Continued from here ...

So, evolutionary scientists would say that adoption makes no sense, and as far as evolution goes, it doesn't, but this study has shown that adoptive parents do, indeed, invest in their children "as much if not more" than bio parents do.

This is NOT a slam on bio parents; it is simply a statement of the facts of the study as they found them. The scientific parameters are there for the reading, by the way.

The report also suggest reasons for the "as much if not more" conclusion:

Individuals who are not granted the title of “parent” via biology may actually fulfill (and even exceed) the accompanying expectations better than those who have been accorded this title. Research on adoption suggests that three potential factors may combine to create this effect.

First, the primacy of genetic ties in American society may create a social climate in which adoptive family structures are devalued (Lebner 2000; Miall 1987; Nelkin and Lindee 1995; Wegar 2000). The stigma surrounding their family form may cause many adoptive parents to struggle with presenting themselves as “real” parents (Bartholet 1993; March 1997; Ward 1981).

Second, adoptive parents are likely to encounter and incorporate the belief that adoptive children will face intellectual, social, and emotional difficulties growing up (National Adoption Attitudes Survey 2002; Priel et al. 2000; Verhulst et al. 1990; Waggenspack 1998). Sensitivity to their children’s real or perceived needs may lead adoptive parents to allocate resources to allay such difficulties and absolve themselves of any blame.

Finally, adoptive parents may enter into parenthood with greater levels of commitment than do other parents. The lengthy adoptive process itself may facilitate parental investment in children (Rothman 2005)

They talk about a "growing recognition of the strengths demonstrated by alternative family structures" and cite a study showing that, "the resources provided by parents in biracial families are generally greater than those provided by parents of corresponding races in monoracial families."

Is it an uncomfortable shock to learn that families facing racial issues do a better job of preparing their children to deal with potential problems associated with race than white families do?

So, why the all the backlash over something so innocuous? Where's the problem in finding that adoptive families try really hard to do a good job with the kids they adopt? Why isn't this good news?

It's easy enough to suss out Rush Limbaugh's angle. He's a rabid dog of a homophobe, and part of the conclusion reached in the report is that gay parents aren't terrible. That alone is enough to have the Limbaugh bouncing off the walls, leaving a mess of greasy splat marks behind.

(I have some great Rush Limbaugh stories, by the way. He got his start in my home town, and I can honestly say, but without one drop of pride or smugness, I knew him when. No doubt, he is quite the entertainer, and his rise to the top of the talk radio world is a perfect example of an adage I will not repeat here.)

Here on the blogs and other places around the Web, birth mothers have voiced concern that this study may be used to coerce women into relinquishment. That is a circumstance that happens with or without facts, and has everything to do with a whole lot of details that have nothing to do with research.

For expectant mothers considering adoption for their child, can more information, knowledge and study be a bad thing?

Might learning that adoptive families, on the whole, tend to do all they can to care for children and help them deal with the realities of their lives help women who choose to make an adoption plan do so with less fear for their child, therefore less stress and more likelihood of a successful relationship? Would not telling them this serve any purpose?

Since this report is not about better or worse, and since coercing women to relinquish is a completely separate topic, and since there are no plans for a test or license to biologically reproduce, is there any chance that adoptive parents and birth parents just might be able to agree that knowledge and information is not evil, that it's okay to acknowledge that adoptive families can offer a healthy life for children even thought they don't share DNA, and that admitting that some people shouldn't have kids is probably a sensible POV?