At the risk of making snark when a child's involved (or shortly will be), what's an "emotional and financial commitment"? I mean, it's not like he walked out on a marriage or anything, is it? And after $28,000, how many bills are still lying around?

Listen, I like 'em older, m'self... But working that hard to get a middle-aged woman pregnant is weird behavior even if you are preparing to walk out on your wife.

"49 and setting out to have a baby, and with a still-married dude? Genius."

Of course, if you read the article, it's not quite as clear-cut as that. I think both of them are a few cans short of a six-pack. 49-year-old women also have no business becoming mothers - imagine raising a teenager when you are retirement age - nuts!

Oh dear. I'm speechless. Aliens?

Ok not totally speechless. But skimming her blog it sounds like she did check on all the obvious stuff, and he wasn't with his wife at the time. At 49 if she really wanted a child she was under extreme time pressure (honestly, why bother at that point?) so it's understandable she fell for his line. But I initially was a bit annoyed by the "he got me pregnant" line, I don't think that counts when you enthusiastically demand he participate in IVF.

I agree with Crid though - why did he go through all the hassle of IVF if he wasn't really into it? That is strange. I can only guess she must be absolute dynamite in the sack. That's one expensive sugar mommy he had there.

The ick factor is really up there with this one. "I may be a self-help expert, but I'm not a psychic,". Really? Then self-help yourself, whydontcha, and try to figure out why the hell you got involved with someone who was technically unavailable in the first place. Even if "he wasn't with his wife at the time", if someone said to me "I wish aliens would come down and remove my wife so I could marry you right away.", I'd see a BIG red flag right there. He wanted aliens to do his dirty work for him? He couldn't just get a divorce? Sheeeesh.

Perhaps she should read "Mr. Scrotie McBoogerballs"? Oooops! Too late!

I think she got her hands on Gottlieb's book, took it to heart, and settled.

She needs to hone her fine reading skilzz.

And after $28,000, how many bills are still lying around?

The article implies that he paid for the fertility treatments, but had also promised to pay for renovations to her apartment, baby clothes, a crib, etc. Well, he'll be paying one way or another.

At 49 if she really wanted a child she was under extreme time pressure

Mmmm, depends on how you look at it. At 49, she almost definitely had to use donor eggs (egg freezing wasn't around back when her eggs would have been viable). If you're willing to use someone else's eggs, you can get pregnant into your 60s with hormone treatments et al. Sounds like she just lost her mind over the guy. Poor kid (the actual baby, I mean).

> 49-year-old women also have no business
> becoming mothers

Tell it to Sandra Bullock (DOB: '64), proudly-new, incompetently-married Momma.

> He wanted aliens to do his dirty
> work for him?

Good eyes, Flynne.

> Well, he'll be paying one way or another

Part of me hopes the judge pulls a Frampton on her ass and sends her packing. If she'd married the guy, maybe... Otherwise, what evidence is there of "commitment"? She knew he was already married.

Ltw understands: The sex has to be SERIOUSLY good before a man is satisfied by enjoying it through beakers and test tubes.

Foto Funnies:

As fate's punishment for their grooming alone, these people probably deserve whatever suffering they brought to each other.

And consider the look in the kid's eyes. They ask— "What is this shit?"

I agree that it's irresponsible to have a baby at 49 (although no one seems to be critical of men when they do it).

Otherwise, though, I think she did due diligence and got well and truly hosed by this guy. If her account is true, she had every reason to believe he was committed to her--as much as any woman marrying a totally single guy.

Sandra Bullock, to my knowledge, has not tried to conceive a child, has she? She just adopted Jesse James' daughter.

Sandra Bullock has no children. She did not adopt her stepchild, nor does she have plans to. This is just a tabloid story they keep replaying although it makes absolutely no sense. She's divorcing her husband, and you don't get custody of your EX's children.

I didn't realize Salmonsohn was 49. When I first read about this, I thought she was barely 40. Bizarre.

Self-help is right. She wants to help herself to the guy's $$$.

Oh,...I guess she just adopted a baby! Didn't see that until now.

Having a baby at 49 . . . have fun buying that high school graduation present out of your Social Security! If either high school or Social Security are still around by the time the kid turns 18.

I DO know someone who got custody of her ex's child... she had adopted the child when they got married. When they got divorced, she was at the time legally his mother. Because her ex was an alcoholic (not something she made up, he really was), she got custody of the kid even though technically it wasn't her child.

49-year-old women also have no business becoming mothers

Eh. My mother was 48 when the adoption went through, and it all worked out OK. Of course, she had the advantage of adopting, not trying to conceive, and of already being married to the guy she planned to raise a child with. The lesson here: Marry your baby's daddy BEFORE you conceive.

It was her child if she adopted her. She is legally the mother and apparently the most fit parent. That's different. Bullock might've considered adopting her husband's little girl while they were together, because the mom is a drug-addict, but she never did, so she has no claim.

In the 90's T*** Robbin's organization was a client of ours, so we were pretty involved with the self-help \ motivational community early on. Some of the most fucked up people I have ever met... it is really true that those who can't do, teach.

"Mitchell's mom and I wound up adoring each other. We became Facebook friends."

Wow. That clinches it then, doesn't it?

Ah, I see now that they did adopt right before the bombshell was dropped. I have no truck with this. I think the rules change somewhat when 1) you're adopting a child who might otherwise have no one, and 2) you're richer than God. That child will never know the meaning of "hard."

I should have said, "I have no objection to this." :) Need more coffee.

I kind of like "have no truck". Thought it was a trendy new phrase. lol

I like "have no truck" as well. Let's keep it.

I am very against single women from biologically reproducing - especially intentionally (but, let's face it: kids don't give a shit about intentions, they just need to be raised right). Same goes for a dude who pays some surrogate to carry a child for him. It's harder/more $ and much rarer so I think that is why it's not brought up.

