This is an excerpt from my paper exploring the influence of religion on the choice between adoption and parenting among unwed mothers.
The earliest records of adoptions come from ancient Babylon, c. 1700 B.C.E. The Judeo-Christian tradition records two significant adoptions, that of Moses to Pharaoh’s daughter, which Moses repudiated, and the adoption of Ester by Mordecai, which reflects Persian law rather than any Judaic custom. “Talmudic Rabbis relied upon these two references to support their teaching that an orphan brought up in one’s household was, according to scripture, to be treated as a child born to the family. Talmudic law does not recognize legal adoption (Babb 1999).” Jewish law “refused to recognize such an institution within Jewish law. Rather they created an institution called ‘A Person Who Raises Another’s Child’ which is quasi-adoption.” This institution does not change the legal status of the person whose custody has changed. (Broyde 2005)
Adoption figures historically in many eastern cultures, but on very limited scales. The eastern cultures venerated ancestors to highly ritualized degree, so adoption outside of bloodlines was rare, though a male without heir in China could claim the firstborn of any younger brothers to avoid dieing without issue. In the Indian subcontinent, adoptions involved ritualized practices attempting to match the child as closely to what the biological offspring of the adopting parents would have been. The Islamic tradition initially allowed adoption, and Mohammed reportedly adopted a freed slave; Mohammed changed this practice in a subsequent revelation (Babb 1999).
In the Greece of Aristotle and Plato, orphans were protected, while the practice of contraception was encouraged, and when it failed abortion was preferred. The needs of families and of the child were secondary to the needs of the state, and populations of orphans could be “reduced” if necessary. Roman adoptions were primarily concerned with continuation of the adopter’s family (Babb 1999).
After the fall of Rome in 425 C.E. Christian practice placed the value of the individual above the needs of the state. The Christians adhered to the admonition in James, “This is pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and father, to visit orphans and widows in their distress.”(Babb 1999 citing James 1:27) St. Basil founded the first Christian orphanage in the fifth century. Formal adoption, however, almost ceased to exist during this period. Because adoption was seldom practiced during the middle ages, many orphans struggled to survive.
Most of the adoption laws today are based on the Roman traditions and laws (Babb 1999).
Beginning in about 1620, orphans were sent to the colonies, or otherwise “bound out” as indentured servants. Children whose parents could not care for them, that were not indentured or apprenticed, were sent to foundling homes, where many of them died.
“[T]he history of adoption since before colonial times demonstrates an overriding concern for the needs and interests of adults rather than children. Any benefit to children ‘was a secondary gain (Cole & Donelly 1990).’
During the 19th century, adoptions were primarily concerned with providing a source of cheap labor for farms, and with removing the poorest children from U.S. cities. Babb (1999) tells us that there was no market for adoptable infants in the 19th century and most unwanted children died. Mortality rates were between 85 and 90 percent.
The term “baby farming” was common in late nineteenth and early twentieth century cities but by 1920 or so most states had taken action against the commercial practices it suggested and the term was on the decline. It referred to placing-out infants for money as well as to their sale for profit. Many clients were unwed mothers, prostitutes, and destitute or deserted wives who needed help with their children while they worked for wages. Although most baby farming amounted to what we now call family day care, it developed a terrible reputation when exposes uncovered horrific abuses and horrible death traps. Stories about baby farming in newspapers and magazines were reported in lurid detail that called upon crude gender, racial, ethnic, and class stereotypes. These scandals helped to mobilize political support for child welfare regulation, including minimum standards such as state licensing, certification of child-placers, and investigation of foster homes (Herman 2007a).
The first private adoption agencies specializing in infant adoption started to pop up between 1910 and 1930. Founded by amateurs with elite backgrounds, these agencies differed from common professional opinion and the practice of other child welfare agencies of the day. “They did not consider unmarried mothers and their babies to be complete family units and did not see the point in strenuous efforts to keep them together. In this sense, these pioneering adoption agencies, founded by amateurs, anticipated by many decades the pro-adoption ethos of the post-World War II years. During these years, adoption became ‘the best solution’ for illegitimate children, unmarried mothers, and infertile couples (Herman 2007b).”
