.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Saturday, December 10, 2005

Are feminists really pro-choice?

Glenn Reynolds linked a couple of posts about men's parental choice rights. Jason Smith's is pretty thorough, looking at the extreme legal asymmetry both between men's and women's parental rights and between men's and women's parental responsibilities. Reynolds himself had a post questioning these asymmetries within marriage:
The problem here is that you can say "my body, my choice" -- but when you say, "my body, my choice but our responsibility," well, it loses some of its punch.
Many moons ago, I wrote a column about how the law imposes the same child-support responsibilities on men whether or not they get married and how this screws up a woman's incentives to behave responsibly. If a woman is going to have a baby without getting married, the law should provide an incentive for her to put the baby up for adoption.

This goes so far back even The Wayback Machine dumped it. From The Stanford Review, 10/12/1995:

Are feminists really pro-choice?

I could hardly believe my ears. Was this really the same woman friend who for years had been adamantly pro-choice? Where she used to insist that to force a woman to carry a child to term was an unconstitutional slavery, she now was now insisting that unintended pregnancy warranted a lifetime of slavery. Not only was one to have no right to terminate a pregnancy, but one was then to be forced to spend one's life either rearing the unwanted child or paying for it to be reared.

Being solidly pro-choice myself, I struggled against the enormity of this switch. "Even if precautions were taken to avoid pregnancy in the first place?" I asked. "They obviously weren't good enough" bounced back the brick wall. "Even if someone wants to adopt the baby?" I asked her. She was implacable. "Can anything relieve the obligations to support the child through adulthood, even though one is denied any choice about whether to continue the pregnancy?" "Absolutely nothing" she asserted with a deadly seriousness I have hardly heard in her voice before.

Shocking business. But you can get the exact same answers from almost any "pro-choice" woman. Just specify that you are talking about what the father's obligations, and no choice, with full responsibilities, is not just the feminist position, it is the law in every state of the union. Watch out guys. Do not be lulled in to thinking that your "liberal" girlfriend's attitudes towards sex make pre-marital sex risk-less for you. Feminism is only interested in sex being as risk free as possible for women, and that means shifting as much of the risk as possible onto you.

Hand in hand with the drive to secure a woman's right to choose whether to have an abortion, there has been a desperate insistence that whether the father wanted to get the mother pregnant or wanted her to keep the child is of no relevance to the extent of his obligations. His body, his labor, his hopes for family in the future, are all confiscated over the exact same unintended pregnancy for which our constitutional process has decided that women must not be forced to sacrifice anything.

The newspapers publish a steady drumbeat of reports deploring the high percentage of "deadbeat dads" and insisting that we crack down. But the numbers show that men who had children within marriage, men who chose to become fathers, have extremely high compliance rates. They continue to support their children and their ex-wives, without the benefit of these women's love or labor. The so-called "deadbeats" are almost entirely men who fathered children out of wedlock, and their official numbers are inflated by the fact that every welfare mother is required to list a father who automatically goes into the statistics as a deadbeat.

Of course attacking "deadbeat dads" is a political steamroller. Who can defend them when the label "deadbeat" begs the question of whether the obligations they face are just. But the only way to substantially improve the rates of compliance is to go after the only group that has low rates of compliance, and so the political steamroller becomes a war to confiscate the livelihoods of men who never consented to become fathers and force them to support women who did have a choice and chose to have children out of wedlock.

To get both justice and effective incentives it is necessary to attach obligations to choice, or consent. Throughout the world consent to responsibility for each other's choices comes in the form of wedding vows. Thus the obvious resolution is to let women to be free to choose in any case, but have the support that fathers are obligated to provide fall sharply for children born outside of marriage. This would provide the right incentives for women to choose responsibly and bear children within marriage or not at all.

The feminists want choice without responsibility. They want irresponsible behavior to be supported the same as responsible behavior. That is unfair to those who are being forced to provide support and it provides the wrong incentives for women, encouraging irresponsible childbearing.

The only real question is how much less than a married father's parental obligation an unmarried father should be forced to bear. If he bears no obligation that gives him no external incentive to do his part to avoid irresponsible reproduction. Half might be the best compromise for an already compromised situation, leaving strong incentives for both would be fathers and mothers not to conceive or bear children outside of marriage.

Half of a divorced father's child support payments is still a tremendous obligation, considering that, for women, most people judge it a tyrannical wrong to impose any obligation to become a parent. But there is a baby involved, whose mother has already proven herself irresponsible by having a child out of wedlock. The strength of that need calls for splitting the incentive equally between the man and the woman.


I think this analysis still applies. I am still pro-choice (while rejecting that abortion rights can be found in the Constitution), and I still think that responsibility has to be allocated so as to promote responsible behavior.

Where my views have deepened is on adoption. I have come to regard it as a sign of profound societal sickness that so many young women who are not ready to raise a child choose to abort their accidental pregnancies instead of having their babies and putting them up for adoption. We know the statistics. Most women in our society end up having fewer children than they want. Many many of the high school and college girls who have abortions will end up regretting it. Instead of being childless at 35, they could know they have a child out there, raised by loving parents nearly to adulthood! The sickness, at least as I see it, isn't that abortion is murder. It is that nobody seems to be thinking the decision through, or they wouldn't all be having abortions that half of them will regret.

"All" is hardly an exaggeration, at least at elite institutions like Stanford. "How come none of the pregnant Stanford girls are having their babies and putting them up for adoption?" I asked in a more recent Review article. The feminists couldn't even understand my questions. Every letter thought I was attacking a woman's right to choose, when I was asking why, when women have the power of choice, they aren't making the choices what would make them happy.

Dang girl. You have a chance to buy Microsoft at the IPO. You don't have to do anything. Just let it grow, and in twenty years you'll be rich. That almost no one, at least from the elite culture, is taking up that offer, shows that that elite culture is not pro-choice, but is pro-abortion, pressuring girls into having abortions that many or most will regret. That is an evil thing, and the results are a tragedy.

Comments:
Wow. That sure is some post.
Have you ever stepped foot on an adoption related internet message board and read some of the messages from the women who have had children and placed them for adoption?
No? I didn't think so. Because if you have..then there would be no way in God's Earth that you could say that they, we, are HAPPY.
Regret? Sadness? Issues? Life long grief? Ramifications that effect not only the natural mother but the rest of the natural family..siblings denied relationships, grandparents,Cousins..all very real folks..all with very real pain.
Being a mother who lost her child to adoption during college or high school and finding ones self childless at 35, is still childless. Except you still have the stretch marks to prove that you did have a child, but in the eyes of the law, and frequently in the eyes of society, you are still childless. The only thing that you have, is the heartbreak and the constant wonder as to what your child is doing, what they look like, are they OK?

