Adoption agencies [Matthew's Journal]

You're viewing

emperor's journal
Create a Dreamwidth Account Learn More

Reload page in style: site light

←

→

It's with a certain trepidation that I broach this subject - views seem pretty polarised already. I listened to Today interviewing ++John, where he made an interesting point[1], which was that doctors, although required to treat everyone, are allowed to decide on the basis of conscience not to perform abortions (and instead must refer patients onto doctors who will). Currently, Roman Catholic adoption agencies (who deal with about 4% of cases, although a substantially higher proportion of "difficult" children) behave similarly, in that they will refer homosexual couples on to other agencies.

His point was that since we allow doctors freedom of conscience (whilst ensuring that people needing abortions get them), we should allow RC adoption agencies freedom of conscience (whilst ensuring that suitable gay couples are still able to adopt).

I'm not sure what I make of that. Personally, I don't think RC adoption agencies should discriminate against homosexuals, FTR. I'm interested in what readers think - not so much as to whether the RCC is right or not, but as to ++John's point.

[1]He also said that he didn't think homosexuality was a sin, which will upset some people.

←

→

There are 58 comments on this entry. (Reply.)

There's a big difference, though - assuming basic competence, an abortion is an abortion. Children are not functionally interchangeable. Other adoption agencies do not have the same children to adopt.

Does the number of potential adopters outweigh the number of potential adoptees? I rather thought it was the other way around, at least for non-infant adoptees.

Hah! Easy solution! Shut down all the Catholic adoption agencies! Then nobody's rights are being infringed.

Unless of course it's a moral right to run an adoption agency.

[link] [parent] [reply]

I think the trouble is that people get confused between the question "what should the RC church do?" (to which the answer is "allow gay people to adopt, of course") and the question "what should the British government do" (to which the answer is, "it's a bit difficult, but probably allow adoption agencies freedom of conscience.")

I think he's got a good point. And I don't see how people-who-believe-homosexuality-is-a-sin could in good conscience allow a baby to be adopted by people who are living in what-they-perceive-to-be-sin (personally I would say that it's better for a baby to be adopted by loving sinners than for it to have no family, but IANAC). I still think the RCC is wrong about this, but I think they're morally consistent, IYSWIM.

And provided they do refer people on to other agencies then I have to say I'm not sure what the problem is, unless it's a "thin end of the wedge" kind of problem ("before you know it you'll have Catholic adoption agencies and Muslim adoption agencies and WICCAN ADOPTION AGENCIES WHERE THEY MAKE YR BABY A WITCH OMG!!!!"). The question of whether people are suitable adoptive parents is always going to be (to some extent) a subjective judgement; as I see it, all RC adoption agencies would be doing is making one bit of their subjectivity explicit.

The other thing I don't understand about this argument is that I'm not sure why a gay couple would want to have the right to go to a Catholic adoption agency when they know they'll be regarded as Teh Evil anyway, whether that discrimination is enshrined in law or not. I mean, are there many gay couples who specifically want to adopt a Catholic baby (whatever that means, have they identified the Catholic Gene yet?) and wouldn't settle for a boring heathen baby, or something?

... I feel like I'm missing something screamingly obvious. I look forward to having it pointed out to me in quintuplicate by the forces of teh internets.

Of course, since every living human is living in sin, the logical consequence of that argument is that only Jesus can ever adopt anyone...

Disclaimer: I'm Christian (although not RC), but having been more-or-less thrown out of an (evangelical Anglican) church on grounds that I was publicly and unrepentantly sinning in my entire lifestyle, I may be a little unsympathetic.

[link] [parent] [reply]

(no subject) —

j4.livejournal.com

This is exactly my position. I have nothing to add, and this little comment of agreement seems more sensible that copy-and-pasting J4's text into my own ;-)

[link] [parent] [reply]

Having thought about it a bit since the irc conversation...

In an ideal world churches would be allowed to make whatever bizarre rules they wanted, and the state would not be expected to interfere in people's private beliefs. People who disliked their church's rules would have to attempt to reform it from within without help from the state, or change church, or whatever.

