The journey from there to here
Published on December 14, 2005 By Gideon MacLeish In Current Events

The trendy new thing among American liberal celebrities is adopting babies from Third World countries. Instead of a mink stole, it's now fashionable for a celebrity to sport a baby from an ethnic minority for a photo op before handing the baby off to a nanny to parent the remaining 23 hours, 59 minutes of the day.

A lot of money has been spent extolling the virtues of adoptive parents as especially noble, caring and giving individuals. And some of them are. Certainly the middle income families who put their homes up for second mortgages to adopt a child from an orphanage in Asia would qualify. But increasingly, adoption is becoming a selfish option.

Once upon a time, a mother, hard pressed by her financial situation and deserted by the father of her child, would place the baby up for adoption in the hopes that another family with more to give would want the baby and take it as their own. But with abortion on demand that is often paid for through "social" programs, less and less unwanted babies are available on the market. The supply, in other words, has decreased. But the demand has, if anything, INCREASED, as homosexual families wanting to "have it all" and obviously unable to have children the "natural" way look to the free market to find a baby. They comfort themselves with the delusion that the child was "unwanted", a delusion that is all too often untrue.

Do these celebrities, these fashionistas, think for one minute of the lives they may ruin by stripping a baby from a loving family on the grounds that they are better equipped to care for it? Do they care about the reign of terror played out on innocent, loving families in America's inner cities as Child "Protective" Services workers rip apart their lives, looking for SOME reason, ANY reason, to remove the child and place it up on the open market? Furthermore, do these "educated, enlightened" individuals even bother to CHECK the facts when they are presented with them? Or do they only care that their demand is fueled by a continual supply?

Celebrities could do much to imrove the lives of the families teir decisions affect. But doing so would work against their own self interest, as well fed, well housed, well educated families priovide less excuse for the government slave trade that is our nation's adoption mill.

Once upon a time, adoption may have been a loving option. But, "once upon a time" exists only in fairy tales, and in this day and age, so does the myth of "selfless adoptions".


Comments
on Dec 14, 2005

Once upon a time, adoption may have been a loving option. But, "once upon a time" exists only in fairy tales, and in this day and age, so does the myth of "selfless adoptions".

I disagree and agree.  I think you hit the nail on the head with the celebrities, but there are still many loving couples out their that cannot have children (heteros) and do want the 'loving option'.  I know of one such couple that spent thousands of dollars and years to adopt.  They just were not able to conceive a child themselves.

on Dec 14, 2005

Dr.,

But my point was (and is): would they want the child if they knew the child was being stolen from a family that loved the child just as much but was simply not as financially well off? We shouldn't KIDNAP children to meet the demand.

on Dec 14, 2005

But my point was (and is): would they want the child if they knew the child was being stolen from a family that loved the child just as much but was simply not as financially well off? We shouldn't KIDNAP children to meet the demand.

Ok, I agree I missed that point.  However, most people do not "kidnap" (the regular people) and that is why it takes so long and costs so much.

on Dec 14, 2005
Gid, so you are saying that these children that are available to be adopted are taken from the parents against their will. I don't know the statistics but I would say that would be a small percentage of the children that are available for adoption. Educate me if I'm wrong. Don't the parents have to sign their parental rights away for the children to be put up for adoption?

I think anyone who opens their hearts and homes to an adoptive child is being giving and loving, not selfish.
on Dec 15, 2005

Gid, so you are saying that these children that are available to be adopted are taken from the parents against their will. I don't know the statistics but I would say that would be a small percentage of the children that are available for adoption. Educate me if I'm wrong. Don't the parents have to sign their parental rights away for the children to be put up for adoption?

Loca,

That may be true of international adoptions. It is NOT true of American adoptions. While there are some American children who were put up voluntarily by their parents, the majority are stolen by CPS (580,000 children in US foster care; 97% of those parents are not even CHARGED with criminal wrongdoing). Parents' rights are routinely infringed on and they are given NO representation until CPS begins proceedings to terminate parental rights, by which time a mountain of evidence has often been illegally obtained, evidence that is usually not suppressed because the attorneys do not want the reputation of "defending child abusers" (when most parents, in fact, are NOT). In CPS proceedings, you are considered guilty until proven innocent. Lives are torn apart, parents divorce and sometimes commit suicide because of the unconstitutional actions of CPS as it attempts to meet the demand of the adoption industry, which is fueled by parents who justify it by believing they're "better" parents than those from whom the children are stolen.

Adoption was once a truly loving option. And, in the hearts of some, it still is. But FAR too many American adoptions are legalized kidnappings, and we should put a stop to it.

on Dec 15, 2005
That would be a truly, tragic situation. This is definately one case where the financial status of the parents is a huge stumbling block. People who can't afford lawyers are just at the mercy of the system. I thought that CPS was supposed to make it a priority to keep the families together if that were at all possible? They need to overhaul the whole system to have more accountability and more safety nets put in place for parents who want to keep their children.
on Dec 15, 2005
I thought that CPS was supposed to make it a priority to keep the families together if that were at all possible?


Well, that's their stated goal. BUT, states base funding on the number of children they remove from the home (a quota based system, basically), which works contrary to that goal.

They need to overhaul the whole system to have more accountability and more safety nets put in place for parents who want to keep their children.


Precisely. Parents should only lose custodial rights to their children if they have been CRIMINALLY PROVEN guilty of abuse or neglect (which requires a standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt") versus CIVILLY LIABLE (which requires a MUCH lower standard of "preponderance of evidence"), or if they VOLUNTARILY surrender those rights. But that is not the case as it is.