But my S-I-L's friend is a 40 year old single woman with a string of failed relationships in her wake. She cannot look at a baby without breaking down into tears and is currently going through IVF to conceive. That = a huge disconnect for me; the woman seems mentally unstable and not like someone who could provide a healthy home for a child - and part of her instability is her very desire to reproduce. I do feel that life is bigger than us. *Having* kids isn't the most important thing we can do. *Raising them correctly* is. When it comes to kids.

This woman is 49 and single and childless (was). There is a fucking reason some people - who want to be married - do not get married. They are doing things wrong! EVERY TIME! Unfortunately, these people have the ability to reproduce despite the enormous blinking yellow signs pointing to "You are why Gretchen wants to Force Sterilizations". Drug addicts and narcissists who are incapable of cultivating lasting relationships shouldn't be making babies.

Sandra is definitely an exception to my "no babies for single ladies": 1) she was married, we don't know if she was a fuck up (but she can pick 'em...) 2) she is adopting. An older person who adopts is, in my (bitchy?) mind not doing it just b/c she has this drive to reproduce her DNA. I get that that pull is really strong for some people, but if you don't want to give your kid the life it requires to grow up correctly (two parents in its life) then you aren't suited to be the parent. Adoption, like someone said above, is helping a child whose life is already worse. A singleton adopting a child doesn't necessarily mean the child was denied a proper two-parent upbringing. Getting pregnant while single most certainly does.

More people should adopt. Adopting is immediately beneficial to a human who already exists and needs your help, love and support.

I've changed so much in my 4 years on this blog :-)

"Drug addicts and narcissists who are incapable of cultivating lasting relationships shouldn't be making babies." * me

* b/c it breeds more of the same.

Wait a minute. She's a "$200-an-hour life coach" and has written "more than 20 self-help books" and she's broke?

> Adoption, like someone said above, is helping
> a child whose life is already worse.

Tell that to the kid in a few years, m'kay? Someone should be compelled to go to the kid in a few years and say 'We didn't think your life was going to be for shit anyway, so we decided you didn't deserve a father. We threw your squealing baby ass at some lonely, authoritarian woman who wanted to pretend to have everything you needed. Sorry, little fucker, but you just didn't deserve the best.'

> 1) she was married, we don't know if she was
> a fuck up (but she can pick 'em...)

What do you mean about picking 'em? Are you making cynical jokes? Was married doesn't count with we're looking for people with family-composition skills.

> not doing it just b/c she has this drive to
> reproduce her DNA

The impulse to solely rule the life of another is not all about DNA. She's indulging in heroine-fantasies at the expense of a baby who has no, no tools to demand better for himself. Babies count on society to do what's best for them, not what's merely better, or what's amusing to aging starlets.

> More people should adopt.

Drug addicts! Tax cheats! Car thieves! Violent people! "More people", y'know? That's our standard....

Maybe middle-aged biddies should mind their own business, and exit pronto the advice and self-help industry.

Conan, I'm a $5,000 an hour life coach. I'm still waiting for my first paying customer.

My thoughts have mostly been covered by everyone, except for the first one I had...

er, dude? there are much easier ways to get women pregnant. more fun too.

heh, when I read the first bit about getting her preggers, I was thinkin' Boyo with midlife crisis knocks up girl, the ususal stuff. then I figure out, it's the GIRL with the midlife crisis, and boyo must just be insane. nuckin'-futz all the way.

"I agree that it's irresponsible to have a baby at 49 (although no one seems to be critical of men when they do it)."

Perhaps because nature had the first word in the matter, and nature assigned women the role of grandmother at that age.

You can, of course, condemn nature's structuring of the matter, and even alter it, perhaps. The wisdom of any particular such condemnation or alteration should be judged on a case by case basis.

Here, it appears nature was on to something...

Crid, given how many children are stuck in the foster care system for years, I'm surprised you think that's a better life than with a steady, loving single parent? Or am I totally taking you out on context to be a jack ass, just like you've done?

I'm still waiting for my first paying customer.

Good luck with that. But if you've written more than 20 self-help books and charge $200 per hour to tell someone how to live their life, you should be able to handle your finances.

It's like hiring a carpenter whose house is falling apart or a taxi driver who asks "where's that?" when you ask him to take you to a major landmark. Little warning signs go off inside your head telling you that this person may exactly not be at the top of his profession.

Or a self-proclaimed grammarian who types "may exactly not" in a sentence.

"She's indulging in heroine-fantasies at the expense of a baby who has no, no tools to demand better for himself. Babies count on society to do what's best for them, not what's merely better, or what's amusing to aging starlets."

Yes, but sadly, Crid, society probably wouldn't have been able to do what's "best" for this child. A black baby is more likely to remain in foster care. Bullock is being a hero in my view to adopt. She is apparently a very good parent (even her ex's ex said she "couldn't compete with Sandra as a mother - that she packed them healthy lunches, read them stories, etc). This little boy is far luckier than most born into his situation.

"I have no truck with that.' brings to mind a line from "The Crucible" - a young slave woman from Barbados, I believe, telling the witch-hunt crowd, "I don't truck with no Devil."

> I'm surprised you think that's a better life
> than with a steady, loving single parent?

What kind of choice is that? If society's placement of needy babies and young children is misaligned –as I'm quite sure it is, with concerns of race, smoking habits, and naked finance factoring in horrid disproportion– I don't see how deciding to throw a child to the wolves becomes somehow more honorable.

A single parent, no matter how "loving", is not reliably "steady". It's certainly not what's best, which is a loving mother with a loving father. People do Apples & Oranges on this blog all the time with kids, making what's good and decent the enemy of the merely mediocre: Isn't it better just to scratch someone with a knife rather than shoot them in the chest?

> Or am I totally taking you out on context to
> be a jack ass, just like you've done?

Nonsense. You said what you meant, and I quoted you precisely. The context couldn't be clearer, and is still posted there for all to review.

