 |
| Peter Wehner |
Let us guess. As his current employer, the Ethics and Public Policy Center, bills itself as "Washington D.C.'s premier institute dedicated to applying the Judeo-Christian moral tradition to critical issues of public policy" it is a safe bet that he conflates expanding adoption with reducing abortion.
Wehner is simply wrong. Women don't abort their babies because they can't find adoptive homes. The waiting list of those wishing to adopt is miles long and getting longer as foreign countries curtail adoption by Americans. Any quick check of one of the many adoption agency sites shows multiple pictures of ideal couples waiting for a baby, your baby. But the anti-abortion mantra "adoption, not abortion" does not resonate with most women in crisis pregnancies because they instinctively know the massive and life-altering difference between having a baby and giving it away, and not having that baby.
VAST DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ABORTION AND GIVING BIRTH
 |
| Jane |
"Pregnancy counselors, mental-health specialists, and social workers agree that the circumstances and mindsets of women who undergo abortions typically are very different from those of women who give birth. So, for instance, a woman whose convictions don't permit her to terminate her pregnancy ultimately has to decide whether to become a parent or place her child for adoption; conversely a woman who views abortion as a viable option, and doesn't want to become a mother for whatever reason, is unlikely to want to deal with the social, medical, and personal ramifications of carrying a baby to term."*As a practical matter, even doubling the estimated 15,000 infant adoptions per year in the United States, would not make a noticeable dent in the number of abortions, estimated at more than 800,000 in 2009, the last year for which data is available. But Republicans are not in this "adoption not abortion" message by themselves. Democrats also make this faulty cause-and-effect assumption. In a speech to the graduating class of Notre Dame in 2009, President Obama said, "Let's work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term." At least he added giving support to those who do give birth. But make adoption more available? That sounds like adoption isn't available to women who seek it for their babies, when the total opposite is true. For every available baby, there are numerous people wishing to take it off your hands.
REDISTRIBUTING BABIES IS NOT THE ANSWER
Both Wehner and Obama appear to be unaware of the destructive effects that can occur by attempting to solve social problems by removing babies from their mothers. Indeed, the adoption and foster care rates are an accurate measure of the civility of a society; the lower the rate, the more civilized the society because civilized societies help mothers keep and nurture their children. Less civilized societies treat babies of mothers with few resources as commodities, promoting their redistribution to those with greater resources, or as a burden, stuffing them into foster homes or orphanages. High abortion rates also reflect a less civilized society. It means that women have less control over their sexuality (the power to say "no" and access to birth control) and that support for women in unplanned pregnancies is lacking.
As for reducing abortion, the solution is a no-brainer. Even Wehner is for that. In a subsequent piece in the neoconservative Commentary (co-authored with Michael Gerson),
they espouse the Republicans to "discourage teen pregnancy." Yet their message is unconsciously skewed toward adoption by taking away support from poor mothers. On the one hand they want to "improve infant and child health," yet they recommend eliminating "harmful incentives for poor and for
unwed mothers," code for cutting financial aid, such as food stamps. More gobbly-gook. They do not talk about how they might discourage teen pregnancy. But anybody who understands biology could tell them: increase access to birth control. That, however, is not in the Republican playbook. --jane____________________________
SOURCES
Party, Heal Thyself
How to Save the Republican Party
Center for Disease Control, Abortion Surveillance 2009
Obama Notre Dame Speech
*Adam Pertman, Adoption Nation (revised), p. 125.
From FMF:
High number of adoptions in the US is a national disgrace
Pres. Obama, Adoption is not only available, it's being crammed down our throats
Adoption Nation: How the Adoption Revolution is Transforming Our Families -- and America
Adam Pertman explores the history and human impact of adoption, explodes the corrosive myths surrounding it, and tells compelling stories about its participants as they grapple with issues relating to race, identity, equality, discrimination, personal history, and connections with all their families. For the first edition of this groundbreaking examination of adoption and its impact on us all, Pertman won awards from many organizations, including the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatrists, the Dave Thomas Center for Adoption Law, the American Adoption Congress, the Century Foundation, Holt International, and the U.S. Congress. In this updated edition, Pertman reveals how changing attitudes and laws are transforming adoption—and thereby American society—in the twenty-first century.--Amazon
I am a pro-life Republican who is a mother by adoption, so you may be surprised to read this: I agree with you, Jane, that chanting, "Adoption, adoption" does not address the concerns of many or most woemn facing unplanned pregnancies. For middle class girls and women -- meaning, those who come from fairly stable, working families whose parents are at least mildly religious -- the overwhelming concern about being pregnant out of wedlock is, "My parents will never forgive me for having sex outside of marriage" or "My parents will never forgive me for screwing up my sophomore year in college". Talking about adoption to girls with these fears does NOT steer them away from abortion because it does not solve the problem, which is that their parents will "know what [they've] been up to". Unless a girl can go into exile away from her parents for at least six months, they will still get "caught" if they plan to give their babies up for adoption. (I do know one girl who did just that: went to college across the country and didn't go home for Christmas so she could have a baby and give it up for adoption without her parents finding out she had been pregnant. Even though I myself have adopted a child, I think this is one of the saddest stories I've ever heard.)
ReplyDeleteSo, again, I agree with you. I am opposed to abortion because I believe it is morally wrong and because I believe it also often hurts women in the long run. However, I don't pretend that talking about adoption when a woman is less than, say, six months pregnant, alleviates the fears of many pregnant women.
If you have no interest in thewombs of complete strangers , please prove that by leaving a what a woman chooses to do regarding her life out of your business, where it doesn't belong and stop judging people for their choices. It is not your choice to make. Your body and reproductive health is your business, as is everyone else's.
DeleteThis is an old post, but in reading your comment now, Ginger Hayes, I find your reasoning malarkey. Yes, maybe a young girl doesn't want her parents to know that she had sex, but the huge problem NOW is that she is pregnant! Your reasoning that simply letting them know she had sex is the problem is absurdist in the extreme. With a pregnancy, the sex act became a life changing event. Now the parents either have to raise the grandchild they were not expecting, if the teen is young, or lose a family member for good. Neither choice is appealing. You probably are not aware that approximately a third of those who give up a child NEVER have another, the grief associated with pregnancy and birth overrides any biological urges for those women.
DeleteWe understand you can be against abortion for your personal reasons--I am not even going to call them moral--but sugar coating it as you have for the girl/woman involved is merely to make yourself feel better as an adoptive parent. If parents are involved, they may indeed stop the adoption.
BTW, I got pregnant, gave up my child without my parents knowing it also--and Jane too. This happens more often than you want to believe. It removes the whole situation and problem away from the family, and all the repercussions. The sad part is not doing it in secret from one's family; the act of adoption itself is the sad part.
Adoption is the abortion of the mother.
ReplyDeleteOkay. So what should a woman do if she doesn't want to raise her child (or can't) and doesn't believe in abortion?
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, I relinquished in 2001. I didn't (still don't) believe abortion was the answer. Why punish an innocent life for my mistake?
Exactly, Barbara Thavis.
ReplyDeleteThe mother's life means something, too. Her life matters as much as anyone's.
