Tuesday, January 17, 2012

Right & Wrong Reasons to Adopt

The Kansas State Collegian opines on the right and wrong reasons to adopt:
Our world is currently full of problems that some of the brightest minds on earth have yet to solve. In situations like those, the media and other sources will often turn to the common man for the solution.

Commercials promising to feed a child for a dollar a day or monetary programs to keep an endangered tiger safe are among the most popular uses of this tactic.

Earth’s overpopulation is one of these global issues that the public is called on to help combat through an extreme and personal decision: adoption. However, adopting a child is too important of a process to undertake for any reason except personal aspiration and the desire to change a child’s life. I believe that people have to understand that before they continue with such a monumental decision.

Adoption, much like anything else, can be and is done for completely the wrong reasons.

Some people adopt to claim a boost on their tax income. Other people will choose to adopt to prove a point or to show how “caring” and “loving” they are, without actually having any interest in the children.

I know two children who were adopted and instantly put to work in their new home, and since then have been used as nothing but labor. These corrupt uses of adoption should not overshadow its design, however, and its main purpose to allow children to have a second chance at a normal and productive childhood, which is the best reason for adoption in the first place.

* * *

Here are some things to keep in mind when it comes to adoption: There are many women who turn to adoption because they cannot have their own children, but for couples who are able to have kids, the birthing process is an important step in connecting emotionally with the child. The age of adoption is also important to consider, as well as the cost.
Reactions?  I wonder if the author has considered the right and wrong reasons to give birth -- where would we put "it's cheaper than adoption" on that list?!

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

Malinda- Here's one where I agree with your questions at the end.
It's really intrusive to even suggest that there is a wrong reason to adopt....barring the reason being to inflict physical and/or emotional abuse (with forethought).
It drives me crazy because rarely does anyone suggest that keeping a bio child might be subject the right or wrong reasons. I know of a LOT of birth situations that I would honestly question WHY they kept the child, but it is not my place to do so.
I would never put a bio parent under such scrutiny. Why do so many think it's ok to be "in your face" with adoptive parents, and their reasons to adopt?
Really, who cares what prompted someone to adopt??? People change, situations change..and Id bet that many people who first set out to adopt, went into it with one reason as their primary goal, and ended up with a different reason as their primary focus.
I know of a LOT of bio parents who have children and they are still immature. Every month they say, "Oh my, I need more time for ME. Who wants to go to the bars with me?" They have VERY selfish reasons to keep the child, and in many cases, THEIR PARENTS are doing a lot of the raising of the child, while they collect welfare or child support and continue to have their own selfish desires met. Probably MORE APs flex their reasons from one level to another, than do bio parents who just go along thinking that their "normal" is how it's supposed to be....and then add that "at least they're keeping their child!" As if that automatically assumes some kind of blessing to the kid.
It really makes me disgusted how much APs are put up to the test of being a parent, and butting into their personal views or reasons for why and how to raise a child.

Bukimom said...

I was surprised that it was implied that couples who can have kids perhaps shouldn't adopt because the birthing process is so critical to emotionally bonding with your child. In fact, as any adoptive parent can tell you, and as I can also attest as the parent of an adopted child as well as bio children, the birthing process is not at all required to be able to bond with your adoptive child. I'm not saying being adopted is the "same as" being born into a family, but that you as the parent will not need to worry about lacking an emotional connection.

Susan M said...

I agree that placing parents (biological or adoptive) under such scrutiny is problematic, but I took the writer to be taking issue with making such a major decision as one would send in a small donation to a charity, ie not really thinking it all the way through, or to adopt as a way to boost your moral street cred, without really desiring to parent that child. I think it's perfectly appropriate to look at things like the Evangelical "Orphan Care" movement, not because we should harshly judge individual families, but because we must reflect on these movements and what good or bad they may be accomplishing.

Anonymous said...

I took it as people thinking they can save a child like saving an tiger. Many people I have met still hold the saving syndrome (or savior syndrome) as their main reason for adopting. They tend not to examine the complicated issues, or even feel the need to address them, because they have done enough by the act of saving.

I don't even bother to address the bio question. Adoptive parents are always held up to a different standard.

Anonymous said...

Anon 1 again-
It's bad enough to be scrutinized. But it's downright insulting to assume that (even a few) PAPs view adoption the same way as sending in donations to save a tiger. Give us a SMALL break! Regardless of HOW someone came to the decision of adoption, I doubt too many of us look at adoption without SERIOUSLY taking into consideration that this is a child and they will be parents. This article is down talking to many APs.
And as Anon 2 suggested, I too am a bio-mother of an adult child, and an aparent. We are just as much bonded as I am to my bio child.
According to this article, it seems anyone who went through c-section or had to be put completely under in order to give birth, or someone who gives birth to a premie who has to be in NICU for weeks on end, assumably cannot bond with their birth child either.
This article is insulting to me as a parent on so many levels.

Anonymous said...

It frosts me that bio parents aren't given the same kind of scrutiny. What percentage of the children born in the world probably were the result of an unintended pregnancy? I'd guess the rate is pretty high, though I admit I don't know for sure.

--Another Anon.

Mei-Ling said...

"I would never put a bio parent under such scrutiny. Why do so many think it's ok to be "in your face" with adoptive parents, and their reasons to adopt?"

