The Problem With the Christian Adoption Movement

[doggie]

This is a long but interesting article on the adoption issues we see with fundies.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathryn-j ... 67223.html

Several weeks ago, in honor of "Birthmothers' Day," the pre-Mother's Day celebration of women who relinquish children for adoption, the Washington Post published an op-ed by Fox News analyst Nina Easton. In it, Easton, an adoptive mother, called for a shift in language that would recast adoption not as abandonment, but as a heroic gift of life that a biological mother can make not only to her child, but also to would-be adoptive parents. In her opening paragraph, Easton lamented that adoption "carries such a social stigma that domestic placement of infants has plummeted -- even as the number of parents desperate for a baby grows." Changing the language around adoption, she suggested, to call "birthmothers" selfless and loving, could help encourage more women to relinquish.

[gustava]

I'd read this article, and while it sounds nice, I think the issue of adoption is more complex that a mere shift in language.

[BornFree]

Reframing adoption is a sound idea. In other cultures, China for example, adoption carries no stigma.

[doggie]

the stigma should be taken away though I doubt it is going to happen. no way fundies will think highly of a single woman giving a child away. They want that but it is still not something that will be ok with.

[patsymae]

Adoption isn't about encouraging women to breed in order to service people who want their babies. The "noble gift" thing was a hallmark of the Baby Scoop Era and it didn't work out well. Personally I think it's great that more women are taking charge of their own reproductive systems--and whether to continue a pregnancy to term and whether to parent or adopt are two separate issues. If more women are controlling their own bodies, and if fewer babies are available to be separated from their natural mothers in order to fuel the $4 billion per year adoption industry, to me that is a very good thing. Stranger adoption should be a last resort for finding families for children who truly need them.

[Rosa]

You would think on birth mother day they'd let a mother who'd relinquished a baby speak.

[2xx1xy1JD]

There are situations where I've had issues with the legal language used in a few of my cases. In one case, a mother who decided not to keep fighting because it would prolong the time that her child spent in foster care limbo was not "abandoning" her child in any way - she was trying to spare him the horrible childhood that she had endured and was doing so in a completely loving and unselfish way. In some other cases, we noticed a slight trend of parents in Africa arranging to have their teens smuggled here. Again, the official language used was "abandonment", and again, it was anything but that. The families had clearly devoted all of their resources to this, because they wanted a better life for their children.

OTOH, the prime purpose of adoption is not to provide babies for people. While I think it can be a miracle if a child in need of a home is able to find one with a loving family who desperately wants a child, I don't like the idea of creating miserable situations (not treating infertility, not permitting birth control, etc.) in order to artificially fuel these miracles, and I certainly don't like the focus being on the adoptive parents to the extent that we actively try to create a flow of orphan babies.

[Rachel333]

It bothers me that she wants to see more babies being placed for adoption. I'd think ideally there would be fewer mothers having babies they feel they can't take care of.

[rward]

Adoption isn't about encouraging women to breed in order to service people who want their babies. The "noble gift" thing was a hallmark of the Baby Scoop Era and it didn't work out well. Personally I think it's great that more women are taking charge of their own reproductive systems--and whether to continue a pregnancy to term and whether to parent or adopt are two separate issues. If more women are controlling their own bodies, and if fewer babies are available to be separated from their natural mothers in order to fuel the $4 billion per year adoption industry, to me that is a very good thing. Stranger adoption should be a last resort for finding families for children who truly need them.

THIS. Forever this.

Women who don't want children/can't continue a pregnancy/don't want to continue a pregnancy don't owe anyone their baby. I'm sorry you can't have children. I really, truly am. But it does not obligate anyone, anywhere to produce a baby for you to adopt.

Frankly, I see adoption as a failure. Not on the part of the adoptive parent or the child, but a failure of birth control, a failure of choice and/or a failure of society to actually support families with children. If we had 100% effective birth control and social policies that supported families with food, shelter, money and parenting education and help, why would we ever need to find another home for a child? Only in cases of extreme abuse would this happen, and that's not the reason for most adoptions.

