Should Bristol Palin Have Put the Baby Up for Adoption?

Gerard,
Thanks for the link - I recall reading it a very long time ago and thinking it was a classic example of trying to square the circle, even in those days.

Of course the Church is right in condemning violence against us, and it is a serious failing that so many of the Catholics here actively incite such violence.

The main problem I had back then and still have today with 'Cardinal' Ratzinger's position is the argumentation he presents, which was basically the same argumentation we heard several hundred years ago on similar findings of the natural sciences - that the science is certainly accurate, but irrelevant.

Now that many decades have passed since homosexuality was removed from the list of mental illnesses in virtually all civilized countries (the position of conservative Christians is, today, only otherwise to be found in the most extreme forms of Islam) and given the fairly recent findings (which have now been independently repeated) that there is a genetic advantage arising from homosexuality, to whit more children survive to adulthood in families which have a strain of male homosexuality than in families which do not have homosexual male offspring, it is time for the church to reconsider the position that homosexuality is intrinsically disordered.

Our love is valid, it is also socially of value in the Darwinian sense. Clearly, this was not yet conclusive in 1975, tho' even then there was enough evidence for the Church to have moved beyond her position.

Ultimately, I suppose it comes down to the old conflict between the mindset which led to forbidding priests to marry (and we have all seen the disastrous consequences of that) and the willingness to accept that our progress in the natural sciences forces us to reappraise our interpretation of the Bible and God's will.

Logically, it is just not possible to argue for denying me and other homosexuals a loving relationship on the basis of such love not fruiting in new children. One can twist it, fold, staple and otherwise try, but were the Church to truly hold this position consequently, then all marriages between a man and woman who are incapable of bearing children would be annulled. The fact that the church does not makes clear that this position is untenable.

Now, the whole sterilization problem is one which should not be approached without serious consideration. Certainly, a child in your son's position has every right to expect and, I surely hope, to find a partner who will spend their life with him. Nothing you have written would indicate that his offspring would be likely to suffer pain or such disability as to make their lives a living hell.

My grand-nephews and nieces are, however, barely able to survive and could not without the considerable resources my parents invest in their care. We needn't go into the statistics, theoretically their conditions could be weeded out through current or soon to be realized genetic screening. But there it is - how many fetuses do we abort before we finally get one which is going to have a life without pain? This assuming they are even capable of making such decisions, which at this point I doubt. Political correctness aside, the only reason these kids aren't institutionalized is because we can invest thousands upon thousands of dollars into their home care every month. I don't mind, my parents see it as a family responsibility...but the day will never come when they can live independently. The hämophilia in the boys has other consequences, as you no doubt know.

But heh - the question for me is, why isn't Levi permitted a larger role in the raising of his own child? Here in my country, the first time that Palin brat turned him away at the door without good reason, she would have been hauled into court where the judge would have forced her to recognize his rights...and responsibilities. A very strange system in America.

Same for me Gerard, same for me. Deepest respect.

You, sigilaris and a few others here soar so far above me it is humbling and challenging.

Right now, real Italy is closer by far than Little Italy, but I'd take either, my driveway is completely under a thick sheet of snow and ice.

Ick.

I want to say that I am an adoptive mother. My husband and I decided not to try infertility options and instead adopted two children (full siblings 1 and 3 yo) who needed homes.
My kids are wonderful. They do not have behavior problems, aren't on any meds and don't have any abuse issues. They are A or honor role students who play in the band and the orchestra and they both excel at soccer. They are in middle school and are both happy and well adjusted.
But I am here to tell you all. Adoption as an option sucks. It is truly a "least bad" option. If their is any way to possibly keep mother and baby together- do it. Even it means community college instead of Harvard or three to a bedroom- keep them together.
It breaks my heart to see the gaping hole in my children's soul. The knowledge that you were given away by the person who should love you most wounds and scars children. Knowing that they are not living in the world with the family God put them with, wounds children. Don't take the idea of adoption lightly. It is a wrenching process that constantly rips open and re-scars. I think adoption is better than abortion- but not by much. We need to work harder to remove the stigma and keep mothers and babies together. A decade later- that kid will thank you.