We adopted two older kids (age 3 and 7) when we were in our 40s/30s.
It was very difficult and life changing in many ways. We sacrificed a lot to bring them into our lives.
But - we knew that going into it. It has caused stress and strain and high blood pressure. But I also got to carry my son off the field on my shoulders when he ran in the the finally touch down to cap off an undefeated season. To hear my daughter sing like Beyoncé.
We knew going into this it was going to be difficult. But we did it intentionally to save two lives from what was a life of poverty, instability, and abuse. We purposefully adopted through the State because we knew those were the kids in dire straights.
I want to say I can’t believe people would “return” adopted kids, but we saw a lot during adoption training. Parents in it for the money (you get a monthly payment if your kids are classified special needs). Parents asking questions about restraining and hitting kids. Foster homes filled to the brim with kids because there is a constant shortage of homes.
I hope most parents are improving the lives of those they adopt. But that 5% number is just devastating to see, but reflects the reality of who we are as a culture and a race.
How could you possibly know what an 15+ year commitment is like before going into it? Did you have kids prior to adopting?
I don't think it's weird at all some people wish they could 'return' their kids. It's virtually impossible to truly know what it's like until you're in it.
It probably isn’t weird to think about returning the kids…but it is certainly weird to do it. More than weird, it is disrespectful, cowardly, and inconsiderate.
When you decide to have kids by adoption or by natural birth—they should never be abandoned.
No matter what they do—you are with them for those ~18 years and hopefully many more.
Unlike a spouse—kids are dependents. And your commitment is to make sure they have someone they can depend on.
If you don't want your kids are you saying it's better off to keep them? Isn't adopting them out a way to make sure they have someone they can depend on?
Seems to me it's more "disrespectful/weird/cowardly/inconsiderate" to make some kid suffer for years living in a home where they're unwanted.
Everyone has a limit, until you've been pushed past it (and even after), you don't know exactly where it is, and of course it can change.
Every child will have a different impact on your limits, I can certainly understand how a person could be pushed past their limits, by their own child and more-so a relatively unknown child, and I have a lot of sympathy for people in those situations (even the most horrific ones).
As for "society", "they", give parents very little support, it may be different for foster parents but without researching much, I don't have much faith.
Whether society "ought" to be setup this way, that's a hard one, make it too easy and we self-select for a bunch of massive families with an endless bill of support.
My feel is we're erring too much on the side of a lack of support, especially less "social" (e.g. scandinavian countries) focused countries such as USA, UK, AU.
If "society" feels responsible for the welfare of these kids, then society should recognize a kid is better off in a home where they are wanted. This is so obvious I don't understand why it even needs explained.
A kid is not better off in a home where they are wanted, necessarily.
Continuity may be more important, and the state of “wanting” a child in your home is not some simple boolean value. It’s intellectually dishonest to pretend it is.
If you simply go by the metric of putting a kid in the home where they are best off, then we can dispense with saying the biological or adopted parents are "necessarily" where the kid should be. We now know you don't think children are "necessarily" better off where they are wanted. Instead perhaps we can use your metric, and assign child to a home where they're "better off" after birth rather than to their biological parents or the person who wants to adopt them. This system could mean assigning the child to an entirely different country and culture at birth "in the interest of the child."
>Continuity may be more important
Continuity is not the only factor at play here. Continuity can turn into a bad thing where you're continuously somewhere where you aren't wanted.
> and the state of “wanting” a child in your home is not some simple boolean value. It’s intellectually dishonest to pretend it is.
The article is about families "un-adopt" a child. It's intellectually dishonest, and ignorant, to make this statement in the context of an article where it's so incredibly into the boolean "false" state of wanting.
Shuffling kids around based on whichever home would be “best” for them according to an evolving situation is a terrible idea.
Two parents, ideally their parents, is best. Absent that, continuity is the next best thing. Moving kids out of homes they’re not in danger in is a bad idea, as the article explains.
I reject the notion continuity with an unwanting parent is always the "best thing" and I've read quite a few anecdotes from people raised in such a situation that they wished the parents who didn't want them would yield to someone who did. Sure anecdotes don't prove it's always the case, but it shows it's not never the case either. Once again, continuity can turn into a bad thing if the continuous state is "unwanted." I'd rather spend at least _some_ time with people that want me than all my time with people that don't.
>>A kid is not better off...
>Shuffling kids around based on whichever home would be “best” for them according to an evolving situation is a terrible idea.
You're now contradicting yourself. Earlier you were worried about the kid being where they were better off. Now you say that's a terrible idea. You lack continuity.