After adoption and you are made to feel as if your sole purpose in your own life was to make another family happy with YOUR infant, life kind of loses it's meaning. Mine did anyway. I resent more than anything that people suggest it was my duty to carry and give birth to a child and give that part of myself to strangers; but DON'T DARE expect that they owe me a damn thing, not even the promises they made to procure my infant.
Stay out of the wombs and lives of complete strangers. My womb is just that, mine.
Laurie, to answer your question and it may sound harsh, don't get pregnant in the first place. I would tell the young version of myself the exact same thing. Contraceptives need to be readily available to anyone sexually active.
If you do get pregnant, are against abortion and can't take care of child for health reasons or some other reason, allow someone in your family to help you until you can. Don't give it up for adoption. It is a life sentence of ambiguous grief. Why punish YOURSELF with a life sentence for being human?
Catherine echoes my sentiments exactly. Don't turn your life into being a "baby carrier" for someone else's family.
ReplyDeleteWhen I relinquished in the bad old days of the Sixties, at least adoption was not on every street corner and billboard (see sidebar). As it was much much more sub rosa, we were not made to feel like we were fulfilling someone's else's destiny by giving them a baby to "complete" their families, they way the young women today are made to feel. We were not told we were giving another family a great "gift" of love, or that our choice was the "loving choice." Actually this is getting my ire up just thinking about the malarkey that is out there in the universe about the lie of adoption.
"Gifts" are given because you want to give a "gift," not with tears because what is happening is tearing out your gut.
This is just my speculation as you ladies were the ones who actually lived it. But I do think the 'unwed mothers' of the BSE were used as breeders. I just think that message was more subverted. I definitely think that my n-mother was used as a breeder.
ReplyDeleteWasn't it the thinking at one time that children born out of wedlock were feeble-minded or some such thing? Someone, Georgia Tann, perhaps? must have realized that 'illegitimate' children were *surprise, surprise* just as intelligent and healthy as those born to married parents. And this I think increased the demand for adoptable babies, especially healthy, white newborns. And this is where you BSE mothers came in. I think you were really just being used as suppliers for the industry.
Adoption wasn't a cure for abortion even when abortion was illegal - for most mothers it was an either/or - they either found someone to do the abortion, or they went away - I was told that by dad who doctored back then when you had to see him to confirm pregnancy.
ReplyDeleteIt always makes me chuckle when they always use the 1% stat as a method of saying PP doesn't provide info on adoption because they only refer 1% for adoption... What a stretch - it couldn't be that the vast majority of women aren't willing to give up their baby for adoption after continuing the pregnancy to delivery?
Thanks Ginger,
ReplyDeleteI've added that a high abortion rate also reflects a less civilized society. It means that women have less control over their sexuality (the power to say "no" and access to birth control) and that support for women in unplanned pregnancies is lacking.
Less civilized promoting adoption as the best option to an unplanned pregnancy. Also, unfair that our government actually promotes adoptions and gives tax credits instead of helping moms keep their babies. Are we really saving tax money? I don't think so and when one considers adoptees incarcerated or thrown onto mental health system we are spending more by far.
ReplyDeleteActually, at the time I relinquished my daughter, there were not a lot of parents waiting for babies at my agency in Rochester. There was in fact, only couple who fit my request that they be Catholic. I am pretty sure that is the case because it coincides with what my daughter's other parents understood. Jane's adoptive mother was a nurse in the hospital, and a friend of hers, another nurse, who worked in the maternity ward suggested that Jane's amom adopt "this baby." Thus, the nurse would have known something about me.
ReplyDeleteSo while some of what you say, Robin, is undoubtedly true, it was not the case all over America, as it is today. And the parents lived in Rochester, as I did. It was not clear whether I would stay or leave the city either. So the probability of actually running into my daughter on the street was real.
But I did leave within four months of her birth, and moved to Albany.
Adoption is a known option. It has been around for a very long time. It adoption was going to solve the problem of unplanned/unwanted pregnancy, it would have already done so. There wouldn't be hundreds of thousands of children in U.S. foster care and millions of children worldwide without families.
ReplyDeleteI care about children after they are born. I was that vulnerable child who came into the world and my parents didn't take responsibility for me.
And adoption itself is not so wonderful. It has caused untold pain and grief to both mothers and their children. From extremes like the 20 murdered Russian adoptees to emotional issues like an adopted child not being fully accepted into their 'forever' families, adoption is not the panacea the right makes it out to be.
No one is obligated to adopt. I realize that there are more PAPs than there are children available. But the demand is mostly for newborns and children under age 2.
And while most Republicans are pro-life, they also want to eliminate all social benefits that enable mothers to take care of their children. Adoption is a symptom of the still rampant second-class status of women.
Of course the demand is for newborns and children under two. Those tend to be the successful adoptions. A newborn is unlikely to suffer attachment issues due to previous mistreatment.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of which, its clear than many mothers would rather abort than place their child for adoption (If this wasn't the case, adoption would be far easier). I wonder though, how many adoptees would have preferred to have been aborted. I suspect not many.
Barbara Thavis and Catherine, I agree with both of you.
ReplyDeleteAnd I will never believe that the anti-abortion people in this country are "pro-life." If they were pro-life, instead of just anti-unmarried-sex and intensely hostile toward girls and women, they would have enacted strong social service programs years ago, the kind that have made infant adoption by strangers in Western Europe just about unheard-of.
When mothers perceive any sort of a choice, they keep their babies.
"What about women who don't want their children?"
ReplyDeleteYes, sadly, it's a truth that there are those women for whatever reasons, whom reject their children, even though they carry them within them for months.
BUT why, and I will never understand the answer of some, is there this belief that children HAVE to have people to know as mom and dad growing up in order to feel whole and happy?
For probably centuries in the least, children have ended up without their parents to raise them, either because their parents passed on, or just abandoned them. Relatives have done what is right, and taken on the responsibility and raised those children, WITHOUT assuming the titles of "mommy", or "daddy". Where are those children crying "my life was horrible, I felt so empty, so miserable, all because I didn't get to call someone mom or dad!".
Of course there is pain at the loss of one's parents, anyone who thinks not is clearly either foolish or in denial. However, as long as a human being has at least one adult there to take care of them, that they can trust, who provides for them mentally, emotionally, physically, materially, as far as food, clothing, shelter, medical care/medicine, etc, with love, that person can be happy, they can feel whole.
I firmly believe it is selfish people who think the only way to take care of orphans or rejected children, is by people assuming titles that are appointed to only two human beings, at the moment of conception by divine ordination. Usurping those titles, assuming those divinely oridnated positions, is all about selfishness. It is selfish to not just not accept, to also not respect, and not honor, that the basis of a person's identity is their D.N.A. that is a 50/50 make up of their mother and father. It is selfish to not raise a child in that truth. It is possible to provide without usurping titles and positions. It is possible to love a child as they are, not who you want them to be, (claiming them as yours as if by blood).
Why can't legal guardianship be supported as the only moral option. In which a human being, as a minor, can retain their natural born identity, the truth that they have a mother and father, either known or unknown, either here or passed on. While other adult human beings, still get to experience all the benefits that come from being a part of another human beings growth. By being there, being a positive support, providing for them, teaching them, guiding them, nurturing them, LOVING them.
