The relative value of human life

[Temujin]

A Chicago pastor and his wife received a $100 million settlement this week because six of their nine children were killed when their minivan struck a piece of metal on an expressway and burst into flames. It's one of the highest wrongful-death awards ever.
No amount of money can compensate for such a horrible loss. But the cynical side of me wonders: Would the settlement have been so high if that van had been full of immigrant children, or black children?

[Pickman's Model]

Okay......cynical question, cynical answer.
It all depends on where you're at, and what type of culture you're dealing with.

Certainly, here in the good old US of A, if the van had been full of minority children, the parents probably would have gotten a bigger settlement. If they had been rich, famous people, like the Kennedys or Ted Turner or Donald Trump, the settlement would have been astronomical, probably equaling the GNP of a small country.

On the other hand, if the van had been full of pregnant women on their way to an abortion clinic, and the accident caused them all to miscarry, it would be really interesting to see what the courts would do with that. It's always amazed me that you can abort a kid if you're pro-choice and nobody says a word, because it's not a kid, it's a blob of protoplasm. But if you're pro-life, and some guy causes you to miscarry, then hey! presto-chango!, it's an unborn child, and you can have the guy tried for murder. Hello? (And people have problems with the concept of transubstantiation. Sheeesh!)

If you're in Nazi Germany and the van is full of minority children, not only would you not get a dime, but whoever put the hazard in the road would probably get a medal.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"All first reports are inaccurate."
---Gen. H. Norman Schwartzkopf, on the accuracy of the Patriot missile system.

[Satan]

It's another thread, Pickman, but it's simple - Pro-choice means a woman is making a choice as to what to do with her body.

Show me a pregnant woman who chooses to get beaten up to the point of miscarrying and you might have an argument.

Duh...

------------------
Brian O'Neill
CMC International Records
rockuniverse.com/cmc/cmc.html (http://rockuniverse.com/cmc/cmc.html)

ICQ 35294890
AIM Scrabble1
Yahoo Messenger Brian_ONeill

[Lumpy]

Going back to the OP on what is the monetary value of a human life, I read "somewhere" (real helpful, huh?) that based on what industry spends on preventing worker and consumer deaths, and the average value of life insurance policies, the typical American life is worth between $250,000 and $500,000.

[Satan]

the average value of life insurance policies, the typical American life is worth between $250,000 and $500,000

I'll have to tell that to my credit card companies so maybe they'll up my limit for once...

[The Ryan]

Satan
Member posted 08-27-1999 08:31 PM

Pro-choice means a woman is making a choice as to what to do with her body.

The implied claim is that the woman has the right to chose because the fetus isn’t a human life.


Show me a pregnant woman who chooses to get beaten up to the point of miscarrying and you might have an argument.


Just because someone interferes with someone else’s choice, that doesn’t make it murder. If you decide to go to a concert, but I kidnap you, thus interfering with your choice, is that murder? What if you choose to plant a garden and I interfere with that decision by digging it up? Is that murder? The argument is not that women choose to get beat up; the argument is that whether or not an action is murder should not depend on who performs the act.


------------------
-Ryan
" 'Ideas on Earth were badges of friendship or enmity. Their content did not matter.' " -Kurt Vonnegut, Breakfast of Champions

[GOD]

Check the price on a 100lb. bag of topsoil.
That would be about right.

[Satan]

This is so the wrong thread, but...

First of all, it is a living thing the size of a blood clot, which is totally dependent on life from a woman whose body I refuse to tell what she do with.

You wanna call it murder? Well, everytime you breath you kill millions of microbes in the air. And who are you to tell me that this microbe's life is not as important as a blood-clot sized thing in a woman you will never meet anyway?

Second point: Stupid response. I can't even follow the logic... How me getting kidnapped equated to be losing my life are two different issues...

The point is that if someone chooses to get an abortion and she is okay with that, the father is okay with that, and her God (if applicable, whomever that God may be) is okay with that for her individual choice, it does not behoove me to waste a second of my time caring about it, as it means nothing to me.

