HT? - Random rambling thoughts on "saving a child"

CaptainSerious

The "fertiles" vs. "infertiles"  post got me thinking about the "saving a child" debate.

I have stated many times that, although I am adopting simply because I want to parent, my husband and I specifically chose this path because we feel incredibly blessed, and wanted to share those blessings with a child who may not otherwise have that chance.  The simple fact is that we will be improving that child's living situation, on the whole.  Yes, I know there is loss involved with adoption, some of which is pointedly specific to international adoption, but on the whole, our child will be in better/healthier living conditions, have more opportunities, and most importantly, be surrounded by family and friends who love him/her.

Still, we are not adopting out of a desire to "save a child," but rather, to parent.  We never sat around and talked about how great it would be to rescue a poor, desolate child.  We discussed having children, raising them, and all the wonderful experiences we would have with them.  When we decided to adopt, we first decided we were ready to introduce children into our family, and then decided that adoption fit our lifestyle and timeline better than trying for a biological child at the time.  Because it was never a question of if we would adopt, but when, we decided that the next step in building our family was to start the adoption process.

For the record, I believe (and have said many times on this board) that it's okay to acknowledge that adopting a child is helping them.  Adoption is a mutually beneficial solution to specific problems/needs/desires of all the people involved in the triad, and sometimes others, too.  But that's exactly why the child isn't indebted to anyone--everyone benefits equally from the arrangement (not to mention that I don't tally up other's "debts" to me).

Besides, in most cases, the child is the only one involved that had no choice in the matter; it kind of seems counter-intuitive to hold a child responsible for something he/she had no control over.  Oh yeah, then there's that whole thing about children being "needy" by nature.  If you're going to hold them accountable for the fact that you adopted them, are you going to expect them to "owe" you for everything you do for them as a parent?  If so, you're bound to resent them in the not-too-distant future.

I guess what I'm really trying to say is that I think the problem/red flag arises when a person thinks/feels that a child should be grateful for being adopted, not specifically when they go into adoption with the hopes of bettering a child's life.  Sometimes people do things to help others without expecting restitution or even gratitude.

pepomntpat

I may steal this for our home study preparation. Our agency looks down very much on helping a child as being a motivation to adopt for the reasons you stated. People will be let down if they expect the child to be grateful.

However, I don't think that means I can't hope to help.  And I am frustrated that people assume that helping means you expect something in return.  I mean I volunteer with a cat rescue. I frequently get scratched and bitten.  I certainly don't expect the cats to understand that I am there to help and to love me instantly.  

I take my nieces to church every week and out to lunch afterward. I enjoy spending time with them. I admit part of it is that I am troubled by their living situtation and hope to give them a glimpse of how "normal" couples interact.  I don't expect them to understand that and I sure as heck know my sister isn't grateful for anything but the four hours of alone time.  I just do it anyway.

It's just who I am.  It will be the same with our child. We will do our best to give them a loving, stable family that they didn't have before.  We can hope that they'll learn to appreciate it, but I don't expect anything.

GroomzMcFinehiney

I agree Cap'n.  I want my kid to be grateful for the parenting he/she gets, not for the adoption.  And I entirely expect him/her to be completely ungrateful most of the time.  Isn't that part of childhood?

candm

I agree with every word you said.

CaptainSerious

Oh, fred, I hope you didn't think I meant this as a delayed response to your post.  I was just referring to the "debate" that runs common in adoption circles, nothing specific to any post here.

All these thoughts and emotions were just brought to the surface while I was responding to the "fertiles" vs. "infertiles" post below, and I realized they weren't truly relevant to that conversation either.  This post was not intended to be a "call-out" or rehashing of your post.

CaptainSerious

And, for what it's worth, I understand your position, and even share it to some extent.  That's what lead my husband and I to the path we've chosen.

MsBlake

fredalina:

i wish more "fertile" people would consider adoption of more difficult-to-place children (foster care, non-white infants, children with special needs, international placements, etc), even when they don't "have" to adopt.  If every loving middle class family with only one or two children adopted, there wouldn't be nearly so many kids in less-than-ideal situations like foster care and orphanages, and that would be a huge help to the world.  But i don't think they should do it because they have a hero complex either, just do it because they have love and room to share. 

My only issue in the thread several weeks ago is when "fertile" people adopt easier-to-place, higher-demand infants domestically, when there is a much higher "demand" for said babies than there is "supply" (ugh, i hated even typing that!).  Does that make me elitist or something?  Maybe.  i don't dislike people who do that, or feel badly toward them, or judge them (regardless of what some may think), but i do have that feeling regardless.  i do think most of what i said was taken out of context, and i run that risk again, but i'm not going to hide those feelings either.

