Posted on 02/03/2006 11:10:47 AM PST by presidio9
The UConn Women's Center hosted an event Thursday night that highlighted a woman's right to choose an abortion. Co-sponsored by the National Abortion Rights and Reproduction Action League (NARAL), the event consisted of the documentary film, "Speak Out: I Had An Abortion," and a discussion among students about the social issue.
The film documented the stories of several women of different racial, social and religious backgrounds and their decision to have an abortion performed on them, whether it was legal or illegal depending on the time period. The film was directed by Gillian Aldrich and produced by Jennifer Baumgardner. The first segment dealt with an 85-year-old black woman named Florence Rice who had an illegal abortion performed to her at the age of 16 in 1938. At this point in time during the Depression, abortions were both illegal and greatly shunned upon in society, yet Rice stated she had no regrets over her decision.
Many women spoke about their lives and their decision to have the procedure, even if they had to keep the ordeal a secret from friends and family. Some, however, had to face the harsh consequences from their families. Jenny Egan had an abortion while in high school in 1994, but faced many hardships growing up in a conservative Mormon household. Her mother found out about her abortion after an anti-abortion group known as "The Brotherhood" sent a letter informing her parents of the abortion, to which her mother inflicted much guilt onto Egan. Upon entering an all-girl college, Egan found comfort in telling her story to her peers.
A woman named Robin Ringletta-Kottkin, who grew up in a strict Catholic household with anti-abortion beliefs, had to ultimately choose to have the procedure after an adoption agency informed her that they would not accept a bi-racial baby, since the father of the child was black. While still in college and with no way to care for and support the child, it was then that she realized society had valued some children over others, which led to her decision. Ringletta-Kottkin discussed the day of her abortion and the protesters she had to face outside the clinic. It wasn't until inside with the female physician that she felt comfortable about what she was doing. Since then, she has regretted not talking about her abortion because it had just created more shame for herself.
The goal of this documentary was to discuss this social issue with true stories of women who had to face this decision and the comfort they felt in openly dealing with their stories. The film chronicled the support women had for each other- whether it was just with their gynecologist or holding "speak outs" where women spoke to large crowds about their experiences. "When I saw women standing up for their support of abortion, I realized how little alone I was," remarked one woman who participated in pro-choice rallies.
After the film, Lisa Marie Griffiths, an instructor in the School of Nursing and a board member of NARAL, hosted an open discussion with students on their thoughts on the film and any questions they had regarding the medical procedure and social history of abortion. Some students chose to discuss their own experiences with abortion and the difficulty that came with the decision.
"The purpose is to bring awareness of women's choices and to increase acceptance in women's abortions," said Griffiths about the goals behind the event. "If we don't talk about it, it's still going to be a social stigma."
You figure these people out. I can't.
Sorry, but that doesn't answer my question. For a Conservative, the right to life trumps free speech. Even if I anybody here were talking about denying them that right (which we aren't).
Again: Do you believe this is a Conservative website or a Libertarian one?
I wouldn't have been thrilled if my unwed daughter came to me pregnant, but I'm pretty sure we'd have raised the child (as opposed to forming an adoption plan). Just to be clear, killing the child would never have been an option. You are belittling the impact Faith has on people. As an aside, my wife and I (Caucasian Catholics) adopted two Viet Namese children in 1975. Obviously, they were a different race from us and our other children.
We are all made in the image and likeness of God. And it's trite, but even the smallest children know "Red, and yellow, black and white, we are precious in His sight Jesus loves the little children of the world."
BS all the way.
You're either a bigot, an ignoramous, or both. There are waiting lists in this country a mile long for couples willing to accept a child of any race. Look in the phone book. Call a couple of adoption agencies. They'll tell you the truth.
Someone who is "devout" is nonetheless capable of sin. We are weak creatures; it is one thing to say you will do the right thing and another to actually do it if and when it is required, especially if the consequences mean social isolation or rejection by family.
Sadly, when such a situation arises, many people give in to their prejudices, fears, or pride and ignore what they learned in church. She should be asking for forgiveness for what she did to her child, not trying to justify her actions.
Funny how there were no men talking at this event, not that I'm accusing them of sexism.
Funny how there were no pro lifers talking at this event, not that I'm saying it was unbalanced.
Funny how these people call the military "baby killers".
(1) If her family was devout, they most likely sent her to a Catholic college.
(2) There is no evidence that she was "away" at college - she could have been attending college locally.
(3) Whether her family knew or not, her natural impulse as a child from a "devout" Catholic household would be to seek out a Catholic agency.
Parenthetically, there is zero chance that someone would be attending college anywhere in America where (a) an abortion clinic was conveniently located while (b) no Catholic adoption agency was nearby. But she apparently went to college in a mythical locale where abortion was readily available and there was no offical Catholic presence anywhere in sight. Impossible.
Furthermore, in the past, Catholic adoption agencies had (and maybe still do) a strict policy of only placing children in Catholic homes, and of race-matching (which was the norm for all agencies until fairly recently).
So? The point is that they were not rejecting any child brought to them.
