'anabaptist' Attitude Toward Adoption

[Josh]

Late to this thread, but I grew up with many Plain families who had adopted anywhere from one to six children. Very few of them are still Christian, let alone Mennonite, Brethren, etc. I wonder if the concept of spreading faith through one's children might be more relevant to MN vs. the findings of geneticists?

I for one am no scientist, so while it is interesting, not as relevant to many people's day to day. Just a thought.

I have observed the same thing. It would appear that Christ wants us to make disciples of men, rather than trying to make disciples out of children.

This is heartbreaking for an adoptive family to go through tho. I’m not even sure how to compassionately talk about it. (I may come across with an acerbic side here on MN and talk plainly about the facts, but that’s not how I am around my own family, in laws, relatives etc and beyond are adoptive parents, particularly ones dealing with their adopted children going through very negative behaviours.)

[Only an Anz]

Interesting graphic - do you have a link to the article?

The actual graphic was from a blog post https://jabberwocking.com/how-much-of-y ... our-genes/ discussing this research: https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 22-10123-w

They are discussing the results of the ABCD study: https://abcdstudy.org/

The Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study SM is the largest long-term study of brain development and child health in the United States. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded leading researchers in the fields of adolescent development and neuroscience to conduct this ambitious project. The ABCD Research Consortium consists of a Coordinating Center, a Data Analysis, Informatics & Resource Center, and 21 research sites across the country (see map), which have invited 11,880 children ages 9-10 to join the study. Researchers will track their biological and behavioral development through adolescence into young adulthood.

Using cutting-edge technology, scientists will determine how childhood experiences (such as sports, videogames, social media, unhealthy sleep patterns, and smoking) interact with each other and with a child’s changing biology to affect brain development and social, behavioral, academic, health, and other outcomes.

The results of the ABCD Study will provide families; school superintendents, principals, and teachers; health professionals; and policymakers with practical information to promote the health, well-being, and success of children.

Thank you.

[Rdm]

75% is way too high.

From the MN Dept of Health:

Epidemiologic studies in the US estimate an overall incidence of 1 in 500 live births, occurring in 2-6 births per 1000 Caucasians, 6 per 1000 African-Americans, and up to 20 per 1000 American Indians.

I'm curious about what your explanation would be for why there are more incidences among American Indians than Caucasians and African-Americans.

[Verity]

Look up ACE scores (adverse childhood events). There are also emerging studies on adverse events and their consequence on the unborn child in utero. Adoptive children can indeed be more needy, but so can biological children that are conceived during times of intense stress or trauma. There are many families in our local congregation who have done/are doing foster care and adoption. There is amazing church support and the children are treated with respect and care. The results speak for this- it truly does take a village (church) to raise a happy healthy child, adopted or not.

[Ken]

75% is way too high.

From the MN Dept of Health:

Epidemiologic studies in the US estimate an overall incidence of 1 in 500 live births, occurring in 2-6 births per 1000 Caucasians, 6 per 1000 African-Americans, and up to 20 per 1000 American Indians.

I'm curious about what your explanation would be for why there are more incidences among American Indians than Caucasians and African-Americans.

Poor outcomes are associated with things like poverty, neglect, and substance abuse which occur at higher rates in those populations for a whole lot of different sociological reasons.

[Josh]

75% is way too high.

From the MN Dept of Health:

Epidemiologic studies in the US estimate an overall incidence of 1 in 500 live births, occurring in 2-6 births per 1000 Caucasians, 6 per 1000 African-Americans, and up to 20 per 1000 American Indians.

I'm curious about what your explanation would be for why there are more incidences among American Indians than Caucasians and African-Americans.

I have no idea, although either “parents in those cultures drink more alcohol” and “they have less genetic resistance to alcoholism” are possible hypotheses I found with a quick Google search.

[Josh]

75% is way too high.

From the MN Dept of Health:

I'm curious about what your explanation would be for why there are more incidences among American Indians than Caucasians and African-Americans.

Poor outcomes are associated with things like poverty, neglect, and substance abuse which occur at higher rates in those populations for a whole lot of different sociological reasons.

Yet nobody is forced to drink when pregnant. It is a choice. So why do these groups of people make worse choices on average?

[Ken]

I'm curious about what your explanation would be for why there are more incidences among American Indians than Caucasians and African-Americans.

Poor outcomes are associated with things like poverty, neglect, and substance abuse which occur at higher rates in those populations for a whole lot of different sociological reasons.

Yet nobody is forced to drink when pregnant. It is a choice. So why do these groups of people make worse choices on average?

It is probably a chicken and egg question. Some populations have higher levels of generational poverty and generational neglect, abuse, and substance abuse for a lot of complicated reasons. You can dive into the root causes as much as you want. But that doesn't change the fact that disparities exist.

Of course you are correct that everyone is responsible for their own choices. But we are talking about averages, not the motivations of a specific individual.

There is also the separate issue of the fact that people giving children up for adoption are likely to be less interested in nurturing than those who are choosing to keep their children. So we aren't talking about the subset of the population that is Black or Native American.

What we are really talking about is the subset of those subsets who choose to give their children up for adoption.

[Josh]

The stats I quoted had nothing to do with adoption. The reason I quoted them was to show that rates of FAS are very low - substantially lower than adoption rates.

[Ken]

The stats I quoted had nothing to do with adoption. The reason I quoted them was to show that rates of FAS are very low - substantially lower than adoption rates.

The point is that the rates in the general population may not be representative. People do not give children up for adoption at random. It is a highly selective and unrepresentative group of women who do. So the better question is how are those rates reflected in the subset of the population that does give children up for adoption.