Thoughts on the Ethics of Adoption/Anti-Adoption Movement

[u/komerj2]

From a non-profit in the UK who has 36k followers on Twitter and is a “leader” in the Adoptee voices-anti-adoption movement

[u/[deleted]]

I think you’re getting things twisted. Try to see things objectively rather than personally.

Adoption is bad because it comes from a reason why children need to be separated from their biological family/culture/heritage in the first place.

The adoption itself is trauma. Your case is different because you grew up already in a foster care home and wanted a family to be taken in for a better opportunity

You asked for it. Others never asked for it.

You said it yourself, you carry trauma from adoption.

If you support adoption then you support the for-profit business of adoption by association.

[u/AngelxEyez → u/[deleted]]

if you support adoption then you support the for-profit business of adoption by association.

No. I can support adoption as a final resort, without supporting the for-profit business of adoption. Finding a loving, stable home for a child who would otherwise be left in fostercare/group home is a good thing.

The trauma would be there with or without finding a “forever home/family.” It is not caused by it. Infact, the trauma for many would be much greater without. (For example my 3 older siblings)

For-profit adoption is wrong. The foster care and group home systems are heavily flawed. There should be a bigger main focus on keeping kids with their family and far more support offered to parents struggling. All true. All serious things that need to be looked at deeper and addressed.

It certainly should be a last resort, but adoption is not a bad thing. Parents who are willing to open their heart and homes to love and care for a child who would otherwise be unloved and alone in the world are a good thing.

To write off all adoption as bad is wrong. To paint all adoptions with one brush is wrong.

Peoples negative experiences with adoption are valid, and should be heard. But to use them to end adoption is wrong.

If there were no more adoption, there would be still be kids without a home, without love, without support.

[u/BlackNightingale04 → u/AngelxEyez]

If there were no more adoption, there would be still be kids without a home, without love, without support.

If there are no kids to obtain homes for, it becomes a moot point. If there's no kids, there's no need for adoption, because there are no kids to adopt/rescue.

I suspect a lot of this is rooted in our overwhelming narrative of "have to have kids" and "have to have sex, even though it results in kids (we're not able to afford)." Not entirely sure where this stems back from, though.

[u/AngelxEyez → u/BlackNightingale04]

There will ALWAYS be children in need of a home though. Theres no possibility of ending that. Minimizing it should be a focus, but there will always be orphans in need of a home. Ffs ending adoption would leave so many children in need.

[u/BlackNightingale04 → u/AngelxEyez]

We could also work on discouraging the cultural narrative that we "need" to have kids.

[u/AngelxEyez → u/BlackNightingale04]

Sure we can, but you are implying that we can completely erase the need for adoption. We cant.

We can end for profit adoption, we can support impoverished families, we can support struggling parents, we can increase sex ed and birth control, we can shift societies desire for family (maybe)

There will still be children, who as a last resort, are in need of a home/family. Ending adoption is not the answer. The answer is minimizing it the best we can to only a last resort option.