In an hour of tremendous, global humiliation for her naivete in matters of masculine nature, sexual identity and personal integrity, an actress has chosen to adopt a baby AND CAREFULLY PUT HIS PICTURE ON THE FRONT OF FUCKING MAGAZINES.

She's already two generations removed from this kid... And now that she's gotten the photography out of the way, she –alone– is going to teach him to be a man.

We might wonder if she full appreciates the challenges he'll face.

(A black man, at that! Why, Golly... It's the role of a lifetime!)

(I rilllllllly liked her in that one movie...)
___________________

> A black baby is more likely to
> remain in foster care.

Often because agencies are hesitant to deliver them to loving white couples who aren't Hollywood-wealthy and famous and connected. There's a loving couple pining for every baby you can find.

> it's irresponsible to have a baby at 49
> (although no one seems to be critical of
> men when they do it)."

Oh, try me. Find such a man for us, and mention him in conversation.... Especially if he's single, but even if he's not.

Lord God knows sensible people have been mocking Hefner ever since he conquered his pharmaceutical speed addiction in his 70's so he could start another family with his third wife (half his age).

Reviewing Wiki, he was only in his fifties, though the missus was still essentially a child. One need not overstate things.

Oh, come on now Crid and you too Amy. You're both just jealous of this blogger gal and Sandra. They have babies (or were trying)! They're wonderful human beings now! They just want to love and be loved! They were oh so innocent! Stop hating!

/sarcasm

> They were oh so innocent! Stop hating!

Sting's son rewrote Pachelbel's Canon in search of his first hit song. It didn't work out, but the lyrics were golden:

Yeah, we hate things...
We hate PEOPLE!

A recurring thread here Crid is that you see the two parent heterosexual household as the ideal, but also as the only viable solution. I currently know a couple where the child would be faaaarrrr better off without one of the parents. (Actually, more than one couple.)

Give Sandra a break. She tried to do the nuclear family thing but was served up a shit sandwich right about the same time she won her Oscar, and is now handling the situation with about as much grace and stamina as anyone could expect. Even with the magazine photo of her and the adopted child, she knows that she will be hounded by the paparazzi for that first shot, so why shouldn't she take control of it?

(Of course, in 20 years I'll probably be proven wrong with a tell all biography involving wire coat hangers and such...)

> you see the two parent heterosexual
> household as the ideal, but also as the
> only viable solution.

Tell the kids, dude, tell the kids. When they're a little older and things are getting shitty, tell them that they didn't deserve what was best for them... Tell them that the surrounding society didn't think their souls were worth anything more than a "viable solution".

Tell 'em personally, and look 'em in the eye when you do it.

Besides, you're doing apples and oranges again:

> I currently know a couple where the child
> would be faaaarrrr better off without one
> of the parents.

A loving mother with a loving father is the way to go, especially when –as with adoption– we have the choice.

If I understand the timeline on the Sandra Bullock thing correctly, they brought the baby home -- presumably after being approved by the baby's birth mother, who, assuming the adoption didn't take place through the foster care system, was able to choose the Bullock-James family -- and THEN the bomb dropped that Jesse James was a serial cheater. With an affinity for Nazism. Sorry, a guy who likes posing with swastikas shouldn't be raising a black child. The options at that point for Sandra were to give the baby back or keep the baby and raise it solo. Should she really have given the baby back like a puppy? Call the birth mother and say, "Thanks for entrusting me with your most precious possession, but things have changed?" Really? Also, keep in mind that there is a waiting list for healthy *white* newborns...but not one for black newborns, healthy or otherwise. We can trade theories back and forth all day long about why this is so, but it's so.

So, the probable options for this kid: Foster care with some chance of being adopted eventually, or adoption by a single mom. I have a feeling that, given the choice, he'd go for the latter, but YMMV.

For the record, I, too, believe that an intact family with a non-crazy mom and a non-crazy dad is the best situation for a child, by far. But I also believe that foster care is a baaaaad situation for any kid to be in, on multiple levels. Find me a solution that reduces the latter, and I'll take it. If you want to get on Bullock's case for choosing a bad husband, that's certainly justified, but it's a little hard to un-do that now.

"People do Apples & Oranges on this blog all the time with kids, making what's good and decent the enemy of the merely mediocre: Isn't it better just to scratch someone with a knife rather than shoot them in the chest?"

"A black baby is more likely to
> remain in foster care. Often because agencies are hesitant to deliver them to loving white couples who aren't Hollywood-wealthy and famous and connected. There's a loving couple pining for every baby you can find."

Crid, people do apples and oranges all the time in life. No agency is "hesitant" to deliver any child anywhere that they are wanted, but the truth is that they are NOT wanted, at least as far as black babies. Asian babies, Russian babies...let's be honest, WHITE babies are wanted by the majority of adoptive parents, who are also white. There is a severe lack of black adoptive placements.

This is somewhat understandable because there is no shortage of out-of-wedlock babies being born in black communities. They are already being raised by grandparents or other reluctant biological caregivers. Black babies are readily available for adoption if there were enough familes who wanted them.

By contrast, white parents are the ones who are suffering the most infertility, as they wait until their 30s/40s to conceive, so they naturally seek white babies to adopt, even in other countries.

So, unfortunately, this leaves black babies facing a life of foster care. The older they get, the more likely this fate is. I applaud Sandra Bullock - or anyone - who will step up to the plate and try to resolve this disparity. Black children are just as deserving of a loving, stable home as children or other cultures, and I wish more adoptive parents in our country were willing to make this choice.

"Tell 'em personally, and look 'em in the eye when you do it."

YOU tell them, Crid...that you would rather them stay in foster care than have a single mother. That you thought it was "best" for them because we simply don't have enough two-parent adoptive families.

