnancies either.  What about women born without uteruses?  Also, can male judges or lawyers be involved in the adoption process?  Just want to explore the boundaries of this restriction a bit.

Edited December 2, 2016 by SlackerInc

[chocolatine]

1 minute ago, SlackerInc said:

Okay, men are to be foreclosed from all such discussions.  Got it.

That's not what I said. I said don't make absolute pronouncements about a complex situation that you have the fortune to never experience first-hand.

[SlackerInc]

I thought my "pronouncements" were actually nuanced, not "absolute".  But I guess MMV.

ETA: I'm assuming you don't have a problem with a woman saying that biological fathers should be on the hook for eighteen years of child support, even if the baby was produced from a one night stand?  Even though a woman will never be in that position?

Edited December 2, 2016 by SlackerInc

[breezy424]

Gosh, there are people who adopt because they can't have children of their own but to me that doesn't mean those children are 'substitutes'.  For me, those people who adopt chose to take a different road.  Yes, chose.  And it's not an easy choice for many, if not most.  They are making a lifetime commitment to a life and to all the things that are required for that commitment, to a human being that is not of their flesh and blood.  That shouldn't be diminished and I applaud it.

As for the parent of a child who chooses to give it up, life is gray.  A fifteen year old who stupidly gets herself pregnant may, when reality sets in, may decide that she is unprepared and too immature to raise a child and gives that child up.  Same goes for a woman at any age.  And if a woman wants to 'sell' her child if  she becomes pregnant, that's her choice and is probably in the best interest of the child.  The world is not perfect.  

I've never adopted a child.  I've been able to biologically have my own.  It's the greatest gift I've been given in life.  I also know that this gift is not a right.  I so feel for couples who don't have this gift.  

[Lady Calypso]

1 hour ago, SlackerInc said:

Now, "zooming back out" to the more general question of adoption.  Again, I'm not "anti-adoption", period, end of story.  But (and let's leave international adoption out of this for the moment, just to keep it a little simpler) I don't like the idea of people going to adoption agencies looking for a baby to substitute for the one they can't have biologically, creating the economic demand on one end, leading to the adoption agency having an incentive to find potential "donors" they can dangle economic incentives in front of.  We all know you can't actually pay women for their babies, right?  Well, kind of.

I think this is a harsh way to think about things. Just because adoption may not be the first choice, it doesn't mean that it's not a good choice. Just because some cannot procreate naturally, it doesn't mean that adopting a child is substituting. This is the exact issue that Randall is facing on the show, but something he is coming to realize is not the case. There are some, I am sure, that feel this way. I am sure they are entitled to their feelings due to different life experiences. But as a whole, adoption is not just a substitution for not being to procreate. This is what a lot of adoptive children may feel even, and that's why we need to work on making sure they don't think this. Again, for some cases, this is probably true. But it's absolutely not the majority of cases. 

I don't know why infertility leading to adoption is such a bad thing. It can end up being the best thing. If this was the case, there would be far more foster children lost in the system, in my opinion. Adoption is a beautiful thing. It can be corrupt, like many subjects that involve government in some way. But overall, this is about kids in the system and how adoption can truly be a more beneficial experience. 

 Because all I'm getting from your first two paragraphs is that infertility is the issue and that adoption shouldn't be a backup plan. Sometimes, first plans don't work. That's life; it happens. It's not a bad thing. I don't know why adoption has to be a bad thing.

1 hour ago, SlackerInc said:

In my ideal world, the kind of thing you see at that link would be illegal, and it would also be just seen as socially unacceptable.  There would be a general social expectation that if you become pregnant, you get an abortion or you raise your child (with, as I say, help from the community and government if needed), and/or your extended relatives raise the baby.  In my ideal world, if you heard about a baby being adopted, people would go "Wow, so the birth mother and her entire family died in a crash or something?  How sad!"  Or there would be some cases from just terribly unfit families, but we'd all kind of wrinkle our noses about such people creating children for others to raise.  A woman wouldn't just feel it was acceptable or even welcomed for her to find a couple to take her baby and pay "living expenses".  A healthy, non-drug-addicted woman who just wanted to abandon (because that's how it would be seen in my ideal world) her baby to strangers would be looked upon very poorly indeed.

Also, in my ideal world, it would be nice if every kid had a home and a family to have. I know it's impossible and it'll never happen, but it would be nice. 

