Adopting a Snowflake

[33girl]

Originally Posted by carnation

Re: terminology...I can't think of how else it could be phrased and I don't really care if someone thinks that wasn't PC.

"And sometimes those children are too physically, mentally or emotionally damaged for even the most caring and loving and financially stable of possible parents to deal with."

I thought of that and I'm not even really awake yet.

If you want to rip on the state for lying about conditions or inflating figures, then do that, but don't make the children sound like 1997 Impalas. It's not their fault.

[carnation]

No, it's not, and I'd like to rip on some birthparents for damaging them. I want to rip on some workers for lying to so many fine families that I know of who were victimized and then blamed because they tried their best but couldn't do it.

Adoption, particularly of an older child, is not for some people. Demand all the paperwork you can get and talk to the former foster parents.

That said, your child can end up with problems, whether he/she is biological, adopted, "snowflake", you name it, and you may or may not be responsible for those.

And--the terminology I used, including "damaged", is frequently used in the adoption world. Not in places where the children can see it, of course, but in literature, research, and in frank talking in the adoption world. It is needed to convey the seriousness of what has happened to certain children, and "flossing it up" helps no one.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by carnation

And--the terminology I used, including "damaged", is frequently used in the adoption world. Not in places where the children can see it, of course, but in literature, research, and in frank talking in the adoption world. It is needed to convey the seriousness of what has happened to certain children, and "flossing it up" helps no one.

Yes and I knew what you meant. Perhaps your explanation for your use of that terminology should be that it is commonly used terminology. Of course that doesn't mean that everyone in the adoption world agrees with that terminology. However, saying "I don't care if some folks don't consider it PC" gives it a particular tone and is almost like saying "I said it, what are you gonna do about it."

I still hate the use of "snowflake" so of course I'm not going to be a fan of some of the commonly used terminology.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by carnation

And--the terminology I used, including "damaged", is frequently used in the adoption world. Not in places where the children can see it, of course, but in literature, research, and in frank talking in the adoption world. It is needed to convey the seriousness of what has happened to certain children, and "flossing it up" helps no one.

agzg nailed it, you said "Who knows what condition those children are in," as if you should have gotten a Carfax report.

And since those children will be able to find all that frank talk by about age 13 or so thanks to the internet, they're the ones who can provide further objection.

There's also a weird dichotomy in talking about people as objects in a thread that talks about embryos as people.

[33girl]

Well, "PC" is more for things like "differently abled." My mom (who was in a wheelchair) heard that once and basically said "That's stupid. I'm in a f'ing wheelchair."

I don't think "PC" applies to the comment we are discussing at all, whether you like the term PC or not.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

Really? You're going to attack the adoptive mother of FIVE children for pointing out that not every set of potential parents is ready/able to adopt an emotionally troubled child?

So, your definition of "attack" has really gone downhill, huh?

...

Oh no I attacked you.

...
...
...

I'm a horrible, horrible person for ellipsising you.

Originally Posted by agzg

That's a super defensive post to something that actually just made me giggle.

Should've asked for the CarFax.

lol

Originally Posted by 33girl

"And sometimes those children are too physically, mentally or emotionally damaged for even the most caring and loving and financially stable of possible parents to deal with."

I thought of that and I'm not even really awake yet.

If you want to rip on the state for lying about conditions or inflating figures, then do that, but don't make the children sound like 1997 Impalas. It's not their fault.

This.

And mostly I think adopting an embryo is value neutral, it's as good or bad as having IVF oneself or having a child in vivo. But it's not at all like adopting an actual child, infant or otherwise. I guess if you see embryo as 'person' you're saving a life.... maybe. There's no guarantee that the embryo would 'take' after all. Which is why IVF parents fertilize so many in the first place, and implant more than one. This shit's expensive and multiple procedures increase the cost significantly.

But 'snowflake' is stupid as is whining about being "PC" when this was nothing of the sort.