International Adoptions and the LEISURE class

[Greegor]

lostintranslation:
I am not against international adoption, but the
"market" for it and the amount of money that
changes hands reveals some MAJOR problems
with the attitudes and motivations truly involved.

It serves also as an indicator of some of the
pressure that exists to provide children for
state Foster/Adopter programs.

International adoptions certainly draw into question
the true need for ongoing SUBSIDIES once children are
adopted from the Foster/Adopter programs.

My biggest complaint about international adoption
is the perpetuation of some ultraliberal MYTH that
it's done for noble reasons, rather than SELFISH
reasons of some affluent person.

It's a bit like my complaint about the Mary Ellen
story where rich people were so heart rended by
the media story they wanted to help.

The money in some cases came from LABOR done by
children who DIED in those same rich people's coal mines.

THOUSANDS died in the coal mines, but the fat cats
didn't care about THEM, like they did about Mary Ellen.

Mary Ellen became the "poster child" literally for
the Child Protection INDUSTRY.

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> lostintranslation:
> I am not against international adoption, but the
> "market" for it and the amount of money that
> changes hands reveals some MAJOR problems
> with the attitudes and motivations truly involved.

Tell us more.

> It serves also as an indicator of some of the
> pressure that exists to provide children for
> state Foster/Adopter programs.

Why? How much money changes hands and for what services?

The attorneys that provide the paperwork and submission to the court are
paid about 300 to 350 the last time I checked.

Are they going to get rich doing this?

Families waiting to adopt that incur expenses, say travel to and from
pre placement meetings with the child, can apply for an receive
reimbursement IF THEY WISH, but many don't even ask.

Where's the big money here?
>
> International adoptions certainly draw into question
> the true need for ongoing SUBSIDIES once children are
> adopted from the Foster/Adopter programs.

Why? Children from state custody bring some social responsibility with
them. The state has seen fit to TPR the parents. The child has the
results of abuse, neglect, very possibly these days the effects of
alcohol and or drugs upon them.

Often difficult emotional problems do work out over many years.
>
> My biggest complaint about international adoption
> is the perpetuation of some ultraliberal MYTH that
> it's done for noble reasons, rather than SELFISH
> reasons of some affluent person.

Odd, I've not seen anyone that adopted state they are doing it for noble
reasons. I've seen others, observers, entertain that possibility.

Tell us, Greg, do you think bio parents have children for entirely non
selfish reasons?

> It's a bit like my complaint about the Mary Ellen
> story where rich people were so heart rended by
> the media story they wanted to help.

I've seen poor people respond as well. Are you sleeping and only wake up
when it suits you, when something is going on that will support your
prejudices?

> The money in some cases came from LABOR done by
> children who DIED in those same rich people's coal mines.

Children are working in coal mines these days?

> THOUSANDS died in the coal mines, but the fat cats
> didn't care about THEM, like they did about Mary Ellen.

Well, they had parents that sent their children to the mines, I do believe.

> Mary Ellen became the "poster child" literally for
> the Child Protection INDUSTRY.

And you are for the bigoted slob industry. So what's the deal here?