I just don't get why abortion is alright but not adoption. Which is actually fascinating, don't get me wrong, because so often, I've seen abortion being the evil and people advocating for adoption over abortion. 

I know I'm touchy about this because of my own life experiences and how I know that I wouldn't be the person I am today if it weren't for my adoptive parents. So if I sound a bit upset and snappy in my remarks, please know it's just the argument, not you! 

[photo fox]

So, @SlackerInc, if I'm reading your words correctly, you think the only acceptable outcomes to a pregnancy are abortion or kinship care? (Unless every last member of their bio family is dead, apparently.)

If so, that's an extremely narrow view. You do realize that there are many women - even those who are pro-choice - who would never choose abortion for themselves? What, in your world, are women with that belief to do if they have an unwanted pregnancy?

And what about children whose parents are unfit? Are they doomed to linger in foster care in the hopes that someday their parent(s) will magically get their act together? 

As for your apparent belief that all adoptions are motivated by financial concerns, and if only there were more services no one would ever give up a baby, that seems incredibly simplistic. There are many reasons beyond financial ones why a woman may choose to not raise her child, and may feel that her child would be "better off" with another family. Maybe she's very young and not emotionally ready to parent. Maybe she has mental illness or addiction issues. Maybe she and the father have a difficult relationship. Maybe she's concentrating on school or getting her career off the ground. Maybe she's simply not maternal and doesn't want to ever be a parent.

My coworker and his wife adopted their son. His bio mom had a job and healthcare. But she also already had an older child with her baby's bio dad, who was unsupportive. (Not a criminal, but just kind of unstable.) She was working her way through college, and already felt like she was being pulled in every direction. So she decided the best choice for both of her children, and for herself, was to give the baby up for adoption. Additional social services could have eased some of her stress, but they couldn't give her kid a dad who was dependable. They couldn't give her the energy to take care of a toddler and an infant while going to school full time to build a steady future.

In the end, had she chosen to raise her child, I'm sure she could have given her baby a good life. She could have slowed down her education. She could have sued the dad for child support. She could have squeezed more time out of her day, slept a little less. But she didn't want to, which was her choice to make. 

I respect that you're concerned that women are being forced by financial circumstances into making choices they don't want to make. It breaks my heart to think there are women who want their babies but can't support them. We need to do better as a society when it comes to supporting parents, especially those who are marginalized by age, race, education level, or financial situations.

But part of that support, IMO, includes being accepting of their choices, whether it be adoption, kinship care, or single or coupled parenting. Families are built on love, not biology.

[Armchair Critic]

I did mission work in a foreign country where there is a lot of adoptions and there is such a stigma to orphans there that it is just not done that somebody locally would adopt a child from the orphanage. If it weren't for foreigners (mostly Americans) adopting those children they would spend their whole lives in an orphanage. They are not taught to deal with life outside the orphanage so many of them turn to prostitution to support themselves when they age out. So I am going to strongly disagree with the anti-adoption poster. I have a friend who adopted internationally and they are strictly middle if not lower middle class, they are not rich by any means. It took them 2 years to adopt and it was not easy. I was thrilled for them when they came home with their child and was one of the group who met them at the airport and cheered for them.

[SlackerInc]

3 hours ago, photo fox said:

Maybe she's concentrating on school or getting her career off the ground.

What if the mother you're talking about made this decision about her two year old?  Still okay?  How about a seven year old?

I wouldn't make it illegal, as long as the child was turned over safely to the appropriate authorities.  But I think we would all be aghast at a family giving up an older child because the parents got an exciting business opportunity, or got admitted into law school.  I feel like the social norms should be the same for a baby.  Just how I feel.

ETA: @Lady Calypso, I am also against late term abortion (after about the midpoint of pregnancy).  Take care of it before it becomes a baby, or take responsibility for your baby, is my position.

Edited December 2, 2016 by SlackerInc

[PRgal]

6 hours ago, SlackerInc said:

What if the mother you're talking about made this decision about her two year old?  Still okay?  How about a seven year old?

I wouldn't make it illegal, as long as the child was turned over safely to the appropriate authorities.  But I think we would all be aghast at a family giving up an older child because the parents got an exciting business opportunity, or got admitted into law school.  I feel like the social norms should be the same for a baby.  Just how I feel.

ETA: @Lady Calypso, I am also against late term abortion (after about the midpoint of pregnancy).  Take care of it before it becomes a baby, or take responsibility for your baby, is my position.