If you can solve that problem - say, by adopting yourself - then, DO IT. Otherwise, don't criticize the few brave people, like Bullock, who are willing to open their hearts and homes to these kids nobody else wants.

A loving mother with a loving father is the way to go, especially when –as with adoption– we have the choice.

Posted by: Crid

Bullshit - there arent enough married people willing to adopt.

And living in a warehouse or as a roaming babysitter for the foster famillies that take you in is not better than adoption even if it is by a single parent.

At least in the case of adoption you have to prove you are in good shape physical, emotionally and finacially

> people do apples and oranges all
> the time in life.

Understood. That makes them WRONG. Got it? You literally did this: You literally said that because people are behaving illogically, we have to let them get away with it. That's the way your mind works.

(If you really exist. I still think you might be a practical joke by Hrisskopoulous or Eric.)

> Should she really have given the baby back like
> a puppy? Call the birth mother and say, "Thanks
> for entrusting me with your most precious
> possession, but things have changed?"

Are you saying they hadn't changed? It's obvious from your wording that first concern is with the feelings of the Oscar™-winning actress, no matter how grievously distracted she's proven to be.

> So, the probable options for this kid: Foster care
> with some chance of being adopted eventually,
> or adoption by a single mom

Oh says who? Circumstance not in evidence. Gimme a healthy baby and a cell phone and I'll have it in a loving, two-parent home before dusk.

> the truth is that they are NOT wanted, at least
> as far as black babies.

Gonna need a cite on that, from you and from Lou. Maybe not in your homes, but broader America, I don't believe it for a fucking moment. Not for a second.

You guys have all these deeply pathetic daydreams about the harshness of the world that you want to summon as if to ennoble incompetent –but theatrically gratifying– motherhood. After all, it's motherhood, right? It's a magic potion.....

" people do apples and oranges all
> the time in life.

Understood. That makes them WRONG. Got it? You literally did this: You literally said that because people are behaving illogically, we have to let them get away with it. That's the way your mind works.

(If you really exist. I still think you might be a practical joke by Hrisskopoulous or Eric.)"

I have no idea who those people are, but as a GAL, Crid, I have to choose between bad and worse options all the time. There's NOT a perfect, "best" option for many of these kids...it's only the best of several bad alternatives. I know that offends your sensibilities - you believe all things can be solved in simple tied-up family solutions, but that's not how real life works.

"Gimme a healthy baby and a cell phone and I'll have it in a loving, two-parent home before dusk."

Well, you should start an adoption agency if this is true. I'd like you to offer proof of this. The proof of the truth is in the number of black children in foster care...and, if you were to survey them, the number of your friends who, despite their altruistic instincts, would choose not to adopt a black child. How many white friends do you know who have adopted a black child?

I know only one white couple who has done this - shown up at the hospital to take an abandoned, underweight black child that hospital officials said had drugs in his system.

He is highly gifted college student today, so they made a wonderful choice, but it's one few people have the guts and love to make.

If there were two-parent families lined up for these children, it would be great, but that isn't the case. As an alternative to the foster care system, single parents with love to offer are the better option.

Crid: Adoption & Race
Apparently Canadians are more likely to adopt African-Americans than whites in the United States.

Also: Preferred Characteristics of Children for Adoption/Fostering

Golly, Lauren: Most adoption professionals agree that, all other things being equal, it is best to place an African- American child with an African-American family. The National Association of Black Social Workers’ position is that every effort should be made to place children with families of the same race and culture.

And from the other link: The exact numbers are not available, but...

And I'm like, riiiiiiiiiiight.

No one's offering numbers on who loving parents WANT to adopt, let alone who they're able to adopt.

> single parents with love to offer
> are the better option.

Are you saying Bullock's baby is drug-addicted? Didn't know that.

If you read the article, it sites supply and demand. White newborns are the most sought after, and cost the most to adopt. Black baby boys - like the one Bullock adopted - are the least desired.

The article claims things are improving, especially due to other countries "importing" black children, and being less racist than Americans, but it doesn't mention the actual numbers and how many black children born in this country are not adopted, which remains too high.

I never thought I'd say this. Lovelysoul, you are right and Crid is wrong. Adoption by a loving single parent is better than foster care.

Oh says who? Circumstance not in evidence. Gimme a healthy baby and a cell phone and I'll have it in a loving, two-parent home before dusk.

I very much doubt this.

Thanks, Ltw. It's also important to note that we don't know yet if this child will end up being raised in a single-parent home.

Michelle Pfeiffer, for instance, adopted a baby girl, then within a year or so, met her future husband, David Kelley, who also adopted the child. They are still together 15 - 20+ years later. Angelina Jolie adopted her son, Maddox, and within a year or so, left crazy Billie Bob Thornton to settle into domesticity, and a broader adopted (and biological) family, with Brad Pitt.

Of course, it's just anecdotal, but it seems to me that women often make much better choices after becoming mothers...when the pressure to have a family is finally off. In fact, it's quite common for women who were infertile to adopt and then conceive a child naturally. It's like they relax and their whole body, including their mind, returns to normal.

My guess is that Bullock was attracted to Jesse James because he was apparently a good father (she just praised him as such in the recent People article - despite all his cheating, she still says he's a wonderful dad). So, in her desperate desire to have a family - to become a mom - she evaluated him as a FATHER, not a mate. And I think a lot of women with ticking biological clocks make the same mistake.

Now that her desire for motherhood has been fulfilled, hopefully, she will choose a better partner next time - one who will also be a father to her adopted little boy. But, at any rate, he is still better off than being in foster care.

49 is often too old to have children, but even naturally, it is not always too late. A lady in India conceived naturally at the age of 54. I think natural knows best. If a woman can still conceive naturally, she is likely to be healthy enough to raise a child. I have read that the time of menopause is linked to life expectancy. On average women live at least 20 years after menopause.

