Cutting the Baby in Half

The Bible tells the account of King Solomon's wisdom in the passage about two women fighting over a baby. King Solomon, in all his wisdom, decided the best way to resolve the dispute was to cut the baby in half, giving each woman one half; the wise King knew this would prompt one woman's true love and motherhood to compel her to give up her rights to her baby to preserve the baby's safety while showing the true greed of the woman who only wanted the baby out of selfish reasons.

I sat in on a hearing this week that, as I saw more and more, made me realize that we as a society have allowed the baby to be cut in half.

Ohio law provides that a woman who wishes to give up her child for adoption must go before the court and formally relinquish her rights. This helps solidify the termination of her rights and prevent contesting the adoption later in the adoption process. While I believe this is a good preemptive measure, something about the whole hearing rubbed me the wrong way. I understand that there are times when the birth parents of a child can no longer physically care for that child. That child then needs other people to take the child into their family. What I don't understand is why it's ok for people to act irresponsibly and then run to a court to hand over the child, and all responsibility coming from that, simply because that person "isn't ready to become a parent." That person's irresponsible choices means that a child will have to go through emotional struggles that a child should never have to go through, knowing that someone had split that child's life in two--displaced that child's identity--simply because of their own selfish choices. In today's society, a person RARELY gives up a baby simply because they can't give the baby a good life. In today's society, most people make this kind of choice because they don't want to lose their own lifestyles. We can see evidence of this in the statistics of demographics who actually place a child for adoption. An African American young woman will rarely give her child up for adoption--even though she more often will fall in a lower income bracket than other women. Why is this so? Often times, the family steps in, taking a child as a precious addition to a family--not a curse, not an obstacle to success. The family will step in and hold a parent to his or her responsibilities and help where parental experiences and finances fall short. Some would argue that this doesn't give a child the best opportunity that child could have experienced. Some argue that this philosophy only drains our social welfare system. I disagree. This philosophy encourages people to start looking forward to the consequences of their own unwise actions. This philosophy leaves to families a social dynamic in which the state should not intervene. This allows a child to have the family that gave birth to the child--there's something a little distasteful about messing with God's choices of placement. This still leaves plenty of children who are orphaned by unfortunate events--acts of God--who are available to be adopted by good, loving families.

Maybe this view is just sparked by what I saw. I saw a slick, arrogant lawyer making thousands of dollars off the transfer of this baby. I saw a woman who sat with a disinterested look in her eyes; I saw her breathe a sigh of relief and smile at the end, knowing that she no longer had the financial burden of caring for a child she didn't want in the first place. The whole picture left a nasty, bitter taste in my mouth and made me want to run outside and get a breath of fresh air.