Is placing a child for adoption a selfless or selfish act?

I believe that adoption is almost always the desperate act of a powerless woman who has exhausted all of her own resources and is preyed upon by people who take advantage of her vulnerable state. Neither selfish or selfless on her part, but VERY selfish on the part of the people who didn't or wouldn't support her and the people who benefited by her loss.

I think it can be both selfish and selfless. People do things for many reasons. I almost gave my daughter up for adoption because my family was very unsupportive and they were pressuring me into it. In the end my true feelings won out and it's been a struggle but it will work out in the end. Changing priorities, realizing what one can provide for their child, and what they can't. I think I wanted to adopt her out so her life would be "perfect"- as if her life would automatically be better than imperfect me. No-one is perfect and no-one's life is perfect. No family can be "perfect". I'm sure every woman who has decided an adoption has done so for many reasons-- some selfish perhaps, some selfless.

I think it's both. But mostly selfish. If I knew what I know now or if I was the person then that I am no, I would have never placed my daughter for adoption. Nothing can make up for that seperation that I imposed on us. Nothing can make up for the identity issues that my decision forced upon my daughter. If I had raised her, she would have never wondered whether or not I cared or whether or not I loved her.

So I say selfish mostly. I'm not sure she would be the same person if I had raised her and I'm happy to know that she is a happy and well rounded person. But with hindsight, I wish I had raised her and held her and loved her. However, I wonder if I would be so dedicated to holding and loving the children I am raising if I hadn't made the decisions I did in my youth...

This is a difficult question - I was adopted in the 1970's in the UK and things were very difficult - my birth mum lived at home and was engaged to a guy who once she found out she was pregnant did a runner she found that he was since married with 9 children. (I think they were Irish Catholics) which is proper hardcore religion (certainly in the 1970's). I believe she was put under pressure from her father who was a bully - she lived under their roof so fill in the gaps.

For her (and me) it was the right choice - although still pisses me off.

However nowadays in the UK there are so many choices our social benefit system is over generous and teenage mums have access to free social housing (often brand new), state funded benefits and they are not encouraged to work until the child is 12 (however my feelings on that are well documented on other pages on YA and I must not rant). Additionally birth Control is more widely available and education in schools and youth-groups more accessible. So I think that it now a selfish act on behalf of the birth mother.

I am putting the normal caveats of rape, abusive relationships etc are outside of my thoughts

Many adopters THINK that all these newborns were available for adoption because the mother didn't want them. That is very likely true if the baby is not Cacausian. However, it's pretty obvious when you have adopters trolling for caucasian babies at schools, online, every where, that a lot of them simply want to complete their family. They are quick to reject a child who has medical or mental illness issues. For the same reason, they reject older children as they don't want to adopt 'their problems.' Let's face it - a lot of older children in foster care HAVE problems or they would be with family members. Please note: I do not in any way think all adopters are like this. There are plenty of couples who adopt newborns or infants KNOWING that the child will likely have problems. As far as the couples you refer to, I think you just have your nose out of joint and aren't looking at the bigger picture. How many women do you know who have a newborn say nothing about their newborn? If your experience has been anything like mine, they talk about all circumstances of their newborn starting from when they got to the hospital to now. They want to be the center of attention sharing info about a newborn that they care about. I don't see how the couples you are referring to should be any different. They didn't give birth. They adopted. So talking about the adoption is going to be their center of life until the baby is a little older. Then they, just like normal parents, will settle in to talking about baby's firsts and progress and comparing their baby to everybody else's baby.

I think it is very selfish.i am an adopted person.if you don't want the responsibility of a child don't have sex or at least be prepared for the consequences.i am a stuggling single mom and I don't give my daughter away because it would be an extremely self-centered thing to do.my mom put me up for adoption because she slept with a married man how stupid they where both irresponsible and selfish.

I am leaning towards selfless only because I rarely have seen where mothers place their children for adoption for selfish reasons.

I understand that most of the time a mother believes this is what is best for her child, but many times whatever is going on that makes her feel that she can't be a parent are only temporary problems.

I also believe that many people that have no connection with adoption are quick to point out that placing a baby is a "loving and selfless" act. If they were to look at it from an adoptees point of view though, they might change their mind.

It depends on the age of the child. If it's too young to know its real parents, and you truely believe the child will be better off in someone else's care, then adoption is probably a better choice. If you are considering adoption because you don't want the responsibility of taking care of this child, then that's just selfish.

There are also 2 kinds of adoption to consider, Closed adoption and Open adoption. Closed is where you hand the child over to another parent and you have no connection with them at all. When the child turns 18, you can then meet if you wish. The child will know your name and maybe a few basic things about you, but that is all. An open adoption would then be where you're allowed to see or contact this child before they're an adult, if you wish.

I think this depends on the situation

If you know you won't be able to take care of this child, or may cause harm to it, so you decide to put it up for adoption, this is probably the best act to do. For both you and your child.

Also, I think the only reason someone would place a child up for adoption is because they can't handle the responsibilities, which is sad because people who aren't responsible enough to handle their responsibilities shouldn't have babies, but unfortunately it does occur.

Unless the reason is otherwise that, yes it probably is a selfless act because it is your own child and helped give birth.

Creating a child you cannot care for - through careless disregard for contraceptive seems selfish. Recognizing that another person should not share in the mistake and putting that person's needs ahead of your own - is by definition - selfless. It is more - in offering that child an opportunity for happiness with a family that will love and care for the child is a priceless gift.

Abortion is actually not relevant to this discussion. Since the question involves adoption - a baby must already exist (born or not).

I have to go with depends on your reasoning. as much as I hate to see anyone go through it, I still believe it was best for my daughter. I was keeping her away from my family. But there were no guarantees she wouldn't end up in the same type family. that was the mistake I made. I was naive enough to believe they all got the pool and pony. she did get a good family but it could have very well gone the other way. That would have killed me. ending up in the very thing I was trying to keep her from.