In their minds it ain't murder, and that is her right with her body in my opinion, and I refuse to tell her what to do with it.

Whereas if a woman chooses to keep her child, and she therefore gets emotionally attatched to this blood clot, thinking of names for it, thinking about what college it is going to go to when it leaves her body, yea, I see a loss there of more than a blood clot. I can see someone calling that murder, and while it ain't the same as the loss of a toddler, it's more than just a punch in the stomach of a woman with child, and should be treated accordingly.

You just assume that there is only one way to look at this issue (and all issues, really). Guess what - There isn't.

There are people out there who have no problem with a neighbor throwing loud parties at 3AM on a Tuesday. There are other neighbors who will call the cops for similar infractions. It is a right to choose how to handle this, and to say to one, "You're just a spoil sport who doesn't like to party!" or to say to the other, "Man, why do you let them get away with that noise all the time"... Well, I suggest we let the person make the choice right for them!

They're both right, and the only people wrong are those (often complete strangers!) who try and force the person who chooses abortion into feeling like a murderer when in her heart she is not, and those who assume that just because they feel it is not murder thay someone losing a pregnancy doesn't feel a loss.

And you know what? I think abortion sucks too! I just like our freedoms a bit more than I hate abortions... I like our freedoms a LOT more than I HATE almost anything to be honest... I guess you don't.

Let's call 'em all Anti-Freedom people from now on... How did we let them co-opt that term "Pro-Life" anyway, when most of them are FOR the death penalty, AGAINST gun control, FOR wars against folks like Saddam...

You should be the Pro-Choice people, since it's all about you wanting to be the ones who gets to choose who lives and dies, right?

[AHunter3]

Satan
Member posted 08-27-1999 08:31 PM

quote:


Pro-choice means a woman is making a choice
as to what to do with her body.

The implied claim is that the woman has the right to chose
because the fetus isn’t a human life.

I don't see why that is in any way the "implied claim". The woman has the right to choose because it's her goddam body and her right to bear or not to bear. If you interfere with this by forcing her to miscarry, it's a reprehensible crime. If you interfere with this by forcing her to remain pregnant if she doesn't want to be, that's also a reprehensible crime.



------------------
Designated Optional Signature at Bottom of Post

[AHunter3]

Oops, sorry...that quote-within-a-quote was indeed from our Satan, but the larger quote was from The Ryan, whom I did not identify in my posting above.


------------------
Designated Optional Signature at Bottom of Post

[Pickman's Model]

ROFLMFAO!!! :) Oh, blimey, Pickman lad, you sure opened a can o'worms with that one, didn'tcha??? Notice that I also mentioned minorities, rich white people, and Nazis, every one of which was completely ignored, but the abortion thing is snatched up, hugged tight to the chest, and it's down the field we go, gaining yardage all the way! (Hee hee hee!!!)
Ah, dearie me. One would think that I'd know better, after all this time, but somehow, I just never seem to learn........
:) :) :)

[Satan]

Yo Pick:

Don't get too excited... Everything else you said made sense. That part didn't. I don't recall you say Nazi's were cool or anything.

[Netta]

Several years ago, before protocols were in place to deal with such issues, I was part of the team assigned to answer "codes" in a hospital. We answered a code (patient not breathing) on the OB/GYN floor where we found a hysterical mom and a very small baby in a bed covered with blood. We got the baby's heartbeat back. He was not yet breathing on his own, but that wasn't unusual for premies. We were preparing to bring him to neonatal intensive care when the chief resident told us to cease resuscitation - when the heart was beating on it's own. We were dismayed and figured he didn't understand how well the boy was doing, so we ran thru the details for him. He repeated the order and disconnected the oxygen tube from the ambu bag. The person at the ambu bag was restrained by a co worker and we were all ushered out of the room. The baby was placed on a tray, heart still beating, weakly gasping for breath. When the baby's heart stopped he/it was popped into a specimen container and shipped off to pathology. The specimen was the product of a saline abortion with the dreaded complication of live birth.
I'm sorry this is so long but I'm almost through. It occurred to me that not only the VALUE of human life but the DEFINITION of it depends on that life's "degree of wantedness". Perhaps that is what the courts were looking at when deciding the award to a family of nine.

