HOME | DD

Description

While there is nothing wrong with having biological children, many, if not most, people view adoption as nothing more than a backup plan should “typical methods” of having children fail. Of course if you do not want children at all or you aren't ready for children yet, don't adopt (that's just common sense), but obviously millions of families everywhere want children and many of them are fully capable of adopting, so why are so few of these potential families adopting? In essence, most people think of raising kids as what’s in it for them as parents (happiness, passing on genes, etc.) not about helping a child. Babies are viewed as status symbols. Most people would rather turn their back on a homeless child in favor of making a new child. When confronted, most people respond with predictable and shallow excuses such as “it’s too expensive” (even though DSS is free, and when adopting from somewhere else you don’t know the price until you’ve personally looked into doing it yourself), “adoptive children can have mental difficulties” (even though biological children can have mental difficulties, too), and the age-old “Christian” excuse: “not everyone is called to adopt,” which doesn’t make sense, because everyone is called to help children inside the womb, so why should we turn our backs on them once they’re outside the womb? Also, I must mention: Christians who use the “not called” excuse are basically saying that almost everyone is being specifically called to not adopt, which doesn’t make sense. While of course not everyone is called to adopt, anti-adoption Christians use the “not called” excuse to explain away why almost no families ever choose to even look into adoption. So basically, the “not called” excuse is a fallacy. While the words they’re saying are technically correct, they’re using those words to justify a shocking lack of compassion. They know you can’t argue with the words, but what they’re using those words to justify is sick and twisted. Many, many pregnant mothers who choose to abort do so because they do not want their child to end up in the adoption system. No respectable pro-lifer should turn away from those deaths without a very, very good reason.

What it means to consider adoption:
www.deviantart.com/art/Conside…

This is part of my series of comics featuring cute animals to address common excuses that people use to justify their lack of compassion toward homeless children.

1) Have you considered adoption at all / is adoption too expensive: the-cynical-unicorn.deviantart…
2) Adopting vs. breeding / the consequences of sex: the-cynical-unicorn.deviantart…
3) Who is called to adopt? the-cynical-unicorn.deviantart…
4) Adoption: Someone else's problem? the-cynical-unicorn.deviantart…
5) God adopted: the-cynical-unicorn.deviantart…
6) The public's response to adoption advocates: the-cynical-unicorn.deviantart…
7) Adoption is pro-family and NOT anti-sex: unicornarama.deviantart.com/ar…
8) Are adoption advocates being judgmental? unicornarama.deviantart.com/ar…
9) Red tape: unicornarama.deviantart.com/ar…
10) Does having children give you immortality? unicornarama.deviantart.com/ar…
11) Children are gifts from the Lord: Gifts From God
______________________________________________________________________

"Having your own children gives you immortality."
Although this argument/idea is becoming less and less common, it still exists. Some people believe that having biological children gives you some sort of "immortality." Of course, they don't actually believe you will become immortal, but rather that you'll have a "sense" of immortality. There are a few trains of thought behind this.

Most people mean "immortality" as continuing the family line. This can be through genes or the family name.
If someone wants to pass on their genes, they can do this and adopt. However, obviously most people would rather only pass on their genes. This implies that the reason they want to pass on their genes has nothing to do with "immortality," but rather pure selfishness.

If someone wants to pass on the family name, remind them that adoptive children usually take the adoptive family's name, espescially younger children, such as kids younger than 10. But again, a couple can have their own child and adopt (do I sound like a broken record yet?) Also, remind them that if they have only girls, the family name most likely will not be passed on. That's exactly what happened in my family. My uncle never had children and my parents only had girls. My sisters and I are the last of our family name. So a family that has their own children in order to pass on the family name is hoping for boys. That's not sexist at all, right? If they had all girls, such as my family, would they be...disappointed? That's just horrible!

As I've said before, this attitude is another example of how many parents view children as what's in it for the parents, not for the children. Children are viewed as fashion accessories.