[Ellimenopy]

OTOH, the prime purpose of adoption is not to provide babies for people. While I think it can be a miracle if a child in need of a home is able to find one with a loving family who desperately wants a child, I don't like the idea of creating miserable situations (not treating infertility, not permitting birth control, etc.) in order to artificially fuel these miracles, and I certainly don't like the focus being on the adoptive parents to the extent that we actively try to create a flow of orphan babies.

This. This has always made me really, really uncomfortable. I think about this article every time someone comes home so proud of their internationally adopted infant. I've made a lot of enemies on the Internet over the years just by bringing it up. This article basically argues that with the exception of Chinese girls and actually disabled children, there is NO need for international adoption. I understand that it's not a pleasant topic to bring up, but I think the implications that American money is basically creating a market for human infants is ghastly. Unfortunately, although Gothardites aren't usually adoption fans, evangelical Christians seem to be the worst offenders. The universe doesn't owe you children, even if you believe your God does.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... ie_we_love

[bananacat]

I am really fucking sick of the anti-abortion movement trying to co-opt adoption. Abortion and adoption are two completely separate things. Women who face an unwanted pregnancy and choose to carry to term end up raising the child themselves in the vast majority of cases anyway.

International adoption just adds another layer of exploitation, condescension, and frequently racism.

[Irishy]

I've said it before, but I'll say it again. Adoption should be a home for a child, not a child for a home.

[dairyfreelife]

There's a shortage of children available for adoption? I am certain there's around 200,000 children in the foster system in need of a home and eligible for adoption. Oh, wait, I forget, those aren't healthy newborns, so screw them.

[Morton Fan]

Frankly, I see adoption as a failure. Not on the part of the adoptive parent or the child, but a failure of birth control, a failure of choice and/or a failure of society to actually support families with children. If we had 100% effective birth control and social policies that supported families with food, shelter, money and parenting education and help, why would we ever need to find another home for a child? Only in cases of extreme abuse would this happen, and that's not the reason for most adoptions.

I disagree. Like abortion or parenting, adoption is the mother's choice for her child and should be respected as such.

[SpeakNow]

I disagree. Like abortion or parenting, adoption is the mother's choice for her child and should be respected as such.

I agree. Even with the best education and birth control unplanned pregnancies can happen. Women should be allowed to choose adoption for their children without any pressure or shame/guilt.

[Munasa]

"parents desperate for a baby"

I agree with many other posters above. Adoption is about a child who needs a family, not about "parents desperate for a baby".

[Rachel333]

I'm going to slightly disagree because I've found the most obnoxious attitudes from the people who adopt just to save a child (which is why a lot of Evangelicals adopt), while in general the people adopting because they want a baby seem more grateful and respectful, though there are obviously plenty of exceptions.

[Hane]

I'm reading The Girls Who Went Away, and it's heart-rending.

[Rachel333]

I was thinking about this and I don't think I really said it right in my last post. I do think adoption should be child-focused, and clearly the people acting entitled to babies are horrible. I'm not sure that saying adoption is about a child who needs a family is quite right, either.

A few years ago I did a lot of reading about adoption issues, and the advice I generally saw was to adopt because you want a child, not because you think a child needs a family. The child didn't choose to be adopted, and it's really unfair on them if you think they should be grateful for being adopted; rather it's the parents who should be grateful for the child.

That's a major problem I have with the Evangelical adoption movement; my old church even set up an adoption "ministry". I think it would be awful to know you were adopted because your parents thought it was part of a ministry rather than just because they wanted you as part of their family. It may seem like it's about a child needing a family, but I often end up getting the impression that it's more about the parents' ego. I've seen a lot of adoption fundraisers, and I far prefer the ones that phrase it as "Help us add a child to our family" rather than "Help us save an orphan".

[Peas n carrots]

Nina Easton is a twit. No one owes anyone a child.

The entitlement complex of some adoptive parents makes me I'll. They think they deserve a baby because they are married, middle class and white.