Many non-white babies turned over to Catholic adoption agencies ended up in Catholic orphanages, and not being adopted into families.
So? Is it better to be raised in an orphanage, or to be murdered? A "devout" Catholic knows the answer to that question.
Until the advent of the large-scale welfare state, in which most adoption and foster care of "hard to place" children began to be handled by government, or government-funded agencies, most adoption agencies were either highly sectarian outfits, or for-profit (though on paper they were no doubt "non-profits").
My mother spent her young adulthood working at one of America's many foundling hospitals - there were plenty of them in pre-welfare days and my mother spent her days placing abandoned children in foster households. Many of those kids were from mixed racial backgrounds and even more had severe physical or behavioral problems. Private charity existed before the government took over, Mr. Government Shrinker.
There is no profit whatsoever in placing non-white babies in the U.S., and never has been.
To the Catholic faithful, who have been gladly donating millions and millions to Catholic hospitals and their adoption-services agencies for many decades, the unprofitability has never been a concerned. I would be delighted if every last cent of my annual tithe went to caring for abandoned children - I can't think of a use of my cash which would give me more pleasure.
And sectarian agencies are limited by the racial make-up of their membership
No Catholic agency in the US has ever had any worries of finding Catholics from any ethnic background, from Scottish to West African and every shade inbetween.
Again, immaterial. the Catholic Church in America has been more than happy to feed, clothe and educate any child of any race who needed their help.
You are jumping through preposterous hoops to justify the murder of this innocent kid.
It was illegal in 1973 anyway to reject adoptees on the basis of race.
She is a complete and total liar.
I didn't get the sense that her parents were involved. And it doesn't sound at all unlikely to me that an adoption agency told her it wouldn't take a biracial baby. Many adoption agencies (then and now) aren't affiliated with any orphanage, and only take a baby off a birth mother's hands when they have an adoptive home for it. With healthy white infants, there is never a problem lining up adoptive parents well before the birth (though it was probably hardly a few decades ago, when few women put off child-bearing until their later 30s or early 40s, and so infertility was much less common). An agency not affiliated with an orphanage or similar institution would have no place to put a baby that it couldn't immediately find a home for, and would most likely simply tell the mother to turn it over to a state child welfare agency, since that's all the adoption agency would be able to do with it.
In the case of a biracial child, that would be more difficult - but a "devout" Catholic family would go the adoption route, not the abortion one.
It was illegal then and now for an adoption agency to reject a child on the basis of race. She is lying.
Even if this story is accurate (which I doubt), the logic behind this woman's decision is stunning: she aborted a baby because it was biracial and the world values mixed race and black people less than it values white people. So, killing a black person would sort of be doing him a favor, right? I love how some people cite "society's" twisted values as justification for adopting those very values and putting them to use in the most extreme way.
It sure does to me.
Nobody can be forced to adopt a child they don't want, and there is no law against a prospective parent rejecting a child based on race. A private adoption agency is not and never has been forced to take over responsibility for any baby that it can't find an adoptive home for. This woman doesn't claim that the agency didn't offer to refer her to a state or private institution which would place her baby in institutional care, and there is nothing improbable about her claim that she was told they couldn't place a biracial baby in an adoptive home.
I seriously doubt that it isn't still true. We just don't call the places these children go "orphanages" anymore. And infants are often placed in temporary foster care.
We don't know if her parents even knew about the child. She may have not even told them- many families would have disowned a child for even getting pregnant by a man of a different race, no matter the outcome of the pregnancy.
Look, I am not trying to justify what she did- she should have fought for her child's life, even if she just gave birth and abandoned the child in the hospital. But the circumstances she is describing seem possible to me.
I am not hung up on "devout"- people like Ted Kennedy and John Kerry consider themselves to be devout.
When was the last time an anti-abortion group featured a speaker talking about how she feels she made the right decision when she had an abortion? Advocacy groups of any kind promote their own agendas, not their opponents' agendas.
Of course it's bunk. Even if one agency did rebuff her, there were other agencies, not to mention churches (including black churches), that would have helped her. She just didn't want to have the baby and one agency's "no" gave her a pretext for having an abortion.
You are intentionally missing the point.
An agency is not allowed to refuse its services to prospective clients on the basis of race. Period.
An employment agency may not think that it has a good chance of placing a black candidate among the firms it recruits for, but it is not allowed to say: "Sorry, we're not going to market your resume to our clients because you're black."
I can't believe that you truly don't understand my obvious point.
This woman doesn't claim that the agency didn't offer to refer her to a state or private institution which would place her baby in institutional care, and there is nothing improbable about her claim that she was told they couldn't place a biracial baby in an adoptive home.
Apparently you're reading an article that exists on some other planet and which FReepers don't have access to. The article states, and I quote:
"an adoption agency informed her that they would not accept a bi-racial baby, since the father of the child was black."
They didn't say anything about placement, according to her tale. She's claiming that they flat out refused to accept the baby on purely racial grounds. Which was illegal at that time.
She is a liar and you are contorting reason and common sense to defend this murderess.
That's my point - they are liars just like this woman is a liar.
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.