I saw on Yahoo! News yesterday that Celine Dion has given birth to twin boys. The Canadian singer announced her pregnancy earlier this year and has now blessed her husband Rene with two more sons and her son Rene-Charles with two brothers. I'm happy for Ms. Dion and her family, really I am, but I can't help feeling that something's a bit amiss here.
Celine Dion under went six in-vitro fertilization attempts to get pregnant again after having her first child, and I think that's what's bothering me. After already having their own biological child why didn't Celine Dion and her husband simply adopt if they wanted more children? If Celine Dion just wanted to experience pregnancy again she could've adopted embryos--yes, you can do that--and had the unique joy of carrying and giving birth to her adopted child(ren). I know I really don't have the right to second guess anyone's private decisions, but with so many children in this world needing loving homes it just irks me that so many people remain obsessed with having biological kids even after they've already had one.
I remember feeling the same way when the famous McCaughey septuplets were born in 1997. These children were the results of fertility treatments, which would've been understandable if Bobbie McCaughey, their mother, were trying to get pregnant for the first time. But Bobbie and husband Kenny already had a biological daughter, Mikayla. So why, I remember asking myself at the time, didn't they adopt if they wanted more children? Especially since the McCaugheys implied they were devout Christians. I didn't understand then and I don't understand now.
I sympathize with infertile couples. I can understand couples who've never had a baby getting fertility treatments. I can understand them wanting to have the experience of bringing their own child into the world. But once an infertile couple has had their own baby they should consider adoption if they want more children. At the very least, fertility clinics and doctors should give preference to couples who've never had their own child (if they don't do that already).
I'll reiterate what I said at the beginning. I'm happy for Celine Dion and her family. I know that her twins will be well taken care of and well loved. It's just sad that two little babies won't be coming out of an orphanage or a frozen embryo container because Ms. Dion and her husband were more devoted to genetics than parenting. And far too many other people feel the same way. I really, really hope that changes. Parenting is about love not biology. I pray more people realize that.
Showing posts with label Adoption. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Adoption. Show all posts
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Here's One For Solomon
Who should get baby Manji? That's the question facing India's Supreme Court as it tries to decide the fate of a baby girl born to a Japanese father and an Indian surrogate mother. This case reveals not only problems with practice of surrogacy but also what happens when law trumps common sense. For those of you who don't know, here's baby Manji's story.
In November of last year Ikuyumi Yamada and his then wife Yuki went to India and contracted with a surrogate mother to carry a baby for them. The baby was conceived using Mr. Yamada's sperm and the surrogate's egg. Shortly before the baby's birth Mr. Yamada and his wife divorced and Yuki Yamada decided she no longer wanted the child. Well then, baby Manji should just go home to Japan with her father, right? Wrong.
India has no laws governing the practice of surrogacy, so baby Manji was born as an Indian citizen. In order to take his daughter home Ikuyumi Yamada would have to adopt her. But there's a catch. Indian adoption law forbids the adoption of a girl by a single man. But what a minute, you say. Ikuyumi Yamada isn't just any old single man, he's Manji's FATHER! Exactly, and you'd think that would be enough for India to allow Manji to go home with him. And you'd be dead wrong. The letter of the law has common sense by the throat in this case. And things are getting more complicated.
An Indian child welfare group has now stepped forward asking the Supreme Court for custody of Manji. What this group wants with Manji is unclear. If it were truly committed to her welfare, though, it would demand that India let her father take her home. If nothing else India should give custody of Manji to her paternal grandmother, who's in India looking after her, and let the baby leave the country. Once in Japan it would not be India's business who Manji lived with, and she could then be placed with her father where she belongs.
This case should give pause to anyone considering the use of a surrogate mother, especially one from India. I can understand how obsessed some childless couples can get to have a child biologically related to at least one of them. But there are hundreds of thousands of orphans in this world desperately in need of parents. If all someone wants to do is raise a child it shouldn't matter much, if at all, if that child is or isn't "my own". When I see people going to the extreme of surrogacy or in vitro fertilization I suspect that there's more going on with them than a simple desire to be a parent.
Ikuyumi Yamada and his now ex-wife did chose surrogacy, however, and this man deserves to have the child that resulted from it. Yes, Mr. Yamada is now a single man, but he's also Manji's father. It is a violation of justice and common sense to keep Mr. Yamada, who has never been proven in any way unfit, from his baby. India ought to be ecstatic that Manji, unlike so many female children in that country, has a parent who desperately wants her. India, it's time to do the right thing. Let Manji go home.
