A response by Matthew to comments posted on this blog and on Amy Plummers Blog.
I have only known Amy Plummer for a short while. The only time we have really worked together was when we both, along with a few other concerned citizens were fighting against the nudist colony coming to Belton. On that we agreed it was bad for our area.
I appreciate her kind words towards me in her latest blog titled “Adoption should be Expensive”. However, I must vehemently disagree with her thoughts and reasoning behind thinking that people should have to pay a lot of money when they want to adopt a child.
A child that someone wants to adopt is a human being, not goods or services. It is NOT the more I pay for a child the more I will love and take care of that child. Money value put on the adoption process is not an indicator of the best candidate for being a parent. If that flawed philosophy were accurate that would mean that people in general are better people when they have more money and that kind of thinking is absurd and dangerous.
Yes, the process should be very detailed and responsible. We don’t want children going into bad homes with bad people. However, just because someone can’t afford to put down a $30,000 lump sum doesn’t mean they don’t deserve to be able to give a needy child a good home. The end result of adoption agencies should be to place children in a good, well structured and loving home.
If we are to go by Amy’s standard then most of you reading this blog probably wouldn’t be good enough to have children or at least adopted ones. I surely would not be in her category of the best candidates.
For instance, I know of a couple that lives in my district that can not have children. They have tried many options and have not been successful. They are not rich but they are looking at adoption. They can not afford these sometimes huge adoption fees. These are very nice, caring people who go to church and do home bible studies. So, according to Amy they do not deserve a child if they can’t pay the huge down payment. According to her if they love enough they will pay more. That is wrong. No matter how you decorate it up it is still wrong. Love, want, need, desire, passion, compassion or charity is never measured by what you are willing to pay.
My bible states in 1 Tim 6:10” For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.” KJV. The bible also states in 1 Cor 13 “Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self seeking, it is not easily angered – It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails. – And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest is love.” NIV.
Love is the greatest and it is not measured by money. If it is, it is not love. I am not mad at Amy for disagreeing with me. I love to debate people on many different issues. As far as I know Amy is a good mother and I applaud her for raising six kids in this world. She should be proud of her accomplishments. I just think she is looking at adoption in the wrong way. More expensive doesn’t translate into better or more when it comes to love!
Let the debating begin.
Matthew
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
She's the last person in the world that needs to be giving parenting advice.
She spends more time with a particular married man, then her own children. She routinely seen out at the "see and be seen" spots long after the kiddies should be put to bed.
And she seems to think she runs the council meetings. Go to one. I am there almost every meeting. Debating her is futile. She's perfect.
I actually (sorry) agree with Amy Plummer on this issue... I'm not sure why she felt compelled to qualify her comments on her blog with those "I'm sure he's a good Christian" comments; I thought that seemed a little condescending in the context, given that one's position on this topic doesn't have anything to do with one's spiritual condition.
But anyway, this is really just an issue of economics (economics, just to be clear, is a very broad study of human behavior, not just making and buying stuff). Basically, it's like this: People potentially have a lot of different motivations for adopting a child. It's fairly common, for example, for people to have children or to take in foster children for purposes of getting more money from the government; attaching a large fee to adoption creates a disincentive for adopting children for that purpose. Some people could have other, even less virtuous purposes, God forbid. Of course there is a screening process that potential adoptive parents go through that should weed some of these out, but the financial barrier just adds one more layer of protection there.
Even in terms of those with pure motives, having a large financial investment up front makes them think a little more seriously about the decision. Without that cost, some people might be somewhat more inclined to adopt out of impulse rather than after longer, more careful consideration.
Now, on a purely human level, the involvement of money in the process does leave a bad taste in our mouths -- we look at it almost as making children into a commodity. But that's not what it's doing. It's simply a matter of people behaving rationally. When the cost of doing something is higher ("cost" need not always be in the form of money, btw, but money is generally the most effective way to make it more tangible to people, since folks often don't give proper weight to costs that are less visible), people put more thought into going through with it than they would if the costs were lower.
I do agree with you in the sense that I think there should probably be some sort of means testing in setting the adoption fees. People who are wealthy will be impacted very differently by a, say, $10,000 fee than people of more average income, and poorer people will be excluded entirely, which is hardly equitable, and does nothing to help with the rational purposes of the fee that I described above. So, I do think the fee should be adjusted to income somehow.
Post a Comment