Tina Rulli, in her article The Unique Value of Adoption, argues that adoption offers a unique value for prospective parents as it allows them to provide for a child in need rather than creating a child that will be in need. With this, she proposes that all couples look to adopt and not only couples having difficulties procreating, whether naturally or through Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART). She stresses that “adoption provides a morally noble opportunity to extend to a stranger benefits usually withheld for one’s genetic kin” (Rulli 110).
I fully agree with Rulli’s concept that adopting is an exemplary act that should be looked upon with dignity, and that greater importance should be given to the process of adoption. However, I am skeptical …show more content…
I believe that in her quest to justify and show the value of adoption, she quickly glosses over some serious issues with adoption, especially, with her promotion and acceptance of international and transracial adoption. Two of these issues are; couples’ wiliness to adopt a child in a society where it can be viewed negatively and the ever-present possibility of coercion, especially for families in developing countries. For these and other reasons, I argue that promoting adoption as a primary option for couples looking to add to their families, that is, they have one or more children and have the desire for additional children, rather than for first-time parents, especially those that have little or no problem procreating is a better option.
Rulli claims that the greatest value of adoption is that it helps a child in need of a family and I add that it helps a family in need of …show more content…
Culturally, infertility is a sign of weakness and a biological problem. Bearing a child is seen as what makes a human complete. Also, as described by Rulli, is considered to be a worthy act as it provides a better life for the adoptee. However, the presence of that adopted child is the constant reminder of infertility, for the person, and for society. This multiplies if the child is of a different race. With the reaction to the parents of Simone Biles and other cases, it can be said that in the USA, a couple with an adopted child will be viewed as doing something admirable, but at the same time, the child represents the infertility of the couple or at least that is the interpretation of society. It is an admirable act, but doesn’t exclude persons from seeing a couple’s infertility (even if that’s not the case, it is the assumption that is made). With this, I argue that Rulli’s views would best suit couples that have kids and are looking to add to their families. The presence of a previous child offers numerous positives that would make adoption a more attractive position. First, with a previous child, whether through normal sexual intercourse or ART, couples would have gained the experience of being a parent, and thus, would be less fearful of adopting. The experience of caring for a child reduces the fear of adopting. Second, the presence of a previous child could lessen the
I fully agree with Rulli’s concept that adopting is an exemplary act that should be looked upon with dignity, and that greater importance should be given to the process of adoption. However, I am skeptical …show more content…
I believe that in her quest to justify and show the value of adoption, she quickly glosses over some serious issues with adoption, especially, with her promotion and acceptance of international and transracial adoption. Two of these issues are; couples’ wiliness to adopt a child in a society where it can be viewed negatively and the ever-present possibility of coercion, especially for families in developing countries. For these and other reasons, I argue that promoting adoption as a primary option for couples looking to add to their families, that is, they have one or more children and have the desire for additional children, rather than for first-time parents, especially those that have little or no problem procreating is a better option.
Rulli claims that the greatest value of adoption is that it helps a child in need of a family and I add that it helps a family in need of …show more content…
Culturally, infertility is a sign of weakness and a biological problem. Bearing a child is seen as what makes a human complete. Also, as described by Rulli, is considered to be a worthy act as it provides a better life for the adoptee. However, the presence of that adopted child is the constant reminder of infertility, for the person, and for society. This multiplies if the child is of a different race. With the reaction to the parents of Simone Biles and other cases, it can be said that in the USA, a couple with an adopted child will be viewed as doing something admirable, but at the same time, the child represents the infertility of the couple or at least that is the interpretation of society. It is an admirable act, but doesn’t exclude persons from seeing a couple’s infertility (even if that’s not the case, it is the assumption that is made). With this, I argue that Rulli’s views would best suit couples that have kids and are looking to add to their families. The presence of a previous child offers numerous positives that would make adoption a more attractive position. First, with a previous child, whether through normal sexual intercourse or ART, couples would have gained the experience of being a parent, and thus, would be less fearful of adopting. The experience of caring for a child reduces the fear of adopting. Second, the presence of a previous child could lessen the