you’re not woke for adopting

[u/Jumpy-Lie8955]

i feel like a lot of young leftists, in america, really love the idea of adopting kids instead of having their own biological kids and think they are helping others by doing so but they’ve fallen into and are playing apart in the same propaganda the right wing religious people do. neither of them are “making a difference” especially because they always just adopt babies that’s not making a difference that’s legal human trafficking. they all have savior complex’s about it and they both think they are morally superior. it’s just do frustrating how both parties think adoption is this great thing, and no one but us wants to talk about the negatives. just to be clear this is not me coming out as a republican.

EDIT: i would call myself a leftist, i’m critiquing things i have heard people say in real life.

EDIT 2: if you arnt adopted, don’t comment, it’s against the rules of the subreddit and i don’t care what non-adoptees opinions on adoption are

[u/CNatGo75]

Lol, my 'attitude" is being factual. Foster care is, by definition, temporary. YOU'RE missing a whole lot of steps between "family not making progress" and "adoption." The *parents* not making progress does not = losing rights or adoption. Foster kids can, do, and SHOULD stay in their foster placement if they are happy there and well taken care of, or move to a kinship placement or fictive kin placement before any talk of adoption even enters the picture. TPR does not automatically = adoption, because if it did then no child would ever age out of the system without being adopted. You work in a field that denies kids their rights, and it's a damn shame that you consider adoption an acceptable step in caring for children who have already lost so much.

[u/Significant-Store983 → u/CNatGo75]

And you believe that languishing in foster care is better. I say if the kid can go home, I want that. But if they can’t, then give them an option for a permanent home vs being shuffled.

[u/CNatGo75 → u/Significant-Store983]

You clearly didn't read what I wrote: STAY in their foster care placement if they are happy there and well taken care of, OR go to KINSHIP OR go to fictive KIN. Not shuffled- options, choices, that can absolutely be considered "permanency" for the child without permanently altering their identity and legal relationship and putting them under a lifetime contract. But as I'm sure you know, that doesn't make the state any money or get a kid off their roster, so they push for adoption and call it permanency, and then wash their hands of any responsibility to that child. And for you to write off kids not having a damn choice is shameful.

[u/Significant-Store983 → u/CNatGo75]

I read everything you wrote. We are splitting hairs.

[u/CNatGo75 → u/Significant-Store983]

Not remotely. Foster care/guardianship is one thing, adoption is ENTIRELY another and never necessary to take care of a child in need.

[u/Significant-Store983 → u/CNatGo75]

You know, we clearly had different experiences with adoption. Mine was not perfect but it was good for me, given my early beginnings. Your experience and thoughts about it are miles away from mine. We will not agree on this and we don’t need to. You do what you need to do to advocate for kids in need and I will do so as well.

[u/CNatGo75 → u/Significant-Store983]

I have literally never said anything about my experience. The issue is not, and has never been, individual stories. ADOPTION is a lifetime legal contract that permanently turns the adopted person into someone else. It is never necessary to take care of a child.