Children are a blessing.The instinct to welcome them is always good and right.
But does anybody have a right to them?
This week an NT couple made news because surrogacy is not legislated here. They can't have children on their own, and their sad story has included expensive unsuccessful IVF and miscarriages.
So, in their words, they would 'have to' move.
But are biological children a right?
I suppose natural law might suggest a move in that direction in some sense for heterosexual couples. As in, a predictable outcome of sex is offspring, when left to its natural course.
But when the natural course doesn't get them there, if in the sad instance that a couple can't produce their own children on their own - must we then ensure (even legislate) that they can still bring their biological children into the world by renting another womb?
Is this a right? Is this necessary?
I'm not sure a ticking biological clock, a tragic path of expensive disappointment, a feeling of failure or shame, nor a desire, confers a right.
There is a difference between welcoming children, and expecting that the children we welcome must share our genetic code.
St Paul's Anglican Church meets on Sundays at 9am with kids church. All welcome.