Much of the Christian pro-life movement has fallen prey to a major misconception in recent decades. In an attempt to broaden the scope of the movement to include liberals and non-Christians, we have forgotten the fundamental moral foundation upon which our movement stands: the fact that the preborn have intrinsic, innate, and unconditional value as human beings.
While abortion can be argued from a purely secular standpoint, the most obvious argument for universal human value comes from the fact human beings are made in God’s image.
When we as Christians lose this fundamental understanding of what it means to be human, it is not surprising when other errors of thought emerge.
One such error includes the idea pro-lifers should tacitly approve of, if not push for, the adoption of children by same-sex couples to lower the number of abortions performed.
It is in this argument we see clearly the need to return to a broader, fundamental Christian truth in assessing any matter of ethics. We must never do something which is intrinsically evil, even for the sake of a perceived or actual good end. In other words, the ends cannot justify the means.
The “good end” at question here is a reasonable one: children who are placed in the adoption system find “loving homes,” especially when the alternative for their biological mothers would be to choose abortion.
My first question to the skeptical reader would be to ask where would you draw the line if the end truly does justify the means. Would it be acceptable for a group of three parents to adopt a child? How about a couple in their seventies? After all, both of these problematic groups could provide a “loving home” per the usual societal understanding.
Children have one biological mother and one biological father. Setting aside bizarre medical aberrations and of course certain modern advances, this is the only way a child can come into the world— by a procreative union between a male and a female member of the human species.
Obviously, sexual acts between two males or two females are inimical to a procreative sexual union. Thus, same-sex sexual acts are not only contrary to Divine Law, but to Natural Law, as well. This fact makes it clear permitting same-sex adoption does not only deny the child an “ideal” family structure, it also places the child against its will into a family structure which is intrinsically disordered.
This fact is obvious to anyone who observes reality without the lens of political correctness or their own emotions— children need a mom and a dad, and such is their right, by Natural Law. In addition, the statistical evidence that children raised in same-sex homes fare worse than those raised by a mother and a father is overwhelming. Many people raised by same-sex parents affirm these facts by their own experiences
These painful statistics make it very clear that the good end of a “loving home” is in itself only perceived, not actual.
Now, of course, there are many situations in which children are denied this right to a mother and father. We can see many similar poor outcomes for children of divorce and for children raised by single mothers, not to mention cases in which a child loses a parent due to death by illness or accident.
However, it is here a critical question must be asked: is it acceptable to willfully, intentionally, and purposefully place children in a situation which causes them observable, grave harm? Where their right to a mother and a father is not lost due to unfortunate circumstances such as previously mentioned, but denied from the outset?
Of course, the answer is no. To permit adoption of children by same-sex couples is to inflict harm upon said children— an intrinsically evil act. Therefore, even if the child would later find himself in a same-sex family structure which defies the statistics and is as close to an average family structure as possible, it would still be a matter of an actual good end being achieved by immoral means, and must, therefore, be rejected.
As Christians, we must uphold the entirety of the truth, lest we fall to the relativism of the world. Good is good, evil is evil, and we cannot compromise on these truths to be perceived as more inclusive.
Editors Note: The Human Defense Initiative welcomes diversity of opinion among contributors, therefore we have published both perspectives on the issue. Read the Case For Same Sex Adoption here
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Human Defense Initiative.
Subscribe to Human Defense Initiative
Get the latest posts delivered right to your inbox