Created Dec. 10, 1999 - Updated Sunday, April 15, 2001
|Adoption, You Say?
It Is a Sin!
|The Fruits of
What About After the Birth?
Beware! A Potential Double-Edged Sword
Christians often recommend adoption to people who intend to abort a fetus or are at least contemplating such action. But there are some serious problems with that. Let me show you!
Adoption, You Say?
Back to Top
First, show me even one place in the Bible where it allows a mother to forsake her baby and ignore her responsibility to that child. Just one place! It is ridiculous to even think about it. I can not recall but one specific dealing with this that I know of, where it would be an abomination to God for a mother to abandon her child to another; abhorrent to the core. The only scripture in mind is in Isaiah 49:15 - "Can a wife forget her suckling so that she should not pity the son of her belly?" It asks this rhetorical question as if it was unthinkable or not possible. But it is; it does happen. The Bible goes on to acknowledge this.
What good is it to obey one law of the Bible while breaking another? Violating either one gets you in trouble with God. It hardly matters which one you choose, you loose . . . either way. Abandoning a child to adoption is hardly the thing for a Christian to recommend to anyone.
Having sex without marriage is a violation of God's rules. God also requires that everyone take responsibility for their own actions and be accountable for what they do. To have sex, get pregnant, and then not want to bear the consequences and give away a child who is clearly your responsibility for bringing them into the world, that is extremely irresponsible and negligent. No one who is a Christian should ever recommend such a course.
Yes, raising a child is challenging and can be a strain when one is not financially well off. It can hamper one and limit their options for the rest of their life. But to seek the easy way out and give the child away for someone else to take care off, is lazy, reckless, uncaring, and unloving as well as irresponsible. If one doesn't want the responsibility of caring for a child, which should be considered a blessing and honor to do for those who claim to love children and think they are so great, then they should not have sex which could lead to pregnancy.
I am often amazed at how little thought so called Christians give to the matter of adoption. Adoption affects a child. It can sense when it is out of the presence if its original mother. It will likely experience deleterious effects throughout its life, even if unaware of the truth. And that is even if they are given to good parents shortly after birth. If by chance, they are not adopted into good circumstances, then it is very scary to think of what the child could go through.
One can not claim to love God and yet hate a child. Christians have no business encouraging anyone to run from responsibility and obligation to their baby and God. Anti-abortionists think abortion is a terrible thing to do to a baby, but think nothing of doing another terrible thing to them by stripping them of their birth mothers. It is such a hypocrisy.
I am not saying that there is no circumstance that could allow for adoption. Perhaps a mother, not of the Christian persuasion, and of an impoverished background and little hope might come to a couple of good character and some means of living, perhaps relatives, and ask if they would care for her child. Or maybe she tried for a while but failed so miserably and is so messed up that she knows her kids' only hope is without her, at least for a while.
While this is not recommended, maybe the child would be better off and if a couple is willing, then maybe it might be marginally acceptable. But really and ideally, a mother (and the man who impregnated her) should live up to their obligations, accept the consequences of their actions, and care for the child. It is their responsibility and they have no business forsaking their personal responsibility for their actions.
Now some might ask, where does the Bible say you can't give a child away. Consider what Paul says in 1 Timothy 5:8:
"8 But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially his family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever."
Is there anyone out there who is going to tell me that a baby is not a mother's own, not her possession and responsibility? To not honor your obligations is worse than being a non-believer, according to the Bible. So a Christian would never make such recommendations to an expectant mother.
For so called Christians to encourage a mother to give her child away to an adoption agency, who can make no commitments or guarantees about the child's future as to whether that little life will ever have anyone to really love and care for them is downright Satanic/rebellious. They have disowned the faith and renounced their Lord and Savior, Jesus, the Christ.
And yet, what do we see? We see all sorts of Christians recommending adoption to expectant mothers, something the Bible does very clearly condemn. Now I grant many are not that familiar with the Bible's many requirements, despite professing a faith in Christ. But hopefully, this article will change some of that. Anyone reading this will hopefully repent and cease to recommend such an offensive course as to throw away their kids and dump them on someone else. Even better if they can get people to stop getting pregnant in the first place by letting birth control become more common. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, isn't it?
