Non Profit...

I don't really think that we disagree as much as it might appear. I am not saying that I think that the government should not be involved at all. Actually I am specifically referring to only "non-profit' adoption agencies. And yes, I do understand that we are technically not directly supporting various non-profits, but, indirectly through their tax breaks we sort of are. As least that's how I view it. As I said, I am only discussing non-profit adoption agencies that are making enormous sums of money. And yes, it does disturb me that some of the non-profit agencies are not held nearly as accountable as I feel that they should be for the way that they facilitate adoptions. Perhaps the "for profit" agencies are worse, I do not know, I only know that some of the non-profit agency practices are despicable in my view. That's all I am saying. Not trying to debate whether non-profits should even exist or how much the government should be involved in social issues.

My point was that we're all free to question, wonder about, etc. how non-profit adoption agencies go about their business but they are just like any other non-profit - sometimes you agree with their stance/actions sometimes you don't. I thought having an NRA conference take place basically outside the gates of Columbine HS was pretty dispicable too but that's just my view. The Red Cross makes tons of money. So does Habitat for Humanity, pro-choice NARAL, lots of other groups. They make money to spend money in support of their respective causes. That's how non-profits work. Why should an adoption agency non-profit work any differently? The issues involved are no more or less important to adoption agency stakeholders than any other non-profit. Everyone feels passionately about their issues. When you get to the point of wanting to regulate the speech of these groups I think you've defeated the purpose of having non-profits. They're a mechanism for individual people of like minds to advance their common agenda. No one says you have to like them - indeed folks can and do create their own anti-whatever non-profit groups all the time. Non-profit status (or the lack thereof) does not and should not ensure that groups do the right thing all the time, especially since the right thing - in terms of social policy, adoption agency tactics, etc - is subjective and based on the common view of the group's members/supporters. I'm not suggesting that the tactics aren't questionable sometimes - I just don't think the tax status group is of any real consequence in the grand scheme of things. And yes, we can agree to disagree. :)

As I said I am not interested in discussing all non-profits. I just think when we are dealing with an event as serious as adoption, that they should not have such free rein and there should be adequate accountability - even more so for a non-profit. I guess I do expect more ethical behavior, etc. from a non-profit. Perhaps that is naive and ill-conceived, but, I imagine I am not the only person who would expect more from a non-profit. Maybe that's the whole point of this conversation? That we should not expect any more ethical behavior from a non-profit agency than any other adoption agency?

That's it EXACTLY. I understand that you're not interested in discussing all non-profits but that's b/c this type of non-profit is particularly important to you. But if you think of it in these terms (which I do) then it starts to look more like an odd form of censorship... I just think when we are dealing with an event as serious as [adoption, abortion, gay rights, gun control, global warming], that they should not have such free rein and there should be adequate accountability - even more so for a non-profit... It's odd to me b/c the only functional difference between a for-profit and non-profit org is in how they use their profits - plowing it back into the cause or divvying it up among shareholders. In both cases there is accountability - only in one the accountability is to the members of the group and in the other case it's to external shareholders.

I suppose for non-profits to behave in ways that I consider more suitable and proper for a "for profit" venture and to use their profits in ways that I consider to be extravagrant, improper and/or sometimes unseemly just seems worse to me. That is most likely because I think I do somewhat think of non-profits as being more altrustic and more interested in humanity than money. Maybe that is a misconception on my part. Wonder how many people do have lots of misconceptions about "non-profits"? I suppose a term that might suggest less of an interest in profit can be somewhat misleading. As to whether the group gets the profits or shareholders, I see your point I suppose. I guess somehow the fact that adoption should be SO profitable period is pretty hard for me to fathom.

I see what you're saying. I'm not suggesting some charities don't have questionable expenditures, they do. I just think that what you or I deem as "extravagrant, improper and/or sometimes unseemly" may not be how the members of that group feel and at the end of the day it's the group members/stakeholders who set the agenda and direction for the organization. For every person who thinks anti-adoption groups are altruistic for counesling a (wild example here) drug-addicted mother/father to parent on the taxpayer's dime, there's another who thinks that's wholly improper. KWIM? Most big, modern charities operate more like businesses (right or wrong) in order to grow and thrive. The rationale (whether one embraces is it or not) is that the larger they are and the more they bring in the more people they can "help". It's true that adoption is profitable for lots of people - attorneys being one, social workers, etc. and as an amom it pissed me off to no end that so many people saw big dollar signs on my forehead - but I don't attribute that to the non or for profit status of the group, rather it's a function of the hit and miss way we've set up adoptions in this country.

Wow, I never realized that drug addicted mothers and fathers weren't taxpayers!

Like I said - wild example.

Yes, I would say that is a rather wild example. Although I am not anti-adoption personally, I have come across some people who are. Though I must say none who would agree to urge a drug addicted person to parent. Actually, I am heartened to hear you say that you feel that the way adoptions are handled in this country is hit and miss. I knew we'd find something to agree on! I agree that people shouldn't see dollar signs on adoptive parents' foreheads - no one shouldn't be making vast sums of money by providing babies to people. However, agencies or others also shouldn't be out beating the bushes looking for babies either with dollar signs on their foreheads. So, do we agree we need a better system? A better way of handling adoption in the U.S.?

