When faced with success stories and photographs of smiling families, it’s hard to believe anyone would be against adoption, because at its heart, this is a society that deeply cares about the well-being of children.

Thousands of families across the nation and the globe were brought together by adoption, and in many cases having children would not otherwise have been possible.

In 1851, Massachusetts passed the first modern adoption law and recognized adoption as a social and legal operation based on child welfare rather than adult interests, according to the Adoption History Project. This was the beginning of the 250-year history of adoption in the United States, which is honored in November by National Adoption Awareness Month.

You would think we would be used to groups representing every side of every story – after all, there is an American Nazi Party – but we were shocked to discover antiadoption.org, a Web site promoting the interests of Adoption: Legalized Lies.

The Web site claims that: “Adoption is an inherently dishonest act. In other words, children are given one, true set of parents by nature, and these parents cannot be replaced or ‘switched at birth’ based on a man-made legal document. Most importantly, it is unnecessary for anyone to endure the emotional damage and unnatural lies inflicted by adoption. It is not only possible, but critically important to assist struggling families without dismantling them.”

The site doesn’t clearly explain its abortion policy, but claims statistics show how dropping adoption rates often parallel dropping abortion rates, so “it is pointless for abortion foes to advocate adoption.”

It continues to explain that it is not the responsibility of fertile couples to supply children for those having trouble conceiving, because “all the legal documents in the world cannot wipe away the fact that true families are created by nature alone” and that young people should take better care of their reproductive health if they ever intend to procreate.

While it’s true that some sexually transmitted infections can cause infertility, claiming that couples who can’t conceive “got what was coming to them” is downright offensive. Since when is the government responsible for legislating morality? There’s no scientific proof that parents who once had STIs are unfit or undeserving of children, not to mention those whose infertility comes as a natural side effect of illnesses. And what about gay couples? Many debate whether they make suitable parents, but there’s no proof that they’re not. Why take away their right to a family?

Then there’s the issue of the children whose parents don’t want them. If adoption is made illegal, what happens to children abandoned by parents who can’t be identified? Should such children spend their lives in orphanages without ever having a family?

What happens to children whose parents abuse them? The Web site suggests that society work with such families until they can exist peacefully on their own. What happens to the children in the mean time, while their parents try to work out their faults? Should they just endure the abuse and hope it ends soon? This sounds noble, but some people will never make suitable parents.

Having a child related to you doesn’t make you a parent. “True families” are not created by nature alone.

The above editorial is the consensus opinion of the Daily Kent Stater editorial board.