May I draw attention to the fact that many adopted children try to seek out their original genetic parents when they are old enough. Their lives feel unresolved until they know and meet their genetic parents. Some even felt something out of place, like they didn't quite fit in or belong as they were growing up even though they did not know they were adopted at the time. It seems to make sense to them when they learn that they were given up for adoption. It explains those feelings they had. Even as a baby, they seem to know when they have been taken away from their original mother. It seems to be a natural and inborn instinct.
Think about it! In that last trimester of pregnancy, many of the baby's senses become operative and the baby is capable of responding to the mother and comes to know her or be familiar with her. It will instinctively look and listen for her outside of the womb. And if it does not sense her presence, the only presence and security it has come to know, then it will panic and be in fear for it will have lost the only thing it has ever known up to that point.
Let me ask all of you out there. Does the Bible allow surrogate mothers or fathers? Can a man, other than the husband, impregnate a wife? Can a wife bear a child for someone other than her husband? Well, in order for that to be possible prior to the 20th century, it would require allowing others, other than the husband or wife, to have sex with the spouse. Are there any out there who would suggest that wife swapping is OK? If you think it is, then maybe you could. As best as I and many others are concerned, wife swapping can not be allowed in the scriptures. There are too many precedents that would seem to prohibit it. I discuss this in "Sexual Taboos and Vulgarity" if you want to check it out. The link is at the bottom of this page/article.
So if we can't sleep with or impregnate another man's wife, even with his permission, then I don't know how one could justify artificial insemination, either. So it would be even more difficult to recommend that a single woman could have sex or bear children when she is not married. I hope no Christian would recommend that. Now there are those who will say that Hagar bore a son for Sarah. Only one problem with that. Hagar did become a concubine to Abraham and cared for as a secondary wife. Otherwise, Abraham would not have been entitled to impregnate her by means of sexual contact.
Now it is true that artificial insemination does not require sexual contact. But . . . I personally believe most laws regarding sexual contact and relations were made by God to protect the potential children that could result. Otherwise, why make sex something so bad without marriage that Christians would lose their chance at everlasting life if they practiced it? It can be pretty harmless and a lot of fun, except for the consequences of having kids that need love and care. So if children were the main concern of sexual laws then surrogate motherhood would still be wrong. So a woman who has been impregnated can not serve as a surrogate mother. It is she who must care for the child, along with the man who fathered the child.
No Christian has any business recommending adoption (giving away their baby) to anyone. One is perfectly free to adopt (take) a child into their family. That is a noble thing to do. They just can't give them away.
It is estimated on 60 Minutes one time that 90% (I kid you not) of children cared for in many state adoption agencies and orphanages experience sexual molestation by other children and the adults, too. This does not include children lucky enough to be adopted as babies, fortunately. But my, oh my, what a fine fate to be handed to those not fortunate enough to be adopted as infants. It is shameful and tragic. Is it cruel to want to spare a beautiful innocent child a vicious barbarous experience like that? And that is to say nothing of the lack of love or should I say the starvation of love that they all must feel in those facilities. It ought to cause us all a lot of shame that such conditions exist. We should never encourage more of it.
We often hear of the wonderful stories of those who despite being given up for adoption, go on to successful careers or accomplishments. But note how they are almost all those who were adopted as babies and had loving, permanent step parents. And we hear nothing of the many more horror stories of abuse and neglect the other adopted children endure. Some of them then go on to become victimizers, themselves. Their stories might even outnumber the good ones we always hear about. And then there are just those who go through life with a sense of longing and loss, without ever really feeling like they belong or are really wanted around. Their feeling of emptiness goes on and on. Isn't life wonderful?
I read one statistic where adopted children were far more likely to kill their adopted parents than were natural children. The percentage ended up a 17 to 1 ratio where adoptees kill their parents much more often. They are clearly disturbed. Many children abandoned to state agencies of various governments often become very violent and angry towards other kids, adults, and society. If all the statistics on crime and whatever were thoroughly researched, I think you would see may other very disturbing trends. Though only babies, they are apparently very aware of certain things. And for those who do not get love and attention, they become disturbed as a result. I have personally seen at least 5 different shows on CBS's 60 Minutes exploring the negative aspects of adoption from time to time. None were pretty to report.
