Anti-choice Arguments


It is hard to know where to begin to respond to something so bizarre but this shows how far one has to go even to attempt to justify the wanton destruction of a human being. Even the language used shows the strangeness of the concept. The phrase “who resides in her uterus” is a tacit admission that there is a who, a person, in there. Even on its own terms this concept fails.

A woman having sex does so with the full knowledge that, despite precautions and perhaps against her wishes, the result of the act could be the creation of a child. It may be true that the child was not invited in but it is surely true that the child is there because of the action of the mother and the mother has no more moral right to destroy the child in her womb than she does to destroy the child in her home. The woman may well be dissatisfied with the situation of an unwanted pregnancy but since she is the one responsible for the situation she is the one who must bear the consequences.

**************************

how would you respond to an anti=choice argument like this?

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

  • saltyc

    a. it’s not a child, period. People for the most part only refer to an embryo or a fetus as a child if they’re either anti-choicers or expecting parents who plan on carrying the pregnancy to term and are looking forward to the child that will be. Medically, it’s a potential child.

     

    b. A child inside your home will not automatically die if you leave it with someone else. A fetus will stop developing into a child (I don’t consider it killing, it’s stopping the process that would have otherwise, under ideal circumstances, created a child.) if separated from a woman’s womb. No one is under any obligation to finish that process, just as an artist quitting a painting is not the same as an artist destroying an already finished painting.

  • prochoiceferret

    A woman having sex does so with the full knowledge that, despite precautions and perhaps against her wishes, the result of the act could be the creation of a child. It may be true that the child was not invited in but it is surely true that the child is there because of the action of the mother and the mother has no more moral right to destroy the child in her womb than she does to destroy the child in her home.

    A person getting into a car does so with the full knowledge, despite precautions (seat belts, air bags) and definitely against his/her wishes, that s/he may get into a traffic accident and suffer severe brain injury. It may be true that the brain injury was not desired but it is surely true that the brain injury is there because of the action of the person and the person has no more moral right to brain surgery than s/he does to the money in other people’s bank accounts.

     

    Oh, and in case you’ve forgotten: The woman’s moral right is not to destroy the child fetus, it is to remove the fetus and terminate the pregnancy in the safest possible manner for her. Which does sometimes entail the destruction of the fetus—but the destruction itself is not the point, no more than the state’s power of eminent domain is about depriving you of your property.

    The woman may well be dissatisfied with the situation of an unwanted pregnancy but since she is the one responsible for the situation she is the one who must bear the consequences.

    The woman bears the consequences whether or not she was responsible for the pregnancy—what do you think happens in cases of rape? Oh, and a consequence may well be that she has to procure an abortion, if she doesn’t want to remain pregnant. The whole “you got pregnant because you didn’t keep your legs closed, so now you have to stay pregnant whether you like it or not” doesn’t follow from anything other than that you don’t like non-procreative sex and in all likelihood don’t get any.

  • grayduck

    Among other problems, this argument misses a fundamental point. The argument in the article is not a stand-alone argument against legalized abortion, but rather a counterargument to the claim that abortion is needed to avoid unwanted pregnancies.

  • atunionbob

    So you think that the woman should have the ” child” even if she is unable to care for it? Horse s**t!! You think that she should then put the child up for adoption?  Again Horse s**t! No one will adopt the number of children we have already let alone another one…so why should we bring another mouth to feed into a world that can not feed it?

    Let it starve?

    Let it die out here in the cold crule world? Or where we will just send it off to a war someplace an die anyway?

    Not me…I say abort it, then no worries. Its not viable life anyway in my book and no amount of screeming by idiots will convince me any other way! Besides I do NOT believe in your so called God! So that wont work, I dont belive in your justice system since it doesnt work any way!So dont bother.

  • saltyc

    Which argument misses what fundamental point?

    Who claims that abortion avoids pregnancies? Abortion ends pregnancy, that is not a question.

    I read and re-read this post and still have no idea what you’re talking about. I guess you think that fertile women should stop having sex unless they are trying to make a baby and then have no option to end it, just because she “wanted” to have sex? Do you back the anti-choice argument in the post? People have sex, they’re having sex right now. Not all of them are trying to make babies.

  • rosececilia

    um, just so everyone knows, I’m asking for advice on how to respond to this argument. I dont hold this view.

  • grayduck

    “Which argument misses what fundamental point?”

