Announcement

Collapse

Pro-Life Activism 301 Guidelines

This area is for pro-life activists to discuss issues related to abortion. It is NOT a debate area, and it is not OK for pro-choice activists to post here.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Praxis of Pro-Life Colloqium

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    My instinct with respect to telling children whether they're adopted is that their origin is a truth to which they are entitled. I recall reading at least one news story about people born through sperm donation wanting to know who their father is. Refusing to tell them makes it sound as though you have something to hide. Some may need to know earlier, some later, some may be fine without ever knowing, but that must depend on the child, not on what the parents find most comforting or convenient for themselves.

    One part of my agenda here is to combat the commoditization of children, and it seems to me that the motivation for adoption which I think of (rightly or wrongly) as typical is deeply flawed, if only in that that motivation for adoption is the same as the motivation for sperm donation, surrogacy, in-vitro fertilization, etc-- all of which I oppose and all of which I think treat children as commodities rather than as persons.

    The point I would like to make is that the opposite of a contraceptive or abortive mentality is not trying really, really hard to have kids through any means available, but being open to life-- this means taking care of any babies that happen to come along as well as anyone else in need whom one might encounter. Someone who demands that a baby come to them on their own terms is not all that different from someone who decides that the baby already on the way isn't that convenient after all and can be disposed of (or, in the case of IVF, frozen indefinitely).

    I could be wrong about the driving motivation behind adoptions, but I don't doubt that at least some of the couples applying to adopt an infant are approaching the issue in the unhealthy way I describe, and their motivation is not made innocuous simply because they accept what the Catholic Church says about IVF, etc being unacceptable. If their only reason for not using IVF, surrogacy, etc, is the Church's insistence on the point, it seems to me that their motivation is still deeply flawed.

    Alright, that's enough ranting for the moment.
    Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

    Comment


    • #17
      So, you think institutionalizing orphans rather than give them to childless couples because those couples want children is a better response to the Scriptural imperative to take care of orphans? What makes food a commodity? Desire, necessity or market? Food is still desired and necessary even if a farm is able to produce all it requires for its own use - it's not until trading begins that food can genuinely be said to be a commodity. Desiring children - even with preferences (since preferences aren't necessarily arbitrary or irrational) - doesn't make them a commodity nor does it disqualify a couple from being reasonably considered for adoption.
      "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

      "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

      My Personal Blog

      My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

      Quill Sword

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
        So, you think institutionalizing orphans rather than give them to childless couples because those couples want children is a better response to the Scriptural imperative to take care of orphans? What makes food a commodity? Desire, necessity or market? Food is still desired and necessary even if a farm is able to produce all it requires for its own use - it's not until trading begins that food can genuinely be said to be a commodity. Desiring children - even with preferences (since preferences aren't necessarily arbitrary or irrational) - doesn't make them a commodity nor does it disqualify a couple from being reasonably considered for adoption.
        I could be wrong, but I don't think Spartacus is opposed to adoption in favor of orphanages. Part of his reasoning is that they're 40 prospective adoptive parents for every child in need of adoption. I don't believe he is opposed to the child being adopted by one of those 40 sets of would be parents, but he questioning the motives of some and proposing alternative forms of service for some of the other 39 couples who were not able to adopt.
        βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
        ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

        אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

        Comment


        • #19
          No, I got his point - but if we call into question every couple of potential adoptive parents merely because they wish to adopt, then we presumably invalidate many, if not all (because nearly all will express a desire to adopt) - leaving us with far fewer adoptive parents. The logic leads pretty obviously toward institutionalization - at least a stated.

          Now, I didn't see the OP the way that you do, but let's presume you're correct (beats the heck out of what it does look like) - if we are supposed to 'harness' their 'altruism' but trying to funnel it into other avenues I'd say that's an incredibly bad idea. We'll presume the figures are correct (dubious) - the proposal is to substitute duty for grief counseling. It ignores how bereft childlessness can leave couples and women in particular (I don't doubt for an instant that men also have strong parental drives - but women have a biochemical component that can and does make the desire for children overwhelming. Frustrated, it can become rather severe depression - ask any woman who has ever longed for children) - and redirecting that strong desire cannot do anything but harm.

          Volunteerism is often a good way to help with depression - it helps us focus outside ourselves. But creating an obligation on the grieving only makes them feel even more of a failure - and it is NOT what Christ said. Scripture teaches that ALL Christians are obligated to help the poor, widows and orphans (ironically, this proposal seems to do the opposite on that last one) - it does NOT say that when we cannot have what we've hoped for we must redirect our desires toward the poor - that creates a greater obligation on the grieving and is perverse. Childless couples are not a resource to be harnessed; they are the poor (spiritually speaking) we are to serve.