I am not worried about a kid being where they are theoretically best off, I'm worried about moving kids out of situations that are "below the line" of tolerability. The goal of having these adopted children thrive is secondary to the goal of raising them to the age of 18 with the highest chance of avoiding problematic damage.
Your idea of moving children from home to home in a search for their "best" home is not a viable one, and you know that. The fact that you continue to argue is a product of your inability to discuss this rationally, not due to some genuine concern for doing what is, overall, best for these children.
>Two parents, ideally their parents, is best. Absent that, continuity is the next best thing.
>I am not worried about a kid being where they are theoretically best of
Again you contradict yourself. Earlier you were worried about what's "best." Now you claim you're not. The fact that you continue to contradict yourself is a product of your inability to discuss this rationally (nor with 'continuity'), not not due to some genuine concern for doing what is, overall, best for these children.
>The goal of having these adopted children thrive is secondary to the goal of raising them to the age of 18 with the highest chance of avoiding problematic damage.
Spending a childhood with a family that doesn't want you presents the possibility of higher "problematic damage" than having the option to move to one that does.
Repeatedly engaging in your contradictory arguments isn't really something you should act on, nor is it something society ought to let you indulge. We're in agreement, there isn't much point in allowing you to indulge in these fallacies further. Adios.
Given the number of children in foster care or worse, the choice isn't between being in a home where you're wanted and one where you're not wanted, it's being in a home where you're not wanted or not in a home. Which do you think is worse for a child?
If there are SO MANY willing parties, why are the foster and adoption systems overloaded with children? Where are all these good Christian families who want to adopt these children!?
If it's so hard to find people to adopt, why on earth would we limit the pool even further by ensuring people can be 100% sure they can handle and integrate whatever random child they end up with? That's an impossible task, and would vastly reduce the potential adopter pool even further.
Sometimes adoption process fails, and the family can't handle the kid, perhaps even after years in that family. You can't just shut them in together like trapped rats with no escape hatch to seek another family to adopt so the kid has some chance of being with a family that wants them.
“No matter what” covers a lot of territory. What if your adopted child seriously harms your new baby because they have severe attachment disorder? Are psychopathic, whatever?
Lots of children available for adoption have all kinds of problems that standard parents can’t deal with.
Abandoning is one thing. Recognizing you’re in way over your head is another.
When you are way in over your head, the way out is to push through the dip.
A startup will have that moment.
A theatre production will have that moment.
Pretty much everything will have that moment.
Kids too. My biological brother almost drowned me and we somehow worked it out.
Having kids is a very serious affair. They didnt choose to have you. You chose to have them. It is probably the most important arena in life. Time to step up to the plate.
Almost being drowned once can't possibly be compared to forcing a kid to spend 18 years with parents who don't want them. I'm sure there may even be significant trauma from your near death experience, and I'm very sorry you experienced it. But the feeling a child has from a life in an unwanted family has to be, often times, as bad or worse.
If the board or the executive of a startup sees there is no chance of success with the executive, that person ought to bow out or be replaced so the company can have a chance with someone who can and wants to turn it around. If the startup becomes unviable and bankrupt, sometimes it's better to bow out and gracefully transfer the assets to a more viable executive and/or business rather than force something that isn't going to work.
I'm not saying that people should give up easily, but I think it's brave that some families recognize the better option for everyone is to re-adopt the kid a family that wants them rather than force them to live somewhere that's headed towards a train-wreck.
> What if your adopted child seriously harms your new baby because they have severe attachment disorder? Are psychopathic, whatever?
"Whatever" covers a lot of territory. Do you think "standard" children of "standard" parents don't do that? Where do you think all the school bullies and little entitled pricks and princesses come from? Some of them even manage to get elected in the office for some bizarre reason.
> Abandoning is one thing. Recognizing you’re in way over your head is another.
Abandoning your child is already a widespread thing, you just don't even think about it that way. It's when one of the parents walks away because they're "in way over my head". It's essentially cancelling the contract and saying fuck this, I can't do it.
So I really don't know where are you going with this.
In our case (NJ in US), we went through extensive adopt/foster training provided by State government. They were very blunt about the range of potential issues, the fact that most adopted kids will have some level of attachment disorder, many have been abused or neglected, many will have health or other mental issues.
We were prepared for some pretty difficult potential scenarios.
As it was, we got very, very lucky. Our kids are incredibly healthy. They did suffer neglect and abuse (the latter in foster care), but we somehow handled it. The general rule is the number of years of neglect or abuse is the number of years the kids will take to recover. It was right on the money for us, at 13, our son who was adopted at 7, is finally showing signs of complete normalcy.