I'm 47, and my doctor had me recently take a pregnancy test even though my husband has had a vasectomy. Pregnancy is a possibility all the way until menopause. PS. Several of my female relatives have had babies in their 40s.

> it sites supply and demand.

It "sites" nothing: It alleges. This happens in a lot in media: Feelings are stoked.

> Adoption by a loving single parent is better
> than foster care.

There is no –zero– reason to believe that was the only option for this child. You are far, far too eager to flatter feminine impulses.

Hollywood is potent, ain't it?

You are far, far too eager to flatter feminine impulses.

Yep.

So help me. Like that Tom Cruise movie. Help me... Help me help you... Help me.... Understand.

Know what I like? Formula 1 car racing. It's sports television at its best, and sports IS what television does best. Monaco's my favorite racing event, but let's not quibble.

The New York Times once described the hatred of Nascar by American elitists: "[S]tock-car racing represents all that's unsavory about red-state America: fossil-fuel bingeing; lust for violence; racial segregation; run-away Republicanism; anti-intellectualism (how much brain matter is required to go fast and turn left, ad infinitum?); the corn-pone memes of God and guns and guts; crass corporatization; Toby Keith anthems; and, of course, exquisitely bad fashion sense. What's more, they simply don't get it. What's the appeal of watching . . . traffic?"

But that doesn't really describe the deepest ugliness: Auto racing, whether enjoyed in sweltering Southern ovals by fat beer drinkers or in Mediterranean-cooled principalities by daughters of European wealth wearing no underwear, is a blood sport. Young, handsome, appealing men are maimed and sometimes die under the completely bogus pretext that it's important to drive fast. I'm old enough to be the father of my favorite drivers, kids I adore, and I feel shame when accidents happen and their lives are risked.

But on the other hand, these people aren't actually children. My tacit encouragement of their risks –which will sooner or later deliver horrible pain to some of them– is something they're free to accept or ignore. As grown men they have options, and if they want to take up badminton, they're welcome to do so. Fulfilling my (childish) need for clumsy narratives of courage is not what their lives are about. I pretend they have to drive fast; but they really don't.

Not so with these adopted kids. When you (we) insist that they take risks to fulfill your need for narratives of the heroic supremacy of a mother's love, bad things will happen to a lot of them, but they have no choice. You pretend they have to thrive without of the love of (usually) a father; and then they really do.

So what IS the deal?

whether enjoyed in sweltering Southern ovals by fat beer drinkers or in Mediterranean-cooled principalities by daughters of European wealth wearing no underwear

I know which I'd prefer. But what on earth are you on about? Is this analogy meant to mean something?

You pretend they have to thrive without of the love of (usually) a father; and then they really do.

So you're saying if we all pretend then it all works out ok? Then let's all think good thoughts and Sandra Bullock and her adopted child will be fine.

I just mentioned all of this to a coworker. I explained the blog piece and how the consensus is: two functional parents are better than one. He told me to shut up and sit down b/c I offended him.

Great way to start off the day.

The consensus is really this: two functional parents are better than one, but one is better than none.

If there wasn't a shortage of adoptive placements for black babies, I would agree with Crid. I'm sure these agencies look for qualified two-parent placements first, preferably within the child's own race, but they aren't finding those for every child...or even the majority of children they are expected to place.

And it's important that a newborn quickly bonds with an adoptive parent, rather than remain in foster care or shelters waiting for the perfect family. Attachment disorders can occur even within those first few months. It would be disastrous to refuse early adoptions for these children if there are homes available, even with single parents. The older these children get, it becomes even harder to place them.

So, these agencies are in a race against time. They have to look at who wants this child NOW. If single parents are the only ones stepping up to the plate at that moment, they can't be dismissed.

I agree with Jen, nothing in principle wrong with having a baby that late, provided you have your shit together and it is properly planned ('it' being the next 18 years + 9 months).

"Young, handsome, appealing men are maimed and sometimes die under the completely bogus pretext that it's important to drive fast."

I don't know about 'important', and of course rationally it is stupid: But it is fun.

> Is this analogy meant to
> mean something?

Don't be all snotty when [A] you give no evidence of having read the whole comment and [B] you use awkward phrasings like "meant to mean". If you wanna respond to what was said, maybe we could move forward.

> If there wasn't a shortage of adoptive
> placements for black babies

That shortage exists your in daydreams, where it nourishes your fantasy of the Super-Independent White Momma, a sort of matronly & provident Mary Tyler Moore figure, with nutritious nipples flying to and fro as starving urchins dance in delight while her knit hat ascends toward Heaven. Yer gonnnnn-aa maaaaake-it af-terrrrrr all!

> nothing in principle wrong with having
> a baby that late

No?

> rationally it is stupid: But it is fun.

As is playfully warping the lives of distant children to comport to one's personal neglect of human nature.

Adoption & Single mothers:

http://www.cwla.org/programs/adoption/singlemother.htm

Relevance?

How critical they are to the whole process, especially for minority adoptions.

Also this:

http://library.adoption.com/articles/the-colors-of-adoption-black-vs.-white.html

"Opponents of race matching contend that the numbers now seem stacked against the possibility of same-race adoptions. Of the estimated 500,000 children in the U.S. foster home system, more than half are minorities. Of those available for adoption, 40 percent are black, although blacks represent only about 13 percent of the general population. What is more, according to the National Adoption Center, which keeps track of so-called hard-to-place children, about 67 percent of such children are black and 26 percent are white, while 67 percent of the waiting families are white and 31 percent are black."

What's your point? It's senseless to affirm that loving white couples won't adopt healthy black babies when every source you cite notes that they're discouraged if not forbidden from doing so.

Yes; Older children are harder to adopt, and I might concede that older black children have the toughest road of all.

But it's preposterous, positively hateful, to infer that single adoptive motherhood is the way out of this. And for healthy babies, such a fate is essentially slavery. Got it?

