The Real Cost of Raising an Infant: Will Anti-Choicers Pay?


When we finally began planning for our second child, we used to refer to him as “Baby Zero.”  We had ambitious plans of trading all of our old girl clothes for boy clothes, exclusively breastfeeding, getting hand-me-down cloth diapers and a friend’s old crib, and reusing all of our toys from our daughter’s babyhood to have a child that, once he was actually out and the hospital bill was paid for, would cost us next to nothing in expenses.

But, just like last time, breastfeeding didn’t work out.  During a period when he began to get dehydrated he lost enough weight that what little pee and poop he passed came right through the cloth diapers that gaped around his tiny, wrinkled thighs.  Once we admitted he would need to be a formula child we bought the bottles and the containers and he grew overnight.  In fact, he grew right out of all of those baby clothes we traded for, which were now too small and all of the larger clothes were short sleeved and too cold for winter.

And then the spit up started.  Oh, how the spit up started.

Now Baby Zero is four months old.  He refuses to sleep in the crib we borrowed and we had to buy a portable rocker at six weeks to get him to sleep anywhere but in our arms.  We bought new swaddles as he outgrew his newborn one, because he still startles in his sleep without it and wakes himself up. He’s gone through three month nipples and is ready to start six month ones, he’s moved into nine month clothes and he throws up on at least three outfits a day.

Then there are the hospital bills, which we just finally paid the last one of this month.

This week he will be starting daycare for the first time, joining his sister.  I had hoped to keep him home with me for most of the first year, as I did with my first child.  Instead, I barely made it to four months.  We’ve had to go through our finances, weigh the costs of care with the benefits of me working.  Like most families, the income and benefits we get from one salary isn’t quite enough to make ends meet.   But there’s a delicate balance between the amount of money I can make as a freelancer and the hours I need to put into working, and at three months in I realized that trying to work through the night and then parent a child all day is harming me and my family more than it is helping.  Still, we can’t do full time care at the center, as having two children in daycare full time is literally the exact same amount of money that my husband brings home each month.

These are the things I think about when I read stories of crisis pregnancy centers, “positive alternative acts,” and all of the other groups that promise a pregnant woman that they will take care of her financially if she will just turn away from abortion and come to their center.  I’ve heard the “sidewalk counselors” myself promise assistance ranging from financial care to someone to watch their baby to housing to jobs.

A donation of a container of formula to a crisis pregnancy center is a wonderful thing.  It will also keep that child fed for four days at best, a week if it’s a newborn.  A box of diapers is a $40 commitment.  We go through one a week.

We’ve all seen the statistic that it will cost nearly $500,000 to raise a child to age 18.  But the costs of that first year can often be the most staggering.  We spend $60 a week on formula.  We spend $40 a week on diapers.  We buy everything in bulk.  We buy the cheapest clothing we can when he’s gone on to a new size.  Baby car seats, strollers, cribs, bassinet, excersausers, blankets. We had to buy extra bottles so they are ready to go for the daycare center.  Most of them we recycled, or borrowed, but even so we need about $50 a month just in incidentals ranging from diaper rash ointment to baby wash.

An infant will likely cost $200 a month to feed if you are not breastfeeding.  And the women who pregnancy centers are offering to assist financially are not likely to be breastfeeding — they have jobs that barely give them paid bathroom breaks, much less time to go and pump.  You never see a pregnancy center ask for people to donate breast pumps, pads or storage bottles and bags.

An infant will likely cost $160 a month to diaper.  I’ve never seen a center ask for cloth diaper donations, and the initial expense of purchasing is out of reach for a woman who is considering abortion for financial reasons.

An infant will likely cost $50 a month for creams, wipes, bottles, blankets, carriers, swaddles, strollers, bouncers, books, toys, rattles, shoes, clothing, pacifiers, soap, washrags, bathtubs, spit up cloths, changing pads, cribs, pack and plays, etc.  Yes, you can get many of these things cheap, or as hand-me-downs.  You’ll never get them all, though, and that’s why it will be at least $50 a month.

An infant costs $50 a month in laundry.  You will do laundry every day.  The baby will soil numerous outfits.  Not just baby outfits, but mommy outfits.  If you have a washer and dryer, expect your water and electricity bill to jump at least $40 a month.  If you do not, you will be looking at spending at least that amount at the laundromat, plus extra for transportation.  Or, you could buy more clothes to do it less often, which then ups the amount of your monthly incidentals.  I’ve never heard of a center that offers to take in and do a woman’s laundry for her for free.  They really should — that would be more help than a container of formula in both time and money, frankly.