True love, is honest, it's self-less, it's sacrificial. It's about giving of ones-self, even at times, at personal cost, for the benefit of another. It is about being true to another person, as well as wanting that other person to know all that is true, no matter how dark, ugly, big and scary a truth may be. True love doesn't keep secrets that have to do with a person's life. True love doesn't keep people of blood apart, only because they don't want to share, or out of a form of punishment.
In there lies the true root of the problem. Of what drives the unjust separation of families, and denial of relationships born of blood, denial of bonds and of affection, of natural born love. It is that there is a lack of true love, that there are selfish people who only think they know true love, who not only perpetrate the violations, the injustice, they support it, they encourage it. And as long as that is the case, the violations, the injustice, and the lives damaged, will continue.
We live in a shameful world, with shameful people.
Let me echo what Lorraine said. From my experience and what I've read: After World War II, big families became popular and the blank slate concept took over. Those who couldn't have children felt comfortable in adopting and began to seek babies in great numbers.
ReplyDeleteBy 1966, though, the supply of babies was beginning to exceed the demand. Social workers continue to work hard convincing women to give up their babies. At the same time, they began working overtime to find adoptive families. Employers began giving bonuses to employees who adopted.
One social worker told me there might not be a home for my baby. I was scared but also elated because that gave me an excuse to keep her. However, another worker told me they had a perfect family. Who was I to stand in the way?
The scales tipped by 1970 and mothers began keeping their babies in large numbers. Along came Roe v. Wade and ushered in the baby dearth.
I have both given a child to adoption and had an abortion later. On a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being the most horrible - adoption was a 10 and abortion was a 2. The harm is in losing a child carried to term and all the life-long grief that comes with it for both mother and child.
ReplyDeleteI had the abortion in The Netherlands at a large clinic where the vast majority of my fellow patients were in mid 20s to 40s married or with a partner. I accompanied a friend to a clinic in DC and the clientele was similar. Adoption was NEVER an issue for the vast majority of these women. It's simply a false dichotomy.
@Anonymous 9:52pm
ReplyDelete"Of course the demand is for newborns and children under two. Those tend to be the successful adoptions. A newborn is unlikely to suffer attachment issues due to previous mistreatment."
Of course the demand is for newborns and children under two because adopters what the "as if born to fantasy". You conveniently left that out while you are trying to paint natural parents as abusers.
It is no one's duty to provide infertiles with their infants and most natural mothers who lose their infants would not have abused their own children. Nice try, though.
The question asked if people would rather be aborted than alive is absurd, and the writer knows it unless her IQ is minus points. If I were not alive I would not be around to answer the question.
ReplyDeleteFor a man's perspective after being told by his mother that she thought of aborting him read:
THE EXPERIENCE OF ABORTION
"I wonder though, how many adoptees would have preferred to have been aborted."
ReplyDeleteThat question can't be answered, of course, but I find it interesting how many adoptees report having aborted when faced with problem pregnancies. I have been collecting such accounts from adoption reform sources through the years, and the reason given is always the same. She can't do to a child what was done to her - thrust into the world rootless and condemned to a life of unanswered questions, forbidden contact with blood kin, and expectation of living the persona of a child that wasn't born to her adoptive parents.
Adoption and abortion are completely unrelated. This is a marketing campaign by pro-life, the religious right and the adoption lobby in the USA to increase the supply of newborns for adoption. Abortion is a decision made usually in the first trimester of a pregnancy, and adoption is a decision that should not be made until at least six weeks after a birth. Women must be able to make informed choices without the influence of adopters, agencies and others during their pregnancy and post partum. "Forced pregnancy" is just as distasteful as "forced adoption". Valerie
ReplyDeleteTo Anonymous (3/8/2013 @ 9:52 PM)
ReplyDeleteYou asked, "I wonder though, how many adoptees would have preferred to have been aborted. I suspect not many."
I am saddened that my mother did not have all options available to her. She was a staunch Catholic, so I doubt she would have aborted me even if it had been legal at the time.
Am I glad that I am alive? Yes. But, had she chosen abortion, I would have been none the wiser.
Anonymous 9:52 PM
ReplyDelete"Of course the demand is for newborns and children under two. Those tend to be the successful adoptions. A newborn is unlikely to suffer attachment issues due to previous mistreatment."
It's very clear that your concern is for the PAPs and not the children.
"Speaking of which, its clear than many mothers would rather abort than place their child for adoption (If this wasn't the case, adoption would be far easier). I wonder though, how many adoptees would have preferred to have been aborted. I suspect not many. "
I remember when I use to be ignorant about adoption. I once asked an adoptee, if they would have rather been aborted. She replied to me and said this.
"Maybe abortion would have been a better option, it would have been better than me suffering like this. But you still don't get it, that option never even crossed my mother's mind."
I replied back. "So you would have rather died?"
She said. "If I was aborted, I would have ceased to exist, not died. But that was never an option for my mother I'm in reunion with her, she was trying to keep me."
Those were the days when I was ignorant about adoption myself, about 2 or 3 years ago.
Catharine said "If you do get pregnant, are against abortion and can't take care of child for health reasons or some other reason, allow someone in your family to help you until you can."
ReplyDeleteSo long as you have sane decent family with a family member who is willing and able to do that, then I completely agree. But unfortunately it is not always possible.
Robin said " I do think the 'unwed mothers' of the BSE were used as breeders. I just think that message was more subverted. I definitely think that my n-mother was used as a breeder."
I don't accept that I was just "used as a breeder". The primary reason my child was taken for adoption was that if my pregnancy had became public knowledge it would have created "shame and scandal in the family".
Adoption in America today is regarded much too casually and the repercussions on mother and child not nearly considered seriously enough, but even before Georgia Tann there were the baby farmers like Amelia Dyer, Annie Walters, Amelia Sach, and many others.
To be grateful for small mercies, I am glad that I wasn't an unmarried pregnant woman in those days and that my child wasn't one of those babies.
Ceasing to exist is the same thing as dying.
ReplyDeleteAs for my concern being for the PAPs, they are the ones who are choosing to adopt new borns or perhaps toddlers and paying large sums of money to do so.
If an older child is available for adoption from the foster care system, their natural parents probably were child abusers.
Anon wrote: "If an older child is available for adoption from the foster care system, their natural parents probably were child abusers."
ReplyDeleteIn many cases the natural parents were not child abusers. They may have been mentally ill, addicted to drugs, in jail, or just incapable of proving a home which met DHS standards.
Many of these parents agree to adoption so they can have an open adoption. Clearly DHS would not allow an open adoption if the child was in danger.
Tragically, some of these children end up in adoptive homes which are worse than their own homes.
Again I refer readers to the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform, www.nccpr.org.
ReplyDelete"As for my concern being for the PAPs, they are the ones who are choosing to adopt new borns or perhaps toddlers and paying large sums of money to do so."
Your concern is for the PAPs other wise you wouldn't have said this in your previous comment.
"Speaking of which, its clear than many mothers would rather abort than place their child for adoption (If this wasn't the case, adoption would be far easier). I wonder though, how many adoptees would have preferred to have been aborted. I suspect not many. "
When you said "If this wasn't the case, adoption would be far easier" It's very much so clear where your concern lies, you want more women choosing adoption, thus making adoptions easier for PAPs.
