[ SECRET POST #2552 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2552 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.



__________________________________________________


11.














Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 04 pages, 077 secrets from Secret Submission Post #364.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Foster care and adoption are two very different things.

The whole point of foster care is to get the families back together. Babies in foster care don't get to be adopted just like anyone of any age in foster care. Not until the parents either give up their rights or the courts say that no matter what they do they can never have their kids back. Which is rare as I said before since the goal with foster care is to help the families get back together.

People want babies and yes there are many perks to getting them from outside the US, but one of them is the wait time. But even talking about the foster care system (which I do think we need to do more with and spend more money on) when talking about adoption is backwards logic. People are going outside of the US to adopt babies—foster care has never been something they wanted to do.

We aren't talking about the same people here.

Babies whose parents give up their rights might go into the foster care system while the paper work is being finalised for an adoption, but they don't sit there until they turn eighteen without a disability most new parents don't want to take on. But killing thousands of healthy babies isn't going to suddenly make these parents want to take on a disabled child.

One way they get the older children in foster care who are up for adoption in homes is by not allowing a baby (under a year old) who has siblings in the system to be adopted without taking them in as well.

Once that baby turns 1, then they are allowed to be adopted separately. And they are, right away.

Are older children in foster care because no one wants to adopt them a problem? Yes, of course. Are people going to suddenly start adopting them, because we make who they really want to adopt unavailable by killing them? No. The best way to get older children adopted out is by them having a sibling born that their parents aren't allowed to keep by giving people what they want (the baby) if they take on an older child as well.

This doesn't work all the time; obviously tons of people are happy waiting the year.

I do think we need to do a big push in advertising or incentives or something to get older kids in stable homes through foster care and adoption. But you have to remember that all the kids in foster care are not up for adoption. Some of them are, but most of them aren't.

Now I know the statistics show a different story than my experience but I had a lot of friends in foster care and none of them had the options of being adopted to begin with, even though they aged out of the system. Some of them have families from their foster care days that they consider their real families, but they were never adopted. It wasn't an option. But I didn't live in a big city where I'm sure there are a lot more needing to be adopted.

One of the hardest things about being a foster parent is knowing that you'll have to let these kids go (possibly over and over again) that you're taking care of and falling in love with. It's hard to let them go; its even harder when they come back a few months later with a broken arm and then having to let them go again.

tl;dr Everything you mentioned has nothing to do with actually giving birth to babies not wanted by their parents, but those parents keeping the kids instead of giving them up for adoption. I agree that people who don't want kids shouldn't be raising them, but I just don't agree that they should kill them to accomplish this.

[darkmanifest]

Thank you, sincerely, for educating me on the difference between adoption and foster care - I did not know much of that and I apologize for my ignorance. You just confirmed that it's even worse than I thought, if an abusive mother refuses to give up rights but abuse can't be proven enough to have rights taken away, then children can bounce back and forth between bad foster homes and bad birth parents without any chance of escape. And mothers who might be that kind of spiteful should be forced to give birth anyway?

But killing thousands of healthy babies isn't going to suddenly make these parents want to take on a disabled child.

I'm not trying to make anybody do anything they don't want to do. One of the many reasons a woman might abort is upon discovering her child will be born with special needs that she doesn't feel capable of handling; we can determine many disabilities in the womb. There's also mothers who happily decide to birth and raise such children. They choose. That's the point.

Are older children in foster care because no one wants to adopt them a problem? Yes, of course. Are people going to suddenly start adopting them, because we make who they really want to adopt unavailable by killing them? No. The best way to get older children adopted out is by them having a sibling born that their parents aren't allowed to keep by giving people what they want (the baby) if they take on an older child as well.

So the solution for unwanted children is not only to force mothers to give birth, but to force people who want to adopt to take on more children than they want? Some people are just all about forcing children on people who don't want them. But, again, thank you, you just educated me on yet another reason why people go outside the U.S. to adopt infants, when they don't want to wait a year.

Are people going to suddenly start adopting them, because we make who they really want to adopt unavailable by killing them? No.

Are people going to suddenly start adopting all the children there are if we have even more kids in the system by outlawing abortion? No. The number of adoptive parents or good foster homes for kids in a custody situation will not magically increase with the number of kids who need them.

It's hard to let them go; its even harder when they come back a few months later with a broken arm and then having to let them go again.

...and this is supposed to be better than abortion?

I don't agree that killing unborn kids is an ideal solution, either, because it's not - it's extreme damage control in the face of flawed and limited options. The ideal is comprehensive education, affordable birth control, and better safety nets for parents and children alike. But when all those ideals are lacking - which they most emphatically are in the U.S. as it is right now - elective abortion is what we have left. Outlawing it will not give women what they need to be happy and capable mothers. But keeping it legal will at least keep them from being mothers at all and prevent a lot of problems before they came about instead of letting them increase and complicate in the name of airy ideals.