Adoption is a ministry, so help fund it

[dairyfreelife]

mistyleask.com/adoption-ministry-fundraiser-mandys-adoption/

Buy the bundles and pay for the adoption because it's a ministry after all.

[gustava]

Who else was it who begged for $$ to adopt??? The young woman who'd had cancer...

[ILoveJellybeans]

Adoption isn't a ministry. If you think it is, you are doing it wrong and shouldn't adopt.

[Mela99]

Everybody should read The Child Catchers. This is just sick.

[chaotic life]

Of course it's a ministry, which is why it HAS to be a domestic newborn--an adoption arena where the families seeking to adopt dramatically outnumber the women placing their children for adoption that families seeking to adopt for infertility issues may never successfully adopt because they compete with these families "called" to adopt. An arena of adoption that is rift with corruption and costs so much money that you could sponsor a child in a developing nation from birth to adulthood and likely have money left over before you came close to what you paid for that private domestic infant adoption.

If you came to adoption as truly a ministry, why are you adopting children that don't need you to line up and compete for them? Why aren't you willing to adopt the children that nobody wants? Why aren't you considering family reunification programs?

Nope, it's all about a ministry, to take your number, stand in line, pay your thousands of dollars and hope someone chooses you for that newborn baby that you want to minister to....because it would NEVER be that you want a baby, that wouldn't be honorable, right?

Whatever.

[chaotic life]

women-of-worship.com/2014/08/26/adoption-journey/

This is the family the fundraiser is for. Because, apparently deciding you WANT to adopt is supposed to be good enough, and somehow she didn't grasp that the 10 pages or so of biographical surveys and the timeline that states you have to undergo a series of visits didn't clue her in that most agencies don't simply give you a baby when you decide God has CALLED you to a baby!

[ViolaSebastian]

Wow. This adoption is all about Mandy, isn't it? Not so much about the baby...

Mandy is passianoite about two thins: the Word of God and Souls of Men (and ladies!)

Mandy is passionate about two things. Proofreading is neither of those things.

[SPHASH]

If you have to raise funds to adopt a baby then you can't afford to raise children.

[Mama Mia]

If you have to raise funds to adopt a baby then you can't afford to raise children.

That's not true. I, personally, think private ( or even public) adoption of healthy infants can be an industry that has a number of ethical issues -- including high costs. But not being able to afford the huge upfront costs doesn't mean a family can't provide the normal day-to-day basics and small extras that raising children requires. The fact that families from a wider range of socio-economic backgrounds are unable to adopt due to the high cost is one of my issues with it.

Plus it's kind of gross that the competition for the " best" babies comes down to who can show they are the most materially well off. Yuck.

[dairyfreelife]

women-of-worship.com/2014/08/26/adoption-journey/

This is the family the fundraiser is for. Because, apparently deciding you WANT to adopt is supposed to be good enough, and somehow she didn't grasp that the 10 pages or so of biographical surveys and the timeline that states you have to undergo a series of visits didn't clue her in that most agencies don't simply give you a baby when you decide God has CALLED you to a baby!

Yes, thanks. I was :pink-shock: :o :roll: :hand: as I read her site.

[Firiel]

That's not true. I, personally, think private ( or even public) adoption of healthy infants can be an industry that has a number of ethical issues -- including high costs. But not being able to afford the huge upfront costs doesn't mean a family can't provide the normal day-to-day basics and small extras that raising children requires. The fact that families from a wider range of socio-economic backgrounds are unable to adopt due to the high cost is one of my issues with it.

I was just going to say that. I'm pretty sure the cost of adoption is FAR higher than the typical cost of giving birth (when there is medical insurance involved). Adoption can be as expensive as $20-$30,000 and I know my sister didn't pay anywhere near that when her kids were born.

[dianapavelovna]

A ministry would be raising $11,000 for struggling moms who might otherwise choose to place their babies for adoption.

[chaotic life]

I completely disagree that if you cannot raise the up-front costs for adoption you cannot afford a child. The adoption costs are a down payment on a house, plain and simple. Plenty of people who never buy a home raise children just fine but cannot come up with the cost of a down payment to purchase a home.

We have done four adoptions and never did fund-raising. Our last adoption we did not plan for but responded to a child who needed us to step in. We made an agreement to not turn down assistance from friends, but did not ask for help nor fund-raise for that adoption. Friends did cover a large part of the costs for that adoption, in large part because they too realized that our son needed people to step in for him and we happened to be there and able to step in when he needed someone to support and love him.

I have taken advantage of adoption grants available for special needs adoptions, and I have no problem doing that. I have only ever done older child, special needs adoption, children for whom family reunification programs were not the best option for the children. I do consider why I went into adoption as a ministry and a calling, not because I am trying to rescue children but because we weren't afraid of standing in the gap for children who needed someone not afraid to stand in that gap.

However, we've used our life savings more than once to fund our adoptions, even with adoption grants. I blew an entire inheritance for an adoption once, and I don't regret it for a moment.

