Last week, a not-so-funny hoax was played on a New Hampshire child. Someone apparently hijacked a wireless signal in Dover, logged on to Craigslist, and offered the 1 year old baby for sale or lease with an option to buy. Thankfully, police found the little girl safe and sound at home. And there aren’t any children at the location of the wireless signal. They are investigating the source of this practical “joke.” But it isn’t funny. And even joking like that is against the law.

So no one was laughing on Friday when a West Virginia woman offered to sell her son. Rebecca Sue Taylor, 19, had been talking to Leigh Burr about possibly acting as a surrogate mother for her. Then, Taylor came up with a better idea. She proposed that Burr simply buy her own 5-month old son for ten thousand dollars. After all, mom and baby hadn’t bonded very well, and mom did need money for a new apartment.

Taylor called Burr several times trying to convince her. When Burr didn’t bite, Taylor lowered her asking price to just five thousand. Burr went to the police, who investigated, and arrested Taylor three days later. The baby is now in foster care. No details about his father were given.

This makes me sick. Earlier this week we heard about the father of Slumdog Millionaire child star Rubina Ali offering his Oscar Child for “adoption” to the highest bidder. But that was in India. I could say, “Wow, it’s terrible their society promotes that kind of behavior. Or that their circumstances are so bad that they feel they need to do that.” But this is HERE in the United States. What’s worse, if convicted, this mom will get a MAXIMUM penalty of $2000 and five years in prison. That’s it. For trying to sell a human being.

I’m not surprised she hasn’t bonded with him. What kind of mom would so desperately try to get rid of her child? Not that I agree with east Indians selling kids, but at least they have an understandable motivation–crushing poverty. But here? There is poverty here, but it isn’t the same. And there is a legal, loving, moral way to deal with an unplanned pregnancy in the US: adoption. I said in a recent post that I don’t support abortion, but I would have believed that the procedure would prevent this kind of horrible thing, at least.

I hope this woman’s little boy gets help–fast–in a loving home. He could already be suffering from an attachment disorder. I can’t say what I want for his mother. It isn’t appropriate. I’ll try to change my heart and find a little sympathy and mercy. What do we do in these circumstances? Does anyone else agree that the penalty here is WAY to easy?

In 2004, Frank Gill opened his home as a foster parent to two young brothers. The children are adoptable, and Gill really wants to adopt them. But until today, he was not allowed to. Frank Gill is gay.

In 1977, Florida passed a law prohibiting homosexual individuals from adopting children. But on Tuesday, Judge Cindy Lederman ruled that the law was unconstitutional. Furthermore, she said it was irrational. This ruling underscores a September ruling that essentially said the same thing, but has not had a practical impact.

Immediately, state attorneys said they would appeal the decision.

Florida, of course, is not the only state with such restrictions. In fact, just this November, Arkansas voters passed a ban on any unmarried person from adopting or even fostering a child. I sincerely believe that most of the supporters of these bans are concerned for the safety and welfare of the kids. They are afraid that unscrupulous parents will adopt children for unsavory reasons. It’s the same logic that did not allow a man to coach my son’s baseball team since he had no relative (a son, grandson, brother, nephew, etc.) on the team. There are, unfortunately, a few sickos who would take advantage of needy kids.

However, I believe that this is the exception, not the rule. And I have said many times that it is unfortunate we have to pass laws because of the exceptions. For example, most of us would never kill anyone, even without a law. But they pass a law for the exceptions among us.

My politics are uber-conservative. But I believe that this kind of ban is wrong. For one thing, the reality is that there are not enough adoptive parents for kids beyond the toddler years or foster homes for wards of the state. I also strongly feel that birthmothers should have the right to choose any adoptive family. It’s the way most adoption agencies within the US operate. If a teen mom wants to select a gay couple, she should be allowed to. Finally, when it comes to children in state custody, I just know there are not enough willing homes. Like I said, there might be a few people out there who want to hurt a child, but I don’t think they are the rule. And if you have ever been close to an adoptive family, you know the state leaves no stone unturned. Every aspect of their lives is scrutinized to make sure they are a good home. I don’t think there will be too many pedophiles missed in this “vetting” process. It’s a numbers game. I’m inclined to believe that more children will be hurt by not having a home than will be hurt by parents with evil motives.

Now, one other aspect is that people who feel homosexuality is morally wrong do not want gay people adopting in order to “recruit” new gays. Maybe this happens sometimes. I wouldn’t like it if it did. However, in the end, I think that leaving children without a home is worse than the possibility of them being raised by someone who is influencing them against their nature.

I would hope that if you feel “someone else’s” home isn’t the right place for a child, you will step out and provide the home you think kids should have. I don’t mean that in a sarcastic way. I am quite sincere. Thousands of families consider taking in an orphan every year. If only 1 family in 500 followed through, then all 115,000 kids in the US foster system would have a home. But even if you did restrict adoptions to only certain types of families, let’s say Christian families, only 1 household from every 4th church would need to adopt a child (there are over 450,000 churches in the US).

I am not being critical. (My husband and I have never adopted or taken in a foster child. We had to deal with some serious health issues.) I just urge others to not be critical. I say, let gay households take in an orphan. If you disagree, consider whether you can take in that child instead.

I have to admit that I am intrigued by large families?perhaps because we have 5 children. I had a rare opportunity to watch TV this evening and I saw a few minutes of Nanny 911. The family that was featured on this episode that aired tonight has?drum roll please?43 kids.

Jim Silcock and his wife Ann have been married for 11 years. During that time, they?ve adopted 43 boys, all of whom have special needs. I was astounded and humbled as I watched Ann care for all of these children and help her husband, who is paralyzed and in a wheelchair.

Each week, they spend around $800 on groceries alone and Annie does 40 loads of laundry a day. The family of 45 lives in a 9 bedroom, 5 bathroom house that has 2 stories and a residential elevator. New construction will add an additional 3 bedrooms, 1 bathroom, another living room, and an additional laundry. In order to make sure that all of the children are cared for, the Silcock family has several ?family helpers? who drive the children to activities and help the couple with daily tasks.

According to the information on their family website, the Silcock children have been adopted from all over the world. The couple has chosen to work with disabled boys because they feel that these children are harder to place in ?forever families?. They also are open about the fact that they haven?t ruled out adopting more children.

In addition to caring for their large family, Jim and Ann have started a non-profit organization called First Step Inc. The organization provides grants for disabled people so that they can participate in recreational activities in their communities.

As a mother of with 4 special needs children herself, I can vaguely grasp how difficult life must be for Ann and Jim. I just am finding it hard to come to terms with the reality of what life must be like with 43 children. The next time I get discouraged when my 5 are creating chaos in the house?.I think I?ll take a deep breath and think of Jim and Ann, and realize how good I have it.