What's your point? It's silly to keep asserting that there are so many loving white couples looking to adopt black babies when you can't show any proof of this. How do you think the 40% of adoptable black children end up in foster care? They all didn't get put there as older children. It's logical to assume that many started out in the system and were just never adopted.

A white couple with whom I work just adopted a black child. They have three biological children as well. A black administrator said this at the baby shower that was given to them at work: "People need to learn to stick with their own kind."

Just thought I'd share this real-life scenario.

But it's preposterous, positively hateful, to infer that single adoptive motherhood is the way out of this. And for healthy babies, such a fate is essentially slavery.

Way to go over the top Crid. Slavery?

What about couples that adopt then later break up. Are they automatically being 'hateful' and enslaving their children too by virtue of ending their relationship?

Look, I think if single parents are going to adopt they should face fairly high bars to jump in terms of proving they can provide for a child, have a stable home life, and so on - I'll guarantee you I would fail any criteria I would set - but there are plenty of single parents out there with biological children that do just fine. What's the difference?

Nope, I mean that precisely. Souls are being compulsorily cast into service of others without negotiation and without appropriate remuneration. That's slavery.

And, as I've said here at least seven times before... If America continues to grow and improve as it has, in two hundred years people will look back at our family policies and practices with the same befuddlement with which we regard our slaveholding Founding Fathers. "How could they NOT have known?"

> Are they automatically being 'hateful'

Yes...

> and enslaving their children

Essentially. It's something about that bad. If it only happened sometimes, maybe it would be forgiveable. But not like this... The western world is cruelly fucking it up its children, and doing it in generations when we need everyone at their best.

> What's the difference?

Oh, finish your fucking sentence. Have the courage to finish your sentence. You meant to ask, or to glibly evade asking, "What's the difference to child if their parents divorce? Why should they care?"

Ask some. And ask them when the wound is fresh, say an hour or two later, before they realize they still have to pander to the people who bring them food.

I thought my last sentence was clear from context. I meant what's the difference between a single parent from a divorce or a single parent who adopts. You've made it clear you think both are just as bad, so you're consistent. I don't agree with you and I think the slavery accusation is way over the top, but that's fine. My parents divorced by the way and I still think it was a sensible decision.

You meant to ask, or to glibly evade asking, "What's the difference to child if their parents divorce?

No. Not what I fucking meant (see I can do it too, I just usually refrain from abuse). You might want to slow down and check your grammar too, given you criticised my 'awkward' wording earlier.

> I meant what's the difference between
> a single parent from a divorce or a
> single parent who adopts.

It's hard to believe you need the mechanics of this explained to you. Neither case is the preferred circumstance: Both are so far removed from the ideal that there's no need to choose. As General Omar Bradley put it, "There is no second prize."

> My parents divorced by the way and I
> still think it was a sensible decision.

It's what was supposed to happen? It's what you want from others, and expect from adult friends?

> see I can do it too, I just usually
> refrain from abuse

"Abuse"? Your tolerance for abuse is calibrated by an interesting metric.

"Abuse"? Your tolerance for abuse is calibrated by an interesting metric.

You don't regard "Have the courage to finish your sentence" to be abuse? Them's fighting words surely. You can dish it out Crid but you don't take it very well. You don't seem to have understood my comment either. So here it is in plainer language.

I don't think single parenthood is necessarily bad. You do. We disagree. Got it?

It's what was supposed to happen? It's what you want from others, and expect from adult friends?

Did I say I wanted it? No. But it was the right decision in the circumstances, which you don't know anything about but still feel qualified to opine on. Maybe if you spend more time reading and less time putting words in my mouth you would be more convincing.

> You don't regard "Have the courage to finish
> your sentence" to be abuse?

No. And no sane man would. Are you a teen girl at cotillion, mocked for the bias of her gown?

> You don't seem to have understood my
> comment either.

Well, be learnin' to do your writin' better.

> I don't think single parenthood is necessarily bad.

Then you haven't done the math. Typical divorce is a needless scourge— Risky, emotionally and financially impoverishing (in that order) misconduct that truly loving parents will do their God Damnedest to avoid. And they'll do that work before the child is born... Because they love their children more than those who don't do the work.

> Did I say I wanted it? No.

First of all, don't interview yourself... You're not a guest on my late-night talk show. Second, don't be so breezy about a source of enduring pain for any being with a pulse. Thirdly, state your truths in an affirmative, grown-up manner: It's shitty when parents divorce. That's more than enough truth to cover the topic.

> which you don't know anything about but
> still feel qualified to opine on.

That's correct! (Not actually. I have a divorce of my own, though there were no children involved.)

It's important that you understand this with the highest clarity: I don't care about "circumstances"! I don't care about all the little intimate details... The cap left off the toothpaste in the bathroom or the denial of sex on the day of the promotion. I don't CARE about the infantile issues that populate the typical American heart. I want grown-ups to behave well, protecting their children.

It's fun being an asshole about this. As you should well understand... I think you've been born into a culture –and had your immortal soul bleached by a culture–which makes inexplicable allowances for the childish impulses of fully-grown, licensed-to-drive men and women. You've devoted your powers to the Dark Side of the Force, because no one ever told you that you had an option.

Get over yourself.

"Neither case is the preferred circumstance: Both are so far removed from the ideal that there's no need to choose. As General Omar Bradley put it, "There is no second prize."

Then what do you do with a child put in the system at birth that no couple chooses to adopt? You don't answer that at all because you have no answer. If you can't give them "first prize", you'd rather not consider them at all.

Do you think children living indefinitely in foster care or children's shelters are not "souls being compulsorily cast into service of others without negotiation and without appropriate remuneration?" The adults in their lives still tell them what to do - when to eat, sleep, go to school, etc.

The difference is that in shelters they are called "staff", not mommy or daddy, and in foster homes, the child feels no sense of permanence.