If the parents don't want the child, I don't see how the child is better off in a resented home than being adopted to someone who wants them. Un-adopting into another family that wants the kid sounds a hell of a lot better than living with those who don't want you.
But I guess that's my point. Who would resent an adopted child? That's what they signed up for. It's more on the adopters poor reasons for choosing to adopt. I'm not disagreeing with you, just highlighting that it's not really a solution, as the problem isn't the child.
Putting the kid into a family where they're wanted isn't a solution?
Anyone who thinks they truly know what they're signed up for when adopting or birthing a kid is a liar. You can't predict what an 18 year commitment will be like to a human you barely know (adoption) or can't know (birth). If the adopted parents don't want the kid I'd much rather them gracefully bow out than force the kid into a situation that isn't working out.
That's what I'm getting at. You don't get to. It's the same with having a kid via birth. You don't just get to say this sucks halfway through and give up. It's not as of the system works well, it's not as if it's all fairy tales and sunshine. The kids don't just go into another perfect situation. Put another way its not a better situation for the kid, only an out for the parents.
There is no perfect situation. These are families that "un-adopt a child." They don't want the kid. It stands to reason the kid will (or at least may) be better off if the family that doesn't want it, can find one that does.
>Put another way its not a better situation for the kid, only an out for the parents.
You say this as if it's fact. I don't buy that a kid is always better off (or same) to be with someone who doesn't want them.
>You don't just get to say this sucks halfway through and give up.
You do, and part of the reason for this is because society decided adoption is better than not giving a release valve for situations where parenthood isn't in the interest of the involved parties. The alternative, banning these adoptions / re-adoptions, could result greater risk of dangerous and abusive situations. If you don't allow someone to exit a situation that they see going into a train-wreck, you seal the fate of the kid and the parents going into the train-wreck; better to give these persons an out.
I'm not saying any of that. Just that it's flat out wrong to adopt a child, then give up because it's not what you expected. That's what it is (parenthood). This isn't a job, soccer team or a friendship, it's family.
If you expected to be able to adequately care and integrate a child into your family, but you are unable to do so, then it makes sense a guardian may choose to adapt to the situation. If reality turns out the child can't be integrated or stay integrated with the family, I'd rather the guardian seek adoption from a family that wants them than let the situation slowly devolve into a train-wreck where they're unwanted.
Simply framing it as any sort of 'not expected' misrepresents the array of situations here.
It may be 'wrong' but at least everyone is better off. Part of life is knowing when to do something others consider 'wrong' so you can achieve the outcome that is 'right.' We shouldn't just shut off the ability to re-adopt out a kid and seal them in with an unwanting family like a trapped rat.
I feel like the solution is to screen adoptive parents much more thoroughly. It is incredibly traumatic to find out that the people you live with and depend on don't want you around any more. Whether you think the parents at that point should nut up or find a new placement for the kid, it's already messed the child up just knowing that they might lose their home and family. Why are people able to adopt 17 kids and live off the government checks? That's an actual example from this series of articles. Why is that ever allowed to happen?
If the adoptive parents are screened more thoroughly, and given resources and help getting through the tough parts, we would see a lot less of this.
You would see less, but it would still happen. There has to be some release valve other than putting the kid and parents into a corner like trapped rats, where risk for exposure to neglect/child abuse/trauma skyrocket. If you simply say a kid can't be re-adopted out by someone who's had them for X time, you're basically sealing the fate of some kids.
I agree that there should absolutely be a way to rehome children whose families aren't able to handle the situation. The point of the article was that it needs to be tracked and regulated much, much more thoroughly. The article focuses on these online groups where people advertise these children and hand them off to interested strangers with basically no safety checks in place.
It seems like this often happens with parents who have had enough issues with the authorities in the past that going through more legitimate avenues would trigger an investigation that would likely see all of their children removed from the home. Which is why I think the root of the problem is people who are not qualified being allowed to adopt children, often way more than any reasonable person could hope to care for.
I went and googled the advertising page of the second chance adoption agency discussed in this article, and it's just heartbreaking. On one hand, I really can't imagine what these "parents" were thinking adopting these children in the first place - the reasons for rehoming go from "major lifelong medical care required" to "child doesn't get along with his siblings" - but, in any case, doesn't seem like many of the issues would have been unknown or that unexpected at the time of the first adoption. I also have the distinct feeling that few of these parents would give these kids up at the ages of 8-10 if they were their own biological children.
