home
RSS
My Take: On adoption, Christians should put up or shut up
June 16th, 2011
03:11 PM ET

My Take: On adoption, Christians should put up or shut up

Editor's Note: Jason Locy is co-author of Veneer: Living Deeply in a Surface Society. He and his wife are adoptive parents and participants in Safe Families for Children, a voluntary alternative to foster care.

By Jason Locy, Special to CNN

When the Arkansas Supreme court struck down a voter-approved initiative that banned cohabitating straight and gay couples from adopting orphaned children, the Christian community predictably erupted.

Byron Babione of the Alliance Defense Fund, a coalition of Christian lawyers, attributed the April ruling to a “political movement afoot to undermine and destroy marriage.” Baptist Press, the publications arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, ran an article that quoted Babione as saying the ruling reflected “a campaign to place adult wants and desires over the best interests of children."

On one hand, these comments aren’t surprising. Conservative evangelicals have decried “the anti-family gay agenda” for decades. On the other, they underscore the way many Christians denounce a social problem that they have no plan for solving.

And the problem here is not ultimately gays adopting — the prevention of which, I believe, was the impetus behind the Arkansas initiative and behind adoption restrictions in various other states. The problem is a global orphan crisis involving tens of millions of children.

In the United States, there are approximately 116,000 foster children waiting to be adopted. That means a judge has either severed the rights of the original parents or the parents have voluntarily signed their children over to the government.

To put this into perspective, we might compare the number of American orphans to the purported 16 million Southern Baptists who attend more than 42,000 churches nationwide. Quick math reveals that there are roughly 138 Southern Baptists for every child in the American foster care system waiting to be adopted. To say it another way, this single denomination has an enormous opportunity to eradicate the orphan crisis in America.

If you’ve spent any time in church, you’ve probably heard a sermon on Noah or Moses or David. But how many sermons have you heard on the biblical mandate to care for orphans?

When was the last time you heard your pastor declare, “if you choose to adopt a child we will stand with you. We will provide respite care, financial help and do everything possible to meet the needs of that child?”

Southern Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Catholics — the Christian Church — can provide safe, loving, permanent homes for these kids. Our faith dictates that we fight for a better way in both words and deeds.

When Jesus asked Peter if he loved him, and Peter responded yes, Jesus didn’t tell him to picket the wolves. He told Peter to feed and tend his sheep.

Some churches and Christian groups are stepping up. Focus on the Family launched a Wait No More initiative in Colorado in 2008, forming partnerships between local churches, adoption agencies and the government in order to encourage families to adopt through the foster care system. As a result, the number of Colorado orphans waiting for a family has been cut in half.

Christianity Today ran a 2010 report headlined “Adoption is Everywhere,” illustrating the trend among churches and Christians who are giving “attention to orphans, adoption, the fatherless, and so on.”

Despite such efforts, the American orphan crisis remains. Too many churches still find it easier to stand behind a megaphone decrying the morality of laws than to stand beside a child in need.

Thousands of orphaned children in America need grandmas and grandpas, embarrassing uncles and crazy aunts. They need someone to teach them to fly a kite and throw a ball and read a book and tie their shoes. They need someone to call mom and dad.

In fairness, adopting a child is not easy and many of these children face difficult adjustments once they’re adopted. They have experienced pain, loss, hurt, confusion and misplaced trust. They have endured physical, emotional and sexual abuse — things most of us don’t even want to imagine.

In 2008, when my wife and I adopted through Bethany Christian Services, the organization educated us on the possible challenges of adopting a child. They informed us that even though our daughter was a baby when we brought her home, she would eventually ask tough questions, as would our friends and family.

But my wife and I know our faith demands action and that sometimes action takes us out of our comfort zone.

As a father of three — two biological children and an adopted child — and a host to a number of children that have needed a temporary home I can tell you these kids need less arguing over who should and should not be allowed to adopt and more families stepping up and saying, “we will adopt.”

It is time Christians decide to either step up or shut up. If a Christian group wants to wade into the discussion over who should adopt, it needs to put its money and manpower where its mouth is.

That means not only challenging families and churches to adopt from foster care (which costs virtually nothing financially) but also to adopt children resulting from unplanned pregnancies, children with special needs and children of mixed race or minority ethnicity.

