"Another useless woman"

[hrdlife1]

Originally Posted by bwsmom

I just wish we could convince the rest of them to make better choices to begin with (like, say, birth control or, better yet, abstinence...?).

I completely and totally agree! Not to mention the rampant ignorance there is as to choices of birth control! I once met a 36 year old woman who didn't know what a diaphram (sp?) was! Not only should birth control options be utilized, but all women should be INFORMED of the birth control choices they do have (abortion not being one of them).

[Shainie]

Originally Posted by CagedTroll

I am such the [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]!!!

Around 117,000 kids available for adoption from the public foster care system, from that number about 36,000 adopted in 1998. Half of those (approx.) between 1 and 5 years of age.

The sad fact is people want babies. People are on waiting lists for babies, and often seek out other countries because it takes to long to get a caucasian baby in the US.

You need a breakdown of other factors too. Race goes into play. How many couples waiting to adopt are white? How many children in the "system" are of other race? It's not odd for people to want to adopt in their own race/heritage.

People who want to adopt babies want a child of their own, and a baby is the closest thing. That way they know that the child is raised with their family's morals, beliefs, etc. You never know what an older child has gone through.

It's horrible how many children are in the system and never really given a chance. I wish there was a fix for this, but unfortunately there isn't.

Then you have the children in foster homes who never are allowed to be adopted out because their parents don't lose their custody.

Anyway - I'm going off on a tangent, sorry.

[CagedTroll]

Originally Posted by Shainie

Anyway - I'm going off on a tangent, sorry.

No need to apologize for hittin' most of the valid points. Including the one that I was actually afraid to bring up (the race thing).

Hate "going Hollywood", but for example, Angelina Jolie's kid is Cambodian, I think. She fell in love with that culture while shooting a movie there, and is going out of her way to actually make sure he's actually familiar with it. Race really shouldn't be a factor, it doesn't have to be... But it is.

[monkee]

Originally Posted by Shainie

The sad fact is people want babies. People are on waiting lists for babies, and often seek out other countries because it takes to long to get a caucasian baby in the US.

You need a breakdown of other factors too. Race goes into play. How many couples waiting to adopt are white? How many children in the "system" are of other race? It's not odd for people to want to adopt in their own race/heritage.

People who want to adopt babies want a child of their own, and a baby is the closest thing. That way they know that the child is raised with their family's morals, beliefs, etc. You never know what an older child has gone through.

It's horrible how many children are in the system and never really given a chance. I wish there was a fix for this, but unfortunately there isn't.

Then you have the children in foster homes who never are allowed to be adopted out because their parents don't lose their custody.

Anyway - I'm going off on a tangent, sorry.

Well said, Shainie.

The fact is yes, there an awful lot of kids in foster care (although not all of them are even available for adoption because of the parental rights issue), but many of these kids have severe developmental problems because of what their parents have done to them. And yes, it would be nice if all adoptive parents were willing to adopt them anyway, but let's face it, very few of us are probably equipped to handle alot of these special-needs kids. It's really not enough just to "love" them, there are so many issues that these kids face. It's one reason they are bounced around from foster family to foster family. It's a sad situation, but it's reality. Alot of these kids never had a chance thanks to their wonderful "parents".

However, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any healthy newborn babies who were given up for adoption and then just languished in foster homes somewhere. There is a huge demand for newborns and that is the issue that comes into play in the whole abortion/adoption issue.

As for this woman who made the "useless woman" comment, I don't care if she is a literary giant or whatever. Her attitude is condescending and insulting and a slap in the face to all women who have chosen to have their children in a difficult situation and have worked hard to make sure they are taken care of, whether they kept the babies or gave the up for adoption. As far as I'm concerned her literary career doesn't give her free pass on being a jack*ss.

[worshipfulheart]

I am definately Pro Life. I became pregnant before I was married abnd I definately resent anyone saying that at that point I became a "useless" woman. I was made to feel that way by a relative. I then married and was still made to feel that way because I quit school and stayed home to raise my daughter. I have not gone to school, made a name for myself, done anything that most of society would condider valuable (and I have found that a portion of society looks down on women single moms or not, staying home and raising productive members of society is evidently "useless" in a lot of peoples eyes.) I struggled for a while with feelings of inferiority because I chose to do what I felt with all my heart was the right thing. I homeschooled my children for a time and still felt as if I failed them and everyone else around me miserably. I am finally seeing the value in what I chose. My girls are very well adjusted, very smart, and I am happy.

