Same Sex Adoption Better than Abortion...right?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ToeInTheWater
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Same sex adoption would be better than abortion ONLY if the natural parents plan on killing the child. Otherwise same sex adoption remains a grave injustice to the child.
 
The scenario presented by T.i. W is a choice between placing a abortion and placing a child for adoption by 2 gays.

Choosing abortion would always be wrong, it is intrinsically evil.

Homosexual sexual relations are always disordered and also sinful. Homosexual relationship can also be a source of scandal, especially scandalizing an innocent into believing homosexual relations are ordered.

Direct abortion is always sinful.

At the same time, two gays could theoretically commit to a chaste relationship. It would be a friendship. A gay couple could commit to avoiding scandal to the child, by not presenting themselves as a “couple”.

I think, at times a chaste homosexual could adopt a child without there being sin. Often, adoption to a family member would be preferred to a stranger.

I have a gay uncle, who I did not know was gay until I was an adult. He was very circumspect. If my parents had both died as a child, I think placement into a familial setting with my uncle would have been preferential than going into foster care.
 
Corki said:
Fornication is NOT a graver sin than “gay” sex. Fornication can lead to an abortion but it can also lead to a new life or even to an eventual marriage. “Gay” sex can never result in either of those good results. It always has a bad end.

As to the OP, the woman in question would be the actor in the abortion but only the cooperator in the adoption. Cooperating with evil is almost always sinful but not as grave as being the principle operator in a mortal sin.
Click to expand...
Thank you for that.

Ed
 
Zoltan_Cobalt said:
Same sex adoption would be better than abortion ONLY if the natural parents plan on killing the child. Otherwise same sex adoption remains a grave injustice to the child.
Click to expand...
Exactly. These false dichotomies don’t prove anything. It’s the same as the “gay adoption vs. grow up in an abusive family” or “gay adoption vs. horrific abusive orphanage”. There are virtually always better options.
 
Corki said:
Exactly. These false dichotomies don’t prove anything. It’s the same as the “gay adoption vs. grow up in an abusive family” or “gay adoption vs. horrific abusive orphanage”. There are virtually always better options.
Click to expand...
Well, OP here, and interestingly I’ve noticed that so far, no one has stated that a child is better off dead than raised by a gay couple. Which is different from people who HAVE stated that a child is better off in foster care, an orphanage, etc., than raised by a gay couple. Though I don’t recall anyone actually stating being in an abusive family is better, I think some would state that being raised by a gay couple is inherently abusive for the child in some way, and hence cancels out that argument.

I’m not trying to state that “gay is okay” or no big deal. However, I have noticed that many Catholics on this forum are willing to bend over backwards to make sure unwed mothers are not pushed toward abortion, and not just the ones who have actually repented. Some are still living with their partners in sexual sin with no plans to marry. I suspect most on CAF would NOT be willing to tell such women to leave their partners, out of fear that they would resort to abortion.

Indeed, it seems from posts on CAF at least, that most Catholic “marriage prep” courses are filled with couples who are already cohabiting, some of whom already have children. This is apparently not considered a problem. There have been CAF posters even stating that they were living with their partners and had children before marriage, and their priests told them NOT to separate, for the sake of the children. Now I assume these priests counseled the couple to “live as brother and sister” but obviously, even if such couples follow this, they are still in a near occasion of sin.

But apparently, the Church is acknowledging that there IS good for children raised in a situation of sinful fornication, though obviously preferring such couples become chaste and/or marry. The Church is not stating “there’s nothing good about an unchaste heterosexual relationship, so children shouldn’t be raised by such sinners”.

Yes, I realize that fornication and abortion are both mortal sins, but the point is that in actual everyday life, I really don’t see Catholics actually living out the idea that “every mortal sin is just as grave, so I cannot ever make a pragmatic judgement about which sin is more tolerable”. (Although my sample is limited by the fact that people who post on this subforum seem to be less pragmatic than those giving advice in other forums.)

Note that in the real world, many young people are very conservative when it comes to abortion, for they see a true harm being done to an innocent. But the many of those same young people are very liberal when they come to gay rights and SSM.
 
ToeInTheWater said:
Well, OP here, and interestingly I’ve noticed that so far, no one has stated that a child is better off dead than raised by a gay couple. Which is different from people who HAVE stated that a child is better off in foster care, an orphanage, etc., than raised by a gay couple. Though I don’t recall anyone actually stating being in an abusive family is better, I think some would state that being raised by a gay couple is inherently abusive for the child in some way, and hence cancels out that argument…
Click to expand...
Why not ask “is a child better off dead than sold into slavery” or “is a child better off dead than raised by an axe murderer”?