If Christians’ only desire is to fight the culture wars and score political points, then they should continue to lean on empty rhetoric. But if they truly care about the family and the Bible, they’ll begin caring for children who desperately need a home.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Jason Locy.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Christianity • Opinion • Politics

soundoff (708 Responses)
  1. Mikey

    When it comes to Christianity, I'm afraid the emperor indeed has no clothes. When the writer said, " Too many churches still find it easier to stand behind a megaphone decrying the morality of laws than to stand beside a child in need" he hit the nail on the head. Conservative Christians lost their way long ago..........

    June 17, 2011 at 9:31 am |
    • PRISM 1234

      Christianity in America is NOT the picture of TRUE Christianity, and what it is supposed to be (See the post I wrote above).

      June 17, 2011 at 12:27 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @PRISM 1234

      You have no proof that your idea of "TRUE Christianity" is indeed true. It is just your opinion. And opinions are like anuses. Everyone has one.

      Letting fence sitters hear the truth
      Uncle Dave

      June 17, 2011 at 2:29 pm |
    • PRISM 1234

      You keep parroting "You have no proof"

      Oh, but yes, I have........and you will get yours – at your appointed time!

      P.S. Uncle Dave in his present condition is incapable of guiding anyone into truth!

      June 19, 2011 at 1:19 am |
  2. TeamMom

    This is not a faith issue, it's societal. Even God hates "religion"...that is pomp & ceremony & "show". FAITH is an altogether different thing. It is having a belief & living accordingly. None of us should be pointing a finger at any one group & placing blame on them. This issue is to be internally considered on an individual basis. I think the author chose to compare numbers of adoptable children to numbers of church-goers just to make a point...that we could do away with this issue if MORE people stepped up & became part of the solution, instead of just griping about it. Think about it...what have YOU done?

    June 17, 2011 at 9:18 am |
  3. Reality

    Then there is this information: http://www.prb.org/.../InternationalAdoptionRateinUSDoubledinthe1990s.aspx

    "International Adoption Rate in U.S. Doubled in the 1990s

    (January 2003) The United States adopts more children from abroad than any other country. The number of foreign children adopted by U.S. parents has increased sharply, and nearly doubled during the 1990s (see Figure 1). At just over 20,000 in Fiscal Year 2002 — less than 5 percent of legal immigrants — international adoptees add relatively little to national population growth, but they contribute to the United States' racial and ethnic diversity and links to foreign countries. And because many adopted children come from a different racial or ethnic background than their American parents, they contribute to the blurring of racial and ethnic boundaries.

    --------––

    One reason for the rise of international adoptions is the dwindling supply of adoptable children within the United States.1 Increased access to contraception, the availability of legal abortion, decreases in the teen birth rate, and reduced social stigma surrounding unmarried parenting are among the reasons that there are fewer U.S.-born children available for adoption. Some demographers also point to the postponement of marriage and childbearing as fueling the demand for adopted children. Women in their 30s or 40s are more likely to encounter problems getting pregnant and carrying a pregnancy to term than younger women, and some turn to adoption to have the child they want.

    Unmarried American mothers are no longer a common source of children for adoption. Although the percentage of births to unmarried women has increased dramatically since the 1970s, and accounted for one-third of all U.S. births in 2000, many unmarried mothers now keep their children or transfer their children's legal custody to relatives rather than put them up for adoption. Young teenage mothers are less likely to keep their babies, but the birth rate for young teens has fallen steadily since 1991, according to the National Center for Health Statistics.

    Another reason why many parents are looking abroad for children is that adopting within the United States is legally complicated, slow, and costly. Public adoptions through the foster care system are less prone to legal snarls but are much slower, making it difficult to adopt children while they are still infants. Less than 2 percent of children adopted through the foster care system in 1998 were infants, compared with 46 percent of children adopted from abroad.2

    Georgia Deoudes, director of policy for the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Inst-itute, sees other reasons that prospective parents turn to international adoption. For one thing, she said, "There seems to be some idea among prospective adoptive parents that adopting internationally is somehow easier or less expensive. That isn't, in fact, true."3 A more likely motivation is that international standards for adoptive parents are in some ways more lenient. Older couples and single adults who might be rejected by private U.S. adoption agencies are more likely to be accepted by adoption agencies in foreign countries. Finally, there appears to be a more clear-cut termination of the birth parents' rights with international adoption that appeals to many prospective parents."
    ============================================================================================

    June 17, 2011 at 9:10 am |
  4. Erin

    I'm a Christian, and I agree whole-heartedly with this article. We're not all a bunch of demonizing backwards conservative right-wing slobbering Neanderthals, hee hee. Just visit John Shore dot com to meet other liberal Christians!

