Saturday, September 3, 2011

Yuck -- Saving the Planet via Adoption?

I thought we'd already debunked this one -- that moving a child from a first world country (like Ethiopia) to America does any good for the planet.  But in order to hawk her book, this adoptive mother makes the argument over at Huffington Post:
With the advent of vaccines, technology and industrialized ways of living, life span has increased since our grandparents were kids. By 2050, it is estimated that the planet will house more than 9 billion people. Though birth control is available to those who know about it and choose to use it, it is my belief that educating our youth about creating a family must now include the topics of overpopulation, the environment and adoption. It is no longer OK to only discuss safe sex with our hormone-driven, adolescent population. We now must, if our planet is to survive, show our children how poverty, environmental disasters and garbage are a direct result of too many people living on Planet Earth, consuming -- at least in the Western world -- far more than our share of resources.

* * *

Though I did not start out on the path of adoption, or writing a book about the experience, to promote adoption as a way to help heal the planet, as Oprah often has said (quoting Maya Angelou), "When you know better, you do better." It is my greatest hope that presenting the idea of choosing adoption as a first choice rather than a last option will plant knowing seeds in fertile minds and encourage people who inhabit this planet to make choices that perhaps they might not have made.

Maybe if a woman deeply feels the desire to give birth, she will do it one time, then decide that adopting to grow her family is the most conscious choice to make. Maybe if a couple finds that they cannot sustain a pregnancy, rather than go find a fertility doctor to prescribe drugs that possibly will make her pregnant, these people will decide that adoption is the better option.

The time has come to see that choosing adoption as a first choice, not a last option, for growing your family is the right thing to do -- for the planet, for a woman's body, and for the parentless children who ache for family.
So we're supposed to ignore that part about 4-year-olds and computers and iPads?  We're supposed to glide right past that part where we'll have to replace and landfill them as new technology comes along? We're not supposed to notice the environmental cost of rampant consumerism in the West? Ok, fine, you want to adopt?  Then adopt.  Don't come up with ridiculously unsupportable reasons to justify your life choices.  Adding "saving the planet" to "saving an orphan" as an excuse isn't helping anyone.


Anonymous said...

I dont know how it all correlates either...But at least she didn't say she wants to "save" orphans, so they should be adopted. She said that the world is over populated, so why not think about adoption as a first choice instead of a last resort? And I can understand (and also agree with) that concept.

I have to admit, I cringe when I see blogs that talk about saving orphans, and while they wait for referrals, they talk about it as if they are somehow reducing karma. If you want to reduce karma, just donate to the orphanages. If you want to add to your family then adopt. Dont mix the two.

But I'm glad (from what I read) this author is not talking about saving an orphan...THAT is insulting on so many levels, for both the APs and the children.

Claudia said...

This article made me so mad that I had to create a HuffPo account just to comment. ARGGHHHH! Thansk for drawing it to my attention. I think.

Anonymous said...

So yucky I can't believe it. Adopting might be a great way to "save the planet" from overcrowding except that the adoptees are HUMAN BEINGS! This isn't like adopting a cat from the Humane Society to reduce the population of unwanted pets. If people are really concerned about overpopulation, then they should support organizations that provide medical care (including birth control) to women and organizations that strive to improve the educational level of girls and women. These strategies greatly help to lower the birthrate.
Courtney (AP to KAD)

Anonymous said...

To be honest, it makes me just as angry when people in third-world countries continue to have so many children, just to watch them slowly die of disease. Most have been introduced to birth control, and educated about how to properly use it. And there are organizations that will provide it free to them. Religious reasons or not, for not using birth control, I cannot understand how someone could knowingly not use birth control and watch their baby die from malnutrition or dissease. It honestly makes me wonder if they can be that far attached from their children. Even if that person has never given birth, they have watched other relatives go through slow death with their children. I still do not comprehend WHY people CAN BE educated, and given birth control methods and can ignore it all the same.
I know this response will be flamed, but I also know that there has to be at least a few people who think the same way! Im personally not so sure it's a lack of education for some countries, as much as a lack of interest in the education they receive about birth control.
OK I know it's not very politically correct for me to say these things...So, go ahead...Flame away! It will be very difficult to persuade me to change my view point on that.

Anonymous said...

Anon at 7:24--you can limit this argument to the "third world"--which is terminology I would never use. We have many people in our country that have child after child after child. In our culture it warrants a television show and free diapers, formula, and in some cases a home! Overpopulation is a serious issue that MUST be addressed. I am not discussing adoption in relation to that argument as I think personal responsibility as well as education comes first.