Please, go and read some tales of experiences before you think that adoption is a walk in the park..and for the love of all that is holy....don't ever say that we are happy.
 
I think you may be conflating two different situations. There are those whose alternative to putting a child up for adoption would be to have an abortion, and those whose alternative to adoption would be to raise the child themselves. For those who choose to put a child up for adoption, these two cases are hard to separate, but for those who choose abortion, they are clearly separated. They did NOT raise the child themselves. They aborted it.

THESE are the women I am addressing. Your adoption board is full of women who are regretting not raising their child. Surely these women are not regretting that they did not get an abortion!

In your case, you might not be happy that you didn't raise your child, but I'm just guessing that you still are happy that you didn't abort him/her. Please let me know.

It is also important to separate out regret over a decision to reveal one's identity to a child that was given up for adoption, if the contact goes awry, but that is a separate decision.

It is great that there are adoption forums where people can relate their experiences and try to help each other make the best decisions about making contact, but anyone who decides to make contact does so in the expectation it will be for the best. That makes remaining anonymous a baseline, from which one can choose to gamble on improvement or to stand pat.

The baseline issue is, can you be glad to give a child life, in a loving family, even if you can't be a part of it. If so, they you should certainly be happy you didn't have an abortion. Am I missing something?
 
Alec, I'm not sure there is a huge line between women "whose alternative to putting a child up for adoption would be to have an abortion, and those whose alternative to adoption would be to raise the child themselves."

If the resources aren't there, you are really looking between abortion and adoption, right? I personally don't like abortion. I am pro-choice as far as the laws go because I quite frankly think it is desgusting as a community to force every women who gets pregnant unintentionally to let some couple come and take her baby from her. It's highly unethical. But then again, being a part of the community that does a lot of research on the effects to women who place and to children who are adopted out of their families of origins, I may have access to more information than you.

If we spend our money on making adoption sound like a great deal and giving women incentives to place rather than on helping women achieve the skills and resources they need to parent themselves, we are doing a disservice to american families. People who promote adoption always say they are "loving, respectful, and appreciative of birthmothers." If you love, respect, and appreciate "birthmothers" why do you think they don't deserve help to raise their children? Ha, you DON'T respect women who got pregnant on accident, right? You definately don't believe they deserve to raise their children, EVEN IF THE MONEY TO HELP WERE THERE, because you believe that money should go toward promoting more adoptions, right?

I think you misunderstand the difference between being "glad to give a child life, in a loving family, even if you can't be a part of it" and surviving the horrific pain/PTSD/sorrow/depression/etc etc that plague most every woman who places in some way. And after watching a certain number of women live with the aftermath of this horror you start to get a sour face when people spend huge quantities of money persuading women to place. You start to, shall we say, loose respect, for the person who would spend oodles of money on adoption advertising soliciting and promotion, designing lingo to lersuade women to "think more about adoption" when they wouldn't spend a dime on thelping the same woman keep.

It just kind of grosses me out personally. Since I am one of the human beings who actually cares about pregnant women who will have to live with the pain of losing thier child, I personally am fighting the battle to help women get the rsources, internal and external, to give their child a good life. Without adoption coming into the picture.

My goal is to significantly reduce the number of women who get seduced into placing by clever adoption promotiong slogans, advertising, coersive case management techniques, etc. And to generate realistic ways of supporting women in healthy parenting. People like you say the money isn't there for that, but it is, people just loathe pregnant teens. You're spending it on adoption promoting and facilitation.

-Sunny
 
Sunny: I simply do not believe it is a viable option for a society to support people to have and raise children that they cannot support on their own. If society pays people to have babies they can't afford on their own, then that is what people are going to do.

Not only is this a perverse incentive, but leads to very unjust results. The effect is to take resources away from those who are responsible in their childbearing and transfer them to the irresponsible. We don't just get more irresponsible childbearing, we get less responsible childbearing.

This is not a hypothetical. One of my best friends saved and saved and saved for years to get established in a house and be able to start a family. He got married young but wasn't able to afford kids until he and his wife were in their thirties. A big part of the reason is because 40% of his paycheck goes to taxes, some of which go to pay people on welfare to have babies they can't afford on their own. He and his wife have two beautiful girls, but if it weren't for his money going to support other people's irresponsible childbearing, he might have more.

This happens ALL THE TIME. Responsible people are putting off having families for longer than they would like because it is so darned expensive, and some of the expense goes to supporting the children of the irresponsible.

You want to expand that. To the extent that people want to contribute to the cause, fine. But expand government support? NO WAY! We need LESS government subsidization of irresponsible childbearing, not more.

But you do seem to confirm my original hypothesis: that women who are unhappy after putting children up for adoption are unhappy that they are not raising their children. They are not unhappy that they didn't have abortions, and these two sentiments would seem to be exclusive. A woman who wishes she could care more directly for her child surely wouldn't rather the child not exist. That isn't what caring is. Caring isn't selfish. It is regard for others.

Might I suggest to some of you unhappy women that you focus on what you can be happy about: that your child is alive, and being cared for. Fauxclaud said that a woman who gives a child up for adoption is still childless. WRONG! That is saying that the child is there for you, instead of you for the child. You DO have a child. You just don't get to raise him. Of course it is not ideal, but it was the best choice you could make for the child, certainly if the only other thing you could afford to do is have an abortion.

Come on ladies. Let yourselves be happy about what there is for you to be happy about.
 
Alec, I am not suggesting that we inflate welfare checks. I think there are serious flaws with the welfare system. Often there is more incentive for women to NOT work in order to recieve benefits rather than TO work. That is a problem and there are ways to address that other than completely cutting programs. Some ways are to extend family counseling services, getting family members involved in helping. Helping women finding good paying jobs and find low cost child care programs, as well as low cost living situations.

These are things I do at the non-profit I work for every day. It's not as complicated as you might think. It doesn't mean you hand them over a check from other peoples tax dollars. It means you provide emotional support for mom to do what is best for her AND her child. By the way, I'm adopted. I can tell you there are problems that adopted kids face. It's not a beautiful perfect solution for baby either. My father kept 3 children after me, the first of whom was born a year after me. I have had a lot of problems that none of the kept children in my biological family have had.