[Temujin]

''Degree of wantedness'' is a really interesting concept. I'm sure it contributed to the $100 million settlement, but should it have?
Sorry Pickman, but I think you are mistaken when you say that the parents ''would have gotten a bigger settlement'' if the van had been full of minority children. The settlement almost certainly would have been smaller if the children had not been white. And that's a shame.
Isn't it ironic that many conservative white couples believe women should not have a right to choose abortion, yet these same couples would never adopt a minority baby? If they can't have their own baby, they usually wait years and years for a white baby, even if a minority baby is available now and needs a home right away. They usually reject any baby with yellow, tan or black skin.
This reflects values that continue to be pervasive in American society. Minorities are not a new privileged class. In most places, ethnic and racial discrimination still occurs.
And if that van had been full of children determined by society to possess a lesser ''degree of wantedness,'' there's no way the parents would have received $100 million. That, unfortunately, is life in the U.S. of A.

[Mr.Zambezi]

I wonder what the award would have been had the defendant not had such deep pockets. Often these awards are based more on what the defendant is worth than on what the damages really are.

[whc.03grady]

I'm sorry Netta, but there is no way you didn't just regurgitate a common pro-life legend. You weren't there (although I'm sure you wish you were), and quite possibly, neither was anyone else.
Next tell me about the NASA "physicist" and the missing day.

[Satan]

Netta - You're a goddammed troll...

[Netta]

Well, I was there. It did happen. I have written this story many times over the past 19 years, so it may sound regurgitated. I have written to editorial pages when I felt it needed to be said, I have contributed it to pro-life publications. In addition, it was not so rare an occurrance, so it may have been told by others. I don't know what "Satan" is trying to convey by calling me a troll, but don't bother to explain. I don't need the flaming, came here for intellectual discourse (like looking for trout in a herring barrel) and won't be back. Have fun.

Isn't it ironic that many conservative white couples believe women should not have a right to choose abortion, yet these same couples would never adopt a minority baby? If they can't have their own baby, they usually wait years and years for a white baby, even if a minority baby is available now and needs a home right away. They usually reject any baby with yellow, tan or black skin.
-Temujin

This is absolutely false. There ARE white couples who would gladly adopt children of color, but some minority groups have decided that inter-racial adoptions deprive the child of their racial heritage and do everything possible, even to the point of encouraging abortion, to discourage these adoptions.

Many couples who do not meet local adoption agency criteria, or who do not want to wait years for a baby, do adopt foreign babies; China has recently been a leading source for infants.

I do recognize that these couples are not the majority; many feel uncomfortable with the fact that the racial differences make their "choice" public knowledge everytime they walk down the street. Most parents want "perfect" children, but since we don't get to order with specs, want children who excel at and enjoy the same things they do, and who resemble them.



------------------
Sue from El Paso
members.aol.com/majormd/index.html (http://members.aol.com/majormd/index.html)

Japan has a long tradition of adoptions , going far back into the 12th cent. at least.
Adopted children are considered 'part of the family' far more quickly & to a greater degree than is common in the U.S., subjectively speaking.
Japan is also the only major industrial nation to have an active, current, ongoing & unofficially sanctioned practice of infanticide. NOT ABORTION. ACTUAL INFANTICIDE.

Even though adoption is easy & frequent there, this seems to have little effect on abortion or infantcide rates.For a first hand account of japanese infanticide practices see:"Memories of Silk And Straw",a collection [in english] of recollections of small-town japanese life. Additional sources available through your public library can substanciate this account & will bear out that the practice is still au currant.

