My dad used to tell me “opinions are like assholes – everybody’s got them.”
I found today’s Douchebag of the week on accident. Someone posted an article on facebook and asked for people’s opinions on the article. Always having an opinion, and occasionally being considered an asshole myself, I figured I weigh in.
I started reading this article titled “Adoption: The Best Option” by Dr.
Douchebag Richard D. Land, executive editor of ChristianPost.com. I thought I had a pretty good idea of what I was going to be reading. Instead, I ended up quite surprised. It started as you’d probably assume. He talks about how more people should adopt, and over 100,000 kids are in foster care or orphanages.
About 1/3 of the way through, he starts letting his own unique brand of crazy show. He actually starts encouraging more children to be put up for adoption.
“Adoption is 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.”
While I can see that this may not be an ideal situation, personally, I find his definition of “problem” pregnancy a little bit offensive.
“Currently, almost all such single mothers choose either to abort or keep their babies (only 1 percent of such pregnancies currently end in adoption).”
Keeping the baby is good, right? Much better than abortion, I’d think. But why would he use the same classification of single mothers keeping their unplanned baby and aborting it? Oh dear God, how can they possibly consider Keeping Their Baby a good option? What are they thinking?
Notice I said unplanned, not unwanted. There can definitely be a difference. Many pregnancies that a married couple have are unplanned as well, and that doesn’t mean that the parents don’t ultimately want their baby. It would be unplanned for me to find a $100 bill on the ground, but it certainly wouldn’t be unwanted.
“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.”
So, it would be better for those 53% of children that are actually born to single mothers be put up for adoption? What kind of craziness is this? Oh yeah, it’s his own special kind of crazy.
How can anyone be so pompous as to say that if parents aren’t married, adoption is the best option for “virtually everyone”? Adoption is a better option than keeping and caring for their own baby? Because people who aren’t married, apparently can’t love their baby? Can’t provide for their child? Can’t possibly have compassion? Certainly they can’t raise their own child?
“Keeping the baby is almost never preferable to allowing a baby to be adopted into a solid, faithful Christian home.”
Say What Now? ”Solid, faithful Christians” are the only ones who should be allowed to adopt? No separation of church and state here. Nope. How very black and white. If they aren’t Christians they can’t be “good people,” and they certainly don’t have the capacity to raise a child.
Going with that theory, if a married couple isn’t Christian then they should probably give their child up for adoption as well. So, only married, Christian people should be allowed to raise children. We should probably just have the churches hand out babies to whomever they see fit. Screw the legal process we have set up now – it must just be overrated.
“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.”
Who the hell put this guy in charge of telling single mothers what “God wants” for her and her baby? How can anyone make a blanket statement that those mothers should give up their child?
Essentially, every single woman who was pregnant was destined to give that child up to a married, christian couple, so they would be blessed with a child, right? How fucking convenient.
He isn’t allowing the possibility that a woman who has a child may later marry and that child would then have a father figure. That couldn’t possibly be “God’s plan” for that woman and child. Also, he’s not considering the possibility the mother and father may decide to both have the child, but not get married. Nah, he’s right. The plan is so clear.
“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.”
So, a single, pregnant woman should have enough “maternal love” to give the child up, but couldn’t possibly have enough “maternal love” to raise the child herself. Richard Land knows the plan God intended for every child to have? Let’s all call him up to find out what the devine plan for our own children is too. I’m sure the mother couldn’t possibly have a clue of what’s best for her child. It’s much better that some pompous ass makes blanket statements that we should all take a face value.
Further, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Shaquille O’Neal, Al Pacino, Jon Stewart, Jack Nicholson, Demi Moore, Alicia Keys, Samuel L. Jackson, John Lennon, Oprah Winfrey, Olympian Michael Phelps, and Bill Cosby were all raised by single parents. Apparently none of them had the “future God intended” them to have. Or, are they the only ones who did? This is both confusing and ridiculous.
“Adoption allows the mother to give her child both a mother and a father who will love and cherish the child.”
Pity. Now we find out that single mothers don’t have the ability to “love and cherish” a child. Apparently, that capacity is only given to a person after they are married, if they are Christian, and quite possibly, only if they adopt a child. Enlightening.
“It is a tragedy of tragedies that only 1 percent of the “problem” pregnancies in America end in adoption.”
The tragedy of tragedies, in my opinion, is that people agree with the bull shit that this douchebag is spewing. That people support his crazy ideas. Not enough people are giving their child up for adoption? Only 100,000 in this country, so apparently that constitutes “shortage” of adoptable kids. We better be sure these Christian couples have enough of a selection when they are adopting a child.
From where I stand, a shortage of adoptable kids would be an ideal shortage to have. That would mean all 100,000 of those kids who are currently “in the system” would be in loving homes. Seems like that would be a better goal than having more kids being put into the system by loving, single mothers, hoping that a married, christian family might someday adopt them.
And Finally, he ends his article with somewhat of a rallying call.
“Let’s all get behind adoption as the best option.”
So I will end similarly. Let’s all get behind the idea that douchebags like this need to be told they are crazy.
I did a little research and according to Wikipedia, Richard Land is the president of Southern Evangelical Seminary in Charlotte, North Carolina, a post he has held since July 2013. He was formerly the president of The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC), the moral and ethics concern entity of the Southern Baptist Convention in the United States, a post he held from 1988 – 2013. He was host of the nationally syndicated radio program Richard Land Live! from 2002 to 2012 and is the executive editor of The Christian Post.
I just have to say, if I were a member of ANY of those christian groups, I would be outraged that this is the representation that is being presented to the rest of world. Surely, that truly can’t be an accurate representation of their beliefs, can it? I agree with my dad. Opinions are like assholes. Perhaps, though, people who spout off such ignorant drivel need to consider duct tape to keep their mouth shut. After all, even though we all have assholes, we usually still walk around with pants on.
Original photo by J D Hancock
Edited by me