          Desiring children is no sin - God NEVER condemns it in Scripture nor can an even half decent inferential case be made. Sarah, Rachel, Samuel's mom (argh, can't recall it), Elizabeth - none of the women in Scripture who deal with being barren are EVER condemned for crying out to God for children - God doesn't send an angel to say "well, sorry, but you want kids so you probably shouldn't have them". Since most of these spend years waiting - in two cases beyond their child bearing years - we can reasonably infer that God sends or permits comfort but there's no evidence of condemnation.

          Instead of showing contempt for these couples because of their desires (yeah, that IS what comparing it to more radical means of infertility treatment shows) or trying to use them as a resource, we should provide love and comfort in their very real grief. Far better would be changing the laws so that adoptive parents are protected once they adopt and tightening the standing rules to prevent disinterested parties from bringing suit (daddy didn't bother to keep up with mommy long enough to know she got pregnant can't claim interest years later; activists can't claim to be interceding for the child's good merely because the adoptive parents are from another race) along with providing support for those parents that choose the more difficult options of older children, special needs children and other race children (this is usually primarily cultural - helping the child understand its cultural roots and not a matter of stigma) to help increase the number of successful adoptions. Understanding the real barriers to adoption and eliminating the unnecessary ones (yes, you really do need to be a grown up and have a job; no, really don't care that you watch Fox News [this is illegal but we've seen a few cases - but it's used here purely as an obviously invalid criteria]) would be a much better solution. All Christians are called to service - work on making them realize it but not by targeting the grieving that should be served themselves.
          "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

          "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

          My Personal Blog

          My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

          Quill Sword

          Comment


          • #20
            All excellent points, Laura.
            βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
            ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

            אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
              No, I got his point - but if we call into question every couple of potential adoptive parents merely because they wish to adopt, then we presumably invalidate many, if not all (because nearly all will express a desire to adopt) - leaving us with far fewer adoptive parents. The logic leads pretty obviously toward institutionalization - at least a stated.
              I certainly do not mean to suggest that the desire to have a thing should in itself disqualify a person from having it. It is easy to see why a couple that want a child would be more suitable in at least one sense than a couple that has no particular desire for children. However, there needs to be more to it than just "I want kids"-- any number of same-sex couples have expressed a strong desire to raise children together, and although I see no transcedent reason why such couples could not be good parents, I'm not going to go out of my way to find (or create) children for them any more (though, admittedly, perhaps marginally less, at least in the current cultural climate) than I would for a married couple. It's not about finding children for these homes, but finding homes for these children, and if there are more homes than children, that hospitality should seek some other outlet rather than endlessly being frustrated by a lack of children whose parents are unable to adequately take care of them (which is a tragedy in itself).

              Now, I didn't see the OP the way that you do, but let's presume you're correct (beats the heck out of what it does look like) - if we are supposed to 'harness' their 'altruism' but trying to funnel it into other avenues I'd say that's an incredibly bad idea. We'll presume the figures are correct (dubious)
              If the figures are dubious, then it is not on me, but on anyone who cites that figure as a way to try to convince women in crisis pregnancies that adoption is an excellent option. I'm going by what I heard on Tuesday night. Obviously, that's a point that requires further research, and I'll have the opportunity to look into that specifically later.

              That having been said, Robrecht captured my intention rather well. I'd "amen" his post if I could.

              - the proposal is to substitute duty for grief counseling. It ignores how bereft childlessness can leave couples and women in particular (I don't doubt for an instant that men also have strong parental drives - but women have a biochemical component that can and does make the desire for children overwhelming. Frustrated, it can become rather severe depression - ask any woman who has ever longed for children) - and redirecting that strong desire cannot do anything but harm.
              In the end, it's not even about redirecting the parental urge, but about recognizing the deeper source of that urge: the fact that we are made in the image of a loving God, and we cannot ever be truly satisfied except by the supreme love of the Supreme Being. To the extent that the desire to love and be loved by one's children takes on characteristics proper only to one's desire to love and be loved by God, that desire has been perverted from its true end.

              Volunteerism is often a good way to help with depression - it helps us focus outside ourselves. But creating an obligation on the grieving only makes them feel even more of a failure - and it is NOT what Christ said. Scripture teaches that ALL Christians are obligated to help the poor, widows and orphans (ironically, this proposal seems to do the opposite on that last one) - it does NOT say that when we cannot have what we've hoped for we must redirect our desires toward the poor - that creates a greater obligation on the grieving and is perverse. Childless couples are not a resource to be harnessed; they are the poor (spiritually speaking) we are to serve.
              All love is a "resource to be harnessed" insofar as it is in love's nature to participate in the divine economy, and it is only by participating in and partaking of divine love that we as humans can ever be truly happy: it's not just about the material good of the poor, but the spiritual good of these couples.