In November of last year Ikuyumi Yamada and his then wife Yuki went to India and contracted with a surrogate mother to carry a baby for them. The baby was conceived using Mr. Yamada's sperm and the surrogate's egg. Shortly before the baby's birth Mr. Yamada and his wife divorced and Yuki Yamada decided she no longer wanted the child. Well then, baby Manji should just go home to Japan with her father, right? Wrong.
India has no laws governing the practice of surrogacy, so baby Manji was born as an Indian citizen. In order to take his daughter home Ikuyumi Yamada would have to adopt her. But there's a catch. Indian adoption law forbids the adoption of a girl by a single man. But what a minute, you say. Ikuyumi Yamada isn't just any old single man, he's Manji's FATHER! Exactly, and you'd think that would be enough for India to allow Manji to go home with him. And you'd be dead wrong. The letter of the law has common sense by the throat in this case. And things are getting more complicated.
An Indian child welfare group has now stepped forward asking the Supreme Court for custody of Manji. What this group wants with Manji is unclear. If it were truly committed to her welfare, though, it would demand that India let her father take her home. If nothing else India should give custody of Manji to her paternal grandmother, who's in India looking after her, and let the baby leave the country. Once in Japan it would not be India's business who Manji lived with, and she could then be placed with her father where she belongs.
This case should give pause to anyone considering the use of a surrogate mother, especially one from India. I can understand how obsessed some childless couples can get to have a child biologically related to at least one of them. But there are hundreds of thousands of orphans in this world desperately in need of parents. If all someone wants to do is raise a child it shouldn't matter much, if at all, if that child is or isn't "my own". When I see people going to the extreme of surrogacy or in vitro fertilization I suspect that there's more going on with them than a simple desire to be a parent.
Ikuyumi Yamada and his now ex-wife did chose surrogacy, however, and this man deserves to have the child that resulted from it. Yes, Mr. Yamada is now a single man, but he's also Manji's father. It is a violation of justice and common sense to keep Mr. Yamada, who has never been proven in any way unfit, from his baby. India ought to be ecstatic that Manji, unlike so many female children in that country, has a parent who desperately wants her. India, it's time to do the right thing. Let Manji go home.
Monday, June 2, 2008
Congratulations! But...
I heard a few weeks ago that Michelle Duggar, mom to the famous Duggar clan, is pregnant again. This baby will be number eighteen--eighteen!--for Michelle and her husband Jim Bob. I waited a while to write on this subject because I have mixed feelings about it. I'm not against large families; in fact, I think we need more of them. It's just that I feel a little disappointed that Michelle and Jim Bob Duggar never adopted a child. Actually, the Duggars are just one example of what I consider to be a shortcoming among pro-life people, especially Christian pro-life people.
Now, I don't know if the Duggars are pro-life but I think it's safe to assume they are based on their conservative faith and their large family. And pro-lifers always tout adoption as THE alternative to abortion. Yet, so few of us--I say us because I'm part of the problem--seem to do it. Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar have said they have so many children because they're trusting God with the size of their family; that's great, but why didn't they consider that God might have wanted them to grow their family through adoption?
Being pro-life means, of course, trying to stop abortion. But the result of that is that babies are going to be born, babies who can't always be raised by their biological parents. And far too few pro-lifers are stepping up to the plate to adopt them. Take a look at the average conservative, pro-life, Christian family. It's no bigger than the average liberal, pro-choice, secular family. This tells me that most pro-lifers, religious and secular, aren't living out their professed convictions. A few are, of course.
Terry Meeuwsen, co-host of the 700 Club, has seven children: two biological and five adopted. What makes Ms. Meeuwsen's adoptions interesting is that they are all transracial and/or international. Her last adoption was of three Ukrainian sisters, the youngest of whom was seven or eight at the time. Clearly, Terry Meeuwsen understands that cuddly little babies aren't the only children who need loving homes. Kudos for her.
Another pro-life Christian who is living out his convictions is gospel singer Steven Curtis Chapman. Chapman and his wife Mary Beth added three little Chinese girls to their family of three biological children. After the adoption of their first daughter the Chapmans started the foundation Shoahannah's Hope to financially help others seeking to adopt. Sadly, the Chapmans recently suffered a tragic loss when their youngest adopted daughter, Maria, died after being struck by an SUV. I pray that God will comfort the Chapmans in their grief and maybe guide them to another adoption.
Terry Meeuwsen and Steven Curtis Chapman aren't the only pro-life people adopting children. There are others, of course, just not enough. Think about it. Would there be 500,000 adoptable children languishing in foster care if pro-lifers really took their adoption-is-the-solution conviction seriously? I think not. But maybe lack of conviction isn't the whole problem. Maybe there's a problem with the way most pro-lifers see adoption.