However, when (for instance) people bring their children up in their own religion, it's not clear that everyone is ending up in a given church through an entirely free choice, so perhaps state interference is warranted after all?

Doctors definitely shouldn't be allowed to let religious beliefs get in the way of the welfare of their patient.

However, when (for instance) people bring their children up in their own religion

OOI, are you assuming that human beings are atheists by default, and/or that children are not capable of choosing to follow (or not to follow) a religion?

I very much doubt that all the adults in a church -- or indeed in any other organisation -- can say that they are making "an entirely free choice" without being influenced by others.

[link] [parent] [reply]

(no subject) —

ewx.livejournal.com

(no subject) —

teleute.livejournal.com

So the question is whether gay adoption can be considered to be a legitimately disputed special case in the same sense that abortion is. (I assume here that abortion is a specific matter on which doctors have this freedom of conscience, and they don't more generally have the freedom to pick and choose any parts of their job they feel like on ethical grounds and still keep that job.)

A big difference between the two cases as I see it is that in abortion, the facts are not in dispute, merely their moral interpretation: it certainly is true that an abortion causes an entity which would (with luck) otherwise grow up into a human to be prevented from doing so, and the question on which doctors are permitted to differ is the entirely non-physical one of whether and when this is morally unacceptable.

So granting similar freedom of conscience to adoption agencies would presuppose a similar level of undisputedness about the factual basis for considering gay adoption unacceptable. I have (fortunately) not heard enough of the RC side's arguments to be entirely sure about what they're actually claiming, but if it involves the slightest hint that adoption of a child by a gay couple makes the child more likely to be gay, or that this would be obviously a bad thing, or that gay couples would be more likely to bring the child up to be generally "immoral" in other related ways (e.g. promiscuous), then it seems to me that the government would want to think very carefully before implicitly legitimising any of those claims.

And on the other hand, if the RC side's sole claim is that children adopted by a gay couple would merely be more likely to grow up considering homosexuality not to be a bad thing, then it seems to me that for the government to permit people to deny adoption on the grounds that that conflicted with their conscience would implicitly endorse the idea that believing in the badness of homosexuality is a valid ethical choice, which in turn goes directly against their otherwise basically consistent attempts to stamp out discrimination against homosexuals in general.

So I'm forced to the conclusion that whatever the RC arguments are, the government should not dignify them by labelling them as a legitimate difference of conscience.

I agree. I think it's outrageous to suggest that "personally terminating a viable human life" and "facilitating a child to be brought up by loving parents, one aspect of whose lifestyle you happen not to approve", are decisions that are comparable in moral weight. To give the RCC an exemption on adoption on this basis would be to assert that they are.

[link] [parent] [reply]

(no subject) —

j4.livejournal.com

Also, I left out an important point there, I think.

The other thing about abortion is that it's pretty clear that it's not a million miles away from murder, and pretty much everybody considers murder to be wrong and the government already has a commitment to aggressively discouraging it. The legal dividing line between the two has actually moved back and forth a bit, which is a clear indication that there's scope for reasonably differing opinions.

With gay adoption, there's no generally agreed moral basis at all in the same sense: there is no obviously wrong thing in the eyes of the law and near-universal moral belief with scope for disagreement about whether or not gay adoption counts as it. The underlying wrong from the POV of the RC side is being gay, and (in direct contrast to murder) the government has a prior commitment to not thinking there's anything wrong with that!

So when it comes to abortion, the government has clear grounds for saying "I can see why you might reasonably consider this wrong", in a way that they really don't for gay abortion.

[link] [parent] [reply]

(no subject) —

simont

(no subject) —

teleute.livejournal.com

I'd be interested to know whether they also oppose single people (of whatever sexuality) adopting. People who I've met who are against gay adoption are against it on the grounds that every child should have a chance to be brought up by both a mother and a father. Though I don't agree with this, I don't see why it shouldn't be labled a legitimate difference of conscience.

