Adoption: why is this not viewed as an option when wanting kids?

Each year over 250,000 kids are taken into foster care in America. Instead of bringing more kids into the world, why don't people adopt more. As someone who was in DCFS, I know how shit of a system it is. My aunt and uncle fought tooth and nail to get custody of me. I have seen the paper work, the fight was not pretty. I know I want to adopt, but knowing that a good percentage of these kids are being abused (emotionally, physically, or even sexually) sickens me. Why don't more people adopt? Do you plan to adopt instead of having kids of your own?

Untitled Power Rangers Story

I would honestly contemplate supporting a law which essentially made having biologically having kids illegal until a substantial majority of the children in the foster care system were adopted out, but it would be an intensely complex moral and political issue, to me...

I am now known as Flyboy.

I'm pretty sure a lot of people do in fact consider adoption as an option. But there's still that psychological drive to have your own kids. Plus, it's an expensive and time consuming procedure to qualify for adoption; you could end up fostering a child and in the end have them taken away from you because the birth parent cleaned up their act, demanded the kid back, and got a lawyer for that purpose. (Or Children's Services deemed you unfit for whatever reason.) Add into it that a lot of these kids come damaged and a lot of people aren't emotionally or mentally prepared to deal with those things.

There's reasons not to do it. In a lot of ways, when deciding to have a child just getting pregnant and having your own is easier in terms of time spent and emotions invested.

And well, at this point in time I don't really see children as a part of my picture at all; my life is going to have to change drastically for me to think about it. I certainly couldn't support a child on my own right now.

Uh, that would be a fantastic way to piss off the feminists by telling them what they can do with their bodies, as well as the pro-lifers. It's also fucking stupid and would require either one hundred percent effective contraceptives or everyone to not have sex. The latter makes that a massively invasive law in personal matters. Basically, there is no good reason to enact a law like that. It's not actually that complicated, as no one sane would vote for that.

edited 30th Nov '11 2:04:38 PM by AceofSpades

Adoption is expensive, and it comes with a lot of hassles in the form of paperwork. I'm not sure if it's actually more expensive than IVF, or anything along those lines, but if you billed yourself for doing the paperwork it might be. There's also all of the inspections from Social Services, background investigations, etc, of which none are required to have your own child the natural way. Adopting a kid in the US is really, really difficult, which is why a number of people who do want to adopt end up going overseas for the child(ren) they want.

Adoption means getting a child who's already started growing, and for many people they want the child from the very beginning. They don't want to miss "Baby's First X", and adopting a baby, even if set up to do so before the mother gives birth, they're still missing those moments.

As mentioned, most children are in foster care or up for adoption because they are, in one way or another, "damaged goods". Maybe they were taken away from abusive parents, or abandoned by neglectful ones, or their parents are dead from something. This, compounded with the shitty conditions already in foster care, means that by the time they reach the teen years, they have emotional and behavioral problems, and most prospective parents don't want to try and piece back a shattered person, especially when there's a good chance they'll be actively hostile to any help offered.

Lastly, they might not be considered eligible for adoption by social services. They might be single, or gay, or anything else that doesn't look like a nice, perfect 1950's nuclear family from the outside, means they'll get told, "Tough shit, now beat it," and kids who might have done fabulous things will stay in foster care because the prospective parents can't meet the straightjacketed criteria built up by "Think of the children!" politicians.

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw

Pissing off feminists and pro-lifers (who, more often than not, tend to be religious social conservatives who care less about the unborn children they seek to "protect" and more about regulating the sexual activities of others) isn't really something I care about. I agree that it would be incredibly impractical and authoritarian, which is why I consider it a morally complex idea to consider.

It would be politically simple, though, as it would never happen. As Blue Ninja pointed out, people are, at heart, selfish pricks, and simply don't consider kids in the foster system to be "good enough" for them, as it would violate the whole institutionalized ideal of "everyone must have their own kids."

edited 30th Nov '11 3:26:51 PM by USAF713

I am now known as Flyboy.

Generally, children which are available for adoption and who are healthy, young and unproblematic have relatively little trouble finding a family nowadays. Or at least, so I heard.

Now, there are plenty of children which are in serious need of a family; but many of them are a little more grown up and have serious physical and/or behavioural problems. Major kudos to the people who can offer them a home and take care of them, but that's not something that everyone is capable of.

I know a person — she's a friend of my parents, and she was one of my teachers in primary school — who did something like this, adopting four "disaster cases" and caring for them very well. But she was a trained teacher with some sort of specialization for kids with disabilities, and her husband's profession also has something to do with childcaring, I think, and even then there were more than a few difficult situations.

That's not something that you can spring on a random couple and expect it not to end badly.

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

It may suck that kids are not being adopted, but noone should have the obligation to adopt. I can perfectly understand wanting to have your own kids and I don't even want to have kids, ever.

Murrl LustFatM

We could always make it so that for every naturally-born child somebody has they must also adopt a child, but that could go wrong in so many ways when it comes off the drawing board...

I am now known as Flyboy.

"So I heard" isn't a particularly reliable source.

