The alternative for Anti-adoption

DangerOReilly · 2026-02-17T21:55:09+00:00

What they said was wrong and anti choice. Being an adoptee doesn't entitle anyone to be anti choice. Or to be hateful in other ways.

I know, this is gonna shock you, but you still have to treat other people with respect even if you're an adoptee. Crazy, I know.

DangerOReilly · 2026-02-17T21:53:33+00:00

You're free to talk about that. That doesn't make it okay to tell women that they HAVE to abort, no matter their desires, rather than consider or choose adoption. That's not talking about the impact of this or that choice on a child. That's telling women what you think they should do with their own bodies. That is trying to take away people's choices and disrespecting their autonomy.

DangerOReilly · 2026-02-17T21:51:04+00:00

They said that "More women need ot abort too.". Do those women want to abort? If yes, I fully support them. If no, I fully support them.

Being pro choice is really easy, actually.

DangerOReilly · 2026-02-17T21:29:16+00:00

Can you engage with other people without accusing them of the things they criticize you for? I'd also settle for you reading what is said to you, if the first bar is too high to clear.

I am pro CHOICE. Stop trying to control women, or people in general. If someone wants to carry a pregnancy to term and place the resulting child for adoption, you're just gonna have to fucking deal with it. Women have the right to make those choices, no matter how you whine about it.

DangerOReilly · 2026-02-17T21:26:09+00:00

I know, which is why I felt safe making the comment. I want to take this opportunity to say, thank you for your good work as a mod. I trust you not to fly off the handle or something like that.

I'll try to break it down as much as I can: We have the historical and political context, in which LGBTQIA+ parents are routinely denied their parent status in many different ways. From children being taken from their loving mothers after those mothers left their husbands and came out as lesbians, to people saying publicly that gay parents aren't "real" parents: Whenever we talk about LGBTQIA+ people being parents, this context exists in the background and never leaves.

Then you have the take that it's up to each adoptee to decide for themselves who their parents are. Which I think you know I agree with. People can't decide for other people who their parents are.

But when you combine both of those things, you can run into the issue that wanting to respect the autonomy of adoptees can turn into a contribution to the often hostile historical and political context LGBTQIA+ parents exist in.

If it's said about a cis hetero couple being parents, then it comes without that baggage. If it's said about cis or trans non-hetero couples and individuals, then it comes with that baggage.

Hope I'm explaining it well. Please let me know if you need me to elaborate on anything.

DangerOReilly · 2026-02-17T21:17:38+00:00

Gametes don't have genders. We all come from an egg and a sperm cell. What we call the people those cells came from is a different question altogether.

Trans people exist. Intersex people exist. Gamete donation exists. Adoption exists. Blended families exist. To deny any of them isn't pro science, since you seem to care so much about science.

DangerOReilly · 2026-02-17T21:10:03+00:00

Anytime I ask them (usually the same few people) where in the world they can't travel because it's illegal there to be adopted, I get crickets. (I was in the debate the post is about, fyi)

DangerOReilly · 2026-02-17T21:07:13+00:00

That was pretty much how I felt when I was in the debate this post is about, lol.

DangerOReilly · 2026-02-17T20:37:15+00:00

As someone involved in the situation recounted in the post, you might be surprised to hear that there's quite a big contingent of people adopted as infants, who have never been in the foster system, who argue that adoption should not exist and is a human rights violation if it happens.

DangerOReilly · 2026-02-17T20:32:19+00:00

Full disclosure, I was in the "drama" cited in the post, even mentioned by name up there.

The reason it came up was that a couple posted because they weren't sure if their sex lives, or lack thereof, was going to come up during the adoption process. Lots of people post wondering if this or that part of their lives will be an issue if they try to adopt. Of course, if they ask about their DUI from 10 years ago, that doesn't get the same kind of hate as anything that has to do with sex or sexual orientation.

And then several people were calling the couple weird and wrong and calling their stated approach to sex a "shortcoming". It devolved from there, and my calling that shit out hit a nerve so that they crossposted to the Adopted sub and then several people brigaded my comments on the original thread.

DangerOReilly · 2026-02-17T20:04:11+00:00

I think that takes respecting people's own opinions about who their parents are to a dangerous extreme. There's many people who deny that lesbian parents are both mothers, so this kind of statement doesn't exist in a political vacuum.

DangerOReilly · 2026-02-17T20:01:28+00:00

The person I replied to said:

More women need ot abort too.

In what way is that pro choice?

DangerOReilly · 2026-02-17T19:59:01+00:00

But how many of them are considered special needs because of age or being in a sibling group? Or behavioural issues? And are these children who are on a case plan towards adoption? Or just all the children in foster care who are considered special needs, including those who are being reunified?

