I hear the ones that don’t believe that adoption is in the best interest of the child and in fact, scoff the idea that others think it is. I read their opinions that the child in most every situation is better off with the birth parent, or at the very least, the birth family even though the child might end up in a dangerous part of town and/or struggle their whole life. I’m not saying that’s right or wrong at all but it gets me thinking about other situations that happen for the “best interest of the child”. Take divorce, for example. There are many people that say that two happy homes are better than one unhappy home. People say that it’s better for the child because the unstable home is unhealthy and could cause irreparable emotional trauma. Do you think that’s true that sometimes divorce can be better for the child? And if you do, then wouldn’t that same thought process apply to adoption? A birth mother might believe that their unstable home and life would be unhealthy for their child. On the flip side (because I like to look at all sides) is the pain of being adopted more unhealthy than growing up in an unstable and possibly unhappy home? Is being split from one parent in a divorce more unhealthy than the emotional trauma of an unstable and unhappy home? Does it depend on the degree of the situation? What if the father physically beats the mother and children? I would think at that point, it is obviously better for the child to be separated from the father. Likewise, if the birth mother is a drug addict who would physically abuse their child then they are better off with someone else. The problem is that an adoptee (or even a child from a divorce) doesn’t know the other side of what could’ve been. The not knowing is a huge source of pain. What do you all think? Are these just two completely different situations that’s silly to compare? Is it hypocritical if you think of one situation one way and the other situation in another way? Does this make you think? Please tell me your thoughts.