If relinquishing a child to adoption is the most unselfish act, is parenting a child a selfish act?

Question

If relinquishing a child to adoption is the most unselfish act, is parenting a child a selfish act?

Answer 1

That's good. Very thought provoking.

I don't know that I can really answer that. I think that when people tell a mother that giving her baby to another family that has 2 parents, and a bigger house, etc.... they use that mantra. Then when she succumbs out of pressure, lack of support, or is made to feel unworthy of her own baby. After she does this "unselfish" act she suddenly becomes known as a loose immoral s!ut, with all types of addictions and mental problems. Who would want to adopt a baby from someone like that? I don't understand.

ETA:

Giving a woman a baby is an unselfish act. "Just by a hair" ?????? Gee, I wonder if PAP'S said that to a mom, whose baby they wanted,  I wonder if less adoptions would happen? That's a perfect example of how a first mom is treated. She's a saint and walks on water, before the adoption, and then afterwards her value is diminished and radically reduce.

Answer 2

First off, the selfish thing about it all, is people trying to assume adoptees feel this and feel that. People dont realise that all situations are different. Neither is selfish unless they are only doing it for themselves. Thats when it becomes selfish. Some people just dont put the childs best interest at heart and that is terrible.

Second, I wish that people would stop ASSUMING that all adoption agencies are money grabbing schemes!! They are not at all. Maybey in America they are, but have alook around the globe! (sorry phil, I know that you never actually mentioned agencies)

Adoption is not all about profit, just as adoption is not all about rainbows and lollypops. See two sides instead of one.

Answer 3

There you go blowing my mind again.  Giving me stuff to sort out.  Have a star.

If you are referring to an adoptive parent parenting a child as a selfish act then yes.  There was nothing noble about it.  We wanted to be parents.

If you are referring to a possible birth/natural parent changing her mind and choosing to parent then no.  Its not selfish at all.

Therefore, if choosing to parent is not selfish is it right then to equate relinquishing a child as an unselfish act?  Is that what your getting at?  mind blowing at least for me.

ETA  

Phil is right many a-parents i know do believe that it is a very unselfish act to place a child for adoption.   I think he is just repeating things he has heard from other a-parents, myself included.

Answer 4

I don't think relinquishing a son or daughter is a selfish or unselfish act so much as it is one of little insight and a lot of desperation. Wanting someone else's infant "to call your own" selfish? Covetous...getting warmer.

Shelly P:  "they do it because it's better for THEM."

If women think it's better for them to lose a son or daughter for 18 years, 21 years, possibly for life, they are not getting very good counseling.

Answer 5

In the NCFA Adoption Factbook III they tell the adoptive parents to call the natural parents biological strangers.  In their Birthmother Goodmother booklet, they want to call the natural mothers the good mother.  Okay which is it?  I am confused by all of this.

Answer 6

Depends on the situation.  I have a family member that was going to put her twins up for adoption but when they were born she got cold feet because she wasn't ready to give up her baby.  I really wish she would have because CPS has intervened twice and she is a drug addict and alcoholic.  

No mom is perfect but if a women believes that she can not put herself before her child, she needs to just give it up for adoption.  There are so many children abused and neglected because their parents were irresponsible with their s*x lives and had an unwanted child that they figured they would like to TRY to play house with.

Having said that, people make mistakes and unplanned pregnancies happen.  ALOT of people get their act together and make awesome parents but the sad fact is, most of them are kids themselves who bring these poor children in horrible living situations!

Answer 7

Unfortunately, much of the time...yeah.  I think most of the time, reasons for parenting are selfish (that includes b'parents and a'parents).  My husband and I have talked about this so many times.  What is a GOOD reason to be parents???  It's tough.  We've heard so many people give weird reasons, like "I want my kids to know their grandparents before they die" and "I want to dress my little girl in those cute dresses".  That just doesn't sit well with us.  Until we could say, honestly, that our reasons for becoming parents were in the best interests of the child(ren) we were planning to raise, we just couldn't "go there".

Now, before y'all kick my butt here, let me say this.  I was raised by my biological parents in a very abusive home.  My parents' reasons for becoming parents were VERY selfish, sick, and weird.  Their reasons for staying parents were even weirder and sicker.  It's very rare for people to think beyond "I want" when becoming parents.  

I sincerely hope that my husband and I can break that mold.

