Abolishing adoption?

Question

This question is sparked from an earlier question regarding anti-adoption.

I am curious how many people here are not interested in adoption reform and would actually prefer adoption to be abolished outright? Why?

Would that include foster care?

I have read on other sites that there are some people who consider themselves anti-adoption and do not condone any form of adoption, including foster care and would prefer legal guardianships.

How would legal guardianship differ from adoption (with the exception of amended birth certificates)?

Would that be in the child's best interests?

I'm looking forward to the answers.

Answer 1

Im for adoption however i think its broken and not working this includes foster care .I feel it needs lawmakers to sit down look it over and create new laws governing foster care and adoption also people pay lots of money to adopt this i feel opens the gate way to black market adoptions this needs to go and non profit organizations need to handle the adoptions think of it this way if you cant charge to sell a child and made it illeagle it would i feel cut way back on black market adoption. these children need a home so i dont want to see either foster care or adoption gone

Answer 2

Nicole: [It would just create more children in very bad situations with parents who don't want them or just can't take care of them. There would end up being abandoned children everywhere.]

What is it with you people and thinking that natural parents do not want their natural children?

That argument makes very little sense - on its own. A woman's body is geared towards wanting to keep her own child - it's an innate instinct that's built within her hormones when she gives birth.

Now, the part about parents not being ABLE to look after them is a totally different story and I completely agree with you on that because it's often true in third-world countries.

But the part about parents not wanting their offspring? Come on. That argument isn't very valid. Of course there's the occasional teen mother who gave birth by accident and doesn't want her own kid - but are you talking about grown adults in their 30s, or pregnant teens? Because that's also a different story.

[And what about the people who can't have children who could provide a wonderful life for a child? Don't they deserve to have what all parents want?]

And since when do "people who can't have children" *deserve* a child more than anyone else? Shouldn't they have to go through labor pains too? :\ And before you give me h**l for this - a homestudy does not guarantee a parent will be a good parent any more than giving birth entitles a mother to keeping her own child.

Adoption is not automatically good. There are people who have passed homestudies and end up abusing their children. Did they seem like good people when they went through the process? Probably. Were the kids still abused? Yes.

And of course, there are parents who abuse their own biological children. Did giving birth automatically "help" them to become good parents? No. Absolutely not. At the time of birth, did they love their children? Probably. Did that prevent the abuse from happening? No.

It can apply both ways, my dear. :)

ETA: Hold on, I just realized how that last paragraph may be interpreted as. Bioparents who give birth have that primal instinct to love their children - and if they don't, chances are they are drugged so THAT they won't - but it doesn't mean they won't end up abusing their offspring. It's not that they intend to abuse their children - perhaps they have some locked up anger from their childhood, perhaps they themselves were abused and so they take out their frustration on their children - but I am saying that just because one passes a homestudy does not mean they will intentionally abuse later in life, just as a bioparent who has given birth isn't guaranteed to NOT be abusive later in life.

Answer 3

Wow i have never heard of any one stupid enough to be anti-adoption, would they also be anti-abortion?

Answer 4

As popular as this answer will be, I have to say this- adoption should never be banned, because if it was, abortion would even happen more, than the horrible 4,000 a day that takes place in America already.  Would that be in the child's best interest?  Don't think so

Answer 5

who in there right mind would be stupid enough to stop people adopting ????????? that would just be stupid and i do agree that abortion would go up  and there are lots of kids waiting for new parents why should they not get the chance of a normal family life there are some very very sad people about ... not every one who has ivf gets a baby .. some times there only change of motherhood is adopting a child ... were are all the people that have gave thumbs down   .. i find that very spinless come on stand up and be counted  it only your opinion  we are all intitled to it  thats in the law

Answer 6

You know whats funny? I'm surprised that NONE of the anti adoption folks have replied to your question... Now just post another question stating that you want to become an AP and see how many of them will reply telling you how you're a baby stealer, no good for nothing, selfish B****...

They're ridiculous

Answer 7

I imagine the people who feel this way abolishing adoption completely are a small minority. These people are also living in a rose colored world where every child would have natural family willing and able to take them in.  Of course that is not the case. I feel legal guardianship should be offered to older children but there are some who I am sure would not want to be consider a ward of the house.

