fbpx
Articles

3 takeaways from a recent survey of adoptive parents

/
August 16, 2022

Adoption is a concept deeply enmeshed in the Christian worldview, and the good news of the gospel is at its center. Christians believe that upon receiving Christ through faith, we are then adopted into the family of God by the Father. One of the outworkings of our being adopted by God is that we are often called to “go and do likewise,” demonstrating the kindness we’ve received from God to children who need a family, both here and abroad. In the United States, “practicing Christians are more than twice as likely to adopt than the general population.” And yet, according to a recently published survey, there is still a great deal of work left to do.

The National Council for Adoption (NCFA) recently released what they’ve called “the largest survey ever conducted on adoptive parents.” The survey “provides useful data to [people] interested in adoption,” and it aims to “equip adoption professionals, adoptive families, and prospective adoptive parents with information to help them in their role as part of the larger adoption community”—it is part one of a three-part study called “Profiles in Adoption.” And while there are many findings from the survey we could highlight, we will underscore three takeaways here below. 

Three takeaways from the NCFA survey

In an article summarizing the survey’s findings, the NCFA headlined their impression of the results this way: “Adoption really has changed, a lot.” And, as the report shows, they’re right; over the last 20 years adoption has changed dramatically. Along with those changes (some of which will be reflected below), there are also significant challenges with adoption, like its cost and the length of the adoption process. These challenges make adoption difficult for prospective adoptive parents and difficult on prospective adoptive children. Here are three takeaways from the survey. 

1. Adopting children with special needs.

Children with special needs are often the target of mistreatment even before they leave the womb. In the context of adoption, children with special needs—from those in the foster care system to those in other countries—regularly find themselves awaiting forever families for long periods of time. As of early 2021, there were an estimated “134,000 children with special needs awaiting permanent homes” in the United States, according to the National Adoption Center. And while, domestically, only about 13% of adoptions involve children with special needs, a number that is virtually unchanged since prior to 2010, the percentage of intercountry adoptions of children with special needs has risen exponentially over the last 20 years. “Intercountry special needs adoptions” stood at a mere 7.3% in 2000. In 2020, 61% of intercountry adoptions involved children with special needs (a number that has actually decreased from its high in 2018 of 79%). 

When mothers who are in unplanned pregnancies, carrying a child with special needs, choose to carry that child to term and place him or her for adoption, Christians ought to be among the first who’ll volunteer to give them a permanent home. Let’s pray that the 134,000 children with special needs awaiting homes in this country will soon find loving, forever families. And let’s rejoice that children with special needs from other countries are being given the chance to grow up in permanent homes. 

2. Cost of adoption.

According to the survey, the cost of a private domestic adoption has nearly doubled over the last 20 years, rising from an average of $17,017.96 to $33,141.83 in 2020. Likewise, intercountry adoptions in the same span of time have risen in cost from an average of $22,245.67 to $36,776.21. Unsurprisingly, data shows that because of these prohibitively high costs adoption is a near-unrealistic option for many families that desire to grow their family by adopting children who are awaiting homes. The overwhelming majority of families that secured either a private domestic adoption (72.4%) or an intercountry adoption (62.4%) earn in excess of $75,000-$150,000 annually. “More than half of families adopting privately or internationally viewed the cost of the adoption process as a barrier, even after completing the process.”

If Christians hope to prevail in our work of providing stable, loving homes for children who need them through the process of adoption, then it seems that the financial cost is something that must be addressed. Policy makers should think creatively on ways to address this staggeringly high barrier for families that wish to adopt children in desperate need of homes.

3. Length of the adoption process

On average, the length of time the intercountry adoption process took for survey respondents was a little more than 22 months—almost two years. Other organizations estimate the process takes as long as five years, depending, in large part, on the country the child is being adopted from. As for the process of adopting a child in foster care, the length of time varies based on one’s family structure. The process tends to move quickest for married couples (335 days, on average), followed by single females (373.6 days), unmarried couples (376.3 days), and single men (429.8 days). The process of adoption, whether domestic, intercountry, or from the foster system, is an investment not only of money but of time as well. 

Adoption, the heart of God, and the heart of his people

The motivations for adopting a child are wide-ranging, spanning (on this survey) from infertility to adopting a family member to a religious calling, all of which are good and honorable. For God, his motivation is singular, and clearly stated in the book of Ephesians: he adopts us because he loves us (Eph. 1:5). And “because God’s love has been poured out into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us” (Rom. 5:5), we ought to be driven to the ministry of adoption by this same love.