Ok, now you can kick my butt.  lol

ETA:  I think I took the wrong approach with answering this...or at least, I didn't cover the whole thing.  I think most people's reasoning for parenting is selfish (although I also agree with Sunny here that it's hard-wired in us to procreate...it's just not hard-wired what to do once that child is misbehaving...if we can honestly say that we are willing and able to always...ALWAYS...work toward the best interests for the child, THEN we can say it's not selfish...otherwise, reasons for parenting, and for choosing a method of parenting, is almost always self-serving).  But anyway, I didn't even touch on the first part of your question.  

"If relinquishing a child to adoption is the most unselfish act..."  I again have to agree with Sunny in that if we're hard-wired to procreate, then we are going totally against our Creator-given purpose if we give our children to someone else to raise.  That has nothing to do with being selfish or unselfish.  The giving up of a child is rarely (if ever) based solely on a mother's needs or wants.  In this country, there is ALWAYS a way to feed and clothe a child, put a roof over his or her head, and provide water.  Again, that has nothing to do with being selfish or not.  If a mother has the energy to get them for herself, chances are, she will be willing to get a little extra for her child, too.  Being a parent, in itself, has nothing whatsoever to do with being selfish or unselfish, nor does it have anything to do with biology, because anyone can provide anyone else with food, water, shelter, and clothing.  But parentING is almost always selfish, the reasons for doing so are almost always selfish, and the chosen method of parenting is almost always selfish.

Procreating is instinct.

Providing for the emotional, spiritual, intillectual, familial, etc. well-being of a child is a choice.

So, what you choose to do once that child is born (or brought home), and how you choose to do it, is almost always selfish.

Answer 8

lol at the reinforced double standard for defining the act of relinquishment in the replies to this question.

I think that was the majority of my grief work for the first year after relinquishment, resolving if my actions were the selfless act that so many respected of my actions, or if I was truly the selfish git that I really felt deep down and was noticed by plenty of people when I appeared happy and content.

Anyway, the other replies show that tendency of opinions about the topic of relinquishment being the most unselfish act, there are plenty who point out how really selfish it is.

Answer 9

Parenting a child CAN be a selfish act.  Think about all the comments people make about adoptive mothers only wanting a baby because THEY want to be a mom, not because it's in the best interest of the child.  

Similarly, parenting a child can be a very selfish act if you are not prepared to devote adequate time, attention, and resources to your child.  We hear stories constantly about abuse, but there is also neglect.  Even when finances aren't an issue, choosing to "parent" a child you have no interest in actually being around is selfish.  

Here is an example of a biological mother who, if she was to have another child I would think was selfish by keeping the baby.  This woman, when I met her, must have been in her early thirties.  She had two daughters, H & A who were 4 and 2 respectively.  About six moths before I met her, she had left her husband and daughters, moved $1000 miles away, an started trying to pretend she was a teenager or something.  Before long she broke the lease on the apartment she was living in (without paying any default fees) and moved in with another man and his father about 300 miles from her girls.  About this time, her divorce was finally going through.  

Now the father, obviously, had physical custody of the girls, but she had twice monthly visitation where she was supposed to pick the girls up from him, bring them home with her for a weekend, and drop them off again on Sunday.  She was also supposed to pay child support.  

Not only did she almost NEVER pay her child support (always complaining she had no money), she went out to bars almost every night.  Even when the father offered to meet her half way to pick up/drop off the girls, she complained about how much the gas cost her, and acted as though he was a horrible person for getting annoyed with her when she'd be late.  (He was meeting her with the girls at a McDonald's - not a place you want to be stuck for two or three hours).  Then, on the weekends when she would have the girls, she hired babysitters every night, and sometimes even during the day, so she could go out to clubs, or bars, or whereever....  

Luckily, these girls had a stable father who provided for them.  Visits with mom were short, and survivable.  However, this woman were ever to get pregnant again, from a man not nearly as interested in child raising as her first husband, it WOULD be very selfish of her to keep the baby and yet continue to act the way she does.  That isn't really parenting, and that child would be better off being adopted by parents who are willing to give the child the attention any growing person needs.

Answer 10

This is where Adoption vs Abortion became an issue. I remember I was there. Adoption is the selfless act in reference to abortion being its alternative. They were the only two choices for some girls at a time when teenage pregnancy was a social embarrassment. Parenting was never part of the equasion.

Answer 11

Phil,

I think it depends on the circumstances.  If the birth parent is  13 years old and her life consists of sexual and physical abuse (for instance), and she has no real support, relinquishing the child for adoption would be a loving act.  If she is in a postion where she can give loving support to the child and wants to parent the child and has support, then parenting is not a selfish act.  However, if the 13 year old has no means to give support or love, is addicted to drugs (this is just an example) and doesn't want to parent the child but keeps the child anyway without a though, then is is a selfish act.

