I see that the Russkies have their panties in a bunch over Americans adopting their orphan children because one woman decided the kid she’d adopted was probably going to murder her in her bed and sent him back to Russia postage due or some such.
I’m not going to go into whether or not she should have done so, or if she exhausted all counseling/theraputic options before she did. That’s beside the larger point.
Which is: This whole sad story leads directly to the grand question that I’ve been dying to ask ever since a friend of mine several years ago adopted a Russian orphan (who, by the way, is the sweetest little girl you’d ever want to meet — too bad her adoptive mother has turned into a raging insane bitch and thrown her adoptive father out of the house).
Why in hell aren’t we adopting our OWN orphans?
Why do Americans have to go to Russia and China to adopt children?
I know there are damn few orphanages left in the US. But does that mean we don’t have orphans anymore? Or children who need to live in a home other than the one their crack whore mommy provided and that they were removed from?
Goddamn people need to get their priorities straight. We need to take care of our own first.
(And yes, I know part of the reason: Nice liberal white folks don’t want to adopt black crack babies, or “troublesome” young black children, so they go looking for nice white Russian children or nice pale Chinese children. Goddamn liberals are the biggest hypocrites around.)
3 Replies to “Speaking of cognitive dissonance”
Comments are closed.
Also abortion. Something tells me a good chunk of that missing 40 million would’ve been in the adoption queue otherwise.
I think the reasoning behind it isn’t all skin color prejudice. I’m not a lawyer, but a moderately informed layman, but there is also a great deal of legal paperwork to be done to adopt an American child. The parents have to either voluntarily relinquish their parental rights, or a court has to revoke them. It should in my opinion be hard to get a court to revoke someone’s parental rights.
This comment is going to sound cold, but if you’re going to pay $10,000 to adopt a child, why wouldn’t you shop around for one that isn’t hopelessly broken already?
“This comment is going to sound cold, but if you’re going to pay $10,000 to adopt a child, why wouldn’t you shop around for one that isn’t hopelessly broken already?”
It depends, I guess, on what your motives for adopting are.
In my opinion, broken children deserve a loving and nurturing home just as much as unbroken ones do. The cold hard truth is that broken children need more attention than most American would-be adoptive parents want to lavish on them. (This is fairly clear given that they don’t appear to want to lavish much attention on their own natural children, either.)
But the whole adoption racket is broken anyway. Which is why I generally consider it to be a racket.