"Of course the demand is for newborns and children under two. Those tend to be the successful adoptions. A newborn is unlikely to suffer attachment issues due to previous mistreatment."
When you say "successful adoptions" referring to infant and toddler adoptions, you are basing "successful adoptions" on what the APs WANT. The whole "as if born to" scenario.
"Ceasing to exist is the same thing as dying. "
The adoptee I was talking about, meant that she didn't believe the fetus is a human life in the first trimester. So she believed she wouldn't have existed if she got aborted and not died. But abortion is a whole different debate on it's own and adoptions is not a cure.
"I wonder though, how many adoptees would have preferred to have been aborted. I suspect not many. "
I use to think the same thing, but turns out, a lot more than you think.
I have never understood why the "pro" lifers push adoption over abortion until recently. And why so many people assume children who are adopted were saved from abortion.
ReplyDeleteWhen I discovered I was pregnant at the family planning clinic, the lady who I was having a consult with told me my choices. First choice: have an abortion. As an anti abortion campaigner, I looked at her aghast. Then she said I had adoption as a choice... this to me was even worse! I looked at her as if she had grown a second head and told her there was no way I would ever give my baby away!! (Ha! Little did I know that just because I wanted to keep her meant an adoption wouldn't take place)
So then she said well she supposed I could parent her. DOH!!! This was in 1998. 1998!!! So raising one's child is still looked down on with a stigma and abortion and adoption are still favoured.
But here's the thing, I NEVER would have aborted my baby although I have to say looking back on all that happened in the months following her adoption, I went through a period of wishing I had and know some women who saw what I went through and chose abortion for there unplanned pregnancies.
And adoption was never on my choice list either. I planned and wanted to raise my child. What happened to me and so many other mothers is wrong. They USE abortion as a tool but really, if there were any such persons as "pro life" then we would see more family preservation going on. THEY WOULD BE ENCOURANGING MOTHERS TO RAISE THEIR KIDS!!
The pro lifers and right to life campaigners are merely an extended arm of the wider adoption industry merely trying to find babies for adoption. It is really about money again. No babies, no cash. So sad children are being used as cash cows and people are just so blind to it.
In our supposed more enlightened, civilised, world of today, we could find many ways to get support and help for mothers who cannot or will not raise their children without applying the brutal law of adoption. We can do anything, its just people don't want to. So we are stuck with adoption and all its awfulness. Guess we are not all that civilised after all.
You lost me on this post. You really did.
ReplyDeleteI've both give up a child to adoption and had an abortion. You know which one was more traumatic? Yeah, the one where I killed a child. That choice will haunt me forever.
The child I relinquished? She's a well-adjusted 26 year old who's currently a nurse working with HIV infected youth in West Africa. We've been in reunion for 7 years, and have a great relationship.
I'll thank you to keep your hands (and morals) away from my uterus.
Beth, we have different ways of looking at the experience. If you believe abortion is the worst possible thing that you could ever do in the world, then abortion will be a worse experience and more guilt producing than the nightmare of relinquishment and living with that. But it is not that way for many, if not most, of us. And what I find interesting to note is that several of the women who write memoirs about being adopted and do not race into their first family, have no qualms themselves about having an abortion.
ReplyDeleteWe are FMF are pro-choice, and that includes the right to have an abortion.
@ Beth:
ReplyDelete"I'll thank you to keep your hands (and morals) away from my uterus."
Correct. People need to stay out of the lives and wombs of which they don't belong, including those who don't wish to be used as a broodmare incubator for baby brokers and their paying customers, (AND even be treated like that by their own children, sometimes.)
Not all "reunions" go so "great" and mothers are nothing but kicked in the teeth for the rest of their lives for being so "selfless and brave", you know, by carrying a child to term, then relinquishing the child to strangers.
It is no one's duty to provide the infertiles of this world with the mass of cells forming in someone's womb, so they can gain from someone else's trauma. That's right, stay out of our wombs; the sanctimonious "moral" crusaders, especially.
Viktoria said -
ReplyDelete"It is no one's duty to provide infertiles with their infants and most natural mothers who lose their infants would not have abused their own children. Nice try, though."
You are right.
Just as its no one's "duty" to support said women who become impregnated with child and cannot support that child.
Extended family, the father of the child....yes.
Society? No.
It goes both ways.
I'm also astounded that so many of the same women who tout this magical & mystical connection to the child they carried for 9 months ( see this over and again on this board) could so easily and casually toss that same life away or discuss in so remotely and sterile as theory.
Yes, a choice, but in the end it is still one person deciding the fate of another living being. Unless you are saying that life doesn't begin and therefore that "connection" doesn't begin until after birth? How can it be both ways? Yes the connectionb begins if the Mother parents the child or is forced to relinquish and no if its aborted???
I see a disconnect. I would think that this forum of women would staunchly support and protect innocent life.
Clarification too: a commentor wrote that abortion often happens in the First Trimester ( or the decision to abort) ; sadly there are babies born today, late term abortions, that are delivered BREATHING and viable or could be with minimal medical support.
How sad.
I think when people advocate for adoption over abortion they do miss the larger issue HOWEVER I don't believe its an attempt to procure more "babies" for infertile couples. I believe its an honest assessment, based on their set of beliefs and morals, that life begins at conception AND excepting for cases where the mother's life/health is at risk, should be protected at all cost.
My own feelings are more complicated but I don't agree that abortion is somehow less destructive than adoption.
Beth Adult Adoptee
Beth, so are you both a first mother who relinquished, as well as an adoptee? That is what you say in your two posts.
ReplyDeleteBeth said...
ReplyDelete"You are right. Just as its no one's "duty" to support said women who become impregnated with child and cannot support that child."
Looks like we have an American Taliban member on board... pre-born, your fine; born, your on your own. You just know every mother who becomes pregnant unexpectedly is going to be a "welfare queen, don't ya?" Maybe it is none of your damn business? What do you do for a living? None of my business, eh? Exactly.
If anyone has ever worked, they have paid into the system so if anyone, including woman who becomes pregnant unexpectedly may need help, those are her tax dollars too. Moreoever, since you want to harp on "welfare" recipients, let's start with churches who rake in billions and pay not a penny in taxes. Or, how about the bailouts, e.g. corporate welfare for those big corporations we all bailed out with tax our dollars? I most certainly hope you are going to their web pages as well (along with all the churches in the U.S.) and tell them that it is not your duty to pay for them to get their free rides with your almighty tax dollars.
Tax dollars and handing over your own flesh and blood are two different things. Losing your child permanently due to temporary hardship is tragic and life altering.
Have you ever carried a child to term? Yes, Beth there is a connection. Your smart a** "magical and mystical connection" comment is insulting, dehumanizing and uncalled for. That being said, how another woman feels about what is going on inside her own body is none of your damn business! WHY is it your business? Please tell me because I am hard pressed to understand what any of it has to do with the likes of you? Have you been faced with an unplanned pregnancy in your life? Have you lost a child to adoption? When you have, please feel free to come here and dictate to someone how she should feel and what she should do about a decision that has not one thing to do with you nor will it ever. Get out of the lives and wombs of complete strangers, please.
You said:
"I see a disconnect. I would think that this forum of women would staunchly support and protect innocent life."