What I don't agree with is the fundraising, most especially for domestic infant adoptions. I don't agree with calling DIA a ministry. That is an industry, not a ministry. Its about couples who want healthy newborns NOT about finding families for children who have no other options. While I would not personally enter a DIA, I don't blame anyone who makes that choice. I just have serious issues with dressing it up as a ministry and rescuing a child when its about being for the sake of the couple and NOT the baby. I have issues with taking that further and raising funds for this so-called calling and ministry.

This woman is not the biological mother of the three children she is raising. Most likely, she is unable to get pregnant and wants a baby of her own. Therefore, when given the option between infertility treatments or adoption, she has chosen adoption (though she may have attempted infertility treatments already). Framing this as a ministry is dishonest. Its dishonest to herself and dishonest to any child she brings into her home.

[SoybeanQueen]

Adoption isn't a ministry. If you think it is, you are doing it wrong and shouldn't adopt.

EXACTLY.

I hate it when people assume that because some of our children are adopted that we will be on board for whatever "adoption ministry" or fundraiser they come up with. It's not a ministry. It's my family.

[SoybeanQueen]

If you have to raise funds to adopt a baby then you can't afford to raise children.

I disagree. There are plenty of people, myself included, who don't have $30,000 laying around for immediate use. But I do have enough to comfortably raise 5 kids. Three of my kids have various levels of need and came to us through adoption. Our state and our social worker looked at all of our financial information and thought we were perfectly capable of raising said kids.

You know who shouldn't adopt? People who take issue with letting strangers look at every single detail of their lives. ;)

[DGayle]

That's not true. I, personally, think private ( or even public) adoption of healthy infants can be an industry that has a number of ethical issues -- including high costs. But not being able to afford the huge upfront costs doesn't mean a family can't provide the normal day-to-day basics and small extras that raising children requires. The fact that families from a wider range of socio-economic backgrounds are unable to adopt due to the high cost is one of my issues with it.

SPHASH, the costs of raising a kid are piecemeal over a couple decades, and a lot of the costs are negotiable. I couldn't afford the costs of adoption. Does that mean I can't afford my kids? No.

And I agree with MamaMia. The extremely high cost makes adoption a status symbol, unless you take one of the "cheaper" kids out of foster care, aka the ones who have big medical issues, are older, or otherwise aren't as desirable as a healthy white newborn. But even then, it's not cheap. I know a lot of families who want to adopt, but can't afford $25,000 or more up front. There are more fees than the base agency fees.

[Firiel]

I also want to add that I am a lot more sympathetic to adoption fundraising than I am a lot of Kickstarter crap like weddings or vacations. You don't need $10,000 to get married. You need a few hundred dollars. You don't need to go to Timbuktu to get away. You can go to a less exotic, more affordable place. But if you want children and can't have them for some reason, it's hard to avoid the costs of adoption, even in foster care adoptions, which are usually cheaper.

I would love to have kids someday, but I likely will not find a partner to share that with (what can I say? I'm a realist). I'm not super rich, but I know that in 5-10 years, I would be able to support a child or two comfortably. But I might have trouble adopting. Would I "fundraise" the money? I don't know. I'm not there yet, and all I can do is hope that my financial situation improves. But it does suck that some people may think I don't "deserve" children because I do not have a long-term partner and do not have $15,000 saved up.

No need to disguise a desire for children as a "ministry," though, especially when it's a domestic infant adoption, as Chaotic Life was saying.

[BeaSnarky]

If you have to raise funds to adopt a baby then you can't afford to raise children.

I'm going to disagree here too. We are just jumping off the cliff in our adoption ponderings. We have a comfortable life, and can afford children, but due to illness, I can not have babies myself.

We have the ability to provide a comfortable middle class life for a child in foster care. We do not have the huge fee upfront that is required. And the funds for international adoption are huge - including airfare, hotel accomodations, etc. In all honestly, we may well fundraise for that fee, if we decide to adopt.

[SunnyAndrsn]

Calling adoption a ministry makes my head want to explode.

I'm the parent of a special needs child, adopted at age 13. It wasn't a ministry. We felt called to be foster parents, and loved each and every one of the children in our home, although it wasn't always easy to love them. It just felt right to foster.

We had our son for two years as a foster child before we adopted him. He needed a permanent home. It was that simple. We were as prepared as we could be to be his forever family. He'll be 23 years old soon, and we have as good of relationship as he's capable of having.

Children like this do not belong in fundie families. Fundies, in general, damage kids like this even more. They need a small family size, and they need a lot of therapy, which are two things fundies generally aren't willing to give children with special needs.

The adoption industry--ugh, don't get me started.

[lilah]

Adoption isn't a ministry. If you think it is, you are doing it wrong and shouldn't adopt.

Agreed. Adopting a child should be the absolute last option for children in need. Better to invest in sponsoring families to stay together.

[Hisey]

I took a look through this woman's blog and it didn't seem that bad.

Yes, she wants a newborn. It looks like she is infertile and has three step-kids. I don't see anything wrong with wanting to experience the newborn stage.