Just these basic costs total nearly $500 a month.  This is before hospital bills for, doctors bills if your child gets sick, or the anywhere from $800 to $1500 a month that childcare costs, especially since states and the federal government have cut back on low income child care subsidies.  Also cut in the last budget was WIC, a program meant to help women with subsidized formula for their children, a cut that was approved by the same Republicans who have tried to cut off access to abortion.  And offered up for cuts in 2012 by these Republicans are Medicaid, which would help the mother provide affordable medical care for her child, food stamps, which would help her be able to feed herself and her other children so they do not get ill, and education programs that would allow her child to start school early and allow her to be able to work without paying the extraordinarily high costs of daycare.

An infant costs between $500 and $2000 a month to care for.  By the time he or she has made it through the first year, the expenses will run anywhere between $6000 and $24,000 — all before the actual costs of medical care or giving birth. 

Is every “sidewalk counselor” and anti-abortion politician ready to really take on the financial commitment that an infant represents?  Or do they want to continue saying a car sear, a jug of formula and a box of Pampers is all a woman really needs?

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

To schedule an interview with contact director of communications Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

Follow Robin Marty on twitter: @robinmarty

  • equalist

    The worst I’ve heard is the family of my son’s father, who tried to convince me when I was considering adoption for my son, that “All a baby needs is love”.  I looked them all in the eye each time I heard that and told them flat out, “The next time you see a sick and hungry baby with no diapers because mommy can’t afford them, why don’t you pick him up and give him a hug and see how much better that makes things for him.”

  • orgelquaeler

    I just read this article, and my first reaction is to laugh absolutely out loud. I am the father of three wonderful little girls, the oldest of whom just turned three. I constantly find it amazing that my wife and I and three children (she a full-time mom) can survive happily on less than $50K a year (no govt. support!!!), yet most people who are much better off financially than us cannot fathom the “expense” of having children. The very fact is, I find it perverse that people even consider having children based on the terms of said “expense”.

     

    My wife and I have been forced by our means to be very thrifty. If our relatives want to buy new clothes for the girls, that’s great. We will buy the same name-brand stuff in new condition at the thrift store for pennies on the dollar! Our clothes come from the same place. If you are thrifty enough, and willing to do a little work yourself, you can easily drop zeroes off your above figures.

     

    Daycare is a lose-lose situation for parents. Somehow, society has missed the point that there is nobody on this earth that will better rear that child and turn it into a responsible adult than that child’s father and mother. Daycare is a money sap in more ways than just it’s regular cost. For instance, every time your child has a fever, diarrhea, a sniffle, etc… you or your husband will have to take the day off to care for them. Since day-care is an incubator for germs, you can expect to be doing this alot, as every strain that possibly comes through any other child in that establishment will take up residence in your child, guaranteed. Since you probably bring your kid to the pediatrician at the least sign of said minute malady, you can add that to the price tag.

     

    My main point is, when you have a child, there is alot you have to give up: time for one (free time, time with your spouse, etc.) You become unselfish as you realize the full extent of what this beautiful life before you needs. Your life becomes disciplined–you learn to tell yourself no in the short run for the promise of something better in the long run, or you fail. But isn’t that the story of life?

     

    Yes, I agree, having a baby is an awesome, great responsibility, and not for the faint-hearted. But as long as we live in a society where it is not PC to teach young men and ladies to disciplne themselves– to tell themselves no in the short run to prevent unintended consequnces in the long run, the fact of young parents having to struggle at least financially through the rest of their lives will continue. Yet, that is not the fault of the wonderful life at question. 

     

    Of course, you assumed that the high cost of raising a child (which my wife and I can attest is only at the choice of the parents) is a good reason to end its life. I guess you could probably agree that when my children get older and get too expensive I can take them down and have them exterminated–if that’s my choice–after all, isn’t my life totally affected by them? It’s my body that toils endlessly for their well-being. What if I get sick of having to go to work every day to pay for their every need? What if my wife starts feeling overburdened by the necessary tasks of being a mother? What? We can just call it quits? It brings tears to my eyes thinking of my children in that regard!!! 

     

    Raising children is hard work. It has always been hard work, and always will be. Sometimes it is exhausting. But when I come home from work and my children run up to me with outstretched arms, it makes that effort feel like nothing.