Money isn't everything. And who are you to tell who to be happy? You have no idea what hell is. Give up your own kids and then YOU be happy. Give up your own mom and then YOU be happy. Tell me right now, would you rather get rid of your mom with all her faults and failings and trade her in for a richer more perfect one? Or do you love her for who she is? Do you value the relationship for all the beuatiful things within it rather than devaluing it for all her imperfections?

My mother, the mother who created me, understands who I am, what I am about, and the things I have dealt with in my life more than my adoptive family could ever dream. She carries my traits, she struggles with the same struggles, when I really need support, she's the one who is there to offer it. If Gladney had not been standing over her shoulder pumping up all the wonderful things about adoption, she would have kept me. She would have recieved help from family members and we would have struggled and we would have been alright, because love is so many more times important than your check book.

So "thanks" for helping to break up families with adoption promoting jargon.
 
Dear Anon: Are you saying you would rather have been aborted? THIS is the choice I am addressing. I understand there is a separate issue of whether a woman is happy she put a child up for adoption rather than raising it herself. That is separate from the question whether she is happy she didn't have an abortion.

You suggest that your birth mother has regrets that she didn't raise you, and that with better information, she might have found a way to manage it. That is why efforts to get information out is a good thing. But if you are saying that every woman who cannot choose to raise a child for herself should have an abortion rather than put it up for adoption, I think there is something seriously wrong with you. If you really mean that you can't separate these issues, I don't think you should be giving ANYONE advice.
 
That last comment sounds harsh, and maybe it is too harsh, but let me clarify for readers who don't know where these ladies are coming from. They are visiting from the Anti-AdoptionInsights message board.

The thrust of this board seems to be advice to raise your own child rather than put her up for adoption, which is great. These women are putting out important information that other women will need to make their choices. My problem with the board, certainly as represented by the commenters to this post, is that they seem oblivious to the fact that for many many women, the choice is not between placing a child and raising it themselves, but between placing a child and having an abortion, with over a million American women choosing abortion over adoption every year.

To have an anti-adoption forum that pretends that the only issue is whether to raise the child yourself, is really sticking your head in the sand. I only have the briefest contact with these ladies, and cannot say that in general they do not address the adoption vs. abortion side of the equation, but all I have seen so far is a focus on the place vs. raise side of the equation, which by itself is seriously deficient.
 
Bingo. You really hit on it. Liberals are totally pro-abortion. The notion that women have the right to make a decision, EVEN IF they might come to regret it later in life, has absolutely nothing to do with it.
 
I never said that I was pro-abortion. In fact I haven't really commented on abortion. I am very happy that you appreciate some of what many of the women at adoption-insights are trying to do. I have a problem with liberals pushing abortion on women as much as I have a problem with anyone pushing adoption on a woman. I think the consequences of abortion OR placing are more severe for most women I know than keeping.

If I have my way, I am simply out to provide economically sound programs that DO NOT rely on tax dollars that make it easier for women to feel emotionally supported and to generate an income in a such a way that is feasable to give a good home to their children.

I never said I think women should have abortions. However, I think the repercussions of abortion get overlooked when presenting the difficulties of keeping. Especially when the info is coming from someone with an adoption promoting agenda. I don't like that abortion is condidered a form of birth control by many people, to the point they no longer have any compassion for women who get pregnant and feel that the being inside them is a living amazing being, as many (liberal or non-liberal) feel.
 
PS- Sorry that got convoluded...
 
Dear Anon:

In the same way that you are anti-adoption on the place vs. raise decision, I am pro-adoption on the abort vs. place decision, and it seems that you might be too. There is no necessary conflict between these positions. Placing is preferable to abortion, and raising is preferable to placing, a simple 1,2,3 hierarchy, where the best advice is to reach the highest feasible option.

Adoption is not a feasible option in all times and places. It requires that there be a surplus of families that want to adopt, but this is the case today, and some of those who are getting abortions should be taking advantage of it. It is really crazy that they are not.

My only issue with you and your compatriots is that your anti-adoption stance seems to be a blanket position, as if you would never council that it makes sense for women to fill those waiting empty nests by placing babies that would otherwise be aborted.

That is just not sustainable in the face of millions of abortions. There are many hundreds of thousands of American women every year whose feasible choices, as they see it, are between abortion and adoption. Even after considering all of your information about superiority of raising over placing, they will not consider raising to be a feasible option for themselves. Can I get you to address these women specifically? Are you willing to recommend placing over abortion, if those are the only options that a woman, after considering your information, believes are feasible for her?

I don't feel that there is much conflict between out views. It seems we are in agreement on the abort/place/raise sequence of preferences. I am just a little surprised that your forum can be so exclusively focused on one side of the adoption issue (place vs. raise) when it so obviously has another equally important side (abort vs place). I would just urge a more complete discussion. Aren't you worried that your blanket anti-adoption position will prompt women to choose abortion over adoption, which they will have even more reason to regret than a choice of place over raise?
 
I used to think like you. 123.. great order. Honestly the pain I have experienced in my adoption experience is a hell that I doubt you will ever know in your stay on earth. I hope for you. A lot of the pain and struggles I had growing up are actually very common to adopted kids. You can feel it even when you're a kid. No one has to tell you. You can feel that your mother gave up her life so you could have this money, this house, this food, this fancy education. None of it can you really utilize because you know you don't belong there. If your mom can't have it too, then what are you doing there? With these people who took you in just because you were young a cute and sweet and they could make you all their own, but never offered one speck of help to your mother.

I know The main thing I am hoping is that I can really design some feasable living arrangements that will make keeping a lot more possable. I think it's unfair to assume that all people who ever have read at adoption insights think the same way. You can't assume that just because I value family preservation if at all possible (note: yes I leave room for placements if there is really a mother who is severely cruel and abusive); it can't be assumed because of this that everyone at AAI is speaking for me, or I for them. I have my own beliefs that come from my own heart.

Something I have always known, before ever reading at AAI is that your heart never really beats again when you lose your child. And the times it does... it hurts. All I know is that a lot of problems I had growing up are really common to adopted kids, whose issues get overlooked by people trying to promote adoption to frightened, desperate pregnant women seeking resources to parent. I KNOW because I have visited adoption agencies, they absolutely do not tell women about possible problems adopted children face.

They however have no qualms talking about all the gazillion problems children in single parent families, or low income families face. I have friends who were in really messed up families and say they never would have wanted to be adopted into another family because all the adopted friends they have are really messed up.

Anyways, I agree with your order, only adoption and abortion are about tied for me. I never knew hell before, but now that I know, I wouldn't mind having been aborted rather than have my mothers soul be destroyed the way it is. I don't want this money. I don't want this life. Honestly, as vegan for 5 years, I don't like any creature to die, much less a little baby human. But there are hells on this earth worse than death.