[link] [parent] [reply]

(no subject) —

nja.livejournal.com

Under [1] he's been quoted by the BBC as saying that the church doesn't believe homosexuality is a sin (or at least that's the more obvious understanding of their slightly ambiguous sentence), which is a rather stronger claim than just saying he personally doesn't think it is.

Most Christians would agree that homosexuality is not a sin, it is homosexual practice which some have issues with. Obviously sometimes people mean the latter when they say the former.

[link] [parent] [reply]

(no subject) —

phlebas.livejournal.com

Though there isn't a law saying that doctors must perform abortions. If there was a law, then I don't see that "personal conscience" would make someone exempt, rather, you should be opposing the law as a whole if you think doctors shouldn't be forced to perform abortions.

If "personal conscience" is more important than preventing discrimination, then that should be a reason for these discrimination laws not to exist at all for the provision of goods and services - for all people (not just Catholic adoption agencies), and for all forms of discrimination (remembering that the law also covers discrimination based on belief, and that there are already laws for race and disability).

Otherwise, there needs to be a compelling argument (a) why adoption agencies should be different, and (b) why discriminating on sexual orientation is different.

I can potentially see an argument for (a), in that it would not be unreasonable to only have this law for some businesses (e.g., I think it's more of a problem if someone is refused accomodation for being gay, compared to something more trivial), but I've yet to see anyone making that argument, instead we just see "Wah, it's unfair we have to follow a law if we disagree with it!"

By that logic, we should scrap all laws, because someone's "personal conscience" might not be okay with it. E.g., since we allow doctors "freedom of conscience", we should allow people "freedom of conscience" to murder people ... sure, this may not be the same as murder, but you've got to show why one law is good, and this law is bad.

And I've yet to hear anyone make a justification for (b).

I'm also curious that people have been talking in terms of "conscience" and "belief" rather than "religion" which is what we usually hear when people want an exemption. I'm not sure if this is good (in that it's accepting at last that any personal belief or conscience should be treated the same as that of organised religion) or misleading (in that it still basically means religion, in that it seems doubtful that any opt-out will extend to anyone who doesn't want to follow it, since that would make the law useless, and we never hear of people being given opt-outs for anything other than religious beliefs).

To add to that, another difference is that it's comparing individual doctors to an organisation. If a doctor doesn't want to do something, it's easier to accomodate that if another one can do it, but if it got to the stage where entire hospitals were refusing service, then that would be a bad thing.

Similarly, in an individual employee of an adoption agency doesn't want to handle cases with same sex parents, then I've no problem with that, but this is about agencies as a whole.

[link] [parent] [reply]

You've described my view, more or less. Nobody ever asks for racists to be given the freedom of conscience not to have dealings with black or Asian people - why not?

There's also the fact that these are agencies which work closely with local authorities, and receive payment from public funds for their work. If they can't or won't comply with public policy and the law, they should be closed down.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Well, hold on a minute there. You talk here about discrimination "for the provision of goods and services", drawing analogies with accommodation further down your comment, and then argue that (among other things) there needs to be a compelling argument why adoption agencies should be different.

Surely the answer to that part is fairly clear? Adoption is not a good or service provided to the adoptive parents, or at least not primarily. It's done first and foremost for the good of the child. So the arguments need to centre around whether or not the good of a child is served by having that child adopted by a gay couple. Indeed, the RC side's arguments do centre around this (AIUI); and I worry that by spending so much time talking about "discrimination" against gay would-be adoptive parents (as if the sole or primary concern is their right to enjoy the company of a child) and so little time talking about how actually gay parents can bring up a child just as well as straight ones, the non-RC side of the debate has shot itself in the foot a bit.

[link] [parent] [reply]

(no subject) —

emarkienna.livejournal.com

Are people generally allowed to attach conditions to the adoptees of their baby when they hand it over to an adoption service?

I'm not sure, but I think they can say what kind of people they'd like to adopt but can't insist on it, *or* (assuming they're voluntarily giving the baby up) they can not hand it over until a specific couple they approve of has been found.

[link] [parent] [reply]

My first problem with his reasoning is that I don't think it's right that doctors are allowed to refuse to perform abortions on the basis of conscience, which somewhat damages the analogy. And it would be even more wrong for a doctor to decide his conscience would only allow him to terminate pregnancies for lesbians.

