I think this is very weird.
Someone please nuke this thread
4 Likes
The genes part is the obvious selfishness/self-regard/self-involvement. Good number of people are able to overcome that but would still want to start with an infant because they want to see what I’d call “the fruits of their parenting.” When the kid becomes an adult they want to be able to say “I raised that man/woman.” Think there is high demand for infants of all colors, not just white, for that reason.
Once the kid is older then that becomes less and less. Think even then a fair number of people could overcome that if they knew they could say, “I’ll adopt this kid and be able to say I raised the kid since age X.”
But obviously some adult has a connection with that kid, otherwise you’d be adopting them as in infant. My understanding is that it is usually an unfit parent… so they give you custody of the child but the parent can get the kid back if they clean their act up. Obviously that is tough for people who are adopting to form a lifelong bond with “their kid.”
Obviously there’s a difference between a child I was raising and all the other children in the world
Are all the adoptive parents and step parents liars when they talk about no difference between their bio kids and non bio kids? I honestly do not know
Kids in foster care can in many cases be adopted, with the bio parent at that point not having legal recourse to get the kid back
Again, I did not make a statement about selfishness. I made a statement about needs. Good for the people who adopt despite their need for bio kids. That wasn’t what I was talking about. I’m saying that absent the need myself (and therefore not being able to either unselfishly sacrifice) it seems weird to me. I can’t put myself in those shoes. Same as buttfucking a man seems weird to people who don’t have that need. They can’t put themselves in those shoes.
I think some are probably liars. I think the ones that truly mean it are weird. Not in a bad way at all. They’re arguably better people. Just atypical from the norm. There is nothing wrong with being wired like that. But it is unusual.
Could cut both ways, bio kids judged more harshly because they reflect more on you.
When that happens, they always love the bio kid more. Always.
Although in that spot, being “less loved” may be optimal.
Attacking Buttigieg over his baby pictures functions, whether knowingly or unknowingly as an appeal based on non-policy reasons. If he were a poster on this forum, it would be a personal attack for non-policy reasons.
This is how modern American politics works. Personal attacks are useful and meaningful. I’ve argued that Democrats have a problem about not making such attacks against Republicans because they see themselves as the grown-ups in the room, then become incredulous that this doesn’t work.
Sure, this forum is probably meaningless in the grand scheme of things, but the back and forth in this thread is exactly how I think Democrats should be treating Republicans instead of pining for the days of a day when a more responsible establishment controlled the GOP.
I’m complete lost in this thread as far as who thinks what, but I think elevating “that’s a bit odd, but who cares” to “attacking Buttigieg over his baby pictures” is a gross mischaracterization of what happened here. I can’t even tell if you are saying that is what happened here.
1 Like
I’m saying it doesn’t really matter if it is a gross mis-characterization because sometimes that’s just good politics that exploits the media’s unwillingness to fact-check rigorously.
Interesting ideas, but personally, I’m going to take the word of the Buttigieg staffer who posts on our forum as to what the real story is here.
3 Likes
I think it’s a very nice picture. (just seeing it today). …don’t think I’d put more thought into it than that.
1 Like
I love being called a liar, let me tell you. It’s my favorite thing about this forum.
I know the cynicism that dominates here will not allow you to believe that there were millions of people who were inspired by Pete’s campaign and his Rules of the Road, but we exist. And one of those rules was Truth.
I don’t lie. If you disagree with my opinions, that is not a lie on my part. If you disagree with facts, well, I can’t help you.
The media was never cogent about Pete’s kids and how it came about. Many just assumed surrogacy and printed it. And why not? It’s more controversial than adoption and that means more clicks.
Also, from a common sense standpoint, why the hell would they not know about twins from a surrogate they supposedly made an arrangement with until the night before? Makes no sense.
2 Likes
I feel no regrets about derailing this tirefire of a thread, so here’s a question for anyone who knows.
How does this adoption of newborns work exactly? Why does the adopting family only know days before. Presumably the mom has decided long before they are going to give the child(ren) up. And presumably the adopting family has been vetted and is on some sort of list. So, why is there so much uncertainty until right around the time of birth.
What I’d have assumed is they would be matched up at least a month or more in advance. Maybe if the mom changes her mind after giving birth, that would change things, but barring that and some edge cases (e.g. baby dies at birth) I don’t see why there wouldn’t be a plan in place for months that would simply be followed with no real surprises for anyone.
Thanks. That just kind of scratches the surface for me. What I’m most curious about is the “babies who have been abandoned or surrendered at very little notice”? I can imagine the reverse happening quite easily (i.e., you think you want to give the baby up but you can’t actually do it when the baby arrives). But thinking your are going to keep the baby and then just snap deciding that you’re going to give it up seems really weird. But apparently it happens enough that there is an established process for handling it.
-
It is always possible for life circumstances to change in a way that makes someone change their mind about raising a child.
-
No data, but just based on feels, I could imagine a lot of situations where someone has made the decision in their mind to place the child for adoption, but hasn’t yet gone through the official process to do so. Thinking of the people who are most likely to place their child for adoption, many are busy, stressed, and may not have the time or resources to reach out to adoption agencies and get the process started. They may have limited access to the internet to research the adoption process, or limited transportation to visit agencies. They might have been working until very close to the delivery date. Maybe the baby was born prematurely and they were caught by surprise.
Come on, oreo. You know I’m looking for the lazy way out here.
#1 crossed my mind, but my feels (also no data) tell me this is probably also rare. For most people who intend to keep a baby, there are nearly no life changes that will make them give it up.
#2 I didn’t think of and makes sense. However, even women who intend to give up babies for an adoption generally want the babies to end up in the best situation possible. Also I assume they want to make sure the baby is gone ASAP, because I assume the longer the baby is theirs the more painful giving the baby up will be. So as much as I can empathize with procrastination, I do have a hard time imagining a lot of it in this spot. But I’m sure that accounts for some of the numbers.
I probably need to follow oreo’s suggestion and go read some stuff.