I cannot imagine and do not want to trivialize what a decision like abortion does to a woman. I do not judge the women who have made this choice but I do judge the action. I can't help but feel, based on statements made to me personally and hearing things like this that statements such as that one and other hurtful things said by those who have had an abortion is a way of covering up, blocking the guilt and pain that must inevitably haunt them for the rest of their life.

If anyone wants to read a really good book- a quote by Carol Everett, author of 'The Scarlet Lady: Confessions of a Successful Abortionist' - "Must reading for every citizen in our nation- prolife or prochoice" read 'Pro Life Answers to Pro Choice Arguments" by Randy Alcorn. This is a really good and insightful book.
There is another book, if anyone has heard of it please remind me. I will have to look for it, I haven ot unpacked all of my books yet. I cannot remember the title but it is a very eye opening account of the lives and stories of abortionists.


God Bless!!
Angela <><

[CagedTroll]

There's a joke that sums up ---what I think has happened here--- quite nicely! It might be an old joke, by European standards, but us Yanks usually don't get it. So I'm gonna tell it...:
Guy walks into a crowded bar. He sits down and orders a drink. While the bartender is mixing the drink the guy says, loudly, but to the bartender, "Y'KNOW..., THE PROBLEM WITH WOMEN IS THAT THEY TAKE EVERYTHING TOO PERSONALLY!!!"

There's a punchline to that joke but I'm not going to share it right now. I think it'll be funnier if I wait. It'll be funnier to me anyway...

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now] LeGuin is NOT saying single-mothers are "useless" unless (at the very least) they're unemployed, still living with their parents, not dating, in the 1950s, and considered by society to be 'unmarriagable', as well as 'unemployable', as society would have viewed them during the 1950s moreso than nowadays. ("Nowadays", in this case, being any time after 1967.)

On the issue of Adoption vs. Abortion, [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]:
By the mid-1950s the demand for healthy infants began to exceed the number available. Agencies began screening prospective parents more selectively, and by 1975 many had stopped accepting applications for nondisabled white children altogether. Other agencies were obliged to put prospective parents on waiting lists, usually for an average of three to five years. Factors contributing to the decline in available infants included the increased availability of effective contraception, a rise in the abortion rate following Roe v. Wade in 1973, and an increase in the number of unmarried women keeping their babies rather than giving them up for adoption.

Wanna focus on that last part, so the added emphasis above. The number of unmarried women keeping their kids. [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now], and I'm looking for stats from earlier, but in 1969, 25% of the children born of unwed mothers were put up for adoption. In 1992, only 4%. Something happened here, and abortion is not the only factor. If you consider population growth between 1969 and 1991, even with the increase in the actual number of abortions since 1973, the proportion should NOT have changed from 25% to 4%. ([Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now] for the several most prominent of the many factors involved.)

But look at the dates. The mid-1950s is when demand increased for "nondisabled white children" (and there's that race issue again ) to the point that applicants were put on "waiting lists, usually for an average of three to five years." But Roe v. Wade was almost twenty years later... I'm not sure how many states in the U.S. allowed for abortion at that time, but what I'm really curious about is why such the high demand? Or for that matter, the limited number of infants available? This was the same post-World War II, "baby-boom" era, when television and pre-fab tract housing invaded America. Something changed (from the way things were before 1950, the era LeGuin was talking about when she would have become a "useless woman", meaning, I think, based on what she actually said: unemployed, unmarried, living with her parents, with a kid, IN 1950).

Originally Posted by monkee

The fact is yes, there an awful lot of kids in foster care (although not all of them are even available for adoption because of the parental rights issue)

There's about 100,000 to 150,000 kids in foster care that are currently available for adoption. [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now] said there's about 500,000 (and rising) kids in foster care altogether. So about 1 in 5 of the kids in that system are available for adoption. Also in that link is how much it's costing taxpayers to provide foster care, btw.

As for special needs, ALL kids have "special needs". Natural conception and childbirth are crapshoots, so if you can count ten fingers and ten toes in the delivery room, you've already been blessed. If you're happy to raise the kid with no fingers or toes, whether you gave birth to it or not, than you just might be the blessing.

[monkee]

Originally Posted by CagedTroll

As for special needs, ALL kids have "special needs". Natural conception and childbirth are crapshoots, so if you can count ten fingers and ten toes in the delivery room, you've already been blessed. If you're happy to raise the kid with no fingers or toes, whether you gave birth to it or not, than you just might be the blessing.

Personally, I'm not referring to children with no fingers or toes, I'm talking about kids with severe emotional problems from being beaten, starved, molested, etc., who then cannot relate to other people on a "normal" level. Many of these kids are on psychiatric medication, require intensive therapy and treatment and can be violent. Many of these chlidren to which I am referring that have been sexually abused then abuse other children in foster homes, group homes and adoptive homes. These are the kinds of kids that are so difficult to place. Not children who might me missing a finger or a toe.