Of course, on the other hand, I can't help but think that these kids should be removed ASAP from a home where a parent would consider giving them up after caring for them for 8-9 years.
Just really sad all around, my heart goes out to these kids.
> Doesn't seem like many of the issues would have been unknown
You would be surprised of how dishonest, abusive and manipulative can be the adopting programs.
I know the case of a Spanish couple without children that adopted a Chinese girl baby. Some time later they discovered in a routinely health check (in Spain) that the girl has Down's syndrome, a fact that was know obviously but carefully hidden by the Chinese authorities.
Looking at the children up for adoption today, a large portion seem to come from families with many other siblings. Who would have thought that children with special needs require dedicated attention?!
The other thing I was surprised to see is how many of these kids ‘love Jesus’ and want to go to a traditional (i.e. straight Christian) family. I would think that any loving family is better than being unwanted, regardless of their religion and genders.
Sometimes they do. I don't know how to tell the difference between “child's desires are being listened to” and “people are speaking for the child” other than talking to them – and often, children don't feel comfortable speaking their minds even when they're assured it's safe to do so, so it's hard for me to tell even then. (Ymmv: I imagine skilled practitioners of social-fu can tell the difference.)
But just because adults are saying that a child wants something, that doesn't mean the child doesn't want that thing.
Wow. It is alarmingly easy to offload your child. People are adopting children because they look cute without understanding why the child was available for adoption in the first place. Usually it is because they have such deep mental health problems that they need a very time-consuming and expensive amount of care to bring their quality of life up to something reasonable.
It's very sad for these children, and it's not even one that is easy for a government to solve. It's not like health insurance where the government can throw more money at the problem - these children need very dedicated, caring parents who are willing to adopt, which is a rare thing to find.
It is terrible. My parents were foster parents to two girls at different times. One was from a foreign country and had been previously adopted. A history of abuse and fetal alcohol syndrome meant lots of behavioral issues. We ended up all getting locks on our bedroom doors. It was extremely stressful and gives me some sympathy for the family that originally adopted her. Goes without saying that the kids get worst part of the deal. In those two cases they both ended up in group homes. The article mentions the foreign agency being honest but in this case the adoptive parents were lied to about the child’s condition
Not so easy choice. Parents that do it are disqualified for adoption programs in the future.
So if your adopted children start showing strong psycho traits, or a undisclosed medical condition that only the very rich could manage and you are a mother past your reproductive age or your partner is sterile the choice is -this- child and maybe another in the future, or no child at all, ever.
“…the Internet is a reflection of society, and people are using it for all kinds of communications and to tackle all sorts of problems, including very complicated issues such as this one.”
Note that the article is from 2013, and this is very much in line with Facebook’s stance overall: that they are just a forum for expression, and not in the business of policing speech. That stance has only softened, really, in the past few years.
> But according to the information provided by her parents, “This family has drastically changed their lifestyle and have left their faith and extended family for a quiet, secluded life.” It is their hope that “a different family will step forward who can provide her with the socialization and continued relationship with God that she desires.”
So they're saying that they are getting rid of her because she is too religious at the age of 10 to fit into their lives?
It sounds a bit like the family might have been ostracized from their church, friends, and extended family after leaving their faith. Those relationships may have been critical to the child's wellbeing, covering up poor parent/sibling relations. Or losing them caused behavioral issues all around.
Just speculation of course. My gut says if we knew all the details we'd have a harder time passing judgement on the parents.
> In other posts with more pictures, the reader learns that Reese is the youngest of four daughters; the other three are the biological children of her parents. She gets straight A’s. She loves her parents and her sisters.
But I agree, I wasn't passing judgement, I just thought that the motivation was a bit specious, and to specifically call out personal religious preference when talking about a 10 year old is super weird.
> This is a child with no special needs but wants to be in a family who goes to church. She loves to sing praise songs and read her Bible. She and her parents want her to be in a family that does this. She gets along with everyone and has no major behavioral problems. Her parents want her to be in a family that is involved in church, and church related activities.
A child starts getting very expensive after age 10. Most likely, this child had served its purpose in their lives and the parents are done with their parenthood phase. It is time for someone else to take over while they travel the world and enjoy the finer things in life child free. It is possible they were just pressured into being parents by their extended family, but they didn’t really want to be.
It's even more heart-breaking than that - this girl is the youngest of 4 daughters. Her 3 older sisters are biological children and presumably are being kept by the parents.
I live in an area with sane public transport, and if my kids need to get somewhere I can also drive them.