  • robin-marty

    you said “My wife and I” or “spouse” a whole lot. Also, $50K is a pretty nice income for one person. Many families require two earners to make that much.

  • amadi

    I’m sure that it’s very easy to laugh, the embodiment of glib insensitivity, when your household is positively middle class, and your income is high enough to absorb the extra $500+ a newborn’s needs will cost.

     

    What cause does a person making $14,000 a year before taxes have to laugh when faced with an expense that will explode such a meagre household budget and every avenue of assistance has been closed or narrowed so significantly that there may not be enough help available?

     

    The happy hug and smile from a child is cold comfort when you know you’re going to have to serve them dry cereal for dinner because the little bit of milk has to be saved for breakfasts and there’s peanut butter, but no bread, and the laundry is piling up and there’s no money to rectify any of those problems because what little cash you’ve got left has to be saved because you’ve got to take a bus out to Walmart because bread and milk aren’t every-single-day necessities, but the baby’s diapers sure are. And you have no idea what you’re going to do because the 4 year old has outgrown all but one pair of shoes and they’re coming close, and it’d be nice to spend $3 on a pair at the thrift store but that’s another busfare you’ll have to come up with and the next $3 you can pull out of the budget will need to go for that next gallon of milk.

     

    Yeah, laugh at people who have to make these decisions. Laugh at people who already have children with special needs whose care requirements are already taking the family beyond the breaking point. Laugh at people who don’t have the cash to buy no name clothes at a thrift store, let alone anything else. Your laughter is a bright shining beacon of your petty, self-righteous meanspiritedness. It shows exactly just what sort of person you are.

  • prochoiceferret

    I just read this article, and my first reaction is to laugh absolutely out loud.

     

    I’m sure you laugh out loud when people lose their homes, too.

     

    The very fact is, I find it perverse that people even consider having children based on the terms of said “expense”.

     

    Yeah, as if paying bills were such a big deal or something.

     

    If you are thrifty enough, and willing to do a little work yourself, you can easily drop zeroes off your above figures.

     

    Yes, I suppose if you had an M.D. in pediatrics, you could reduce the hospital fees to almost nothing!

     

    Daycare is a lose-lose situation for parents.

     

    Of course. Who needs time to go to work, anyway?

     

    Your life becomes disciplined–you learn to tell yourself no in the short run for the promise of something better in the long run, or you fail. But isn’t that the story of life?

     

    Darn, I guess Ms. Marty will just have to give up the ocean cruise and the house in the Hamptons to raise her child. Oh, wait a second—she already did. And something tells me she’s fresh out of luxuries to say no to… unless you’re talking about, say, the roof over her head.

     

    But as long as we live in a society where it is not PC to teach young men and ladies to disciplne themselves– to tell themselves no in the short run to prevent unintended consequnces in the long run, the fact of young parents having to struggle at least financially through the rest of their lives will continue.

     

    I suppose you believe the fact of people being homeless will continue as long as they keep being lazy, too.

     

    Of course, you assumed that the high cost of raising a child (which my wife and I can attest is only at the choice of the parents) is a good reason to end its life. I guess you could probably agree that when my children get older and get too expensive I can take them down and have them exterminated–if that’s my choice–after all, isn’t my life totally affected by them? It’s my body that toils endlessly for their well-being. What if I get sick of having to go to work every day to pay for their every need? What if my wife starts feeling overburdened by the necessary tasks of being a mother? What? We can just call it quits? It brings tears to my eyes thinking of my children in that regard!!!

     

    Uh, no one here has been talking about infanticide. Is this something that you’ve been thinking about? A deep, dark fantasty, perhaps?

     

    Raising children is hard work. It has always been hard work, and always will be. Sometimes it is exhausting. But when I come home from work and my children run up to me with outstretched arms, it makes that effort feel like nothing.

     

    Why yes, having work, and a home, certainly does make life easier!

  • beenthere72

    Raising children is hard work. It has always been hard work, and always will be. Sometimes it is exhausting. But when I come home from work and my children run up to me with outstretched arms, it makes that effort feel like nothing.

     

    But… but… but… HE’S NOT RAISING THEM.  Wonderful stay-at-home wife is!  

     

    What a tiny little world this man lives in.  Bet he has a white picket fence and a dog named Fido too.

  • beenthere72

    Besides the fact that you need to look outside of your narrow little perfect world and consider other people’s situations, WTF is this insanity?

