World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
International adoptions seem so wierd to me because I guarentee there's no shortage of orphans in your own country.
The problem in the U.S. is that you can deny people adoptions if they're a different religion from the official stated religion of the agency (many adoption agencies are religious), or if they just have a religious objection to you adopting (i.e. you're a single woman or queer).
It's also super expensive.
This is because adoption of healthy infants in the US is a market. A regulated and yet still dysfunctional one, and one with a pretty weird relationship to its supply side, but that's absolutely what it is. It was even worse in decades past.
As an adoptee from the Mormon system, let me tell you that if I hadn't already bailed on that bonkers religion, it would have happened after visiting the "Family Services" office by slinking through the side door in the food storage warehouse in the light-industrial park in search of my legally entitled information, only to learn it was a one-page printout of nonsense and very much did not include the letter I was later told by my birth mother that she'd given them. I also grew up knowing that I cost approximately as much as a small speedboat, and later realized that my mom's conversion from being a died-in-the-wool baptist to the LDS church happened almost exactly a year before I was acquired. Hmmm....
Every single time an anti-abortionist uses the "just put it up for adoption" argument, I ask them how many babies with disabilities they have adopted or plan to adopt. Weirdly, none of them have ever told me they've adopted a single disabled child.
Yup, and even apart from that they say it like it's not a health risk to carry and deliver a baby, a professional risk to even be pregnant, and that separation is lifelong trauma for all involved. It's perfectly possible to raise an adopted kid well enough that it's a not a major component of their personality, but it's a challenge that must be handled.
And that's best case. I'm super pleased to have been born, but honestly I'm not sure my birth mother thrived how she might have if she'd made a different choice with her own body. She's a sweet, sensitive lady and the couple of times I've met her I can tell it weighed on her for decades.
Don’t know about elsewhere but in Australia it’s damn near impossible to adopt. And don’t even try it if you’re not a straight white couple because the shitty Christian charities they’ve outsourced it too will magically ignore you.
Here’s the issue, and these stories don’t swing to such prominence in what is now that perpetual firehose to the face of information we now have daily.
.
No one wants to invest years into what they assume is now their child, love, tears, hope, relief, and find out a few years in it might not be a done deal.
.
Hi, I’m her real mom. I was on drugs and not of sound mind when I signed those papers. I’ve cleaned up my life and now want my baby back. Thanks and all but here’s a subpoena. Wins in court after 4 years of what was supposed to be permanent adoption.
.
Hi, I’m his real dad. I never signed off on this. Sure I abandoned him, but now I’ve cleaned up my life and want to be a better man. I deserve this opportunity. Here’s a subpoena. Wins in court after 5 yrs of what was supposed to be permanent adoption.
.
What does a couple do to avoid this bullshit? You travel to an orphanage in another country, then leave.
.
If our system had permanence, I doubt this would even be a thing.
This is extremely rare and focusing on it promotes an unhealthy mindset among potential adoptive parents. No one is entitled to a healthy infant with no strings attached, and adoption inherently does come with strings attached, even if people try to pretend otherwise. I daresay if this is explicitly on someone's mind, they should consider whether they should be adopting at all. It's literally a smaller risk than that your kid will die in a car crash, with the added relief of said child not being dead.
Children deserve actual parents. Zero pity for anyone who abandons their child because of negligence or bad decisions.
Yes, they do, and 99.99% of parents who fuck around and neglect their kids do indeed lose them forever. So do 99.99% of biological parents who did nothing except sign the papers under duress. It's just that it's a statistical non-issue that someone is going to even try to steal your baby back, and the 4-5 years of court cases are there specifically to make sure that all parties are heard. Honestly, the only time I've really even seen this recently has to do Native American tribes, who have a very different relationship with this process and some pretty strong reasons to distrust the system.
I can tell you feel strongly about this, and I don't want to imply there's no room for nuance or that negligent parents deserve an unlimited number of re-tries, or that adoptive parents don't love their kids. My adoptive parents are/were broken people in many ways, but I never felt unloved or unwanted. I do feel very strongly that infant stranger adoption has an outsized role in family planning options that pushes it to a darker place than it needs to be, and that in foster situations reunification should be the goal if it's practical. For both, if all parties are acting in good faith and in the interests of children, then the numbers will land where they land. I just don't think we're there right now, through a combination of cultural norms and governmental policy.