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.