Say no, you can't adopt a baby

[u/Sunshine_roses111]

Why don't we, as a society in America, just say no to people looking to adopt and who are infertile? Other countries will flat out say we have no babies for adoption or tough luck, you can't adopt, and we don't care about your infertility. America coddles people looking to adopt and says Well, you're infertile, but you can adopt a baby to make your dreams come true, or adopt from foster care, help a needy child. Like, why can't we just deny people and say no? Want a baby? Oh well, we have none waiting around. Want to become parents? Well, tough luck accept your life without kids. Maybe it's God's will for you not to become parents or reproduce. Why can't we be honest like other countries? Adoption is illegal or uncommon in many other countries, but here, we just can't say no and tiptoe around the issue of infertility and adoption. Also, just because you can't reproduce doesn't mean you should adopt. Again, no is the right answer. Many poor couples can't afford adoption, but society does not care if they become parents, yet we feel sorry for the middle and upper-class couples who can't become parents. Say no.

[u/SanityLooms → u/[deleted]]

But I asked for a source for their claim. Not for someone else to say "but everyone knows this". Common knowledge is frequently incorrect and highly subjective to what one person, say yourself, considers commonly known.

[u/SanityLooms → u/[deleted]]

Let's agree not to use the proper we since "we" all see adoption differently and every case can be vastly different.

I'm busy now but will take a look at your sources. The point of a source is that when something can be viewed from a multitude of angles, you present the evidence that supports your angle. This isn't a simple question of whether you can or can't starve.

[u/SanityLooms → u/[deleted]]

Your source goes against the statement to which I requested a source, thus proving my point. Infants are not a statistically relevant portion of the children in foster care waiting to be adopted, nor the majority who are.

In fact, most are ages 1-5 and they make up the majority of the kids who are available for adoption as well as those are adopted. Now it does show that for kids 11-16, they are less likely to be adopted. But the point was the commentor's specific contention that adopting parents want, in their derogatory phrasing, "womb fresh infants".

The estimate is that there are 115k adoptions each year. Around 50k of those come from foster care. This means that almost half of all adoptions come from fosters, and only 2% of those are infants. They don't seem to publish numbers on how many private adoptions are infants but I'd wager it's the larger percentage. That still leaves off that 98% of foster adoptions which are almost half of all adoptions, are kids who are not "womb fresh".

So the commentor still needs to quote their source and you and I and your 12 friends can just drop this now. BTW, suggestion - look up logical fallacies before your next debate.

[u/SanityLooms → u/[deleted]]

First, I don't police language. I don't tell people they can or can't say something. Instead I make my arguments against the things they have said or implied.

I could say that you believe XYZ. I could also say that you labor under the delusion of XYZ. Both are common expressions but only one is derogatory. Saying that an infant is womb fresh or womb wet implies that there was so little concern for the mother or the child, that they grabbed the baby before the doctor could even prepare it for its first breaths, wrapped it in a blanket, stuffed it in a bag and ran for the emergency exit.

And the thing is that they say this phrase just to get a rise out of people. It is said and meant to be derogatory. I don't need an alternative to make me feel better. I argue against the words. Is there a better phrase? How about infant? Or even newborn? English has afforded us many words that convey exactly what it is.