Replies

Don't we have American kids who need to be adopted--or is there something wrong with
orphaned American kids?

Post #23 covers a lot of the territory.

For the American kids...there is nothing wrong with them.
The problems are mostly adult. Such as the social workers pushing same-race adoptions.

Before it went out of circulation, the weekly NewTimesLA had a long article about a
white, church-going couple who were subjected to some pretty nasty crap by
"civil servants" when they adopted an black American child.
These hyper-tolerant bureaucrats seem to think that cross-race (or cross-cultural) adoption
is some sort of white-man's plan for racial/cultural genocide for "people of color".

As for these idealogues, it's not "all about the children", it's "all about the race".

The problems are mostly adult. Such as the social workers pushing same-race adoptions.

Not to mention same-sex "parents".

I suspect a homosexual "couple" starts out with a significant advantage in many if not most venues these days.

Moving right along, completely unrelated to anything I've seen mentioned (so far) in this thread is something I've personally observed that happens to some people who adopt American babies.

I'm not saying it's always the case -- or even often the case. What I am saying is that in virtually every case that I've seen, there has been a nightmare aspect to the situation regarding what I'll politely term "genetics."

Please note that I am not talking "race". I do not recognize "race". If the parents and the child are all humans, then they are of the same race.

That said, from my own observation, it seems that there is a significant nonzero number of adoption scenarios in which the biological "parents" are... defective. They are people who, as the aporism goes, should not breed -- and when they do breed, they pass along their own characteristics.

This will probably evoke some flames from people, but c'est la vie. I'm just saying what I've personally observed. Children born to parents who come from a multigenerational "bottom of the ladder" lifestyle carry a certain type of baggage that IMO is genetic, rather than something they picked up via "environment."

Anyone who's had the opportunity to observe "pockets of poverty" -- I'm talking about isolated, cloistered collections of people (I hesitate to use the word "communities"), where there is little if any "new blood" entering the gene pool for generation after generation -- will know what I'm talking about.

There are people who are born to misery, and it's in their bones. Even if you take them fresh out of the womb and they have absolutely no exposure to the hellholes their forebears have created for themselves, they grow into something that brings more grief to their adopted parents than anyone deserves to suffer.

IMO it's better to be childless, than to raise a baby that turns into a sociopathic beast, who literally destroys your lives.

And it's better yet to adopt a normal child from a foreign country, where the only disadvantage is economic, rather than genetic.

Given the choice between rescuing a normal foreign child from a short, squalid life spent toiling in the rice paddies (or worse, far worse), or, a "genetically troubled" (and possibly further damaged by lack of prenatal care, and/or fetal exposure to drugs and alcohol) American infant, well, it doesn't strike me as a very difficult decision.

Like I said, "race" is not the issue. I feel I have to emphasize this because the word "genetics" has politically incorrect baggage of its own these days. And to reiterate (in closing!), this is something I've personally observed time and again, pretty much to the exclusion of good outcomes.