The issue is the self genocide of various European national and ethnic communities. It would be great if many Italians would adopt 10 million African orphans, but how does that preserve a European culture and ethnic racial heritage??? Are we to only worry about polar bears or snail darters becoming extinct???

If Europeans don’t care about preserving their culture and “ethnic racial heritage”, maybe it isn’t worth preserving. Maybe, like all earthly things, it has seem ijts best days and will die a natural death, to be replaced by a better culture and “racial” heritage.

Never mind the logistical nightmares of adopting all those millions of kids (just ask those parents who apply to Russia, China, or South America to adopt)… The reader’s thought was not a powerful thought. It is a very emotional thought, and it puts a false onus of responsibility onto people who have nothing to do with the problems that caused all those orphans. That is not the way to help. The way to help, which many charitable organizations–large and small–are doing, is to help put together potential parents and orphans. Why oh why do some people look at the elephant and think they must eat it all at one bite…or worse, want to shame someone else into doing it on their behalf?And pray tell, c kitty, enlighten us as to which is a ‘better’ racial heritage. What race would that be now? There is a good argument in the USA for the fact that there has been a drop in the black population due to the prevalence of abortions. Some in that community call this a form of genocide. But for white Europeans it is just a ‘natural death.’ Yeah. I think that a heritage as storied as European culture is at least as worthy of saving as the kangaroo rat.

If contraception was better used there would be fewer abortions. However European family sizes would trend lower regardless of whether they controlled their family sizes via abortion or contraception (Abortion is a bit of a red herring with regard to family sizes or population growth. It is but one of many mechanisms in altering birth rates). The real question is: “What is the goal behind having smaller families?” I wonder how the population of Europeans today compares to that of a few centuries ago.

Europeans do not want to become a Muslim ruled land. Plain and simple.

Then, too, you have to address the issue that many of these countries are starting to resist “adopting out” their children: many African countries feel, for example, that in the face of the AIDS crisis it is suicide of another kind to send so many of their chidlren overseas, to be raised by white people who won’t be *able* to teach them about their heritage.

As an adoptive parent, I am all for international adoption, however, adoption will not solve the 10 million orphans of AIDS. It will give them homes, but it will destroy the culture, future and hope of Africa.Yes, let’s move an entire generation of children out of Africa and see how the countries survive. It would be a great social experiment! Sarcasm aside, what’s the difference between the significant tax deduction the US gives upon the birth (or adoption) of a child and any other countrys’ “baby bonus?” Why did having a child mean that my tax burden dropped dramatically?

Tell that to the least taxed, Mom. Certainly not to the least and left behind of us. There’s a deficient strand of thinking all around us. But there are just as many smarter people out there, even if they don’t fully know it yet.