Why is pro-adoption the default position?

Loooove Sly's answer. Yes, the Puritan/sex thing--a big part of all this.

I also believe there has always been a 'class' element to the whole adoption game.

"Lower" social classes should reward the upper, more deserving classes with their 'fruits'.

BSEra--"Bad" fertile girls need to give their babies to "good" married girls. They're more deserving.

Now? It's usually money. Women (either from the US, or other impoverished nations) need to give their babies to more deserving women ( single OR married) who have the money to buy what they want.

Dear Phil,

I'm not sure "pro-adoption" IS the default. I have yet to see anyone running about professing that ALL children should be adopted. Just as there is no one here saying that there is NEVER a case where adoption IS in the best interest of children in certain situations.

It is obviously an extreme view, as is "anti-adoption", and I think almost everyone falls somewhere in the middle.

I think many people jump to say they support adoption and are "pro-adoption" because it sounds like you should. I also think that most of these people are ignorant about adoption and if posed with questions such as, "Do you think that adoptees should have the right to know who their first parents are?" and "Should a fit parent place a child for adoption because they are having financial issues?", most intelligent people with any hint of compassion would lean more towards the "adoption reform" crowd.

Adoption is not black and white - it is many shades of gray...

Most believe what ever the government hands them. They are too lazy and affraid to go against the grain in fear of retaliation from their own governmnet that "works for them."

Ollie I have to disagree again with you. I was one of those women and was told all the wonderful things that were going to happen because of my decision. My daughter got everything they promised, that part is true. Lots of kids don't and that isn't even my point here. I got treated like a street walking crack smoking whore after the ink was dry. No one supported me in any way shape or form. there wasn't even the cheezy form of counseling that is offered today by the agencies.

I support adoption as long as it's ethical and done in the best interest of the child and first parents.

Adoption is trumpeted loudly as positive because we know damned well negative things lurk behind it, and we don't want to think about these things.

It's not nice when children are born out of wedlock (although this is changing, the stigma is not gone yet). It's not nice when someone who wants kids can't have them; that isn't "normal." And it's not at all nice when a child is unwanted or removed from a family where it is wanted and plopped down in another family and asked--legally, if my birth certificate is anything to go by--to pretend nothing happened. We have this idea that bad things don't happen to good people, so we twist things around so we can believe there are good reasons for this or that someone deserved it. But we also believe children are innocent.

It's kind of messy, and it makes people wonder, "What if it happened to me? Am I really so interchangeable? What is a family, a parent?"

So we slap a coat of rainbow paint on it and holler about how wonderful it is. If it were prima facie wonderful, nobody would shout so loudly.

It is when people make oversimplified statements about anything that this will occur.

The "pro-life" movement states that they are for life. So I guess that makes those who disagree with their movement pro-death. I personally use pro-choice and anti-choice, my own terms of propaganda.

So yes, some say your are either pro-adoption or anti-adoption. Well I can't be anti-adoption because I am an adoptive mother. But I am not Pro-adoption because I don't think all adoptions are necessary and see many negative aspects of adoption industry.

So there is that middle gray area in any subject that people don't get. It is double speak propaganda that actually fuels the question answer areas though. Without the double speakers, well then we are all just intelligent adults having a conversation about how change should occur, and we can't have that!!!

So, I only have one (propaganda filled) thing left to say: You are either with me, or against me!!

I agree with Kazi. Its the "intent" behind adoption. Due to which its always considered a good thing in most situations and countries.

Sure you can celebrate the fact in India people do not like adoptions and think its a bad thing. And those millions in the orphanage,who cares about them !!

Feather in the cap for the anti- adoption activists.

To be blunt, if you take the most extreme position possible on an issue, you can't expect to go unchallenged about it.

If you are in fact in favour of adoption reform but feel that in some cases adoption may be an acceptable alternative, I think labeling yourself "anti-adoption" is going to confuse people, because you really aren't against adoption... you're for reforming it.

If, however, you are truly anti-adoption, meaning that you think adoption is wrong in every case, and should NEVER be allowed and is NEVER in the best interests of a child regardless of the circumstances-- then you're on the fringe of popular opinion. That doesn't mean you're wrong (though I would personality disagree, but I don't have the monopoly on being right,) but it does mean you can't just expect others to accept it without question.

Someone on the fringe of the other side would get questioned too. If someone thought adoption was ALWAYS in the best interest of a child, and EVERY child should be removed from their parents regardless of circumstances... that would be extreme. And they wouldn't find any more support than you're seeing for your own position-- even though they'd definitely be pro-adoption.

I think the issue is not that most people are strongly pro-adoption (I actually don't think most people really care about adoption unless they're directly involved in it,) but that if you're totally anti-adoption in all circumstances, you're on the fringe of public opinion. And you can't really compare any fringe position to a more centrist position in terms of acceptance.

The fringe is always going to get questioned. Calling yourself "anti" something as widely socially accepted as adoption tells people you're on the fringe of popular opinion. You have every right to hold those views, but you can't expect other people to consider it mainstream.

i think it is because mothers are vilified. They are either too poor, to young, too old, to irresponsible, etc etc... So when you believe that you are "saving" a child, no explanation is needed. What a crock.

I think for most it is just plain arrogant ignorance.

The pro adoption position is the majority position. That is a fact and has been for hundreds and hundreds of years. Do you know that MOST individuals believe in supporting mothers who make the most difficult decision in their lives to give up their child for the good of the child! Yes, MOST. Thus, the burden rests on the minority of anti adoption believers to justify your position.

I think it's a matter of intent, and in most cases the intent behind adoption is meant to be a good thing. Parents adopt because they wish to be parents. This is a good thing. Children will have families. This is a good thing. This is also the bulk of what the general public knows about adoption. The intricate layers of grief and loss and lack of equality are not as known and therefore people without a relationship to adoption would be unaware that they exist with the obvious outcome be a request for an explanation. I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing. If they are asking, it means the wish to know and they are listening. Ultimately they may not agree, but at least they'd know these issues exist.

Because of society's mindset that promotes only the good side.

Adoption - means you want a child to have a family.

Anti-adoption - apparently means you want children to languish in orphanages instead of looking into WHY those children up in orphanages and then HOW we can START thinking/doing (of) ways to prevent it, a little bit at a time.