Do You Believe Poor People Deserve to Lose Their Kids to Adoption?

Question

I don't. But that seems the general consensus. What do you think?

Answer 1

No absolutely not.  Especially if they are the working poor in the USA who are impoverished by unfair economic policies by the current ruling party.

By "general consensus" do you mean the greedy people who spend all of their money on houses, travel, and material "goodies" and then discover that they missed the "baby train" because they waited too long?

No, I do not think that poor people should be economically coerced to lose their kids to the "general consensus".  I think the the "general consensus" should have the guts to step up and take responsibility for their choices and stop whining that "poor people" owe them their kids.

Answer 2

no i dont think thats right they have the right as we all do

Answer 3

no, and where did this general consensus take place? yeah, unfit parents don't deserve their children, but the poor are a different story.

Answer 4

You are so right about the "general consensus" on here...but it is also far easier to judge a book by its cover through this forum than in real life.  No one is admitting it, but I've posted several questions on this forum and the pregnancy forum about being a single pregnant woman (who makes 23K per year) and about 75% of the responses always had a small quip at the end saying "You can always give it up for adoption" even though I never stated that as a desire of mine.  So yes, the general consensus on here is that adoption is a good option for me and women in my similar situation, even if no ones admitting it to you right now.

However, were any of the 75% said ppl on here to TRULY know me, they'd understand that I am nurturning, stable AND financially sound and will be a wonderful mother.  Simply seeing "Single mother raising baby with only 23K per year" tips ppl off assuming that is the only thing that makes me who I am.  

I completely agree that ones financial status has nothing to do with the amount of love and guidance a child receives, although our society does not want us to believe that, and neither do the ppl on here.  And as much as people now want to "save face" by answering your question politically correct, I have just as many answers to my questions in my profile proving ppl believe just the opposite.

Answer 5

I dont believe the poor deserve to lose their children..if that were the case then the families that enter homeless shelters would leave without their children and there wouldnt be programs helping poor families like WIC or welfare..I think that as long as the parents arent neglecting their kids there is no reason for a poor family to lose their kids

Answer 6

No - unless there are other factors such as abuse or neglect.  If a parent does not seek out assistance for their family (such as food stamps, etc., if finances are an issue) then I believe they should be charged with neglect and the children removed from their care.  But to remove a child simply because someone is poor, is not a good reason for adoption.

Answer 7

no. JUst cause they are poor doesn't mean the child wouldn;t be loved. I wasn't dirt poor but my family is far from rich and my parents managed to put us through catholic school and give us what they could. I also had my grandparents who spoiled us rotten. Why shpuld a poor person lose their child when illegal immigrants come here poor and they don;t lose their kid and  get free medical insurance and food stamps. There are programs that help such as wic and you can get coverage for the baby.

Answer 8

no, just because you are poor doesn't mean you're a bad parent.  sometimes they make the best parents.

Answer 9

Of course not. I don't think being poor means you should even consider giving up your child for adoption unless it is what you as parents choose. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by the word "deserve." No one deserves to lose their child -- or to give up their child against their will. It is really unfortunate that even criminals end up losing the rights to their children -- I think the only reason to support that is for the benefit and protection of the child. It would be far better for everyone involved if the parents were educated and understood the responsibilities and consequences of parenting. However, poor and/or uneducated people certainly don't deserve to lose their children. They just sometimes have virtually no other choice because they can't support the child. I don't think "deserve" is the right word though -- it is an unfortunate and very sad situation when someone has to make the decision to give up a child that they otherwise want for lack of being able to financially support the child. In this country, there are almost always options available to people to prevent this from being the only choice -- but, it can be very hard and often people choose to give up the child in hopes that they and he or she will have a better life.

Answer 10

This is stupid.  No one has ever said poor people deserve to "lose" their children.  People HAVE said that living in poverty is sometimes not a good option.  Get REAL!

Answer 11

Poor can be a very relative term!  What are we talking about?  Just one car, one tv, and have to budget and penny pinch to get to the end of the month?  No, that is no reason for people to "deserve" to lose their kids.  Profound poverty that removes the possibility of parents adequately providing for the physical needs of their children...hmmm...they need financial help.  

The only people who I believe "deserve" to lose their children are those who abuse and/or neglect the kids.

Answer 12

no they don't i knowknow where you have got that. generally if they do give up a child its for the betterment of the child i think. but its not for being poor. there are millions of kids that are poor with their parents and happy. you can't base so much on material things cause that is not all their is to live but you have to work and strive for stuff yourself.

Answer 13

aslong as the children are fed and are healthy,

its love and quality time that matter the most, which means happy children, money helps, but its not everything

Answer 14

I don't think that is the general consensus on this site.  I've never seen anyone make that statement but I've only been reading this forum for about a month.

Answer 15

Of course being poor doesn't mean someone deserves to lose their kids to adoption.  There ARE some cases, maybe not the majority of domestic infant adoptions but their are some cases, where extreme poverty makes it impossible for a family to provide the basic necessities for their baby.  In those cases, adoption is necessary.

Answer 16

not all poor people give their children up for adoption.  there are programs to help them.  people act like just because people are poor but that is not that case at all.  it's not like social workers walk in and start snagging babies out of their strollers at the supermarket -- people understand they can't afford to raise a child and voluntarily give their child up for adoption.

