The Press here in Canterbury yesterday published this story. It tells of a woman who has made the hard and lonely decision to give her baby (when it is born) up for adoption. Wonderful, I thought. She is to be congratulated and praised for taking this hard road, and avoiding what she thinks is the ‘easier’ road of abortion – a choice that she says she has made in the past. She speaks of her knowledge of the difficulty that couples have in trying to adopt, and says that this was one of the factors in deciding to continue with the baby and pass it over for adoption. An open adoption, too, where she can be part of this child’s life, and vice versa.
Oh, and her husband can be part of the child’s life. And her two existing children as well. You see this isn’t a choice being made by a 14 year old girl who has no possibility of supporting this baby. This isn’t a P addict who knows she may, when high, harm her baby. No, this is a 34 year old, married, mother of two – who already has a family which she presumably loves, planning to give away her daughters' baby brother or sister. Why? These are her words, and the only reason given in the article:
"With everything growing, the costs of everything - we have two children - another baby on board would be harder."
Now, I realise that it is a short article, that no information is given about their wider family, about struggles with health, and mental illness, and so on. It may be that this family is on the poverty line, that they have budgeted to the hilt, and there is no money left at all. It may be that this is tearing her heart in two, but that if she keeps this baby other members in her family will go without food. If that were the case then things would obviously be different. And, to be fair, the Press doesn't always report things as accurately as they might. But there is no indication that this is the case. She doesn't say - "I desperately want to keep my baby but I know it will mean the rest of the family can't eat".
Fuller information might (and I stress might) change my position, or my tone. But this woman is giving away her child because it is going to make her life harder. That’s what she says. And that ‘hardship’ isn’t linked to mental stability, it’s linked to her financial situation. It is going to bring a financial burden which, given other financial burdens, will make her life harder. I’m sure she’s also thinking of her children and her husband. With another mouth to feed life wouldn’t be as ‘good’ for them, either. How altruistic.
But what if life isn’t about being easy? What if it isn’t about being financially stable? What if relationships matter more than money? What are you going to say to your child when s/he asks you why s/he was given up for adoption (because, remember, this is an open adoption). What do you say? Because we wanted a plasma?
Welcome to New Zealand. Home to bloodless child sacrifice. We now literally offer up our children to the gods of materialism.
