The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
7 Points

is it right for a religous family to adopt children and for a fam to give a child up for adoption?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/7/2014 Category: People
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 635 times Debate No: 45419
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




alright first off am going to put that am adopted. What is upsetting is that a family that gives birth to a kid be it boy or girl should not give it a home just because the other family is somewhat more wealthy and can take care of the kid in a better inviroment. just like in nature to detach a young cub or any animal from the inviroment and to expect it to be released when grown up back where it belongs sometimes and most times finds itself hard to fit in or survive. with that said a kid can easily adapt to the new parents that it has grown up around and not feel a care to know the other birth parents. However it is to my knowledge that it is better to be not adopted and think that its a sham and completely wrong!!!


Argument I: Well Being of the Child.

While one might assume it's cruel to give away the child, consider the life the child would live otherwise. A parent's job is to ensure the child is raised as best as possible. If a parent can't raise the child well enough, for parent-related reasons, financial reasons, or any other reasons, it's in the child's best interested to be adopted away.

Not every parent can do a good job, and the net-benefit of the child must be considered... A minimum wage worker in a bad neighborhood with no husband and too little experience would be a net-negative for a child. Adopting the child away would be the only good such a parent could do for their child... It would be the responsible thing for a loving parent to do.

Argument II: Happiness of the Child.

Contrary to popular believe, children in Foster Care are NOT socially hurt or unhappy. A study reported that 88% of all foster children 6+ shown entirely positive social behaviors(1). There is no reason to assume children who are adopted have been negatively impacted.

Foster care is not a net-negative.


Conclusion: It is more humane and responsible to put a child in foster care if you are not able to raise the child. To keep back the child and make him live in a bad environment will only do him harm.
Debate Round No. 1


Foster care know nothing about and maybe so that might be better, but what am talking about is adoption. The well being of a kid should have been the condom if not the day after pill. Parents should be responsible for their mistake whether the kid grows in a bad inviroment or not, given that the kid is most likely going to run across a few bad eggs in his life. So with that said why shelter someone from something that there going to experience later on? Theres strength in both sides, one learning good set of morals and work ethic, while one is exposed to a reality in which may benefit his outcome growing old. However a family on the religious side to adopt was the question, should a religious fam adopt a kid if that religion is eventually going to harm the kid in his years growing up?


Rebuttal I: Similarities in Foster Care and Adoption

Adopted children and Foster children are entirely the same aside from one principle difference... Adoption was the parent's choice while foster care was not. Why the children had to go is usually the same.

Rebuttal II: Condom and Responsibility

Yes... The parent should have done all those things... Perhaps they did? My friend had sex only twice, used a condom both times, and both times she got pregnant. The child shouldn't live with that. Con is right to say the parent should take responsibility for her actions... And the responsible thing to do is adopt the child away so the child doesn't have to live with a mistake the Mother made.

Rebuttal III: Going through problems either way

It's true the child will go through problems. But not all problems are the same. A few bad checks and a mess up at work is nothing compared to growing up in a bad house because one's mother didn't do the responsible thing. A bad house will be a major problem, bigger than any other problem you'll face, and it'll promote worse than normal problems later.

The problems that child will face is NOTHING compared to the kind of problems adults who grew up in broken homes face.

Rebuttal IV: Religious Adoption

Adoption is all the same, regardless of your religion. A religious family is better than a broken family. Con treats the idea of growing up in a religious family as being bad. I've grown up between my secular Mother's house and my religious Father's house, and I can say his house was better. My mother does little with us, doesn't promote personal growth or getting a job... My father encouraged me to push for a job, and wake up before 12.

Religion doesn't harm the children in years to come. Many, especially the religious family in question, would say it'll benefit him. I learned morals, worth ethic, and reality from my Father while my Mother didn't encourage the learning of any of those. There is no evidence to back such an idea that Religion will have a negative impact, or that the two sides are so Black and White.

Conclusion: Religious or not, a child should be adopted away to a responsible house if the biological family cannot raise him well enough.
Debate Round No. 2


Rebuttal to your rebuttal 1: theres also differences in foster care and adoption, they are completely different!

first off isn't foster care where the kid is taken care of in a home with other kids in the same situation. Totally different because that's an institution or an orphanage entirely different from being in home with a family. only thing that's the same is that they were separated by birth parents that's all. So the outcome would be a lot different.

to your rebuttal 2: Irregardless...

It should be forced upon the parents to keep the child, live with mistakes. and that's a bunch of crap somebody said saying they used a condom twice and still got pregnant, condoms say they work 99+% of the time, either the woman was poking it with a needle to try to get pregnant or the moron didn't know how to use the condom or needed to get a bigger condom size. Over 99% of the time condoms work!! The friends lied because they were embarrassed of telling the truth that they didn't wrap up.

to rebuttal 3: Agreed upon

to rebuttal 4: Religion CAN play a negative role not all the time.

would like to first off say religion can be a bad choice and what if its a faith that sacrifices the kid physically or even spiritually. So a kid that wasn't given much to go on other then a book slammed in his lap or be a part of a cult based regime isn't bad for the kid....Right???? with that said there are plenty of parents that would teach their kids good morals, work ethics if the parents truly care about their own kids without the need force them or scare with tactics in their religion. The heart says it all in the beginning, we have emotions that help discern what is wrong and right. do agree however that standards in some religious backgrounds have a good basis to follow other then the typical scene of war and horror!


