The Other Michael

when there are children available for adoption?

If you want the experience of raising a child, why add another to the world's population instead of raising an existing child that is in need of a parent?

I'm not looking for "passing on my genes" or "to experience the biological changes of pregnancy" types of reasons. I'm interested in moral/ethical justifications.

cheers,
Michael

Jamie_L

I think this ground has been covered before in other threads. The conclusion at that point (if I recall correctly) was that there isn't a moral/ethical justification for having kids. It's basically an amoral act. People don't do it because it's the right thing to do. They do it because they want to.

Jamie

The Other Michael

Hi Jamie,

I did do a search first thing on "adopt" and "adoption" and didn't find a thread that seemed to really address the question.

I'm not asking why people would have a child (it makes no sense to me - it must be a decision similar to getting a tattoo or piercing ). Rather, how is it they justify bringing another child on board and spurning existing children in need?

This isn't the same as asking why we don't sell all our possessions and give the proceeds to the poor. A decision is made to become a parent, and it seems like the world would be a better place with 1) fewer people over all and 2)existing children hopefully gaining the (presumed) benefits of having families/parents.

It seems like it would be a win-win scenario for everyone.

The parent gets a kid, a kid gets a parent, the number of abandoned children living in poverty hopefully goes down, and there may end up being fewer dysfunctional children growing into dysfunctional adults.

cheers,
Michael

[ December 03, 2002: Message edited by: The Other Michael ]</p>

brighid

Other then genetically passing on your specific DNA I am not sure about that. I do think more people should choose adoption, but there are a lot of problems with adopting. Currently it is VERY expensive to adopt about 3-4 times that of actually incubating one of your own. Many children available for adoption through lesser expensive agencies, such as through the state have many mental, emotional and physical difficulties that most people aren’t willing to take on, not just in the financial but as well in the emotional sense.

I visit those state sites often and almost always come away absolutely heart broken and the circumstance some of the children find themselves in. I also feel a certain degree of guilt that I am unwilling to take on a child who has severe emotional or physical handicaps. If I were single, or if I did not already have children I would seriously consider taking on a more difficult child but I don’t feel it fair to my son (or my husband who is not altogether willing to adopt a special needs child) to subject him to possible behavioral issues such that are found in many of those children.

We REALLY want to adopt a child, but the money is what holds us back. I am not really that interested in having another after my experience with pregnancy and adoption is very appealing to both of us, but to adopt a healthy infant (or almost any racial or ethnic decent OTHER then black or biracial) is about $30-40,000. If you want to adopt a child from a disadvantaged country say from China, Russia, Korea, India etc. there are many restrictions placed on a family. You must be married for a certain # of years, in some cases you may not be previously divorced, you must be within a certain age range, you must travel and stay in the country of origin for 2-6 weeks, and you must travel back to acquire the child. Domestic adoption can be just as expensive and many people fear that the parents might want the child back and are afraid of the emotional turmoil inherent in that scenario.

We fear about the health of the child, even though agencies will say that the mother hasn’t done drugs, abused cigarettes or alcohol you just don’t know. What sort of options does an adoptive family have if the child is born retarded, malformed, etc.

Then there is the issue of religion. Bethany Children’s services will NOT place children in households that are not practicing Christians. I got the literature from them and became irate at this requirement as this excludes not only atheists but all non-Christian people.

There are organizations whose costs are lower – such as <a href="http://www.pactadopt.org" target="_blank">http://www.pactadopt.org</a> and <a href="http://www.thecradle.org" target="_blank">http://www.thecradle.org</a> but with the Cradle the reduced fee is if you are willing to adopt transracially.

The screening process for adoption is also quite extensive and although I understand the need for that many “non-traditional” people have a very difficult time adopting despite their fitness and willingness – take the plight of many homosexual couples or singles wishing to adopt. Pact accepts non-traditional lifestyles for applicants.

Adoption is a complicated and often time very long, certainly expensive and drawn out process that discourages many and bars others from every adopting children then need homes.

Brighid

Bumble Bee Tuna

It feels good to have a child that you "created". More connection and whatnot. Or so it seems. So it is more enjoyable to have your own kid than to adopt someone else's (For some people, at least). Thus the "morality" of the decision is just like the "morality" of choosing not to live in poverty and give away all your money to the needy. You are choosing the selfish goal instead of the non-selfish goal.
Also, what she said about costs and difficulties.