Adoption has its flaws just like everything else in this world. Plus just because something is illegal does not mean it wouldn’t be done.  You’d have more dealings through the black-market. As they say if someone wants something bad enough they will find away to get it regardless if its illegal.

The systems needs some fixin that I agree.

Answer 8

I'm NOT anti-adoption.  Obviously - I'm adopting.  BUT, I do want to put in a word of defense for these folks, because they do have a point.  I think the birth certificate issue is huge, HOWEVER, it could be solved by a simple change in laws that allows for the OBC to stay the same, and the adoption to be legalized via a separate form.  So, I don't think that the OBC issue is necessarily an effective argument for adoption to be abolished.

The arguments I have seen that make sense to me (again, I'm NOT against adoption) are that there are better options for the kids.  I do think that guardianship would be a better option, as long as it is just as permanent as adoption.  My view of a guardianship arrangement that would REPLACE adoption would be one in which the only difference is the legal changing of the child's identity.  I would view this as a single-family arrangement in which the child is seen as the same as any other member of the family, loved the same, treated the same, etc.  The only difference would be that ONE piece of paper (and really, what is this obsession with a piece of paper anyway?  It doesn't create love.  If the love for the child is there, why do you have to change their identity to prove it?)

Other arguments I've heard have been for group homes or orphanages.  I think these arrangements would take a whole lot of work, and consistent good management in order to even be able to come close to having the same "worth" as adoption.  I don't necessarily think this is NOT an option, as some adoptees have expressed a STRONG desire to see these avenues explored (so obviously it's wanted by some, if not many).  But I do think it would be much more difficult to make sure the children are treated with respect, dignity, love, and affection in an institutional setting like this.

I think these are all fascinating ideas, and I'd be really open to hearing more about them.  Unfortunately, for now, all this is a moot point because for foster children in America (and I'm assuming Canada isn't much different), there is still no other choice other than aging out of foster care, which carries the same concerns as the group home/orphanage argument.  I think all kids deserve a warm, loving, permanent family where they are treated as equals, and at present, there aren't any better options than adoption to acheive this goal.

Answer 9

Personally - I don't understand the whole legalities of 'guardianship'.

And I am not in the 'abolish adoption' camp either.

But - as it stands - adoption, especially in the USA, is in very very bad shape.

Bad shape for all families involved - but especially for the children.

In adoption - I would hope that people are looking after the best interests of the child - when that child's parents can't or won't do what they are meant to do. (ie love and care for a child)

Sadly some go into adoption with different ideas of what adoption is - or what they want adoption to be. (ie. adoption is not replacing the bio child that a couple can not have -in terms of infertility. They will be their child - but not THE child they hoped and dreamed for)

One of the big problems - as I see it - is that too many see adoption as completely wiping the slate clean - for the child - meaning that too many don't care for - or wish their child to care for - that child's family of origin.

People are making huge assumptions on the child's behalf - that they won't want to know their first family - that they won't want to know their answers - that they will be grateful for being adopted - AND forget that that child will one day grow into an adult and have thoughts and feelings of their own.

To take it further - too many adoptive parents (mine included) make the child actually feel guilty or bad for wanting to know about themselves and where they came from.

Too many adoptive parents place unnecessary burdens on the adoptee to choose between their families.

Most adoptees just want to know - and be loved by them all.

Can a person have too many people to love them????

If adoptive parents can't allow for this - to be blunt - they are being extremely selfish. (and their adoptee will suffer)

For me - it's all about adoption reform.

Absolute care of the child's body, mind and soul.

Taking the multi-millions and coercive tactics out of this baby industry - as it has become.

Most of the adoptees I know - and I know hundreds - are shouting out for reform.

Not for abolishment.

ETA: oh - and when adoption numbers go down - abortion numbers DO NOT go up.

More people just actually PARENT their children.

Fancy that!!

That's how it worked in the Australia - we only have under 500 adoptions finalised per year - and most of those are over-seas adoptions.

USA has over 120,000 adoption per year.

That's a little out of control - a whole heap of families split up - and a whole lot of hurting adoptees.