If I could go back and do it all over again, I would have had an abortion. I have been treated as nothing but an incubator birthing machine, then tossed aside, used and dehumanized. Not one person had one ounce of empathy for me. What woman would choose that, if they knew this was what was down the road for her? I sure the hell wouldn't and you know what, that would be MY choice, not yours or anyone else's.
If you want to have babies to hand over to infertiles, feel free. Have We'll see you back here in a few years. I'd be interested to hear what you had to say then.
"How sad" indeed, that people cannot stay out of the wombs of strangers. Creepy too.
This is a most depressing thread. Those who wish they had been aborted and those mothers who wish they had an abortion seem more pro-abortion as the better option than really pro-choice.
ReplyDeleteThe real issue is adequate and available birth control. Even in 1965 you couldn't get birth control pills unless married or engaged. There are still nitwits who want to prevent this while punishing those who get pregnant. Sex education and birth control are the best bases to prevent unwanted pregnancies and abortions. What exactly do people have on mind when they force unwanted pregnancies but provide no health care or support? It's a little late to preach responsibility after the event. I guess they want to go back to forced relinquishment.
ReplyDeleteBirth control does fail and there are therapeutic reasons for abortion. It is a matter of choice. I had a severe kidney infection and took very strong antibiotics during the first 6 weeks of pregnancy. My doctor told me I would miscarry eventually. The longer the pregnancy went on, the more danger to my health. Having an abortion was hardly an issue for me. Had I more sense the first time I got pregnant, I would have had an abortion then. I just didn't understand my situation until it was too late. I certainly wasn't alone with that problem. Youth and inexperience led to bad outcomes.
Times have changed and gotten much worse for women. Kansas was one of the first states to legalize abortion. Now they murder abortion doctors. A whole lot of nasty white men just withheld their vote because they favor violence against women. My rep was one of those. His response was that he didn't have to justify anything. How times change.
So anyone who wants to be a baby hatchery is welcome. Just don't romanticize a horrible outcome and don't force others.
I agree, 9.22 PM. Abortion is no more a 'cure' for adoption than adoption is a 'cure' for abortion. But that seems to be what is being proposed between the lines here.
ReplyDeleteAbortion and adoption are unrelated issues and it is a mistake to try and conflate them.
@anonymous 9:22 PM
ReplyDelete"Those who wish they had been aborted and those mothers who wish they had an abortion seem more pro-abortion as the better option than really pro-choice."
Pro- abortion rather than pro-choice? People will stop at nothing, truly. Wow.
Why are people's opinions of their own life experiences making you depressed? Is it any of your business? NO.
And you are pro-life, which actually means ANTI-woman. You all want these babies born, but are nowhere to be found after that.
All those babies and their mothers are on their own (because YOU "don't want to pay for them") as so many of you can be heard saying time and time again. Not that she would even get assistance by if she does, how DARE she expect we upstanding, perfect people to pay her way.
Of course, none of you mind of churches get by tax free. Now if that is not "government assistance", I don't know what is. None of you mind when adopters get a huge tax break for adopting a child, more than non adopting families get. Where is the outrage?
The only time people like you want to hear from a woman that is pregnant unexpectedly, is if she is considering adoption, then she is a hero of epic proportions. That status is short lived, however. As soon as she loses her child to strangers, she's thrown to the wolves.
Pro-choice. Right on.
Perhaps "Beth" is bogus? She does not sound like a real person. On the one hand, she is a first mother:
ReplyDelete"The child I relinquished? She's a well-adjusted 26 year old who's currently a nurse working with HIV infected youth in West Africa. We've been in reunion for 7 years, and have a great relationship." Wow, who can argue with that? Her daughter is a saint.
Okay. In her next comment, she signs off as:
"Beth Adult Adoptee"
It is odd that she did not mention first off that she was both--as people typically do, as if gives them mucho creds.
And she also has had an abortion, so she knows whereof she speaks.
I'm not buying it.
I'm the first Beth who commented. I don't know the second. I assure you I am very real, although Beth is not my name.
ReplyDeleteI find that most people who believe that mothers should not get help from "society" in raising their children also believe strongly that adopters should receive a tax credit from that very same "society".
ReplyDeleteWhatever hypocrites.
Well, it is theoretically possible for someone to have had all 3 events in her life--being adopted, a surrender, and an abortion. However, it wouldn't be the first time a first mother masqueraded as an adult adoptee either. Being skeptical never hurts.
ReplyDeleteSee above, regarding "Beth." So we had two people post as a "Beth." This is the trouble with anonymous comments.
ReplyDeleteIn a couple of weeks, I need to do some blog work and probably move over to wordpress, as the blog no longer works to repost the new blogs at all the sites there is it listed.
J.L. wrote:
ReplyDelete"For probably centuries in the least, children have ended up without their parents to raise them, either because their parents passed on, or just abandoned them. Relatives have done what is right, and taken on the responsibility and raised those children, WITHOUT assuming the titles of "mommy", or "daddy". Where are those children crying "my life was horrible, I felt so empty, so miserable, all because I didn't get to call someone mom or dad!"."
Yes, we live in a different society than we used to. We also have trained doctors, worldwide network for communication, and cars. Those children who you so gallantly speak for, were often shunned in their extended families. They were called "bastards" "that child" and worse. I know, because I was one of them. At the age of 6, my parents died in a fire. I was shepherded from relative to relative for the next twelve years until I was kicked out on my 18th birthday to fend for myself. I was left home on "family vacations", no one remembered my birthday and I never got a cake or gifts, and every few years the relative I was living with would kick me to some other relative. I LONGED for any parent to call my own.
So, here I am, crying that my life was pretty messed up because I didn't have two people dedicated to be my parents. I actually have connected with several other "family orphans" through my community, and you'd be surprised. All of us felt the same subtle (or not so subtle) shunning. We all felt left out and on the outside. At one point, around 8, I begged my cousin to put me up for adoption because I couldn't stand the thought of never having someone to call "mom" again.
I'm an adoptive parent to four children we adopted through foster care. Yes, they call me "mom", even the one we adopted at 14. Not because we told him to (in fact we told him that he could call us anything he wanted that wasn't a swear word), but because after a year with us, he called me "mom". All of our children have started of calling us something different (first name, nickname, "aunt"). And by the end of their first year with us, those names all have morphed into "mom" or "dad".
Titles are important in our society and have been for centuries. It's how we identify who we love and care for or who we respect.
You seem to think that just having shelter is enough for a child. It's not. Love is not genetic, neither is care.
@Mollie:
ReplyDelete"Love is not genetic, neither is care."
Love is not "genetic"; yet the same people who decry the bonds of our own people, our own blood and ancestors would never denounce their OWN blood.
Only when you are in possession of someone else's child do you see it fit to declare that "love and care is not genetic".
Can you love someone who is not your biological relative? Absolutely. Do you deserve a title that is not rightfully yours, because you are caring for a child that you are not responsible for being on this earth; (subsequently dehumanizing the actual mother and father)? No, I don't think you do. Thanks.
I am the second Beth and also very real. I have commented here before and used my name. I didn't realize another Beth had commented or I may have added a last initial.
ReplyDeleteI want to clarify something. A person can have an opinion and set of beliefs regarding abortion even if they have not given birth or had an abortion. It can be a belief rooted in religion or otherwise, just as many people have "feelings/opinions" about gay marriage, divorce, single parenting,education, politics etc. all without being in those sub groups themselves.