When most pro-life people, espeically the activists, talk of adoption it's almost always in the context of saving unborn babies who are in immediate danger of abortion. Adoption is the alternative offered to desperate women on the verge of aborting their innocent babies. This view of adoption is fine, but it doesn't go far enough. Adoption needs to be seen not just as a means of rescuing the unborn from abortion, but also as a means of rescuing already born children from loveless, familyless lives. And adoption needs to be seen as a way to build families that's as valid as the natural way.
As I said above, the Duggars said they have many children because they're letting God control the size of their family. They don't seem to realize, though, that adoption can be a way for God to grow families. A large family doesn't mean only having many biological children; it simply means having many children, period. And having or, more acurately, raising larger than usual numbers of children is what pro-lifers, especially the Christian ones, should be doing. And at least some of those children should be adopted. It's just hypocritical for it to be otherwise.
I understand not everyone who's pro-life is able to raise children, biological or adopted. Some are elderly; some are teens. Some are disabled; some are financially strapped. And some just don't want kids. But there are others who are fully capable of raising multiple children; they just seem to want all those kids to be their own. They tell women with unplanned pregnancies "Adopt! Adopt!", yet they don't step forward to take in their unwanted babies. This must change. I'm glad the Duggars are expecting a new child, I just wish they were bringing an unwanted baby or a foster child into their loving home. That would be the truly Christian pro-life thing to do.
Now, I don't know if the Duggars are pro-life but I think it's safe to assume they are based on their conservative faith and their large family. And pro-lifers always tout adoption as THE alternative to abortion. Yet, so few of us--I say us because I'm part of the problem--seem to do it. Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar have said they have so many children because they're trusting God with the size of their family; that's great, but why didn't they consider that God might have wanted them to grow their family through adoption?
Being pro-life means, of course, trying to stop abortion. But the result of that is that babies are going to be born, babies who can't always be raised by their biological parents. And far too few pro-lifers are stepping up to the plate to adopt them. Take a look at the average conservative, pro-life, Christian family. It's no bigger than the average liberal, pro-choice, secular family. This tells me that most pro-lifers, religious and secular, aren't living out their professed convictions. A few are, of course.
Terry Meeuwsen, co-host of the 700 Club, has seven children: two biological and five adopted. What makes Ms. Meeuwsen's adoptions interesting is that they are all transracial and/or international. Her last adoption was of three Ukrainian sisters, the youngest of whom was seven or eight at the time. Clearly, Terry Meeuwsen understands that cuddly little babies aren't the only children who need loving homes. Kudos for her.
Another pro-life Christian who is living out his convictions is gospel singer Steven Curtis Chapman. Chapman and his wife Mary Beth added three little Chinese girls to their family of three biological children. After the adoption of their first daughter the Chapmans started the foundation Shoahannah's Hope to financially help others seeking to adopt. Sadly, the Chapmans recently suffered a tragic loss when their youngest adopted daughter, Maria, died after being struck by an SUV. I pray that God will comfort the Chapmans in their grief and maybe guide them to another adoption.
Terry Meeuwsen and Steven Curtis Chapman aren't the only pro-life people adopting children. There are others, of course, just not enough. Think about it. Would there be 500,000 adoptable children languishing in foster care if pro-lifers really took their adoption-is-the-solution conviction seriously? I think not. But maybe lack of conviction isn't the whole problem. Maybe there's a problem with the way most pro-lifers see adoption.
When most pro-life people, espeically the activists, talk of adoption it's almost always in the context of saving unborn babies who are in immediate danger of abortion. Adoption is the alternative offered to desperate women on the verge of aborting their innocent babies. This view of adoption is fine, but it doesn't go far enough. Adoption needs to be seen not just as a means of rescuing the unborn from abortion, but also as a means of rescuing already born children from loveless, familyless lives. And adoption needs to be seen as a way to build families that's as valid as the natural way.
As I said above, the Duggars said they have many children because they're letting God control the size of their family. They don't seem to realize, though, that adoption can be a way for God to grow families. A large family doesn't mean only having many biological children; it simply means having many children, period. And having or, more acurately, raising larger than usual numbers of children is what pro-lifers, especially the Christian ones, should be doing. And at least some of those children should be adopted. It's just hypocritical for it to be otherwise.
I understand not everyone who's pro-life is able to raise children, biological or adopted. Some are elderly; some are teens. Some are disabled; some are financially strapped. And some just don't want kids. But there are others who are fully capable of raising multiple children; they just seem to want all those kids to be their own. They tell women with unplanned pregnancies "Adopt! Adopt!", yet they don't step forward to take in their unwanted babies. This must change. I'm glad the Duggars are expecting a new child, I just wish they were bringing an unwanted baby or a foster child into their loving home. That would be the truly Christian pro-life thing to do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