     

    Of course, you assumed that the high cost of raising a child (which my wife and I can attest is only at the choice of the parents) is a good reason to end its life. I guess you could probably agree that when my children get older and get too expensive I can take them down and have them exterminated–if that’s my choice–after all, isn’t my life totally affected by them? It’s my body that toils endlessly for their well-being. What if I get sick of having to go to work every day to pay for their every need? What if my wife starts feeling overburdened by the necessary tasks of being a mother? What? We can just call it quits? It brings tears to my eyes thinking of my children in that regard!!!

     

    Were you in the room when your wife was in labor?

  • kj

    How would you do it if you didn’t have your wife to take on the bulk of the parenting duties?  Or if you made something less than a middle class income?  Many women who get abortions do so because it is the only choice that makes sense.  If you are single, young woman making less than 20,000 a year, having a child is an untenable prospect.  Also, if a woman is in school, having a child interfers with her schooling and makes it more likely she will be poor.  Contraception and abortion allows women to have careers and good-paying jobs and lets them put off child rearing until they are in a better place to care for a child.  Maybe it allows them to put off child rearing until they have a stay at home spouse and make 50,000 a year, like you.  

  • crowepps

    It’s my body that toils endlessly for their well-being.

    Oh, for cripe’s sake — if your body is toiling endlessly then those children are being raised by a single mother because you’re NEVER HOME.

     

    If that was just another example of the over the top hyperbole and sentimentality distorting your entire post, my guess is you’re a troll.

  • orgelquaeler

    @ ProChoiceFerret: You overstated all my points, so I won’t bother defending them against your comments. Try rebutting my arguments with reason and not cliche and we’ll see what happens.

     

    @beenthere72: You got me. My wife is just as happy. You can ask her yourself if you want (she said so).  And, oh, yah, no picket fence. Frankly, I can’t afford one right now. I don’t mind, it’s just one of those little sacrifices. Same with the dog. Don’t diss me because we are coincidentally happy with our traditional lifestyle and you apparently are not.

     

    @KJ: I work a full-time and two part-time time jobs and make closer to $35K/year. My point wasn’t exact figures. My point was that it isn’t alot. Not enough to have everything we want. One can expect things will get better; we are still just starting out. I have been working since I was 15: through school and full time since then. 

     

    If the girl is single and only making $20k/year, but still wants to be as sexually active as possible, that sounds like not living within your means. If contraceptives are only 99.9% effective, the people should at least be .1% willing to have a baby. Besides, the point of my original response was to make fun of those middle-class parents who are spending $24K on their first year’s expenses and then using that as a reason why some girl they don’t know should have an abortion. It’s a non-sequitur. 

     

    I am not blind to the plight of the single mother. That it exists and is a problem I certainly admit. I will also agree that the cost of the simplest healthcare procedures are outrageous. However, this problem of young girls going and getting pregnant in unheard-of numbers is also a problem. Now nobody wants to see children starving, but those of us who thought things out before getting in bed certainly do not want to pay for the rest of our lives for those who didn’t. Sorry if that offends. I would rather see charity re-instated: People helping people voluntarily instead of the state making others pay. We already help people out even beyond our means sometimes if they really need it. 

  • kirjava

    to help any of those “young girls going and getting pregnant in unheard-of numbers”?  Given your clear disdain for them, I’d be quite surprised if you were.  In any case, the state is paying for those “who thought things out before getting in bed.”  That’s a pretty good description of contraception.  

     

    You’re also making the classic, fallacious assumption that only young, unmarried women have abortions.  There are those of us who are married professionals, properly using contraception, who also want to be able to choose abortion.  Some of us would prefer to be childless/have our chosen number of children.  That’s what makes us able to enjoy our lives – your “traditional lifestyle” apparently makes you able to enjoy yours. Personally, I don’t want more than one kid.  Not under any circumstances. There are other things my husband and I want to do with our lives.  Contraception, with abortion as a backup, is essential for most people’s security (not to mention happiness).

  • kirjava

    It’s “perverse” for people to consider expense before having children, but we’re all supposed to be responsible and disciplined, right?

     

    Logic fail.

  • carolyninthecity

    Would state-run programs technically be “people helping people”? 

    And suppose a woman is NEVER in a financial state to have a child, despite getting an education and working hard? Is she allowed to have sex? A married couple living below the poverty line- sepparate bedrooms for them I assume? Your response didn’t sound like any legitimate concern for the unborn, it sounded like contempt for women who dare have sex before they’re ready to parent. 