Just because you don't believe there should be a "second prize" doesn't mean there already isn't one. Those kids get "second prize" whether you like it or not. Actually, they get "third prize" because "second prize" is having at least one real parent and a forever home.

"You don't answer that at all because you have no answer. If you can't give them "first prize", you'd rather not consider them at all."

LS: please don't burst his black and white bubble!! The grey will hurt his eyes!

Just because you don't believe there should be a "second prize" doesn't mean there already isn't one.

Said in one sentence.

> You don't answer that at all

We covered it. I think that when it happens, it's because policies and bad agencies make it happen... People with values (race, finance etc.) higher than the love of a mother and a father get in the way. And there's no reason to think I'm wrong but that the pathetic fantasy of the single mother as heroic figure appeals more strongly to you than does, y'know, actual human happiness. Parents in marriage are mundane and imperfect; single moms are dramatic and exciting.

> Just because you don't believe there
> should be a "second prize" doesn't mean
> there already isn't one.

TELL THEM, buttercup! Tell the kids! They're truly at the forefront of a revolution in human think. Heretofore, humanity has regarded origins such as theirs as an inexcusable cruelty, one which society was compelled to move quickly (INSTANTLY, where possible) to resolve, because every kid deserves a loving mother and a loving father. But you guys have new rules!—

Some kids just don't deserve two parents.

I think you should be required to look them in the eye and tell them say that. And tell it to them every second Christmas morning until they're old enough to respond with adult coherence.

And after you've done that a few hundred times, the pattern will emerge for those who are paying attention, though after reading a few twisted narratives like that of LS, above, I'm thinking it maybe the bitter root of this whole discussion anyway....

You guys think it's BLACK babies who don't deserve a mommy and a daddy, right?

Crid: I'm sure you think you've been plenty plain with us, but what you are saying is:

With better policies, every single child in foster care would be placed in an ideal living situation (e.g: two parents, together forever)? And consequently, you are saying that there are enough couples who qualify (according to your standards) who are applying for these children in the U.S (even the 6 year olds with lots of emotional and behavioral issues)? In which case all kids would be in an ideal living situation, and no children would even be available for adoption by singletons.

NEVER TRANSLATE. It's STUPID to translate. It concedes and demonstrates the weakness of your argument... Because I never said that. You can't win the argument with me, you can only win the argument with what you wish I'd said.

This is exactly the larger fault. The fantasy of heroic motherhood is more attractive than a reality of loving families.

I never said "ideal living situation". No locution is more unlikely to spill from my lips. (First of all, it's redundant....)

Not 'ideal'... What's best. What's best for kids is a loving mother with a loving father.

And there are apparently some people here, Miss Boston, who don't think black kids deserve what's best.

> And consequently, you are saying that there
> are enough couples who qualify (according
> to your standards)

And consequently, dick. Yes: I'm discussing what my standards for these things are. (All decent people agree with me wholeheartedly, BTW.)

> (even the 6 year olds with lots of emotional
> and behavioral issues)

Go back and read the thread, we covered this at least twice. We're talking babies today.

It's not US that think black kids "don't deserve best". The shortage of couples rushing to adopt them speaks for that.

You seem to be saying (and I hesitate to interpret, as you always do this 'not what I said' dance, which absolves you of any culpability for the rambling impressions you leave) that the loving couple gets trumped by the single mom for financial and/or race reasons.

That clearly isn't true because there are STILL so many black children available for adoption that every couple who wanted one could certainly have one, even if we always gave first choice to rich single parents (although we DON'T).

The number of adoptive couples far outweigh the children available for adoption. Yet, many of these couples are choosing to give their "first prize" status to Russian or Chinese orphans - at comparatively greater expense - rather than adopt domestic babies, especially minorities.

That article even said black babies are DISCOUNTED because of SUPPLY AND DEMAND. It doesn't get clearer than that. To be blunt, they can't even give them away.

Sadly, the few who will take them are often single parents, which is better than nothing. That's just the reality. Twisting it, or blaming us for this - or calling us racist - makes for a lousy argument and no solution.

What these kids "deserve" is irrelevant. They deserve to be born to two loving people who can care for them financially and emotionally and give them everything they need. They've already lost that lottery, through no fault of their own or Sandra Bullock.

White Americans aren't lining up to adopt black babies. When they are, we can justly criticize single mothers for taking these kids away from two-parent families. Until then, loving single-parent families are the best we can offer. It's not great, but it's better.

You can't win the argument with me, you can only win the argument with what you wish I'd said.

That's rich coming from someone who has speculated on the internal motivations of half a dozen people on this thread alone.

Heretofore, humanity has regarded origins such as theirs as an inexcusable cruelty, one which society was compelled to move quickly (INSTANTLY, where possible) to resolve, because every kid deserves a loving mother and a loving father.

That's just bullshit. Historically it's been very rare. Still is.

You guys think it's BLACK babies who don't deserve a mommy and a daddy, right?

What LS and MonicaP said. And you're making stuff up again. No one said that. You seem to live in a fantasy world where there are enough couples wanting to adopt that every baby would find a home and where no one would ever divorce and would work out their problems and be loving parents. Ain't going to happen. Try dealing with reality.

BTW, thank you MonicaP, Gretchen, and lovelysoul for weighing in - it's nice to read some sane commentary for a change. I had just about given up.

> The shortage of couples rushing to adopt
> them speaks for that.

How are you so sure there's a shortage when adoption workers, including black ones, are so eager to refuse white adoptive parents?

You just want it to be true. You want it so bad you can taste it....

> That article even said

I discount your source. M'kay? Don't believe it.

> Sadly, the

Don't start sentences that way.

> What these kids "deserve" is irrelevant.

Tell them, tell them, tell them that. Children are the slaves of our generation.

> White Americans aren't lining up to adopt black babies

What makes you think so?

> Until then, loving single-parent families are
> the best we can offer

It's just a horseshit lie. It's pathetic. It's grotesque.

