I hate to resurrect an old thread, but I had a conversation (OK, debate
) the other day with a friend of mine in which this particular incident was raised, so I thought I’d come here to get some insights.
My friend was arguing that in marriage, the vows constitute an oath of fidelity to one another which by default prioritizes the marriage above all else. Thus, in a case like this, the husband would have a greater duty to his wife than to the newborn son – regardless of her reasons for not wanting to raise him, be it social stigma as in this case, or it could be an unwillingness to shoulder the responsibilities associated with a special-needs child, or even an incapability of handling it on a psychological level (where the pressures might lead to a mental breakdown). If you move the scenario into the US, the prospects for such a child outside of the natural family improve tremendously, as there are stable families who actively seek to adopt such children, so it’s not as if he’d be abandoned to an orphanage or institution.
My counter to all this was that the marriage vows also mention the acceptance of children as a gift from God – an acceptance that is unqualified by the health of the child. Yes, I swore an oath of fidelity to my wife to essentially be by her side no matter what, but this does not authorize her to compel me to violate the child-acceptance clause of the vows. That said, a scenario where the stresses of raising a child with medical problems might cause my wife’s health to suffer, or even incapacitate her (eg, mental breakdown), gives me pause. Once the reasons for not wanting to raise the child are “I literally can’t do this” as opposed to “I don’t want to do this,” one is naturally inclined to show more compassion and start thinking about the spouse’s condition as well. If the options are to surrender the child or to lose the spouse, is there a correct direction to go?
My inclination would be to not surrender the child (remaining faithful to vows) even if the unintended consequence is the dissolution of the marriage (through the spouse’s action). However, I am having trouble putting into words why this should be so, especially given the weighty consequences that Sam Forrest suffered (at least in initial reports). Since I see others sympathize with his decision, I was hoping someone more versed in moral theology than I could offer some justification.