Because adoptive parents are raising the child borne of someone else. Therefore adoptive parents are held to a higher standard.

No one "expects" bio parents to want treat their kids badly, to hit or abuse them.

(I'm not saying bio parents don't abuse - but there is an entire field of research dedicated to the neurology between mother and child, so while it's horrifying that an adoptive parent would go through all the hoops to order only to end up harming the child, it's considered even worse when a bio parent does it...).

Mei-Ling said...

"Probably MORE APs flex their reasons from one level to another, than do bio parents who just go along thinking that their "normal" is how it's supposed to be....and then add that "at least they're keeping their child!" "

Ever seen the remarks of "Hey, an adopted child was chosen, but the bio parent was STUCK with the child they birthed"?

*shakes her head*

This is of course assuming that the bio parent is going to be a shitty parent and not care about the kid.

In which case, most bio parents *aren't like that.*

Mei-Ling said...

"What percentage of the children born in the world probably were the result of an unintended pregnancy?"

Most bio parents end up loving all these pregnancies, unintended or not.

That is why there is an entire field of research dedicated to the neurology and psychology of pregnancy.

Anonymous said...

Mei Ling-
WOW! Those are some really big assumptions. But I will just quote one of them, for argument sake.

"Most bio parents end up loving all these pregnancies, unintended or not."

Tell me why, then, are there an overwhelming amount of kids in foster care. SO much so, that many are in group homes, and abused by other foster kids...which apparently, is better than being with their bio parents?

There are a hell of a LOT more children placed into foster care (BY THE SYSTEM ITSELF, because the bio parent abuses the child) than there are disrupted or relinquished adoptions in the US.

Explain that, please.

Perhaps the research you are referring to, might be just that...research...to try to find out WHY some bio parents bond and love their children (or at least do everything they can to show it) while other bio parents do not.

Anonymous said...

"Because adoptive parents are raising the child borne of someone else. Therefore adoptive parents are held to a higher standard."

Oh I see. So then in your eyes, I could have treated my adult bio son much worse than I can my a-daughter, and gotten away with it? Tell that to the pediatricians who see children with bruises on them, and the psychologists who have to pick up the pieces of broken children.
Seems to me, all parents should be held to the same standards, and it seems that way to the medical and social fields as well.....Thank God!

Anonymous said...

From the article: "There are many women who turn to adoption because they cannot have their own children, but for couples who are able to have kids, the birthing process is an important step in connecting emotionally with the child."

Bukimom said: "I was surprised that it was implied that couples who can have kids perhaps shouldn't adopt because the birthing process is so critical to emotionally bonding with your child."

I saw it as a very valid statement to keep in mind, not implying they shouldn't adopt. The nine month gestation and birth of your child is an important step (as in one of many steps not the be all and end all to the equation) that you do not have in any adoption. The final statement made lends to the statement that the age at adoption matters as well. Nor does it state you won't bond with an adopted child.

Personally I thought it was a pretty good article after reading the entire thing - not rocket science but not degrading.

***

Anon 10.32 reponse to Mei Ling...

There is abuse and even murder in adoptive families. There has been a lack of statisitical evidence about this because of the secrecy in adoption.

When you even stop to consider the amount of cases that appear in the media in a given year about abuse in adoptive homes, compared to the very small percentage of adopted children under the age of 18 in the US (2.5%) it raises a red flag. What is the statistic of kids in fostercare compared to the 97.5% of children under 18 living in their biological families in the US? Only when you can compare realities can you make statements to that affect.

Abandonment/dissolutions are seldom reported to the state nowdays with rehoming message boards and web sites providing a means to keep it private vs. the shame of relinquishing to the state so no valid statistics are available, even when the new adoption happens because they are sealed as well as the prior adoption.

Word verification keeps saying invalid so trying as anon but this is theadoptedones...

Anonymous said...

It strikes me as the LEVEL of scrutiny that PAPs and APs are subjected to -- typically homestudy by a social worker, review by state/province, further review by the country you want to adopt a child from, etc. With oodles of oversight from an array of professionals in a variety of countries/states/provinces, you'd think it would be possible to select APs who are unlikely to harm their potential children. And it is not unreasonable to expect screened APs to (at the very least) abuse kids less often than unscreened birth parents, on average.

There was a recent report from Washington State, finding a cluster of around 15 starvation of adopted kids cases (out of only 1000 or so adopted kids per year)... that is disturbing. Particularly, as unless starvation is reALY extreme, it's unlikley to attract the attention of child welfare authorities, like the 13 year old boy who weighed all of 49 pounds.
http://tdn.com/news/local/state-officials-investigating-several-cases-of-abuse-of-adopted-children/article_7fac29c2-3f25-11e1-b980-0019bb2963f4.html

Anonymous said...

I will admit that I was able to bond earlier with my bio child, because I was pregnant. But, that does not take away from the fact that I was able to bond with my a-daughter as well. I've read somewhere that it takes one month of being with the child for every month you were not with that same child, in order to bond as well as newborn and mother. I can tell you also, that bonding did not really begin when I saw my a-daughters picture, but it did begin the moment I physically held my a-daughter.
I agree with the others who have already said "Why scrutinize the a-parent more than the bio parent?" I also do not accept the reasoning that someone is raising a child they did not birth. That just seems like rhetoric.