I would love to end unplanned pregnancies, abortions, adoptions, imperfect living situations for families trying to make it. But the reality is women are going to get pregnant on accident. It is going to happen. And guys are just as responsable for it happening as women. I think we must deal with these situations with compassion. Compassion does not have to mean handing over a check and saying "Ok do whatever". However offering women adoption papers, a pen and a whole lot of adoption promoting slogans is a cruel way to deal the problem.
 
Dear Anon:

It sounds like your mother was in a borderline situation where she wanted to raise a family but was afraid she didn't have the resources.

This is very different from many of the women who are choosing abortions today who KNOW that they aren't at a point in their lives where they want to raise a child. They have strong ideas about what they want to accomplish and secure before they start a family and they are no where near there yet.

I don't think these women would be torn the way your mother was, or how could they choose abortion? Shouldn't that be worse in their mind, or at least as bad? Your mother wasn't willing to abort. Her decision was different, between placing and raising. Women who are at the other end of the spectrum, choosing between abortion and placing, would very likely not experience your mother's regrets over placing for adoption. They are already willing to part with their child in the most extreme way, not because they are less motherly, but because they are at a less motherly point in their lives. Unlike you mother, the last thing in the world they want to think about is starting a family now.

My own anecdotal experience/opinion is that college girls are being influenced to have abortions primarily by the pervasive environmentalist ideology on college campuses. Green ideology holds that human population is the greatest threat to the environment, so that making an additional person becomes a negative contribution to the world, not a positive contribution.

Nothing could be more egregiously wrong. An additional person on average produces innovations that allow all of mankind to do more with less, in a degree that more than offsets his own use of resources. That is why mankind continually gets richer over time, securing more of what we value, including the health of the environment.

Environmentalist anti-populationism is the most destructive intellectual quackery in the history of mankind. It is absolutely killing off Europe, which swallowed this nonsense hook line and sinker, and it is completely dominant on college campuses. This is the real root of pro-abortion ideology. Planned Parenthood began as a zero-population-growth organization. Only recently has its website begun to even list contact information for adoption services.

If women would get over this leftist ideology and understand that filling an empty nest is a valuable contribution, then I think that many of the woman who are choosing abortion because they don't want to think about starting a family now could put a child up for adoption without going through the agonies that your mother did. Unlike her, they wouldn't be thinking that their alternative was to raise the child. They would know that their alternative was to abort it, and they could be glad that they didn't.

Imperfect as that situation still may be, I don't think your criticism of the adoptive role is warranted, or acceptable:

"If your mom can't have it too," you ask, "then what are you doing there? With these people who took you in just because you were young a cute and sweet and they could make you all their own, but never offered one speck of help to your mother."

Are you kidding me? They "never offered a one speck of help to your mother?" They RAISED HER CHILD FOR HER! You can even imagine asking for more help than that? Perhaps you are thinking that the adoptive parents could have formed a three parent marriage and brought your mother in with you, but as an adult it must be obvious to you that an adoptive family can't just marry a stranger.

I hope some of this different perspective can be helpful to you. I sounds like you have gotten so sensitized to your pain that you are seeing everything though it. There is more to the story, certainly for the people you are advising, and I hope for you as well.
 
OK ALec...I will make this as simple for you as possible..and it still might not help.
ABORTION AND ADOPTION are TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THINGS.
That they both happen to be solutions for unplanned pregnancies and that they both happen to sometime ( in aborton) or always ( in adoption) have regret involved is a misomer.

If a woman happens to become pregant before she has planned to then she has TWO choices: Terminate the pregnancy or carry it to term.
Once she has decided to carry the baby, THEN she can choose to parent or place.
You don't punish a woman for being fertile by taking away her child because there is a "surplus of wanting families out there."

And you really think that the adoptive families are doing us FAVOR by raising our children? I suppose we should be thankful?

Ugg, you, sir, are a #1 Noodlehead. And I cannot even comment anymore as you get my blood boiling so much.

Oh and by the way..to the original post..if men do not want to take a chance that they might be fathering a child out of wedlock..then they should NOT HAVE SEX. I don't see men getting raped by women all that much..so they must have somepart in making all these babies that should just be adopted out for the good of all the infertiles in America.
Oh, and planned parenthood HAD to offer adoption info as well due to our LOVELY GOVERNMENT shoving adoption down society's throat.
But you already swallowed that, didn't you.
 
fauxclaud: Any woman who is not thankful that someone else is willing to raise the child that she is not willing to raise herself or cannot raise herself is really beyond the pale. Do you even think before you write?

Your bitterness does not excuse your moral irrationality. Like everyone else, you have an obligation to fully account the value at stake in any situation, yet you only account what impinges on your own emotions. That is NOT MORAL.

I have to wonder if I was correct before to say that you are providing a valuable service by informing women on the costs of placing vs. raising. What is there to distinguish you from the typical feminist, looking for any way to see herself as a victim, no matter how dishonestly, if you can't even acknowledge the generosity of adoptive parents?

You just think that that generosity ought to be directed toward you, rather than toward you child. Well, other people disagree, and I am one of them. That same self-serving attitude appears in your comment about my article on how to distribute responsibilities so as to foster responsible childbearing. You're just a typical feminist. You want to have the man bear all the responsibility and have the woman be relieved of all responsibility. No matter how irresponsible she is, she should be supported. Ridiculous.

Until now, I haven't contested any of the claims you and your compatriots are making about the downside of your experience. I have only tried to fill out the analysis with the values that you seem not to be accounting. But you can't hear a word that goes beyond your own bitterness. You just refuse, your blood boiling at the thought of any competing concerns being taken into account. If that is really your emotional state and your cognitive state, I can't see how your advice is worth anything.

Please tell me it isn't so.
 
Alec. I totally have found anti-populationism to be an outright cold hearted and evil philosophy. However, hon, I don't think you realize how many "borderline" cases there are, of women who want to parent with everything in their hearts and would do it if their self esteem weren't totally smashed by adoption promoting, "do the most loving thing" propaganda. That is what is so frustrating, not that children who got dumped in a garbage bin get adopted out.

The frustrating thing is, don't you understand that being a parent is a treasure in and of itself? Aren't you a parent? If you don't think this is the greatest treasure of your life, then I wonder about your parenting.