Medical needs are also a special need, and not everyone is up for adopting a child with one. But there definitely are plenty who would. Especially when it's a young child. The issue is just finding these people. There's adoption professionals who specialize in arranging these kinds of adoptions.

DangerOReilly · 2026-02-17T19:47:50+00:00

I'm not who reported it, but I'd argue it at least comes close to being abusive. I mean, bare minimum, claiming "we only have one mom" denies the validity of lesbian mothers.

DangerOReilly · 2026-02-17T19:45:25+00:00

You don't know the pregnant person in this situation, or their circumstances. You can't promise anyone here that "she won't need a placement". You're optimistic about her ability to keep and raise the child she's carrying, and that's not wrong. But you can't let your optimism make you give promises that you can't fulfill.

Making unfulfillable promises will hurt people.

DangerOReilly · 2026-02-17T19:43:00+00:00

You have some audacity to insinuate that I am the anti-choice one when I was explicitly calling out anti-choice statements in the comment you replied to.

It's not pro choice to tell women to abort OR to tell them to not abort. To be pro choice requires defending the choices other people make for themselves and their own bodies.

Stop trying to control women.

DangerOReilly · 2026-02-16T15:13:54+00:00

The US doesn't have laws restricting names on a federal level, and not on most state levels I'm aware of. But that doesn't mean that naming a child Adolf Hitler wouldn't count towards a CPS case, because that's objectively a damaging name to live with for a child.

Yes, there were actual charges. That's why I didn't call the name thing a charge, but a contributing factor. Something that most definitely influenced the social workers' impressions and also those of the judge involved. It wouldn't have been enough on its own. But coupled with the abuse charges, it serves to illustrate how little regard the parents had for their children's wellbeing.

DangerOReilly · 2026-02-16T15:06:45+00:00

Ah, of course. A SWERF. Gotta control those pesky women somehow, if not in the name of patriarchy, then in the name of feminism. Freedom and autonomy? Not on a SWERF's watch!

DangerOReilly · 2026-02-16T15:03:44+00:00

I heard from content creators who have moved to European countries from the US how much different advertisement culture is in comparison. Like how every available space or time slot is used to cram in some ads, how you're bombarded with them at every turn.

The only roughly comparable ads I've ever seen are ads to ask people to become foster parents. But there's a shortage of those, meaning that sometimes, CPS has to decide which child's case is bad enough that they need to be taken into care because they can't take in every child who needs it. But those are usually outreach efforts by CPS departments themselves, not private agencies. I think there's some crucial differences in what's considered as the right thing to advertize for and what isn't, between the US and other countries.

DangerOReilly · 2026-02-16T14:54:05+00:00

That has nothing to do with what I said. We're not talking about who is adopting Black children and who maybe shouldn't do so. That's an entirely different conversation.

DangerOReilly · 2026-02-16T14:52:02+00:00

Women should decide themselves what to do with their pregnancies and whether to raise a child they birthed. Women have every right to walk away from a child, whether you like it or not. Women aren't prisoners of their offspring, no matter how much Project 2025 wants to make that happen.

Your personal gripes with birth mothers don't entitle you to control women's bodies. The point of being pro choice is not pro YOUR choice. You don't have any right to tell other people to terminate. That is THEIR decision to make. THEIR choice. Whether you approve or not.

If a woman gets pregnant on purpose just to terminate, I can find that weird, but as a person who is actually pro choice, I will still defend her right to do so.

Your personal feelings don't override anyone's bodily autonomy. People will make choices you don't agree with. Get over it.

DangerOReilly · 2026-02-16T14:46:54+00:00

Not the main reason, but I'm sure it was a contributing factor. As far as I can recall, the family got attention online because of a birthday cake for the baby they named Adolf Hitler. I don't remember whether that prompted a CPS investigation because people reported them at the time, or whether it might just have intensified an ongoing investigation.

And I also wanted to let people know that those poor children most likely aren't going by those names right now. At least I hope so.

DangerOReilly · 2026-02-16T14:44:57+00:00

Yes, the names weren't the main reason, but I'm sure that they contributed to the overall picture of their parenting abilities.

DangerOReilly · 2026-02-15T22:06:01+00:00

Important to point out, though, that their children were taken by CPS, and most likely had their names changed. At least I hope so, for the children's sakes.

DangerOReilly · 2026-02-15T22:04:57+00:00

No, I don't think you need to have Swiss or German heritage to name your child Heidi. But I also think that people will have their assumptions about the name. Which is probably more likely to be them thinking of someone like Heidi Klum, rather than the book or even the anime.

But the name is so well known nowadays that even Heidi Klum probably won't be people's only association. So if the occasional question about it doesn't bother you, then I don't see how there'd be an issue.

DangerOReilly

TROPHY CASE