> Historically it's been very rare.

Gonna need a cite.

> No one said that.

Where else were you going with all this? Consider Monica:

> loving single-parent families are the
> best we can offer.

Slavery. You little baby fucks should be grateful for these scraps...

"How are you so sure there's a shortage when adoption workers, including black ones, are so eager to refuse white adoptive parents?"

Honestly, Crid, I don't know for sure, but neither do you know that there are so many couples eager to adopt these children.

I'm surmising that there aren't by the number of adoptable black children STILL in the system. My conclusion is based on the assumption that they couldn't all have been placed when older. A certain percentage had to be placed in the foster care system while they were babies.

I know that adoptive couples are reluctant to take older children for fear of behavioral problems, and my experience with social workers is that they are eager to find placements of almost any kind at that point....white, black, or martian.

So, the question is whether these same social workers are sabotaging two-parent placements of black children at birth.

I don't know the answer to that, but neither do you. However, I find it highly doubtful.

For instance, I know my gf was called by social workers from the hospital to pick up her child because she indicated she and her husband, as a white couple, would take a black baby.

But, as I said, their son was born with crack in his system, so we might assume that these social workers are saving the "good" black babies only for black couples.

If this is true - and this "saving" doesn't then result in a timely adoption (which seems evidenced by 40% still languishing in foster care) it would be as unjustified as saving them for a two parent family over a single parent one.

Somebody's idealogy of a perfect family shouldn't come before the immediate needs of the child. If "saving" them for the perfect situation is ultimately costing them the chance to be adopted, it is a prime example of "do-gooderism" resulting in the worst possible outcome.

As a GAL, I've seen how that can be the case. Then, the "do-gooders" wash their hands of the whole situation because it didn't turn out so well. But THEY are culpable for the bad outcome because they refused to accept "second best" and now the child is left with even worse options.

> White Americans aren't lining up to adopt black babies

What makes you think so?

The lack of queues.

> Until then, loving single-parent families are
> the best we can offer

It's just a horseshit lie. It's pathetic. It's grotesque.

Gonna need a cite. Seeing as you asked for one when I said that societies have generally not put the needs of orphaned or abandoned children at the top of their priority list. I cite Charles Dickens, thousands of orphanages round the world, infanticide in China today and many societies previously. How can you possibly believe that before now societies have tried to "INSTANTLY, where possible", to quote your caps, resolve these situations? Horrible things have happened to babies and children all round the world, not all of that came from adoption rules and no-fault divorce.

I still don't get this slavery thing either. Earlier you tried to explain it as;

Souls are being compulsorily cast into service of others without negotiation and without appropriate remuneration. That's slavery.

But that's equally true when a couple adopts. Why is it slavery when a single parent adopts a child but not when a couple does?

> The lack of queues.

I'll say this a fifth time if you want: No reason to believe that but that you want to. When –as has been so often noted in the wordy, emotion-tugging, statistic-free pieces that have been linked here– adoption agents are discouraging trans-racial adoption of babies, it's a little silly to pretend the parents are being racist. The racism blows in the other direction: The wind is at your back, as it happens.

> Gonna need a cite.

For a guy who whines about abuse, you sure are a snarky little feller. Here's the math: I think loving fathers are good for kids. You're not as concerned about kids as you are about ennobling single motherhood. That this parenthood is less competent is irrelevant to you.

Maybe this is all just a twisted way for very hip, modern, with-it people to throw some love back in the direction of the Mommy archetypes of yore... Home and hearth and aprons and hands dusty with flour and a kiss on the knee when you have an ouchy. Maybe some desperate, niggling fragment of rationality survives in your soul, and you want to throw a bone to the emotionally-charged and difficult centrality of loving family composition. What to do?

Aha! You'll pretend motherhood is a comic-book superpower, a magical pixie-dust. This fulfills your American need for Hollywood narrative, where a single individual transforms the world. After all, you do it this way and no one can accuse you of not being a thoroughly contemporary feminist, right? Works out for everybody!

Except the children you willfully condemn to fatherlessness. They're the best slaves of all time: They can never revolt. Well, actually, they revolt all time, but their rioting begins in their own lives. And by the time they're grown and all fucked up, you'll be able to cynically snort that they oughta get over it.

Because you're not going to do what I asked, and tell them NOW that they don't deserve what's best. You're going to silently, cowardly, let that crippling truth seep into their lives in every hour of every day.

> I cite Charles Dickens, thousands of
> orphanages

You don't "cite" them, you use them as your standard. Compared to them, what the Hell, right? Whatever. You're pretending society never got better than the worst condition you ever heard of.

> But that's equally true when a
> couple adopts.

No. When a loving mother and father adopt, the kid's getting the best shot any kid could hope to have... Not a promise that things will work out, but just the best shot.

You think the black kids don't deserve what's best.

http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/s_seek.pdf

"Most Americans favor adoption, and many have at some point considered adoption. However, relatively few have taken concrete steps toward adopting a child, and fewer still have actually adopted a child. This factsheet examines some of the more recent statistics and trends regarding American adults who seek to adopt an infant or child."

Children in public foster care waiting to be adopted:

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/waiting2006.htm

This is broken down by state. My state, FL, even has a website where you can view photos and descriptions of these children...almost like online shopping. I think there are other sites like this too.

It is obvious that people (single or married) are not rushing forward to adopt these children.

Here's one site where you can shop for a foster child to adopt:

http://www.adoptuskids.org/

These kids just need a home. Single parent or couple - whoever will take them. If there are so many loving couples out there, acually taking steps to adopt, these sites wouldn't exist.

And AGAIN, LS, these points are irrelevant. And AGAIN, LS, we're talking about babies, not older kids. The movie start went out and got a BABY.

RELEVANCE.

BABIES.

Crazy liberal man hating femi-nazi bitches have no business raising children. Or writing self help books either for that matter HAHAHAHAHA