And yes, in almost all cases, a child is better off being raised by a competent foster family or in a good group home or orphanage than being placed for adoption with a same-sex couple. For one thing, a child in a foster home or an orphanage has a hope of being adopted by a loving mother and father. A child adopted by a same-sex couple has that hope ripped away. Placing a child in a household headed by a same-sex couple is abusive and ignores the dignity of the child all for the misguided idea that two guys or two gals can call themselves a “family” if they adopt a child.
 
Well, I’d say that (1) no one on CAF thinks a single sex parent household is ideal, but (2) none would state that a child is better off dead than raised by a single mother in a sinful environment. That seems to be a given.

But no one would dare compare a single mother, even an actively fornicating one that brings her boyfriends home (though statistically such BFs are very prone to abuse children fathered by other men), to an axe murderer or slave-holder.

But I’ve noticed many on CAF are happy to compare homosexuals to axe murderers, as well as child molesters, rapists, people who have sex with animals, etc.

I think this over-the-top rhetoric certainly isn’t going to convert anyone, but simply contribute to the impression that the Catholic position on homosexuality is hateful and bigoted.

I’m not saying I totally agree with what Cardinal Schonborn said, but certainly his statements paint the Church in a completely different light than many of the very anti-gay CAF posters do.
 
These kinds of questions may be fun at parties but otherwise are just silly. Have we suddenly run out of opposite sex married couples looking to adopt…?

The OP wishes to force members to make a choice between 2 distasteful (at the least) choices - why? 🤷
 
It must be noted that Catholic adoption agencies have closed up entirely, doing no adoptions whatever, rather than abide by state laws requiring them to place children with same sex couples. That is because the Church considers placing a child in such an inherently disordered living situation to be abusive. The agency cannot follow such a law, so it closes.
 
SMH_2015 said:
These kinds of questions may be fun at parties but otherwise are just silly. Have we suddenly run out of opposite sex married couples looking to adopt…?

The OP wishes to force members to make a choice between 2 distasteful (at the least) choices - why? 🤷
Click to expand...
Because this is a forum where people discuss questions for the sake of discussing questions. What more reason need there be?

Let me answer the OP’s question without adding any conditions to it. It is better that the child be born and adopted by the gay couple than it is for the child to be aborted.

No conditions, no qualifiers,
 
So it’s better to not kill a child but instead place her in a dysfunctional living situation.
It’s also better to not kill a child but instead place her in an orphanage.
It’s also better to not kill a child but instead place her with a Mafioso godfather.

How about if we don’t kill the child, and also place her with an adoptive mom and dad, in the best situation possible?
 
Dorothy said:
Many male and female couples who could not have a child for many years opt to go to a foreign country to adopt one…which is very costly.

A baby born to a single mother who does not want to raise the baby would do a very kind act to give it up to a male and female couple who would like to adopt. There are even scenarios where the mother willing to give up the baby can interview about three such couples and then choose which couple she wants her baby to be with.
Click to expand...
(Bump)
 
This seems like a troll thread. What does letting the baby live have to do with a pre-existing homosexual relationship?

Taking care of a new born baby will significantly reduce their amount of fornication, if anything :p.
 
ToeInTheWater said:
Well, OP here, and interestingly I’ve noticed that so far, no one has stated that a child is better off dead than raised by a gay couple. Which is different from people who HAVE stated that a child is better off in foster care, an orphanage, etc., than raised by a gay couple…
Click to expand...
Right. First and foremost, the child is better off with a right to life. It would not make sense to complain about a child’s abusive/un-ideal upbringing if it didn’t first have a right to live.
 
ahs said:
Then gay adoption is the better choice, because without an intrinsic right to life, nothing else really matters.
Click to expand...
All children have the right to life.

Nobody has the right to give them into adoption, knowing the bad life condition beforehand, with an excuse of comparison to abortion.

It’s like saying: “well, it’s better than dead, right honey bunny…!”
 
on_the_hill said:
The options were abortion or gay adoption.
Click to expand...
I don’t accept those options because they are not the only options. It’s just like saying, if you don’t let me do this other thing bad thing I want, the baby dies. It’s a threat based on extortion.
 
on_the_hill said:
The options were abortion or gay adoption.
Click to expand...
Yes, you’re right On the Hill, the only two options that the OP wants us to choose from is abortion or gay adoption. He wants us to choose between two grave sins.

The poster you responded to has clearly pointed out that there are in reality more options-ones that left sinning completely out of the equation. In other words, instead of playing the “Which Sin Would You Reject God Over Game” ( which that is what mortal sin is always about and what the OP wants us to play), we are pointing out the obvious- you don’t have to choose either. That is still a valid option, whether the imaginary mother in the argument, or the OP, wants to realize it or not.
 
on_the_hill said:
The options were abortion or gay adoption.
Click to expand...
I find it interesting that the only way to force Catholics to say gay adoption is an acceptable choice is to say the other choice is abortion. Says a lot about gay adoption!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top