Study: 'Pre-born' most adoptable

[Are_grits_groceries]

PASADENA, Calif., April 26 (UPI) -- British and U.S. researchers said the chances of adoption dramatically decrease after a baby is born.

Researchers at the London School of Economics and the California Institute of Technology and New York University said parents appear to favor babies who are close to being born as compared to babies already been born or early in gestation.

The researchers found non-African-American babies are seven times more likely to be chosen than African-American babies, and girls had slightly more than one-third higher chance than boys of attracting the attention of those seeking to adopt.

The study data came from a Web site run by an adoption intermediary who matched parents and birth mothers between 2004 to 2009.

"With biological children, the literature shows that there's a slight but significant preference for boys over girls," co-author Leeat Yariv of California Institute of Technology said in statement. "But, in adoption, there's a very strong preference for girls over boys."

The study is at hss.caltech.edu/~lyariv/Papers/Adoption.pdf.
http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2010/04/26/Study-Pre-born-most-adoptable/UPI-59061272325047/

The Onion dies a little more.

[Junkie Brewster]

1. I'm not a bit surprised

My brother and I are both adopted. He is white, I am not. His adoption cost nearly $5,000 in 1971, and took almost a year to finalize, in part because there were a number of people waiting to adopt him. My adoption cost about $500 and happened so quickly, my parents weren't ready for a newborn. I was born in mid January and my adoption was finalized before St. Patrick's Day in 1972. There were no other candidates to adopt me. This was in Southern California. Neither of us have any birth defects.

[stray cat]

2. How can people adopt something that isn't considered human?

[happyslug]

4. Look at the comment, the idea age is the last three months of pregnancy

he key is the statement "favor babies who are close to being born as compared to babies already been born or early in gestation." That implies the last three months of a pregnancy and even under Roe vs Wade that was considered something a state could ban from being aborted.

Remember Roe vs Wade NEVER called a fetus a non-human, but only ruled that the Woman who is carrying the Fetus has a Constitutionally protected right to abort that fetus in the first three months of her pregnancy. She had a lesser right during the middle three months (Lesser in the sense the state could impose some rules) but if she waited till the last three months (the age where the child is theoretically "viable" outside the womb) her ability to abort can be severely restricted (even outlawed except in case of the health of the woman).

Thus a fetus of the age that is the most disable for adoption in the article, is of the age it is fully protected from abortion (The burden in on the woman to show it is best to abort as oppose to the State showing it is best NOT to abort, the rule for the middle three months of a pregnancy).

Now Roe vs Wade has been substantially restricted by the Supreme Court (and for all practical purposes overruled, except that abortions still have some constitutional protection) but I wanted to show a fetus of the age that is most disable for adoption is also of the age that it has the most protection from being aborted even under Roe vs Wade,

[gorfle]

8. Simpe: Some people consider them human.

First of all, unborn humans are, in fact, human.

I think what you means is that it isn't a person.

Many people, like myself, believe that the unborn are people.

I just happen to believe that it's OK to kill some people, and unborn people are on that list.

[BlueIris]

3. I wonder what factors account for the difference in the preference for the baby's sex?

Non-adoptive parents--boys. Adoptive parents--girls. Sounds interesting.

[woo me with science]

5. It may reflect concerns about genetics re: temperament and behavior.

In my experience, foster parents who take in older children, at least, often prefer girls, because they assume that whatever emotional and genetic baggage the kids bring with them will be easier to handle in girls versus boys. There is a general feeling that girls are more likely to come with internalizing than externalizing problems (e.g., depression versus violent behavior)

I don't know if it's fair...I have known some well-behaved boys in foster care and some little girls who gave families a run for their money...but I think some people are more wary of "rolling the dice" genetically with boys versus girls.

If you are talking about international adoptions, the preference toward girls likely reflects a preference to adopt from countries where the kids are less likely to show serious emotional and developmental adjustment problems. More than a quarter of international adoptees now come from China, and most of these are obviously little girls. Given a choice between adopting from countries where kids are likely to have serious problems related to parental alcoholism, poverty, malnutrition, or institutionalization in horrible conditions, and adopting from China (where the child's main serious "handicap" is often being a girl), families will often choose a little girl from China.

[happyslug]

6. My guess is is had something to do with the mating process

98% if the genes in Humans are in Chimpanzees, but chimps do NOT form long term mating relationships like Humans. Furthermore, Chimps there is a tendency for the females to leave the band or clan they grew up in and move into another band or clan. Please note until the Nuclear Family became the norm (and that only since 1800) the extended family was the most important unit in people's life. Given the tendency for males to stay together while women moved to other groups, the extended family was often the band/clan/tribe of the man as opposed to the woman.

If you take the above two observations you come to an acceptance that the Norm (and I mean norm in the sense it occurs more often then NOT, as oppose to an absolute rule), the tendency is for women to move in with a man and among his relatives (Which would be her new "Clan"). She becomes more a factor in his family then she remains in hers and more a factor in his then he ever becomes in hers (Now I admit both sexes maintain relationships with other blood relatives, but as I said above I am going with more often then not test NOT an absolute test). As part of the bonding (In which sex is an important part) the fact that a woman bears a son, who will remain in his father's band/clan further integrates her into his clan. That son is unlikely to leave the clan and abandon her so she has security in her old age. Thus from a biological need for support in her old age, women tend to favor sons who will stay in her new clan and support her in her old age.

Now, the development of the Nuclear family has undermined the above, but it is still a factor for Humans depended on the extended family for support for at least the last 100,000 years (or when ever modern mad evolved from Homo Erectus).

Now as to females, the above test is different. Over the last 100,000 years it was normal for men to bring in non-clan women into the clan. This was "Normal" for their sisters were always leaving for new clans. A new born female would be like any other female, a welcomed and normal female addition to the clan (The only difference would be the age, instead of a teenager it would be a new born baby). Both the women of the Clan (almost all of them born outside the clan) and the males (Almost all of them born inside the clan) would welcome the new female into the group as they would any female (Welcoming female would be the norm, fighting other males would also be the norm). Male babies would be viewed with suspicion, just like males born outside the clan would be viewed as potential enemies.

Please note I am just suggesting WHY the males are preferred if born into a family while females are preferred if adopted. Notice the rates of both are NOT that much different, it is just a statistical significance difference and an understanding on how pre-agricultural societies worked is the best explanations for the difference,

[TalkingDog]

7. I had to check for the Onion link. Sadly unsurprised to see it's not there. n/t

[BlueIris]

9. That's happening to me more and more these days. nt