There is no screening process involved in becoming a parent — all it takes is two people, not even necessarily in a relationship, and a sexual act that can take as little as a couple of minutes. From the act, nine or so months pass and a baby is born — and then you can get champion mothers like the one I recently observed on the train, yelling at her child while at the same time mostly ignoring her and listening to music on headphones and looking anywhere but the direction of her child.

On many occasions I wish that there were a screening process for parents — it usually happens when I observe a child behaving badly and the parent doing nothing to curb the bad behavior. I have to wonder how it is okay that there is nothing to stop them from becoming parents when it is clear that they are such rubbish at the job. It is true that once people become parents, children can be taken away if they are bad enough — but can the damage caused ever be erased?

Adoption, on the other hand, does involve an extensive screening process. The agencies involved in allowing people to adopt children want to make sure that nothing bad happens to the children — after all, the ultimate customer of an adoption organization is the child, who in theory, should get put with the most caring parents possible for him or her.

Part of the screening, at least in England, involves in understanding the ideologies held by the parents and seeing if they are a good fit with what is considered to be acceptable as far as raising a child is concerned. If it were thought probable that the couple seeking adoption would raise the children in a hate filled environment, in which the children would be taught to discriminate against others, the couple would have to be denied adoption rights — for the betterment of society, it is imperative that we raise fewer hate mongers, not more.

It should, therefore, come as no surprise that when a couple went to adopt a child and expressed views that are most commonly seen as homophobic, that the couple would be denied rights to adopt. The couple argued that they were facing discrimination based on their choice of religion, however, to me, it seems that it is not the case — they expressed a viewpoint that was deemed to be harmful to the environment of raising a child, and they were prohibited from adopting.

No matter what way you could possibly harm a child — whether it is through possible physical ruin or through emotional trauma, whether it is through battering of the fist or the destruction of the mind, you cannot adopt a child if you are considered a threat. It has nothing to do with discrimination and everything to do with protecting the welfare of children being adopted.


  1. We used to at least have a blood test for married hopefuls that would try to help ensure the child created between husband and wife would be viable before certifying the marriage — but now that compatibility test has gone away. Modern medicine healed RH-factor incompatibilities, but did nothing to address other psychological and physical incompatibilities between people that can be perpetuated in their offspring.

  2. Something has to happen. If a child can’t sign a contract until they’re 18, then the same should be true for any ordinary decision they make because those choices often are more dangerous. Can’t make it without the parent leading the decision. If that fails, then both child and parent are punished for acting without each other in best interest of said child.

Comments are closed.