    June 17, 2011 at 9:06 am |
  5. John

    The author has a point, but the answer is simple (regarding the aforementioned US adoption issue). We need to enact legislation to lower the cost of adopting children, or give large enough tax breaks to families to offset the enormous adoption costs. Virtually every family I know who has adopted children have gone out of the country to do so. Not because they want a baby from a different culture, but because they cannot afford the cost of adopting an American child. On top of the enormous cost of adopting a child, a lot of states will make you live in the state for up to a month prior to adopting the baby. government and legislation are the problem.

    June 17, 2011 at 8:51 am |
    • Aita

      Honestly, my view on this is that it makes sense: If you want a kid, you should be able to support one well above the poverty level. I believe no child should live in poverty, but until basic citizenship includes healthcare and the ability to live without financial concern, the least they can do is make sure that the people adopting have the money and means to take care of a child.

      Not that I don't think many more people should adopt and the like, and the bureaucracy should probably be taken down a notch, but the costs of raising a child are enormous, and they should be considered during adoption: if you can't afford the adoption fees, how are you going to have the money to take care of the kid?

      June 17, 2011 at 9:24 am |
    • SeanNJ

      @Aita: Think of it as the difference between being able to afford a monthly mortgage payment as compared to paying the down payment.

      It's not like the adoption fees go into some sort of escrow for the child's care. They line someone else's pockets, and could prevent otherwise perfectly financially capable parents from making a kid happy.

      June 17, 2011 at 9:40 am |
    • Biz0

      You state, "We need to enact legislation to lower the cost of adopting children, or give large enough tax breaks to families to offset the enormous adoption costs."

      This is simply not true. When I adopted my daughter from Foster Care 6 years ago, the total net cost (after reimbursement for things like fingerprinting, etc) was Zero dollars. Plus, the Adoption Tax Credit (see IRS form 8839) was large enough we had to take it over two tax years. The size of the credit now has significantly increased since that time too.

      The article quoted above (from prb.org) said it well: "There seems to be some idea among prospective adoptive parents that adopting internationally is somehow easier or less expensive. That isn't, in fact, true." You are proving that point.

      June 17, 2011 at 10:02 am |
  6. Very Concerned

    The article claims that Christians denounce social problems they do not have a plan to solve. The plan is GOD's plan, spelled out clearly in the Christian Bible. The problem is, too many people (Christians and otherwise) want to have their cake and eat it too. They do not want to adhere to God's plan, but expect all of society to respond with His compassion when their way doesn't work out. Also worth noting, Christian's don't claim to be perfect, only to serve a perfect God. So, pointing out the shortcomings of Christians is to justify wrong is a cop out.

    June 17, 2011 at 8:31 am |
  7. Brcas

    As a christian, I much prefer to make snarky judgmental comments about the behavior of everyone else rather than being a role model and doing good deeds. Carry on.

    June 17, 2011 at 8:05 am |
    • Bill the Cat

      Fallacy of the excluded middle. One can be both a concerned Christian and a good role model.

      June 17, 2011 at 8:28 am |
  8. Tio Taopi

    Isn't it frightening to see Christians leaders pretend that they are the role model for the world? This whole thing started with the Catholick Church who had a contest to see who had the best stories to be put into a religious book. These fictional stories were compiled into what is now the New Testament. It is supposed to be the Truth with a capital T. But it is Fiction with a capital F. What makes believers of fiction superior to believers in fact? Hype. Stop the crap. No religion is based on reality. Nonsense based on nonsense leads to insanity. Our laws are insane because of this.

    June 17, 2011 at 7:46 am |
  9. opus512

    What, practice what they preach? That'd be unamerican!

    June 17, 2011 at 5:57 am |
  10. God (the REAL one)

    Yes, they should adopt the unwanted non-white babies that they fight tooth and nail to defend before birth and top being such hypocrites.

    But they won't now, will they?

    June 17, 2011 at 5:30 am |
    • opus512

      For too many conservatives life begins at conception and ends at birth.

      June 17, 2011 at 5:57 am |
    • Valentijn

      Obviously the babies are only helpless and require protection when still in the womb. Once they are born, it is their responsibility to pull themselves up by their umbilical cords and provide for themselves.