I think we can agree on that. I don't think adoption should cost as much as it often does and I have real problems with some of the fees agencies charge. I think we'd probably disagree on what the solutions are but that's for another day. ;) OT - Ya know, as an aa couple and first-time aparents our adoption experience wasn't even remotely close to what some have described on these boards. I didn't write a series of long, plaintive letters to make someone feel sorry for me (our "profile", such as it was, was rather spartan) and we weren't cool with a long match and lots of expenses and didn't have either one. It has been and continues to be hard for me to wrap my head around just how railroaded (by agencies and family) some people feel. I understand that they feel that way and I try to understand why - I've just never known anyone (and I've known lots of people with unplanned pregnancies, myself included) who experienced any pressure to place. Among most aa's, the pressure has always been to parent - even in the 50's/60's. We have a whole lotta biracial adults in my family born to single parents during those years as living proof! So it's hard for me to reconcile the idea of agencies as corrupt baby-snatchers out to make money with what's been the norm in my family and community. Someone would have to go out of their way to seek adoption assistance since that is rarely, if ever, the 1st or 2nd option tossed out. *shrug* Honestly, I think that this is the one thing that these forums really lack - greater ethnic diversity among birthparents and to a far lesser extent, adoptees. I have a hunch, although I can't be sure, that their experiences and perpsectives might be *somewhat* different than the ones most common here now.

The last thing my husband said on his way to bed was "Don't stay up too late". So this is my last email tonight. I couldn't resist though. You just brought up a very interesting point. The cultural differences as far as adoption apparently are quite different. I had read that among most aa's (and also in some other cultures) adoption is not a popular option. Not only that, but, during the baby scoop era in the 60's apparently aa's were being turned away in droves as the demand for their babies was not there. Even now, some agencies list "prices" for babies according to their racial or ethnic make-up. The latest trend is that some aa babies from the U.S. are being sent to other countries, Canada for one, because supposedly there is less racial prejudice there. Trust me on this, I know many, many women who experienced unplanned pregnancies in the 60's, and for them, adoption was THE option. It was nearly impossible to be an unmarried woman in my culture then and have the remotest chance of keeping your baby. Unmarried mothers in those days social outcasts - had a hard time getting jobs or even renting apts. Hard to imagine, huh? But, I am not aa - that was a deciding factor in those days. When my husband drug ME to an adoption agency in the late 60's, they were practically licking their chops at the prospect of getting my baby - my blonde hair and green eyes had them nearly salivating I imagine. Talk about seeing dollar signs! But, yes, I know that our experiences have been different. In my culture, adoption was and still is a "popular" option, but, I do understand how it would be hard for you to imagine that baby-snatching scenario. I know way too many women who are quite familiar with it though. Personally, I prefer the way your culture handles unplanned pregnancies better - keeping the babies within the family when possible.

This has always been my perception - parenting is favored above all else. Even now when family or friends ask me about our adoption they do so b/c they can't really fathom voluntarily placing a child outside the family (social service cases being the exception). I think my family's just a little different than most tho in that our definition of "family" is really expansive and goes way beyond blood ties to include horses and dogs and cats. Truly - I believe my aunts would list their pets on the family tree if allowed. There are members of my "family" who aren't related to me and never were adopted - they've just been accepted. There are friends of my aunt's (my aunt's been dead for 15 years) who still attend family gatherings and are warmly welcomed b/c there's a history there. Heck - my grandma's last real estate agent, who she didn't know from Adam before, can be seen proudly holding dd in family photos from last Thanksgiving and was named an honorary offspring! We're just wierd like that. Don't get me wrong, my family's not perfect - this is just one area where I think we have things juuuust about right. Anyway, good night. See, I'm really not the devil incarnate. :D

I must agree with you - how's that for a switcheroo? I think your family has it about right too. Been thinking about what you said about the diversity issue. Sounds like you are right - even your experience in adopting sounds a bit different - guess maybe you should be thankful for that, huh? Those letters sound pretty pitiful to me begging to be picked. I feel sorry for woman writing and reading them. There must be a better way! I do think different that different ethic or cultural backgrounds matter as to one's experiences in adoption. Come to think of it, I have only met one aa birth mom on line - not on this forum. A very cool woman in Texas. I do know a few bi-racial adoptees, but, you are the first aa adoptive mom I have met on-line or in person. Glad you aren't the devil incarnate! You're feisty - like me I think - I like that quality in a person. :flower:

Well thanks. In the end, I think we can all agree that having several viable options is in everyone's best interest. The idea of being forced or coerced into parenting is just as ugly as being forced into placing a child. Ewwe - I just looked out my window and it's snowing...HARD! WOO HOO...time to go wake up dd so we can go out and play!

Yep, being forced to do ANYTHING isn't cool - but forcing parenthood or relinquishment - the consequences of either are too monumental. Awww, I love snow! It never snows where I live - well, it does a hour or so away, but never nearby. Have fun in the snow with your little one!