They tried that with the Native Americans, you know. Sent soldiers into villages and tore the children from the arms of their screaming parents and gave them to wealthier white families, for the sake of the child - they could have a better education, health, food, etc, than they would with their families in their community. But, I guess, hey, it's all okay. Those Native Americans (and all the other groups this has been done to throughout world history, and it's been a lot) just weren't good parents. Otherwise they wouldn't have protested, and would have been fine with it.
Maybe we should make it mandatory for all people under a certain income level to have their children forcibly adopted, to give them a better life. Love counts for nothing, only $$$$$$ and material goods make any difference in a child's life. Or! Let's just sterilize all the poor people in the world, and then we can avoid the entire issue! Margaret Sanger was onto something good, believing that contraception and abortion should be encouraged for all those icky non white, non Protestant people in the world. Someone should really start pushing that cause again. After all, a life not lived in at least the middle class world must really suck and contain nothing at all of value
I think adoption is a magnificent thing, when it's what the parents want, because they've decided what is best for their child. David's father has committed no crime, yet he's not a "good father" because he doesn't bow down to the wishes of outsiders, and give his child away? What makes him a less-than, not deserving of basic human rights and liberties? What makes other people so superior that they can decide who is deserving of having children? Who makes the rules on what is a meaningful life that the rest of us inferiors have to follow?