Again - JMHO.

Answer 10

I think closed adoption should be replaced by open adoption. The current system is broken, at least partly by the tradition that you can void a child's genetic connection to their parents legally.

Replacing adoption with legal guardianship would result in a lot less adoption of children who need it and a lot more cost to the state.  

Answer 11

There will always be circumstances where children will need to be placed  in homes other than with their parents.  I don't deny it, I realize that, of course it happens.  For whatever reason, children need and deserve a good home.

But what is happening in this country has gotten the cart before the horse.  Instead of finding homes for children, we are scouring the planet for children to fill the needs of adoptive parents.  

This is a HUGE difference in what adoption SHOULD be about.

Because, really, if it seems odd, doesn't it, that there are SO MANY people who would love to adopt, and there are SO MANY kids in need of homes, just waiting in the foster care system, then why aren't we getting them paired up and getting these kids in need into a home?

Simple:  Because adoption has become a business, we have turned it into something that it was never meant to be.

We really should look at Australia, they have it right.

Instead of promoting the separation of babies and mothers, they encourage parenting FIRST.

If and only when parenting does not work, THEN adoption becomes an option.  Adoption is not touted as the "loving option"...parenting is.

What a novel idea.

Instead of promoting the permanent separation of a child from his/her family of origin, we should do all we can to try to preserve that familial connection...promote in-family adoptions...kinship care...education, support, programs to actually HELP parents successfully parent their own children.

In this consumerist society, we need to stop looking at other people's kids as items we can acquire and looking at them with some compassion.  We need to start giving them the rights they deserve.

Adoption should only be the LAST resort, when all other efforts to preserve their family bonds have failed.

Answer 12

Abolishing adoption would only make the black market for babies that much more of a problem.  It would be a disgrace.  

Answer 13

That would be me. I don't believe in adoption, nor do I think it should exist as it currently stands today in practice. I think in order for child placement to be RIGHT, a complete bulldozing and overhaul of the system needs to happen.

Currently the "ring leaders" of the adoption industry run it, and in order for it to be better, they need to be taken down.

I don't believe in domestic adoption, nor do I believe in private adoption, I think international adoption needs a complete overhaul as well. I also support legal guardianship way before I would advocate for adoption.

So lets reference Australia, where the domestic and private adoption has been illuminated and the state controls the adoption. Where PAPS don't have a say on who they adopt, they go on a list, the rights to children are terminated, and the next available couple, gets the next available child. Birth certificates reflect all parents and records are given to the adoptee.

THIS SOUNDS REALLY FREAKIN GREAT.

The only part that I would change with this is legal guardianship. Giving children the legal representation of guardians that they can "choose" to call parents if they want to, but its not forced on them. They can choose to change their names, but its not done without their consent. They can choose their permaency titles if they feel they want or need that, but its not done without their consent. It leaves the "adoptee" ( for lack of a better term ) in control of their adoption when they reach the appropiate age, and it puts their caretakers in their place in regards to making the "adoption" all about them, like whats happening now.

I didnt answer this earlier, because I haven't been here. Look at all these rude comments because you don't get an "answer" right away. Calm down people. If i claim it, i'm not afraid to speak it in another question / answer.

jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez.  

Answer 14

I've tied to ask them but got mostly rants and a few responses that said they want every child to be raised by their biological mother. I don't know why they are not able to see that some biological mothers are not fit and others are not ready. It's a puzzlement.

Some seem to think that people should volunteer to do the work to raise the child for the biological mother but defer to her and never think of considering herself the child's real mother. You'll notice that none of them have leapt into such an odd and unreasonable arrangement themselves.  

Answer 15

so instead of being an adoptive parent it would be called a legal guardian and instead of a child it would be a ward? how sad! I'm against that idea! my husband and i have a little girl and are discussing adoption, because we would like to have more children but it doesn't have to be of our blood. every child deserves a chance to be loved and raised in a happy home, so instead of overburdening our already crowded planet, why not adopt a child that needs a loving home, if more children are desired?

my question is:  does that mean the court would be appointing legal guardians? or could you choose to become a legal guardian to a child who needs a parent(guardian)? I'm not sure i understand the whole abolishing adoption thing. it sounds to me like legal guardianship is the same as adoptive parent to be honest.

