Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Other factors are at work, too. Fertility has fallen somewhat more for less educated than for more educated women. Age-adjusted fertility has fallen 15% for women with a bachelor’s degree or less, versus just 7% for women with graduate degrees. On the whole, births to women with no bachelor’s have totaled 12% below what would be expected if 2007 fertility rates had continued, yielding 3.1 million missing births, while births to women with a bachelor’s degree are down 10% for 1.1 million missing births, and births to women with a graduate degree are down just 7%, or 300,000.
Many of the couples we speak with are in the graduate degree category. As I've stated before, they have the education, jobs, and funding to seek a judicial settlement. They are not going to accept being childless without putting up quite the fight.
And are these childless couples going to force these countries, like Russia, to reopen their international adoption programs they have closed down? Or fight the strict regulations that countries like China have recently imposed on which people can adopt kids from their country (no obese or handicapped parents, no single parents, no parents over age 50, etc)? You see, you can't really tell China what they can and cannot do. They could care less about the graduate degrees of potential American adopters. People who want kids can fight all they want but they are going to go up against countries, governments and legislation - as well as the Hague Convention, the United Nations, etc. These organizations are not exactly "pro adoption".
And are these childless couples going to force these countries, like Russia, to reopen their international adoption programs they have closed down? Or fight the strict regulations that countries like China have recently imposed on which people can adopt kids from their country (no obese or handicapped parents, no single parents, no parents over age 50, etc)? You see, you can't really tell China what they can and cannot do. They could care less about the graduate degrees of potential American adopters. People who want kids can fight all they want but they are going to go up against countries, governments and legislation - as well as the Hague Convention, the United Nations, etc. These organizations are not exactly "pro adoption".
Do you think they are going to go quietly into the night? They are already removing educational funding to fund Senior services, do you think they are going to stop doing that?
Most of the international programs shut down due to fraud and other unethical practices. It is not a benefit to the world to have international adoptions if the babies are kidnapped or taken from families who are deceived or tricked into relinquishing. The issues that are allegedly solved by international adoption are better solved by programs that implement women's equality, high levels of education for all, healthcare for all, and open access to birth control.
Adoption programs are not supposed to be about supplying a baby to wanting parents. They are supposed to be about finding families for children in need of them.
Adoption programs are not supposed to be about supplying a baby to wanting parents. They are supposed to be about finding families for children in need of them.
That is what I've been trying to explain for a while. People still seem to believe adoption programs should be required to give a baby to anyone who demands one, and can pay the money.
That is what I've been trying to explain for a while. People still seem to believe adoption programs should be required to give a baby to anyone who demands one, and can pay the money.
The topic of this post was fertility rates and it driving the number of couples trying for a family via adoption. I think you missed that point.
Also, if you want to make adoption illegal, I would suggest lobbying the legislature. It would prevent a great deal of pain and suffering for everyone.
This article made me laugh out loud. I thought fewer babies being born to single mothers in high poverty areas would be a good thing. But apparently it has the Democrats worried that it is going to negatively impact the party (fewer people wanting handouts). I always thought that the liberals were worried that to many people were harming mother Earth? So now declining fertility is a racial/discrimination issue? WTH??
I thought the declining birth rate is related more to increasingly effective contraception methods and women deciding on lesser/no kids due to cost of living??
This article made me laugh out loud. I thought fewer babies being born to single mothers in high poverty areas would be a good thing. But apparently it has the Democrats worried that it is going to negatively impact the party (fewer people wanting handouts). I always thought that the liberals were worried that to many people were harming mother Earth? So now declining fertility is a racial/discrimination issue? WTH??
I thought the declining birth rate is related more to increasingly effective contraception methods and women deciding on lesser/no kids due to cost of living??
You have to ignore the non-sense conclusions. I do think it's reasonable that more effective contraception methods are lowering pg rates. I also think more women are putting off starting a family until they are older, more educated and this results in many of these woman being unable to conceive and carry a child to term. This in turn puts more pressure on the adoption industry as more women want to parent via adoption. There is no way for millions of woman to adopt if there are very few children needing a placement.
The question for me is how do we stop couples from being scammed by adoption agencies when they say their is a chance they might succeed with adoption.
2 to 3 million couples chasing less than 20000 adoption situations is going to create too many unethical practices.
You have to ignore the non-sense conclusions. I do think it's reasonable that more effective contraception methods are lowering pg rates. I also think more women are putting off starting a family until they are older, more educated and this results in many of these woman being unable to conceive and carry a child to term. This in turn puts more pressure on the adoption industry as more women want to parent via adoption. There is no way for millions of woman to adopt if there are very few children needing a placement.
The question for me is how do we stop couples from being scammed by adoption agencies when they say their is a chance they might succeed with adoption.
2 to 3 million couples chasing less than 20000 adoption situations is going to create too many unethical practices.
This is exactly the problem we have now. There is too much encouraging of adoption, particularly by religious groups who want people to adopt babies to save them (for Jesus, and also to play into their own savior complexes.) This creates huge excess demand in adoption and it leads and has led to some of the worst atrocities I've heard. The best guess for the U.S. is that there are 100 families seeking to adopt a baby for every baby that becomes available for adoption.
The way to stop people from being scammed by unethical adoption agencies is to prosecute fraud, put in place numerous social programs that help everyone, including things like free daycare, subsidies for those taking care of children, strengthening non-discrimination laws, and keeping contraception readily available to all who want it. The money piece of adoption fraud needs to be removed and the best way to do this would to make adoption government run, although there is also huge potential for corruption in this, as well. What it really requires is vigilance on the part of people who care about the issue, and it requires our society to prioritize children.
That is what I've been trying to explain for a while. People still seem to believe adoption programs should be required to give a baby to anyone who demands one, and can pay the money.
Oh baloney. I don't believe that. I don't know anyone here who really believes anything that extreme.
What I'm against are adding layers of regulations to a system that is already burdened by them and than when adoption grounds to a halt claiming "that is in the best interest of the children". It just simply isn't.
It took us seven going on eight years to adopt our second child. In the process, we paid for a homestudy that was updated every year at our expense. We provided every type of documentation imaginable to an adoption agency. We attended parenting courses. Yet, I don't complain about it. I realized than and I realize now there is a duty on the part of agencies to check out those who want to parent and make sure they are stable and want to become parents for the right reasons. However, when I think about that and than I read a statement like "people still think that adoption programs should be required to give a baby to anyone who demands one" I have to wonder what planet you live on.
That was almost nineteen years ago. I'm told by reputable sources that adopting has become even harder since than.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
