Roanoke Times Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc. DATE: FRIDAY, November 19, 1993 TAG: 9401140024 SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A14 EDITION: METRO SOURCE: PETER S. FOSL DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
The courts are unfairly prejudiced in favor of the rights of biological parents. The fantasy that only biological parents qualify as ``real'' parents goes so far in some states that, contrary to the facts, birth certificates are rewritten in the course of an adoption so that the adoptive parent is rendered on paper as the biological parent of the child.
In ordinary conversation as well, one often hears biological parents referred to as ``real'' parents - no matter what the character of their practical relationship with the child - while other parents (step, adoptive, etc.) are discussed in ways that suggest they are somehow unreal.
Our laws and attitudes must change and adapt to a society in which nearly half of all children today are raised, at least in part, by some sort of nonbiological parent. I suggest we adopt the following ways of looking at things:
While being the biological source of a child is a sufficient condition for being one's parent, it's not a necessary condition. That is to say, it's possible to be a real, genuine, authentic parent even if one bears no biological relationship to a child.
First, what counts is that one really function as a parent, assuming the duties and performing the actions of a real parent.
Second, what counts is that the child accept one as a genuine parent. Caring, teaching, providing, disciplining and being there for a child on a daily basis, entering and sustaining a parental relationship with a child - this is the stuff of real family life.
By comparison, offering the biological material from which we all originate is a trivial thing.
Peter S. Fosl is an assistant professor of philosophy at Hollins College.
by CNB