Thursday, April 10, 2008

Yeah, SUZANNE, about that infant adoption rate ...


In defense of her Handmaid's Tale fantasy world, the fetus-fixated Suzie All-Caps suggests that there's just a passel of potential parents out there, quivering with anticipation to snap up brand spanking new young'uns:

If the parent is not ready to take care of that child, there are thousands of couples across Canada who would eagerly adopt up that baby.

There are? And yet, via commenter "Pale," we learn (emphasis added):

2) What are the children like who are referred to the Canada's Waiting Children program?

Most children referred to our program are 3 years and up (to the age of majority), but children as young as newborns have been referred to the program. The children referred to the program tend to be more challenging than most of the Canadian children in need of permanent families. This is because children are only referred to us when no other resources can be found in their home region.

Quite right, Suzie, since, as we've already noticed, when Canada's wankers say they're all about the infants, they really mean they're all about the perfect, defect-free ones:

Consider, too, that the children currently available for adoption in Canada are disproportionately burdened with problems of one kind or another. Many suffer from physical problems such as fetal alcohol syndrome. Many are toddlers, or even older children, not infants, who have been seized from abusive homes by Children’s Aid Societies and made wards of the state by the courts. Would-be parents may be unwilling to take on the extra challenges that such children pose, but would happily take on the care of an uninjured, pre-born baby without undesirable psychological baggage.

So, Suzie, where are those "thousands of couples" who can't wait to get their hands on a precious bundle? Oh, right ... they're checking under the hood, and they're not really keen on all those "sub-standard" models, are they?

A new baby? That's a gift from God. A new baby with potential problems? Ehhhhh ... not so much, right, Suzie?

AFTERSNARK
: By the way, it's amusing to see how the fetus fetishists like Suzie All-Caps are all about the kids until, like a new car, you drive them off the lot. Then, suddenly, they're not so appealing anymore, as Suzie points out here when she makes her point that she's talking only about the new ones:

Yes infants. This is the subject of the post, right? They do get adopted...

Six to twelve years. How convenient for you to overlook that. It sounds like there's a huge demand for infants.

Ignoring the fact that I've already demonstrated that that claim is not entirely true, one wonders what it is about older children that makes them so much less interesting to folks like Suzie. It's intriguing to notice how the FFs like Suzie absolutely swoon with delight over the youngsters, until those youngsters hit a particular age. Then, suddenly, ehhhh, they're someone else's problem.

Apparently, that "sanctity of life" notion really does have a "Best Before" date. Who would have guessed?

HOLY CRAP, THE FRIGHTENING DELUSION! In the comments section of this post, commenter "Gigi" lays it all out in crisp detail:

You seem to be completely unclear on the idea that there are people who DO. NOT. LIKE. CHILDREN.

I have never for one moment in my life wanted kids.

EVER.

Not even dolls. (You can ask my mom what became of the baby dolls I was given. Nothing good.)

There is no "suck it up and start wanting them" potion.

I don't like them. Grown ups bore the crap out of me regularly, what on earth do you imagine children do?

So, now I am waiting for you to be 100% honest and out and out state that women like me should plan on a life of celibacy. Go ahead.

No dancing around, what do you really think women who DO NOT WANT children should accept as their destiny?

Exactly. And note well how Gigi makes a critically important observation: "There is no "suck it up and start wanting them" potion." And, on that note, Gigi wants to know Suzie's proposal for how to deal with this situation. And you're not going to believe what comes next (or perhaps, depressingly, you will):

But if you did have a child, that's when the selfishness ends: people have no right to resent their children. If they feel "saddled" with an "unwanted kid", they should grow up. Loving children is a moral obligation. If a parent doesn't like children, he should grow up and learn to do so. He should get over whatever issues he has that's compelling him to demonstrate harmful behaviour.

Pause.

Even after Gigi makes it clear that there is no magic "Must love them" elixir, what does Suzanne suggest? Suck it up and love them, 'cuz it's the right thing to do. Jesus, but how do you even begin to have a dialogue with someone that unspeakably detached from reality?

You used to be just amusing, Suzie. Now you're just freakin' scary.

BY THE WAY, do I really need to point out Suzie's appalling inconsistency? On the one hand, if the mother doesn't want that newborn, well, lots of other people do:

If the parent is not ready to take care of that child, there are thousands of couples across Canada who would eagerly adopt up that baby.