With all due respect, I'm not sure how it was taken out of context then, as you said basically the exact same thing here. I also still maintain that being infertile doesn't somehow make you more "worthy" of a healthy, perfect infant while those who are adopting for other reasons, fertile or not should some how be there to take the leftovers.

And seriously, I know how upset it makes those who are infertile when others tell them they should, "Just adopt" and make it seem as though they have an obligation to do so and this is so close to basically making the same type statement. You're saying others should, "just adopt" the less desireable babies. I'm stepping out before I just really go off about this.

foundmylazybum

::::Runs in and holds on tight to MrsBlakes Christian Louboutins!::::

RJMbim

fredalina:

i don't see how the desire to help a child or "the world" is a negative thing.  i agree with you that the expectation that they somehow feel grateful to you for it is where you get in trouble.

This

MsBlake

fredalina:

MsBlake:

fredalina:

i wish more "fertile" people would consider adoption of more difficult-to-place children (foster care, non-white infants, children with special needs, international placements, etc), even when they don't "have" to adopt.  If every loving middle class family with only one or two children adopted, there wouldn't be nearly so many kids in less-than-ideal situations like foster care and orphanages, and that would be a huge help to the world.  But i don't think they should do it because they have a hero complex either, just do it because they have love and room to share. 

My only issue in the thread several weeks ago is when "fertile" people adopt easier-to-place, higher-demand infants domestically, when there is a much higher "demand" for said babies than there is "supply" (ugh, i hated even typing that!).  Does that make me elitist or something?  Maybe.  i don't dislike people who do that, or feel badly toward them, or judge them (regardless of what some may think), but i do have that feeling regardless.  i do think most of what i said was taken out of context, and i run that risk again, but i'm not going to hide those feelings either.

With all due respect, I'm not sure how it was taken out of context then, as you said basically the exact same thing here. I also still maintain that being infertile doesn't somehow make you more "worthy" of a healthy, perfect infant while those who are adopting for other reasons, fertile or not should some how be there to take the leftovers.

And seriously, I know how upset it makes those who are infertile when others tell them they should, "Just adopt" and make it seem as though they have an obligation to do so and this is so close to basically making the same type statement. You're saying others should, "just adopt" the less desireable babies. I'm stepping out before I just really go off about this.

i think it's very sad that you feel that foster children, international infants and children, and non-white children are "leftovers".

Again, i don't look down on those "fertiles" who do desire to adopt a HWI domestically.  i don't fully agree with it though, particularly if the person is desiring to adopt because they do have a desire to "help" a child.  i don't believe that HWI's in the U.S. are as "needy" of that help as are other adoptive populations given that there are more people desiring to adopt them than there are such children available for adoption. 

And that's a valid personal opinion i'm not going to hide or pretend otherwise, even if people don't like it or want to villainize me or my opinion.

Now who is playing with words?

You certainly make it sound like those children are less desierable to infertile couples and that somehow, they deserve only healthy, white, infants which are in high demand. You say fertile couples who wish to adopt should adopt all of those other children, but they can leave the foster kids for others. I may have been able to express it differently, but I'm not going  to argue the point further with you b/c we clearly will never see eye to eye on this.

Of course you're entitled to speak your opinion, never said you shouldn't. Of course, I'm well within my right to question it and give my opinion as well.

MsBlake

I think I do understand better since you added your "ETA". I still don't necessarily agree, though I see where what I said before doesn't apple in that instance. I really do think I understand more where you're coming from.

jacksjerseygirl

Well said.

DH and I did not chose to adopt a child of color simply because it was a short waiting time, lesser fees, or because there are more e-moms than adoptive parents. We chose to because we simply wanted to be parents to a child that needed us as opposed to us needing to wait for a child. If that makes sense.

In the back of our minds we know that we did save a child. Many agencies have to turn away e-moms who will give birth to a child with AA heritage because they do not have enough adoptive parents who are open to those babies, some agencies only have one or two profiles to show that e-mom (how sad that her white counterparts have hundreds/thousands of profiles to look at) - because of this, many e-moms to AA children make the decision to parent even though they may not have the ability or resources simply because 'no one' is there for them and their baby and they don't want to 'abandon' their child. This results in an increase of AA children in foster care later in life where, sadly, they generally remain until they graduate from the system.

We had not planned to go active with our agency for another month. Had we passed on this situation. Grant most likely would be in foster care right now or his BM would have taken him home with her and ended up not being able to support him and his two sisters which might have resulted in all three children being removed and placed in foster care. So yes, we saved him but I like to think that he saved us too.

*note that I know that there are great foster moms here and don't mean to belittle the foster system, but by and large AA children who go into the foster care system have a lesser chance of finding a forever family*