This shows that easy adoption is NOT a solution. Every human society , sadly, produces unwanted children. Man is not perfectable--not by religion, law or anything else. It is horrible , but creating laws will not solve the problem.If you ban surgical abortions, there are too many alternatives.
One example is a tea made of the bark of the hawthorne tree. It causes a chemically-induced abortion with safety rates for the mother that are comparable to surgery. This technique was widely used in the 19th cent.& abortion was quite common in the post-Civil War era. See " The Story The Soldiers Wouldn't Tell: Sex in the Civil War"by DR. Burke Davis M.D. for details. You anti- abortion types gonna cut down every hawthorne tree in the US? An unenforcable law brings all law into disrespect. Prohibition should have taught you that.
I believe abortion to be disturbing & repellent. But the passage of a law won't stop it. If you do get a law passed, folks are gonna start smuggling RUR40 & make a mint, setting of a new wave of organised crime in America----also like Prohibition.

[Temujin]

Hi Majormd,
You wrote:
I do recognize that these couples are not the majority; many feel uncomfortable with the fact that the racial differences make their "choice" public knowledge everytime they walk down the street. Most parents want "perfect" children, but since we don't get to order with specs, want children who excel at and enjoy the same things they do, and who resemble them.
Thank you. You made my point for me.
I wrote that "many" conservative white couples who oppose abortion rights "usually" wait for a white baby and "usually" reject babies with other skin tones. You say this is "absolutely false," but then you turn around and agree with me.
Let me ask you this: Why would adoptive parents be "uncomfortable," as you say, to walk down the street with dark-skinned child? And why would such a child not "excel at and enjoy the same things" as a white parent?

I usually stay out of the abortion debates, partly because I have some mixed feelings about the issue. One thing I am certain about: making it illegal is not the answer. Another thing: tobacco and alcohol kill a lot of folks (yes, there are innocent victims, too) but I'm not gonna start bombing convenience stores any time soon.

I wrote that "many" conservative white couples who oppose abortion rights "usually" wait for a white baby and "usually" reject babies with other skin tones. You say this is "absolutely false," but then you turn around and agree with me.

No, Temujin, I acknowledged some truth in the fact that inter-racial adoptions are the exception, rather than the rule. I stand by my assertion that there are not "many conservative white couples" out there rejecting other-race babies.

My main point (that you chose to ignore completely) was that the major obstacle to mixed race adoptions is not the lack of white couples willing to buck the trend & adopt other-race babies. The major obstacle is that some minority groups do not want "their" babies raised by parents of another ethnic group, because they believe that the parents will be unwilling/unable to help the child gain a sense of himself/herself as a member of his/her ethnic group. Advising a young African-American girl to have an abortion, or having a Native American child kept in a series of foster homes is preferable to inter-racial adoptions to these groups. I can state with certainty that this is a fact in the Washington DC area, where it has been the subject of several "Sunday human condition exploratory page" type spreads, with comments from people who have adopted out-of-race, adult adoptees coming to grips with who they are, and adoption agencies. I can't say with the same certainty that this is universal throughout the US, but I would be surprised if it wasn't.

Separate from that, we do not live in a perfect world. Being different in an outwardly apparent way seems, to too many people, to be an invitation to comment upon what is none of their business. There is much debate on exactly what is the ideal age to share with a child that they were adopted. Mixed race families do not have any choice in when to bring this up, because insensitive clods are likely to bring it up at any time to satisfy their curiosity. Preferring not to go through this is not the same as rejecting "any baby with yellow, tan or black skin." The couples who can cope with this are to be commended; the ones who cannot need not be castigated.



------------------
Sue from El Paso
members.aol.com/majormd/index.html (http://members.aol.com/majormd/index.html)

[Temujin]

The major obstacle is that some minority groups do not want "their" babies raised by parents of another ethnic group ...
This is the scenario you're suggesting:
Prosective parents: "We just want a baby as soon as possible. Race is not a factor."
Adoption agency: "Sorry, you're white, so you can only adopt a white baby."
Your argument is that prospective white parents have no choice but to adopt white babies. I don't think that's true.
If this is what most adoption agencies are actually doing, it's news to me. And, if it is the case, I will agree with you that it shouldn't happen. Prospective parents should not automatically be restricted to adopting babies of just one race.

