Land: Single Mothers Should Put Kids Up for Adoption

Richard Land, the now-deposed head of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, has a column in the Christian Post arguing that single women should put their children up for adoption by “Christian families” — and they’re selfish if they don’t.

Adoption is not only the best answer for the heartache and loneliness of foster children and those in orphanages both here and around the world, but it is also the best answer in almost every case where a mother finds herself with a “problem” pregnancy. Such pregnancies can arise from numerous circumstances, but most commonly they are a “problem” because the father is not married to the mother. Currently, almost all such single mothers choose either to abort or keep their babies (only 1 percent of such pregnancies currently end in adoption). Last year, 53 percent of babies born to women under thirty were born to single mothers. And yet, though adoption is seldom chosen in response to such pregnancies, it is virtually always the best option for everyone concerned.

Killing your “problem” or “unwanted” pregnancy through abortion is never an acceptable option (unless the child is a direct and immediate threat to the mother’s continued physical life.) In an abortion, the baby always dies, and we lose that child’s unique and never to be known God-given gifts and contributions to the world. Further, an abortion is much more traumatic physically to a mother’s future reproductive life than carrying a baby to term would be. There are also often lingering psychological issues for the mother as well.

Keeping the baby is almost never preferable to allowing a baby to be adopted into a solid, faithful Christian home. A single mother who keeps her baby is quite often denying that baby the father that God wants for that baby, and every baby, to have. Furthermore, in most circumstances, keeping the baby circumscribes and forecloses both the mother’s and the baby’s economic futures in tragic and unfortunate ways.

If the mother is doing what is best for her baby (one of the defining marks of maternal love), she will part with her baby so that it will have the future God intended for him or her to have. The Old Testament story of the two harlots who both had babies and one died in the night comes to mind (1Kings 3). Both women claimed the surviving baby was their child and wanted the king to give the baby to them. King Solomon decided to have the baby divided in two and each be given half. Immediately, the real mother told the king to give the baby to the other woman in order to save the child’s life. In other words, she was thinking of the child’s best interest, not her own.

Adoption allows the mother to give her child both a mother and a father who will love and cherish the child.

Right, because a single mother could never love and cherish their children, amirite? And that statement I bolded leaves my jaw agape at how inane it is. He must believe that God decides every pregnancy, that every single pregnancy is the result of God’s will, right? So God gave a child to that single mother, but now she has to give the child up for adoption “so that it will have the future God intended.” I’ll take cognitive dissonance for $1000, Alex.

POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • D. C. Sessions

    I’ll take cognitive dissonance for $1000, Alex.

    Only because you (unlike Land) are capable of it.

  • John Pieret

    Funny, his biography:

    http://www.drrichardland.com/about

    … doesn’t mention anything about his having adopted any children of single mothers.

    Maybe he doesn’t have one of those solid, faithful Christian homes.

    Or maybe he’s just a hypocrite.

  • uzza

    About three non-sequiters in, he identifies[sic] the problem:

    they are a “problem” because the father is not married to the mother.

    Assuming that were true, doesn’t it logically follow that the father should stick around? Oddly, this is not followed by a diatribe against fathers abandoning their babies to certain death if these heroic single mothers don’t save them.

    Even Solomon felt it was best for a child to be raised by a single (presumably unmarried) prostitute rather than ask for the missing father to take responsibility.

  • coryat

    ‘Killing your “problem” or “unwanted” pregnancy through abortion is never an acceptable option (unless the child is a direct and immediate threat to the mother’s continued physical life.)’

    ‘[…] so that it [the baby] will have the future God intended for him or her to have.’

    Two interesting (albeit unrelated) quotes. Presumably God intends some fetuses to pose a direct and immediate threat to the mother’s continued physical life.

  • D. C. Sessions

    Presumably God intends some fetuses to pose a direct and immediate threat to the mother’s continued physical life.

    Well, DUH! After all, she’s a baby murderer.

  • joelperkin

    No reference to Murphy Brown? He really missed a golden opportunity.

  • jnorris

    Richard Land, the now-deposed head of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, has a column in the Christian Post …

    Someone at the Southern Baptist Convention got smart. The Christian Post not so smart.

  • karmacat

    And what if the father dies? I assume that would be ok to Land because the mother is not a “slut” by his definition. It is all code to punish those women who are not under the thumbs of men. Notice, he doesn’t talk about single fathers

  • uzza

    Coryat @4

    When depleted uranium causes women in Iraq to bear a fetus with cancerous tumors and no head, you insist abortion is not an acceptable option? You would force her to give birth and expect someone to adopt?

  • raven

    has a column in the Christian Post arguing that single women should put their children up for adoption by “Christian families”

    Watch out people!!! The Christians really are coming for your kids!!!

