YOU WANT COMMON GROUND – TRY ADOPTION
YOU WANT COMMON GROUND – TRY ADOPTIONI confess that I am tired of listening to those in the press castigate the pro-life movement for not wanting to find common ground with our opponents on the abortion issue. Of course “common ground” from their perspective is that “we decide to agree with them because …. well, because.” And of course they all want to discuss contraception and they want us to agree that Planned Parenthood should continue to get millions of tax dollars to feed the abortion industry. It is so tiring.
Add to this continuing braying, the last series of votes to increase abortion funding, to allow abortion funding in the District of Columbia, Mexico City, the U.N. problems, China, and one is tempted to remember the famous line from the movie Network.
But rather than simply complain, I will offer a real positive solution to the problem. Now I will predict that the pro-choice side will reject it out of hand. I will predict that that those who make their living killing unborn babies have no interest in ending abortion. But for the majority of the people in this country, the idea is sensible, logical, doable and will not cost a fortune. We have known about it for decades. It use to be the default position when someone had an unplanned pregnancy and the woman was not married. It is called adoption.
Now before you grown, hear me out.
Today in the nation there are over two million couples ready, willing and certified to adopt a child. I will say it again. Two million couples – certified.
Now there are approximately one million abortions performed in this nation each year.
So let us play matchmaker.
We just need to connect the one million or so mothers with the two million couples.
Now can’t we all come together on this and agree to stop the killing and place these babies with these couples?
I mean what is not to like?
It is a win – win – win - win.
The mom wins because she does not have to choose to kill her baby and she is relieved of the pressure of raising a child when she is not ready to do so. The child wins because no on kills him or her. The couple wins because they get to adopt and share the love they have for another human being. Society wins because we do not destroy the next generation of human beings who just might possibly contribute to the betterment of the world.
So the next time someone talks about finding common ground on the abortion issue, suggest adoption. Tell them about an idea that makes everyone a winner. After all even President Obama claims to want to reduce abortions, or so he says. Here is a way for him to actually do something that would be life affirming and supportive of the future. It would be a change for him and give hope to us. And it would not have to cost the federal or state governments anything. The cost would be shared and borne by the families seeking to adopt. Organizations would spring up to help both the mother and the couple. Existing organizations would offer the means to facilitate such an effort.
Perhaps those who consider the population trends should think long before dismissing the idea. Those in government would be wise to review the concept. Since the abortion industry claims to support a woman’s right to choose, what if the woman did not have the pressure to abort? What if she could get the help she needs and then place for adoption? Would not most mothers trade the difficulties of a few months for the sure knowledge that they did not kill their babies, but give their babies life and then allowed another couple to share their love with the child? I think most women, given half a chance, would never choose abortion. I think that they would choose life. “Choose life.” It has a nice healthy ring to it.
Choose Life. Adoption not abortion.
posted by Jakubczyk on Life @ 5:37 PM
9 Comments:
OK, but YOU have to pay for the costs of growing the pregnancy and giving birth. Including compensation to the mother for her labor pains.
If YOU could be paid to endure childbirth, how much would YOU charge for the service? That's how much you have to pay each mother who goes with adoption rather than abortion at your request.
Now THAT would be common ground.
I have read stupid things but this one takes the prize. Obviously you have no idea what you are talking about. The incredible miracle that is the human person more than justifies the difficulties of pregnancy and labor. If not, the human race would have gone extinct long ago. And any mother will tell you, no matter how difficult the labor, that her child was worth every bit of it.
Those who care about protecting women and children realize that we CAN love them both.
By the way, it says something about a person who writes such drivel and cannot put his real name to his words. No guts. But then again look at who he supports the killing of...little unborn babies.
Mr. Jakubczyk,
First off I'm sorry I didn't see anywhere in OperationCounterstrikes response that he or she was for the killing of babies? They just expressed an opinion about the medical costs associated with child birth and the pain that a woman endures? How did you extract this from the fact that he/she didn't use their given name while replying to you?
I have a question for you sir. Are you for the death penalty?
I also have a suggestion for you as well. Before you go on praising the institution of adoption perhaps you should educate yourself a bit on what it is like for a child to grow up adopted. I would suggest for you and your fellow committee members to read a book called "The Primal Wound" by Nancy Verrier. I think it would help you realize that adoption is truly not the win win solution that you are envisioning.
Now if I don't sign with my real name will you discount my response?
Sincerely, Mia Sophia Tallini
Unfortunately, the idea that adoption is simply a win-win-win situation is a myth. Sure, the general thinking goes something like this:
Couple A cannot have children. They want to be parents. They choose to adopt another person's child to raise as their own. Through adoption, Couple A "wins" by being able to raise a child.
Woman B finds herself in an unintentional pregnancy and doesn't know if she will be a good mother. Woman B decides to relinquish her child to adoption. Woman B "wins" because she doesn't have to deal with raising a child.
Child C could have been born to a single mother and raised in poverty, but instead this child "wins" because they are adopted into a 2 parent household.
However, this model is simplistic, and fails to recognize that fundamentally adoption is based on profound loss.
Adoption is not a one time event, but a lifelong experience. This loss, which has an effect on all parties in the adoption, often goes unrecognized.
Couple A must deal with the loss of their ideal family born through biological blood relations. They first need to deal with their inability to have children and all of the pain/sadness that comes with that experience. Because adoption should really be about finding homes for children who don't have homes, rather than finding babies for people who want to raise children. There is a difference in those two situations.