On the other hand, if the mother doesn't want that newborn, well, too damned bad, it's time to grow up and deal with it because, well:

But if you did have a child, that's when the selfishness ends: people have no right to resent their children. If they feel "saddled" with an "unwanted kid", they should grow up. Loving children is a moral obligation. If a parent doesn't like children, he should grow up and learn to do so. He should get over whatever issues he has that's compelling him to demonstrate harmful behaviour.

So which is it, Suzie? If that child isn't a wanted child, can the mother unload it on the state, or is that mother stuck with it? Apparently, you really want to have it both ways. Quelle surprise.

10 comments:

Lindsay Stewart said...

"Loving children is a moral obligation."

as long as they're swimming in amniotic fluid, an infant or... well, that's it. after that they're damaged goods. proper white folk don't want ucky used babies or toddlers with troubles. and if you aren't making use of your uterus for god's good plan, best be keeping your knees together. sluts.

suzie all-caps, coming to a street corner in a sandwich board near you.

Anonymous said...

I still say we drop them off at dr roy's place.

He an anti-choice crusader, he'll know what do to...
Unless of course he already eats children...
That would explain his girth...

as for suzie all-caps.... does she cry at the lost of children when men masturbate?
does she get all weepy at the potential loss when seeing menses?

LuLu said...

How come every post at Suzie's Fetus Emporium is titled "LuLu Wrong Again" or some variation on that theme?

It would appear, in Suzie's scary litlle mind, that you're wrong all the time too, CC. Don't you feel left out?

Mike said...

Odd, we are discussing having kids and abortion, yet in her rant, Suzanne keeps using "he", as in:

"If a parent doesn't like children, he should grow up and learn to do so. He should get over whatever issues he has that's compelling him to demonstrate harmful behaviour."

Uhm, I think poor Suzanne may have some unresolved issues or incidents in her past. This is certainly some kind of projection or Freudian slip...

Not to mention the idea that someone can be MADE to love someone else, if they just grow up or something. How very dysfunctional.

Issues, the woman has issues. I feel sorry for her. It certainly seems to explain her obsession...

Anonymous said...

Issues, the woman has issues.
She has a subscription to issues....


Maybe we should ask little rotten crotch is she let some boy do the nasty and she got pregnant at an early age, force to have an abortion (like so many Catholics), but secretly yearned to keep the baby... in the hopes that Johnny sticky dick would learn to live the child and they would live happily ever after...

CC said...

You will, of course, notice how Suzie has drifted away from addressing my original challenge, which consisted of explaining how she would codify into law new restrictions on abortion.

Instead, she's become all touchy-feely, going about "moral" obligations and how people should grow up and love their new kids and so on and so on. But that's not what I asked, is it?

No, what I asked was something much more specific, and that is: If Suzie wants to change the laws to force some mothers to carry unwanted fetuses to term, what is the subsequent legal obligation on the part of those new mothers? And it's at that point where it becomes obvious that Suzie really hasn't thought about this, has she?

I'm sure you're shocked.

Anonymous said...

(I should not have posted about Frank - my brain is still recovering - )

¢rÄbG®äŠŠ said...

Reason eludes Crêep SUZANNE. There is no arguing with someone like that.

Thankfully, there is taunting, and there is ridicule, two undeniably attractive alternatives. The two may be used in concert.

Ti-Guy said...

Well, I'm glad Gigi confronted SUZANNE with a reality that is inescapable, but now, I'm horrified to see just how far SUZANNE thinks she is allowed into other people's heads: "You must learn to love, you must learn to care for others, you must, you must, you must..."

Sorry, SUZANNE, but the only mind you have control over is your own. If the World around you isn't as caring and loving enough for your tastes, then start examining your own emotions and beliefs and the behaviour they motivate and start having a bit more sympathy for people who don't think like you.

Chimera said...

Y'know...I guess it's a good thing that this blogging thing is a remote thing. Otherwise, I'd be tempted to hunt the bitch down, grab her by the throat with one hand, and slap her with the other hard enough to make her airhead fall off and roll down the street under the wheels of a car. And I'd also be driving.

Somebody wanna 'splain to her the difference between "can" and "want?" As in: "You can do it." "I don't want to."