    1. They know that converting a normal adult without putting a gun to their head first is difficult. They target children, including yours any way they can. They are predators.

    2. Letting Christian families, especially Oogedy Boogedy death cultists adopt children is a perfectly horrible idea. I wouldn’t do it or let any one do it in a billion years.

    There are reasons besides the fact that their death cults is based on and teaches nothing but lies, hypocrisy, and hate. And SBC’s Land illuminates one of them. A lot of death cultists look at adoption as a recruiting tool. They don’t care about the kids per se. They are just pawns in their culture war, objects.

    And occasionally they end up killing their adopted kids in gruesome human child sacrifice rituals.

  • coragyps

    Remind me again about the supply and demand situation regarding freshly born babies and prospective Christian heterosexual couples slavering to adopt them? I can’t remember how those numbers come out…

    And yes, I am aware of how damn difficult it is to adopt a kid in the US. And I admire people that go through the process anyway. But Land is speaking of a different world than this one.

  • raven

    From what I’ve seen of the adoption industry, I would put adoption near the bottom of any list of options. This subject can’t be covered adequately in a blog comment box but to summarize:

    To be sure, not all adopted parents are wild eyed, death cult xian fanatics, intent on raising a crop of brainwashed meat puppets. Some are wonderful people, doing a far better job than most biological parents. Steve Jobs, was adopted to take just one example.

    1. But a lot of them aren’t competent, don’t care, or are adopting for dubious reasons. The fundie xians are the worst of the lot.

    They do it for cult religious reasons or as a recruiting tool. The children are just pawns, tools, objects in a war with normal people.

    2. One problem that has come up over and over is adopting families getting tired of the kids and passing them on or giving them up. There is no followup on where these kids go. And some of them end up as sex slaves, human trafficking is alive and well.

    3. One of my college friends was adopted from Europe. One day her father tried to kill her by strangulation because he thought she was a lesbian (she isn’t). That was the last time she ever saw them.

  • whheydt

    Hmm… Let’s see… My father spent time in orphanages after his father died (TB, 1917) so even though his parents were married, his mother was “single”. Wonder what Land would make of that situation….

    AS for the number of “out of wedlock” births…the numbers are suspicious. A few years ago someone took a close look at the “single birth mother” statistics in California and discovered a major flaw. The numbers were generated by comparing the surnames of the parents because California birth certificates don’t specify whether or not the parents are married and a rising trend is for women NOT to change their names. That meant that a lot of kids born to married parents were being counted as being to unmarried mothers.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=523300770 stuartsmith

    So God gave a child to that single mother, but now she has to give the child up for adoption “so that it will have the future God intended.”

    You seem to be forgetting how terrible their god’s aim is. He’s forever smashing whole cities just to get a few gays, devastating countries in order to revenge himself on an overwhelming minority of the population, and that kind of thing. It’s hardly a stretch to think he also sends babies to the wrong place.

  • raven

    Americans using Internet to abandon adopted children – News

    news. msn. com/us/americans-using-internet-to-abandon-adopted-children‎

    Sep 9, 2013 – Abandoned adoptees: Former adopted child Quita Puchalla looks out the … When she arrived in the United States, Quita thought she was “coming to a … parents and others advertise unwanted children and then pass them to …

    This is an example of the problems adopted children can face. Being advertised on the internet and then passed on to who knows who. It’s suspected that some of these children end up in kiddie porn and as child prostitutes. If you think about it, why would anyone buy a child off of a website? Or advertise one for that matter.

    It’s not the only adoption problem either.

  • coryat

    @ Uzza #9

    No, I have no issue with abortion, and I have no sympathies with Land. I haven’t explained myself well. The point I was trying to make was that Land thinks that God has plans for every child. (‘[…] so that it [the baby] will have the future God intended for him or her to have.’)

    In the same article Land acknowledges that some fetuses pose potentially deadly health risks to the women carrying them. ‘Killing your “problem” or “unwanted” pregnancy through abortion is never an acceptable option (unless the child is a direct and immediate threat to the mother’s continued physical life.)’ Therefore, Land should acknowledge that in some circumstances God’s plans for a child involve it posing a deadly risk to a woman. This is barbaric in my opinion, and if Land was sane it should give him pause for thought.

  • uzza

    Thanks for clarifying. “If Land was sane…”, LOL! God or not, if your plan includes shit like this, you’re not sane.

  • raven

    Southern Baptists Have Fewest Baptisms Since The 1950s And Are …

    www. huffingtonpost. com/…/southern-baptists-fewest-baptisms-since-195…‎

    Jun 12, 2011 – Baptisms in the Southern Baptist Convention, the nation’s largest … Southern Baptists Have Fewest Baptisms Since The 1950s And Are Losing Members … Membership, currently 16.3-million, is down for the fourth year in a …

    This is what is driving Richard Land’s plan.

