What Did You Expect to Happen?

What does the fox say? The fox says get your act together.

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

______________________________________________________________________

"We should not take precautions to avoid getting pregnant in order to adopt."

There are people, who, when encouraged to adopt, say they have too many kids. Yes, there comes a point when what's done is done, but you have a choice up until that point. If you want more than one child, you can do both, you know. You can adopt and have a biological child. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Lots of people do it. So why is it that so many couples choose to have only biological children? Why do they sacrifice their potential to adopt on the altar of passing on their genes multiple times? Personally, I plan to have one or two of my own (God willing), and adopt.

Obviously not everyone who disagrees with birth control, sterilization, and the like is anti-adoption, and sex itself is not anti-adoption (couples who adopt still have sex), but it is anti-adoption to use those things in a way that prevents you from being able to adopt. If you say that eating meat and veggies is healthy, but then eat only sugary carbs, just how important do you really believe meat and veggies are? It's the same with adoption. If you say that adoption is wonderful, but then don't do anything to support it, just how important do you really believe it is? The rabbit in this comic is not anti-adoption. He/she is upset that they won't be able to adopt, but when the fox offers some potential solutions to give them the ability to adopt, the rabbit shoots them down as "evil." Just how important does the rabbit believe adoption is?

Christians generally respond by saying that "God creates life in the womb," or "God opens and closes a woman's womb," as if they as the married couple have no part in conception. They speak and act as if they haven't made the connection between sex and pregnancy. It's quite strange, actually. We know they're smarter than that, so why are they playing stupid? Yes, God is the one who ultimately decides when a woman gets pregnant, but God also wants us to use wisdom, and He has set up natural laws about when you can and can't get pregnant. If you don't do the do, pregnancy won't happen, and if you reduce the chances of the egg meeting the sperm (birth control and sterilization), then you reduce your chances of pregnancy. The only exception was with Jesus, and Jesus was a special case.

The things the rabbit says in the comic are things that I have had people actually say to me. I actually had one young mother give me all of those excuses. It was such a textbook response, it was a little scary. This woman was pregnant before she got married and then had two more babies in quick succession. Basically, she's pregnant every other year. We got talking about adoption one day and I asked if she'd thought about adopting. (At the time I didn't know that her husband had been to jail so they probably didn't qualify, otherwise I wouldn't have pressed the issue. She didn't mention that, anyhow, so I had no way of knowing.) When asked if she wanted to adopt, she explained that she keeps having babies. I recommended birth control or possibly maybe a vasectomy if all else failed (which is generally reversible), and she told me that she believes most birth controls are abortive and that a vasectomy would be "anti-family." And when I suggested that maybe if she didn't want to do those other things, that maybe she and her husband could...not tempt fate? You know, at least not as much? This was her response: "So unless I disobey the command from God and completely abstain from a physical relationship with my husband there really is no sure fire way to make sure a pregnancy will not ensue." So yeah, people do say these kinds of things. I think they need to be addressed.

First, most birth controls actually aren't abortive. They just work to keep the egg from reaching the sperm in the first place. Read about some options here: www.abort73.com/abortion_facts… . You can also do an internet search of "non-abortive birth control." More information about Christians and birth control: www.thevillagechurch.net/sermo… .

Second, how would a reversible method of preventing pregnancy in order to give you the freedom to adopt a child be anti-family? You're not shrinking your family or forcing it to stay small. You're just deciding to get a child(ren) from somewhere other than sex. How is it anti-family to show a homeless child what love and family is? It seems that folks like our rabbit consider only one type of family to be valid: biological family. Besides, vasectomies are generally reversible and rarely have health consequences, so if you change you mind or if you can't adopt for some reason, you can still have your own kids later. Birth control is much preferable to sterilization, because there's always a chance it might not be reversible. However, some people would rather sterilize themselves because it is more effective than birth control.

And last but certainly not least, God does not command sex ever. He allows it in marriage. He does not command it. The command to "be fruitful and multiply" was to a very specific group of people during a very specific time, first when there were only two humans on the entire planet, and again when there were only eight, and adoptive children were nowhere in the picture at either of those times. There are over 7 billion of us now. We have followed that command. That's a thing of the past. Bringing it up as an excuse for sex vs adoption is a moot point, and is a logical fallacy, quite a selfish one, really.

If there were ever decisions in marriage that need to be highly collaborative, they are decisions about when it is wise to have sex. Wives bear the results of contraceptive and reproductive decisions in their bodies in a way that husbands do not. The husband therefore has the responsibility to hear, receive and weigh his wife’s thoughts with love and compassion. To command anyone, within or without a marriage relationship, to have sex, is the definition of rape. And as I made a long, detailed stamp about the Bible and rape, we know where God stands on that (if you haven't seen that stamp, here it is: the-cynical-unicorn.deviantart….) Now, you may not be aware of this, but there's a very large camp in the Christian Church that says God commands sex in marriage. They quote a short passage in 1 Cor. 7:2-5 to make this claim, but they take the verse out of context. I will quote the entire passage (1 Cor. 7:1-6): 

“Now for the matters you wrote about: “1 IT IS GOOD FOR A MAN NOT TO HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH A WOMAN. 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 I SAY THIS AS A CONCESSION, NOT AS A COMMAND.” (NIV) 

Interesting, huh? Almost every single person who brings up this Bible passage to preach sex sex sex leaves off the first and last verses. Paul is permitting couples to have sex. He isnotcommanding couples to have sex. Heallows it. Sex is not the most important part of marriage, and thus it should never come before another person’s well-being. Love does not equal sex. Obviously Paul is not recommending complete abstinence within marriage, but also neither is he commanding that couples sex it up every night like many Christians believe. Thus, sex should NEVER be an excuse to avoid adoption and have only biological kids. Remember, you can adopt and have biological kids. It's not like you have to do one or the other.
Some Christians may also tell you that sex is a picture of Christ's love for the church, but that's a false analogy. Nowhere in Scripture is Christ's relationship with the church portrayed as errotic. It is portrayed as loving leadership, like the family structure of a husband and wife, but never errotic. Some people point to Song of Solomon as an example of eroticism, but Song of Solomon is clearly describing Solomon and one of his wives (research the history of the book if you don't believe me.) It is not an allegory of Jesus and Christians. Not everything in the Bible is metaphorical or allegorical.

One final thing I feel I must mention is how people think of parenthood as what’s in it for them. "I want a big family, I want a biological baby, I don’t want to deal with mental or physical disabilities, I want adorable offspring, I want to see myself in my child's features, I want to feel a kid squirm around in my uterus, I want to experience birth, I want to play with my wife's pregnant belly, I want to bang my wife every night, I don’t like birth control, I want to watch my children grow from babies to adults, I don’t want court dates for adoption, I don’t want to spend any money unless it's a hospital fee for a birth, I want this, I want that, I, I, I, I, I!" Has anyone stopped to think about what the children want? Have people ever stopped to realize that parenthood is actually not about the parents? Parenthood is supposed to be a loving sacrifice for the CHILDREN. When did people become so self-centered that they forgot that? It's sad. Shouldn't love know no bounds?


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.