Between 1924 and 1950, a woman named Georgia Tann operated an orphanage and adoption placement service in Memphis, Tennessee. “Georgia had arranged over five thousand adoptions between 1924 and 1950, many involving children she kidnapped. She had molested some of the little girls in her care and placed some children with pedophiles (Raymond 2007).” Regulations and new laws have slowed the practice of child stealing and trafficking for adoptions in the United States, but the practices continues in the international adoption arena. Pound Pup Legacy lists nearly 150 cases from 1950 to the present (Pound Pup Legacy 2009b). The most recent case I am aware of is that of the “Focus on Children” adoption agency in Orem, Utah, which trafficked in children from Samoa that they acquired from parents by deception, and placed with further deceptions (Reavey 2009). The penalty imposed by the courts was minimal, the traffickers were ordered to pay $108,000 into a trust fund, and are barred from working in the adoption industry for life (Thompson 2009).
Religious Views on Unplanned Pregnancy and Adoption as Pregnancy Resolution for Unwed Mothers.
Islam Under Islamic custom and Sharia law, women are not permitted to be alone with men other than close relatives, whether married or not married. In countries governed by Sharia, the penalty for premarital sexual relations can be death to both parties by stoning. Consequently there are few Muslim women who become pregnant before marriage, and there would be little public information about such pregnancies (Religious Tolerance 2002).
Concerns with lineages and genealogy as well as strict prohibitions against endogamy result in a practice, even in the case of orphans, of fostering rather than adoption to preserve the patrilineal heritage of the child. The father’s next of kin become the guardians of orphans and, if the next of kin is too poor to raise the child, the community contributes to the child’s welfare and needs (Coward & Cook 1996). In cases where the father does not claim a child in Muslim countries, the child is relinquished to the state, which takes over guardianship, or kafala for the child. The state provides a name for the child and either places the child with a, usually childless, family, or places the child in an orphanage, but the family does not adopt the child and the state remains legal guardianship. The state retains legal custody and guardianship of the child, and may change arrangements as necessary. Information as to how these practices are adapted to Islamic practice in the United States is scarce, but illegitimate children living with Muslim mothers are extremely rare (Irfan 2005).
Buddhism[i] Buddhism is not a family or child centered religion, so there is no specific doctrine that deals with issues of premarital sexual relations, unplanned pregnancy, or adoption. In order to understand Buddhist views, it is necessary to extrapolate from general Buddhist principles and teachings
Buddhism is not concerned with marriage, but considers it a civil affair. In general, Buddhism is liberal with regard to sexual relations and does not prohibit any form of relationship from typical marital monogamy to homosexual relationships or polygamy as long as the relationship does not violate the five core precepts of Buddhism. The five precepts are: (1) abstaining from harming living beings; (2) abstaining from taking what is not given; (3) abstaining from sensual[ii] misconduct; (4) abstaining from false speech; and (5) abstaining from intoxicants. Therefore there would be no general prohibition of premarital sexual relations nor would Buddhism assign any stigma to an out-of-marriage pregnancy. These five precepts create the framework that governs all Buddhist ethics (Harvey 2000).
A key tenet of Buddhist teaching is the quest for ‘detachment” from worldly things, so the Buddhist would not determine whether to relinquish or adopt based on the notion of continuing a family legacy or other types of familial attachment. Buddhist philosophy also views human beings as interdependent and denies the existence of “self” or ownership of one’s body, so a decision to relinquish or adopt or abort would not be based on the rights of any particular individual, but on the best interests of all of the parties within the interdependent group (Harvey 2000).
Hinduism Like Buddhism, Hindu views on adoption, unwed pregnancy and pregnancy resolution are difficult to determine. We can however, draw some conclusions from Indian Personal Law, which is different for the different religious groups within India (Gangoli 2007). The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (HAMA) of 1956, has provisions for parents to “give” a child in adoption, and also has provisions for the adoption of an abandoned child or child of unknown parentage, so we must conclude that there are abandoned children among the Hindus in India. The Hindu culture, however, places a high value on male children as “payment of debt to the ancestors” and a much lesser value on female children, to the extent that infanticide of infant girls is problematic in India. This muddles the picture of whether these abandoned children are from unwed mothers or unwanted children of married mothers. But we can conclude that infant adoption is acceptable under Hindu traditions.
The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act has restrictions on who can give a child in adoption, with final decision being made by the father in most cases. The statute also prohibits any payment of any type in connection with the adoption, and does not allow a family to adopt a male child if there is already a male in the family, or a female if a female is already in the family.