And how about those children who are born to less than decent parents who might have wanted an abortion but could not afford it or did not bother. Here in Maine, we had a 4 year old girl (Angela Palmer) burned alive in an oven back in the early 80's by her mother and boy friend. They were burning the devil they thought. There had been complaints about abuse from people but the Dept. of Human Services in Maine, like the rest of the country, is useless in preventing anything really bad, in my opinion, of course.
In Feb./March 2001 in Maine, we had a child (Logan Marr) taken from her mother because the mother was poor and had to move a lot. The girl was given to a foster mother who killed her. State facilities are places of horror as a whole. The foster care system is hard to monitor and abuse is common.
We hear of horrible stories of torture, abuse, and neglect of children all the time. Often these were children ignored by state health and human services agencies who seem almost incapable of preventing anything serious while going way overboard on trivial matters that don't deserve the time of day.
Children murdered, starved, beaten, exploited, enslaved, molested, prostituted, by parents, relatives and strangers alike. Ask these poor little victims how beautiful and wonderful the gift of life is! Some of these victims could have been spared the cruel sentence of life (in hell, if you will) and the sentence of a cruel death (ask Angela Palmer about her death sentence if only she were alive to tell you). If abortion were a freely given, merciful kindness of the state, many of these tragedies might be avoided. Wouldn't it at least be worth a try?
Solomon states very clearly in (RSV) Ecclesiastes 4:2: "And I thought the dead who are already dead more fortunate than the living who are still alive; 3 but better than both is he who has not yet been, and has not seen the evil deeds that are done under the sun.
Many of these hurt and damaged children will go on themselves to be criminals exacting harm and malice toward society in revenge for all the harm or neglect done to them in their childhood. These costs are far greater to society than if we had spared these former children this hell we call life and living.
Anti-abortionists will counter that Moses was given up for adoption, so to speak, when he was placed in the Nile river among the reeds in a basket. But this was done to save the baby's life since Pharaoh wanted to kill all the babies of the Hebrews. A much different circumstance than one just wanting to get rid of the inconvenience of raising a child.
Now if all the fuss and commotion exhibited by these self-righteous religious folk over abortion were displayed toward children already alive but in need, who knows what their condition might be. It would be vastly improved for sure. These folks protest vehemently over abortion, but where are they when these kids need love and care. Rather than get a mother to have the baby and give it up for adoption, why don't they encourage the mother to keep it and offer the mother encouragement and help with raising the child. You never see that, do you?
My own aunt got pregnant at around 40 and it was determined that her baby would be a Mongoloid/retarded. She was thinking about abortion but all the Catholics and others encouraged her to have the baby and some even pledged some help. But after the baby was born, none of them were ever heard from again.
They are not afraid to encourage others to be responsible for their decisions. But when these try to influence other's decisions, they do not want to accept some responsibility for the decision and help out. As Jesus said in Matthew 23:4:
"They bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger."
To me, they should let a person make up their own mind. It is that person who will have to live with the decision that them make and struggle with it. It is easy to judge another person's circumstance when you aren't the one who has to live with that decision.
What if these conservatives gave as much time, money, campaigning, and publicity to deplorable conditions in orphanages as they do to stopping abortions? But we will never see it, will we?
What if these conservatives gave as much time, money, campaigning, and publicity to child neglect, abandonment of support, or complete abandonment, altogether. If half of what they devote to abortion were given to these causes, they might not exist anymore. But do we see it? I think NOT!!!
What about violence, sex abuse, prostituting, enslavement, starvation, slave labor and killing of children in our country and all over the world? Do these protesters give attention to these problems? What about the primary cause of many of these problems children experience? I am talking about poverty, the number one killer and oppressor of children all over the world. What if these conservatives gave as much time, money, campaigning, and publicity to wipe out poverty for the sake of children? Do we see it? You can bet we never will! Straining the gnat while gulping down camels, that's what these phony Christians do.
Poverty makes many people contemplate and carry out things they might not otherwise do. So they sell or exploit children as slave workers or prostitutes. Many die from starvation or suffer hunger because food is rare or expensive. Some become thieves and criminals out of desperation.