I have to say, sir, I can understand if you feel differently than Claud, but I don't know that she insinuated that men should bear all worldly responsabilities and women whould have none. She stated the truth. Men play a huge role in unplanned pregnancies. I have no idea worldwide what other peoples experiences are, but in my own experiences and in that of most of my friends, it's usually the guy who will push sex even if there is no birth control available. Other people could have totally different experiences, I don't know.
The point is either way, the man and woman are EQUALLY responsable for the creation of the child.
 
This is some new information you are giving me. You seem to be saying that adoption counselors are putting a lot of pressure on single girls to place rather than raise their babies. I have pretty much assumed that, if adoption advisors have a rooting interest, it is from an anti-abortion perspective, and they would be indifferent between a woman raising her baby or placing it, so long as she doesn't abort it. But I can see how pressure to place rather than raise could easily come about, if adoption advisors are acting as the agents of adoptive parents, seeking babies that can be placed.

If that is really the situation, I agree it is a serious problem. A girl who is wondering what to do with an unplanned pregnancy ends up faced either with pro-abortion counselors or with pro-adoption counselors, with no one interested in explaining how she might manage to raise her child herself. I'm all for that need being filled, and I really don't doubt that fauxclaud is providing a valuable service, even if she isn't properly accounting some of the value at stake. Information sources are usually incomplete, in which case a variety of information sources, filling in each other's gaps, is the next best thing.

I would just urge that anyone advising in this area be aware of how many girls will be choosing, not between placing and raising, between placing and abortion. fauxclaud claims that the question whether to abort or not abort comes first, then the question whether to raise or place. This is patently false. Many many girls decide first that they do not want to raise a child now. Isn't this proven by the fact that millions are having abortions? The question is why so few of these girls who don't want to raise a child now are taking advantage of adoption, giving their child the gift of life, and allowing someone else to raise it? I say it is the anti-population ideology of the modern left, from which organizations like Planned Parenthood grew.

How about an attempt to identify those clients who desperately want to avoid trying to raise a child now, and a recognition of how many of these there are? It would be a great improvement if more of these would complete their pregnancies and put their babies up for adoption, instead of aborting them. Even the advocates of raising over placing must surely see that.
 
Society is like a building. Women are the mortar, children are the interior and men are the foundation. It makes no sense to wash windows and paint walls if the foundation is broken.
In the bible, Eve blamed the snake for her eating the forbidden fruit, yet God let her remain in the Garden. It wasn't until Adam ate the forbidden fruit and it blamed on Eve that God kicked them both out of the Garden.

Nothing ticks me off more than leaving men out of the equation. Up until the discovery of proving paternity through DNA testing, men could just deny a child and to hell with what the woman went through. Up until that time a child could be taken from it's mother for adoption "without" a father's consent. If a father did step up to the plate he was considered an "obstacle" to adoption.

Abortion is not a reproductive issue because the reproduction has already taken place. The issue is continuing the incubative process. You can complain about responsible behavior all you want but the fact is a man's choice in becoming a father is "when" he drops his pants. Nothing is more loathsome and spineless than to make the man's participation in having sex as some sort of a poor helpless victim who fell for a woman's charms.

Abortion and adoption has taken men off the hook. The foundation is broken, the man ate the fruit. It's way too easy to blame feminists when over the past 50 years the questions are where have the fathers been to take on their responsibility, and why aren't they speaking up against either adoption or abortion, with "hell no, that's my child too."
 
"A girl who is wondering what to do with an unplanned pregnancy ends up faced either with pro-abortion counselors or with pro-adoption counselors, with no one interested in explaining how she might manage to raise her child herself."

Alec - You got it, and this can not be understated. The last thing couselors want is a mother to raise her child. A girl who is wondering what to do is presented with hundreds, and I mean hundreds of reasons why she shouldn't. She is subtly told "they" (the counselors) are the ones who are there for her, and her parents, family and friends mean well but can't give the right kind of support like they can. As for the fathers, the counselors know how to deal with him. They led her to believe "she's the one" who makes the choice. But the truth is the decision is made for her before she even walks through their door.

Les
 
"You seem to be saying that adoption counselors are putting a lot of pressure on single girls to place rather than raise their babies. I have pretty much assumed that, if adoption advisors have a rooting interest, it is from an anti-abortion perspective, and they would be indifferent between a woman raising her baby or placing it, so long as she doesn't abort it. But I can see how pressure to place rather than raise could easily come about, if adoption advisors are acting as the agents of adoptive parents, seeking babies that can be placed."

Alec, listen. I will stop my boiling blood but you have got to stop thinking that you know the deal about adoption without assuming. OK? Adoption is a 1.6 billion dollar industry..with as many as 10 wanting and waiting families for every one possible pregnancy. That creates a HUGE demand for children.
Yes, the true right to life contingency doesn't really seem to care what happens to th child after it is saved from abortion, but let a woman even think about the decision of adoption and talk to an agency and you will see many an agency or facillatator begin to sniff around like a dog in heat.

Healthy white infants cost anywhere from 15K to 60K to adopt..and the money is going somewhere. Just as an example take a look at the 2nd to the last comment I posted here: http://adoptassoc.blogspot.com/2004/12/do-birthmothers-deserve-respect.html#comments. Nice assets, nice profits...do you think this guy really wants a woman to parent?
Experiment with this personally if you don't think there is truth in it. Just open your local yellow pages under adoption and have a female friend, pretending she is pregnant, make a few phione calls requestion information from agencies. See what they send. See what they do. She will have people calling and sending huge books overnight, calling to "check up", seeing "how she is feeling" for months...why? Not to save her baby..( make her 6 months PG..well out of the abortion issue time frame) but because they want her to place. Why? They have the demand...they have the motivation.

Willing to raise? They are not willing..they are begging, sometimes lying, cheating, freuadulant, stealing babies to raise them. Do some research, guy! Read the stories that have happened to real people..not 20 years ago...but now. It's all here..at your fingertips. Adoption can be a very dirty business. And it's not about saving babies from the abortionsist..its about getting the monied infertiles what they want. Babies.

I am not aborting any responsibility. Sex equals procreation more often than some people would like it too..and thats the way it is. Things happen, contraceptives fail..that's life. But both parties, willing to make the choice of having sex do need to both be responsible for the consequences. And no matter what, thinking that a mother should give away her child because a man did not choose to become a father then and does not want his responsibility is beyond cruel. She didn't choose it either..but IF she carries that child to term..she WILL be a mother..whether she parents or not. You can't just remove that aspect of it. Feminist or whatever...women are not breeders.

Just read more about the real truth of adoption...don't assume. It's just not as tidy and simple as you would make it out to be. Get the facts..please.
 
