Wednesday, January 12, 2005

More Adoption Questions

Now that I've got started thinking about it, I really don't understand the government's position in adoptions. I can see that the welfare of children needs to be protected, because they cannot care for themselves (I like that they have to consent to being adopted after the age of 12-if I read that right-it makes sense), but how does the government objectively decide who is fit for parenting? This is for the courts it seems, and then it would not be right for the courts to have avoided the matter I mentioned yesterday, because it would be their jurisdiction. It seems in that case that the state would be the one questioning the fitness of prospective parents and as such would have the burden of proof for who is and is not considered worthy. I don't see how standard rules would apply, each individual must be assessed on their own personal merit, not their marital status and/or sexual persuasion. Who are the courts to say that children need two parents? As long as the person adopting them cannot be proven incompetent they should be allowed to adopt. By what right does the legislature ban homosexuals from adoption? So, it seems in retrospect that the courts have shirked their responsibility. Not the Supreme Court necessarily, because it should be a state issue, but then it seems Unconstitutional to allow the states to ban certain individuals with no regards to their individual merit. Also, what happens in the case of a surrogate mother? Would the (male) homosexual have to prove he fathered the child to get custody? What about (female) homosexuals getting artificially inseminated? Do they have more of a right to be parents because they are biologically able to give birth?


Post a Comment

<< Home