On the other hand, I have met prosective parents who were desperate to adopt a baby, but only a white one. It happens very often.
I suspect (but cannot prove) that it's particularly common among conservative white couples who oppose a woman's right to choose abortion. This says something about the value they place on human life.

What you chose to ignore completely is that this thread is about the relative value of human life. The point I made about conservative white couples was intended to illustrate how our society continues to place relatively different values on people of different ethnic and racial backgrounds. This was not intended as a discussion on the thorny issue of mixed-race adoptions.

Do you think all people are valued equally in practice in American society?

Also, I'm still waiting to hear you explain why a dark-skinned adoptive child would not "excel at and enjoy the same things" as a white adoptive parent.

This is the scenario you're suggesting:
Prosective parents: "We just want a baby as soon as possible. Race is not a factor."
Adoption agency: "Sorry, you're white, so you can only adopt a white baby."
Your argument is that prospective white parents have no choice but to adopt white babies. I don't think that's true.
If this is what most adoption agencies are actually doing, it's news to me. And, if it is the case, I will agree with you that it shouldn't happen. Prospective parents should not automatically be restricted to adopting babies of just one race.
-Temujin

What is happening is that for the most part African-American babies are never getting to the adoption agencies. If there is any other option (private adoption, grandparents raising the baby, girl raising the baby, abortion, foster homes until the girl could raise the baby) these are pursued to exhaustion before placing a black baby up for open adoption. Again, this may not be the case everywhere, but in the Washington DC area, where there is a sizeable black middle- & upper- class community it is the situation. There was a court case several years ago, in which the Lakota sought & were granted an injunction blocking adoptions that took babies out of the tribe. Prospective parents DO have options. If they are impatient enough, and have enough resources, they can travel to other countries & pursue the adoption of a baby there.

On the other hand, I have met prosective parents who were desperate to adopt a baby, but only a white one. It happens very often.
I suspect (but cannot prove) that it's particularly common among conservative white couples who oppose a woman's right to choose abortion. This says something about the value they place on human life.

No, this says something about your attitudes towards conservative white couples.

What you chose to ignore completely is that this thread is about the relative value of human life. The point I made about conservative white couples was intended to illustrate how our society continues to place relatively different values on people of different ethnic and racial backgrounds. This was not intended as a discussion on the thorny issue of mixed-race adoptions.

And yet you chose to bring mixed-race adoptions up along with your unsubstantiated
views about attitudes of some couples to prove your point-of-view. I was not participating actively in the value-of-life discussion, but when I saw your statement, I had to speak out against something so wrong. Threads evolve. Deal with it.

Do you think all people are valued equally in practice in American society?

No. I think Princess Diana is/was valued way out of proportion to her contribution here. I think the same of most entertainers & sports figures. I think school teachers are grossly undervalued.

Also, I'm still waiting to hear you explain why a dark-skinned adoptive child would not "excel at and enjoy the same things" as a white adoptive parent.


You conveniently left off the part where I said that most parents want children who resemble them. Adoptive parents are already dealing with the fact that their children will not inherit their looks, intelligence, athletic ability, etc. Preferring a same race child need not be due to deep dark hatred towards another race or their horrible conservative viewpoints - merely wanting a child that in some small way looks like them.


------------------
Sue from El Paso
members.aol.com/majormd/index.html (http://members.aol.com/majormd/index.html)

[Temujin]

I was not participating actively in the value-of-life discussion, but when I saw your statement, I had to speak out against something so wrong. Threads evolve. Deal with it.
Wow. I obviously touched some nerve here, because your posts are becoming more combative. I realize threads evolve. But it seemed to me that you were missing my broader point. No offense was intended.