              Desiring children is no sin - God NEVER condemns it in Scripture nor can an even half decent inferential case be made. Sarah, Rachel, Samuel's mom (argh, can't recall it), Elizabeth - none of the women in Scripture who deal with being barren are EVER condemned for crying out to God for children - God doesn't send an angel to say "well, sorry, but you want kids so you probably shouldn't have them". Since most of these spend years waiting - in two cases beyond their child bearing years - we can reasonably infer that God sends or permits comfort but there's no evidence of condemnation.
              Hannah But let's consider Abraham and Sarah: although they were childless for most of their lives, it did not stop them from faithfully serving God, and it was in fact through an act of generous hospitality that he happens to entertain divine beings (it's apparently unclear whether the three visitors are intended by the author to be angels or incarnations of God Himself) who tell him that he and Sarah will at last have a son.

              Again, I do not intend to demonize the desire for children as such, but rather to identify a pathology to which childless couples seem to be particularly vulnerable. I did not say that all couples seeking to adopt can be characterized by the sort of desperation I've denounced. I don't know exactly how common or rare it is, but only that it is trouble as often as it appears.
              Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
                I certainly do not mean to suggest that the desire to have a thing should in itself disqualify a person from having it. It is easy to see why a couple that want a child would be more suitable in at least one sense than a couple that has no particular desire for children. However, there needs to be more to it than just "I want kids"-- any number of same-sex couples have expressed a strong desire to raise children together, and although I see no transcedent reason why such couples could not be good parents, I'm not going to go out of my way to find (or create) children for them any more (though, admittedly, perhaps marginally less, at least in the current cultural climate) than I would for a married couple. It's not about finding children for these homes, but finding homes for these children, and if there are more homes than children, that hospitality should seek some other outlet rather than endlessly being frustrated by a lack of children whose parents are unable to adequately take care of them (which is a tragedy in itself).



                If the figures are dubious, then it is not on me, but on anyone who cites that figure as a way to try to convince women in crisis pregnancies that adoption is an excellent option. I'm going by what I heard on Tuesday night. Obviously, that's a point that requires further research, and I'll have the opportunity to look into that specifically later.

                That having been said, Robrecht captured my intention rather well. I'd "amen" his post if I could.



                In the end, it's not even about redirecting the parental urge, but about recognizing the deeper source of that urge: the fact that we are made in the image of a loving God, and we cannot ever be truly satisfied except by the supreme love of the Supreme Being. To the extent that the desire to love and be loved by one's children takes on characteristics proper only to one's desire to love and be loved by God, that desire has been perverted from its true end.



                All love is a "resource to be harnessed" insofar as it is in love's nature to participate in the divine economy, and it is only by participating in and partaking of divine love that we as humans can ever be truly happy: it's not just about the material good of the poor, but the spiritual good of these couples.



                Hannah But let's consider Abraham and Sarah: although they were childless for most of their lives, it did not stop them from faithfully serving God, and it was in fact through an act of generous hospitality that he happens to entertain divine beings (it's apparently unclear whether the three visitors are intended by the author to be angels or incarnations of God Himself) who tell him that he and Sarah will at last have a son.

                Again, I do not intend to demonize the desire for children as such, but rather to identify a pathology to which childless couples seem to be particularly vulnerable. I did not say that all couples seeking to adopt can be characterized by the sort of desperation I've denounced. I don't know exactly how common or rare it is, but only that it is trouble as often as it appears.
                Here's a BIG problem. Wanting to have children, or simply the desire to have a child, is utterly natural, and normal. It is selfish and beautiful. Parenting is absolutely a complete intentional giving and relentess inborn natural need. To state that it is Pathological is completely true. There is a need in near everyone to have an outlet of nurturing. It is part of being made in the image of God. To label it as wrong or a mental illness is utterly faulty, and something that ONLY someone who does not have children and is too young to understand the need, especially the need of a woman, would possibly do. Desperation to have children? There isn't anything wrong with it. In fact some people are so desperate they take fertility drugs. Its a human need to want to love and raise someone else. In fact its such a need, that women who cannot have it, or who have multiple miscarriages or stillbirths have in rare cases gone into severe types of psychosis for lack of being able to have children.
                Yet you condemn the biology. That is a problem. And its something I reccommend you do not selfishly say is a problem, but you really really talk to people who are mothers and fathers. And find out what the one thing is that priests and nuns have the hardest time giving up. Hint. Its not a spouse.
                A happy family is but an earlier heaven.
                George Bernard Shaw

