My thoughts too

I found this post in RozK's live journal and agree.
I might add that, with thousands of children without families in this country who have to grow up in our horrible foster care system, why do so many people still refuse to adopt what they can't grow themselves?

Saturday, June 4th, 2005
9:34 am
More idiocy

One could, in a sense and purely to make the argument below, to respect the consistency of anti-abortion Christians who want to adopt spare embryos, bring them to term and bring them up as more Christian children rather than letting them be harvested for research etc. They have an ethical position which identifies the human potential of embryos with full essential human status - I don't agree, and I radically disagree with the other positions they derive from that, but their preparedness to inconvenience themselves in the name of belief shows them putting their money where their mouths are. Or does it?

I do find myself noting that most of the advocates of this are husbands, whose wives presumably get a say in the matter but are, presumably, content to let their husbands make decisions in this as in everything else. (In this as in so much else, they are aspiring to a model which has little to do even with the Old Testament, let alone with anything that went on in the early church, except sometimes in Paul's head. There are too many confident stroppy women in the Old Testament for any of this to be described as 'Biblical' - but I digress.)

What does strike me as remarkable, though, and in this sentence remarkable is Roz weaselspeak for fucking incredibly stupid, mean and illogical is that according to the Guardian story the agency fixing this for them is determined not to let lesbians adopt embryos. Now, if they are really concerned about the survival of these embryos - and they talk about doing business with the in vitro people as a necessary evil - why on earth would they care about the sexuality, or indeed the religion, of adopting parents? Or do they believe that to be brought up by lesbians is to guarantee the child a seat in Hell?

What this actually exposes is that they don't really believe in the absolute sacredness of embryos' lives, because if they did, they would not care who adopts them. Which means that as usual they are lying about their motives and engaged in cheap point-scoring. I pity those children, who are going to be brought up to be obsessively grateful and hopefully will resent the hell out of it.