Maybe there is an all-round solution here. If we can reach lagre numbers of those girls who are getting abortions because they are certain that they don't want to raise a child now, and get them to realize how much good they could do for themselves and for others by letting someone else raise their child, that would meet the adoption agency demand for adoptable babies. Faced with a glut, the adoption agencies would stop pushing adoption on those who are torn between placing and raising their babies.

Dividing child-support responsibilities rationally, so as to encourage responsible behavior by men and women, as I describe in my post, is a needed complement.
 
OMG, Alec..you just are NOT getting it!
NOBODY wants to give away their babies!!! It sucks! It hurts! It effects your life forever!
You don't like women much, do you?
Or you don't like kids? Do you have kids? Do you think it is EASY to give them away??

Come on..I know you can read...do some research..find people who relinquished their child and actually like it..said it was great fun?? Ain't gonna happen!

Oh my..you just making me crazy!
 
fauxclaud:

Okay, so you are just against adoption period. That is completely morally untenable,for reasons I have explained several times. I think you are grossly deficient in your accounting of value. You seem to think that all women are like you, who dearly wish you could have raised your child, when the fact is that over a million women a year are having abortions because the last thing in the world they want to think about is raising a child now.

I don't know what to say to you anymore. How can you stick to the fantasy that no woman could want to give her child away when millions of women are aborting them? You quite overtly are only only recognizing one portion of the interests at stake, and are positively hostile to a more complete accounting. But as I said, I still believe that you provide a valuable service. I just hope that any girls who talk to you because they are thinking of placing as an alternative to abortion are able to get the other side of the story from someone who can comprehend the value of allowing someone else to raise an unwanted baby.
 
Fauxclaud I read your entire opinions as well as Alec's. I know what you say must be right for you. You have sincere conviction, but you must know that not all women want to be parents that raise a child.

My husband is glad he was adopted. He finally got to meet his half sister (biological) and she talked with him extensively about living with her biological mother in her early years. Her biological father had to take her from her mother and place her with his paternal grandparents to be raised. She initially wanted to be with her mother hoping she would change and become responsible, later as an adult she spoke extensively with her mother and her mother basically said she could not cope with the responsibilities of children. She had mental problems, emotional problems and if she was allowed to keep all three of her biological children she feared they would have been dead through neglect. That is the reality for some apoted kids. There are kids born to drug addicts who never reform and leave the drugs. They die overdosed in the streets. There are people who don't have any support to help them with day care expenses and such. One mother left her daughter out in a hot parking lot in a hot car in the mall in July while she worked in a department store because she could not find anyone willing to babysit her while she was at work and could not afford a regular day care center. The authorities found the little girl hyperventilating in her car seat and now the mother lost some of her parental rights. It is true the society doesn't do enough to keep mothers and children together, but you must understand a lot of mothers are not coping with the problems either. They are on drugs and are out of their heads. Most kids in foster care are there not cuz of the bad social workers taking kids away from loving mothers who never did anything wrong, but from REPEAT offenders Fauxclaud. Women on drugs who leave their kids with no food in the house and are gone for days.

I took care of a three year old named Ebony when I was about 27 years old. Her mother Crystal was a friend of mine's daughter, she told me she would come by and pick up her kid at 6pm. She never arrived. One day went by then two, I called my friend (the grandma) and she said, "Crystal is crazy. She is on crack. She leaves that little girl alone all the damn time." Eventually Crystal lost Ebony to some extended family member. I am sorry Fauxclaud, Crystal made the choice to smoke crack and not be a mother and lost her beautiful daughter to some other family member. Why? Because she could get her act together and get off drugs. Look at the statistics, the vast majority of kids in foster homes are there not because of some overeager propoganda seeking adoption agency idiots looking to make some fat dollars for some infertile yuppies, they are in foster care because parents like Crystal made some dangerous and irresponsible choices.

I think you need to start separating the women who are not on drugs being pressured unfairly by greedy adoption agencies from the mothers who had their kids and later became irresponsible druggies and are picked up by social services. Making blanket statements that all adoptive parents are infertile vultures waiting to swoop in and tear mother from child apart is misleading and not accurate.

The majority of kids in the system are not there because of a mom being exploited by the greedy, they are there because they made some bad choices.
 
Fauxclaud I read your entire opinions as well as Alec's. I know what you say must be right for you. You have sincere conviction, but you must know that not all women want to be parents that raise a child.

My husband is glad he was adopted. He finally got to meet his half sister (biological) and she talked with him extensively about living with her biological mother in her early years. Her biological father had to take her from her mother and place her with his paternal grandparents to be raised. She initially wanted to be with her mother hoping she would change and become responsible, later as an adult she spoke extensively with her mother and her mother basically said she could not cope with the responsibilities of children. She had mental problems, emotional problems and if she was allowed to keep all three of her biological children she feared they would have been dead through neglect. That is the reality for some apoted kids. There are kids born to drug addicts who never reform and leave the drugs. They die overdosed in the streets. There are people who don't have any support to help them with day care expenses and such. One mother left her daughter out in a hot parking lot in a hot car in the mall in July while she worked in a department store because she could not find anyone willing to babysit her while she was at work and could not afford a regular day care center. The authorities found the little girl hyperventilating in her car seat and now the mother lost some of her parental rights. It is true the society doesn't do enough to keep mothers and children together, but you must understand a lot of mothers are not coping with the problems either. They are on drugs and are out of their heads. Most kids in foster care are there not cuz of the bad social workers taking kids away from loving mothers who never did anything wrong, but from REPEAT offenders Fauxclaud. Women on drugs who leave their kids with no food in the house and are gone for days.

I took care of a three year old named Ebony when I was about 27 years old. Her mother Crystal was a friend of mine's daughter, she told me she would come by and pick up her kid at 6pm. She never arrived. One day went by then two, I called my friend (the grandma) and she said, "Crystal is crazy. She is on crack. She leaves that little girl alone all the damn time." Eventually Crystal lost Ebony to some extended family member. I am sorry Fauxclaud, Crystal made the choice to smoke crack and not be a mother and lost her beautiful daughter to some other family member. Why? Because she could get her act together and get off drugs. Look at the statistics, the vast majority of kids in foster homes are there not because of some overeager propoganda seeking adoption agency idiots looking to make some fat dollars for some infertile yuppies, they are in foster care because parents like Crystal made some dangerous and irresponsible choices.

I think you need to start separating the women who are not on drugs being pressured unfairly by greedy adoption agencies from the mothers who had their kids and later became irresponsible druggies and are picked up by social services. Making blanket statements that all adoptive parents are infertile vultures waiting to swoop in and tear mother from child apart is misleading and not accurate.