There is a mother at my school who is 21 years old and has 6 kids (including 1 set of twins).  She goes thru life, not giving her kids a second thought, dragging them from school to school as she moves in with one boyfriend after another (some are abusive to her and/or the kids).  I think that is a selfish act.

Yes, I think it depends on the circumstances.

Answer 12

As a birth parent, if you are thinking more about your child's welfare than yours, giving up your child is a very painful act with the rewards unknown and not experienced.  Its purely unselfish and therefore the most unselfish. By a hair.

When you are a parent, good parenting is also unselfish, but the rewards are right there, a smile, a first step, a first tooth.

The prom, the wedding, the grandchildren.  As frustrating as parenting can be at times, the moments of wonder, joy and love are there too.

Its not really a contest, for both the birth mother and the adoptive mother its the promise of a new life raised to be a happy adult.

When I use the term, 'by a hair'  I'm not in any way implying the birth mother is any of the terms I've heard of here.

I was comparing the relative types of unselfishness not the morality of the birth mother.

Even the worst of the birth mothers I've heard here,and most of them aren't  the druggie alcohol swilling person of low repute, somewhere along the line decided to give birth and climbed out of that pit long enough to say "I really can't do it, I'd be no good at it."

Even it its not said, or even if she was drunk when she said it to herself, she thought about the babys welfare.

You don't stay pregnant, go through all the hormonal and body changes, feel your baby move, give birth and then flip off the world.  Anyone who says that has never done it.  Even if its the one decent thing a woman ever does in her life, shes done that.  Don't act like shes a total pariah.

Most girls count the years the baby would be for the rest of their lives.

Answer 13

it all depends on the motive..

some mothers who put babies for adoption do it for very selfish reasons.. they do it because it's better for THEM.

Some do it honestly-to-God-in-their heart, feeling that it is better for the BABY..  THe baby's well being is their motivator.. they are TRYING to give the baby the best life they can, as they understand it..

Parenting is pretty much never a selfish act.. the person choses to keep the baby becuase they want to love it..

So the answer to your question is no..

I suppose there COULD be cases where keeping a child can be done for selfish reasons, but those would be few and far between indeed...

Answer 14

No not by any means, if you are willing to always put that child first, it boils down to what is in the best interest of the child not the parent.Yes I was adopted, but for myself I had 4 and would have never put them up for adoption.But had it not been for my adopted parents love and teachings. I would not be who I am .

Answer 15

No- aborting the child is a selfish act.  

To be a parent (biologically or through adoption) are both selfless acts.

Answer 16

if you cant give them a good home and all of your love, then yes parenting is a bit selfish. putting a child up for adoption is a lot easier on the child than living is a bad or unstable home. i'm adopted and im happy with my family. if i wasnt put up for adoption i would be living with a poor, single, drug addicted mother.

Answer 17

I think it's possible that relinquishment or choosing to parent could be the "selfless" act in that either could be, in a particular circumstance, the best thing to do for the child but the hardest to do for the mother.

Answer 18

Relinquishing a child is an unselfish act.  Until the ink dries on the paper. Then the first mom is magically transformed into a selfish women who wanted to continue on with her life unfettered by the hassle of that unwanted baby.  Really...I'm just sick to death of the false myths, lies & BS surrounding adoption. It is. It isn't.

"you will be sad, but you can go on living your life." ...in a closet, in pain, filled with shame, never telling anyone for fear of being judged...

"they do it because it's better for THEM." ...sure it is...see above

"when done by a mother who realizes that she is not in the situation to provide an appropriate home life, is unselfish." - or - "the parent is 13 & her life consists of ... abuse ,,, & she has no real support, (it's) a loving act." ... NO - it's a sad, desperate, lonely act. She has no other options. That's not a choice.  

When I began my search for my first mom, an acquaintance asked me, "Why would you want to find her? What kind of mother could she be? After all, she gave you up!"  She knew absolutely nothing about my first mother (who DIDN'T give me up)...or my life.  Like MOST people do, she made an assumption based on the many falsehoods about adoption.

My a. mom tried to convince me for over a year to relinquish my daughter as soon as her dad & I told her we were divorcing (she was a year old, I was 18).  "What if there were a doctor? And she could have piano lessons? And gymnastics?"  I was being "selfish" for keeping her.  I almost bought it back then. By the time she was 6, I'd finished college.  When she was 8, I owned a home.  We'd made it out of poverty.  Was I selfish?

When I look in the face of my granddaughter this weekend, I can tell you, I won't be giving a rat's behind what the answer to that question is.  If I am, every parent is.  My daughter is now a wonderful, loving wife & (selfish) mother of two.