A few people mean "immortality" as being remembered by others. Frankly, I find this a selfish reason to want to be a parent. Children are not fashion accessories, nor do they exist to bring you merit. And second, you don't even need to be a parent to be remembered by others. People remember you for your actions, and being a parent is great, but there are many, many things you could do that people could remember you by. Not to downplay parenthood, but there are lots and lots of parents in the world. You'd have to do something very unique to be remembered by anyone outside of your bubble just for being a parent.

Most people who say this mean they want to be remembered by their children. That's completely normal and good, but why do the children need to be biological? The truth is that a child does NOT need to be biological to remember their parents. If you want to make a good impression on your child, the secret is being a good parent, not just passing on your genes. People don't remember you for passing on your genes (unless you're Darth Vader, but that's a different story.) And to be quite honest, a child who is adopted out of the unstable foster care system or is adopted away from abusive parent(s) will remember you in ways that a biological child never could, provided you parent them well. It's up to YOU to make sure your children remember you well. Passing on your genes has nothing to do with it.

"But lineage is important to men and certain cultures."
It doesn't matter. Men have no right to tell women what to do with their bodies anymore than women can tell men what to do. And "culture" is no excuse to perpetrate suffering. "Culture" is no excuse for child abuse, animal abuse, domestic abuse, neglect, or lack of empathy. We are human beings. Regardless of culture, we should ALL know better than to pleasure ourselves at others' expense.

I personally believe couples who want children should have 1-2 of their own, maybe 3, (if they want their own children), but after that point, they have already replaced themselves in the population and passed on their genes, so if they want to add more children to their families, then they need to look into adopting. There’s really no excuse. If they qualify and want more children past their population replacement number, and there are children who need families, there’s no excuse. Considering how many couples each year have a 4th or more baby, and the fact that there are more babies born through IVF in the US each year than there are children eligible for adoption in the US, it’s clear that the only reason these children don’t have homes is because people don’t want to help them. There are more than enough qualifying families, and more than enough couples who are desperate to add children to their families. People just don’t want those children. If you have two children already and want more, or if you want children in general, consider adopting.

Description

While there is nothing wrong with having biological children, many, if not most, people view adoption as nothing more than a backup plan should “typical methods” of having children fail. Of course if you do not want children at all or you aren't ready for children yet, don't adopt (that's just common sense), but obviously millions of families everywhere want children and many of them are fully capable of adopting, so why are so few of these potential families adopting? In essence, most people think of raising kids as what’s in it for them as parents (happiness, passing on genes, etc.) not about helping a child. Babies are viewed as status symbols. Most people would rather turn their back on a homeless child in favor of making a new child. When confronted, most people respond with predictable and shallow excuses such as “it’s too expensive” (even though DSS is free, and when adopting from somewhere else you don’t know the price until you’ve personally looked into doing it yourself), “adoptive children can have mental difficulties” (even though biological children can have mental difficulties, too), and the age-old “Christian” excuse: “not everyone is called to adopt,” which doesn’t make sense, because everyone is called to help children inside the womb, so why should we turn our backs on them once they’re outside the womb? Also, I must mention: Christians who use the “not called” excuse are basically saying that almost everyone is being specifically called to not adopt, which doesn’t make sense. While of course not everyone is called to adopt, anti-adoption Christians use the “not called” excuse to explain away why almost no families ever choose to even look into adoption. So basically, the “not called” excuse is a fallacy. While the words they’re saying are technically correct, they’re using those words to justify a shocking lack of compassion. They know you can’t argue with the words, but what they’re using those words to justify is sick and twisted. Many, many pregnant mothers who choose to abort do so because they do not want their child to end up in the adoption system. No respectable pro-lifer should turn away from those deaths without a very, very good reason.

What it means to consider adoption:
www.deviantart.com/art/Conside…

This is part of my series of comics featuring cute animals to address common excuses that people use to justify their lack of compassion toward homeless children.