The majority of kids in the system are not there because of a mom being exploited by the greedy, they are there because they made some bad choices.
 
Ruby,
I do understand your points in general..and I draw a HUGE line between foater care adoptions and removals from CPS and voluntary infant adoption placements. Its the infant adoptions that are my sepcialty, so to speak..and my comments are regarding that aspect of it all.

Alec...ok. So..there should be no abortions. Any woman who was irresponsible enough to allow herself to get knocked up and doesn't think she can parent should offer up her offspring to the infertile and ones who desire her child. Because children are interchangable and really we should all be grateful that they have life.
And really..there is no difference in the amount of feeling a woman would have over a medical termination procedure and giving birth. There is no bonding that happens in the womb, no attachments no maternal insisints, just an unwanted pregnancy...so give the product away..provide a valuable service. OK. Got it.
Is is just accounting to you...move the product to where it is wanted.
Yup..all logical and everyone goes home happy.
And it's not hostility..my dear. It is pure fustration. I have trouble comprehending the freezing cold and inhuman attitude that you display towards...feelings,love, children, mothers. You are sitting in some higher throne dispensing judgement on something that you refuse to even read about and educate yourself on, yet can tell me how I am wrong and I don't know where to put my values.
I can tell you this...you can apply as much logic and accounting and value on it as you want, but until you have lived it, or spoken to others who have lived it...you know not of which you speak.
I would rather see a woman abort an ill timed pregnancy then know that I have in any way or form enticed her to subscribe to placing a child for adoption and living a life of loss.
And, I know plenty of adoptees who say that they would have been better off aborted than live their own version of this hell, but you won't believe that either..because you won't go and read it yourself.
ok.
 
Fauxclaud:

So you are indeed advocating that those who are trying to choose between abortion and adoption should abort. I knew that all along, but I wanted you to say it. Are there any women out there who gave a child up for adoption and are glad they didn't abort?

I never said abortion is always wrong. I don't believe it is always wrong. I even think that there are quite a few women who cannot distinguish the welfare of their child from their own feelings, and, like you, cannot see it as a gift for someone else to raise the child they would otherwise abort. There are only a limited number of empty nests that can be filled in any case, so by all means, let them not be filled by those who would be torn apart by it. But out of the millions of women having abortions, there must be many who can distinguish between valuing their child's life for their child's sake and valuing it for their own sake. These need better advice than the abortionists are giving them, and better advice than you can give them.
 
Alec, you don't have both oars in the water !
Since your all for giving children away as gifts, why don't you give your own away and leave the rest of humanity alone.
 
Why dont' you stop telling girls who don't want to raise a child now that their babies would be better off dead than in a loving foster home.
 
Alec,

I guess I am the woman you are looking for. I never wanted to have children and felt my choice was between abortion and adoption.

I can understand why you don’t get it, because I didn’t get it until after I had carried a child in my womb for 40 weeks and we were separated. I was supposed to be able to go on with my life, finish college and become something. Unfortunately, no one bothered to tell me about the life altering effects of adoption on the mother. I have suffered severe depression and symptoms of PTSD for over 16 years now. Most of us have been poor at one time or another, myself included, and we all know anyone can overcome that. However, I have not been able to overcome the effects of adoption. I have not finished college, among other things. My life has been altered, and not for the good, by adoption. I cannot even begin to describe to you the bond that develops between a mother and the child she carries for 40 weeks and gives birth to. My whole life revolved around my pregnancy/child, as it must to have a healthy child. Not to mention the physical aspects my body has been scarred by forever.

So, I am definitely one of the women who wishes that I would have chosen abortion. I have met many other mothers like myself who wish the same thing. I never voiced it out loud until I heard an adoptee state that they had suffered so much pain via adoption, they wish their mother had had an abortion instead. I have since heard many adoptees express this, some with good adoptive situations and some not.

I would like to address some of the misconceptions from earlier posts. Alec, you stated that mothers who lose children to adoption should focus on the fact that “your child is alive and being cared for”. Well, I’m afraid that is not possible. Due to the nature of adoption, I have no idea whether my child is dead or alive. At the time of the adoption, I was told exactly what you believe, that the adopters would make such better parents because they really wanted a child. Well, now I know that statistically, that is not the case. Adopters are just as likely to abuse the children in their care as natural parents.

You stated that adoption was the “best choice you could make for the child”. Even though I knew how badly it hurt me after I was separated from my daughter, I still felt it was probably the best thing for my child, even if not for me. Unfortunately, I have learned the facts behind adoption. I have found out that adoptees really do suffer emotional trauma from the act of adoption itself. Among other things, they feel abandoned and unwanted by their mothers. So now, instead of doing this wonderful thing, chances are I have inflicted pain on my child. Not to mention the statistics pertaining to adoptees in prisons and mental health facilities- they are MUCH HIGHER than the number of adoptees in the general population.

You stated that we need to acknowledge the “generosity of the adoptive parents”. I am by no means slamming all adopters, however, I don’t find anything generous in purchasing only a healthy white infant so you can pretend it is your own. There are so many children languishing in foster care, if these people really were in it for the children, generous as you say, I believe they would be adopting the children who need homes, not waiting years and paying thousands of dollars to get the one they want. This would also save us taxpayers money, so why aren’t you advocating that instead?

Speaking of taxes, do you have any idea how much of your tax dollars go to adoption? I think you would be surprised. Did you know that people who adopt can get a tax credit of over $10,000? Plus, if their employers participate in a government sponsored program, they can get another over $10,000 tax credit that way. They are also using your money for the infant adoption awareness program(budget is $10billion I believe) and many others like it. There are so many horrible things in the government about adoption, I can’t even begin to go into them, but suffice it to say, a trip to the social security division will about make you sick. Look up their definition of a special needs child- any child that is not a white infant!

So, I guess I am saying let the women have abortions if they want to. Women really do need to have the choice about what to do with an unintended pregnancy. You have to take into consideration the emotional damage that is done to her. I don’t think adoption should be an argument against abortion, especially because of the want for children. There are children out there. Let these people give a home to a child that really needs one.

Sorry this got so long!
 
Wow, a whole lot has been written here and I don't have time to read all of it, but to the one question posed by alec...

why to so few women use adoption? I can answer that. It KILLS you to create bond and blend into this beatufil being that is a part of your soul and then to have that ripped out of you and taken away and claimed as someone elses forever and ever. And you're just in this hole... I don't know...

