Saturday, December 11, 2010

Adoption instead of abortion

Couples can now "reduce" a pregnancy from twins to one child (the abortion euphemisms just keep getting more creative).

And therein lies the problem with the slippery slope of no legal protection for the unborn in Canada. A child can already be aborted for any reason, so why would this shock anyone? We know that abortions occur for sex selection; because a pregnancy is inconvenient; for contraception; for eugenics (not quite a perfect baby); for...just fill in the blanks.

What I would like to know--and this is a topic the pro-abortions don't waste any ink on--why can't women put that unwanted child up for adoption? There are many couples who would love to have a child that another couple wants to abort. But these people say "oh I couldn't put my child up for adoption". Oh, but you could abort it?

Check out the new campaign that is promoting Adoption: Wow, adoption instead of abortion. What a good idea.

28 comments:

  1. For anyone interested in how the adoption process works, to hear testamonies from mothers who released a baby to adoptive parents and to hear from people who have been raised by adopting parents check www.adoptionincanada.ca

    Want to learn about how a baby grows and develops the same web site has all this info too.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You make light of abortion as if women just willy nilly chose it like choosing a red dress over a black one. And for a very small numbe rof women that might be true. But for the majority, a decsion to terminate apregnancy is a very difficult one and your words cut deep and are very insulting. Some women are delaing with serious and painful issues such as rape by a violent strnager or incest. Until you have wlaked a mile in someone's shoes who is dealing with such a tragedy, please rfrain from speakinmg about pregnancy terminations so lightly.

    Secondly, suggesting a woman carry a multiple pregnancy - which may be risky for her and or the babies - and then separate siblings (possibly identical siblings0 via adoption is an option not without it's own far reaching complications for those children to whom that is done. I suggest you read up on a subject known as genetic attraction that happens when siblings. separated by adoption, find one another intentionally or by accident. The psychological trauma a person is put under to know - or suspect - that they have a twin "out there somewhere" is CRUEL!

    It is also cruel to ask a mother to suffer that limbo loss.

    There is more to life than a beating heart and breathing in and out. Human beings are feeling creatures and have thoughts and feelings and desires; they experience pain both physically and emotionally. When you save an infant's life - are you there to ensure they will be well cared for? Loved? Cherished? Treated with respect?

    Adopted citizens in the US are denied the same equal right to access their own true birth certificate. they are discriminated against. That is the life you are asking a mother to risk her life to bring into the orld. And to do so when there are already half a million children in US foster care - of which 120,000 COULD be adopted but who are regularly ignored while baby brokers steal and kidnap babies in Guatemala, India, China, nepal, Vietnam etc to fill a demand. And you want mothers to be breeders for this multi-billion dollar industry and turn their babies over to people who are unscreened except for their financial ability to pay tens of thousands of dollars for children who are commodified by adoption?

    This is the life you chose for children? A life of feelings rejected and abandoned and never knowing their truth?

    There is more to life than a beating heart. there is quality of life. If you care, please become involved in family Preservation and help families in crisis who are threatened with being torn apart by the adoption industry because of lack of simple services such as day care.

    Mothers who lose a child to adoption never heal from their loss.

    Please see: http://tinyurl.com/adoption-grief

    ReplyDelete
  3. Making light of abortion? No, just stating facts. In Canada, we have no abortion laws--we have no legal restrictions on abortion whatsoever. In Canada, an unborn child can be aborted for any reason a woman chooses. In Canada, an unborn child can be aborted for no reason. In Canada, a woman can legally have an abortion for the full nine months of her pregnancy. Abortion is never to be made light of--especially in Canada.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Mirah when you say, "Mothers who lose a child to adoption never heal from their loss" You are terribly misinformed!!! This type of generalization is not good; please don't expect others to fall for this feeble attempt to convince. Yes, some mothers may regret the choice but actually very few from both qualitative and quantitative studies I read. Firstly mothers have the choice to release their child to adoptive parents and they have the choice of an open adoption, meaning they continue to be a part of their child's life.
    When you say, "There is more to life than a beating heart. there is quality of life." I agree quality of life is very important and this is exactly why mothers choose to release their children to adoptive parents. The beating heart part of your statement reminds me that tragically, abortion stops beating hearts, so there can be no life at all.
    When you say, "It is also cruel to ask a mother to suffer that limbo loss" this makes me think of all the horror stories, the pain and loss that post abortion women report. Feelings and destructive like depression, suicidal ideation, drug/alcohol addiction, promiscuity, inability to maintain relationships etc etc. The repeated, peer reviewed, science based, corrected for predisposing factors studies are all there. Don't even suggest that releasing a child to adoptive parents comes close to the emptiness and life long anguish that post abortive women report.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Abortions due to rape or incest are a very small percentage of the abortions that take place in Canada and if you look at the issue a little more carefully you will come to the conclusion that abortion is never an option, even in those cases. The founder of the Silent No More Awareness Campaign in Canada is someone who was advised to have an abortion after a violent rape and is speaking out to say that abortion is not the solution after a rape. It assaults a women a second time. Please read her story. http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org/rc/canada.aspx

    As well, please see Rebecca Kiesslings website. A beautiful woman who was conceived by a violent rape and given up for adoption. She is an advocate for the unborn and I can't put it better than she does: "We've all heard someone say:
    "I'm pro-life, well, except in cases of rape . . ."
    or
    "I'm pro-choice, especially in cases of rape !"

    Have you ever considered how really insulting it is to say to someone, "I think
    your mother should have been able to abort you."? It's like saying, "If I had my
    way, you'd be dead right now." And that is the reality with which I live every time
    someone says they are pro-choice or pro-life "except in cases of rape" because
    I absolutely would have been aborted if it had been legal in Michigan when I
    was an unborn child, and I can tell you that it hurts. But I know that most
    people don't put a face to this issue -- for them abortion is just a concept -- with
    a quick cliche, they sweep it under the rug and forget about it. I do hope that,
    as a child conceived in rape, I can help to put a face, a voice, and a story to
    this issue."

    http://www.rebeccakiessling.com/

    Patricia Maloney has the best interests of women who find themselves unexpectedly pregnant. I have a friend who finally after 38 years found help and healing at a Rachel Vineyard's Retreat a couple of weeks ago. You cannot imagine the amount of shame and sorrow she has lived with for all those years. Don't be so quick to criticize someone defending the rights of the unborn until you've reviewed all the facts, especially from someone who has 'been there and done that', like Angelina Steenstra.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Why do women choose abortion over adoption? I think it's because if the pregnancy is still early, it's an easier decision for some women to make. Not pro-life women of course. I'm fully expecting you to disagree with me that abortion is an easier decision to make.

    I saw this article in the Post this weekend and knew there would be discussion on it here. I know there was amongst the pro-choice gang I was with.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Ginny, yes in the beginning abortion may be an easier decision than deciding to release a baby to adopting parents. However, living with the decision to take the life of one's own baby is one that haunts women forever. Abortion causes too many to list physical problems, same for the psychological problems. This is why those involved in the abortion industry need to tell the whole truth to women who see themselves in impossible situations. I usually don't like to quote one liners but will in this context: 'pregnant women need support not abortion.' Support starts with bearing the whole truth about the effects of abortion, not the 'don't worry ......" nonsense that we hear about from post abortive women who are suffering the effects of killing their child or their children.
    Ginny, go the the site www.adoptionincanda.ca and listen to the testimonies of people who have been raised by adopting parents, to those who released their children to adoption. Goodness, I thought pro-choice included adoption, not so according to what you say on this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Seriously? You think from what I have said on this blog that pro choice does not include adoption? Whereverdo you get that????

    Not all women are haunted by abortion. Some may be. Some not.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Ginny, I am pleased to know that you advocate that pregnant women should consider carrying their babies to term and releasing them to adoptive parents. There are a ton of married couples who would love to adopt an infant child but there are almost none available. Since you feel this way, could I ask you to promote a web site that is full of great information. www.adoptionincanada.ca
    Appreciate this Ginny.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I would be happy to do so Jennifer. Just one question. I am well-aware of the scarcity of infant children to adopt. (Sadly, there seems to be no shortage of older children in need of permanent homes).

    You didn't answer my question though. What did I write that made you think prochoice does NOT include adoption?????

    ReplyDelete
  11. Well Ginny I for one do not remember ever hearing a "pro choice" person advocating adoption. I am not saying they do not do so but it certainly doesn't stand out in my mind as something I have heard very often.

    Would you please explain what you mean by your statement (Sadly, there seems to be no shortage of older children in need of permanent homes) I hope you are not insinuating that these children would have been better of if they had been aborted.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Pro choice advocates for choice Maureen... the right for a woman to choose to have an abortion or give the baby up for adoption or raise the baby herself. Perhaps when you hear this all you hear is "abortion" and forget that it's really about choice.

    What I mean by "sadly there seems to be no shortage of older children in need of permanent homes" is precisely that. I'm not insinuating anything. You?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Ginny, I have taken a while to answer your question, "You think from what I have said on this blog that pro choice does not include adoption? Whereverdo you get that????" because I wanted to provide a complete an honest reply. I feel your question deserves an answer. I went to what some might consider the authority on the pro-choice movement, the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada. I earnestly searched their website for adoption information and I found this one Position paper on adoption written in 2006
    http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/postionpapers/41-Why-Few-Women-Choose-Adoption.pdf
    Their website also says that they are a "voice for choice". Since one would think that choice includes adoption, and you say that it does, one would also assume that ARCC would contain a lot of resources and material on the "adoption" choice. But interestingly enough, besides this one document, there is nothing on this website for adoption. And even this document only talks about why women do not choose adoption, it does not actively suggest that women might actually want to consider adoption, like the www.adoptionincanada.ca website does. There is lots and lots of information on abortion however on ARCC's website: Newsletters, presentations, student resource pages, press releases, etc. All about abortion. It is certainly possible that there is more information on this site about adoption but I couldn't find it.
    So even though "pro-choice" people say they advocate for adoption, there is very little on pro-abortion websites such as this one, that actually do any advocating for adoption, hence my feeling that adoption isn't really one of the choices that "pro-choice" people consider an option.
    Ginny, I often go to abortion facilities to pray for for all involved in this industry, mostly for the women who go there to abort their children. It is sad to see that as women arrive at the facility and are offered information like the choice for adoption that the pro-choice team does all they can to interfere with these women receiving information on the very thing they say they support, choice. Many tell us that due to the difficultly in deciding whether or not to abort their child they often go back and forth and don't make that final choice until the very end. So you see Ginny, when pro-choice advocates use power and control strategies to block information that help women to make sound choice regarding a very difficult decision this cannot be considered offering choice at all.
    Ginny, I hope you understand that what I found or didn't find on choices to include adoption is not a personal affront on you, just on what you advocate related to 'choice'
    May I respectfully ask that if you have influence on the content of the web site sponsored by the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada that you let them know that pregnant women deserve to have access to complete and honest information before they make their final choice. Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  14. So you're saying that it wasn't actually anything I has written on this blog that lead you to state "Goodness, I thought pro-choice included adoption, not so according to what you say on this blog." Good thing i called you on that Jennifer.

    Then you try to argue that because THe Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada doesn't do much to promote adoption then pro-choice really isn't about choice? Might I draw your attention to the name of the coalition. Their focus is abortion rights. They are focused on protecting those rights. Not on promoting all the choices. To conclude from this that pro-choice is anti-adoption is erroneous.

    It is also erroneous to claim that because pro-choice advocates block pro-life protestors from interfering with women outside abortion clinics that they must be against adoption.

    I have no affiliation with the ARCC nor do I even live in Canada, so I have no influence on them or their website. I can't help you there, even if I did think they should branch out.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Ginny, near abortion facilities pro-life advocates stand in silent witness and trained side walk counselors offer information on options, let's call it 'choice.' Next time you pass by an abortuary, check things out. You may be surprised by who is doing the protesting and the interfering.
    Perhaps you can help me to understand why it is that pro-choice groups are so terribly opposed to giving as much information as possible to those in difficult pregnancy situations. In every human situation I can think of when people need to make difficult decisions they try to have all the information available before deciding.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Pro-choices groups aren't oppposed to women being informed. What makes you say that? They are opposed to pro-lifers dishing out the "information", knowing that their agenda is to remove a women legal right to choose abortion and to talk every woman out of an abortion. As a pro-choicer I believe information should be presented from a neutral source and the woman should not be coerced in any direction.

    I do pass by a local abortion clinic on occasion and those pro-life advocates and "trained counsellors" you talk about are none too silent. They even shout at us on our bikes and when we say we're not interested they get nasty. I am always glad that I am quickly passing by and don't have to deal with them. With their signs and shouting it's easy to see who is protesting and interfering.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Ginny, you say, "I do pass by a local abortion clinic on occasion and those pro-life advocates and "trained counsellors" you talk about are none too silent. They even shout at us on our bikes and when we say we're not interested they get nasty. I am always glad that I am quickly passing by and don't have to deal with them. With their signs and shouting it's easy to see who is protesting and interfering."

    If this is true, then something should be done to address this problem. Ginny, have you tried talking to the local pro-life group in that area where the abortion clinic you are referring to is located? I am sure they would like to know about these people posing as pro-lifers and causing disruption. In fact, if you feel uncomfortable approaching the pro-life group yourself, why not let Patricia Maloney know who the pro-life group is or name of city these incidents are taking place in and what abortion clinic you are talking about and see if she would be willing to contact the local pro-life group to investigate what is going on. Because from what I know of pro-life activity outside abortion clinics, they are always peaceful/prayerful/silent, etc. So something is seriously amiss, if what you are saying is true, and should be investigated further.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Well, it sounds like you don't know much about pro-life activity outside clinics Jeannie, or at least not in the US!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Ginny, I guess I don't (know much about pro-life activity outside of clinics in the US.) Now I'm even more curious. I'd really like to find out from the local pro-life group if this sort of activity is normal, so Ginny can you let us all know what city this is happening in, and ideally which clinic? If this is normal behavior, I think it should be discussed with the pro-life group in question and maybe Patricia would be willing to do that. Would you Patricia?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Yes Jeannie, I would agree to use my connections to see what I can find out about the clinic in question and find out about what's going on there regarding this behaviour.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Sorry Jeannie, but I don't know you or others who might be reading this so I am not about to divulge the town I live in. If Patricia is at all computer savvy she should be able to get a rough idea and address her concerns about bevaviour of prolifers protesting outside clinics in the US. Suffice to say this situation isn't unique.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Ginny, your refusal, yet again, to answer a direct question--this time about whether you had taken any steps yourself to address the problem you are complaining about, or about revealing the name of the clinic or city where this activity is supposedly happening so that someone else could investigate it further--tells me that you are probably making up this story (because you are unable to substantiate it with a single fact that can be independently verified).

    How much success do you think you'd have if you made a complaint to a police officer about a crime you say you saw committed, but refused to tell the police officer where it occurred or who was involved, or anything at all about the crime, and provided no evidence that it had actually happened? Do you think the police would take you seriously? In fact, you are only doing your own cause a disservice by making unsubstantiated claims. When a person continues to make accusations that cannot be verified, others will begin not to trust them; and then when that person does say something true, others will no longer believe them. You might recall Aesop's fable in this regard, "The Boy Who Cried Wolf."

    ReplyDelete
  23. It is difficult to believe that those organizations who say they support a woman's "right to choose" actually promote adoption as much as abortion. Just look at the numbers. Planned Parenthood Federation of America claims to be a "pro-choice" organization. I understand it's also one of the largest abortion providers in the US. According to a PPFA fact sheet (www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/fact_ppservices_2010-09-03.pdf ), clinics affiliated with PPFA performed 324,008 abortions and made only 2,405 adoption referrals in 2008. In fact, abortions were up by 6% from the previous year at Planned Parenthood, but adoptions were down by about half. (See www.nationalrighttolifenews.org/NewsOnline/Oct2010/AbortionsUp.html )

    Of course abortion-rights advocates are going to say they support a woman's choice to place her child for adoption. Likewise, the tobacco companies are going to say they support a person's choice not to smoke, and I'm sure they sincerely mean it. But the tobacco industry doesn't make money when people don't smoke, so they have a vested interest in promoting the smoking choice. And the abortion industry doesn't make any money unless women have abortions.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "Of course abortion-rights advocates are going to say they support a woman's choice to place her child for adoption."

    Of course they are Jeannie. Because people and groups who advocate abortion rights do so because so because they believe in a women's right to choose whenether that choice be abortion, raising the child herself or putting up for adoption.

    That women come to Planned Parenthood for abortion more than for adoption does not mean that they or other pro-choicers do not think adoption should be a choice.

    ReplyDelete
  25. "Ginny, your refusal, yet again, to answer a direct question--this time about whether you had taken any steps yourself to address the problem you are complaining about, or about revealing the name of the clinic or city where this activity is supposedly happening so that someone else could investigate it further--tells me that you are probably making up this story (because you are unable to substantiate it with a single fact that can be independently verified)."

    Seriously Jeannie?

    No, I haven't reproted the protesting to the local prolife groups.... because they are the ones protesting! And that I won't divulge where I live to strangers online is not proof that I am making this up. I'm actually srprised that you think such behaviour is rare outside clinics in the US.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Ginny, once again you refuse to answer a direct question. Last time you refused to answer a direct question was when you were asked your reasons for not advocating against third trimester abortions, which you repeatedly refused to answer. Of course you have every right to not answer questions, that is your prerogative. And it is my prerogative to not post any more of your comments. If you choose to actually dialogue or say something meaningful when debating abortion, I may reconsider. Or I may not.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Ginny, regarding your comment in response to my point that, "Of course abortion-rights advocates are going to say they support a woman's choice to place her child for adoption," I'm glad to see you agree with me.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Please, Ginny, don't put words in my mouth. I never said that your refusal to substantiate your claims was proof that you were making it up. I said it makes me think you are probably making it up. There's a world of difference between the two. The bottom line is this: without any concrete evidence to support your claims, the only logical conclusion is that your claims may or may not be true. We simply don't know for sure. I could equally say that I see so-called "pro-choice" protesters make rude gestures and hurl obscenities at pro-lifers; I might even say I saw a "pro-choicer" with hate in his eyes grab a pro-lifer and threaten her because he disagreed with her point of view. But would you believe me? Should you believe me?

    And even if any of these accusations are true, do we tar all pro-lifers or all pro-choicers simply because some specific individuals are acting a certain way? Stereotyping people can lead to great injustices, as history has shown.

    ReplyDelete