     

    Both of the arguments you presented in your first comment under the article missed the point that the argument presented in the article is a counterargument, not a stand-alone argument.

     

    “Who claims that abortion avoids pregnancies?”

     

    To be more precise, a common and long-standing argument in favor of legalized abortion asserts that women need abortion to avoid unwanted parenthood. It goes back to the old Violinist analogy from the early 1970s. It was also used in the Casey decision. (“[The State] cannot…insist she make the sacrifice [of bearing a child]” and “The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives.”) Casey also chose to pretend that women, the vast majority of cases, do not actively consent to becoming pregnant. “The same concerns are present when the woman confronts the reality that, perhaps despite her attempts to avoid it, she has become pregnant.”

     

    “I guess you think that fertile women should stop having sex unless they are trying to make a baby and then have no option to end it, just because she ‘wanted’ to have sex?”

     

    All I am saying is that the woman’s actions helped brought about her status as parent, and therefore claiming that she needs abortion to control her reproductive life is nonsensical.

     

    “Do you back the anti-choice argument in the post?”

     

    Yes.

     

  • saltyc

     It is a stand-alone argument and anyway that still makes no difference to my refutation of it.

     

    Being pregnant does not make one a parent. It makes one a potential parent. You have absolutely no right to tell someone whether or not to be a parent based on whether or not they’re having consensual sex.  

    You are completely deluded if you think that all or even most women who want abortions chose to become pregnant. It’s just patently absurd. Again, read this line very carefully because you are having trouble with it: people. have. sex. for. reasons. other. than. procreation.

    And anyway, even if a woman did choose to become pregnant, that still doesn’t take away her right to end it. To say a woman made her bed and now has to lie in it a punitive view of sex and pregnancy. Who wants to be born to a woman as punishment???? I wouldn’t. It doesn’t bother me in the least that my motehr could have aborted the fetus that became me, or that she could have used her IUD that night, it would have happened before I entered sentience so who cares! I know I might never have happened and a woman’s right to end a pregnancy is only a fraction change to that unlikelihood. I’m lucky that my mother had me because she wanted me and devoted many hours of love and caring to make me strong and smart, I would not have wanted to be forced on her, nope, no way.

     

     

  • julie-watkins

    How I respond depends a lot on if I think the other person sincerely wants to listen. For people who think things happen for a reason being born female or poor instead of male or rich is a pretty large sign of what Nature (or God) wants for that woman and it’s understandable why people who think every pregnancy has a purpose might have expectations of how pregnant women should act — and they do not believe these expectations are sexist. I would go into some variant of a “nature is sexist” riff.

     

    I consider Nature sexist, because the woman is forced to expend so much resources for the next generation, and the man is not similarily biologically forces. The way for society not to be sexist rather than amplify the sexism is to not interfere with the woman’s private decision. If strangers interfere, it’s sex and class discrimination because men and rich people wouldn’t be as affected as women and poor families.

     

    It’s a real hard sell. People who think things happen for a reason have a real hard time seeing the systemic sexism. (IE, a person doesn’t have to be conscious of his/her sexism in order for sexism to be present.)

  • julie-watkins

    See here:

    http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/comment/reply/12556/35812

    Just being born female without taking into account the dynamics of race, you stand a 41% chance of ending up poor: thanks to job discrimination and lack of access to contraception and abortion, not to mention frequently getting cheated out of that child support check.
     
    Because it costs MONEY to support yourself, or yourself and a child.
     
    Although we are still paid less than men and still don’t get equal opportunities for the same jobs open to men, and we don’t get cut any breaks or discounts on what it costs for us to be able to live. We don’t get to pay less for that loaf of bread or that roof over our head than a man, yet we’re supposed to afford it all on so much less than any man would ever be expected to.

  • katwa

    since she is the one responsible for the situation she is the one who must bear the consequences.

    Why? And isn’t abortion a “consequence” of unwanted pregnancy? I mean, I don’t want an abortion, but if I got pregnant I would probably have one, and I think in my situation it would be the responsible thing to do.

     

    But even if pregnancy is considered the only “consequence”, why must we bear it if there alternatives to avoid it?

  • crowepps

    This was clearly explained by Martin Luther, Catholic Priest and later leader of the Reformation movement (1483-1546 A.D.)

    “Women…have but small and narrow chests, and broad hips, to the end that they should remain at home, sit still, keep house, and bear and bring up children.”