If you haven't created a child and lost them, you just wouldn't understand, so maybe it's useless to try to explain to people who will never understand.
 
These comments are very informative. Of course I have never thought that the natural bonds between parent and child are not extremely important, but honestly, I didn't expect so many people to feel that the pain of breaking those ties would be of greater weight than the value of the lives enabled. After all, humanity has only recently emerged from ages in which losing parents and children was terribly common. Each one of us has many ancestors that were not raised by their natural parents, and the studies I have heard of say that what people have inside them proves out. Home life is not nearly as important to success in life as genetics. It is important to happiness, but the human being is resilent. We can make a happy life, if we have life. I have faith in that resilence. Humanity would not be here without it.

I wish I could hear from some people who were not already visiting an anti-adoption web site, to get a better idea of whether this is the norm. In any case, anyone considering any of the choices of abortion, adoption or raising needs to know the costs and benefits of each, for all involved, in order to make an informed decision, so thanks for your information.
 
While losing parents and children to death was much much much more common in the past, artificially seperating a parent and child and then claiming they are no longer related when they are is a strange thing. My grandmother lived with different relatives than her mother for various periods in her life, but was never required to stop needing or wanting her mom, or to say that some other woman was her mother. She ended up living with her mother for many many years and the seperation in no way changed the reality of the parent child relationship.

I hate being affiliated with anti-adoption boards for the same reason. If you go to boards where women (no knowledge of anti-adoption ideas) are mourning the loss of their children to adoption, the sorrow is amazing. And somewhere you just have to wonder, does no one involved in the facilitation of adoption question the necessity of this huge amount of pain that is being created due to adoption? They spend to much money and time counseling women who are crying a never ending sea of tears from losing their children and yet they never wonder if MAYBE, they could spend a bit of time working toward providing cost effect ways to help families provide for themselves and stay together?

It REALLY gets to me when they acknowledge the loss and damage to the child caused by adoption. That is so absurd! Why would you acknowledge that adoption creates a trauma that for some adopted people will effect their lives in any number of ways and then still go on trying to justify the practice? More and more research is showing that it's undeniable that adoption DOES effect infants. In what ways varies from person to person, but it's not always a cognitive issue of mentally proccessig the situation. It is sometimes a simple issue of the immune system being effected, a persons emotional way of interpereting the world being effected, and a psychological experience in the first few moments of life that leaves...a hole.

The human being IS resiliant. which is why I argue that a child is just as capable of using their risiliancy within their home of birth. This leaves families wanting to adopt with more reason to adopt kids out of foster care who REALLY have no where to go (not just a mom who is poor and slightly "inadequate").

I am very glad that you are looking at all the sides of the issue. I hope that if you do ever spend some time looking at the emotions involved in adoption, you will continue to explore different ways of looking at the issue. It would be wonderful to create more support for programs that attempt to lower the number of abortions in this country through methods OTHER than adoption. (I don't think anyone in their right mind think abortion is a GOOD thing, thoough some consider it a necessary evil.) The danger to me of abstinance based sex ed is that usually then you've got all these sweet girls who are trying not to have sex and these horny boys who are pushing for it and if it ever DOES happen it's more of an accident and there are no contraceptives around because everyone thinks they shouldn't be having sex to begin with.

My point it, it's great if we can promote contraceptive use and coerce people into having no sex, safe sex etc. But it is GOING to happen. The part of the brain that understands fully the nature of cause and effect is not fully developed in teens. They are programed to be exploring and doing some risk taking. You add all that to raging hormones and teens are just walking crises pregnancies waiting to happen.

LOL, just my scientific analysis of the situation. When it does happen, I think we need to explore some more humane ways of dealing with the situation than abortion OR adoption, (or dysfuntional welfare states) although I would be really concerned about making abortion illegal.
 
"Adopters"
"Infertiles"
"I wish I had an abortion instead of placing my child with an adoptive family".
"I wish I had been aborted instead of adopted" (that one I do not believe... not a whit).

I once had a girl say that she'd rather have her baby dead than to place it for adoption, and I could not believe it. Then I met some people like these few women (who come from only one adoption group) There are MANY out there who do not feel as these people do.

They depersonalize the third party of those involved in adoption, and can only see life through their own eyes. They choose this. They choose to blame.

I am both an adoptive mother and a birth mother. I found your site because someone pointed out theirs to me, and I found FauxClaud's post about this one.

My daughter met her birthmother four years ago, and it was because I raised her to know that when and if she wanted to, I would help her find. I did.

What these women are missing is the fact that with abortion, none of these mothers will ever hold their child again in this life.

My daughter has now been held by both her birthmother and her birthfather. Her children have four more grandparents to love and to be loved by.

Had her birthmother thought only of her own pain long ago, and chosen abortion, as these women suggest, or claim that they would now do... there would be so far, a total of three human beings that would not exist. Two generations would not be here.

There would have been no reunion. There would have been no relationship that has growing now for four years.

They view life only through their anger, hatred of adoptive parents, hatred of adoption, and are not thinking of the baby at all when they make comments like those about wishing that they had aborted.

And if they find those children that they are looking for, I fear for them then, also. For while there are SOME adoptive families that should not have adopted, there are far more like ours.

If my daughter had encountered a bitter woman who called me the names that FauxClaud has called adoptive parents, she would have turned her back on the woman. She would not have kept in touch. I know my daughter.

Instead, she found a woman who is one that she can love, and now has two Moms to talk things over with. She found a man she can understand. She has seven more siblings. She has one more nephew, so far.

She told her 8th grade class when they debated abortion that she was adopted, and made it clear to them that had her birth mother chosen to abort her, they would never have known her. She amazed her teacher!

She has an adoptive mother and a birthmother who are both eternally grateful that she was not aborted.

And I am not alone. There are MANY of us 'adopters' (to use the term that has been used by some earlier posters) who would do the same thing for our children. And equally as important, there are many birthmothers who know this.

Hatred of the ones who have raised their children will show through loudly and clearly.
 
Emotions run high on this subject, understandably. I just want to add this: I was adopted in 1965 and I do, more than fifty per cent of the time, _sincerely wish I had been aborted_. I am a miserable lonely middle-aged grump who contributes nothing to planet Earth and can't move past her own pain in spite of years of research, a birth mother search, and therapy and antidepressents. I love my adoptive parents very much, but I wish I had never been born. I won't claim this makes sense, I simply know it's my truth. I wouldn't presume to tell you how you feel, or disbelieve you if your feelings didn't seem rational to me; feelings are, by definition, not rational.
 
Post a Comment



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?