Rebuttal 1: Adoption v Foster Care

I don't believe Con understands the fostercare system. All the children in the house are removed from a bad situation, and placed together with another family. The only difference between the two is who made it happen and how old the children are, as adoption usually happens soon after birth.

Rebuttal II: Condom and Responsibility

That's not forcing the parent to live with a mistake... That's forcing the child to live with the mistake. The child will grow up in a broken home in order to teach the parent a lesson. Con proposes using the child as a punishment. A grand evil. That child only get ONE life, don't ruin it for him to punish someone else.

Condoms don't always work, and it's entirely possible to get pregnant when using one. Condoms break, you can't stop that. Con claims my friend is lying, attacking her merits without warrant.

I'm amazed, the intend to turn a human being into a punishment, and make him suffer, because one doesn't like what the parent did is entirely sickening. The child didn't choose to be born in that situation, why must it suffer? When you make a mistake, you have the responsibility of making sure no one else, especially your child, has to suffer with it.

Rebuttal IV: Religion

As a religious person, I'm offended, but this debate is about facts, not personal feelings. To start, those are illegal. Religions may sacrifice animals, waste money, or whatever else, but it's illegal for religions to sacrifice or physically harm humans. You don't have to worry about that.

Con has greatly exagerated the effects of religion, and makes unwarrented claims. His argument is no longer about religious family, but select few and rather illegal groups.

Conclusion: Religion isn't a net-negative. To oppress the right of religious people to adopt is wrong. Using children as 20 year long punishments where the child is the one truley being punished is inhumane.
Debate Round No. 3


Rebuttal 1: something I should have messaged earlier was the fact that I had never mentioned foster family to begin with, I was stating about being adopted at birth however I can say that didn't clarify that to begin with so no harm just stating that I meant from birth. But yes understand that a family that cant take care of their child shouldn't have a kid to begin with. Only thing that I have to say is that it is the parents responsibility to take care of the kid regardless if the place they are in, therefore this would require the parent to get from point a to b even if they see the kid as an obligation. Its their own blood, their own piece of who they are, so be responsible to trying to at least raise the kid.

Rebuttal 2: Alright true a kid doesn't need to be in a broken home, I guess i'm just mad at the birth parents for not being responsible in the first place. Condoms do work, and yes they can break!, for reasons like not knowing how to use them properly or to small of ones. That's why they made Magnums. Your friend may not be lying But there are a heck of a lot of people out there who use those claims and aren't 100% truthful. So maybe the condom that he used was to small and broke or maybe he was that less then .1% that the condom failed.

Well am going to be humble about this because truth is the kid shouldn't be punished and in that I let you win on this debate. truth is that in own dealings with what have gone through its brought more of a backhand of different emotions on the subject. truth is that should be helpers of the less fortunate in way that is best for our health and theirs. Just saying that to be adopted by a family not quite blood related and have same emotions can be unbeneficial to the child and at times confusing if contacted by birth parents. The child would have no one to relate to the same way a parent would that's blood related.

Rebuttal 3: religion

according to scriptures of one of the biggest religions and in others it talks about sacrifices of humans and spiritual beheadings. Also if we take the bible lets say it mentions that mans number is the same as the beast, then it is to say that from a standpoint that we as humans our no more then animals which is what the bullcrap system teaches to our kids. Personally am disgusted too about this. For both spirit and body work together. For the creator of man and female gave them both authority over the beast and animals of the land.

no exaggeration about it, the world is an unsafe place and religion can be a double edged sword. Sometimes leading kids to a disillusion. Not disclaiming religion but saying be cautious in what is read.


Rebuttal 1: Adoption v Foster Care
Foster Care and Adoption are similar. Conditions in one will be similar to conditions in another. Foster Care is a reasonable substitute when one can't find the needed information on Adoption.

Rebuttal II: Condom and Responsibility
I'm refuting half of Con's Rebuttal I statement here because it falls in line in Rebuttal II more. The parent is responsible for many things. Not just for taking care of the child, but ensuring he grows up in the right environment. It's about aiming for that final goal, and taking the means necessary to reach it, including giving the child away if that is the needed path to securing that goal.

If you see that you can't be the parent that child needs, adopting him away is the responsible thing to do. Never blame someone for making a mess, blame them if they don't try to fix it.

Rebuttal IV: Religion
This is a topic that could be expanded on endlessly. But it's entirely possible for any number of atheist families to be bad as well. This isn't an issue primary existent in Religion.

Conclusion: Con has conceded. I thank him for this debate.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by genesisch1line3 3 years ago
just want to thank the contender the debate was a pleasure....For the record though I'm not an atheist
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TheAmazingLiberal 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: His argumentation,was solid.