Secondly, I never characterized all women who relinquish as future "welfare queens"; give me a break! Nice attempt to turn the conversation away from its discourse and turn it into name calling. I'm Taliban? Yes, that's helpful to the thread and civil.
Over and again on this site MANY ( but certainly not all) First Mothers point to a lack of financial support as a prime causal reason for relinquishing and seem to feel 'entitled' to monetary support for them and their child. I suppose that's another whole issue and certainly there are social supports in place for First Mothers today needing economic support.
My main query was how can women who tout that mystical thread of carrying a child for 9 months (and this is said over again on this forum!) in union with a genetic important, etc.(also said again and again on this board), so casually dismiss abortion as anything other than taking a life?
Of course if the mother's life is at risk or a pregnancy due to incest and other rare and tragic cases, it is different.
I WAS and AM saying that those who believe its taking a life are probably NOT doing so to "create" more babies for infertile couples to adopt. People can have beliefs and big ones that DON'T relate to the adoption machine.
Beth #2
AA sorry to use it at the end; didn't realize it gave me "cred" on this board to use it upfront!
@Mollie,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. It is triggering for me when I read comments by people who were not given up for adoption or orphaned talk about how all a child needs is a roof over their head and hopefully 3 squares. Children who are not taken care of by their natural parents need a family. A secure, stable family and yes, people who fulfill the role of parents. Guardianship sounds like ideology to me but in the real world would not give the child a secure sense of family. It sounds like it would be a frightening and anxiety producing way to live. I think a child could be raised say by an aunt and uncle (and would call them such not "mom" and "dad") but the point is the child needs to feel that s/he has a permanent home and family.
@Beth:
ReplyDeleteI give the term American Taliban to people who hold the standard Tea Party/ Republican view that "I'm not paying for you to get to raise your own flesh and blood " so give it up to strangers,or you will be a loser and the child will live a horrible existence mindset; a mold of which seems to fit you.
You didn't say all women to may be faced with an unplanned pregnancy would end up on welfare, but that was your first line of attack, that you weren't "paying for it." Like I said, I hope you offer the same line of attack for all the organizations and tax breaks you are "paying for" with your tax dollars.
I didn't see anywhere in your second comment where you addressed what business what a woman chooses to do with her body happens to be your business; and how she feels about the connection to the child she may or may not have brought to this earth. Again, not your business and it never will be.
Not all women who are carrying around a cluster of parasitic cells in the first several weeks of pregnancy hold the belief that it is a full term baby and feel the same connection to a full term baby she may have given birth to; a completely different thing. It is not your "duty" to decide how she feels about that. Thanks.
@Shelly:
ReplyDeleteSo the woman who beat my 7 year old son until he was blind, she has the right to call herself "mom", but I can't? And his relatives who saw what was happening and didn't stop it, they have the "right" to claim him as "theirs", but not me? Or those same relatives who once they discovered that he was blind and would probably never hear correctly, and abandoned him in the hospital. You think that they have the monopoly on "family"?
And you think that by him calling me "mom" instead of the monster who bore him, that I am dehumanizing her? Tell that to his little brother who died in her care. Tell that to his older sister who she whored out for drugs and alcohol, until that girl committed suicide (at 12). No, I'm sorry, she dehumanized herself...long before I was ever in the picture. Thankfully, she's now exactly where she belongs: in a maximum security prison, for life with no parole.
Before you call all biological parents saints who are only entitled to "mom", you might was to make a visit to my house. My children will tell you exactly what their "saintly" biological parents did for them.
As I have written, I tried to have an abortion but they were not easy to come by in 1966 and I failed in my attempt. At that point, I felt as if my life would be ruined (it was) if I actually had a baby. It was only after that, after I realized that come hell or high water, that I was going to have a baby did the baby become "real." And I did not want to lose her to some strangers. (And you all know, I did.) Then I fiercely wanted to keep her. Then my life changed dramatically. I think most of the women who read here share that view.
ReplyDeleteFMF is not a site where we debate the morality of abortion.
@Molly
ReplyDeleteI never said all natural families are "saints", but neither are adoptive families. Moreover, you are on a site called First Mother Forum and NOT ONE of these women who post here, including myself are abusers who would have hurt or even killed their children.
Furthermore, of all the people who come here and claim natural parents are so abusive, I'd like to hear everyone's side, besides just yours. I know many adoptive parents demonize natural parents to make themselves out to be such "saints". There are plenty of adoptive "monsters" who have killed or hurt the children in their care too. Look it up.
Lastly, natural mothers/ families (who have not abused and killed their children, OK) are not "entitled" to be called anything. They simply ARE. Not one thing you can do or say will change that. You want to see entitlement? Go to adoptive parent blogs where they think they are owed someone else's child, then when they get that child treat her despicably. Yes, saintly adopters can be just as abusive as those horrible natural families, even emotionally.
Mollie has made it clear who she is taking care of, and I totally respect her for that. I don't think she is here at FMF to demean us in the way that we feel degraded and demeaned by other adoptive parents; she is Mom to the kids she is raising. My daughter called me Lorraine almost all the time, but sometimes referred to me as Mother or Maraine. I got it; Mom was the Mom who raised her, and I let it go.
ReplyDeleteMy granddaughter began calling my daughter's husband "Dad," as soon as they got married, when she was eight, more than a decade ago. Her choice; it was not foisted on her. Her own father had disappeared when she was two, and she has no memory of him. And Dad has been a wonderful father to her, and I am so very glad that he came into her life.
My firstmom went to Canada to get an illegal abortion; she felt me move for the first time on the way there- and obviously turned around. I am grateful for that.
ReplyDeleteI also chose to parent my two statistics- I got pregnant on birth control twice; I was a pill baby myself and my birthsister has a pill baby too. My daughters will be well educated and prepared on using two forms of Birthcontrol-lol! I did have to choose to terminate a pregnancy on depo because the medication caused me to lose the first twin and the second was given a very low chance of surviving-this was between the other two pregnancies. I was emotionally destroyed by the termination, and when I was back on the pill and pregnant yet again- I considered adoption as an alternative but couldn't do it.
Abortion is a permanent solution and it is a personal choice. One I no longer personally believe is a good one-but consider myself pro-choice.
Adoption is a permanent solution to a temporary situation but the emotionally ties are so different. I feel so much empathy for firstmoms and the pain they have suffered.
Yes, Lorraine and I was trying to make it clear that not all natural parents are abusers or will kill their own children. Thanks for allowing my comment through and censoring me.
ReplyDeleteI get it. I didn't raise my child and do not deserve a damn thing. Thanks.
Obviously Shelly Murphy, what you say in your last comment is not what I meant. I certainly am not censoring you, but I am just saying that there are different ways to look who calls who what. Obviously, if I felt you or I didn't deserve a damn thing, this blog would not exist. I agree with everything you say; I also understand why Mollie feels entitled to be called "Mom."
ReplyDelete@Shelly:
ReplyDeleteI don't think all first mothers abuse (or kill) their children. That's just ridiculous. And I have nothing but respect for what Jane and Lorraine are doing. I am also an advocate for open records. I would love for my children to have access to their records when they want them. Currently, they only have what I manages to beg, "borrow", and steal from the social workers. Those only paint a very incomplete picture.