      June 17, 2011 at 7:04 am |
    • Bill the Cat

      If a baby is unwanted, then DON'T DO WHAT IT TAKES TO MAKE ONE!! But, no!! That'd imply personal responsibility and maturity... something Libtards couldn't care less about

      June 17, 2011 at 8:30 am |
  11. Krys

    Well said. Thank you! Just think – the time and money spent on frivolous legal battles and protests could be used to adopt one or more children and to provide financial support for a year or more. I am a single mother of an adopted child. It is expensive to adopt and expensive to raise a child. If you do not want to adopt a child but have the financial resources, consider sponsoring someone who wants to parent a child.

    June 17, 2011 at 5:30 am |
  12. Herby Sagues

    No, please. The thing Christian have to do is to STOP having children. When a Christian raises a child, they have the OBLIGATION to brainwash the child before he's old enough to know better.
    Religion is an inheritable disease.

    June 17, 2011 at 5:24 am |
    • opus512

      Oh please.

      June 17, 2011 at 5:58 am |
  13. dxp2718

    Children may desperately need a home, but the adoption process is long, arduous, and expensive. Most people simply can't afford to adopt, even if they want to. Funny, though, that anyone who wants to can have biological children; even if they're infertile, their medical insurance will pay for fertility treatments. There is a double standard here; it is way too easy to have biological children and prohibitively difficult to adopt orphans.

    June 17, 2011 at 4:57 am |
    • ams

      Not all insurance companies pay for fertility treatment! Most will pay for diagnostic treatment to see what the problem is but not for fertility treatment. The process to actually get pregnant is paid out of pocket. Believe me, I know!

      June 17, 2011 at 7:06 am |
    • stepasidesue

      It's not necessary to adopt theses poor children. It is a relatively simple process to be a foster parent. I've been complaining about this for years. If you don't believe in abortion or providing birth control, at least foster some children and that doesn't cost a thing.

      June 17, 2011 at 8:54 am |
  14. KL

    I hate to see this topic used as a tool to attack my faith. I would like to stress that there are thousands of Christian families who have adopted. I cannot walk 10 feet in my church without bumping into a family with adopted children, including our Senior Pastor. I think more focus should be on the difficulty of adoption in this country and the costs associated. Most families cannot afford to adopt, even if they wanted to. It takes years and tens of thousands of dollars. I know of someone that cannot even adopt a family member without a year-long legal battle.

    June 17, 2011 at 4:52 am |
    • ChicagoAnthro

      I am the adopted child of a christian family. You bump in to them all the time because christians parade adopted kids around so people praise them for 'saving' these unclean children...its about the adoptive parents cultural standing, not about providing a stable home for the child. I know many kids in the same boat...we had to stand there while these so called good people talked about how terrible our life would have been if not for their blessed interjection. We are innocents that had a decision made for us, but we spend our lives being reminded of how we owe our families. Any normal thing a kid does to get in trouble is treated as slap in the face from an ungrateful child.

      June 17, 2011 at 8:09 am |
    • Bill the Cat

      Exactly! But don't tell the bigots that. They can't stand when financial reality derails their sanctimonious rants.

      June 17, 2011 at 8:15 am |
    • Bill the Cat

      So, Chicago, your experience all of the sudden becomes the norm for all children adopted by Christians? Wow! Does your ego keep you from getting through doors?

      June 17, 2011 at 8:16 am |
    • HH

      Absolutely true. We were introduced as "these are our two little adopted girls," rather than "these are our daughters." I asked my adoptive mother repeatedly to stop this. She'd laugh and say, "Oh, LISTEN to her! She just hates that. It's SO cute!" It was cruel.

      Everyone reminded of us of how lucky we were to be taken in, and reminded that we had been unwanted (in both cases, this turned out to be untrue), which is just downright cruel to tell a child. They were more concerned with "saving us for Jesus" than letting us be normal kids.

      The home itself was full of abuse, including domestic and alcohol violence.

      June 17, 2011 at 8:18 am |
    • ChicagoAnthro

      Bill The Cat: Does yours? I told you about my experience and those around me...but you shot it down, because non christians are not allowed to have a valid point maybe? Thanks for reminding of me of how I was treated as a child...unworthy and without merit.

