Yesterday, on the radio, I heard a DJ say that those who can’t have children naturally shouldn’t be allowed to adopt. Really? He later tried to dig himself out of a hole by saying he meant homosexuals, not that the new statement was any better. But regardless of how he tried to “fix” his earlier statement, it still stung. There are so many people in the world who aren’t able to have children, some that do have children but aren’t able to have anymore, and those who keep on having children when they’re not able to take care of the ones they have. While it saddens me that there are so many children in orphanages and foster homes, I’m glad that there is a system in place to take care of children who don’t have homes. I’m thankful to the parents who decide to give up their children for adoption because they recognize that they can’t give the child the type of care he or she needs. This doesn’t mean that every infertile couple or woman should adopt; nor does it mean that anyone who experiences secondary infertility should adopt. Adoption, in my opinion, is a sacred calling. It is not a substitution for a real child, and it shouldn’t be considered as a shopping trip. Nor, should someone adopt an older child simply because she needs a babysitter for her younger biological child (yes, I’ve seen this). Someone who adopts must be able to see this child as her own. As one of my friends said, adopted is past tense. Once it happens, that child is her daughter, no matter what.
But enough about my concern on adopting a child, I want to go back and address this DJ’s statement. No one who can’t have a child naturally should adopt? Really? This goes back to the perception that normalcy equals being a parent, but only if you’re a biological parent. I should state that while I am unable to have biological children, I do not feel called to adopt; yet, I know so many other women, men, and couples who would gladly adopt a child whether domestically or internationally. But according to this DJ, they shouldn’t. So, is he saying that couplehood is only for procreation? That those who continue to procreate should keep as many children as they birth? Children who are abused should never be removed from their biological families because then they MIGHT be adopted by a couple who is unable to have their own biological children? Of course not. It makes no sense. I think anyone who is blessed to either birth his or her own child should do so, of course if she wants children. And nothing should prevent anyone from adopting a child if she or he has the heart to do so.
Now, the prohibitive finances involved in adoption? Well, that’s another story for another blog.