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Catholicity View Post
                  Here's a BIG problem. Wanting to have children, or simply the desire to have a child, is utterly natural, and normal. It is selfish and beautiful. Parenting is absolutely a complete intentional giving and relentess inborn natural need. To state that it is Pathological is completely true. There is a need in near everyone to have an outlet of nurturing. It is part of being made in the image of God. To label it as wrong or a mental illness is utterly faulty, and something that ONLY someone who does not have children and is too young to understand the need, especially the need of a woman, would possibly do. Desperation to have children? There isn't anything wrong with it. In fact some people are so desperate they take fertility drugs. Its a human need to want to love and raise someone else. In fact its such a need, that women who cannot have it, or who have multiple miscarriages or stillbirths have in rare cases gone into severe types of psychosis for lack of being able to have children.
                  Yet you condemn the biology. That is a problem. And its something I reccommend you do not selfishly say is a problem, but you really really talk to people who are mothers and fathers. And find out what the one thing is that priests and nuns have the hardest time giving up. Hint. Its not a spouse.
                  Nowhere do I condemn the desire for children in itself as bad, but only when it lacks the context of the divine love which is its source and fulfillment. If I can be permitted a metaphor: Divine love is like water: it may flow through that channel we call parenting, or through another channel we call caring for the poor. Both are downstream from the source. If a person's desire to love and nurture does not find an outlet through child-bearing or child-rearing, it seems wise to seek other channels through which that love might flow down and out into the world.

                  I'm not sure why you bring up fertility drugs as the hallmark of desperation when I've already mentioned various more extreme artificial methods (IVF, etc).
                  Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
                    Nowhere do I condemn the desire for children in itself as bad, but only when it lacks the context of the divine love which is its source and fulfillment. If I can be permitted a metaphor: Divine love is like water: it may flow through that channel we call parenting, or through another channel we call caring for the poor. Both are downstream from the source. If a person's desire to love and nurture does not find an outlet through child-bearing or child-rearing, it seems wise to seek other channels through which that love might flow down and out into the world.

                    I'm not sure why you bring up fertility drugs as the hallmark of desperation when I've already mentioned various more extreme artificial methods (IVF, etc).
                    Spart I think if someone wants a child and they want to adopt, they should. Adoption is hardly wrong especially given the number of unwanted or unloved children. And it shows love. what i'm hearing you say, is that the need to be a parent is wrong. Also to address Adoption as an alternative. If someone cannot take care of a baby, is it not love to give life, then let someone else who needs to be a parent or wants/needs to be a parent, be a parent? I know a lot of adopted children. Condemning that love shows a lack of understanding it.
                    A happy family is but an earlier heaven.
                    George Bernard Shaw

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Catholicity View Post
                      Spart I think if someone wants a child and they want to adopt, they should. Adoption is hardly wrong especially given the number of unwanted or unloved children. And it shows love. what i'm hearing you say, is that the need to be a parent is wrong. Also to address Adoption as an alternative. If someone cannot take care of a baby, is it not love to give life, then let someone else who needs to be a parent or wants/needs to be a parent, be a parent? I know a lot of adopted children. Condemning that love shows a lack of understanding it.
                      I'm not saying that the desire to be a parent is wrong in itself, but that it is possible for it to become unhealthy. The desire for food, for example, is not bad in itself, but it can become unhealthy: it is then called gluttony.

                      It's also important to understand my argument in the context of the statistic (which I have yet to see actually disproven in this thread) that for every couple that adopts, there are approximately 40 more waiting. Is it really so wrong to suggest that, if there are more people waiting to adopt than there are children to be adopted, that the people waiting to adopt should find some other outlet?
                      Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
                        It's also important to understand my argument in the context of the statistic (which I have yet to see actually disproven in this thread) that for every couple that adopts, there are approximately 40 more waiting. Is it really so wrong to suggest that, if there are more people waiting to adopt than there are children to be adopted, that the people waiting to adopt should find some other outlet?
                        So, it would be better if NONE of those couples waiting to adopt actually adopts, cause it would be a slight to the OTHER couples who didn't, but wanted to?
                        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                          So, it would be better if NONE of those couples waiting to adopt actually adopts, cause it would be a slight to the OTHER couples who didn't, but wanted to?
                          Not at all: if there are 40 people who want to try out for the football team and only 20 openings, it would be better for at least some of the 20 young athletes who don't make the team to find some other outlet for their athletic energies rather than standing around waiting for another spot on the team to open up. If one in 40 waiting couples get the chance to adopt, I would rather have the other 39 couples find some other way to share their love with the world instead of waiting in vain to adopt.
                          Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Or adopt an older kid. Aparently there's issues with finding the right home for the right kid and people wanting cute babies.
                            If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
                              Or adopt an older kid. Aparently there's issues with finding the right home for the right kid and people wanting cute babies.
                              Yet another reason for me to do more research: if this is true, it's a further indictment of the mindset of would-be adoptive parents.
                              Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
                                Yet another reason for me to do more research: if this is true, it's a further indictment of the mindset of would-be adoptive parents.
                                Is it not possible that some parents feel so blessed that they selflessly desire to share their blessings with somebody less fortunate?
                                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X