[CagedTroll]

I thought you were referring to Down's Syndrome and cerebral-palsy.

I grew up in a church, and there were about a dozen women there that I still think of as the best examples of "Christian Women". A few of these had their own children (by natural conception) and still opened their homes to unwanted Down's syndrome and cerebral palsy kids. These women raised these kids pretty much from the time the kids' own mothers abandoned them.

Wasn't even thinking about the beaten, molested, etc. older kids (non-infants) that are waiting to be adopted. Nor was I thinking about the beaten, molested, etc. older kids that became all of the above while in foster care.

The link I offered earlier showed how many foster kids that were adopted were under five years old. I'm interested in finding out exactly how many infants don't get adopted, though. If anyone has any numbers (and a link) I'd love to read it.

And for couples that wish to adopt, I again use the example of Angelina Jolie (who was insane) who adopted a child from Cambodia (who seems to have cured her insanity). I don't think race should be an issue.

And I don't think that some childless couples (those for whom race is a big issue) should be allowed to adopt so easily. Nor couples that have only been married for less than five years, and are likely to get a divorce in the next two (they just don't realize it yet..., shhhhh!).

(Yeah, that's always "fun" to watch! A couple going splitsville four or five years into their adopted kid's life. I just love seein' that! )

[prism68]

Having taught in Psycho-Educational settings and Childrens'Homes for the past 8 years, I have served MANY children with severe emotional and behavioral disturbances.

These precious, precious children have so often been 'broken'... like what Monkee is talking about... that there isn't any fixing them unfortunately. And that is coming from someone who still believes every child can be redeemed! I am the queen of optimists, but I have to face the reality of just how damaged so many of my students have been.

Especially in the case of sexual abuse, there really aren't effective treatment programs widely available that can ever treat their resulting disorders.

I know I have veered OT... Just want to back up what Monkee is saying.

[bwsmom]

Originally Posted by prism68

I know I have veered OT... Just want to back up what Monkee is saying.

As the OP, this is one topic I don't mind having altered... as I said from the start, I don't like getting into the whole abortion issue anyway. Also, I think that the majority of us are in agreement here that the woman's comments which agitated me enough to start this thread were, at the very least, very hurtful to single mothers everywhere. Having said that....

In support of what monkee and prism have mentioned above, I submit the following, a link to the [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]... you can see the kids by clicking on the link for each state near the top of the page. Look at how many ages are represented there... almost every age from 2 - 18! Now look at how many sibling groups are listed there! Now click on one or two and read their stories.... many were exposed to drugs or alcohol, some suffered physical, sexual and/or emotional abuse, many were neglected, not even fed properly, left alone for inappropriate periods of time and/or left alone with "unsafe adults" whose personal boundaries with the children were inappropriate.... the misery these children have suffered! Hardly any of these kids (representing four states) were given up by unwed mothers.... these are kids who have suffered, and suffered mightily.

But, by far, the saddest case of all has to be [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now], whose challenges go far and beyond what most of us could ever imagine... I dare you to read his bio and not be moved.

As for Shainie's comment about the majority of potential adoptive parents wanting white babies, she's right on the money.... so much so, in fact, that a Reverend from Redmond, WA, put up a [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now] that landed him on the national news!

[pandybat]

It's sad that babies don't care what race, creed, color or background an adoptive parent is from, yet adoptive parents care too much.

[freesurfer]

Right on the money there Sandy!!

[Rockabillie]

She meant that that's how she would have felt about herself. Anyone who reads her work can tell she values individuality and the right to choose one's own direction. She meant SHE would not have felt right about herself if she didn't get a chance to write. Your summary was a serious misquote totally misrepresenting her views and totally unfair to her.

[freesurfer]

That billboard is horrible and mean!!

[bwsmom]

Originally Posted by Rockabillie

She meant that that's how she would have felt about herself. Anyone who reads her work can tell she values individuality and the right to choose one's own direction. She meant SHE would not have felt right about herself if she didn't get a chance to write. Your summary was a serious misquote totally misrepresenting her views and totally unfair to her.

Did you read this entire thread? There was no misquoting, no misrepresentation of her views. It was a direct quote from her, and her portrayal of ANY woman as useless is completely uncalled for! She was being "unfair" to all the single mothers out there who stick it out despite the fact that an unplanned pregnancy somehow interfered with their "dreams". It's interesting that you say she values "the right to choose one's own direction". One wonders how much she values the right to practice safe sex or, better yet, to abstain until one has chosen one's direction?!