      June 17, 2011 at 8:20 am |
    • ChicagoAnthro

      Thank you for sharing HH. Bill the Cat is confusing our personal experiences with overarching statements about all christians...but then we are used to that, right? I am sure there are good christian parents who dont introduce their kids as "my adopted children"...I just havent met any, which is unfortunate. In my family, I was the only adopted one out of four and we were introduced, by my mother as "these are my sons _____, my daughter ______, and my adopted daughter _____".

      June 17, 2011 at 8:31 am |
    • Bill the Cat

      Chicago said “Bill the Cat is confusing our personal experiences with overarching statements about all Christians”, and yet, in his earlier post said: “…because Christians parade adopted kids around so people praise them for 'saving' these unclean children”.

      So, Chicago, it is YOU who is confusing your personal experience with overarching statements about all Christians who adopt.

      June 17, 2011 at 8:34 am |
    • Bill the Cat

      Apologies. Her, not his.

      June 17, 2011 at 8:35 am |
    • ChicagoAnthro

      I didnt say ALL christians, Bill. Maybe your 12th grade christian academy did not tell you about context? My context was that in my experience christians...not ALL christians....parade their adopted kids around and constantly tell everyone they are adopted. I am allowed to have an opinion after spending every waking moment in church (and traveling to other churches with choir) from 0-18 and tell others about what I experienced and observed.

      If you are mad about what people think about christians than look at your own dirty laundry and help your fellow christians realize people dont like them for real reasons, not made up ones.

      June 17, 2011 at 8:41 am |
    • stepasidesue

      Foster! It's free!

      June 17, 2011 at 8:55 am |
  15. Ken

    These hypocritical, so-called Christians won't adopt because they only pretend to care for the unborn. They could not care less about the welfare of children after birth.

    June 17, 2011 at 4:40 am |
    • Bill the Cat

      Liar.

      June 17, 2011 at 8:17 am |
  16. Limbaugh is a liberal

    Right wingers would adopt... except most children to be adopted are black, nad not necessarily the adorable white baby they imagined. So they say 'nevermind!' They are on the forefront of protecting the UNborn, but once the baby is born, they are on their own!

    June 17, 2011 at 4:36 am |
  17. rachel

    Adoption is a wonderful thing and I'm all for. Personally I will never adopt from the fostet system in America because social workers grossly overstep their boundaries. Children are taken for made up reasons. Peoples lived are ripped apart by the people who are supposed to protect us. CPA targets good parents instead of focusing on bad parents such as the lady who put her infant in a microwave. I.couldn't live with myself if I knew I may have helped break apart a good family. This article doesn't mention that part of the reason so many children are in the foster.system is because social workers manipulate the system. If you are going to adopt get your child from someone who willingly gave them up or passed away .

    June 17, 2011 at 3:53 am |
    • Chad

      Seriously? Even if the social workers or the system are not perfect, the prevailing policy is to reunify children with their biological parents. This is only prevented in cases where the parents stop making the effort to reclaim their children. I don't know about you, but if CPS wrongly took away one of my kids, I wouldn't give up and let them become wards of the state. Either way, it's not the poor kids' fault. All of these children deserve loving homes and parents who are committed to raising them and showing them love. Your dismissal of foster children is apathetic and shameful.

      June 17, 2011 at 4:03 am |
    • Biz0

      As someone who has adopted from the foster care system, I can tell you your fears are unfounded.

      Kids only become adoptable when their parents have either refused or failed to follow the case plan required to get their child back. A potential Foster-Adopt Parent is made completely aware of the case the child comes from, and can refuse to take the child if they want. In the case of "good parents" mistakenly targeted, you won't be able to adopt their kids, because they will do everything required to get them back. It's the "bad parents" who - after being given many chances, still either can't stop using drugs or don't attend their anger-management program or whatever - that lose their parental rights.

      June 17, 2011 at 10:37 am |
    • rachel

      It differs by state. In some states you have much longer to turn things around and get your child back, in others you have 6 months. I know for a fact that CPS can seize children from mothers who were abused, even if nothing happened to the child. There are laws being put in place to stop this. It's so foolish to punish a mother for something someone else did. In the state of IL for instance the numbers have gone way down because the laws have become more strict about permanently taking children. Most people don't know this, but CPS is in dire need of reform.