The amount of children with cars in my area would be a singular percentage.
As to phones, why would your child require a phone? I'm sure there are some useful scenarios - obsessive tracking, easy contact, etc - but these aren't necessary. For hundreds of generations kids didn't have phones (and billions around the world still don't), and it's rarely an issue.
I read this before I adopted, and it didn’t make any sense to me then.
Having now adopted, I’m willing to make a value judgement and say this absolutely horrific. It induces horror. I’m my kid’s parent.
Horrific, but I'm not surprised this happens. I have four biological kids. I know that parenting is hard. That's actually an understatement. I've often wondered how much harder it is when you don't have the biological connection and evolutionary drive to help slog through the hardest parts. To be very candid, I have moments where I feel like having kids was a bad decision, but I know that I'd still give my life for them. I can only speculate about how adoptive parents might feel at the hardest times.
Edited to add: I guess biological parents are the ones putting kids up for adoption in the first place, obviously. So the biological connection and evolutionary drive doesn't do much for some people.
> I've often wondered how much harder it is when you don't have the biological connection and evolutionary drive to help slog through the hardest parts
Fun my experience it hasn’t been one iota more difficult (2 biological and one adopted child) to deal with the hard parts. There’s never been a point when it even crosses my mind that one kid is ‘of me’ and the other isn’t…
I am an adoptive mother for 7 months already. I love my son very much and the fact that he carries somebody's else genes does not bother me at all. My son is from Thailand and I am Russian so we look very different. Still, not a problem The important thing here is that I take care of him and he accepts this care. (I do not have biological children and yes, parenting IS hard)
>So the biological connection and evolutionary drive doesn't do much for some people.
That doesn't follow at all. You can make zero assumptions about the why of that decision for any individual case nor how gut-wrenchingly difficult it is or is not. Nothing.
My dad's wife hated me, so I got kicked out at 15. Didn't stop my Dad from showing up at school and my job to threaten me.
The joys of adulthood, I deal with my horrible family when I want to. If you gave a bad family, it's imperative you estrange yourself.
In my 20s I made the mistake of trusting these disgusting people. Of course they lied to my face, stabbed me in the back, and asked me to co-sign a home loan afterwards. So my credit stays locked.
Trust is a luxury I can't afford.
Also, many step parents end up treating those kids like shit. If your not going to treat your step kids fairly, since you don't want to do it, don't date a single parent.
You have a bit of a catch-22, anyone mature enough to become a step parent will understand how much of responsibility it is. Thus, they'll be reluctant to do it.
Someone who lacks that maturity, will be much more eager to become a step parent as a condition of a new relationship.
I know I can't guarantee I'll be a good step parent. It's just an insanely hard thing to do, which takes a person stronger than myself.
So I don't date people with kids. I'd sooner die alone than put someone else though what I went though.
Consider going to therapy. Sometimes, the scars are not as deep as you initially thought.
Your story seems similar to my wife's, especially the part about being tricked into debt. We've managed to clear things up after many years of she and her brothers struggling. Good luck!
I definitely feel resonance for your position that estrangement is sometimes the best option, and is the one sure way to end a pattern of abuse that cannot otherwise be broken. I was lucky that my parents used it so much in my youth that when it came time for me to use it on them, I had seen many examples.
I might say that your family only has the power to haunt you that you now give them. Truly being able to say "you are no longer of significance to me" might lead you a place that you had not expected.
If the opening story about the 10 year old being put up for adoption 9+ years after being adopted as an infant is true, then I'm speechless. What an incredibly destructive, hateful thing to do. On the one hand, I don't think you should be able to do such things to a child. On the other hand, this is such a clear signal of how inappropriate you are as a parent that I guess the answer is to take the child as quickly as possible and seek to minimize the ongoing damage that is almost certainly already occuring.
It's terrible, but on the other hand I wish my parents / step parents had been courageous enough to do it rather than cowardly trying to make my life hell instead.
The more resources available for parents who shouldn’t become parents to stay childfree, the better.
Everyone decries the falling fertility rate. Let’s talk about how many kids who are in foster care every year (~400k in the US), who are in toxic homes, or who are homeless. We have a long way to go.
(I donate to non profits who subsidize voluntary permanent birth control and who advocate for the childfree)
What an unusually low-value comment from an otherwise high-value commenter. Do you take issue with the label “child free” or with the fact that some couples would prefer not to have children? Or maybe with the idea that an organization advocates for these people?