In any case, I'm certainly willing to consider whether what you're saying is correct, so I did some research. Here's a quote from a Chicago Tribune article from July 1998:
In the U.S., racial minorities account for as many as half of the children in need of placement in adoptive homes. In Illinois, 77 percent--or nearly 37,000 children--in foster care are African-American. Despite increasing efforts to encourage adoption within the black community, the pool of available homes still falls short.
From the same article, I also found out that the 1994 Multi-Ethnic Placement Act prohibits delaying a transracial placement strictly on the basis of race, culture or ethnic identity.

If a white parent wants a baby regardless of race, an adoption agency MAY NOT delay an adoption until a white baby becomes available. Meanwhile, there are LOTS of minority children just waiting to be adopted, but not so many white children.

You acknowledge that prospective white parents have a choice. You acknowledge that most of them choose white children. You disagree with me that this has anything to do with the relative value they place on human life. Maybe you are right about this last point. I don't know. It's a matter of opinion, since nobody can peer into their hearts and know for sure why they choose not to share their home with the first available child, regardless of race.

I respect your viewpoint, and I acknowledge that we disagree. Thank you for the opportunity to examine my views more closely.

I would be remiss if I didn't point out, however, that you never did explain what you wrote in your first post, namely:
Most parents want "perfect" children, but since we don't get to order with specs, want children who excel at and enjoy the same things they do, and who resemble them.
Why, exactly, wouldn't minority children "excel at and enjoy the same things" as their white adoptive parents, as you wrote?

I'm really interested in finding out why you think dark-skinned children would be unable to do this.

First, I agree that my previous response may have been a little strong, but I do think you were ascribing evil motives to conservative white couples where none existed. Olive branch accepted & white dove sent in return.


(bolding mine)
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the U.S., racial minorities account for as many as half of the children in need of placement in adoptive homes. In Illinois, 77 percent--or nearly 37,000 children--in foster care are African-American. Despite increasing efforts to encourage adoption within the black community, the pool of available homes still falls short.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- as quoted by Temujin


I bolded the word children to point out that we were discussing infant/newborn adoptions, not children (including teens). I agree that there is a large unmet need for permanant homes for many minority children (who, due to the disproportionate effects of poverty, are more likely to need placement). But there is always a need for homes for older children, and always a demand for infants for adoptions. Apples & oranges.

From the same article, I also found out that the 1994 Multi-Ethnic Placement Act prohibits delaying a transracial placement strictly on the basis of race, culture or ethnic identity.
-Temujin


I think I agreed in my last post that adoption agencies do not discriminate the way you had originally understood me to suggest. Once a baby is offered up,(s)he goes to longest-waiting, best-qualified couple on the list. But... minority groups do actively intervene to prevent babies from being put up for open adoption, or ever getting to these agencies.


I would be remiss if I didn't point out, however, that you never did explain what you wrote in your first post, namely:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most parents want "perfect" children, but since we don't get to order with specs, want children who excel at and enjoy the same things they do, and who resemble them.
- Majormd
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why, exactly, wouldn't minority children "excel at and enjoy the same things" as their white adoptive parents, as you wrote?
I'm really interested in finding out why you think dark-skinned children would be unable to do this.
-Temujin


The point, as I explained in my last post, is that, given a choice, most expecting or prospective adopting parents want miniatures of themselves to raise. The phrase "children who excel at and enjoy the same things they do, and who resemble them" was intended to be thought as a whole. Adoptive parents, to a much larger degree than expecting parents, are dealing with a crap shoot, as far as whether their future children will share their talents, interests, and personalities. You are absolutely right that none of these are pre-ordained by race, and that there is no more likelihood of a same race adopted child sharing these traits with the parents than a different-race adopted child. But appearance is determined by race, and that even this minimal degree of outward resemblence is sought by some/many prospective adoptive parents should not be surprising, nor ascribed to dark motives. As I said several posts back, the couples who can get beyond this are to be commended, but those who can't should not be vilified.




------------------
Sue from El Paso
members.aol.com/majormd/index.html (http://members.aol.com/majormd/index.html)

[Temujin]

Thanks for the thoughtful exchange, Majormd.

