Adoption in the news
Legally, we need to close the loophole that allows this to happen. That's the first thing I have to say. I understand that even though the things I have to say on the subject are going to make it sound like I don't care about this guy's feelings.
But here's the thing. That baby has known only his adoptive parents for 2 years. That's pretty formative. For me, it was also the hardest part of raising a kid so I'm probably biased in saying it's too damned late to take the kid away. I think that the news is pretty good at portraying the side of the wronged biological father. They have pretty much always managed to make that side pretty clear and I don't want to discount that side of it, but we all know it. We hear it. The question, though, is it better to rip the kid from his parents' arms because you weren't on good terms with the biological mother when she gave up the kid for adoption? Or for all the months she was pregnant and came to this decision? I don't particularly care to hyperbolize with the word 'rip', but have you ever taken a 2 year old away from the arms of their parents when they didn't want to go? For longer than a night of babysitting?
I reiterate, we need to close this loophole! I've heard people terrified of adopting because they hear these stories. They don't want to become attached to a child only to have it taken away. They need to be allowed to feel like that child is their child. If they have fear that the baby they have just adopted can be taken by a biological parent at any point along the way, it will affect every little action of how they raise and think of that child! Whether it is in relation to an adopted child or any other experience we have as humans, our responses are, consciously or sub-consciously, going to be affected. When the only news reports we hear about adoption are related to kids being taken from the only families they know, the result can only be adoptive parents treating their adopted children slightly differently.
Meanwhile, adoptive parents and the children they have adopted have created this family of their own. A family is love, but it is also knowledge of each other. Trust. Being able to predict others' behaviour because we know them that well! Familiarity. Comfort. Attachment.
Yes, a two year old can re-establish those bonds with a new family. It happens when a young child's parents get divorced, the parents remarry, and they end up liking their step-parents. It happens when a toddler's parents are killed in a car accident and they go to love with beloved aunts and uncles. It happens, that is true, but if a biological father loves his kid so much, then shouldn't the thought of what it will do to the child at least cross his mind? Is it really because it breaks your heart not to see the kid or because you can't let got of something you think you should possess? If someone steals your car, you want to take them to court, prove it's yours and get it back. No one thinks about how the car feels, but the victim is likely to say things like "I love that car. It's my car. It belongs to me."
Guess what? A kid is not a car. Why does the thought never come up that these guys think about that kid's feelings? Why do we never hear a tale where he's saying "Hey, maybe it's for the best. I just want to know what's going on in my kid's life. Maybe some pictures and letters or let me visit as a family friend." No. It is always the immediate jump to "I must have my child back." What are you going to provide that child? What plans do you have to offer that child more than it is getting right now? I see how that comes dangerously close to saying that a rich family deserves to keep a kid more than a single poor guy. I do not believe that. There is much more to raising a kid than money like love, attention, and desire to have that kid around. I understand these biological fathers have those things, but sometimes love is about giving the person what they want and what's better for them than about what you want. Isn't sacrifice the purest show of love?
I also notice the news never asks about what the bio-mom has to say to defend herself. I fully support the idea that bio-mom's should discuss her plans with bio-dad before making any decisions about the baby, but let's keep something huge in mind. We want men and women to be treated equally, but they will never really be equal and one of the most defining reasons for that is the ability to get pregnant. Women know from childhood that this is their contribution and responsibility to the world. By the time they can have babies, they realize that they have to think about it every time they are with a guy. Do you think guys spend that much time thinking about what could happen if they fertilize the wrong egg? Of course not. We've sort of taught our young women that one way they can behave equally to men is to engage in sex as frivolously as they do. They have the right to be promiscuous without being sluts (let me come back to that comment in a second....) and they do, but a guy never ever ever has to worry about the consequences of a mistake the way a woman does. At the back of his mind he knows that if he gets her pregnant, he can choose whether or not to be involved in the decision. A women doesn't get that choice, does she?
Quick tangent on that comment. The same people who think that a biological parent has more rights over a kid often seems to be the same kind of person who will still call a woman a slut in this age of "enlightenment", but the dude is a playa, not a slut. He's not a jackass for skipping necessary precautions to avoid pregnancy or, say, skipping the sex altogether. No, a man doesn't really have to look at it the same way as woman, does he? I mean, this is a huge issue.
In the story above, we're talking about a young man who is now of legal age who broke off relations with the girl because she was younger than he was first told. Well, it's not like the age he *thought* she was is particularly upstanding either. As far as the age argument goes in my world, there isn't a lot of difference between a 40 year old wife and a 53 year old husband, but there is an ENORMOUS difference between an 16 year old and an 18 year old. Starting high school and thinking about college or a career are two different lives completely.
So you know what, dude? It is unfair. It is unjust. It's unfair to you. It's unjust to the child. Still, can you take five seconds to think about how unfair and unjust it will be to the baby if you snatch him from the only parents he has ever known? Parents who, btw, had a reason for adopting. Maybe they've had their own struggles. The idea of adopting your kid didn't come easily to them, you know, and I would like to hear at least one of these guys admit that they have given at least as much thought to taking the kid away, the complexity, the grey area, as the bio-mom who carried it in her womb and contemplated 24/7 for nine months or the people who came to the decision to adopt a child for whatever reason they came to that decision. Stop and think for a minute. If you're taking the kid back like a toy someone stole or you are more upset that the chick who gave birth to this baby lied to you than anything else, maybe you need to spend more time thinking about it.
Letting your kid be adopted isn't a reflection that you're a bad person. It doesn't mean you'll be a bad father someday. A person isn't selfish because they let that sperm create a great kid and then became less involved in that kid's life. It actually shows that you are strong, selfless, and humble to be able to forget the law and do what's best for the child.
No comments:
Post a Comment