    The SBC is losing members, 6 years in a row now. They made a huge push to up their baptisms. They are down too, 5% last year. Their own numbers show them being cut in half in a few decades.

    Everyone knows the fundies can’t recruit so they have to reproduce. And that isn’t working either. Retention rates of young people run around 30%.

    So he thinks they can just round up all those kids born to single mothers instead. That isn’t going to work either. Richard Land and the SBC don’t care about kids. They care about power and money and bodies are just a means to that end. People know it and they don’t like it.

    It’s Hitchen’s Rule again. Religion poisons everything.

  • colnago80

    Re raven @ #12

    Steve Jobs, was adopted to take just one example.

    As was Larry Ellison.

  • Moggie

    Come on, God was the ultimate deadbeat dad. Knocks up a married woman, then stands idly by while his son drifts into a life of crime which ultimately results in his execution. And don’t get me started on his Abraham and Isaac gag. It’s best to ignore what he wants for your family, unless you want to wind up in jail.

  • D. C. Sessions

    Steve Jobs and Larry Ellison are not exactly poster children for adoption building good citizens. Or even sane ones.

  • mordred

    This idea actually follows a good Christian tradition. Only a few decades ago the Catholic Church helped in taking children away from people opposed to the Franco regime in Spain and giving them to good Christian parents.

    The last I heard, they still refuse to open their archives to the victims who want to find out who their real parents are.

  • D. C. Sessions

    Only a few decades ago the Catholic Church helped in taking children away from people opposed to the Franco regime in Spain and giving them to good Christian parents.

    In South America, you don’t have to go back nearly that far. In fact, that’s one of the little skeletons in the current Pope’s closet — I don’t think anyone is exactly accusing him of participation, but only of conveniently not noticing what was going on.

  • http://timgueguen.blogspot.com timgueguen

    I’m surprised no one has pointed out that he’s using a gross stereotype of single mothers, that they’re all poor and have no support system. For that matter in many 2 parent families the father might just as well not be there for how much he contributes to the upbringing of the kid(s).

  • raven

    Only a few decades ago the Catholic Church helped in taking children away from people opposed to the Franco regime in Spain and giving them to good Christian parents.

    Yeah, happened in Argentina too. The parents aren’t looking for their kids though. The parents were mostly killed, often in rather horrible ways.

    A similar thing happened in Ireland. The Magdalenian Laundry scandal. The kids weren’t quite adopted, just used as slave labor under dismal conditions.

  • http://polrant@blogspot.com democommie

    “It is all code to punish those women who are not under the thumbs of men. Notice, he doesn’t talk about single fathers”

    Because fathers don’t father children and then abandon them. Only women do that and, um, erm. ahhhh, let me get back to you on this, later.

    @21:

    Well, maybe Jobs and Ellison were BORN assholes and their nurture had nothing to do with it.

  • ambassadorfromverdammt

    Does it not occur to Land that god’s plan for mom was that she accept the challenge of raising a child on her own, or abort if that is her choice because He gave her the free will to make the choice?

    Of course not, because that is not what Land perceives as being in Land’s best interest.

    Does it not occur to Land that god’s plan for him was the he go through life proving what a collossal douchenozzle he is?

  • smrnda

    I also think it’s presumptuous to assume that because a man is not married to the father of a child that this necessarily equates to an absentee father. There *are* single mothers getting child support, and people who aren’t married to the other parent of their child do not necessarily totally abandon them. This guy’s a typical fundie, presenting the false dichotomy of either “loving, married 2 parents Christian family” or “evil single mom and evil absentee deadbeat dad.”

  • chrisdevries

    mordred @22 said:

    This idea actually follows a good Christian tradition. Only a few decades ago the Catholic Church helped in taking children away from people opposed to the Franco regime in Spain and giving them to good Christian parents.

    A similar thing happened in Canada as well. Throughout the late 19th and entire 20th century, the Canadian government sanctioned the removal, en masse, of aboriginal children from their parents. They lived, 9 months of the year, in Catholic residential schools, which were given the appalling job of destroying their own cultural traditions and turning them into good Christians, fully assimilated to our ways.

    Obviously, this was a huge disaster, not just because the whole idea is basically the definition of cultural genocide, but because the Catholic Church has an amazing inability to eliminate sexual predators and sadists from its ranks. Unsurprisingly, abuse wasn’t just common, it was virtually ubiquitous. There was virtually no government oversight either, so the entire native population was the plaything of the institution that has fought to keep humanity ignorant and enslaved since Roman times. This went on, amazingly, until the 1990s. And now, people are surprised that the indigenous peoples of Canada only rarely lead happy, healthy lives, that aboriginal communities have such high rates of poverty (especially child poverty) and crime (worse still, many people have the gall to blame the high poverty and crime rates on aboriginals).

