Leave a comment

redstar826 December 29 2012, 04:23:17 UTC
So, this just applies to the US? Like, a couple from Canada could still adopt a Russian child? Yeah, that doesn't sound politically motivated at all...

Reply

maenads_dance December 29 2012, 04:30:31 UTC
Exactly. Putin is an incredibly creepy leader who uses post-Soviet resentment of Russia's new second-class status on the world stage to whip up nationalist support, and banning US adoption is part of a whole slew of shitty things he's done lately, whether it's threatening Russians with huge jailtime for associating with international NGOs to supporting speech restrictions for LGBT folks. Putin is about as scummy personally as Berlusconi, and about as corrupt; moreover, he also engages in a weird brand of personal propaganda (riding shirtless, diving for 3000 year old pots, shepherding endangered cranes to safety in an experimental aircraft) that have more in common with totalitarian leaders than with democratically elected officials. United Russia regularly engages in voter fraud - my favorite instance is the returns from Chechnya I believe in the most recent example where a whopping 99% of voters apparently turned out for Putin (and in some districts, you got like 106% voting, lol) which given Putin's history of brutal repression ( ... )

Reply

papasha_mueller December 29 2012, 08:14:59 UTC
Putin eats children for breakfast, too.

Reply

knigolubka December 29 2012, 10:46:07 UTC
There far less cases of non-American adoption + there were no high-profile cases of babies being killed in, say, Canada.
It is politically motivated but that's not so simple.

Reply

cinnamontoast December 29 2012, 14:27:17 UTC
Exactly.

After the earthquake in Haiti adoption groups swooped into the tiny country to 'save the orphans' and ship them back to the USA immediately. Problem? The kids often still had extended family (and sometimes parents who placed them there temporarily for safety) who very much wanted them.

Reply

romp December 30 2012, 05:54:02 UTC
I remember that. The people claimed it was a misunderstanding but I think they were held for a couple weeks. I wish they could have been truly punished but I know Haiti has other problems. Still, that was an outrageous case and a good example of what's wrong with First Worlders wanting to "rescue" children elsewhere. I understand the instinct but that laid out the dark side.

Reply

cinnamontoast December 30 2012, 15:23:34 UTC
The problem isn't people who want to help. Agencies and lawyers cater to the notion that childless American couples have a right to another family's child because they have more money and can provide children with more stuff; I.e., 'A higher standard of living'. Kids who truly have no living families and no hope of an in-country adoption certainly need homes and sending them to America can be a wonderful choice. But childless American couples have no right to a child that isn't theirs, no matter what they've been promised by an overpriced adoption agency or shady lawyer who has no business making such promises.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up