No regrets for choosing love over abortion

Indianapolis Star ^ | Jan 22, 2004 | J. Scofield

[redangus]

Today, on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, I am reminded once again that those who accept abortion as a viable solution to a social problem do not have all the information they need to come to that misguided conclusion. That is why I am telling my story.

In 1969, before Roe v. Wade, and at the age of 37, I became pregnant with my fifth child. I was ill at the time and could barely manage to take care of the children I had. I knew I could not take care of a baby. I was not interested in exploring different options, believe me. Nor did I consult my conscience, my doctor or God on the matter. All I wanted was to get out of the situation the fastest, easiest way possible and I thought that way was abortion. How wrong I was.

I certainly was not thinking clearly at the time. In the years preceding this, some people were beginning to think more liberally about abortion, and I had listened to their reasons why it would be OK, instead of listening to my heart. I had been given permission by society to kill my own baby. That's all I needed to act.

I didn't make a real choice that day. A choice implies a clear mind, free of fear and with full knowledge of the price I would have to pay. The day before the abortion (two doctors signed), my husband took me and our two older children, who were teenagers, into the bedroom to have a private discussion. They all agreed that if I would not do this, they would help me with the baby.

As it turned out, I got very little help. But hey, I'm not complaining, because I raised my son anyway, and I thank my former husband every time I see him for not allowing me to kill my own child, but it was his child too.

I realize now that I was not only choosing for myself, I was choosing for my baby -- and it was his life. I was choosing for my husband. I was choosing for my other children. And I was choosing for their grandparents. The question, then, is not "Did I have a right to choose?" The real question is "Did I have a right to choose for everybody simply because I carried that baby in my body?"

This baby did not belong to me. These babies belong to the ages. He was not my possession to dispose of as I wished. Kahlil Gibran said it well in his famous poem, "Your children do not belong to you. They are the sons and daughters of life's longing for itself." Neither was he a blob of tissue. He was a unique, marvelous, individual human being who was merely in one stage of his life; just as infancy, adolescence or old age are stages.

This child, this particular "mistake," has become very precious to his mother. His name is Dirk. A law against abortion would keep many women from doing something they would regret for the rest of their lives (just as my husband's interference did), at a time when they are in no position to make such a life-altering decision.

But if not a law, at least tell the truth about abortion and its consequences, which affect the whole family and even the world. Apparently, women have the right to choose for everybody, and everybody gets to share in the consequences.

Feminists have told women that abortion is about reproductive freedom and will allow them to be empowered and fulfilled. But real power comes with love and responsibility. And there is neither love nor responsibility connected with abortion. There is no fulfillment or power in being soul-sick either.

Some day we will look back on this abortion era aghast at what we allowed to happen, as we now do with slavery and the Holocaust. The evil keeps popping up and it catches us every time, in spite of our "lest we forget" rhetoric.

What is the opposite of informed choice? Uninformed choice, which is really no choice at all.

[cyborg]

If people don't think adoption works, then they're not going to go through the process. I'll never understand why people will spend thousands on IVF when most adoptions are half the cost. Plus people need to get over having the perfect baby. I tried to help a friend get a baby adopted and it was very disillusioning to hear people's reasons for not adopting.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

Who were you using? I know of a local agency with a waiting list of over 80 couples who are waiting to adopt.

A few of them want "perfect babies". But the majority that we place are most imperfect. Everything from being cleft palate to blindness to missing limbs.

I even have a few who have requested children with Down Syndrome or some other handicap such as deafness.

[condolinda]

I'm sure if the children were asked, they would prefer the already developing brother or sister.

I agree. I know if I'd been asked, and our family was poor, I would have felt that aborting my sibling was extremely cold-blooded and calculated, a sort of final solution for problem children. It would have scared the heck out of me. And I would have felt guilty and responsible if told that it was done for my sake, so that I could eat more...

Children can survive even extreme poverty and hardship and live on to become productive and inspiring members of society. No one survives an abortion.

[cyborg]

This was back in the late 80s when my sister and I were in grade school. It was a government agency (go figure only a government agency would think cigar smoking is child abuse).

I would adopt. I almost became a surrogate mother for a friend who couldn't use her frozen embryos. I'm single though and can barely afford dog grooming! LOL

[BenLurkin]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1063214/posts

[GovernmentShrinker]

It depends what kind of babies. There are many, many black babies stuck in hospitals and being bounced around lousy foster care, because there are way more of them than there are adoptive parents. It sucks, but it's the truth. If I were a black woman with an unwanted pregnancy, I wouldn't be too eager to dump a baby into that system.

[madprof98]

There are many, many black babies stuck in hospitals and being bounced around lousy foster care, because there are way more of them than there are adoptive parents.

I doubt that. Black babies are not classified as "hard to place" until they reach a year old--or later. If social workers and agencies were open to adoption across racial lines, they could easily be adopted later too.

[OldFriend]

I am honored to be reading your eloquent post.

[OldFriend]

Khalil Gibran has much to offer. I used something from his book as part of my wedding ceremony.

[OldFriend]

Are you suggesting that black women would be better off if they had abortions.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Children can survive even extreme poverty and hardship and live on to become productive and inspiring members of society. No one survives an abortion.

Yes, but they can also grow up to be vicious gang members who kill and maim innocent people. Lots of people don't survive the acts of the mobs of never-wanted young men who are roaming the streets of our big cities.

[wtc911]

If only the Catholic church had used all those gay, child molesting priest payoff millions to open even one orphanage.

[GovernmentShrinker]

A lot of them seem to think so, judging by the abortion statistics. I'm not in good position to overrule their judgement, as they presumably know more about their own lives and prospects than I do. Some of their babies would be better off never seeing the light of day -- there is way too much vicious abuse and neglect of children in this country, and the drug-infested, primarily black public housing projects and ghettos are where a disproportionate amount of it occurs. Until we can deal effectively with all the kids (of all races) who are already here and conscious, and being beaten/starved/tortured/raped, I'm not interested in expending resources trying to save early-stage fetuses who have no awareness of anything good or bad. And I think the abused kids would agree with me.

[cyborg]

I hope you're wearing lead lined asbestos flame suits

[desertcry]

Thank you very much for sharing this story. Perhaps it could save many innocent and completely helpless lives.

[cyborg]

Social worker special interests you got that right

[GovernmentShrinker]

Lots of "ifs" involved. Many reach age one without being adopted because either their biological parents can't make up their minds whether they want them, or the father can't be identified or located to terminate his rights. And social worker/agency attitudes are part of the problem, but a bigger problem is that the vast majority of prospective adoptive parents want children of the same race as themselves, and there are way more financially and socially stable white, Asian, and Hispanic families, than black families.

[OldFriend]

You are a pathetic supporter of murdering innocent babies.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Always :-)

[cyborg]

disagree completely... if PC special interests were removed then ever last baby would be adopted...kids don't care who they get for parents...since you brought it up, I've hardly met white parents with the attitude you cite. Most run into social worker problems first, they're afraid of the birth parents taking the child away or they have family members who are bigots.