As long as children are in need of permanent homes and loving families, the people of God are called to care about adoption no matter the barriers, whether the financial cost or the process length or the challenges we’ll inevitably face in adding to our families. While the NCFA survey equips families with the information they need to determine what part they’ll play in the adoption community, it also reminds us that there’s work yet to be done. As the people of God continue our work in adoption ministry, tools like the NCFA’s Profiles in Adoption study can be just the boon we need. May we use all the resources at our disposal to carry out this ministry that is so near to the heart of our Father.

The NCFA survey is part one of a three-part study called “Profiles in Adoption.” Parts two and three will focus on the “experiences and characteristics of birthmothers” and the “lived experiences of adopted individuals,” respectively, and will be published at a later date.

Jordan Wootten

Jordan Wootten serves as a News and Culture Channel Editor at the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission and a writer/editor at RightNow Media. He's a board member at The LoveX2 Project, an organization seeking to make the world a better place for moms and babies. Jordan is a graduate of … Read More

Article 12: The Future of AI

We affirm that AI will continue to be developed in ways that we cannot currently imagine or understand, including AI that will far surpass many human abilities. God alone has the power to create life, and no future advancements in AI will usurp Him as the Creator of life. The church has a unique role in proclaiming human dignity for all and calling for the humane use of AI in all aspects of society.

We deny that AI will make us more or less human, or that AI will ever obtain a coequal level of worth, dignity, or value to image-bearers. Future advancements in AI will not ultimately fulfill our longings for a perfect world. While we are not able to comprehend or know the future, we do not fear what is to come because we know that God is omniscient and that nothing we create will be able to thwart His redemptive plan for creation or to supplant humanity as His image-bearers.

Genesis 1; Isaiah 42:8; Romans 1:20-21; 5:2; Ephesians 1:4-6; 2 Timothy 1:7-9; Revelation 5:9-10

Article 11: Public Policy

We affirm that the fundamental purposes of government are to protect human beings from harm, punish those who do evil, uphold civil liberties, and to commend those who do good. The public has a role in shaping and crafting policies concerning the use of AI in society, and these decisions should not be left to those who develop these technologies or to governments to set norms.

We deny that AI should be used by governments, corporations, or any entity to infringe upon God-given human rights. AI, even in a highly advanced state, should never be delegated the governing authority that has been granted by an all-sovereign God to human beings alone. 

Romans 13:1-7; Acts 10:35; 1 Peter 2:13-14

Article 10: War

We affirm that the use of AI in warfare should be governed by love of neighbor and the principles of just war. The use of AI may mitigate the loss of human life, provide greater protection of non-combatants, and inform better policymaking. Any lethal action conducted or substantially enabled by AI must employ 5 human oversight or review. All defense-related AI applications, such as underlying data and decision-making processes, must be subject to continual review by legitimate authorities. When these systems are deployed, human agents bear full moral responsibility for any actions taken by the system.

We deny that human agency or moral culpability in war can be delegated to AI. No nation or group has the right to use AI to carry out genocide, terrorism, torture, or other war crimes.

Genesis 4:10; Isaiah 1:16-17; Psalm 37:28; Matthew 5:44; 22:37-39; Romans 13:4

Article 9: Security

We affirm that AI has legitimate applications in policing, intelligence, surveillance, investigation, and other uses supporting the government’s responsibility to respect human rights, to protect and preserve human life, and to pursue justice in a flourishing society.

We deny that AI should be employed for safety and security applications in ways that seek to dehumanize, depersonalize, or harm our fellow human beings. We condemn the use of AI to suppress free expression or other basic human rights granted by God to all human beings.

Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-14

Article 8: Data & Privacy

We affirm that privacy and personal property are intertwined individual rights and choices that should not be violated by governments, corporations, nation-states, and other groups, even in the pursuit of the common good. While God knows all things, it is neither wise nor obligatory to have every detail of one’s life open to society.

We deny the manipulative and coercive uses of data and AI in ways that are inconsistent with the love of God and love of neighbor. Data collection practices should conform to ethical guidelines that uphold the dignity of all people. We further deny that consent, even informed consent, although requisite, is the only necessary ethical standard for the collection, manipulation, or exploitation of personal data—individually or in the aggregate. AI should not be employed in ways that distort truth through the use of generative applications. Data should not be mishandled, misused, or abused for sinful purposes to reinforce bias, strengthen the powerful, or demean the weak.

Exodus 20:15, Psalm 147:5; Isaiah 40:13-14; Matthew 10:16 Galatians 6:2; Hebrews 4:12-13; 1 John 1:7 

Article 7: Work

We affirm that work is part of God’s plan for human beings participating in the cultivation and stewardship of creation. The divine pattern is one of labor and rest in healthy proportion to each other. Our view of work should not be confined to commercial activity; it must also include the many ways that human beings serve each other through their efforts. AI can be used in ways that aid our work or allow us to make fuller use of our gifts. The church has a Spirit-empowered responsibility to help care for those who lose jobs and to encourage individuals, communities, employers, and governments to find ways to invest in the development of human beings and continue making vocational contributions to our lives together.

