studies on nature v nurture - all flawed?

[kentgladden]

@skip10 Is it not? There are lots and lots of people who get adopted out to strangers even if there is bio family who want them. Lots of white christians who focus on adoption as a way to raise kids of other races "right" and are willing to pay a lot of money for it.

Adoption should be child-centric, not a way to "create your family". Adoption isn't for childless people to fulfill their dreams. Lots of people try to "rehome" the kids they adopted, for instance, why don't they experience consequences? Plus when kids get adopted, their original birth records get sealed and they get a new "birth" certificate which lists the adopted parents as their parents.... why?

If people care about kids, they can be guardians, so the kid's connection to their bio family is left intact. They don't have to be parents.

 

[skip10]

@kentgladden Got it. So we should get rid of it. Was just curious the logic and thought process. But I think I get it.

 

[earp]

@skip10 Who gives up babies for adoption vs who gets them. If adoption requires extensive background checks and fees to pay in order to adopt, and one of the common reasons for giving a child up for adoption is financial - it has classiest roots for sure but I would say it hasn't escaped those issues fully.

You can look at the 60s scoop in Canada where tons of indigenous kids were apprehended and adopted out without parental consent. Even today indigenous kids are significantly over represented in foster care, and indigenous mothers over represented in the recently stopped practice of birth alerts to remove custody at birth- even when material circumstances had changed radically in the home between then and the last children's aid issue.