    “Even though they grow weary and wear themselves out with child-bearing, it does not matter; let them go on bearing children till they die, that is what they are there for.” Martin Luther – Works 20.84

    The justification of course is that it’s all our own fault:

    “God created Adam master and lord of living creatures, but Eve spoilt all, when she persuaded him to set himself above God’s will. ‘Tis you women, with your tricks and artifices, that lead men into error.” Martin Luther – “The bondage of the Will,” 1527

    The fact that blaming everything that’s gone wrong on women is entirely deluded escapes him because it can be justified by The Book!  And he’s not going to listen anybody, not even God Himself, who tries to convince him his interpretation of The Book might be wrong.

    “So tenaciously should we cling to the world revealed by the Gospel, that were I to see all the Angels of Heaven coming down to me to tell me something different, not only would I not be tempted to doubt a single syllable, but I would shut my eyes and stop my ears, for they would not deserve to be either seen or heard.” Martin Luther

    And he has paranoid suspicions about the results of actual thought

    “Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his reason.” Martin Luther

    Amusingly, the web page which provides these quotes ends with this economium:

    Despite the previous posts which discredit Martin Luther, all the good that he did for the Christian faith in the first half of the 1500′s. must be remembered.

    He was mean, he was obsessional, he was a misogynist, he was an anti-Semite, but there was “all the good he did” by what?  By inventing justification by faith alone and predestination and damnation not by sin but by being presumed to be ‘inclined toward sin’ and the futility of ‘good works’ and infant damnation and –  personally, I can’t think of one ‘good’ that his distortions actually contributed to the faith.

  • grayduck

    “You have absolutely no right to tell someone whether or not to be a parent based on whether or not they’re having consensual sex.”

     

    You are changing the subject. The issue is whether abortion is needed to avoid parenthood. It is not needed to avoid parenthood.

     

    “You are completely deluded if you think that all or even most women who want abortions chose to become pregnant.”

     

    Only half of one percent of women obtaining abortions even claim to have been raped. So they did, indeed, choose to become pregnant. Whether the choice to engage in sexual intercourse was motivated by other factors is irrelevant. If a man rapes a woman and causes her to become pregnant, is he not responsible for her pregnancy?

     

    “To say a woman made her bed and now has to lie in it a punitive view of sex and pregnancy. Who wants to be born to a woman as punishment????”

     

    Again, you are misattributing an argument to me and the person who wrote the argument shown in the diary post. The reasons for restricting abortion are because it is the murder of a baby and because it promotes irresponsible sexual activity.

     

    “It doesn’t bother me in the least that my motehr could have aborted the fetus that became me, or that she could have used her IUD that night, it would have happened before I entered sentience so who cares!”

     

    After reviewing the evidence, I am not at all convinced that fetuses in the second and third trimester are not sentient or conscious. The research indicating that fetuses might be sentient becomes particularly persuasive regarding fetuses in the 16 to 22 week range, when non-health-motivated abortions are still common. Have you found research proving otherwise?

  • tb1979

    Actually, there is not an overabundance of babies waiting to be adopted in America.  My husband and I have been trying to adopt and it takes a very long time to get a baby. 

  • tb1979

    If you had an unwanted pregnancy, have you thought that maybe someone would want the baby?  Wouldn’t that be a responsible, and quite selfless, thing to do? 

    • crowepps

      That would depend entirely on the character of the adoptive parents.

       

      Considering the constant stream of stories in the media about adoptive parents who keep the children they adopt in cages, beat them, have sex with them, insist that they participate in bizarre religious cults and even kill them, good character and even basic decency on the part of adoptive parents cannot be taken for granted.

       

       

    • invalid-0

      If you had an unwanted pregnancy, have you thought that maybe someone would want the baby?  Wouldn’t that be a responsible, and quite selfless, thing to do?

       

      As a few other commenters have said, there are many children out there already desperate for someone to adopt them, for them to have a permanent, loving home. If you are so desperate for children as to consider adoption, why would you not consider these children (who may be older or perhaps not your “desired” ethnicity) instead of expecting a woman to become your personal uterus and make a perfect little baby for you?

      Have you ever even thought about the fact that relinquishing a child is an extremely traumatic experience for a mother? Why would you want someone to go through that in order to get the child you desire? In your eyes, it’s all about you. In the case of children waiting in the foster care system, generally the child’s parents are out of the picture, perhaps deceased or they have abandoned their child permanently. In an infant adoption, the mother never really gets a chance to be the mother she is. Her infant is taken from her and even if she legally agrees to relinquish the child, often emotionally she has not agreed. There is a really good book detailing the experiences of mothers who relinquished their children called “the girls who went away”. Read it.