Woman B, through adoption, loses a child. Even if this woman does not believe (or is not supported enough) to raise this child on her own, she is still losing one of her offspring. This loss is profound for mothers, but unfortunately the adoption industry (and society) tells these women to "get over it," because they made the choice. Can you imagine the heartache of carrying a child for 9 months and then giving that child away, never to be considered their mother again by anyone? While your article does mention "open adoption," which is by far the best option for adoption, it is unenforceable legally. At any time after the adoption, the adoptive parents can refuse to allow contact with the woman's biological child. This happens all too often.
Child C has the most to lose in the adoption experience. True that they might have the opportunity to live in a 2 parent middle class home (though this is definitely a stereotype, as adoptive parents get divorced just as often as other couples), they lose out on much more. Currently there are only 6 states in the U.S. that allow adoptees access to their Original Birth Certificates, as one example of how the adopted person always remains a child in the government's eyes. The adoptee loses out on knowing their medical history, seeing themselves reflected genetically in those with whom they live with (imagine what it must be like growing up Korean or African American in a white family!). In the earliest stage of their life, when a child is integrally connected with their mother (babies in the first days of their life recognize their mother's smell, voice, face, etc.) they suddenly find themselves held by strangers. They lose out on knowing their ancestry, and all of their relatives. In a sense, adoptees experience an entire Holocaust of their biological family, and are expected to pretend that this doesn't effect them.
Adoption has wins and losses, and in my belief should not be entered into lightly.
If you would like to read about the adoption experience from the adoptee's perspective (the one who has no voice in the adoption proceedings), there are many great books such as:
The Primal Wound by Nancy Verrier
Journey of the Adopted Self by Betty Jean Lifton
Adopted: The Lifelong Search for Self by Brodzynski, etc.
please see the link, though you may know it already >
http://about-orphans.blogspot.com
First of all to Mia, the operation counterstrike guy has some very angry and hateful things to say on his website. He is not pro-life.
No, I do not favor the death penalty, although I do recognize the right of the state in certain limited circumstances to exercise it for the defense of society. I, however, personally oppose its use.
In response to Jenna, I do not discount the "cost" and the "Loss" involved in giving up a child, nor do I approach the idea without a sense of appreciation as to what is going on for ALL parties concerned.
However, I have to look at the big picture as well and appreciate the benefits that outweigh these very real sufferings and emotions involved.
No one should disregard these very real feelings.
Your scenarios are real and I have dealt with all of them and a few more. The laws should be more sympathetic to the needs of those involved. But the ultimate protection must go to the child, understanding that in the scope of things, he is the innocent that must be first considered by all those concerned.
I still argue that it is a win -win -win - win.
Thank you for your thoughtful comments.
Although I readily defer to the tremendous expertise on adoption itself demonstrated (except by the first Frankensteinian hate-monger) by the respondents to Mr. Jakubczyk's provocative column,
I think it's important to point out the hideous surrealism -- pervasive in the abortion debate -- of implying that "unwanted" pre-birth babies would somehow be better off dead than being adopted, considering the inevitable imperfections and challenges that Mia and Jenna cite.
I truly believe that these sorts of claims are made in good faith, and are not indicative of any of the eugenics, irresponsibilty, arrogance, and profit motive that, to be frank, constitute most of the motives of the abortion lobby and industry. And for that matter, these arguments, as well as John's own comments (and reflected in his life's work), illustrate the by-now obvious truth that only a compassionate approach will ever advance the pro-life cause or bring us to a genuinely covilized society. But this can never happen as long as even well-intentioned people think on this level, disregarding the undeniable fact that all individual rights and experiences DEPEND on the right to life itself being legally protected.
I would like to register one other response to Mr. Jakubczyk's original column itself regarding finding "common ground." There is no conceivable justification for the pro-life side not to participate in any activity that reduces the probable incidence of abortion, thereby both saving lives and, in a small way, loosening the culture of death and irresponsible behavior that is the source of most people's acceptance of this nightmare, PROVIDED THAT these actions in no way compromise (especially in any "permanent" sense) the core basis of the right-to-life movement, namely that pre-birth babies have as much right to legal protection from extermination (as well over a million annually suffer in the U.S. alone) as anyone else does, based on the undeniable scientific fact that they are separate human beings.
And certainly, promoting adoption meets both of these requirements in a wonderful way. I remember the first President Bush's nomination acceptance speech in 1988 (written by Peggy Noonan), calling for "adoption, not abortion!," which was, predictably, rejected by the hypocrites in the media, and never really pursued. Just think of how many people would be alive today if that had been done on the perfectly practical scale available John cited, regardless of the legal status of abortion-on-demand itself.
But very annoyingly, there is also a counter-productive, fringe, "purist" (to the point of schizophrenia) element on the national (meaning Washington, D.C.) RTL side that considers even parental approval and/or notification of abortions performed on pregnant minor girls to somehow be "accepting" of abortion and therefore to be opposed. Of course, such obstinance does not in any way "sell out" possible future victims of legal abortion, since more protective laws (constitutional and/or statutory) would supersede the need for this sort of scrutiny, but, apparently, feeling good about their own motives is more important to them than are actual results. This sort of self-righteousness and refusal to deal with reality exemplifies why the unacceptable status quo has held for nearly 40 years now....
Post a Comment
<< Home