All of the above. I’m from a Muslim country—in Islam, getting married and having children (if you’re able) is a moral duty. I was never a practicing Muslim, but I believe that this view is basically correct. Society as a whole needs to be engaged in the project of raising the next generation, and that breaks down if having children is treated as an individual choice. Raising kids in America—especially in urban areas among more educated people—is just such a sad, atomized experience. Not only compared to back home in Bangladesh, but even my own upbringing in America.
America has been good to my family but I’m genuinely worried whether we came here in some sort of terminal stage of American society. I’m terrified my own kids are going to adopt these ideas. What would have been the point of leaving all our friends and family behind to immigrate here if our family just dies out on this stupid continent?
“Society as a whole needs to be engaged in the project of raising the next generation, and that breaks down if having children is treated as an individual choice. Raising kids in America—especially in urban areas among more educated people—is just such a sad, atomized experience”
This entire paragraph is three assertions given without evidence. Feel free to own these ideas as if they are truths but arguing axiomatically from them is just wrong.
For me, I think you can find a plethora of examples throughout history that show positive societal contributions from people divorced from child rearing and raising a child is the very definition of personal choice.
Finally, I’m in about the most liberal, urban, educated environment you can live in the US and I can’t imagine how much more engaged the community could be in for parenting. It’s a source of constant joy to me how engaged my family is with our community and vice versa.
Perhaps your view on this reflects the specific choices you made in where to live and raise your family? Try not to extrapolate too much from a singular data point.
> This entire paragraph is three assertions given without evidence. Feel free to own these ideas as if they are truths but arguing axiomatically from them is just wrong.
Sure, morality and the purpose of life are generally axiomatic. The notion that society should elevate personal choice, instead of impressing upon people expected behaviors, is also axiomatic. But there’s also an empirical element. In North America, virtually all population growth will come from Latin American immigrants who have more traditional notions of family. In Europe it’ll be Muslims. Individualistic culture is at the height of its power, but there’s a good chance it’s on the wane.
> Finally, I’m in about the most liberal, urban, educated environment you can live in the US and I can’t imagine how much more engaged the community could be in for parenting. It’s a source of constant joy to me how engaged my family is with our community and vice versa.
Except there’s no kids! We’re down from children being 36% of the population in 1960 to 22%. In places like San Francisco it’s 13%. There’s network effects to parenting and being a kid that disappear when the concentration of parents and kids decreases. Parenting is a lonely experience in a modern American city, especially if you have kids in your 20s. You may know other parents, but you have to “organize something” to see them socially. The “roving band of neighborhood kids” is a distant memory. (I’m reminded of the show “Hey Arnold,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hey_Arnold!, which depicts urban life full of kids in a way that seems almost anachronistic.)
Arguing axiomatically then, I think the decline in roving bands of kids is directly tied to 2 completely different issues than you.
The first is the end result of 50 years of car centric city planning. It is unsafe for kids to rove in many places.
The second is the gutting of local public schools. Because wealthy parents are now encouraged to transport their children to far away schools and non-school affiliated activities the family spends all of its time in cars away from their neighborhood.
And for what it’s worth roving bands of kids are a common occurrence here in Hyde Park Chicago. It’s one of the reasons I live here.
> What would have been the point of leaving all our friends and family behind to immigrate here if our family just dies out on this stupid continent?
The point would be that, hopefully, the move enabled you and your children to have happier lives. It's enough to enjoy good things while they last, regardless of how long that is.
The future of the world itself is pretty uncertain at this point. I, for one, wouldn't want to father a child, only to have their experience growing up be like chapter 1 of Ready Player One (the book), i.e. civilization in decline, with parents who weren't prepared for it. Why risk adding to the suffering that might be coming? There will certainly be enough people having children to keep humanity going regardless.
Did I say anything about birth control? I’m not Catholic. I’m talking about defining “child free” as some sort of identity instead of being a disappointment to your mom quietly. It’s like building an identity around stealing other people’s lunches from the office fridge. If you’re going to do it, do it in a way that maintains plausible deniability.
As a Catholic: this is a bad, reactionary take. Pull up any of the dozens of lists of "famous childless people" Google will give you and note how many of them you wouldn't ever think to accuse of "stealing other people's lunches from the office fridge". Our duty is to leave the world a better place than we found it. One way to do that is indeed to raise children to keep the ball rolling forward, but there are others.
Obnoxious cosmopolitan liberals are, well, obnoxious about valorizing childlessness, which is not by itself a moral virtue. But forgoing the comforts of family in the service of a greater goal is. You're trying to take soi-disant elites down a peg, as you often do, but you've wildly overshot your mark here.
