Is adoption a selfless act?

I was re-reading some older posts written by other members, and came across a very passionate thread, started by Kimette's piece, Saints or Sinners?  You decide.  Among the many comments made, one jumped off the page today:

I see the mothers  who were coerced to abandon their children for the sake of the wanting couples in the name of Jesus. The whole book is about "praising God - saving orphans- finding more orphans-making money - talking to mothers-making more orphans".  [From:  "If I had been God...I would be very rich" ]

In other words, in order to adopt, an orphan has to be created.  Meanwhile, the general public is told how many orphans there are in this world.  [Over 145 million, last count?]  Anyone eager-for-a-baby knows there are many adoption agencies working hard (and getting paid) to find homes/parents for orphans.... especially those that are still infants/babies.  [Enter the solution to many an infertility-story:  adoption.]

After I read The Saints or Sinners thread, I read an article posted in a Guest column, claiming "adoption is truly a selfless decision!".  This selfless decision is supposed to come from enlightened teen moms.

Although some teens are loving and responsible mothers, far too often they are unprepared and simply too young to care for a child. Adoption has been a sort of taboo topic, especially for teens, who many times believe that it is a horrible and selfish act to place their child for adoption, when, in fact, it is one of the most selfless acts.

A new series on MTV called, "16 and Pregnant" brings to light some of the difficulties teen parents deal with such as peer and parental pressure to parent the child. This pressure often does not take into account the likelihood the birthmother will discontinue her education and lose her own childhood.

True, teen parents often times are in need of social services, placing more burden on society to help them and their children. However this, I believe, is the least of worries.

In fairness, one needs to consider the best interest of the child. Often, a teen's desire to be a parent is truly selfish, not selfless, in nature. They must look past their own desires to parent and instead determine who the best parent is for the child. It can be a very complicated and emotional choice.

As the owner of an adoption agency, I have seen the most beautiful adoption scenarios as well as the most heartbreaking. A birthmother has the right to choose the family in which she would like her child to be raised.  From: "Guest column: Adoption truly is a selfless decision", August 28, 2009,  http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20090828/GPG0706/908280653/1269/GPG06 ]

While there are many groups, programs and organizations willing and wanting to work WITH teen moms, (see Teen Mom Support and Nurse Family Partnership, ) there are still owners of private adoption agencies, (many AP's themselves) trying to encourage/coerce teen mothers to relinquish their babies, so a better future can be had.  What if that baby is sold to closet child abusers?  [See: Abused Adoptees]  Who is being selfish (and foolish), then?

0

no more heroes

It always strikes me as odd that teens would "simply" be too young to raise a child. For millions of years teens have raised children and it's only in the last few centuries that this pattern has changed. It's another question if in our modern day society it's smart to get pregnant so early, but I don't believe for a moment teens are inherently incapable of raising children. The human race would not exist if that were the case.

The so-called selfish/selfless act of adoption or relinquishment is simply bullshit. There are few real selfless acts and they are usually invoked by clear and present dangers. Some parents have died rescuing their children out of a burning house. Some soldiers have died, trying to protect their buddies. Those are selfless acts, the rest is somewhere in between. Even the best of adoptive parents deep down want a child, its their desire that creates a demand. And relinquishing mothers too, when not being coerced, often do what is best for themselves.

There is no selflessness in adoption; there are no heroes. There usually is a fucked-up situation that somehow get resolved. Sometimes the best interest of the child prevails, but that doesn't make anyone a hero, that's the way things should be.

Jesus had a teenaged mother...

All the world wants to define what others should and shouldn't be:  a check-list for everything.

In cleaning the church, my sons were finally given a check-list to follow in order to be "THE ONES WHO CLEAN THE CHURCH."  What they did before was obviously not acceptable to the clean-freak pastor's wife, and therefore, not wanting

my sons to keep hearing things like: you didn't dust the windowsills or wash the front window or......; that's when I asked for the "check-list." 

To be a mother, should there be a check-list to follow?  According to the DHS there are many check-lists on "how to be" someone state-approved.  The funny thing is, the lists change according to what the state wants to prove.  So, to be a teen mother, and have the state approve you, you must find the proper check-list.

As far as this: "It always strikes me as odd that teens would "simply" be too young to raise a child. For millions of years teens have raised children and it's only in the last few centuries that this pattern has changed."  By WHOSE check-list have teens suddenly become too young to raise a child?  By the PTB from the state who see MONEY in taking children from teen mothers and selling them to AP's, or huddling them together in foster homes who are MAKING MONEY taking them in.

It's all about money!

What did I ever do to deserve this... Teddy

"The Bible tells me so"

When I was a child, I read the story about Mary, Joseph, and Jesus (the mortal trinity).  The way I saw it, it was the story about an unwed pregnant girl, (the father was "unknown"), a society filled with people who were unforgiving and unaccepting, and a man who had to be convinced to help both mother and child so they would NOT be attacked and shunned.

It amazes me how many see that same story as an Adoption Story.

It amazes me how some people insist how others should believe.  It amazes me how so many so-called Christian people (Christ-followers) fail to see/remember how even Jesus loathed selfish greed (false priests) within the church.

my reading of it

Even as a non-believer I have always liked the person of Jesus and could never understand why self-proclaimed believers could get it all so wrong. Of course now that I am sadder and hopefully a bit wiser, I can see how organized religion often is all about power and money, and with that the anti-thesis of what it preaches.

In that sense a group called "Atheists for Jesus" would be ironic, but "Christians agains Jesus" is more likely.

just who is the mother...

In the first post:  "They must look past their own desires to parent and instead determine who the best parent is for the child."
But the real question is:  WHO is the real God-intended mother?
You talk about Christians/Christ followers who forget how even "Jesus loathed the selfish greed within the church."  And I say that Christians/Christ followers have forgotten Who IS the creator and Who designates each person to which family: "FOR GOD PUTS THE UNITY IN FAMILIES!" 
I hear so many adoptive parents state:  God put our family together.  But I say, NO, He didn't!  He is allowing people their own free will to play musical families; NOT by His will, but because humans learn by their own mistakes... and what have we learned in the past one hundred years through HIS allowance of adoption?  The same thing we learned by HIS allowing of divorce:  God does NOT condone divorce any more than HE condones adoptions; He only allows it because humans are so weak and sinful. 
So what have we learned?  It isn't good: adoption or divorce has NOT solved ANY of the world's problems!  And God stands back, shaking His head as He continues to allow us to try and LEARN something from these mistakes.

What did I ever do to deserve this... Teddy

Origins

I hear so many adoptive parents state:  God put our family together.

And I always thought the adoptive family was created by adoption agency minions workers and lawyers.

rocket science

All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.
Thomas Paine (1737 - 1809)

Didn't take him rocket science to figure this out....

the church...

The "church" has certainly developed a bad name over the past centuries.  I can partially agree with Thomas Paine as his statement certainly rings true when looking at the adoption/sexual abuse situation in the world today.  But I would like to add that as with every group of people in the world, there are some good as well as bad aspects. 
What the "church" has done for my family far out-weighs what harm it HAS done.  I start at the top:  Pastors/priests/etc  have evolved, for me in my lifetime, from the older, wise, humble servant of God (and even one of them sexually abused me) to the new and ?improved? free-thinking pulpit-filler who sees only numbers as the goal instead of souls to nurture by the Word of God.
I believe the church, as God intended, is not an institution, but a family... and as we all see the deterioration of the human family: divorce and adoption, so we see the deterioration of the spiritual family.  Why?  Because human beings are involved in both. 

What did I ever do to deserve this... Teddy

No.

Is adoption a selfless act?

Never.

Pound Pup Legacy