Miracle of Newborn Child, Titian, 1511 Fresco.I see this phrase a lot.... "the miracle of adoption". When did the man-made notion of adoption become a miracle? The religious like to put God into the equation to make it seem as if adoption is a sacred thing. How convenient to use a person's faith to convince them that adoption is part of the divine order.
Here's a definition of the word miracle I found online. "A miracle is an unexpected event attributed to divine intervention. Sometimes an event is also attributed (in part) to a miracle worker, saint, or religious leader. A miracle is sometimes thought of as a perceptible interruption of the laws of nature. Others suggest that God may work with the laws of nature to perform what people perceive as miracles."
Well, adoption is not an unexpected event and the only ones intervening are humans. Look at the line I put in bold - ....a perceptible interruption of the laws of nature. Now that makes sense. Adoption certainly IS an interruption of the laws of nature. Natural law creates a bond between mother and child that is sacred. This is the miracle to me. This is what people have lost sight of. This sacredness has been sacrificed for the almighty dollar. The "almighty" didn't create adoption. The adoption industry calls taking a newborn infant from his or her mother and giving him to a couple who are strangers a miracle. I see adopters writing all the time about God bringing a child to them, that it was meant to be. If all is created by God then why was that child created in the womb of the other woman? Was that woman not meant to be the child's mother? She is then told by people who like playing god that she isn't good enough to raise her own baby. It's not too difficult to believe that if you've been raised to believe that you're a sinner to begin with. Maybe for some, the brainwashing started long before the pregnancy.
What could be more of a miracle than feeling your child move within you, feeling the kick of a baby as she grows? Being connected to that life on a cellular level, being one with that person for all those months is the closest connection any two human beings can have on this planet. That is the miracle! Seeing that child's face for the first time and knowing who she is, is the miracle. That experience was denied me when my daughter was born. I was physically connected to another human yet seeing her and touching her was denied me and she was denied knowing me. That's not a miracle, it's a tragedy.
Scripture is thrown around to justify the idea of adoption like these verses on an adoption site:
Deuteronomy 10:18 He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the alien, giving him food and clothing. Giving him food and clothing means just that - food and clothing. It does not translate into giving him new parents.
Isaiah 1:17 Learn to do right! Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow. What is the cause of the fatherless? To be cared for and loved by their own tribe. If not the mother or father directly then another from their family. That would be seeking justice for the child. Working to keep the sacred connection between mother and child unbroken is seeking justice. Helping the mother IS helping the child.
People are using God to justify taking a child from a mother. If this so-called miracle is meant to be then does that mean God meant for the child to suffer the loss of her family and the family to suffer the loss of their child? How does this jive with the being who is supposed to be all-knowing and loving? When people pray for God to bring them a baby they are praying for something they want; they're asking to have their own needs satisfied. They are not praying for what's best for the child because what's best for a baby is her own mother. If their prayer is answered that means they got what they wanted and what they wanted translates into pain and loss, a sacred bond being broken. When you break it down it just means they're praying for someone else to lose so they can win. In adoption that means many people lose, not just the mother and child. An entire family is damaged.
I think I prefer this verse - Exodus 20:1-17 You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's. That includes their children.
Sadly, most people don't get the simplistic, realistic statement that if you were meant to have a baby, you would have one...my thought on it: If you don't have babies and love children, maybe the child you were meant to have was one that really doesn't have a parent, or, sometimes having a mate that needs you is the parent thing you can do.
ReplyDeleteGreed is a very driving force - the biological clock is something that is overcome or grown out of....
OK, I am really stuck on the "defending the cause of the fatherless and the widow" part. I cannot get my brain around what that has to do with adoption and why an adoption site would say that this corelates to their mission. One complaint I have about various religion's interpretation of the Bible, is just that-so many interpretations.
ReplyDeleteWell, my mother was (is) a widow and I was a fatherless child from the age of 10 along with my 5 siblings who were mostly younger than me. Do I take this interpretation to mean that my mother was not adequate as a parent on her own? Apparently she should have planned better. Should she have given us up for adoption because my father died so young? Most young girls are coerced by being made to feel guilty about having a fatherless child. So, is it OK in some cases but not others? I am really confused, but I guess they can just slant it anyway that works for them. I think the use of this particular Bible passage is a stretch, even for the adoption industry.
Exactly Kelli, your mother was without a husband, you were without a father. I was without a husband and Liz would have been without a father. The only difference was the status at the time of actual conception.
ReplyDeleteLori, it is sad. There are so many ways to help children. One of those ways is to help the family. Another is to help a community that's dealing with poverty. Give a home to a real orphan - a child who has really lost all family. These things help children. These would be the truly selfless ways of helping.
Rarely are the fatherless mentioned in scripture without the widow--the fatherless child's mother. Christians are called to help BOTH. But that's not convenient for adoption. So, they leave off helping the child's mother and only acknowledge God's call to help the child. And thus, it's not really helping, is it?
ReplyDeleteI agree with Amanda. How can it be helping if the only solution is to remove the child from it's natural mother? Lets just pile more pain on pain.
ReplyDeleteThis is why the whole idea of celebrating adoption in November just gets under my skin. Adoption creates pain, it's based on separation of family and loss. This is nothing to celebrate. The only ones celebrating are the brokers who make money and the adopting couples who "grow" their family.
ReplyDelete