Like I said I’m not Catholic. I suspect my view on this is strongly shaped by Islam, as a matter of acculturation rather than theology. The way I see it, America isn’t morally different from a Bangladeshi village. Our efforts are more specialized and allow us to subsist in greater comfort. But the history books won’t talk about 99% of people involved with Facebook any more than they’ll talk about Bangladeshi rice farmers. For all but a few of us, our kids are the only legacy we’ll leave.
I’m not taking aim at “elites.” Living life to maximize personal self-gratification is pervasive in American culture. I’m mad at the elites only insofar as they’re fishing for moral justifications for this practice, where I think non-elites at least are a little beholden to traditional socialization and feel a little guilty for “not doing what they’re supposed to do.”
I feel like I wrote a pretty concise and direct comment, and you didn't really read it. We agree that living life to maximize personal self-gratification isn't a moral good, and that it's bad to valorize doing so. Where we part company is your belief that choosing not to have children is evidence that someone is living a life for their own gratification; clearly: no.
It's silly for people who've decided they don't want to be parents to then style themselves as marginalized and build an identity around opposition to their imagined persecution. There's nothing wrong with not reproducing, but really you have more in common with parents of one child than they have in common with parents of six children.
I don't have any pets. Do I need a special interest group?
Reproducing for the sake of doing so is clearing becoming passé [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. High level, the world needs less people [7]. Lots of roads to get there, all valid as long as they don't cause harm in the process. Live your best life, and for many, that means being childfree. If you're a decent, responsible parent, more power to you, as long as you're willing to shoulder the costs of your children. Culture and passing of it down is seemingly overrated in the current era (outside of some belief systems), and even the Mongol Empire ran out of steam (despite Genghis Khan's progeny and reproductive efforts). Build strong institutions that will withstand the test of time, versus traditional families, marriages, and progeny. Arguably, this is an indicator of an advanced civilization, versus relying on families and tribalism for strength and culture.
> Lots of roads to get there, all valid as long as they don't cause harm in the process. Live your best life
I understand the axioms that lead to this assertion, but I reject the premise. It’s a terminal-stage evolution of western individualism. You don’t just have an obligation to yourself. The “child free” deprive their parents of grand kids, their siblings’ children of nieces and nephews, their neighbors of a bustling joyful society full of children.
From a technologist point of view it’s also just sad and defeatist. At the limit, we could solve climate change by just all killing our selves. You’re proposing to do that, just slower.
Children owe their parents and extended family nothing, as they had no choice being brought into the world. What they do with their life is entirely their choosing. Not everyone considers children joyful, but instead a burdensome, unnecessary obligation they can opt out of in nations with strong human rights protections. There is a difference between suicide as a species and an individual voluntarily choosing to not reproduce (for economic, lifestyle, or other reasons).
Life is lived and enjoyed, not owed.
I assume these differences in views are cultural, and will continue to drift as cohorts age in and age out of the populace.
> Children owe their parents and extended family nothing, as they had no choice being brought into the world. What they do with their life is entirely their choosing.
Terminal-state Western individualism. Not everything is about “choice.” Life chooses for us, gives us roles and duties and obligations. We come into this world owing a debt to our parents and family who help care for us that we can never repay, only pay forward to the next generation.
I chime in only to say thank you, because a mere upvote seemed insufficient. Nowhere else, other than from you, can I get these viewpoints, and uttered in such thought-provoking and impactful ways. Please never leave us. :)
I would call it a duty more than a debt. I feel that I have a duty to look after my elders, but I do not think my children owe me a debt for conceiving them or for performing my own duty to take care of them.
>We come into this world owing a debt to our parents and family who help care for us that we can never repay
Are you sure this belief is not the long-term effects of a kind of Stockholm syndrome? Namely, a irrational reaction to those years when you were utterly dependent on your parents?
Being as people have been around for at least 500 centuries, and birthrate are leveling off, if this were going to "self-correct", it would have already.
I just can't get over the fact that it's somehow legal in the US to advertise young children for adoption on the (public) web, complete with portrait photos and descriptions of their personalities and backgrounds.
Advertising to the biggest audience means the greater the choice between parents for the kid. This isn't a bad strategy. If more people got facebook ads for kids they could adopt there would be more placement.
The privacy question is based on permission from the parent. Many kids model and similiar bios would be available in that setting available publically.
“If more people got facebook ads for kids they could adopt there would be more placement.”
