Probably worried about population decline. They abandoned their 1 child policy quite awhile ago and now have a maximum 3 child policy.
Yeah and according to wiki the 3 child policy isn’t even enforced?
…allowing each couple to have three children and cancelling restrictive measures including fines for couples having more children than permitted.
I used to work with a guy who had 7 kids. Seven fucking kids. Jfc.
Understandable. As others said, they have a demographic decline.
Who doesn’t right now?
Plenty of American kids need homes.
Capitalism doesn’t work on giving everyone a decent standard of living. It works on creating inequality that drives those people who perceive that they have less than others to do something about it. They might work multiple jobs and shorten their lifespan, creating profits for others. They might give up, relying on welfare systems and/or begging. They might become criminals, taking from others to get what they think they deserve.
I’m sure you’re responding to someone else.
I’m explaining that capitalism is not going to deliver a good standard of living for everyone, because it profits from inequality.
What does that have to do with international adoption bans?
Your comment, which I replied to:
Plenty of American kids need homes.
And I said: “Capitalism doesn’t work on giving everyone a decent standard of living.”
Apologies if my communication is too neurodivergent for you, just block me.Edit: Or you could engage in infrahumanisation by asserting that I’m spreading pro-Chinese propaganda… by saying that capitalism is flawed… when China is a hyper-capitalist hellscape.
At least try to make sense.I’m saying that instead of adopting internationally, one could look locally, as there are plenty of kids who need adoption. They don’t need to resort to importing a child from a country that profits on exporting children.
Tell me more about how capitalism fits into an adoption conversation, wumao.
I’m saying that instead of adopting internationally, one could look locally
In terms of benefits to fellow living beings, being a good parent to a child from China is exactly as beneficial as being a good parent to a child from the US. One of those things isn’t more morally appropriate.
There are also other reasons reported online for specifically adopting Chinese children. Due to political decisions, China had many unwanted but healthy female children. There appears to be a strong bias from many families for wanting physically healthy children. This occurred in Romania in the 80s (due to demands from the government to women to have more babies that they could not afford to feed, leading to a large amount of international adoptions and research into those adopted children from Romania).
Another that I am aware of is that Christian churches talk about adopting Chinese babies as a means of spreading Christianity. I also sadly suspect that the very far distance between the child and their birth parents might also be attractive, as there would not be as much meddling in the religious teachings that the adoptive families would wish to instil. It became a popular fad for some time, that had already lessened before this news of China tightening international adoption policies. There are articles about this, but the specific one I read a few months ago is not in my history.
Also, maybe some American parents who already have American children prefer ‘exotic’ children? It’s gross, but that’s the kind of choice you enable when you treat children as a commodity that can be traded internationally for money.It is clear that economics and politics are amongst the forces principally creating situations where we have many children requiring adoption within a country, and also the situation that the adults in that country feel unable to support them. Then, globalisation allows for international adoption. It’s economic systems all the way down.
Suddenly, somewhere people heard a distinct but faint “FUCK” echo through the valley, but they knew it was Angelina Jolie.
It’s a win for the children.