      My mother got pregnant and abortion was against her family’s religion. She had no money of her own and was quite young. Her parents were unsupportive and there was no help in sight. If it was available, she didn’t know it, again she was young and naive. When she signed the papers to give me a “better life” (aka a married white christian couple with a lot of money) do you think that’s what she really wanted? Meeting her over 20 years later I found out that that was the thing she most regretted in her life, and it caused much despair. Like many adoptees, I too suffer from a variety of phsycological issues and depression that are in many ways related to an indescribable feeling of abandomnent and fear of people leaving me. I also have to live with constant feelings that I don’t understand about my family. I love them but have to deal with the fact that the only reason they, and not my first mother, are raising me is because they are considered worthy of doing so by society because they have money, are married, and Christian. It’s a hard reality to deal with, because your own thoughts on adoption conflict with the fact that you are adopted.

      So while you continue on expecting some woman to give up her child in order to allow you to have one, before you expect someone to let you raise their child, consider what I’ve said. It’s not all about you and creating your “perfect” family. My adoptive parents knew nothing of the painful side of infant adoption, and aside from dealing with the phsycological problems in all their children (all adopted), they won’t ever understand the other side.

      If a woman chooses to have an abortion that is their choice. It would be mine should my husband and I be faced with a pregnancy at this point, as I am not ready to become a parent and I know that the pain of giving my child to someone else to raise would be a pain I’m not ready for. I am pro-choice all the way. My body, my choice. Not my body to be used to create your child.

      I should add that if a woman is up to the challenge of placing their child for adoption, and if they are willing to do so, then it is their choice and I respect that. But it should never be expected from someone who wouldn’t be as willing.

      You also say it would be a responsible, selfless thing to do. In my case, it would be responsible to have an abortion and not bring into the world a child I cannot care for myself, nor do I want to spend my life worrying about my child, whether they are well taken care of, if they think of me, etc. Abortion, parenting, and adoption are all valid, responsible, selfless choices to me, as long as they are a well-thought out CHOICE.

       

      Please forgive the long post, I have kept quiet about adoption for a long time, enduring the many “you’re so lucky you were adopted, your parents can provide so much better” etc. Now that I’ve started to understand my pain and that I can let it out sometimes…it pours out when confronted with attitudes like that of the poster.

  • prochoiceferret

    If you had an unwanted pregnancy, have you thought that maybe someone would want the baby? Wouldn’t that be a responsible, and quite selfless, thing to do?

    Responsible? No, not really… what if the full-term pregnancy leads to complications, and you end up with huge surgery bills, or dead? If there are people depending on you (like, say, children), then going through with a pregnancy just for the benefit of some adoptive parent(s) out there sounds like a pretty darn irresponsible thing to do.

     

    Selfless? Sure, it would be. But then, it would also be selfless if you sold all your possessions and gave the money to help the poor. Why don’t you do that? Think of all the poor people who won’t go hungry because of your generosity!

    • crowepps

      Maybe instead he could just sell his computer and donate the funds that would raise and the fees he would no longer have to pay for his internet connection to the poor.

  • prochoiceferret

    You are changing the subject. The issue is whether abortion is needed to avoid parenthood. It is not needed to avoid parenthood.

    You don’t need water to get rid of smoke, either, although people tend to be more concerned with using it to get rid of fire.

    Only half of one percent of women obtaining abortions even claim to have been raped. So they did, indeed, choose to become pregnant. Whether the choice to engage in sexual intercourse was motivated by other factors is irrelevant.

    Only half of one percent of people injured in automobile accidents even claim to have been taken forcibly. So they did, indeed, choose to become injured. Whether the choice to get into a car was motivated by other factors is irrelevant.

    If a man rapes a woman and causes her to become pregnant, is he not responsible for her pregnancy?

    So he should therefore live up to his “responsibility” by marrying the woman, raising the child he created, and redeem himself by becoming a good father?

    Again, you are misattributing an argument to me and the person who wrote the argument shown in the diary post. The reasons for restricting abortion are because it is the murder of a baby and because it promotes irresponsible sexual activity.

    Please provide evidence for this [rather silly and non-sequitur-ish] assertion.