The vast majority of later term abortions happen because the pregnancy is a threat on the mother's life or because the baby has a severe birth defect which would make him/her not survive to term.  And do you have problems with kids who stay with relatives because mom and dad have to work abroad?  Some parents think it would provide more stability if the child stays at the same school rather than transfer, especially to another country (and especially in the middle of a school year).  Sometimes I wish my parents did that when my dad was transferred to Bermuda.  That year I was away was probably the WORST year of my life.  They sent me home a year later.  They could have sent me to boarding school (which would probably have been better for me.  Instead, I was a day student at the same school), but I ended up staying with my grandparents (my mom was mostly here and my dad came back on weekends) who were extremely helicopter-ish before "helicopter parents" was a term.  As a boarder, I would have been more exposed to a variety of different cultures, since there were kids from all over the world.  I would have probably learned MORE about my own heritage too!

Edited December 2, 2016 by PRgal

[jeansheridan]

I am startled about all this controversy about adoption being essentially a kindness.  Assuming the baby hasn't been stolen, there is a baby in the world that needs someone to care for it.  And there are people filled with a desire and the love to raise a human being.  How is this remotely wrong?  The alternative is an abandoned child which cannot survive on its own.  Again assuming the child isn't kidnapped or stolen from its birth parents.  

[Pallas]

11 hours ago, SlackerInc said:

A healthy, non-drug-addicted woman who just wanted to abandon (because that's how it would be seen in my ideal world) her baby to strangers would be looked upon very poorly indeed.

I don't know who this is: "woman who just wanted to abandon her baby to strangers." After nine months of pregnancy and the hours of labor, the weeks of weird communion with the mysteriously familiar yet utterly distinct being in her body, and all the fierce imperatives of nature to make this child her world...just, "suck it, baby"? 

I agree, though, that it would benefit unsupported pregnant women, their children, and many of the fathers, if extended families were more often part of the picture. If all facets of society recognized this "family-sourcing" as beneficial. We can indeed do more, as families of all kinds, to feel the call and help the children born to those among us. 

9 hours ago, photo fox said:

Families are built on love, not biology.

Identity, though, is built on nature and nurture.

Edited December 2, 2016 by Pallas

[Neurochick]

16 hours ago, SlackerInc said:

I'm not "anti-adoption" in the sense of "it should never happen".  Obviously there are some extended circumstances, like the parents die and there are no extended family members who can take the child.  Or the parents are hopelessly unfit.  But nowhere in there can you fit "oh, yeah: your birth parents didn't die, and they were awesome--that's why they gave you up".  No.

I don't get this statement at all. 

I used to volunteer in a public hospital, I worked on Sundays and holidays,feeding and diapering the newborns that could not go home because either they were abandoned or the mothers tested positive for drugs; the nurses were overwhelmed with other duties so volunteers were needed.  This was at the height of the crack epidemic.

So are you saying that these infants should not be adopted?  Are you saying that just because someone cannot biologically give birth then, oh well, too bad so sad, you can't be a parent?  I don't think so.  I saw too many children languish in these hospitals for months because the birth families were too dysfunctional to care for these children.  Just because someone is able to have a baby doesn't mean they should raise that baby. 

My problem is that to say "adoption shouldn't happen AT ALL" is quite short sighted.  When I was young, I used to think like that, either or, black or white.  But when I got older, I see that the world really isn't like that.  Some people put children up for adoption because they really can't raise them.  It could be drugs or mental illness or anything.

Edited December 2, 2016 by Neurochick

[kili]

Quote

In my ideal world, the kind of thing you see at that link would be illegal, and it would also be just seen as socially unacceptable.  There would be a general social expectation that if you become pregnant, you get an abortion or you raise your child (with, as I say, help from the community and government if needed), and/or your extended relatives raise the baby.  In my ideal world, if you heard about a baby being adopted, people would go "Wow, so the birth mother and her entire family died in a crash or something?  How sad!"  Or there would be some cases from just terribly unfit families, but we'd all kind of wrinkle our noses about such people creating children for others to raise.  A woman wouldn't just feel it was acceptable or even welcomed for her to find a couple to take her baby and pay "living expenses".  A healthy, non-drug-addicted woman who just wanted to abandon (because that's how it would be seen in my ideal world) her baby to strangers would be looked upon very poorly indeed.

