Adoption: The First Option Stamp

I'd rather give a child my love than give a child my genes.

While some people become parents without planning to, many couples make a conscious choice to stop taking birth control and attempt to procreate. They are financially stable and feel ready to raise a child, so they have sex with that intent. If dozens of attempts fail, they may spend thousands on fertility drugs or procedures. If all else fails, they may consider adoption.

However, there are millions of orphans and children around the world who need a home. In the US alone, tens of thousands of children age out of the foster care system every single year, often leaving them homeless. These children need someone who will open their heart and their home to them, but the sad fact is most people choose to produce a new child, even if it's difficult, rather than help the millions who are already here.

Parents can love a child and pass on their genes, but if only a tiny fraction of prospective parents adopted instead or in addition, those millions of children would have homes.

Children need homes and families want children, so why do so many people choose producing more humans instead of caring for those that already exist?

Part is that it's easy as well as being considered "normal" by society, but another part is how many people view children: as possessions.

When many people think of adopting a child, they have a reaction of that child being a stranger and a primal fear instinct briefly flicks in their brain. However, when they think of their biological offspring, it feels familiar, like that child is really "theirs" and a part of them.

But is it really more loving to let children go homeless because you don't think of them as possessions the way you can your biological child? Of course not.

Choosing between love and genes may sound like a false choice, but any couple that can adopt but chooses passing on their genes over adopting a child in need of a family is actively choosing genes over love.

Subconsciously, many people think it's easier to love a child that has their genes than "a stranger's child", but a child is not property of those whose DNA they share. They are not "mine" or "theirs". They are unique human beings with their own lives, souls and rights. Thinking of people as property is not loving. It's slavery.

Not everyone can adopt and not everyone would make a good parent, but there are children who already exist and need love. There are families who want children and feel ready to raise them. The world is not desperately in need of more people. To not consider adoption first places value of a theoretical future person over the many real people who currently exist.

In essence, it's choosing genes over love.

It's incredibly difficult to not have a family, to watch the other kids go home to their parents, to know people would rather breed new kids than adopt you or wait for a baby because they believe it's "a blank slate". All you want is a family to call your own and someone to love you. Is that too much to ask?

No, no it's not.

Adoption: The First Option

---

Ways that you can help adoptive children (and the shocking statistics of children in need):
fav.me/d9ywmvf

debunks common excuses not to adopt (using cute animals!):

"It's too expensive."

"It's someone else's problem."

"Not everyone is called to adopt."

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

"Jesus didn't adopt."

"How dare you tell me I should adopt!"

"A marriage needs sex to sustain it and that gets in the way of adoption."

"Adoption advocates are judgmental."

"Only having biological children carries on your family line."