-B

abe smith

The chances seem very great that, even now & considering world-wide, most human babies are NOT brought into existence deliberately/on purpose. = they probably are unplanned accidents; and will probably continue to be unplanned accidents until Big BRother takes humankind over in toto. And, considering how dubitable most human "planning" is, those of us who'ld like Our Kind to continue in existence for a few more Ks may hope that human DNA (one of the more "valuable" == human bias! , substances in the local U) continues to be not-wholly-controllable by us. Sheesh! what if The People Who Run This World were to govern All-That? Arrrrrrrgggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

CuriosityKills

This is something I have debated over and over again. I feel that it is necessary to care for all living beings despite race or possible emotional/physical/developmental problems. It is especially necessary to take care of people with these problems.

Of course, not everyone feels this way.

Originally posted by Brighid...

Would it be unfair to your son and husband if you conceived a "special needs child"? Would you consider an abortion if you were to find out in the earlier stages of fetal development that your child had Downs Syndrome? It is possible to have a child with emotional/behavioral problems no matter what genes the child has. If you found your son to be challenged in this way would you find it too "unfair" to your husband to keep him around?

brighid

Those are some very good questions. If I found the child I was carrying had Downs Syndrome my husband and I would decide what to do, as I don't feel Downs Syndrome renders a person completely incapable of living a fairly normal life I am not sure abortion would be the solution. Of course this depends on the severity of the impairment. But there are a number of other genetic disorders, that if my unborn child had I would strongly consider abortion and most likely have one.

I am strong enough to admit that I do not know if I would be up to the task of caring for a severely retarded child or handicapped child. IF a child I conceived was born or later developed in such a way I would certainly not give it away, etc. because we had no choice in accepting or taking on such a thing. But when one is adopting you do have choices. I would never choose those things for my own child, but sometimes nature doesn't give you too many options. Although I do think I would be more capable of handling the physical challenges of a special needs child, then I would for a child who is emotionally or behaviorally challenged.

What I am specifically thinking of is a child who is aggressive, violent, destructive and harmful to him/herself as well as other children either because of brain damaged caused by drug or alcohol addiction on part of his mother, or because of severe abuse that child suffered. I would not knowingly do anything to harm any child I carried, nor would I ever abuse a child because of the enormous harm it would cause that child. Therefore I wouldn't choose to bring a child like that into my family when the likelihood he/she may harm my own child is high. If we had no existing children that might be a different story.

I really don't KNOW what we would do if we conceived a child that acted in such a way because of genetic anomolies. Knowing how much of a strain that places on familial relationships and a marriage I wouldn't put my family through that by CHOICE, unless of course they agreed they would be willing to endure those hardships. If given no other CHOICE I suppose we would have to do our best to adapt and work toward maintaining the integrity of our family.

I would not allow any abusive person, child or adult to infiltrate our familial bond and therefore I would not choose to take on the responsibility of a child who had severe behavioral issues. As I said if I were single I would be likely to take on that responsibility because my CHOICE to do so would result in harming no one, directly or indirectly except for myself.

Prior to my marriage I was a single parent and my son had a mild learning disability, but my fiance chose to accept that responsibility and we were able to find the proper solution to address my sons needs.

A very good friend of mine has a daughter whose delivery caused her to develop severe cerebral palsy. Raising her is very, very difficult especially because she was left as a single parent when her husband deserted them. My son has been raised around her and we all love that little girl very much. It takes a lot of personal strength and outside support to handle the rigors of this situation. I commend and deeply admire her mother. I do not know that I am half the woman she is.

As a parent I have to look out for the best needs of my child and my family first. If something tragic were to happen we would deal with it as it comes. We are still considering adopting a child with difficulties we feel confident we could handle properly. We simply do not have the financial ability to take on a child whose medical costs exceed our income. I hope I am never faced with such a tragedy with my own child. It would be unfair to any child we considered adopting knowing we were not up to all of his/her challenges. I so often wish I could adopt all of the children I come across in my searches and more times then not I leave those searches heartbroken and crying because I cannot do more. Reality isn't fair ... unfortunately.

Brighid

Oxymoron

In the UK at least, adoption is not easy. There are many years of bureaucracy, suitability tests and such like to fight through.

Child-rearing is seen as a creative process: you hope to endow your children with attributes and skills that will lead to them having a happy and productive life. I think people consider children of their own more "malleable" because they can influence their behaviour pretty much from conception onwards. An adopted child is always going to be less easy to influence, and hasn't gone through the bonding process so is maybe seen as less of a family member.

None of that is particularly moral, but the desire to procreate (or not) is, like all human behaviour, complex, and to try to understand only a part of it is a bit of a pointless exercise.

winstonjen

Now, why can't they do that for REGULAR parents?!!???!