I would very very very much like to see the inverse graph of this, if it exists: number of orphaned children by region who turn 18 without ever having been permanently placed with a family. We’re either looking at a huge success or an atrocity here.
This doesn’t make any sense as an important factor — it’s after adoptions started to fall and adoptions also fell worldwide which a US law wouldn’t affect. (More plausible causality goes the other way: the law passed because there wasn’t as much of a constituency opposing it anymore.)
They were terrible overall even if some beautiful families were created. Though I am sad for people who want children and cannot be parents because of this, many incredibly awful things happened over the years. Baby-stealing, baby-selling. It simply does not work without enormous acts of injustice.
There are plenty of children in need of families right in their own country. They haven't lost any opportunity except to brag and show off their 'rescued' child.
It's much harder to adopt in the USA than it seems. And this is also very problematic and full of tragedy as well, even if it might be necessary in a few cases.
I understand why—because breaking up families is a serious thing. When you read some stories about how people got their kids taken away and what happened to those kids it can truly shock you. But then some kids end up never having real parents, and that’s also tragic.
Those are not measurable metrics. Yoy need to associate them with metrics then measure those but you can't keep using the same metric because people will adjust.
There's a lot here... with the money involved, without controls/oversight; caused the expected shit show of bad actors profiting by exploiting the poor.
On top of this, extreme nationalistic governments came to power in the countries with lots of orphans... And they stopped it, for the poor optics
2006 was the year Madonna adopted her son David. The pr from this was terrible and basically signalled to everyone that adopting internationally will make them look like self absorbed twats
Brangelina adopted their daughter Zahara in 2005. Maybe they and not Madonna ruined it for everyone but my money is on the latter having the bigger impact as that story was more controversial
The answer is almost always to reduce all forms of it except this specific *very very expensive version*
- employer pays all costs
- worker has full training before moving
- special bilateral work contracts with long bill of rights
- worker gets paid to return home
That looks super niche. What kind of job would even make that worth it? Looks like the kind of emergency contract work that would justify a movie being made about the event tbh
Yes, I can see the good intentions and the correct path looks like this!
I was trying to draw parallels to other places like nuclear power and housing where we try to regulate to a perfect system and end up with zero instead of a perfect system.
I agree over regulation is bad but I don't think we can know when we over or under regulate something until we see the results and I prefer to err on the side of to much than to little in the general not the specific.
Some bad people did bad things and also some well-meaning people did bad things, and to fix it we’ve thrown the baby out with the bathwater. So to speak. Shame
When we went to an adoption info session the take away was basically that international adopting were very hard. Lots of places only place sibling groups of 3+ or special needs kids. Additionally places like S Korea have restrictions(like BMI of parents) that make it harder too.
I have an adopted sister from another country. I love her to death. I also wish she hadn't been so traumatized by the process of essentially being kidnapped to another country with no way back. Her early years were not happy ones.
It's so complex. And yeah there are/were lots of bad actors. I don't know the solution tbh, just stating my limited experience interacting with the system.
Even removing bad actors or whatever, it's a very fucked up process that comes from good intentions. That's probably something we could all take a lesson on if one hasn't ever witnessed roads paved to Hell. Hopefully we will discover better solutions for the future of adoption.
The UK takes (or at least used to) an absurdly hard line on BMI, including a blanket ban on obese people adopting and those in the “overweight” category subject to intense lifestyle questioning.
There might be some argument for morbidly obese parents. But people in the overweight category are not likely to be any more of an issue than the normal weight parents.
Good slogan but do you have evidence this happened wrt would-be UK adoptive parents? Surely there was an issue that caused the adoption of the standard. And it seems very difficult to game
Do they look at every possible health factor? Doubtful. Also latest data suggests negative impact on health of obese is far less important than was thought. I assume therefore any smoker is blocked from even entering an adoption agency. What about those in risky occupations?
If it was applying an actuarial table maybe. But I doubt all "unhealthy" groups are treated the same. I don't know for sure, but based on what I know of the UK infertility system I'd suspect they arent.
Are other groups who are more likely to get sick, eg the poor or minorities, treated similarly?
Comments
Doesn't explain everything with a bow, of course, but I couldn't help noticing the drop in adoptions around that time.
On top of this, extreme nationalistic governments came to power in the countries with lots of orphans... And they stopped it, for the poor optics
You could go to a talk about increasing migration, with all sympathetic NGOs, and 95% will be about how to reduce exploitative labor.
- employer pays all costs
- worker has full training before moving
- special bilateral work contracts with long bill of rights
- worker gets paid to return home
I was trying to draw parallels to other places like nuclear power and housing where we try to regulate to a perfect system and end up with zero instead of a perfect system.
Are other groups who are more likely to get sick, eg the poor or minorities, treated similarly?