Same sex adoption: Both sides “Think of the Children!”

by nonewsisnew

http://www.freep.com/article/20130918/OPINION/309180020/gay-marriage-same-sex-adoption-Michigan-legislature-adoption-Brian-Dickerson

I struggle to get past even the title of this article: “Adoption bills put Catholic Church’s interests ahead of kids'”.  This title is incoherent, because the Church’s interest in adoption is protecting the rights children ahead of potential parents.  By putting children’s right ahead of parents, somehow children are put behind children?  When viewed within Church teaching, the incoherent title is followed by an equally incoherent article.  But what else could be expected from the opinion section of a major newspaper?  In the words of Mr. Larrabee, “All columnists should be beaten to a pulp and converted back into paper!”

Here's a man who knew what papers were good for.

Here’s a man who knew what writers like me were good for.

The premise of the Church position on adoption is the not so outlandish notion that all children deserve by right a mother and a father.  If a family has only a mother, something is missing.  If a family has only a father, something is missing.  We can see this is a natural right because by nature families are formed when a mommy and a daddy love each other very much, yadda yadda yadda, baby is born.  It is only through catastrophe or sin that children are deprived of such a natural right as to be born and cared for by their progenitors – male and female.  We should do all within our power to protect the “most vulnerable” (in the words of the article) so that they may have their rights insured.  If some of these rights are violated by catastrophy (such as a single mom who cannot afford her special needs child and so gives that child up for adoption), that doesn’t mean other rights should be violated as well.  Our first recourse should be to provide the child enough to keep the child with the mom.  If that fails, our second recourse should be finding a home that provides as much of the rights as possible to the child.  That would be a home with loving male and female parents — as close to the natural home as possible.

There seems to be a problem in Michigan that not enough couples are stepping up to adopt these children who need parents, so the argument is made that we can strip these children of their right to both a mom and a dad and adopt them off to same sex couples.  A better solution would be to protect these children’s rights but lower the cost of adoption, which runs between 20 and 30 thousand dollars!  Any economist will tell you that if you drop the cost of something, more people will partake of that thing.

The Cost of Adoption is Too Damn High Party

The Cost of Adoption is Too Damn High Party

If the cost of adoption were dropped to say, the cost of delivery (average of $3,500), I’m sure many more couples would come forward to adopt while still protecting the child’s right to both a mom and a dad.  As a society, we should protect children’s natural rights even if it means we need to subsidize adoption.  What is the point of a right if we are not willing to put up money to defend that right?  The Church seeks to protect the natural rights of these “most vulnerable” and not deprive them of their rights just because that will cost society more.  This is contrasted with those who wish to deprive children of their right to parents of both genders.  This author tosses out the word “bigot” so flippantly, but from this perspective, who’s the bigger bigot: the ones protecting the rights of the most vulnerable (the Catholic Church) or the ones who want to strip children of their rights (LGBT adoption supporters)?

Advertisements