And, to suggest that I am lying about abuse is saddening and wrong. I suggest you spend some time at your local children's shelter or Protective Services office. I am willing to bet that the stories you hear will break your heart.
You know, you claim to see all these adoptive parents blogs that say they have "claim" to another person's child. Or treat the first mother/child horribly. I have close to 150 adoption blogs in my reader. Not one of them has ever talked about a sense of entitlement to another woman's child. If they have open adoptions, they are gracious and talk kindly about the first mothers. If not, then it's a mixed bag, depending on what happened. But not one of them has ever demeaned or demoralized the first families. Can you point me to some of these blogs? Because I'd like to set them straight.
Conversely, I also read about 35 birthmother/first mother blogs. Adoptive parents are regularly verbally beaten up and called names on some of those. We "adopters" are called greedy, entitled, abusive, and worse.
Of all of the blogs I read, foster parents tend to be harshest towards first families. But, I can see why, with some of the abuse they see.
You seem to think that first mothers who abuse their children are entitled to some sort of respect. I cannot agree. They aren't "mom", they never will be, no matter how hard you fight. Abuse is abuse.
It's a different story if that woman is a first mother who didn't. She will always be a mom, and deserves respect.
@Molly:
ReplyDelete"And, to suggest that I am lying about abuse is saddening and wrong. I suggest you spend some time at your local children's shelter or Protective Services office. I am willing to bet that the stories hear will break your heart."
Oh give me a break. I never said you were lying about anything. I said in many cases there were two sides to every story, especially where people demonize natural parents. You have taken everything I have said and ran with it. Don't you "suggest" I do anything. I am not saying children are not abused, but I also know adopters can and do abuse children as well. It is not just natural families.
You said:
"You know, you claim to see all these adoptive parents blogs that say they have "claim" to another person's child. Or treat the first mother/child horribly.
You can read some of the comments on this very blog, Molly. I think you know exactly what I am am talking about. Try adoption.com for starters. Yahoo answers. Try many adoption agency web sites and adoptive parent profiles trying to lure an infant away from it's mother. Search Google regarding mothers that want to keep and raise their own flesh and blood, or a mother who rightfully changes her mind. Read some of the vile things said about her. Read some of the comments about Colin Kilpatrick's natural mother, or go to one of the many stories on Yahoo news, The New York Times and/ or Huffington Post written by or about natural mothers and read the despicable comments thereafter. I don't have a list of adoptive parent blogs because I can't stomach most of them, but believe me I have read a many who's blogs are nothing but rainbow puke and sunshine and how "god brought them their baby", or how their "god will bring them a baby". It is all about them. I love the way you turned it around and make it look like all the poor adopters of this world are so vilified by us mean ole natural mothers on the internet, when I have read probably thousands of comments calling natural mothers whores, among many other things. And yes, I and many other women are treated "horribly" by people we entrusted our children to.
You said:
"You seem to think that first mothers who abuse their children are entitled to some sort of respect. I cannot agree. They aren't "mom", they never will be, no matter how hard you fight. Abuse is abuse."
My gosh, your title is so very important to you. I never said mothers who abuse children are entitled to anything, but neither are people who virtually steal someone's child with lies and false promises. I get it. You have children who were abused. Adoptive parents can abuse children too. Look that one up too.
Now, the title of this blog is called "Adoption is not a 'cure' for abortion", not who get's the title of mother because they did or did not abuse their children. (speaking of abuse, does mental abuse, brainwashing and mind control count as abuse in your eyes?) I know a woman who did this to the child she adopted and is actually still doing this.
Please, feel free to go and set some people straight now, thanks!
I personally think abortion is the worst form of violence against women When women and girls are coerced into thinking that it's either them or the baby-we've got a problem.Our society is a tough one if you've got any form of disability. I think it is the beginning of a pregnancy(first2-3 months) when morning sickness,surprise and confusion at having to alter some plans,relationship or lack of with baby's father or feeling exhausted and unable to think of caring for another kid, that lead a lot of women to see abortion as a solution. Once the baby starts growing more, kicking, and becoming the mother-baby unit, I think less and less of us really want abortions. There is a vast difference between an abortion at 8 weeks and at 8 months, not that I'm in favor of either. I will forever be horrified and insulted by the woman doctor who offered to perform an abortion on my baby during the late 2nd trimester- because I had been hospitalized for depression and was on welfare at the time(not any more!) Thank God I was still in my rebellious stage and didn't listen to her and also had a religious upbringing. When I heard about that poor girl who had an abortion at 8 months in Maryland and died, I couldn't help but think that could have been me 30 yrs ago if I had listened to that@#$@&%doctor. The media covers up all the deaths from late-term abortions. In some parts of the world, abortion is used as a form of torture to break a woman's spirit. I'll admit closed adoption was torture,too,but at least there's a live baby and not a dead one.
ReplyDeleteAnon/American Taliban,
ReplyDeleteWelfare was not my first line of attack and I was responding to another commentor, Viktoria.
But your line that babies in utero are "parasitic clumps of cells" is disturbing. When does that change? When you feel "it" move? When you decide its a life worthy of protecting?
I actually DO think abortion concerns us all and you are short sighted and deliberately being obtuse if you believe otherwise.
You ask for society to pay for women to raise their own flesh and blood because you see a benefit to that...yet you can't see the benefits to protecting innocent life?
As a decent society, we all fail or benefit by how we treat our most innocent. Just sayin.....
I guess its all in your own personal perspective then, eh?
Beth #2 AA
@Beth:
ReplyDeleteYou said:
"Welfare was not my first line of attack"
Yes it was. You failed to mention the no tax paying churches and corporate welfare you are paying for. How convenient. Just sayin...
You said:
"But your line that babies in utero are "parasitic clumps of cells" is disturbing."
Disturbing? How about strangers inserting themselves into the lives and wombs of women they don't know from Adam. Creepy, disturbing and sick.
You said:
"You ask for society to pay for women to raise their own flesh and blood because you see a benefit to that...yet you can't see the benefits to protecting innocent life?"
I never asked society to pay for anything. Programs ARE in place, that I had nothing to do with, that people like you want cut for all these babies you want born. Where are the "benefits" in that for all the fertilized zygotes you want brought to term? Ohhhh, you want them given away to strangers. Gotcha. No thanks. You can be broodmare incubator for the infertiles if you like. Come back here and tell us all how that works for you.
You said:
"As a decent society, we all fail or benefit by how we treat our most innocent. Just sayin....."
As a decent society, we all fail or benefit by how we treat EVERYONE, including living breathing women who's lives will forever be altered if she is faced with an unwanted pregnancy/ birth.
What about the trauma to HER? Oh, that's right, who cares about her. It's all about what is inside her womb. Once that is born to the world, see ya. We don't want to hear from you then, if you decide to keep and raise YOUR OWN child. If you want to give it up to strangers, then we can talk, but only for a short time because we need you GONE once you sign the papers. Sounds fun, eh? Just sayin...
You said:
"I guess its all in your own personal perspective then, eh?"
Guess, so, eh?