I remember talking to a couple who had adopted a child. They told me that there would be more placement if the process wasn’t as difficult and insanely expensive as it is now. A lot of people who want to adopt a child are basically forced to go to foreign countries because it’s too hard at home in the US. No need for Facebook ads.
Adopting a healthy infant is difficult and expensive because there is more demand for these babies than supply. We don’t need more adoptive families for heathy infants. Adopting an older child is a different situation entirely. It sounds like you are describing a family who was pursuing a healthy infant exclusively.
That could be. I think they adopted a 2 year old. But in any case the process should not be made difficult or especially expensive (why?). It turns away a lot of well intended people.
I have seen the same with animal rescues. Some are very difficult to deal with (mostly because of bad prior experiences) so people go to breeders. In one way it's understandable but when you think about it it's unproductive and self-defeating to punish people for misbehavior of others (people also do this in relationships).
What’s the alternative? I assume that you’re not suggesting that one signs up for adoption and gets assigned a random child. So the alternative is agents with access to the inventory (children) and clients (potential parents). I don’t understand why that’s better than letting clients browsing inventory by themselves.
Referring to children as "inventory" is implies all sorts of negative things. Adoption isn't the same as a transaction where you peruse the "inventory" for a new hot tub or something.
Those interested in adoption should be _so_ interested, that they're willing to go meet in-person with an agency who can introduce them to the children.
The biggest problem agencies have is getting parents to come down. By advertising with pictures people will emotionally bond with a specific child which will prompt them to go through the long, expensive agency adoption process.
Charities use images of children to sell the charity.
Yeah, that still strikes me as gross and undignified, and I don't buy the premise that you need to show specific images of specific children that are available for adoption _right now_ to increase the rate at which parents come down.
> Charities use images of children to sell the charity.
> Those interested in adoption should be _so_ interested
That's what everyone would like... except that even if they are sloppy (not saying that they are) there's still a lot of children that are never going to be adopted. Do you believe that's better? Spoiler: it's not, because you're making sure most children will have a disfunctional adult life (growing up without a family is extremely hard) instead of allowing more children to live a normal life, but with the increased probability of a few living with bad parents (the number of cases where that's worse than no family at all is probably very small).
I have no issue with clients browsing inventory. But for privacy reasons that inventory should be very well controlled. Preferably in person. So no online access.
I guess your solution is to not advertise at all and instead have more children in state facilities, where abuse and neglect is orders of magnitude more likely.
Kids raised in state facilities get chewed up and spat out, according to statistics.
Giving up any child seems like child abuse to me once you consider the mental trauma of a child who has to live with the fact that there is nobody to love and care for them.
Between high school and college I was a camp counselor. Had a camper who had been adopted out of a horrific situation somewhere in Central America. Was put into a home where I'm sure they were well-intentioned, but completely in over there heads as to the level of mental and emotional trauma this little guy had been through. I don't think he even made it through the full week of camp, and I would strongly suspect he ended up institutionalized somewhere.
I bring this up not to give anyone a free pass, but simply to say that I can well imagine there are cases where well-meaning people discover they are in way over their heads. Clearly it should be the goal of the system to not place a child into that situation in their first place, but I can see where it happens. As for some of these other stories where the adults are clearly just a bunch of jerks... again, would seem like the system should avoid that situation, but there is such a backlog of kids needing homes that it isn't hard to understand why it happens.
The title sounds like it’s going to be discussing a general adoption phenomenon, but the example it starts with is just crazy religious people in utah. I don’t think that normal-minded people can learn anything applicable from people whose minds and lives are dominated by superstitious delusion.
These sort of forum posts should come with 2 disclaimers.
I'm a parent. Y/N
I'm adopted. Y/N
With that out of the way, people need to realize that the adoption pool is biased to kids with severe issues. Mostly because some portion of kids were places on adoption because of genetic issues, and the rest will probably develop issues as a result of adoptio. Only the very best of parents are even considering adoption from said pool.
I was surprised the failure rate is only ~5%. We can hope for better but -i think- 5% can be celebrated.
I knew someone from Cuba, and they said they had a very loose way of doing relationships. Basically everyone was cheating, much drama, etc. pp.
But they said, everyone cared for the children. Many families would have a whole bunch of half siblings, but they were always cared for by the grater family, even if the parents themselves werent able to do so.
I don't really understand the negative tone here. Of course there are cases where parents will want to give up a child, for good or bad reasons. Of course that applies to adopted children too. I've heard wildly varying things about how much screening is applied to adoptive parents - some people complain about a lack of screening, others about a hugely expensive and complex process. None of those wringing their hands seem to have a positive proposal to make things better.