Your comments prompted me to learn more about this issue, and I discovered that for about two decades until roughly 1994, it was indeed very difficult for white parents to adopt black infants in many states. Since then, however, all that has changed (in part because of the law I cited), and the number of interracial adoptions is growing.

Also, I have found out that healthy infants, black or white, generally are adopted quickly. Older children and infants with special needs languish for longer periods in foster care.

You wrote:
... the couples who can get beyond this (race) are to be commended, but those who can't should not be vilified.
You're right. It's unfair to make a blanket statement about the motives of all white couples who choose to adopt white babies. Moreover, that's not what I intended to do in the post that sparked this dialogue between us.

My original comment picked on a narrower set of prospective parents, namely, couples who:
1) oppose a woman's right to choose abortion; and
2) desperately want a baby of their own; but
3) reject the opportunity to adopt a non-white baby, even if that might allow them to adopt more quickly.

When I wrote this, I was thinking of a specific couple I knew very well who met this description. The prospective father was a good friend of mine at the time, and he often told me how he and his wife would do anything to have a baby. I suggested to him that the process might be quicker if he looked into foreign adoptions, particularly in Asia. He said he and his wife did not want a non-white baby.

I didn't push the issue with him. I could tell he was uncomfortable talking about it, so I left it alone.

But at the time, the two of them had been pursuing adoption for quite a while. It was beginning to look as if they would not be able to adopt at all. So the choice potentially came down to this: a non-white baby, or no baby.

They were desperate to be parents. They yearned for it. It was the most important thing to them. But they were willing to abandon their lifelong dream of parenthood if the only option was to adopt a non-white baby.

This, in my opinion, does indeed say something about the relative value they place on human life.

To be clear: I did not vilify this couple. I did not castigate them. I didn't pressure them one way or another, and I supported their adoption efforts to the best of my ability, including writing a letter of personal recommendation for them.

But, in the end, I believe their choice did, indeed, reflect values that continue to be pervasive in American society.

I am talking about white couples who say to minority women, in effect: "Don't have an abortion! Give your baby up for adoption. By the way, I really want to adopt a baby, but I don't want yours."

I don't think I have "vilified" or "castigated" these people in any of my posts, although I acknowledge that you think I have.

I merely have stated that in my opinion, these individuals demonstrate how some people are more highly valued than other people in American society.

My broader point is that in many instances, American society continues to devalue people who are not white. I was inspired to try to make this point by posts in other topics from people who seem to believe that American society has done a complete 180-degree turn when it comes to race. These people seem to believe that minorities are America's new privileged class.

I disagree with them. That's why I started this topic.

Racism in 1999 still exists, but it is subtle, and often (not always, probably not usually, but often) backwards from the expected "majority continues to get ahead of the minority".

Classic example:

Job opening, you've interviewed 2 candidates. Both are outstanding, and should be super employees. One is a minority; the other is not. All else is equal. Who gets hired - the minority. All companies want successful minorities that they can hire, promote, & proudly include in their "diversity" record.

Job opening, you've interviewed 2 candidates. Both are marginal; either their personalities or their qualifications make you worried that they won't be able to meet performance expectations. One is a minority; the other is not. All else is equal. Who gets hired - the non-minority candidate. If you have to demote, remove, reprimand, or take other adverse action against the employee, you don't want to have to deal with EO complaints and investigations.

This is racism in 1999. Subtle. Situation-dependent. Still there. Coming close to balancing out, but still there.

------------------
Sue from El Paso
members.aol.com/majormd/index.html (http://members.aol.com/majormd/index.html)

[Temujin]

I'd like to add one more example:

Job openings: employer has multiple positions available, and interviews multiple candidates. One job opening is in rural central Illinois. That job requires daily interaction with the public. Qualified black candidates are not seriously considered for that particular opening, because the employer believes potential white customers would not respond to a black rep in the area.

This happened in an office where I worked. I had a chance to meet one of the black candidates. He was qualified for all openings. I know for a fact that he was NOT considered for the rural opening, for the reasons mentioned above.