Time line on the messed up-ness?

I think that really its always been about what adults want rather than what children need. Even back during the BSE, when women were forced to surrender in droves, it clearly wasnt about the child but about the shame of bearing a child outside of marriage.....society went to extreme lengths to justify it.......and in the USA at least, society is still doing so. It has been proved in practice here in Australia that the vast majority of infant adoption is totally unnecessary. Girls here, no matter what their age, are encouraged to keep their kids and are supported in their decision to do so. Those girls and their children do very well for themselves, the majority go on to lead happy and fulfilling lives and raise their children well.........of course it requires a level of support from the general public and the government that the US seems incapable of replicating, what it does not do is lead to an increase in child abuse, nor does it lead to the girls life being destroyed. Your ability to achieve great things is not directly linked to how many children you have and what age you have them at.

Here in Australia we also have children waiting in the foster/adopt system, because people will always want newborns to fulfil their dreams.......its sad. In Australia the wait for a newborn can be a decade or more....................obviously the common claim of wanting to help a child in need is pure bullshit! What they are wanting is to help themselves to a newborn, to the extent where many PAP's age off the waiting list (ie: become too old to adopt without ever receiving a child).

ETA @ LC: Im not sure what planet youre living on, however, your implication that babies are all surrendered by "unsuitable" "unloving" parents is very offensive. Youve not met the surrendering parents of these babies, you could not possibly have a clue what kind of parents they would have made to their children..........thanks to the US adoption industry, neither will they because they were talked out of ever finding out.

It is really sad. If I ever adopt, I would honestly want to adopt older kids, maybe even into early teens. But hey, I've always been different.

To say that "however MOST newborns have FAMILY willing and able to provide that," that is true. But a lot of infants put up for adoption don't. Like me, you probably grew up sheltered with a tight, loving family. A lot of people don't have that kind of family life. Even then, they would need family who was willing to take in a child.

On a different note, think about rape victims. Though it is unfair to discard a baby due to the nature of its conception, having an unexpected child as well as dealing with the emotional trauma of rape can be far too overwhelming, and the child would be better in a loving family. Plus, the other alternative is abortion, and I'm pretty sure its obvious that adoption would be far more wanted in the infant's well-being than abortion.

Sadly, I think it's always been more about finding children for infertile couple than what's best for the child. Sadly in the world of adoption, more often than not the child is just a commodity for the agency/baby brokers to provide for the entitled PAPs..

When adoption agencies started pushing babies as products. Don't get me wrong, there are AP's out there who have the right idea and realize that they are adopting a child that needs a family, not fulfilling a need to have a wet womb baby.

However, there will be those who feel they are entitled to a baby, because the idea is being pushed so firmly. I agree with adoption when there is absolutely no other way. (and family has been asked, etc.) Otherwise, it is turning into a very cruel practice...

Just another lovely part of our "all about me" society. The oh-so-entitled-but-infertile ones just up the ante a little bit.

You are right. No one NEEDS a baby. However, a baby NEEDS a stable and loving home, or has that slipped your mind?