 Why should we be wrinkling our noses? Maybe we should keep our noses in our own business?

There are a lot of reasons why a woman might choose to carry a child to term and give that child up for an adoption. It may be because of religious reasons. It may be because they are altruistic and want to give the child and some couple a family. It may be that they didn't notice they were pregnant.  etc etc etc They don't have to justify their motivations.

My Aunt and Uncle adopted an infant. They had been fostering children for years and it had taken a toll: the bonding with the children and then the children moving on. They couldn't say goodbye to one more child and applied to adopt the last one themselves. They already had two healthy biological children, but they had more love to give and that is why they decided to foster (my Uncle was an architect and they did not do it for the money).  Another Uncle adopted his wife's children (she became a widow when they were toddlers).

I think when you start digging, there are lots of reasons why people give their children up for adoption and why they adopt. There should certainly be social safety nets and pro-choice, but I'm glad that there are other options out there so that people can pick what fits them best.

[jeansheridan]

Quote

But they were strongly pressured or propagandized in that direction.  And these adoption agencies treat the whole situation not as a social ill to be remedied as best as possible, b

I can appreciate this nuance.  And when we get universal health care and very low cost or free day care across the nation, I can see young women making different choices.  

There will always be a range of feelings.  Some young women probably feel relieved and others will carry the pain with them.

 I know a ton of people who have adopted and do not know anyone who gave up her child.  Women do not discuss it.  It is a stigmatized choice.  Seems like anytime  a woman does anything odd around reproduction it gets stigmatized.  No kids, too many kids, unmarried, mixed race, sperm donor, etc....Society has an opinion.   Seems intrusive.  Especially since these are hard choices.

[Bama]

On 12/1/2016 at 9:38 PM, SlackerInc said:

There would be a general social expectation that if you become pregnant, you get an abortion or you raise your child (with, as I say, help from the community and government if needed), and/or your extended relatives raise the baby.

I find this choice of "kill it or keep it" quite disturbing.  I'm pro-choice but I think adoption is a wonderful option if that's what a woman feels led to do.

I know 6 couples in my small town that have adopted children.  Only 2 of the 6 were unable to biologically reproduce.  The other 4 had biological children and decided to grow their family through adoption.  Those children aren't "back-up plans to infertility".  

I'm very surprised by the idea that adoption is seen as a bad thing by some people.  

[JudyObscure]

On ‎12‎/‎1‎/‎2016 at 6:23 PM, SlackerInc said:

What does "conservative" mean to you?

  I have always voted Democrat, I'm in favor of social programs to help children and ill people, particularly the mentally ill, and I always vote to raise taxes for those programs.  I'm for sweeping gun control and I'm very anti-war.  If you think I lose all my liberal credentials because I'm worried about the children who are being raised in fatherless homes with a greatly increased chance of living in poverty and ending up in prison then so be it.  Our tax money is finite.  I would rather see more go to free birth control so that less would be needed for poor single mothers, and maybe, just maybe, we would have a little bit left over for all the schizophrenic people living in cardboard boxes.

7 hours ago, Bama said:

I find this choice of "kill it or keep it" quite disturbing.  I'm pro-choice but I think adoption is a wonderful option if that's what a woman feels led to do.

Same here.  Raising a child alone isn't just a matter of money, there's the lack of a father and there's often the lack of desire on the woman's part to be a mother.  Looking at adoption sights over the last few days, I've seen "wanted to focus on her career," as one of the top reasons women give up their child for adoption. How sad for the child if he was forced on a mother who resented him and had no father in the home.

[PRgal]

Re adoption:  In this part of the world, birth parents play a major role in which family the baby goes to - if it is a private adoption, that is.  Yes, agencies are used, but birth parents contact the agencies to let them know that they do not want to raise the child themselves.  They pick the prospective family based on profiles the agency has.  This is why the number of babies available in private, domestic adoptions have dwindled significantly.  This surprises MANY.  I know a woman who said she adopted her son within a months.  The thing is, she and her husband adopted the boy back in 1980 or so.  This is 2016.  It doesn't work the same way anymore.  If birth parents don't like you, you won't be called.  Babies aren't "stolen."  As for international adoptions, for many countries, once a prospective family is "matched," it could take up to a year - sometimes longer - for the child to "come home" with the new family.  They do background checks of the child to find family members first. 