    After reviewing the evidence, I am not at all convinced that fetuses in the second and third trimester are not sentient or conscious.

    That’s funny… I heard some folks just the other day say the same thing about evolution being scientifically plausible!

    The research indicating that fetuses might be sentient becomes particularly persuasive regarding fetuses in the 16 to 22 week range, when non-health-motivated abortions are still common.

  • jayn

    What about older children?  It may take a long time to get a baby, but there’s many, many older kids who will never get adopted.

  • saltyc

    You mean I should make a baby that would take the place of one of the 20,000 children a year who grow out of the foster care system, never having been adopted? Not very responsible the the child who stays in foster care because of the baby I make who will be take her place in an adoptive home.

     

    Wouldn’t be awesome of you to adopt a 7-year-old in foster care instead of waiting for a brand new baby?

  • princess-rot

    If the pregnant woman wants to do that, and feels capable of doing so, then should be able to do so free of any sort of coercion. Also remember that neither you or a fetus is entitled to the use of someone else’s body, or produce thereof. That is point of choice.

  • prochoicegoth

    Women are not broodmares for couples who ONLY want a perfect fresh-from-the-twat newborn. There are enough children in the system as is. Shouldn’t they be adopted off first? And for many women, adoption would traumatize them FAR MORE than an abortion MIGHT. I know it would for me. If I’m pregnant, I’m either keeping the resulting child or I’m aborting. I wouldn’t be able to handle an adoption.

     

     

  • airina

    OK.  I am noticing a couple of generalized problems with the argument which you could certainly point out, but makes it seem unlikely to me that the person is going to respond.

     

    1.  This argument COMPLETELY ignores the fact that, hey, there is a man involved in creating a pregnancy.  A pregnancy is not “there because of the action of the mother,” it is there because two people decided to have sex– or, even more horrifyingly, because one person decided to have sex without the full consent of the other.  In that case, “since she is the one responsible for the situation she is the one who must bear the consequences.” becomes absolutely horrifying, because it implies in the case of rape or incest the woman is “responsible” for her own victimization and must bear the consequences, and even if she wasn’t victimized, she is expected to be completely responsible for a situation she only played a part in creating.  Why is there no responsibility on the part of the male partner?

     

    2.  It also majorly discounts the situations of women who are having abortions.  Women do not have abortions because they are “dissatisfied.”  They have abortions because they cannot handle a pregnancy at that point in their life, for whatever reason– and as someone who works at a place that offers abortion services, the reason is always important, and always different, and can range from. ”I do not have the physical, emotional, and financial wherewithal to take care of my newborn while being pregnant.” to “I have medical complications that would make it impossible to carry my pregnancy to term, either with the pregnancy itself or with my body in general” to, in extreme cases, ”I’m technically having an abortion but my fetus is already dead.”

    So basically, this ‘argument’ is saying that: 1.  women bear the sole responsibility for anything that could possibly have lead to pregnancy, and 2.  women who are getting abortions aren’t REALLY doing so because they’re in horrible situations, they’re doing so because they’re… ‘dissatisfied.’  Those morally bankrupt women who ”attempt to justify the wanton destruction of a human being.”  How dare they try to take care of their children and their health!

     

    I don’t think it would be worth your energy to respond, because it is the kind of argument that’s so rooted in misogyny I don’t think that they’d listen.

  • ahunt

    It is not now, not ever been, nor ever will be…my responsibility to provide someone else with children.

  • prochoiceferret

    And for many women, adoption would traumatize them FAR MORE than an abortion MIGHT.

    Yeah. If folks want to ban abortion because it might cause depression/regret/blues afterward, then hoo boy, they’ll want to make giving a child up for adoption a felony!

  • colleen

    My husband and I have been trying to adopt and it takes a very long time to get a baby.

    As I’m sure you’re aware, there are thousands of children, some are toddlers, waiting to be adopted out of the foster care system.

  • groo

    Ah, this explains a whole lot. You and your husband are, for whatever reason, unable to conceive so you resent what you perceive as women ‘throwing away’ babies. I sympathize with your view, I truly do. I think it’s absolutely wrong-headed, but I understand. You want the government to outlaw abortion and give you an unwanted baby or two; presumably of a particular age and demographic.

    The government coming between a woman and her doctor is unconstitutional.