ETA:::

heather, i'm not against programs TEMPORARILY helping people get back on their feet but to use the programs as a way to say "see honey, you can keep your baby because there's a program so don't worry about a thing" to a 16 year old girl with no way to support her baby is irresponsible as it fuels the generational cycle of people on welfare.  to help someone who lost their job and needs some assistance to fill the gap is one thing (or even working parents who are TRYING) but to use the programs as a sole form of income is wrong.  We see generations on welfare and i disagree with the EXPECTED HANDOUT vs. the helping hand for a short period of time.  

I think that if someone is already on welfare and continues to have babies because she's got welfare but that's ok because it's family preservation is irresponsible.

I don't believe that people should sit on their butts and collect welfare and continue having children.

but i think it's different than the question you asked so i put it into perspective.  Poor people do not lose their children to the state because they're poor nor are their evil adoption mongers just snagging these children out of their cozy strollers because they're poor.  

It's a variety of factors that cause people to lose their kids to the state other than just being poor -- by the way, it is a LONG process to lose your kids to the state, it doesn't happen overnight and the state does do a lot for family preservation.  Perhaps alcohol and drug abuse runs higher in poor families and they fell into this trap?  perhaps families living in ghettos where drugs and murders are a 'normal' occurance are poor is a coincidence but they're not losing their children just because they're poor -- there's more to the story than finances.  There's neglect that may run higher in these families; there's drug and alcohol abuse that may run higher in these families; but they're not taken away just because the family is poor.

however, if someone understands that they can't afford this child while they're a college student (or a h.s. student for that matter) and they understand the financial, emotional and physical stress of raising a child on one income and they make the choice to give their child up citing financial, that's okay too.  It doesn't mean they're giving the baby up because they're 'poor', it just means that they've weighed everything that goes into raising a child and feel that they're not up to it.

btw -- all these "rich adopters" who missed the baby train.  . jeez, my parents were anything but rich.  we were lower middle class.

Answer 17

i think as long as they are good parents and make sure the kids eat and get medical care and all,why should they not have the right to have their children??---i know some poor do give their kids up so they can have a better chance for a good life and nicer things and all---i commend those people for being brave enuff to give their kids up---it's a very hard thing to do

Answer 18

Where do you get that this is the "general consensus"?

Answer 19

Plain and simple: If a child is being neglected, mistreated, or simply isn't getting all of the love and attention that they deserve, the mother's rights should be questioned. I don't think it has to do with being poor or wealthy. Neither does birth control. I don't understand why people keep having children that they can't afford nor want. Birth control is not hard to come by and is free at some clinics. I think those people are so irresponsible!

Answer 20

Well that's a sweeping question that doesn't include many of the gray areas or give any context.  The mere fact of being poor should not be the determining part of taking a child.  But with being poor comes many situations that might not otherwise exist if one was not poor.  People on here can be as idealistic as they want.  They can shout from the roof tops that money doesn't matter when it comes to a child but it does.  Money DOES rule the world, I'm sorry but it's true.  Does money make one happy?  No.  But it does buy the CHOICES to make oneself happy.  When you are poor, you are left with few CHOICES.  All money does is open doors to opportunities....what a person does with those opportunities is up to them.  Money alone doesn't make aparents "better" parents but it does mean they can sometimes provide better opportunities & more choices for the child.

Answer 21

No i don,t  i think that everyone deserves to have the joy of a baby if they give the child love and affection and feed and clothe them then they deserve their child. As long as they love the child they are doing more for them than 95% of the parents do nowadays.

Answer 22

I know what you mean, Heather.  I read posts all the time telling women how loving and brave they are to put their babies up for adoption just because they "can't afford" them.  I don't understand how that is the loving and brave thing.  Wouldn't it be braver to keep your child and forge ahead utilizing whatever means possible to keep your family together?  Why are these women being encouraged to abandon their babies?  Why aren't the "rich" adopters more willing to say, help out social programs to keep the babies with their mothers, rather than take their babies from them?  

Some people seem to resent mothers who go on welfare and suggest that they ought to relinquish their babies just because they're poor and need government assistance in order to keep their baby.  I'm sensing a distinct and pervasive hypocrisy here.  Which is it?  Help poor mothers, or force them to give their babies away just because they're poor?

Answer 23

Not in ALL cases. If you are not doing anything to help yourself out of the situation, then yes. But there are many reasons why a family might suddenly find themselves in a financial disaster(death in family, loss of house to fire/etc. one spouse loses his/her job), and they should not lose their children over that.

Answer 24

Well, last I heard there were no adoption posses rounding up "poor" babies in East L.A.  

Many of the "lower income" people I have worked with or known make much better parents than the "rich" people I know.  

Does that mean that poverty is a "bad" reason to give a child up?  Not necessarily.  Because the decision to give up a child is extremely personal, very difficult, and is different for every single person who has had to endure it.  I would hope that any decision such as this would be made with great thought, and reflection rather than on broad and false generalizations such as this one.  

While all adoptees "lose" their mothers...not all birth mothers "lose" their children.  Some, in fact, give them up.  I know this is a harsh reality for some adoptees to take.  We would all rather we were "lost" because then we don't have to face up to the harsh, real-life realities that our mothers  faced.  Some were poor, some were alone, some had family problems, some didn't want their lives interupted.  Everything is not a conspiracy against a particular type of person. Life is just difficult and we do the best to make the right decision at the right time.

Answer 25

No.  I don't know of anyone who thinks like this.