Adoption Reform SHOULD Be Part of Abortion Common Ground
Tuesday June 30, 2009
I recently threw out a half-baked idea of paying pregnant mothers to give up babies for adoption instead of having an abortion. I admit there's something creepy about the idea (which has been mocked here, here, here, here, and here,...
Filed Under: abortion, abortion common ground, abortion reduction, adoption, family planning, news, open adoption, politics, pro-choice, pro-life
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
About Steven Waldman
Subscribe
Most Popular Posts
Hot Topics:
Righteous Posts:
Best Posts That No One Read:
- Our Patriotic Holy War
- Obama's White Family and Black Church
- Science & Religion Dispatched from Cambridge
Little Known Facts:
- The Rise of Prayerism
- Deism--It's Back!
- Abortion vs. Gays: The Evangelical Age Gap
- The Spiritual Atheists
Still Cracks Me Up:
Posts That Annoy Conservatives:
Posts That Annoy Liberals:
- Thomas Jefferson: Believer in Intelligent Design?
- Obama's White House Shouldn't Vet Prayers
- Agreeing with Values Voters
- Why the Catholic Bishops Matter on Health Care
- How to Defuse the Health Care Abortion Issue
- In Defense of Bloody Aborted Fetus Photos
Posts That Annoy Everyone:
Calendar
Tag Cloud
abortion, abortion health care, abortion reduction, barack obama, Barack Obama, casting stones, Catholic, Catholics, Christian, economy, election day '08, evangelicals, Founding Faith, Founding Fathers, gay marriage, health care, Islam, Jews, Judaism, mccain, national service, news, obama, Obama, politics, prayer, pro-life, republican convention, rick warren, sarah palin
I'm very much pro-choice, but I can see your point. However, I cannot accept the idea of providing adoption benefits to pregnant women if it is not coupled with the government paying for abortions at the same time. That would be the only way to keep the two equal and allow women a true choice of conscience.
Churches and other pro-life supporters should also drop their opposition to allowing gays to adopt. How can they promote adoption when they cut out a segment of the population that could greatly alleviate the numbers of orphans adoption agencies must support?
I take serious issue as an adoptee with the idea of giving mothers money for their children. I was already paid for by my adoptive parents. In fact, my maternal birth grandparents paid for her stay at the home. Then as an adoptee searching, I got suckered out of money as well. There is also the issue of coercion, corruption, and pure deception in adoption. We need to fix adoption first before we make it into a panacea for abortion.
It seems to me that anything we can do to support a woman's right to choose is worthy of consideration - including providing support for the birth mother who is willing to give up her child for adoption. A lot of women do not have the financial support to be able to carry a child to birth without some assistance (something that I think Catholic Charities is still doing, but I'm not sure). If we can give financial incentives to couples who adopt - when there is already a much greater demand for babies than there is supply - why shouldn't we, as a society, do the same for the woman who is actually "doing the work"? I agree that common ground doesn't mean that one side gets exactly what they want - we have to find things that one side wants very much and the other side can tolerate. This seems to be one of those things. Yes, we need to fix adoption - but we can do this as part of the fix.
You have left the child, the PERSON to whom adoption is supposed to benefit, out of your scheme altoghter. Children are meant to be raised with their parents--natural ones--except in cases of abuse, addiction or neglect.
Why not do whatever it takes to keep families together instead of practicing this social deconstruction? It is not the responsibility of fertile people to supply your side with womb-fresh infants to raise. The *demand* you're creating is not a good enough reason to destroy families.
You are promoting an "open adoption" fallacy. There is no such thing as an "open" adoption. They are NOT enforcable by law, and certainly you are well aware of this fact. Most adoptions are closed within the first few years, if not months. The adoptive parents worry that the children are "confused" (i.e. mommy and daddy are getting insecure) and they pull out of their end of the deal, breaking off contact. It's just a ploy used by agencies and attorneys to coax women in need of help into a deal she can't back out of--like the "counseling" the agencies provide. It's all to close the sale. The same techniques are used at any car dealership.
Please, do some research.
Initially, I was not going to write a comment on this story, but when I read the comment from "Adult Adoptee", I felt obligated to do so.
First, there are such things as "open adoptions", as I have been living through such an arrangement for over 7 years. I do agree with the author's idea of making open adoptions enforceable, because that was my main fear and concern when I gave my daughter to her family. Thankfully, things worked out wonderfully with her adoption and I am still as much a part of her life now, as I was 7 years ago and will continue to be a part of her life until the day I pass on. Please do your research, and you will find that my situation is not unique.
Second, although money may seem like a nice "reward" for carrying a child to term, most mothers who would even consider giving their children away are not doing so for monetary gain. They are concerned about the well being of their child, and view the adoptive parents as the biggest gift they can receive, provided they are decent people who provide a loving home.
This was a very interesting article, and I hope that more people educate themselves about all aspects of adoption. I will definitely forward this to my daughter's adoptive parents and ask their opinions as well!
As a birth Mother, I would have gladly kept my daughter but had no money, no support at home from my parents to keep her, and open adoption was not an option. Luckily, we found each other after 35yrs. Her adoptive parents would not speak to me at all. They are both in ill health and I'm glad I can be here for her. Her Dad is an alcoholic and she went through a lot with his poor health because of it, and her Mother has been chronically ill for years. My daughter had to take care of the house and do the cooking from 8th grade until she left for college. I wish more birth Mothers had the option of keeping their children. Adoptive parents are like everyone else. Life happens and you deal with it.
great idea ! you convinced me.