[patsymae]

I was thinking about this and I don't think I really said it right in my last post. I do think adoption should be child-focused, and clearly the people acting entitled to babies are horrible. I'm not sure that saying adoption is about a child who needs a family is quite right, either.

A few years ago I did a lot of reading about adoption issues, and the advice I generally saw was to adopt because you want a child, not because you think a child needs a family. The child didn't choose to be adopted, and it's really unfair on them if you think they should be grateful for being adopted; rather it's the parents who should be grateful for the child.

That's a major problem I have with the Evangelical adoption movement; my old church even set up an adoption "ministry". I think it would be awful to know you were adopted because your parents thought it was part of a ministry rather than just because they wanted you as part of their family. It may seem like it's about a child needing a family, but I often end up getting the impression that it's more about the parents' ego. I've seen a lot of adoption fundraisers, and I far prefer the ones that phrase it as "Help us add a child to our family" rather than "Help us save an orphan".

It's about giving a child who NEEDS a family a family, not in the context of "saving" a child and expecting them to be grateful, which does indeed add another whole layer of disgustingness to the issue, but meaning meeting the needs of a child who already exists and through some unfortunate circumstances can't be cared for by anyone in her natural family. It is not about adopting because you "want a child," want to "build a family" by appropriating some other person's child and creating the legal fiction that he is your own. And then complaining because there aren't enough women birthing children they can't take care of and enough 3d world parents dying to create orphans so that these families who are "desperate for a baby" can get one.

[DistantStar]

There is an entire Evangelical market, quite deliberately created, for all the wrong reasons to be adopting. It's sickening. It's an alternating sad and infuriating book but I can't recommend Joyce's The Child Catchers highly enough on this.

[mystikchick17]

There is an entire Evangelical market, quite deliberately created, for all the wrong reasons to be adopting. It's sickening. It's an alternating sad and infuriating book but I can't recommend Joyce's The Child Catchers highly enough on this.

This, absolutely this. The book is revelatory, eye-opening, heart-wrenching, infuriating, and just a thoroughly sound, well-researched and written piece of sociological insight into the evangelical adoption movement. These parents get upset when "countries close" - Satan is clearly at work, yo. Or, you know, the countries are shifting to try and make sure children are legitimately able to be adopted, respecting the rights of their birth families, and working to have them domestically adopted instead. I fail to see what the tremendous tragedy is here. Special needs kids are a different issue altogether, and I do wish she'd spent more time exploring that side of fundy adoptions, but do read The Child Catchers if this is a topic that interests you. I can't say enough good things about it.

[Rachel333]

A friend of a friend has a somewhat well-read blog -- therunamuck.com/ -- and was into the whole Evangelical adoption culture and started to adopt from Ethiopia. In the process, though, they realized some of the problems with adoption and canceled the adoption, choosing instead to support organizations that support Ethiopian families instead of just trying to take the kids. She's probably fundie-lite and has a bunch of biological kids that she homeschools (nothing wrong with that, to be clear), but I was really impressed by her. You can read her story by searching "adoption." Here's the organization they support -- kidmia.org/ -- and here's her husband writing about witnessing the first domestic Ethiopian adoption: coconutrobot.com/2013/02/are-you-in/ Again, it's all very Evangelical, but I think it's good to see Evangelicals shifting a bit when it comes to that adoption culture.

[patsymae]

I disagree. Like abortion or parenting, adoption is the mother's choice for her child and should be respected as such.

Surrendering her child to an unrelated stranger is rarely a mother's freely made choice for her child when she has adequate resources to parent and is not under pressure. Also, a child is not a commodity that belongs only to his mother for her to pass around if she likes. Children also belong to their fathers, their grandparents, their extended families, their communities, their tribes, their countries and their cultures. Adopters can rationalize all they want, but adoption is largely, with some admitted exceptions, about commerce, not about children. Otherwise, as stated above, society would direct resources to supporting families, not subsidizing cjild trafficking.