Monday, February 12, 2007
You might want to write to your local newspaper and point out a major inconsistency in the analyzation of a new survey that claims: "Adoptive parents invest more time and financial resources in their children than biological parents, according to a new national study challenging arguments that have been used to oppose same-sex marriage and gay adoption."
In particular, the researchers said, adoptive parents had a pronounced edge over single-parent and stepparent families.
The researchers noted that adoptive couples, in general, were older and wealthier than biological parents, but said the adoptive parents still had an advantage — albeit smaller — when the data was reanalyzed to account for income inequality.
The researchers said their findings call into question the long-standing argument that children are best off with their biological parents. Such arguments were included in state Supreme Court rulings last year in New York and Washington that upheld laws against same-sex marriage.
THE PROBLEM with this odd cause and effect argument is in comparing apples and oranges. The first statement says that (two) adoptive COUPLE parents have an "edge" over single (and step) parents. Well two would have an advantage over one! DUH! The second sentence refers to biological prents (TWO)! Not a single parent.
NOTE: Adam Pertman, executive director of the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, welcomed the study’s findings, but cautioned against possibly exaggerated interpretations of it.
The study was funded by the National Science Foundation, the Spencer Foundation and the American Educational Research Association. Powell’s co-authors were Laura Hamilton, a doctoral student at Indiana University, and Simon Cheng, a sociology professor at the University of Connecticut.
Adoption is complex, and the amounts of time and money "invested" in the children may not necessarily be a "measure" of success.
Extra time and money could also be seen as efforts to control the children and make the adoptive parents seem "more loving."
This can lead to something we have all seen: the "grateful adoptee," who talks about how much the adoptive parents did, gave, spent,sacrificed.etc etc.
Adoptive ties have to be "proven" and blood ties do not. I have known many many adoptive parents and they strike me as insecure, always trying to prove they are "real."
My questions is: if adoptive parents try harder, how do explain more than a dozen kids adopted from Russia alone being killed by adoptive parents, not to mention all the other children abused, tortured etc by "highly motivated" adoptive parents???
Good question..and I would like to see the murders of these innocents get more publicity. No one seems to pay much attention to them, especially not the child-saving groups, who take little notice of the deaths of these adopted children , who were safer in the orphanages than they were with their adoptive parents.
That is a question for another 'study"...and since these studies are voluntary, the adoptive parents whose children are killed, molested, abused, etc. are unlikely to want to participate.
Adoption is still an aberration and not the first choice of most people...so why would it be 'better?"
I found it interesting that the 'study" differentiated between adoptive families and stepfamilies, claiming that adoption was "better" than stepparenting.
But, adoption is a stepfamily, an entire family of steprelatives to the child. And since many stepparents do adopt their stepchildren, where does one draw the line?
Adoption does not re-create the biological family, any more than a stepfamily does.At least in a stepfamily, the children have access to some of their heritage and blood relatives.
less than ideal situation, like divorced parents, single parents etc etc. Of course it is better than foster care and many gays adopt kids who really do need homes because they are older, ill, etc. I have nothing against gay marriage or gay adoption, but I do not see where this study supports it.
I think that either infant adoption or high tech reproduction can result in children being seen more as "investments" because indeed they have had a lot of money and desire invested in them before they ever get in to the
family. So it is not so surprising that these highly motivated people who really,really want to be parents do invest more time and money in their already valued investment.What is not clear is how much they expect back as return on their investment, and what happens when the child can't/won't deliver what they want. And as k rivet pointed out, the children are also often expected to be grateful. Their everlasting gratitude and loyalty are part of the expected payback.
I do not think that it has been proved either that the criteria used in this study really measure what results in a happier, healthier child and person. There are so many other factors than money and time spent that go into nurturing parenting, in either adoptive or natural families.
People who go to "extraordinary means" to have children can want them for warped, narcissistic reasons just as much as those who have no trouble having kids, hence the horrific few who abuse and even kill. They may also have very unrealistic expectations of their children, and expect them to be more than just kids and to validate a lot more of the parent's egos and insecurities than "regular" kids begotten the usual way. This study is a simplistic look at a complex issue.