Adoption is big business
 Rationalizations
for Infant Adoption
Infant adoption means real families will be torn apart
- including mothers, fathers, grandparents, siblings - to obtain babies
for adopters. There are many rationalizations for this anti-family
activity.
Rationalizations: Some believe single women
who bring a child into the world deserve to be punished cruelly -
and it doesn't matter how their child will be affected. People talk
obout the costs to the community of "babies having babies".
But there are risks to older moms as well. Not just the high cost
of infertility treatments but there are risks of miscarriage, placenta
previa, fetal distress, prolonged labor, low birthweight baby, cesarean
birth, down syndrome, high blood pressure, diabetes, cardiovascualr
disease,
Rationalizations: Having the "out"
of being able to abandon their child through adoption makes it possible
for men to shirk responsibility for contraception, abstinence and
for their children as well. Grandparents especially
hate to see their sons "suffer" by having to support their
own child. A father who does try to take responsibility for his own
child is condemend as "trying to block" an adoption.
Rationalizations: "She will have more
children later" or "She has other children". There
is no guarantee a mother can have other children later and no child
can take the place of another in her own mother's heart. If a person
has three cars, does that mean they owe one to someone who has none?
Rationalizations: Once a child is in the hands
of the adopters, just the fact that they have gotten this unrelated
child to call them "mom" or "dad" helps adopters
put forth the idea that God "made a mistake" and really
intended this beautiful miracle baby for them.
These are just a few of the many rationalizations
for taking babies from young or single parents and providing them
to people who are infertile, single or gay.
Many people complain that television talk shows and
game shows are exploiting adoption - but in reality adoption itself
is exploitation.
Rationalizations: Often it is put forth that
children will be better served by a different culture and must be
taken from their families. This is genocide, whether the culture being
wiped out is single parents or Native Peoples.
In 1999, the United Nations Human Rights Committee
ruled that Canada’s treatment of First Nations is in violation of
international law and that the social situation is “the most pressing
human rights issue facing Canadians.”
The infamous “Sixties Scoop” moved away from emphasizing the
transportation of First Nations children to residential schools,
focusing instead on putting them into non-First Nations foster care.
Legislation from Ottawa encouraged provinces to put First Nations
children into foster care with cash incentives. The “scoop” witnessed
Shuswap communities like Spallumcheen lose almost an entire generation
to the state. By the end of the 1960s, 30 to 40 per cent of all children
that were legal wards of the state across Canada were First Nations,
even though they only made up four per cent of the population. Bridget
Moran, a social worker at the time, said that her associates “had
no resources that might have conceivably helped to keep [First Nations]
families together.
Read the full article:
http://www.martlet.ca/archives/050331/feature.html
Back
|