      June 17, 2011 at 1:58 pm |
    • Rhea

      My niece and nephew were taken for this exact reason. They should be returned to their mother, she has done everything they have asked. Every time my sister is told to do something she does it. They keep making things up, when she has evidence that proves otherwise. CPS is not your friend.

      June 17, 2011 at 2:06 pm |
  18. JudgeNotLestYeBeJudged

    They love to force women to have babies – but then they never support legislation to help them. So much for being Good Samaritans and true Christians.

    June 17, 2011 at 3:50 am |
    • Chad

      They love to force women to have babies? Come on: I am a Christian and my adopted children outnumber my biological children. Your hasty generalizations are just silly; I couldn't force my wife to do anything. We make decisions together, and sometimes she has better ideas about what those decisions should be. Shall I address the next lame hasty generalization?

      June 17, 2011 at 4:09 am |
    • opus512

      Chad, I commend you for your good works, but you're the exception not the rule.

      June 17, 2011 at 5:59 am |
    • rachel

      what he means by forced to have babies is that most Christians are against abortion. Catholics are even against birth control. I come from a large family with too many children. I love my siblings, but my mother lost her mind from the pressure. She couldn't handle it and went crazy. My sister who is 10 years younger than I am was raised by me. I took on more of a motherly role than my own mother. Why does religion force people to do this? It just rips apart families and destroys lives.

      June 17, 2011 at 2:09 pm |
  19. BibelotSheep

    If there is a God...I would beg him to destroy religion. Ya'll suck.

    June 17, 2011 at 2:53 am |
    • Chad

      Check out the book, "Small Town, Big Miracle," and you will have a different picture for what faith in God can do for our world. This article is right: Christians need to step up and follow Christ. Feed His sheep, don't simply spew rhetoric (Christ is the way and the life, not just the climatic part of a sentence spoken at a tent revival or on a televangelist's late night program).

      June 17, 2011 at 3:56 am |
  20. JOregon

    I find this commentary just that.
    A commentary without any factual support.
    In other words, total BS.

    Disclosure:
    I believe couples of any orientation deserve equal rights (including adoption), just don't call it marriage.
    I no longer attend a Southern Baptist Church, my beliefs are more in line with the original S. Baptists than those of today.

    Back when I did attended a Southern Baptist Church several members had adopted children.
    One family had 12 children 3 by birth the rest adopted.
    I am a Christian father of 2, Dad of 4.
    While many might want to adopt there are reasons they can't/don't.
    Many financially can't support a large family.
    Many aren't confident of their financial future.
    Many are having marital problems.
    Many people are in church because they have overcome a rocky life.
    The reasons for not adopting are many.
    Quite simply it doesn't always fit into every family.
    Not everyone is mentally or emotionally capable of dealing with an adoptive child, especially those children that often come with "baggage".
    Jason Locy,
    Really yours was a commentary without substance.

    June 17, 2011 at 2:48 am |
    • OvernOut

      I have a child who dreams of adopting, as she is uncertain if she should have children of her own because she has epilepsy. I am at a loss as to how to tell her she will never be allowed to adopt or even be a foster parent due to her condition, even if it is currently under control. Articles like this do nothing but heap guilt on a young person who is already burdened enough. I hope she never dates a guy like this author, he would look right past her anyway. His loss, not hers.

      June 17, 2011 at 5:37 am |
    • mom26

      That is precisely why the author points out that there are over one hundred SB for every child in foster care available for adoption. Adoption is not for everyone – but ONE in that 100 should and could. Your job..since you can't adopt...is to support those who do. Donate to their fundraiser. Volunteer to bring over some meals. Take a Saturday and help the adoptive father put up a swing set. Listen when they mom is struggling and needs encouragement. Conservative estimates state that there are 147 million orphans in the world. If under 10% f the world's Christians would adopt, the orphanages would be empty.

      June 17, 2011 at 8:36 am |
    • stepasidesue

      What, a child with baggage isn't worth saving??? We all have baggage. Just another excuse.

      June 17, 2011 at 8:59 am |
    • JOregon

      @stepasidesue
      Often that baggage requires enormous $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
      Also not every person is mentally capable of dealing with issues.
      Of course they need to be adopted, it is just that not every family is a good mix.
      There are children that have violent capabilities, should they be mixed in with a family with an infant?
      I remember a news story where a toddler was killed by such a child. That child needed a unique home to develop properly.

      June 17, 2011 at 10:04 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.