If having a child "out of wedlock" is so unacceptable, then why is it ok for single people to adopt?

Question

Isn't it the same thing?

Answer 1

Its because the people whoa re adopting arn't having s*x before marriage (its possible, ver possible, lol, but they didn't get pregnant). The having children out of wedlock ordeal is because you've had s*x before marriage. Its a no-brianer. Pregnant before marriage=s*x before marriage. Not good.

Answer 2

It's a good question, since young women have been told for years that giving up their child, even if they wanted to keep it, was the right thing if they were single, as a child need a 2-parent home.  

Yes, most of the world's major religions (not just Christian religions, as mentioned previously) frown against s*x outside of the marriage.  But, I think there's more to it than that.

In previous decades, young women who became pregnant out of wedlock were considered "feeble-minded" by the social service workers of the day.  Yes, that was the term used.  Interestingly, the young man who also had s*x and created a child was not called "feeble-minded" but that's another topic.  

Considering the young mother feeble-minded, along with the idea of the 2-parent home being necessary, makes it pretty easy to justify telling those girls who DID want to keep their babies that they could not do so.  Girls in "homes for unwed mothers"  had to give up their babies even if it wasn't what they wanted to do.  I'd think it made those nuns and social workers feel a lot better about pushing those girls who wanted to keep their babies if they had convinced themselves that these mothers were "feeble-minded" and that a child absolutely must have a 2-parent home.  

Of course, nowadays we try to eliminate discrimination (adopted citizens and other second class citizens are fair game.)  So, it's okay to allow singles to adopt.  It also means more people coming to the agencies, because now it's not just couples that are paying for agency services.

Answer 3

wait... a single adoptive parent is above the moral radar of out of wedlock s*x? or is proof of virginity required by single adopters?  do pamoms have to submit to a hymen-check or  a male perspective adopter provide proof of having worn a cilice?

it's all a bunch of nonsense. unless we mandate sexual abstinence from single adoptive parents, i think it totally blows holes in the whole "moral, premarital s*x argument" ; and the 2-parent argument that is often given as a reason for young women to place.

ETA: i must respectfully disagree with those who state there were no single adopters in the baby scoop era.  my ex-partner, and several other adoptees i know were indeed adopted by single women in the 60s and 70s.  it wasn't as unpopular as many think. especially among minority children.

Answer 4

The difference is s*x outside of marriage is a sin. If you adopt, you aren't sinning.

Edit: That sentence does not say babies born out of wedlock should be placed for adoption. It basically says adoption is a loving alternative [to abortion] for unwanted babies.

To grapesgum - You guessed wrong. I did not say anything like that. I do not encourage unwed people to put their kids up for adoption. I never have said that it's OK for men to have s*x outside of marriage, but not women. I never said that a person that adopts should be free from sin. I never said any of the things you guessed and labeled me with. If you have questions, feel free to e-mail me and I will try to clarify.

Answer 5

Uh, what planet do you live on?  Having a baby while single has not been "unacceptable" in 20 years.  It is glamorized in Hollywood, mainstream on TV, status quo in every church, and accepted as the norm by all but the most narrow minded radical conservatives out there.

I think we now know that it does not matter so much how many parents, or who parents, but HOW children are parented that counts the most.   That can be a single parent, three parents, grandparents, an aunt, same s*x couples, foster parents, bio parents or adoptive parents.

Answer 6

I have to agree with Lola.

That said out of wedlock babys I am sure are far more accepted now then they were days gone by. Sure there are some who still frown upon but you always have someone who will frown upon something.  Heck there are couples that don’t even bother getting legally married but still have kids, like Johnny and Vanessa.

Nyla also makes a good point, that back when out of wedlock babies was far more unacceptable that you didn’t have singles adopting. Back in these times it was  unacceptable not to get married.

Answer 7

To Lola and Mike M - so I guess you are saying that for single adoptive mothers to qualify to take babies from sinful women, they are required to have pelvic exams to prove that they are virgins.  For men??  Oh wait, men don't have to prove anything, it is only the woman who is punished.

Well, it is not the same thing for the religious zealots and adoption agencies.  Imagine if religious zealots were to run adoption agencies.  Oh, wait they do!  Run away all pregnant women who do not want to be exploited!

There is no logic to this scenario.  The only way to explain it is to understand consumerism and religious zealotry in the US.

Edited to add:  I also live on planet Earth and can read.  This is a direct quote from a VERY large adoption business run by a church (they are currently getting their butts sued off for violating father's rights).

"If the unwed parents are unable or unwilling to marry, they are then encouraged to place the child for adoption, preferably through <the church's adoption business>.  The Church stresses that unwed parents who do not marry should not be urged to keep the infant as a condition of repentance or out of some desire to care for one's own."

Real nice people.

Answer 8

It's because they aren't having s*x. It's not about the adequacy of their parenting, but the morals of their s*x life. It's a Christian idea, mostly.

Answer 9

I have to agree with Joslin.  Very few people consider having a child out of wedlock to be unacceptable.  Some do consider it to be sinful - but that only has to do with the having s*x part, not the having a baby part.  Even stodgy old Catholics will accept a single mother, and her baby, once she's confessed and been forgiven for the sin of premarital s*x.  Society even accepts "out of wedlock" babies to such an extent that a significant amount of tax money goes to helping single parents.  

So really, lets turn the question around.  If it's ok for a single mom to raise her baby, why can't a single person adopt?

Answer 10

I am one of the people who recently used the term "out of wedlock"

The reason I used it was because it was a term used directly from the generation I was pregnant in. What I said was that it was a big no no back then, and it was, for all the reasons already explained.

I did not mean to offend, just point out that at that time it was very VERY different.

Answer 11

no

adoption means that you can't have kids and that you are adopting some other unwanted kids by giving them a home and love them as your own

having a child out of wedlock is not THAT unacceptable, i mean so many ppl do it, take britany's 16yr old sister for example LOL

basically it's just a social view

it shows that ppl are being irresposnible

you got to admit, a lot of kids nowadays are having kids LOL those are examples of "out of wedlock" and they aren't caring for the babies, social security is and our tax money is LOL

therefore i give HIGH FIVES to ppl who are responsible enough to actually watn to have kids by adoption

rather than some horny ppl who can't take care of their own business and let society take care of their kids

Answer 12

Because the single people who want to adopt have more money.  They'd dump the kid in a daycare in a better neighborhood.

It's a class/caste system.

No one feels bad because they think a woman stupid enough to get in a situation where she believes she can't take care of her child, deserves to lose him/her.

Besides, there's no money for agencies & attorneys when a woman keeps her child.

Answer 13

*ahem* pardon me as I am about to get graphic.

Pregnant out of wedlock means I spread my legs. Adopting out of wedlock means someone spread open a manila folder.

Boils down to that creepy gleam I see in the eyes of the "devout".

Answer 14

In the days when having a child 'out of wedlock' there weren't single parent adoptions.