My second is that an adoption agency is a service for the parents putting a child up for adoption as well as the adopting couple. While a gay couple can, indeed, go somewhere else to adopt, the other effect is that a parent could, by placing their child with a Catholic adoption agency, seek to ensure it wasn't adopted by homosexuals. I don't think that's right.

Besides, imagine the indignation that would arise if we substituted "black" for "gay" in the debate. I don't see anyone arguing for tolerance if someone's conscience dictates that being black is immoral, or claiming black people make less good parents…

I don't think it's right that doctors are allowed to refuse to perform abortions on the basis of conscience

I quite agree. Similarly I don't think the pharmaceutical freedom described here is acceptable:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/x-ray/allarticles/stories/5p07_emergencycontraception.shtml

If people are allowed to opt out of laws or parts of their job because of personal beliefs, would it be reasonable for me to take a job as a shop assistant and refuse to sell anyone meat products?

[link] [parent] [reply]

(no subject) —

phlebas.livejournal.com

(no subject) —

j4.livejournal.com

(no subject) —

tifferrobinson.livejournal.com

(no subject) — (anonymous)

Substitute black? —

alitalf.livejournal.com

Re: Substitute black? —

teleute.livejournal.com

(no subject) —

aldabra

Starting from my preferred attitude of "live and let live" I don't think homosexuality is a sin - shame if it was because several of my friends would be sinners - and I do think it would be better if RC adoption agencies did not refuse to place adoptees with homosexual couples.

I think the main question is: are adoptees going to be well served if a proportion of current adoption agencies close? I don't know, but it may be that having fewer agencies might not be so good as having some that deal with everyone and a few that deal with a subset. It must depend on the capacity of other adoption agencies to deal with the extra adoptees.

BUT, my personal view is that if all else were equal it would be better for a child to be adopted by a heterosexual couple, because it is normally easier for people to fit in with the rest of the world if their experiences are closer to those of the majority. I was always a misfit for quite other reasons and it was never fun. Purely for this reason I left school for the last time with mixed emotions; joy and happiness, and I think it is worth trying to avoid someone being put in that position.

OTOH a slightly in creased risk of going through the "misfit" experience has to beat not being adopted at all.

I think ++John is drawing a false analogy. There are two main differences between the two situations, and one that I consider less important. Starting with the main ones, firstly, abortion is a fairly standardised procedure; for any given stage of pregnancy, there will be one or two possible techniques on offer, and there is no serious shortage in the UK of doctors who are trained to carry them out. Therefore, provided the first doctor behaves ethically, it should be possible to refer the woman to a doctor who will meet her needs within the time permitted by law. (I am aware that some doctors behave unethically by obstructing referrals, but that's not what we're concerned with here.) Secondly, and crucially in my view, the abortion system exists to protect the interests of the woman.

Adoption is different because the adoption system exists to protect the interests of the child, not the interests of the prospective adoptive parents. Further, the exercise of matching prospective parents with children is far more individualised and complex than that of matching women with abortion-performing doctors. With adoption, referring the prospective parents elsewhere doesn't help; the key is whether the needs of the child can be met by an agency which excludes certain categories of parent without evidence to establish that they are unsuitable. This can't easily be circumvented by saying that children who would benefit from having gay parents should be referred to another agency; in many cases, a Catholic agency won't be able to know which children those are, since by definition it won't have the information about available gay parents on its books in order to make the comparison. (A Catholic agency might be able to say that it will refer children who are gay themselves and have a clear need for gay parents, or even that it will refer children for whom it cannot find any match at all, but the system won't work when it's a matter of selecting the best of several possible matches; presumably the Catholic agency isn't going to refer every child on its books on the off-chance that a secular agency may have a gay couple that is more suited to the child than the straight couples on the Catholic agency's books.)