    The entire sordid history has “poisoned the well” so-to-speak, in aboriginal-caucasian relations here. Even good ideas that might actually improve peoples’ quality of life are shot down, or fail miserably, because aboriginal Canadians have no reason to trust anything that originates from do-gooder white politicians.

  • http://polrant@blogspot.com democommie

    @29:

    Victim blaming is an international tradition.

    Recently there was a story on NPR about “redlining”, the practice of denying home financing to certain demographic groups in the U.S. (read, “blacks”). Old news to most of us.

    What was NOT old news was that the redlining was being done by none other than the FHA which had a deliberate policy from around the time of the New Deal to deny financing to otherwise well qualified applicants based solely on their race.

  • http://polrant@blogspot.com democommie

    Continued:

    That single policy, redlining, is largely responsible for the ghettoization of the black community in the U.S. In addition to keeping the darkies in darkietown, we are able to blame them for their lack of respect for property and their financial irresponsibility. Shame on us.

    Oh, sorry, FUCK Richard Land.

  • yaque

    (delurk)

    and yet another bald faced lie. or two:

    “Further, an abortion is much more traumatic physically to a mother’s future reproductive life than carrying a baby to term would be. There are also often lingering psychological issues for the mother as well.”

    Jeebus, is he an ignorant a-woman-is-just-a-brood-mare asshole.

    I’m sure there are some health-care professionals here who can give us chapter-and-verse on how risky pregnancy can be, physically and psychologically.

    (relurk)

  • Nathair

    @Raven, #12

    From what I’ve seen of the adoption industry… [anecdote][anecdote][anecdote][Americentrism][ignorant sweeping generalizations]

    On behalf of both my adoptive parents, my adopted child, gay couples, non-reproductive people everywhere and all the children born into hideous circumstance , fuck you very much for your “thoughtful” input.

  • caseloweraz

    Indeed, if Land was sincere about giving children what he calls the life God intended for them, he would be devoting all his time to children in orphanages like those of Romania when the Ceaucesçu regime fell in 1989. (Though that particular need is probably as resolved as it’s going to get, there are plenty of needy children to adopt and the laws need a lot of work.)

    A Capsule History of International Adoption

    Although international adoption horror stories have been documented at length elsewhere (see our webpages dedicated to the subject), it’s useful to look at a few examples.

    In the 1980s, a number of Latin American countries were hit by child-buying and kidnapping scandals; in some cases, during civil wars, military forces were killing insurgents and selling their children into international adoption. And in 1989, for instance, after the fall of Nicolai Ceaucesçu, the televised sight of Romanian orphans warehoused in abysmal conditions broke many Western hearts. Thousands flocked to Romania to adopt. Many did take home institutionalized and often developmentally damaged children. Others fell under the sway of entrepreneurial locals who saw money to be made. As has been widely reported,5 by 1991 self-styled Romanian adoption “facilitators” were soliciting children directly from birthfamilies in hospitals, on the street, in poor neighborhoods, even in their homes, sometimes haggling over prices while shocked Westerners stood by. In response, Romania shut its doors to international adoption, reopening for reform, and then closing again when corruption returned—a tragic result for those children who do need new homes.

    Will we see Land step up to this? Not likely.

  • raven

    nathair the illiterate troll::

    On behalf of both my adoptive parents, my adopted child, gay couples, non-reproductive people everywhere and all the children born into hideous circumstance , fuck you very much for your “thoughtful” input.

    raven at #12:

    To be sure, not all adopted parents are wild eyed, death cult xian fanatics, intent on raising a crop of brainwashed meat puppets. Some are wonderful people, doing a far better job than most biological parents. Steve Jobs, was adopted to take just one example.

    Fuck you too, illiterate troll. I didn’t say just that and don’t appreciate being quote mined.

  • Nathair

    Fuck you too, illiterate troll. I didn’t say just that and don’t appreciate being quote mined.

    Oh of course, your sweeping generalization that you would “put adoption near the bottom of any list of options” is entirely ameliorated by your qualification that ” not all adopted parents are wild eyed, death cult xian fanatics, intent on raising a crop of brainwashed meat puppets”, just enough of them to make adoption the worst of all possible options. Apparently being pissed off by your brandishing such a pig ignorant generalization makes me both illiterate and, somehow, a troll. Yet if some commenter were to wander into Dispatches and opine that “Sure, not all doctors are shills for Big Pharma and poisoning children with toxic injections but I sure would put Western medicine at the bottom of my list of health care options” I am willing to bet you’d suddenly see a rash of what you’d call “illiterate trolls” taking umbrage at such idiocy on parade.