2. She is open to any race. Surely that's positive. Newborns of color are not in great demand. I have seen many social workers work their way down a list of prospective parents, unable to find couples to adopt a Hispanic baby with light brown skin.

3. I didn't see where she calls her adoption a ministry, but if she does, that is a bit over the top. I sure hope she doesn't say that to the kid. On the other hand, if she ends up adopting a baby would otherwise go through foster care or live in a home with someone who doesn't want him, well, that is a good thing.

I know a family who goes on and on about how their adoption "rescued" their child, how their kid was malnourished and very ill. They say this right in front of the kid. It's not what I would do. But you know what? That kid (who is almost grown) is sweet, happy, polite and successful. She's learned to live with her tactless parents. Maybe she feels tactless parents are better than malnourishment and disease. Maybe she just loves them. I don't know. A "ministry" outlook is a bad thing in adoption, but not the worst thing in the world, IMO.

Through my years in adoption, I have learned not to judge other families. I have learned that it is a very personal decision, what kind of child you are willing to adopt and bring into your home for 18 years.

If you don't think you can bond with a four-year old, but you do think you can with an infant, then that is the route you should go. The child will be the one who suffers if you try to ignore those feelings and be "saintly."

There are so many kids in need of homes. I think by trashing adoptive parents, by acting like their home is a poor fifth choice, you discourage people from adopting. That hurts kids.

Some of the ideas mentioned above are nice, but really--How many people here actually contribute money to a struggling family , thus allowing them to stay intact? I mean, we have to return to reality here.

Yes, fundie families are not the best places to raise kids. And many foster kids needs small homes with loving parents, as SunnyAnderson says. But you know what? Those homes are few and far between.

I'd rather adopt a five-year old into a stable fundie home than have her move from foster home to foster home every six months, carrying her clothes in big garbage bags and dealing with the many terrible things that can happen in foster care. I'd rather see a 10 year old taken from her culture than have her lose her eyesight to disease while remaining in her desperately poor orphanage.

I've spoken to many kids adopted from 3rd world countries as teens--they laugh at the idea of missing their culture. Their culture rejected them, anyway. They prefer three meals a day.

edited to make a point clearer

[Four is Enough]

Touchy subject here. Mr. Four and I adopted our kids: two privately, yes, infant adoptions, and two via foster care. We know that we were the most fortunate people alive to have adopted infants twice. We advertised in the paper to meet prospective birth mothers. EVERY SINGLE PENNY of our discretionary income went into that adoption fund. We did borrow money from the bank when we needed an escrow very quickly, and that was repaid. No vacations. No new clothes. No car payments. Peanut butter sandwiches and macaroni and cheese. Overtime work. But we didn't advertise or ask for money. I have to say it really chaps my hide to see people begging for money to adopt a child. It's just not the way I was raised, to ask others for money to obtain something I want. It is a big thing to raise money for a private adoption, and yes, our adoptions from foster care were cheaper. It CAN be done relatively cheaply. But the hoops we jumped through! Everything open for inspection, from house to vehicles to jobs to the baby's room... you REALLY have to want a child to go through all that, and I can't see many fundies willing to expose themselves in that way.

[dianapavelovna]

Some of the ideas mentioned above are nice, but really--How many people here actually contribute money to a struggling family , thus allowing them to stay intact? I mean, we have to return to reality here.

As long as we (as a society) continue to believe that supporting family preservation rather than adoption is unrealistic, well, it will be. There is no reason that some of the millions and millions of dollars that go to the adoption industry couldn't go to supporting families (subsidizing child care, providing job training, career coaching, mental health services, parent mentoring, support groups, the list goes on). But people don't want to pay or fundraise for those things. They'd rather put their dollars to "Help bring our baby home!"

I am not anti-adoption. I'm a pessimist, so I don't believe we can have a world where no child will ever be in need of a family. And I have seen adoption be a wonderful thing for kids and families. But I believe we do need to shift our cultural paradigm around the idea.

The blogger calls adoption a ministry here: women-of-worship.com/2014/03/11/beginning-adventure-adoption/

We are going to choose either open or semi/open adoption. This means we will be a part of the birth moms life. We want a ministry here. This is about the souls of men!

This is not tied to any fundraising or mention of money. But the biggest service being done is here is a mother giving up her child, not the adopters taking her to church or praying with her.

[DGayle]

No need to disguise a desire for children as a "ministry," though, especially when it's a domestic infant adoption, as Chaotic Life was saying.

This is the problem people are having. She's calling it a ministry probably hoping that'll get more people to pitch in. Call it what it is: Needing help raising the money to adopt. No need to call it a ministry.

[chaotic life]

We really feel like adoption is a calling on our lives, we are blessed that God would choose us to walk down this exciting road to care for HIS children. Adoption is a ministry – a mission outreach if you will.

This is where I have a problem. No, this is not a ministry. This is a path to become a mother because infertility means she cannot have a biological baby and she wants a baby.

I do not in any way have a problem with someone adopting when they want a child and are infertile. I have a problem with deciding that there's some higher calling and ministry in this choice.

women-of-worship.com/2014/04/09/adoption-week-5-small-things/