Honestly, I can go on a long rant about how it is difficult for couples like my DH and me to have families.  They always say mixed-race couples have an advantage, but when you're Asian and white, it isn't necessarily true.

[SlackerInc]

Here, from a recent NPR story, is a great example of how social and institutional change can reduce pressure on teens and young women to choose between education and keeping their babies:

Quote

 

The young women in this story have labels. Three labels: Single, mother, college student. They're raising a child and getting an education — three of the 2.6 million unmarried parents attending U.S. colleges and universities.

[snip]

They live in apartments that once were dorm rooms. And they are easy to notice on campus.

"We have children running around the dining hall while everyone else is trying to eat," says Heather Schuler. She's 25, a sophomore psychology major and the mother of a 2-year-old son.

[snip]

A lot of colleges and universities are taking interest in serving these students.

Eastern Kentucky University is building a $10 million apartment complex for single moms, and dads.

At Wilson College, says Rogers, having a dorm building all to themselves is wonderful.

"It's a cool community where you're not you're not always on top of each other and always around each other," she says. "You can always go in your room and the kids get to play together, which is awesome."

[snip]

"I was really afraid when we started the program," recalls Jensen, who's now retired and lives in Cambridge, Mass. "We had this idea and all of a sudden we had $400,000." 

Jensen spent much of that money rebuilding. The empty dorm would now have two-room apartments. Private bathrooms. Kitchens to share on each floor.

[snip]

The bottom floor of the dorm has been given over to child care, with lots of windows and a playground outside.

[snip]

"The child care costs are nothing," she says. Child care in the morning and throughout the day. Evening hours, too.

[snip]

Ricks started the program in 2008 and graduated four years later. Now she lives in Washington, D.C., where she's a computer scientist with the U.S. Census Bureau.

She's brought her 10-year-old son back with her to campus.

"We just took him on a tour down at the daycare," she says. "And he remembered. He started in the baby class and moved on up to the big kids class."

Katie Kough, once Ricks' advisor, is now a friend.

"There are some women who have graduated from this program that probably no one ever thought that they would be a college student," she says. "A college graduate student, or a professional, and they did it. "

Kough says that in her eight years running this program, 38 students have made it through with a degree.

I tell these women when they start it's going to be difficult, she says. "That the Devil's gonna tap their shoulders three times a day and tell them to go home."

She adds: "It wasn't always pretty, and it wasn't always easy. But some of these women are the strongest, strongest women that I know."

 

Awesome.  Just love this.

[Lady Calypso]

@SlackerInc That NPR story is great, really. I think there should be more child care cases like this. I don't disagree that there needs to be change in this area to make child care more affordable to single mothers and women who want to also get an education. I don't think anyone disagrees with this. We're all with you on this. 

But adoption is not this evil thing, not always. There's always going to be that ugly side to any social issue, but it doesn't mean it's an overall bad thing. I know you pointed out in a previous post this remark:

Quote

There would be a general social expectation that if you become pregnant, you get an abortion or you raise your child (with, as I say, help from the community and government if needed), and/or your extended relatives raise the baby

I think that's the part that has me confused. I'm pro-choice (and a side note; I don't get why anyone ISN'T pro-choice. And also why it's only pro-choice and pro-life, since pro-choice can also be pro-life in some cases so shouldn't it just be called anti-choice?) so I don't think that abortion is the wrong way to go. But if people don't believe in abortion for their religious or moral reasons, and I know a lot of people who struggle with the idea of abortion, why is keeping their baby the only option? What if they made a mistake (which does happen), they get pregnant but they don't want to abort their baby but they also don't want to keep the baby? 

I'm just saying that the subject of adoption is complex.  I just don't like it being dehumanized and seemed like a bad thing because often, it can be the best case for the child. If a woman is forced to keep her child for whatever reason and she doesn't want it, then wouldn't that lead to more issues? Not all people are cut out to have children. And then we have to ask: do we force said women to get an abortion against their will because they don't want to keep it, therefore they have to abort it? Do we force these women and men (if they're involved) to care for a child that they don't even want but created after a mistake? I get that there's the stance that getting pregnant is not a mistake because you know the risks when having sex so don't have sex if you don't want to have a kid. But I do know people who have made mistakes and slipped up. 

I think this just leads to a slippery slope of what do we do if the parents are technically competent to raise the child, but they don't want to. That could lead to the child being neglected anyway. I'll search for some sources myself, but there are cases of child neglect because that's a real thing that happens.