Now there are a few "Christian" charities concerned with helping children of impoverished nations. Not all "Christians" or Christian organizations are bad or ignoring the plight of children. But we do not see those who are in an uproar about abortion giving anywhere near as much (if any) concern for these "other" children, the ones already born and living among us. These anti-abortionists do not care in the least about the real cause of children's (both born and unborn) suffering and ill treatment; that is, poverty.
I believe they should care more about the ones already living then the ones who never got to live and might be lucky for it. How can you ignore a living child and really claim you care about the unborn. It is a bold faced lie.
I would like to make it clear here that I am not suggesting that everyone run out and give to a charity for children. We would all like to help but many may not have the means. One might conclude that there are better ways to help the world and I have no problem with that. Charities spend a lot of money campaigning and administrative costs though they say they don't. But I have heard of the sweet salaries paid. I simply want to point out the misplaced emphasis of effort in regards to really helping the children that they claim to care about.
In my mind, a genuinely sincere person who truly loves and cares about children could not sleep at night knowing how they exist in poverty and desperation. Social injustice and the unfair distribution of Earth's resources and wealth should receive every bit as much attention as abortion does, if it is the children they love and care about. They would never dream of tackling that issue, though. In fact, their stance on welfare and other issues of social empathy seem to be set against such a cause that benefits children. Makes one wonder, doesn't it?
Poverty is a great cause of people giving their kids away to adoption, slavery, prostitution, or whatever. If Christians are so concerned about children being killed in the womb, they should also be concerned about them after they are born and alive. So if Christians want a war to wage, why not consider the horrible abuse of children that goes on in our world due to poverty. Fight poverty, fight cruelty, fight abuse. Help those already living. They need it worse than those who never make it.
Many of these hard line Christians fear the government interfering with the raising of their children. And that is a justified fear in my opinion. They want to be free to raise their kids as they think they ought to. Sounds right, doesn't it? And yet they do not hesitate to attempt intervention in others lives when it comes to "protecting" abused children. Either the government has the right to all interventions or none. I prefer the none. I will let others do as they see fit with their own and I will do as I see fit with mine.
When I speak of abused children, I sue the state's definition which is broad and ridiculous. For them, if you move around too much, then you do not provide a steady and secure place for your child. Basically, that means that if you are poor, you can not have kids. Or if you take drugs, your kids are in danger. That is not always so. What concerns me is that the state takes them away from the only security and love they know, however marginal, and places them with complete strangers.
This will be far more traumatic and damaging for many kids than it would have been to leave them home. And though we don't want to admit it, many mothers who "take" drugs are still able to care for their children to some degree. But when kids are taken by the state, they are often put into situations worse than that from which they were taken in the first place. The state is no better a parent than the so called bad mother or father. I do not believe it is the kids that do-gooders or the government care about. The kids feelings and psychological are always the last consideration.
But the even bigger danger is that what is defined as abuse gets broader all the time. Soon, if you teach your kids that something is wrong and the government has decided it is not wrong, they may decide that you are not a fit parent and they will take your children away. This could and is already happening. If you teach that homosexuality is forbidden by God, you could loose your kids. So Christians ought to think twice about government intervention for the protection of the kids. Remember, the government was trying to protect kids at Waco. All they did was get them all killed. I do not like the government protecting me. I am a adult and can and will do so for myself. I hope you will all support your right to do what you see as in your own best interest and allow others to do the same as well.
Freedom and forced intervention are double edged swords. Are Christians sure about which is best for them in the long run? Do they want to lose control or even custody of their children? If not then perhaps they should consider a live and let live tolerance for other's decisions in regards to unborn kids.
God knows our motives and it is he who will make an inspection and accounting of each one of us individually. We will not be responsible for what others do, only what we do will we answer for. However, if we force our ways upon another, we may have to answer for that, for the Bible says, "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." [Matthew 7:1 New International Version]. Sobering, isn't it?
Adoption is a subject that have relevance to "Abortion", so you might want to check that article out to see how. I recommend considering the article "Suicide," which is related to life issues and could shed light on the importance of motives in adoption nad the so called beauty of life. "Birth Control" is entirely relevant to adoption, too.
And as regards respecting the consciences and personal choices of individual Christians, I think a consideration of "Tolerance and Individual Thinking" is essential.
Back to Top