1) Have you considered adoption at all / is adoption too expensive: the-cynical-unicorn.deviantart…
2) Adopting vs. breeding / the consequences of sex: the-cynical-unicorn.deviantart…
3) Who is called to adopt? the-cynical-unicorn.deviantart…
4) Adoption: Someone else's problem? the-cynical-unicorn.deviantart…
5) God adopted: the-cynical-unicorn.deviantart…
6) The public's response to adoption advocates: the-cynical-unicorn.deviantart…
7) Adoption is pro-family and NOT anti-sex: unicornarama.deviantart.com/ar…
8) Are adoption advocates being judgmental? unicornarama.deviantart.com/ar…
9) Red tape: unicornarama.deviantart.com/ar…
10) Does having children give you immortality? unicornarama.deviantart.com/ar…
11) Children are gifts from the Lord: Gifts From God
______________________________________________________________________

"Having your own children gives you immortality."
Although this argument/idea is becoming less and less common, it still exists. Some people believe that having biological children gives you some sort of "immortality." Of course, they don't actually believe you will become immortal, but rather that you'll have a "sense" of immortality. There are a few trains of thought behind this.

Most people mean "immortality" as continuing the family line. This can be through genes or the family name.
If someone wants to pass on their genes, they can do this and adopt. However, obviously most people would rather only pass on their genes. This implies that the reason they want to pass on their genes has nothing to do with "immortality," but rather pure selfishness.

If someone wants to pass on the family name, remind them that adoptive children usually take the adoptive family's name, espescially younger children, such as kids younger than 10. But again, a couple can have their own child and adopt (do I sound like a broken record yet?) Also, remind them that if they have only girls, the family name most likely will not be passed on. That's exactly what happened in my family. My uncle never had children and my parents only had girls. My sisters and I are the last of our family name. So a family that has their own children in order to pass on the family name is hoping for boys. That's not sexist at all, right? If they had all girls, such as my family, would they be...disappointed? That's just horrible!

As I've said before, this attitude is another example of how many parents view children as what's in it for the parents, not for the children. Children are viewed as fashion accessories.

A few people mean "immortality" as being remembered by others. Frankly, I find this a selfish reason to want to be a parent. Children are not fashion accessories, nor do they exist to bring you merit. And second, you don't even need to be a parent to be remembered by others. People remember you for your actions, and being a parent is great, but there are many, many things you could do that people could remember you by. Not to downplay parenthood, but there are lots and lots of parents in the world. You'd have to do something very unique to be remembered by anyone outside of your bubble just for being a parent.

Most people who say this mean they want to be remembered by their children. That's completely normal and good, but why do the children need to be biological? The truth is that a child does NOT need to be biological to remember their parents. If you want to make a good impression on your child, the secret is being a good parent, not just passing on your genes. People don't remember you for passing on your genes (unless you're Darth Vader, but that's a different story.) And to be quite honest, a child who is adopted out of the unstable foster care system or is adopted away from abusive parent(s) will remember you in ways that a biological child never could, provided you parent them well. It's up to YOU to make sure your children remember you well. Passing on your genes has nothing to do with it.

"But lineage is important to men and certain cultures."
It doesn't matter. Men have no right to tell women what to do with their bodies anymore than women can tell men what to do. And "culture" is no excuse to perpetrate suffering. "Culture" is no excuse for child abuse, animal abuse, domestic abuse, neglect, or lack of empathy. We are human beings. Regardless of culture, we should ALL know better than to pleasure ourselves at others' expense.

I personally believe couples who want children should have 1-2 of their own, maybe 3, (if they want their own children), but after that point, they have already replaced themselves in the population and passed on their genes, so if they want to add more children to their families, then they need to look into adopting. There’s really no excuse. If they qualify and want more children past their population replacement number, and there are children who need families, there’s no excuse. Considering how many couples each year have a 4th or more baby, and the fact that there are more babies born through IVF in the US each year than there are children eligible for adoption in the US, it’s clear that the only reason these children don’t have homes is because people don’t want to help them. There are more than enough qualifying families, and more than enough couples who are desperate to add children to their families. People just don’t want those children. If you have two children already and want more, or if you want children in general, consider adopting.