     

  • saltyc

    After reviewing the evidence, I am not at all convinced that fetuses in the second and third trimester are not sentient or conscious. The research indicating that fetuses might be sentient becomes particularly persuasive regarding fetuses in the 16 to 22 week range, when non-health-motivated abortions are still common. Have you found research proving otherwise?

     

    So you don’t have any proof that fetuses are sentient before 22 weeks yet you demand proof from me.  A lot to ask from someone making a lot of erroneous statements with zero evidence, such as that abortion promotes irresponsible sexual activity which it does not, that abortion is murdering a baby which it is not, that choosing to have sex means choosing to get pregnant which it is not,  that abortion is not needed to avoid being a parent which it is. Really, guy, just saying it and saying it repeatedly, don’t make it so.

  • julie-watkins

    I think the key element is “choice”. It sounds like your mother wasn’t given any choice. I hope being able to meet help resolve some things; I’m sorry you both had to do through that. The adoption stories that I have read that had good outcomes were because the pregnant teen/woman didn’t feel pressured, it was her own decision. Normally the adoptive parents were relatives or friends and she got updates. And no blame (or self-rightneousness) thrown around. (At least, that’s what was described & the writing sounded true not fiction.)

    The amount of money an adoption costs, and the adoptive parents saying “it’s better for the child” … if they really cared about the children, it would be better to give the money to the biological parents and then they could afford the kid. I’ve read stories (makes me sick) about how mothers are targeted (she gets her medical expenses paid, and some other perks, but only if she signs away the child) when the mother already has other kids old enough to know that mom’s giving away their sister or brother. And what’s that going to do to that family?

  • invalid-0

    I agree that the key element is choice. I’ve often heard people comment that “well no one “forced” her to give her child up”…but they don’t realize that it’s really hard when someone has no money, no familial support, and people (and CPC’s) pointing out everything they can’t provide as a single parent. I think most of us want the best for our children, and when all you hear is how little you can offer, and how much this other family with money and a stable home (for now) can offer, it’s hard to say no.

    And like you said, there is money out there to pay for medical expenses, etc, for mothers who give up their children for adoption.

    I also get a lot of the “well at least you were born” stuff. That’s not a good argument in my opinion. I wouldn’t know if I hadn’t been born. Duh.

    What matters to me is that women have choices. If abortion isn’t a choice, then how can one consider the other options as free choices? For one to make a thoughtful, self-made choice to parent, or put their child up for adoption, one has to have another choice available. Otherwise the first two options are more a forced thing than a choice, and I don’t like that idea.

    It makes me sick that here in Florida, the “Choose Life” tags money goes only to women who sign adoption intention papers. That’s not right! Why can’t they at least use the money to help those who need it to parent. That way someone isn’t pressured to sign adoption papers to get help.

    On a side note, thanks for your comment. I’ve taken steps to find a counselor, and while I’m still looking around (You have no idea how hard it is to find counselors who are feminist friendly and actually acknowledge the other side of adoption). Thankfully I found one but I have used up my visits (school) and have to find another one. I try not to play the “what if” game, although I can’t say it doesn’t pass my mind. I believe that in some ways things happen for a reason, even though it’s hard learning about other’s pain in regards to those things happening. I know I am not the only infant adoptee who suffers from the complexity of adoption, and I am sure there are those out there who don’t suffer at all. But I hope that those who feel the way I do can find help. I know I couldn’t deal with these things on my own, and I don’t want to become self destructive. One of the worst things I deal with is an intense, irrational feeling of guilt, and of not really being wanted. It affects relationships…and I want to work through these things. So this is my word to those out there who are also dealing with these things, there are counselors who can help. Don’t allow yourself to deal with the issue alone, it’s hard. You are not alone!

  • julie-watkins

    It makes me sick that here in Florida, the “Choose Life” tags money goes only to women who sign adoption intention papers. That’s not right! Why can’t they at least use the money to help those who need it to parent.

    Ewww. That’s a very good question, and shows the law-makers true clolors. Yuck. It’s a sloppy, mean way to think, that if you’re woman or poor — everything is the way God wants it. My reaction to that kind of thinking is taht people who steal things want to have a reason to justify what they’re doing is OK and not a sin. If adopting parents are “doing it for the child” they should be honest with themselves and either 1) sponsor the family so the infant can stay with his/her parent(s & siblings). or 2) realize their adoption impulse is because they want to be parents, … and they should look to adopt kids who want to be adopted (in foster care).

    .

    Good luck!