Hindu marital customs are too complex to detail here, but Michaels and Harshav (2004) tell us, “And to a large extent, the wife is seen as the property of the husband. Even the illegitimate children he himself did not beget ‘belong to him,’ like the fruits of the field.” It appears from this that Hindus practice both adoption and parenting.
Pagan Traditions The idea of Pagan tradition comprehends so broad a scope that a discussion of all of the various marital customs, views and practices would require more space than is available for this paper. The Wiccan Rede’s “An’ ye harm none, do what ye will,” is a typical Pagan view on moral questions. It follows that premarital sex would face no condemnation or stigma from a Pagan worldview.
Most Pagan and neo-Pagan traditions (AREN undated) celebrate and venerate things of nature. Paganism is sensitive to environmental issues and issues of animal rights. Many eschew the sterility and distance from nature of modern life-styles, preferring herbal remedies to modern medicine, preferring to grow their own gardens rather than purchase packaged and processed foodstuffs.
From this worldview, it is easy to see where a Pagan would see the natural bond between a mother and child as sacred and worthy of veneration. It is equally easy to see that the Pagan worldview would the see severance of the mother-child bond as it occurs in cases of infant adoption as harmful to both mother and child. Like the Buddhist, the Pagan would likely see mother, child and prospective adoptive parents as interdependent, and look for a solution that serves the best interests of all concerned, even the greater society. Unlike the Buddhist, the Pagan would not seek “detachment,” but would cherish the parental attachment.
Judaism In Jewish traditions, very little stigma attaches to a child born out of wedlock, unless that child is born from a sexual union prohibited by Jewish Law which would classify the child as a mamzer (Jacobs 2002). Although the Hebrew Bible tells the story of Ester being adopted by her cousin Mordecai, the Hebrew language did not have a word for “adoption” until the 20th century. Jewish people have concerns about bloodlines, tribal affiliation, etc. that complicate adoption of Jewish infants (Blank undated). As a result, there are few Jewish infants relinquished for adoption (JCCA undated). Instead, other family members provide homes for orphans or other children in need, and the Jewish culture provides community and family support for the unwed or single mother.
Infertile Jews are encouraged to adopt, and Jewish tradition holds that adopting and raising children is, “as if one has given birth to them (Dorff 2003).” Some, such as Elliot Dorff (2003), even see adoption, as well as procreation, as vital to the survival of Judaism. In a lengthy endnote, Dorff describes the debate under Jewish law over whether the adoption changes the legal status of the child, or whether the adoptive parents are acting as agents of the biological parents. If Dorff’s writings are representative of Jewish sentiment and understanding, then the Jewish community also recognizes that adoption poses emotional hazards for both birth mother and child. According to Broyde (2005), “Jewish adoption looks much more like long term foster care than the classic American adoption.” Broyde also notes that “closed” adoptions, which conceal the identity of the birthparents from the child, would be contrary to Jewish custom and legal interpretation.
Protestant Christianity Protestant Christianity in the United States covers a wide range of viewpoints, with each denomination and sub-denomination potentially having a different viewpoint. “Adoption’ as a metaphor for salvation figures prominently in Protestant theology, as Protestants believe that they are “adopted children of God,” and also that Joseph was the de facto adopted father of Jesus in mortality, though the concept of adoption may have come from Roman or Greek traditions rather than deriving from Judaism. Stephen Post (2005), quoting Alan Donagan, describes a principle of Judeo-Christian tradition that, ”It is impermissible for human beings voluntarily to become parents of a child, and yet refuse to rear it to a stage of development at which it can independently take part in social life.” However, Post goes on to point out that there are circumstances in which the birth parent is not able to rear the child, and in such circumstances, relinquishment is permissible, or even preferred, for the best interest of the child. We can probably say, generally, that Protestant views fall somewhere on a continuum for deciding where the birth parent is not able to rear the child, with liberal Protestants accepting single parenting, and conservative Protestants leaning toward relinquishing, when the mother is unwed.
Adoption is also seen by Protestants as an alternative to abortion, and is actively promoted as such by many Protestant denominations and Protestant adoption agencies (e.g. Thompson 2009).
