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.
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.
Comment