An adoption order severs the parental responsibilities and rights of the birth parents and transfers those responsibilities and rights to the adoptive parents.

A legal guardian is a person who has the legal authority and the duty to care for the personal and property interests of another person, called a ward.

so people just want it to be called something other than adoption?

i've looked into what you're talking about and i have to say i didn't realize how much of an anti adoption movement there was!

thanks for the interesting question!

Answer 16

I'm for adoption, however, I am against agencies & their high profits.  I think that the foster care system should also see over the private adoptions instead of agencies.  

I know that people keep saying about buying children.  Our private adoption, with the home study and paperwork through the attorney and courts was less than $1000.00.  Other than advertising, I cannot see why the agencies charge way more than $15,000.00 and up for having a child placed.  

I also think that every adoption should be open on paperwork, where later, first parents, and the children involved have rights to their paperwork.  The only exception should be in the cases of rape and incest, which are a minority in the adoption area.  I also think that there should be some recourse for adoptions entered into as open adoptions, where some visitation could be enforced, as long as it's in the better interest of the child.  For instance, if a girl is 14 when she gives birth, and places the child, mostly because she's still a child herself and can't take care of the baby, she should be allowed to visit the baby, love it, and be part of it's life.  I realize this opens up a whole can of worms for some, and it would only work in an adoption where the AP's are honest and open with the child about adoption, but shouldn't we all be open with our children?  My oldest son put it this way, legally, I'm only his authoritative mom for 18 years, but he chooses to listen to me now, some,  because he loves and respects me.  Isn't that the goal we shoud all have with our adopted children too?   Wouldn't it work if the stigma of adoption and fostering weren't as big as it is now?  

I also don't like the birth certificate.  My adopted son's shows my name like I gave birth.  I love him like I did, but his 1st mom deserves the credit for that.  I wish it would show her name, and adopted by my name.  I think that guardianship wouldn't work, because for the children given up, they deserve parents, and deserve to have a famly.  If they just have guardianships, I think it would not be the same in some ways.  Of course, adoption is kind of like guardianship anyway and a lot of how it's treated depends on the AP's and the 1st parents, their relationships towards it, and the relationships towards their kids.    

Answer 17

Adoption is a beautiful thing. People who are anti-adoption are stupid.

Answer 18

All I can really say is, getting rid of adoption would put abortions on a skyrocketing high and you know, thats just murder.

Answer 19

This is a very interesting question, I believe the topic itself isn't black and white, right or wrong.

First off, I haven't give an child up nor have I been adopted, which means I have no idea how those people feel.

I see in many answers how the bio-mother who gives up her child goes through a tremendous grief period, I believe that is true. Now, no one forces these women to give their children up for adoption, and I would assume it's a decision that isn't made overnight.

I do feel for all the children who are adopted, as I can only imagine the level of loss they feel (whether  it's rational or irrational it doesn't matter) I can only imagine the sense of loss they feel, even though the adopted parents are wonderful and the child didn't want for anything, they are still without their birth parents.

Having said all that, adoption is vital, for this isn't a perfect world and kids need families and women choose to give their child a better life ( I truly believe that is what these women think, and I will not fault them for it)

It's painfully obvious though that the adoption system is in need of changes.

Answer 20

adoptions are good as long as its not by g**s or lezis..

Answer 21

That's pretty retarded.  I don't know why anyone would want to get rid of it.  For some people it's their only option...sucks to take that away.

Answer 22

This is an interesting question...

I am not for abolishing adoption and I personally can not see any reason why someone would be.

Abolishing adoption would never prevent people from having babies if that is one of the reasons why people are for it. It would just create more children in very bad situations with parents who don't want them or just can't take care of them. There would end up being abandoned children everywhere.

And what about the people who can't have children who could provide a wonderful life for a child? Don't they deserve to have what all parents want?

I can't wait to see some answers on this question!

Answer 23

I don't see why anyone would be against adoption!!! For some people, its the only option. As for others, its the only way they can have a child. And to those of you who are against abortion...if the fetus you save is g*y, will you still fight for its rights?