PS Thanks for the Q, Phil...always happy to see your smiling avitar, my friend!

Answer 19

giving up a child is selfish but who cares its bettter for the child. birth moms are selfish just like the rest of the people in the world.  noone is selfless. thats a myth.

Answer 20

Thats what the $$$ making agencies say to the mothers in order to procure the babies, right (when they're doing their 'counselling')

Answer 21

Bottom line being a parent requires one to be unselfish. It really doesn't matter if the parent is biological or adoptive.

in my mind what is selfish is people who say "be glad your mother didn't abort you." I have no problems with my adoption, but it always makes my skin crawl when some one says that.

Answer 22

Parenting is only selfish if you're poor, young, unmarried, or vulnerable in some other way.  Otherwise nobody expects you to feel the least obligation to give your child to someone else.

Adoption language and the average person's thoughts about adoption are cluttered with paradoxes like this.  Thanks for pointing one out.

Answer 23

Parenting a child is only a selfish act if you do not think you can properly care for a child, but keep the child anyway. Also, I don't think relinquishing a child to adoption is necessarily the most unselfish act- once you give the child up, you will be sad, but you can go on living your life.

Answer 24

Sometimes, relinquishing a child for adoption is a selfish act, and sometimes it is a selfless act.

Sometimes, parenting is a selfish act, and sometimes it is a selfless act.

Answer 25

I do not think adoption as an unselfish act, but rather the act of someone who is scared and not getting the proper support/resources she needs to parent.  I do not see how that is unselfish.  It is not selfish either, except on the part of the adoption agencies and PAP's who push the potential birth mother in the direction they would like her to go (relinquish the child).

However, I do feel that parenting can be selfish, not because someone didn't place their child for adoption, but because they are looking for a mini me to follow in their footsteps, a mini me to love them unconditionally, etc.

Answer 26

Is it selfish when a lion gives birth to her cub?  She just doing what nature intended for her to do. This can’t possibly be considered ‘selfish’—she is continuing the species.  It could be argued that any living thing—a plant, an animal, or a human being exists on the planet to reproduce.  

Or it could be considered God’s plan, “Go forth and multiply” (Genesis 24:2) aren’t the fertile supposed to follow God’s directive?  How can that be selfish?

Now when infertile people seek drugs, invasive procedures, or procuring children from the less fortunate—is that selfish?  I would say yes.  Some would sat it is ‘survival of the fittest’, except they’re not the ‘fittest’ physically.  They are people who have what our post-modern society sees as valuable.  If they were unselfish, wouldn’t they be working with people less fortunate to assist in keeping families together?  I think so.  To want to take a child from someone less fortunate, so that your desire to parent can be fulfilled—I believe this is selfish.

Is giving a child up to adoption unselfish?  It has always stuck me as desperate.  I’m sure (and is often pointed out here) that there are women who ‘want’ to give their children away—but I am also sure that this is a micro-minority.  I believe with all my being that the majority of women who deliver children (something infertile women will never experience and can’t possibly speak to) want very much to keep and raise their babies.  It is hard-wired.

Answer 27

HUH???  And how do you find the correlation???  Placing a child for adoption, when done by a mother who realizes that she is not in the situation to provide an appropriate homelife, is unselfish.  When a mother places her child for adoption because she wants to continue with a questionable lifestyle (if that is the case with her, I know it is not the case for all) and is too SELFISH to change her ways in order to parent, that is selfish.  When a mother has a child and abuses and neglects it and it ends up in the lovely foster care system FOR MANY YEARS and is not adopted therefore missing out on permancy, that is seflish.  If a mother places her child for adoption because she is a college student and the timing is off for her then that is both selfish and UNselfish.  I mena really I can go on and on ith the different scenerios here.  DO you get the point.  As with most every decision one makes there are MANY variables that play a part.  The exact same goes for parenting children.  There are selfish parents and unselfish parents and there are parents who have a little bit of both.

Answer 28

Yes, it is the magic of adoption, turning the nonsensical into pretendsensical.

The other down side to telling someone it was unselfish of them to put their baby out for adoption is they will ever be left with the message that they were too damaged to raise their own child.

Not very nice.

Answer 29

no. it depends on the situation. if a parent knows they cant provide enough love and support for the child, no matter how much they want to keep the child they know the child will have a better place and home and love with someone else, no matter how it is for them.

on the other hand parenting isnt selfish unless you are soley keeping your child to get money somehow from the state.

but even is a parent isnt a "good" parent and they keep their child, it isnt a selfish act to them. they feel they are the best for their child and so that being said, its not selfish, becaue they really beleive they are the best for the child...