The third difference, which I consider less decisive, is that for any doctor working outside an abortion clinic (and I'm not aware that any doctors who do work in such clinics have tried to exercise the conscience clause), refusing to perform abortions still leaves plenty of work that he or she can usefully do. Most patients who come to him or her will not be asking for abortions. In the case of adoption, it seems to me that agencies have a duty to consider the full range of possible placements in every case, including any gay parents who are available, since that is the only way to be sure that the best match has been found for the individual child. In some cases, the consideration may be very short - "this child has allergies, so we need to exclude all households with dogs, including this gay couple" - but it mustn't exclude gay parents from the outset unless there is a child-specific reason for doing so. An agency which insists on excluding any category of prospective parents on irrelevant grounds is, in my opinion, doing a disservice to all the children on its books and has, again in my opinion, no work left which it can legitimately do.

Whilst I agree with you entirely I believe the POV of the RCC is that just as they would not place a child with allergies in a house with dogs, they would not place a child with an immortal soul (all children) in a house with people who will certainly tarnish it (e.g. homosexuals).

[link] [parent] [reply]

(no subject) —

sashajwolf.livejournal.com

I think others have already said it in different ways, but as I see it, the problem is one of the individual child's future.

The way my brain thinks of it is this:

Let's say we have a kid called Fred, and he's got some problems so is going to be hard to place, and is in the care of a RC adoption agency. [Some gay couple] are willing to adopt him and clearly have all the resources, qualifications and practical criteria met to look after him properly. But the adoption agency refuse to let them take Fred because they are gay.

What happens to Fred?

Fred is bounced from foster home to foster home/in care for years and years, where his problems get worse and he feels lost and upset and potentially his future and wellbeing is at risk.

So by refusing to let the gay couple adopt Fred, the adoption agency have essentially ruined his life. That's not cool! They might disapprove of one aspect of their lifestyle, but no parents are ever going to be "perfect" - AFAIK UK-based adoption agencies wouldn't refuse to let slightly fat parents, or slightly poor parents, or parents who listen to Britney Spears. So they disapprove of the lifestyle? Fine, but that doesn't mean that Fred wouldn't be better off with them than the alternative.

It's the thin end of the wedge and shouldn't be allowed. This is *exactly* the same issue again as the evangelical hoteliers who didn't want to rent rooms to gay couples, and the same issue that allows pharmacists in America to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions.

Doctors are required to specialise, and because of that they are able to choose not to work in abortion clinics. However, GPs, although they are allowed to refuse to sign the form, are *not* allowed to refuse to refer the patient on to another GP who will. So, to follow the comparison, if this RC adoption agency can't face signing off the forms, they should pass the child and its future gay parents to another agency to handle the paperwork.

I've been reading John Boswell's book, Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality, and it makes the very sound point that Christian hostility towards gay people is not justified by the biblical texts, which only mention it twice, once in Leviticus (shellfish, anyone?) and once in the New Testiment. And there are many other concerns that are raised much more often, but get much less attention. My point? This is said to be a religious issue, but I'm convinced it isn't, that its real roots lie elsewhere and religion is merely the justification.

Good point - it seems that religion is sometimes used as a spurious excuse to justify attitudes that are at best unkind, and at worst - well words fail me.

[link] [parent] [reply]

(no subject) —

rustica.livejournal.com

(no subject) —

thethirdvoice.livejournal.com

(no subject) —

sashajwolf.livejournal.com

(no subject) —

sashajwolf.livejournal.com

(no subject) —

rustica.livejournal.com

The question is, does the law treat the question as one with a clearly-right answer (like the issue of race, where that's obviously irrelevant), or does it recognise that (unlike the issue of race) this is an area where people might legitimately hold differing views?

If people can legitimately hold differing views, then the law shouldn't be proscribing one or the other: the law should either be scrapped or limite din scope to apply to, say, goods and sevrices but not adoption.

On the other hand if there is a clearly-right answer, the Catholic adoption agencies should close as (clearly) they are not wanted by society (at least, society as represented in the law).

There is really no middle way here -- either the law considers this an open-and-shut case and so worth legistlating on, or there is room for difering opinions, in which case it shouldn't be legislated on at all.

SK

October