NON AMERICAN TALIBAN MEMBER
Anon/NON American Taliban:
ReplyDeleteYou ask for your voice as a relinquishing mother to be heard, yet you offer no such dignity to aborted life.
You ask for respect and decency, yet afford none to innocent life.
You profer only one perspective (your own) yet refuse to acknowledge another's story or right to life. A basic human right; one your 'Taliban' also has little regard for.
You insert name calling and denegrading into your comments, yet hope for civil and meaningful discourse?
Or perhaps you don't and that's the point afterall. Stirring the pot while you hide under a cutesy radical name. I find it sickening you have the nerve to compare women of the U.S. to women undergoing the true TERROR of radical Taliban around the world. Vaginal mutilation, death by stoning; being considered property much like cattle or farm land; not being able to show your face? No education? Shall I go on?
Grow up.
Beth Adult Adoptee
@Beth:
ReplyDeleteI have a few parting words for you, Beth, for the umpteenth time, get out and stay out of the wombs of complete strangers, including mine.
I find it "sickening" that you think you have some sanctimonious right to tell other women what to do with their own bodies, judge them for their choices and how they feel about their own lives. Sounds like the Taliban to me; the complete disenfranchisement of women and girls. Not so far off, is it? Of course, the U.S. version is not as violent and disgusting as their counterparts... but look at the similarities of all fundamentalist wacko's the world over and you will see the same message: Women have no right to make decisions about their own bodies or lives. Women need to be controlled by the religious morals of those who deem themselves morally "superior". Women are judged. The list goes on and on.
When you yourself have been faced with an unplanned pregnancy and have been used as a broodmare for the adoption industry, had your life nearly destroyed by deceit and lies, come back here and talk to me about "dignity"? You have some nerve.
If you care so much about precious "life", why not start with the woman sitting next to you, if you can stay focused on her instead of her womb, that is.
Grow up? You need to take your own advise, please and one last time, get out of my womb. Get out of all of our wombs. Thanks.
Abortion, pro or con, is not really our issue. Just as adoption is not a cure for abortion, abortion is not a cure for adoption. They are separate issues. Adoption is not a reproductive rights issue since the reproduction is done at that point. But it is a choice, and it should be fully informed and never pressured on any mother.
ReplyDeleteWe went through this in CUB years ago, and found that our membership held varied views on abortion, from strongly pro-life to strongly pro-choice, and everything in between. This had nothing to do with their shared commitment to adoption reform and adoptee rights.
What has happened here, an argument between pro and anti abortion forces with both sides being righteous about their beliefs does nothing to advance the cause of open records but only further divides those already split over so many other side issues and ideologies.
My observation has been that both sides lie, exaggerate, insult, and dismiss the other as evil or stupid. I would not join any extreme group on either side of the abortion issue. My private view is that it should be legal and early, but taken seriously as ending a potential life. Neither abortion nor adoption should be presented as a pain-free easy solution for all women in a crisis pregnancy.
Taliban Anon.:
ReplyDeleteI will gladly "get out of your womb" whatever that means.
Stop your grandstanding and yes, I'll say it again, 'grow up'. Please.
For the record, I am an adult adoptee, so I believe I do know something about this thing you call adoption. I am the product of it. Funny you conveniently leave that out when sandblasting my voice & experience.
Focus on the woman next to me? What does that mean? I think perhaps you are the one fixated on other women's wombs. I see women as whole and complete and prefer not to label them by random body and reproductive parts.
@ Maryanne,
Thank you for your input & thoughts. I do appreciate your insights. Like you, I feel there are instances where an abortion is warranted and best for all concerned. I do perhaps see more gray areas than you.
Clearly it is not a solution or causal rationale for adoption. If this dialogue has veered into a side topic, it has in part because of mud slinging and name calling.
I am done with this thread and for the record Taliban Anon., I 'grew up' a long time ago and have no interest in your womb. Really. It seems you have plenty of 'womb interest' for us all.
Beth AA
@Beth
ReplyDeleteYou said:
"I will gladly "get out of your womb" whatever that means:
Beth, you know exactly what it means. Refrain from dictating what one can and should do when it comes to HER reproductive choice.
You said:
"Stop your grandstanding and yes, I'll say it again, 'grow up' Please."
Grandstanding? Ok. First of all, I don't take orders from you and I will be happy to when you do as well. I find it hilarious when people go there, when someone has an opinion other than what theirs is. Grandstanding. You mean standing my "ground"? Moreover, because I have a different viewpoint on abortion I need to "grow up", yet you don't, because you feel you are on the "right side" of the debate? Another clever (or not) way to invalidate someone's voice and it won't work. Sorry.
You said:
"For the record, I am an adult adoptee, so I believe I do know something about this thing you call adoption. I am the product of it. Funny you conveniently leave that out when sandblasting my voice & experience."
For the record, I am a natural mother that has been treated as a broodmare incubator by everyone involved in my adoption "experience. Never once have I brought up YOUR experience, so you are really going out on a limb. When did I ever mention your life? Grandstanding. Sandblasting. What the heck ever with your silly internet speak.
I expressed to you to that what another woman chooses to do in regards to her reproductive health is her business and not yours. I am qualified to speak about is as well, as a woman who has been dehumanized by the adoption industry. Don't ya go "sandblasting" my experience, ok.
You said:
"Focus on the woman next to me? What does that mean? I think perhaps you are the one fixated on other women's wombs. I see women as whole and complete and prefer not to label them by random body and reproductive parts."
I am the last person on earth fixated on what another woman chooses to do in regards to her reproductive choice. Nice try trying to turn it around on me. Another laugh I needed today. Yes, I said if you are so concerned with the sanctity of life, you sure aren't concerned with the living, breathing vulnerable pregnant women among us and what may happen to her life, should she be forced or coerced into giving birth to a child she does not want to.
You said:
"I 'grew up' a long time ago and have no interest in your womb. Really. It seems you have plenty of 'womb interest' for us all."
If you have no interest in the wombs of complete strangers, please prove that by leaving a what a woman chooses to do regarding her life out of your business, where it doesn't belong and stop judging people for their choices. It is not your choice to make. Your body and reproductive health is your business, as is everyone else's.
And Maryanne, the woman who claims anyone who has a differing opinion is an "extremist", no, it is called a different worldview/ viewpoint. I happen to take issue to people who think they have some sanctimonious right to tell other people what they should or should not do with their lives, especially reproductive health. Thanks.
COMMENTS CLOSED.
ReplyDeleteThe thing that I've yet to see brought up is the fact that giving a kid up for adoption isn't an option because they don't want to give birth! That's the bottom line for most people who get abortions. Sure, It'd be all fine and dandy to give birth if pregnancy and childbirth wasn't incredibly painful and dangerous and physically scarring! But when one outcome depends on the birth of a child and the woman isn't planning on giving birth to it, then that outcome ceases to be an option. I'm one of those people. If I was pregnant, there's not a single doubt in my mind that I would have an abortion, simply because I DON'T WANT TO GIVE BIRTH TO A CHILD. I'm not a broodmare. It's not my duty to provide a sterile couple with a child. There's millions already out there, they can take their pick of those, but they won't be getting one from me. I'm not going to risk my health, comfort, and life for something that doesn't have a life yet, will not feel anything, and will be none the wiser if aborted or not.
ReplyDelete