Disclaimer - I am not brought up in a foster environment and therefore my views presented here are purely theoretical. My position is not informed from any personal experiences but from witnessing others' experiences.
What is parenting? There is a scientific explanation to it which simply translates to "An act of pure selfishness to propagate one's genes". However, the narrative which is used colloquially is completely opposite and it baffles me. Usually people say parenting in the greatest form of selflessness. Mother is an epitome of sacrifice etc etc. If we pause for a second, the flaw in that narrative becomes evident. Did the child ask the parents to give birth to him/her? For whose purpose the couple is bringing a child into existence? Of course once the child is born, the parents will go to great lengths to care for the child. But why? Because the child is the carrier of their genes. Usually in a business contract, one gets paid after finishing a job. On the contrary, children have paid the returns to their parents by virtue of their birth (by carrying their genes). So only the parents do their job of safeguarding their children for a really long time. I understand there is love, care, affection etc etc in parenting but one should not lose sight of the fact that, it is standing on the firm ground of self-interest.
If the above argument is true, how can one explain foster parenting? There are many reasons but I want to focus on one main reason of interest here. First, I will give an example to make things easy. Why does a human female (male also) like to dress well? The evolutionary biology answer is straight forward, it is to attract mate leading to procreation. But we frequently see women who have crossed menopause also like to dress well. Though procreation is out of question, it still feels nice to dress well because we are hardwired to feel that way. Similarly, though propagating genes is out of question for foster parents, they care for the child because we are hardwired to feel nice about it. It is similar to sex with contraceptives. Though sex is intended to procreate, we engage in sex without the outcome quite often. Similarly, many couples want to enjoy the pleasure of parenting though the child is not carrying their genes.
With this understanding of parenting and foster parenting, I want to analyse one particular stance often taken by people who are brought up in a foster environment - the feeling of debt. Though many people feel a sense of debt to their biological parents too, I have noticed this to be more prominent in people who are brought up by foster parents. It is as though, they have done a sacrifice and the child is ever indebted to them. I simply don't buy this stance even if adoption has taken place with different objectives.
- For selfish reasons to enjoy parenting - For whose purpose they adopted in the first place? The child's or their's? So the question of debt is out of scope here because in this case, not much of a difference exist between biological ones and foster ones.
- For altruistic reasons to help a child - Some people choose to adopt to rescue a child from distress or to a give shelter to an orphan etc etc. Should the child feel indebted in this case? The title of the post was to address this particular point. In my opinion, those people who have adopted for altruistic reasons, are not narrow minded to expect a return on their investment. The children who think they are respecting their foster parents by feeling a sense of debt, are actually disrespecting by treating them as lesser individuals. They don't deserve such a superficial treatment.
There is a quote - "People who mind, don't matter and people who matter, don't mind". Similarly, "Parents who are selfish, don't deserve indebtedness and parents who are altruistic, don't expect indebtedness"