It is also worthy of noting here that religiosity appears to be correlated with increased teen birth rates, “With data aggregated at the state level, conservative religious beliefs strongly predict U.S. teen birth rates, in a relationship that does not appear to be the result of confounding by income or abortion rates. One possible explanation for this relationship is that teens in more religious communities may be less likely to use contraception (Strayhorn & Strayhorn 2009).
One pair of adoption critics describes the “Christian Right’s” position as, “These four elements of pro-family activism contribute highly to the number of babies available for adoption. Abstinence-only education helps create unwanted pregnancies, birth control prohibition makes prevention of unwanted pregnancies less likely, anti-abortion activism promotes unwanted pregnancies to be carried to term and the bashing of single mothers prevents mothers to choose to keep their baby (“Kerry” & Hoogeveen 2009).” They extend this logic to impute a profit motive.
Catholic Christianity Lisa Sowle Cahill (2005) describes five ethical principles that guild Catholic adoption practice: “1. Adopting children can fulfill the gospel command to love one’s neighbor, through a ‘preferential adoption for the poor;’ 2. Adopting children creates families that can fulfill the needs of all members for intimacy, love, and support, thus going beyond ‘sacrifice’ to ‘fulfillment; 3. Adoptive relationships do not erase the importance and value of biological kinship, as well as racial and ethnic identity, especially for adoptees; 4. Adoption is part of a larger social justice picture. It is ethically mandatory for all those involved in adoption to challenge social structures that disrupt families, exploit women and children, and create the necessity for families with resources to adopt children of families unable to meet basic needs. 5. Adoption ethics requires the participation and decision making authority of all participants, including birth families and adoptive families, as well as service providers who can represent the needs and interests of communities that send children to families abroad through international adoption.
Latter-day Saints The LDS Church is included here because its policy represents an extreme view, and because the LDS Church is headquartered here in Utah. Of all the religions I’ve studied, the LDS policy is the easiest to nail down, and is the most extreme pro-adoption stance. The LDS First Presidency established the church’s policy in a letter dated Jun 15, 1998 (LDS First Presidency 1998), sent to unit leaders, and published in the church’s flagship Ensign magazine in April 1999. “Every effort should be made in helping those who conceive out of wedlock to establish an eternal family relationship. When the probability of a successful marriage is unlikely, unwed parents should be encouraged to place the child for adoption, preferably through LDS Social Services. Adoption through LDS Social Services helps ensure that the baby will be reared by a mother and father in a faithful Latter-day Saint family.”
The LDS Church routinely publishes articles in its flagship magazine Ensign describing adoptions with positive outcomes,(e.g. “My Daughter’s Choice” 2004, Burch 2006), and church leaders are instructed not to counsel parenting. This is one of the few areas where LDS thinking does not run to personal responsibility and self-reliance. The tenor of these articles is that the child will be better off with two adoptive parents, especially if they are “sealed” in the LDS Temple, than with a single biological mother.
It was somewhat dismaying to discover that the LDS Church published false information in the February 2002 Ensign (LDS Family Services 2002)., a claim was advanced regarding outcomes for birthmothers who relinquish their children. “Young women who choose adoption are more likely to complete high school and go on to higher education. They are more likely to be employed and less likely to live in poverty or receive public assistance. They are also less likely to repeat out-of-wedlock pregnancy.” To support this claim they cited Kristin Moore, et. al.(1995) Adolescent Sex, Contraception, and Childbearing: A Review of Recent Research. A review of this 224 page paper however reveals no information whatsoever on adoption outcomes; the paper is a study of antecedents of various pregnancy resolutions. If this study has any relevance at all, it shows that there is a bias toward relinquishment by mothers in the upper middle class who are predisposed to value – not necessarily achieve – the outcomes claimed by the Ensign article. A second study (McLaughlin 1988), cited as a “see also” reference, did make findings of the outcomes claimed, but the study population, by its own admission, was subject to significant selection bias and a small sample size, with results not generalizable to any other population.[i] The description of Buddhist views is a synthesis from many different general sources on Buddhist practice and ethics too numerous to be individually listed, and too common to require listing. Harvey 2000 is a good first reference.
[ii] Some sources have this as “sexual” rather than “sensual” misconduct. I have chosen to use the broader definition. Buddhism would not condemn non-marital sexual relations, but would not promote them either. Different branches of Buddhism define sensual misconduct differently, so a more precise term would be unwarranted.
Comments