Last week, I wrote a rather detailed academic article on why allowing adoption by homosexual couples cannot be put in the same vein morally, as allowing adoption by heterosexual couples. I based this article on natural law. A colleague of mine pointed out that since natural law may be understood to presuppose the existence of God and eternal law, then it was not a very valid article, as the state should act independently of God. The answer to this is obviously that natural law, that is human practical reason, is there for everyone to use independent of whether they accept the existence of God or not. Human reason, the common good and basic goods may be grasped independently whether or not one accepts the existence of the deity or not. Human reason may not be refuted in itself, because it is a mental function consonant with our species.
However if one does not wish to refer to natural law theory as a source of deciding what is good and what is bad, a good source independent of our subjective ethical evaluations, one does not automatically exclude pure practical reason from showing what is right or wrong. Immanuel Kant (18th century) put forward a theory based on our duties to others based on our pure practical reason. Here, human reason based on the freedom and will of the individual may still be discerning in the interest of the basic goods and thus help to distinguish right from wrong objectively.
Our duty is to act in line with the moral law decided by pure practical reason and this sets the supreme principle of morality. Kant set up three formulations of the categorical imperative. In the first formulation, “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction”, he shows that deontology imposes upon us the duty to act purely out of consideration to others and in a way that the rules we generally apply, apply to all without any types of contradiction. Therefore, in effect, a rule that is generally applicable without distinction. In the third formulation, “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your person or in that of another, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means”, he shows we have a duty not to act in ways that create incoherency when we apply a universal law. The considerations of Kant’s deontology or ethics of duty, brings out four principles that are universally applied when considering the ethics of human biology or so called bioethics. These four principles comprise first Autonomy, second Beneficence, third Non-malfeasance and fourth Justice. In the case of adoption of children, the general overriding principle should be the paramount interests of the adopted child. If we apply the first bioethic consideration, that of respect for personal autonomy, we notice that although children should be shown greater considerable respect for their own autonomy and opinions as they grow older, usually they are not in a state to exert this right and this is instead exerted by the relevant authorities who are involved in setting up and looking into the best conditions for the right adoptive parents. The adoption authorities here may not consider what is in the best interest of a child, if they are perforce obliged by the proposed bill to treat heterosexual and homosexual couples alike when it is general knowledge that not all couples are fit to adopt independent of whether they are homosexual or not! This would be tantamount to saying that adoptions should be given out according to the strict waiting list priorities of any parents, independent of the qualities of the parents concerned. The child should be adopted in its best interests, full stop. No law should alter this principle by trying to aim for equality in referring to any type of preference of sexual relationships in adoptions.
The second principle is that of beneficence, doing good to the child. Again here the bill should not in any way interfere with the established principle that the best interests of the child are sought out. There is still considerable doubt as to whether one can equate the regular raising of children by a heterosexual couple with that by a homosexual one. Should this principle be breached in the name of an equality of rights to adopt by couples, rights which are in fact non-existent?
The third principle, being that of non-malfeasance (primum non nocere - do no harm as a first rule) is also contravened by the current civil union bill because it may unnecessarily be exposing children to harm by regularly putting them into a relationship with carers, when we are not yet certain of the effects on children raised by homosexual couples over that by heterosexual couples. Increasing evidence shows that there may be problems that were not originally noticed in the small scale studies held at the beginning and which are only turning up now with increased experiences and as the study numbers are enlarged!
Justice for the adopted child directs us to consider an adoptive family that will give the adoptive child the best chance in life over less adequate ones. Can this be achieved by regularly stating that they will be equally properly raised by stable man and woman parent figures over those of carers of the same sex? I think we are treading on thin ice here. So if not natural law, Kantianism shows us the same thing!
This government has already voluntarily brought its back against the wall with the citizenship issue, where against all public opinion and public interest, the state steamrolled over common sense. The results for this act of folly are now obvious to everyone. The bill on civil unions is also one such case, where against manifest public opinion and against the manifest interests of the common good, the state is ready to act subjectively and incoherently with probable results that not only contravene anthropologically and socially accepted norms, but may put the life of an adopted child at a patent disadvantage.
[email protected]