And yes, I agree that forcing adoption is problematic. But what about having the same standards before one can be allowed to reproduce as before one can be allowed to adopt, and if you fail to meet those standards the kid goes into foster care? (Yes, that may seem counterproductive, but by deterring bad parents it would cut down on abuse and neglect, and may contribute to adoption more in the long run...)

Actually, that's even better than adopting from an orphanage in the US, since at least they tend to be taken care of in orphanages, which is more than can be said for the third-world hellholes these children are saved from.

edited 30th Nov '11 4:11:57 PM by HiddenFacedMatt

"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart

@USAF 713

In my opinion, laws like that always end up sounding good in theory, but bad in real life. You would have to assume that officials are not corrupt. Also there's the fact that you're making children illegal, essentially. Lets say birth control goes wrong and they get pregnant. Now people will be getting abortions left and right.

@Hidden Face Matt That sounds good, but I'd be afraid that some official would decide that certain people can't have kids regardless of how qualified they are, maybe based on race or gender or something.

Anyway, I think people have covered my opinions. Adoption is usually pretty expensive and time-consuming, and some people don't want to take care of older children, everyone wants babies.

edited 30th Nov '11 4:07:01 PM by wuggles

If these standards are right for adoption, they're right for reproduction. If they're wrong, then they shouldn't apply to either.

"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart

"If these standards are right for adoption, they're right for reproduction. If they're wrong, then they shouldn't apply to either."

No that's completely untrue. In one case, you the individual have made the decision to have a child and raise it in the manner you see fit. If you fail, it's on you and only you. On the other hand, when the government signs a kid over from foster care to you, they have a responsibility for that child to give them to a parent that's not going to hurt them. If you see an equalizing moral responsibility with allowing you to have children, then there's a huge amount of economic responsibility. Consider:

Two parents are accused of sexually abusing their child. The government finds probable cause and removes the child to foster care pending an investigation (and possibly prosecution). The parents are innocent. The government going by the "no standards" of natural conception, hands the child to the first couple that asks. That couple abuses or even kills the child. The parents, once found innocent, are going to sue the shit out of the state for not doing an investigation into the people they handed their child to.

So the government has to have standards for the children that are in their care, even if it would be wildly morally inappropriate to impose those standards on people wishing to have children.

Much to my BFF's wife's chagrin, No Pants 2013 became No Pants 2010's at his house.

I agree. This is the reason why I did not present it as a fact, but as a relevant anecdote.

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

I wouldn't want to make having biological children illegal, but I do wish the NHS would stop funding IVF cycles. I mean, I get wanting to have your own biological child, and I know that the adoption process is apparently really grueling... but I still think couples who aren't having any success with having a kid should try to adopt. If they're really that desperate to be parents they should be able to overcome that the kid isn't biologically their's.

But let's be realistic here - for quite, quite many people that's the entire point of having a child. And who would you or I or whoever be to tell them that's wrong? Thing is, if insurances/the NHS stopped funding IVF processes, then the overall result will simply be less children born - something the state has obviously no interest in.

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

If I'd ever want a child, I'll adopt one. I don't think that passing on one's genes is particularly important. Plus, this way I can adopt a child and avoid the "baby" stage (at which I find babies yucky, to be honest) whatsoever.

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

In addition to grueling process and desire to pass on genes adopting a child, even from birth, is far more complex than you would think.

There's a whole bunch of documentation of psychological problems that adopted children have, especially when they reach their teenage years which is already frustrating for many parents.

Simply put, adopting a child is something only a very particular type of person can do well, most people are better off making their own children.

Fewer. The right phrasing is "fewer children born."

Grammar nitpick aside, why exactly would having fewer children born not be something the state has interest in? For one thing, lower populations make environmental issues a bit easier to manage.

As opposed to children who are left in the orphanage, thus having no psychological problems at all?

edited 1st Dec '11 9:02:43 AM by HiddenFacedMatt

"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart

When in my post did I suggest that leaving kids in orphanages improves their mental health?

My point is that most people don't have the ability to properly care for adopted kids.

edited 1st Dec '11 9:30:37 AM by JudeDismas

I would adopt a child I already knew and had a connection with, but I'm not going to fucking go orphan shopping when my biological clock starts ticking.

And better than thy stroke; why swellest thou then?

Adoption gives a child in need a family. It allows people to get kids without pregnancy. Why someone would choose to go through the pain of pregnancy instead of adopting is a mystery to me.

If you want any of my avatars, just Pm me I'd truly appreciate any avatar of a reptile sleeping in a Nice Hat Read Elmer Kelton books

I would legalize adoption by homosexual couples. There's no reason other than "Homosexual Recruitment" paranoid conspiracy theories that a normal homosexual couple can't adopt.

But they should still be subject to the same restrictions that heterosexual couples are forced to deal with.

Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen Fry

Agreed.

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

If I have kids I want them to be my kids, not somebody else's cast-offs.

'All he needs is for somebody to throw handgrenades at him for the rest of his life...'

Harshhhhh.

And better than thy stroke; why swellest thou then?