Is adoption always ideal?

[angell1]

I’m always hearing how it’s ideal to let children have two parents. even included in another thread of where I was asking about pregnant school teachers

do you guys think that a single parents should give their child up for adoption even if they can provide for them? so they can have two parents?

or if a person realized what they did was wrong and wants to take responsibility for the child, isn’t a biological parent pretty important too?

also I’m hearing a lot of, if the parent keeps the child themselves, it will be a constant proof to everyone of the sin that was committed.

the sin is fornication, which plenty of people do, but only the ones who end up with children get judged harshly for it, even if they have repented and have to live with that shame, just because no one else knows about the sin otherwise

or if the child was put up for adoption, I guess less people would find out

I’m just very confused on the whole subject. I get it, if someone is in a position of moral authority over young impressionable children, it is a problem but even if you’re not, I guess everyone around you is still scandalized.

thoughts?

 

[1ke]

Angel,

Any decision to parent or place for adoption should always be focused on what is best for the child.

Sometimes that will be a decision to parent and sometime that will be a decision to place with a adoptive family.

Always it is about what is best for the child. Adoption is an act of charity and sacrifice for both the adopting couple and the birth parent.

 

[on_the_hill]

also I’m hearing a lot of, if the parent keeps the child themselves, it will be a constant proof to everyone of the sin that was committed.

I’ve never heard this. Is the child reckoned to be a scarlet letter? But I would answer that it’s **none **of anybody’s business as to which sin, if any, had been committed. The sin and the reconciliation are between the person and God.

 

[commenter]

I’m always hearing how it’s ideal to let children have two parents. even included in another thread of where I was asking about pregnant school teachers

do you guys think that a single parents should give their child up for adoption even if they can provide for them? so they can have two parents?

or if a person realized what they did was wrong and wants to take responsibility for the child, isn’t a biological parent pretty important too?

also I’m hearing a lot of, if the parent keeps the child themselves, it will be a constant proof to everyone of the sin that was committed.

the sin is fornication, which plenty of people do, but only the ones who end up with children get judged harshly for it, even if they have repented and have to live with that shame, just because no one else knows about the sin otherwise

or if the child was put up for adoption, I guess less people would find out

I’m just very confused on the whole subject. I get it, if someone is in a position of moral authority over young impressionable children, it is a problem but even if you’re not, I guess everyone around you is still scandalized.

thoughts?

I worked in this area for many years. The thinking today, in Catholic and non-Catholic agencies, is that if a single parent can raise their child, with supports provided by extended family, church, and sometimes professional agencies, they should do so.

If the single parent cannot do this, they first look to the extended family, then if necessary to adoption outside the family. The great majority of time the birth parent now continues to be involved in the life of the child after adoption, unless there is a safety issue. (Of course, the adoptive parent sometimes later refuses to go along with the agreement originally made, for good or bad reasons.) Birth siblings and grandparents are, hopefully, kept in contact with adopted children, even if some are adopted out to non relatives.

The single birth mom may have committed a sin - we cannot judge that - but should be honored for her commitment to life. She is a hero. That is a judgement we can and should make.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Angel, I think scrupulosity is emerging if you see scandal everywhere. You’ve got to understand there are variations in what Catholic adoption agencies may think, but I would hope and even guess there are good faith efforts to place children as best they can.

I’m just going to give you my thoughts on adoption:

Adoption is always preferable to abortion.

However, the abuse rate of stepfathers to stepdaughters is a concern. Once you start getting out of biological relationships of family and start wandering away from natural law, problems may arise, even in adoption.

The simple fact that there isn’t a biological bond is perhaps a barrier to overcome in some cases, although I think familial love does that well.

So, there are considerations people need to account for logically and objectively without a purely emotional dimension.

Now, the big issue with adoption with who the kids are being adopted by. The Church has made it clear in many cases it will not comply in all cases where the parenting situation involves parents of the same gender or just one parent. I think those are very valid concerns.

 

[mlz]

Only the birthparent(s) themselves know their circumstances and must decide. Adoption can be a beautiful option. It not essential but very good for children to have both a mom and dad when possible.
mlz

P.S. Aborting a baby is never right and so should never be a “choice”.

 

[Beryllos]

…
do you guys think that a single parents should give their child up for adoption even if they can provide for them? so they can have two parents?

or if a person realized what they did was wrong and wants to take responsibility for the child, isn’t a biological parent pretty important too?
…

I think the consensus among those familiar with adoption is that natural parents (birth parents) are best, even if only one of them lives with the child. Two adoptive parents are not better than one birth parent who is willing and able to care for the child. This does not belittle adoptive parents. My wife and I are adoptive parents, and we think adoption is a wonderful way to love and care for children who otherwise would not be brought up in a family.

 

[Trident_H]

I worked in this area for many years. The thinking today, in Catholic and non-Catholic agencies, is that if a single parent can raise their child, with supports provided by extended family, church, and sometimes professional agencies, they should do so.

If the single parent cannot do this, they first look to the extended family, then if necessary to adoption outside the family. The great majority of time the birth parent now continues to be involved in the life of the child after adoption, unless there is a safety issue. (Of course, the adoptive parent sometimes later refuses to go along with the agreement originally made, for good or bad reasons.) Birth siblings and grandparents are, hopefully, kept in contact with adopted children, even if some are adopted out to non relatives.

The single birth mom may have committed a sin - we cannot judge that - but should be honored for her commitment to life. She is a hero. That is a judgement we can and should make.

That’s the stuff. Well put.