No, no, no, no, no. No. This isn't a good idea. A good idea is helping women parent -- giving them the support they need to get job training and education, access to programs that allow them to parent, safe and affordable housing, etc. When I saw "adoption reform," I got excited because adoption reform is needed but right now what's need is LESS coercion -- not more. Open adoption is NOT enforceable by law even in states where legal open adoption agreements exist. I have a daughter who was placed with us in an open adoption and I could leave town, change her name and never talk to her birth mom again and her birth mother would have NO LEGAL RECOURSE.
Bribing less privileged women to give their babies to more privileged women? Just NO.
Adoption in the United States is the pretty stepsister to abortion. It is walking, living, abortion. We abort the natural mother and child connection and ask them both to walk around with the emotional placenta for the rest of their lives and be happy about it. We close records and hide medical history and damage generations. Buying babies from women is not going to cease abortions. It will however create yet another market economy, human trafficking and more. If you have money to spare, why not give it to the mothers to raise their children? Oh, mom doesnt want the child? MOm is a crackwhore slut? Maybe dad wants his offspring. Maybe gramma or auntie does? Give THEM the money. Keep the children with their family of origin. Do not make them human bandaids meant to fix the wounds of infertile families. Please do your research. Start here for some ideas. origins-usa.org
Oh when, oh when will people realize adoption sucks. Even in "open adoption" ....your child still calls another woman "mom". Sounds great. Another shining example of pro-adoption, anti-choice propaganda being shoved down my throat. Bottom line, I lost the family I was supposed to be with. Did it ruin my life? No. Am I suicidal?? No. Do I lead a productive life? Yes. That being said, it's still a bitter pill to swallow that I don't wish on my worst enemy. Adoption should only be used in cases of abuse, when next of kin is unable to raise the child. Period.
Bye now! I'm off to be grateful!!
Adult adoptee
reunited with married natural parents
loving adoptive parents
identity stolen, name changed
no access to birth certificate even in 16 year reunion
Great! I love the idea! I’ll take my 210,240,000,000 dollars for adoption please!!!
See that's what I figured out should be thehow much money would it take to compensate a woman to place her child for adoption.
I found this: The jury awarded the estate of Evelyn Forman $120,000 for pain and suffering she endured between the time the missile struck the airplane and the time the airplane crashed" Not for her death, but for her emotional pain and suffering for the perhaps though at least 104 seconds for time actually suffering before she died.
For arguments sake, we will round that up to 2 minutes. We’ll take the 120K and reduce it to 100K for easy math making us a nice round number of 50K per minute of suffering at a legally acceptable rate. I’ll even be so kind as to say: Ok we won’t measure my Kool aid years, but only count the last 8 when I was mentally transforming to the pain filled bitter birthmother that I am infamously known for today. So that’s 8 years with 365 days each times 24 hours in a day times 60 minutes in an hour times the 50K per minute rate for emotional pain and suffering.
Does that number sound crazy? Yeah.. but realitically.. the monetary proportion of what I ask for is still lesser than the emotional hell of living over 21 years without your child. You can't pay women for this suffering. It's cruel. You have to convince them that it's a good idea and something they want to do! That's what the National Council for Adoption does.
I couldn't even make it through your article. You lost me at "heroes, not villains."
As a woman who relinquished a newborn baby for adoption, I am neither a hero nor a villain. I am a human being. At the time of my daughter's birth, I was a human being who desperately wanted to keep her child but had been convinced I was not a good enough mother for her. She was never in danger of being aborted. Had I not relinquished, I'd have parented, and we'd all have been just fine.
So the point of offering money would be what again? To save babies from abortion?
But all you'd really be accomplishing would be bribery to convince women in crisis that some more privileged woman is a better mother, destroying families in the process.
How did you decide that this is a good idea?
Okay, read your whole post. I think I'm more sickened. You're confirming my belief that you view women in crisis pregnancies as pawns to be used in a game of pro-life vs pro-choice rather than as real human beings.
Please think about how you'd want your sister, daughter, wife treated if she were in a crisis pregnancy. Would you want someone shoving cash at her to give up her child? Would you want anyone even shoving adoption literature at her?
It's strange reading so many angry comments from people who are "pro-choice" who are so offended at giving women one more viable choice.
When people are so against a CHOICE - it makes it seem that you are actually simply pro-abortion. "Just make the pregnancy issue go away, please." -
I thin this is a goo idea. No one is forcing it - just offering it as a CHOICE.
And - there is also pain about having an abortion...many women think of the baby that might have been for the rest of their lives. This world is not perfect...we can only offer CHOICES and hope the woman will find the option that is best for her.
Sheesh...
Mary
Typo fix:
I think this is a good idea. No one is forcing it - just offering it as a CHOICE.
Please, before writing anything else about adoption, talk to mothers who have lost their children to adoption. Get involved in the fight for open birth records. Try to understand the pain an adopted person feels when blocked from learning their own identity.
Adoption is a complicated life experience that deserves to be addressed on its own - not as the easy solution to abortion, and not as a one-time event. Adoption lasts a lifetime, and for many that lifetime is one of pain. Please consider that and learn more about it before pitching this idea again.
To be honest, I am rather insulted that people keep tying abortion together with adoption. I am sick of hearing the two things constantly put together.
Did I have an unexpected pregnancy? Yes
Did I want an abortion? No - not in a million years.
I wanted my son. I have suffered years of depression for having him forcefully taken from me for being unmarried, young and not a millionaire. This might surprise you - his father wanted him as well but was duped out of his rights too. He even bought a farm but apparently that was not good enough for the Jesus brigade.
Is it any wonder that more and more people are dropping out of religion when they hear stuff like this? My family and my children have - including my son with whom I have reunited with.
In his view, God sent him to me, not anyone else.
What right have other humans to tear apart a family that God himself put together?
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.