We deny that human worth and dignity is reducible to an individual’s economic contributions to society alone. Humanity should not use AI and other technological innovations as a reason to move toward lives of pure leisure even if greater social wealth creates such possibilities.

Genesis 1:27; 2:5; 2:15; Isaiah 65:21-24; Romans 12:6-8; Ephesians 4:11-16

Article 6: Sexuality

We affirm the goodness of God’s design for human sexuality which prescribes the sexual union to be an exclusive relationship between a man and a woman in the lifelong covenant of marriage.

We deny that the pursuit of sexual pleasure is a justification for the development or use of AI, and we condemn the objectification of humans that results from employing AI for sexual purposes. AI should not intrude upon or substitute for the biblical expression of sexuality between a husband and wife according to God’s design for human marriage.

Genesis 1:26-29; 2:18-25; Matthew 5:27-30; 1 Thess 4:3-4

Article 5: Bias

We affirm that, as a tool created by humans, AI will be inherently subject to bias and that these biases must be accounted for, minimized, or removed through continual human oversight and discretion. AI should be designed and used in such ways that treat all human beings as having equal worth and dignity. AI should be utilized as a tool to identify and eliminate bias inherent in human decision-making.

We deny that AI should be designed or used in ways that violate the fundamental principle of human dignity for all people. Neither should AI be used in ways that reinforce or further any ideology or agenda, seeking to subjugate human autonomy under the power of the state.

Micah 6:8; John 13:34; Galatians 3:28-29; 5:13-14; Philippians 2:3-4; Romans 12:10

Article 4: Medicine

We affirm that AI-related advances in medical technologies are expressions of God’s common grace through and for people created in His image and that these advances will increase our capacity to provide enhanced medical diagnostics and therapeutic interventions as we seek to care for all people. These advances should be guided by basic principles of medical ethics, including beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice, which are all consistent with the biblical principle of loving our neighbor.

We deny that death and disease—effects of the Fall—can ultimately be eradicated apart from Jesus Christ. Utilitarian applications regarding healthcare distribution should not override the dignity of human life. Fur- 3 thermore, we reject the materialist and consequentialist worldview that understands medical applications of AI as a means of improving, changing, or completing human beings.

Matthew 5:45; John 11:25-26; 1 Corinthians 15:55-57; Galatians 6:2; Philippians 2:4

Article 3: Relationship of AI & Humanity

We affirm the use of AI to inform and aid human reasoning and moral decision-making because it is a tool that excels at processing data and making determinations, which often mimics or exceeds human ability. While AI excels in data-based computation, technology is incapable of possessing the capacity for moral agency or responsibility.

We deny that humans can or should cede our moral accountability or responsibilities to any form of AI that will ever be created. Only humanity will be judged by God on the basis of our actions and that of the tools we create. While technology can be created with a moral use in view, it is not a moral agent. Humans alone bear the responsibility for moral decision making.

Romans 2:6-8; Galatians 5:19-21; 2 Peter 1:5-8; 1 John 2:1

Article 2: AI as Technology

We affirm that the development of AI is a demonstration of the unique creative abilities of human beings. When AI is employed in accordance with God’s moral will, it is an example of man’s obedience to the divine command to steward creation and to honor Him. We believe in innovation for the glory of God, the sake of human flourishing, and the love of neighbor. While we acknowledge the reality of the Fall and its consequences on human nature and human innovation, technology can be used in society to uphold human dignity. As a part of our God-given creative nature, human beings should develop and harness technology in ways that lead to greater flourishing and the alleviation of human suffering.

We deny that the use of AI is morally neutral. It is not worthy of man’s hope, worship, or love. Since the Lord Jesus alone can atone for sin and reconcile humanity to its Creator, technology such as AI cannot fulfill humanity’s ultimate needs. We further deny the goodness and benefit of any application of AI that devalues or degrades the dignity and worth of another human being. 

Genesis 2:25; Exodus 20:3; 31:1-11; Proverbs 16:4; Matthew 22:37-40; Romans 3:23

Article 1: Image of God

We affirm that God created each human being in His image with intrinsic and equal worth, dignity, and moral agency, distinct from all creation, and that humanity’s creativity is intended to reflect God’s creative pattern.

We deny that any part of creation, including any form of technology, should ever be used to usurp or subvert the dominion and stewardship which has been entrusted solely to humanity by God; nor should technology be assigned a level of human identity, worth, dignity, or moral agency.

Genesis 1:26-28; 5:1-2; Isaiah 43:6-7; Jeremiah 1:5; John 13:34; Colossians 1:16; 3:10; Ephesians 4:24