Adoption isn’t perfect — what is? — but unwanted children are not better off never having existed.
Adoption isn’t perfect -- what is? -- but unwanted children are not better off never having existed.
A doption has been in the news recently in light of the December 1 oral arguments before the Supreme Court in the Dobbs case involving Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban. Opponents of the ban insisted during oral arguments that the Mississippi law represented an undue burden on women and should be struck down as unconstitutional under the Roe and Casey legal precedents.
The burdens identified were both the burdens of pregnancy and the burdens of parenthood. Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised questions regarding the availability of the adoption in the Unites States as a way to mitigate against the “burden” of parenting imposed by pregnancy. It was a narrow legal question that made perfect sense given the line of argument. (If you’ve not listened to the oral argument yourself, I’d be careful with what you read.) She has been chided, through extremely uncharitable interpretations, as having suggested that making an adoption plan for one’s child was an easy decision without complication and heartache for all involved.
But she never said that.
And as an adoptive mother, she understands that at least as well as most.
There’s no way of getting around the fact that many abortion-rights advocates argue, with a straight face, that many unborn children are better off dead than adopted. It’s a stark and grievously painful point to hear for many adoptees, adoptive parents and birth parents alike.
On Twitter, I saw several adoptees making that point. But the idea that their nonexistence would be better than their being alive is twisted and dark.
If I could be charitable in a way many abortion-rights advocates are not, I’d say this: I think I know the points they are trying to make and the popular narratives against which they are pushing. But those points can be made without deriding adoption and denigrating those involved in the adoption triad: birth parents, adoptees, and adoptive parents. There’s actually much adoption common ground among reasonable people.
The idea that adoption represents a fairy tale has long been debunked. No one who knows anything about adoption thinks this; only those with no connection to it make this case anymore. Adoption begins in grief and loss, no matter how smoothly things go in the beginning. Adoption from foster care or from elsewhere inside this country sometimes begins in abuse and neglect for the child, with the effects of trauma lingering for years to come. These realities don’t negate its beauty, but beauty and heartache coexist.
The idea that it’s better for adoptees to know nothing of their past so that they can start fresh has been shown to be nonsense. Of course, all people want to know their stories and their origins. Adoptees have the right to accurate information. Having that often-difficult information doesn’t negate the beauty of being loved unconditionally by your adoptive parents.
The idea that connection to the birth family is bad for a child is also now roundly discredited. Sometimes, safety for the child may preclude this. But as a general matter, if it helps a child, it’s a good thing. Many adoptive families work hard on birth-family connections for our kids, even if doing so makes things more complicated and uncomfortable for us. Why? Because we love our kids and want the best for them. And this is about them, not us.
The idea that birth parents can easily choose adoption with no anguish or grief or loss is completely absurd. I don’t know anyone who thinks this or who makes this case anymore. Thirty years ago, sure. We’ve come a long way in our understanding. Birth parents deserve love and tangible support. And no one should ever be pressured into an adoption decision in any way, shape, or form. If they want to parent, they should have the resources and help they need to do so.
The idea that adoption centers on the adoptive parents is false and should not be the driving factor in any adoption. What is in the best interests of the child is what matters. Finding families for waiting children is what should drive adoption — not finding children for waiting parents.
And this brings us to an incredibly important point: Don’t tell the 100,000 kids in the U.S. (to say nothing of elsewhere) waiting for adoptive families that adoption is bad.
Don’t tell the countless children featured in “heart galleries” that adoption is bad — heart galleries are the traveling photo and audio exhibits of kids across America who are waiting for adoptive families, the purpose of which is to find adoptive families for waiting kids who go to sleep at night praying for a family.
Don’t tell the child who longs for belonging and unconditional love that adoption is bad.
Don’t tell the child who’d give anything to have annoying parents who check homework, whereabouts, and the suitability of friends that adoption is bad.
Don’t tell the babies and toddlers with no one to hold them, rock them, read them bedtime stories, sing them songs, and give them baths that adoption is bad.
Don’t tell the kids who’ve never had a birthday party or a trip to the zoo or a pet that adoption is bad.
Don’t tell kids who have never experienced unconditional love that adoption is bad.
Don’t tell brave birth parents who put their children’s needs above their own that adoption is bad.
And don’t tell countless adoptive parents who’d give their lives for their children that adoption is bad.
Adoption is no fairy tale. But providing family and love and security and belonging to kids without those things isn’t bad — it’s an unqualified good. Adoption isn’t the reason so many kids are without those life essentials. But it is one of the solutions for kids who are suffering and alone, without permanent family in their lives.
And let’s settle this once for all: The idea that babies are better off dead than adopted is repugnant. And, as a society, we should push back hard against it and work for the day when all reasonable people gasp and shake their heads in disbelief that there was a time when this line of reasoning was advanced in a civilized society.