Skip to content

Post No. 77 (Adopting some sense)

February 20, 2012

Everybody and his brother has begun talking about child adoption all of a sudden. Apparently adopting a child is a right and woe betide anybody who stands in my way.

Let’s back down a bit, shall we?

Operative word here is child. Child, as in “adult under construction”. Human being. Does it begin to ring bells yet?

The way people are banging on about adopting children is, to put it mildly, sickening. No, really. Sickening and disgusting. They wouldn’t talk that way about pets, let alone children.

“I’d get a dog, if I didn’t work such long hours. But he’d be home alone most of the time. It wouldn’t be fair.”

So what about a child? Dump him at your mother’s? Or a day care centre?

Everybody’s heart goes out to these unfortunate children, yet I haven’t yet heard of an institution (in Malta) that looks after children abandoned by their families publish notices to the effect of “No more volunteers, please. We have no more work for you.”

Charity begins at home, as they say. Or does it?

Now all this recent fuss has been kicked up because a Church-run adoption agency in Ethiopia has been accused of discriminating against gays and singletons in matters of adoption.

You may or may not know that the Church holds that, as humans, children

a) are, first and foremost, fashioned in the image of God. As such they should be accorded all the dignity a human being deserves.

b) are nobody’s right; they are a gift (now let’s avoid a reconciliation exercise between biology and belief here, shall we?)

c) have a right to be brought up in a loving family based on a mother and a father who, in turn, are morally bound to provide for them on every level viz., physical, psychological and spiritual

One doesn’t have to possess the deductive prowess of Sherlock Holmes and Hercule Poirot combined to infer that gays and  unmarried people or married people who do not live together are necessarily ineligible as adoptive parents.

Some people are having a go at the church for this. I wonder why.

Daphne Caruana Galizia wrote a generally excellent piece about this – as she is wont to do where the discussion doesn’t have to do with politics. She explains, inter alia, why the Church should be free to take this stand and why it’s “wrong” to gag her. Caruana Galizia provides a useful bare-bones overview of the applicable bits of law.

There are other posts and opinion pieces that treat this matter, but they are primarily concerned with presenting specious arguments and promoting fictitious rights. I have singled out Caruana Galizia’s post because it is the only piece, to my mind, that disagrees with the position of the Church but defends its right to keep it.

“Children” is a very sensitive issue on many levels. Let’s stick to facts and keep a moral compass handy when tackling.


From → The Elephant

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: