Posted on 10/16/2013 10:57:21 AM PDT by Morgana
Andrea Grimes, writing at RH reality check, a pro-abortion blog, has issued a clarion call to forestall a Texas proposal that would require three hours of adoption counseling prior to any abortion. Her plan? Undermine pro-lifers’ “hold” on the issue by “exposing” adoption as a corrupt, woman-coercing, money-making cartel!
But to come up with such a counter-factual, counter-intuitive slur, Grimes must set up several egregiously false claims:
that adoption “is not an alternative to abortion, but rather an alternative to parenting”; and that adoption victimizes both the mother and child.
The first premise is artificial—that “pregnant people” [her absurd term] are either pro-death or pro-life, and, if the latter, are deciding between parenting and adoption. But those struggling with a ‘problematic’ pregnancy are not so easily pegged, and can change course after reflection. Grimes gives no source for the “research” she claims that women open to adoption “never considered abortion as a viable option.”
Then Grimes asserts that the proposal for pre-abortion adoption counseling ”would serve predominantly to detain, and perhaps shame, pregnant people who are already in a time crunch.” But far from ‘shaming’ women, the great majority of women facing unanticipated or ‘problematic’ pregnancies would be empowered by facts, such as accurate information about support systems, maternity homes, and adoption options.
Grimes announces that adoption leaves parents and adoptees with “complicated and mixed emotions about their experience…[and] not unilaterally the joyful exploration of loving kindness.. heroism and bravery.” Well, no duh.
She maliciously paints adoption facilitators and supporters as suppressing or denying such totally expected after-effects. Why? You guessed it–for the greater goal of profit and/or religious ideology.
This is untrue and unfair, but not unsurprising given that Grimes’ target audience of “reproductive justice” advocates frame all issues as battles against patriarchy, capitalism, and Christian fanaticism.
The heart of Grimes’ call-to-action is this very self-satisfying pronouncement:
“[A]ccusations leveled at the so-called abortion industry by anti-choice reproductive rights opponents—specifically, that coercive ‘abortionists’ are solely interested in creating and maintaining demand for their services for the singular purpose of making money off hoodwinked and/or ignorant clientele—could be aptly applied to the largely unregulated domestic and international adoption industry.“
Whereas the self-serving, coercive claims against abortion are true, Grimes’ allegations of a coercive adoption cartel remain just that—allegations without actual cases cited. And the tactic is stated—to attack pro-lifers by associating us with adoption agencies which she has demonized.
Let’s not forget that adoption is not a “political weapon” for pro-lifers. It is a practical remedy for the situation of a child not born into a welcoming family who will otherwise be killed by abortion.
As opposed to killing children outright?
Absolutely. I’ve heard young women (late teens/early 20’s) declare that abortion is absolutely better than adoption. Reason? That baby might be abused or molested in the adoptive home. Obviously it’s better to just kill the baby. /s
This coming from the “every baby should be a wanted baby” folks?
The mask of the ugly has been long off. Far too few want to acknowledge the obvious.
So crushing a baby’s skull in-eutero then shearing it’s spine is a better option?
OH REALLY?
So keeping the baby is hardship, giving the baby up for adoption is hardship and aborting the baby is a hardship... wow - life is hard. Whoda thunk it? Oh yeah... seems like something always missing in these equations. Abortion kills. Simple as that.
Besides being pure evil, what can possibly motivate these pro-abortion advocates?
I run an adoption agency and we often come up against an anti-adoption mentality with a lot of social workers. But yet we do need to let prospective adoptive couples know how adoption really works so we just wrote a book about it that is on Amazon now rather than make people take classes.
I suspect that some of the agencies, especially for umbrella organizations (as opposed to specialty groups like CHASSIE), prefer having “clients” for life rather than 6-12 months of helping someone through a crisis.
Human beings can absolutely rationalize anything that they want to justify, and that is all this is, rationalizations. I think, deep down, they know it isn’t true, hence the need for them to create the rationalizations, to try and convince themselves.
Selfishness and pride.
What's missing is, "Don't have sex with that loser." If that was followed, the question of what to do about the pregnancy would never come up.
true - I was thinking post revelation... but the best cure is moral living before hand.
The only real cure is moral living. If you’re not pregnant with a child you don’t want to deliver, there’s no call for abortion.
“Abortion kills” is a true statement. However, pro-abortion ideologues simply reply, “Abortion kills something with no right to live.” They’re openly saying this even about babies post-delivery.
On the other hand, apart from the Death Eater ideologues, it’s been demonstrated that ultrasound views of the unborn baby strongly influence pregnant women against abortion. The average women in real life doesn’t want to kill her baby, once she sees him or her.
More needs to be done to improve the outcomes for the children (and the mothers). Maybe that’s more babies being adopted, but it could also include education and supervised parenting for the natural mother.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.