via. [I'm kind of surprised something of this low quality would come out of Christian Science Monitor!]
Interesting. I'm not sure if adoption should indeed be made cheaper and easier. Even with safeguards in place that prevent adoption from being a for-profit industry, it's still..hmm. I guess it stems from my notion that people don't have the natural, intrinsic right to be parents; to reproduce, now that is certainly a "right," it is a biological necessity. However, I see little point in a women who is capable of reproduction being allowed to adopt; moreover, if a women is sterile, well, that shouldn't be a child's problem. Having bad genes simply means that you won't be contributing to the gene pool. Of course, that's most certainly a political nonreality, at least in America. I still favor what others have said - that a feminist agenda toward the welfare of mothers and children - especially baby girls - is the best approach (domestic adoption is plan B).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
From my reading over the past week, I have learnt that I Care about Orphans is organised and sponsored by Focus on the Family, especially in their home base of Denver, but in six or seven other states and South Africa.
ReplyDeleteWhat about "social infertility"? Which is to say: the woman concerned is a lesbian or a single woman? (This is how it's usually framed here).