    Please help us understand how a non-sentient, non-thinking, non-feeling fetus, with no capacity to feel physical or emotional pain or suffering, and only grows because the woman’s body is working hard to gestate it- please explain why that fetus is infinetly more valuable then the woman carrying it. Because it doesn’t make sense to me. 

    You say there’s a problem of girls “going out and getting pregnant”. I suppose they’re doing this all by themselves? 

    How does forcing poor women, or any women for that matter, to carry pregnancies to term and give birth to babies they can’t afford to keep, or don’t have to support to keep, who don’t have fathers who want to be there, how does this contribute to the greater good? How does doing this benefit anyone? And don’t say the baby benefits because it gets to be alive. At what cost?

    There’s nearly 7 billion people on the planet already, and you would condem a woman to a life of poverty and hardship just so there can be one more person here? That’s wonderful that your experiance with having babies has been so positive, but not everyone gets that experiance. 

     

  • starrsitter

    This.  Just this. Perfectly this.  Thank you.

     

    I have very strong feelings about reproductive rights across the board.  It disturbs people that as a mother and a currently pregnant woman I am so virulently opposed to the restriction of abortion rights.  What they fail to understand is the privilege that most of them (and I) have.  I am a well-educated, 30-something, upper middle class white woman in a stable relationship in which I am in absolutely no way abused.  I have good insurance and access to quality health care.  I have no underlying medical conditions that make pregnancy more dangerous than it already has the potential to be.  I have the physical, emotional, and financial means to care for more children. 

    I also recognize that I am extraordinarily fortunate.  I’m not a young girl who is being molested.  I’m not a teenager whose shot at college is blown because the condom broke.  I’m not a woman whose abusive partner is sabotaging my contraceptives to further control me.  I’m not a struggling single mother who has to make the kinds of choices you mention.  I’m not a thousand other women whose situation is vastly removed from my own.  Every woman has a unique set of circumstances and needs that cannot be completely understood by anyone else.  That is why it should never be anyone else’s choice.  Ever. 

    Until these hypocrites take steps to help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies through education and access to contraceptives and support the social constructs that help women and families, they will continue to belie their words through their actions.

  • goatini

    If the girl (sic) is single and only making $20k/year, but still wants to be as sexually active as possible, that sounds like not living within your means.”

     

    Wow, NOW the theocratic morality scolds are trying to catapult the propaganda for yet ANOTHER double-standard for female sexuality – MEANS-BASED SEXUALITY – *and* a new term for “tramp”: “as sexually active as possible”.  

     

    One would think that with all those jobs and all those mouths to feed, one would have little time, if any, to think of even more ways to harass and slut-shame autonomous female US citizens.  

  • goatini

    I suspect the vast majority of the male trolls sit in Mom’s basement and make it all up out of whole cloth, the wifey, the kids, everything.  

  • orgelquaeler

    This comment has been removed.

     

    RH Reality Check is an unapologetically pro-choice publication, and the majority of our readers supports the struggle for sexual and reproductive rights, health, and justice.  We realize that some of our readers and commenters do not support these goals.  We embrace and encourage vigorous debate and civil discourse on the site and welcome comments representing diverse points of view that are evidence-based and reasonably engage the debate.  We reserve the right to delete, without further explanation, comments that misrepresent evidence or promote misinformation, that threaten or demean others, undermine the civility of discussion or seek to divert conversation from the topic of the original article.  We reserve the right to ban users who repeatedly abuse commenting privileges.

     

    RH Reality Check staff

  • therealistmom

    …at least according to the Happy Perfect Life Xian Society. I was married at 18, and had my first child just shy of 21. My ex went into the military in order to take care of his family. I stayed at home to raise the children, in part because my kids’ special needs made it even more difficult to get child care so I could work, even after they became school age.

    So now that he decided to move on after 17 years of marriage what am I left with? I’m an unemployed single mother with no education, currently living on child support, my daughter’s SSI, and food stamps. (And before you say it- internet IS a necessity in this day and age, both for the kids’ school and for job hunting.) Even in all of this,  I know I’m fortunate. I have a house to live in, and a dependable vehicle. I’m going to try and go to college this fall, though I’m not entirely sure how, since my oldest will be heading to college out of town, leaving me with no backup child care for the 15 year old with Down syndrome and my 11 year old with severe ADHD. The ex got called back into active duty and will be gone almost a year.

    So where in all this was I some irresponsible whore? I SHOULD have gotten an education before I had kids. But according to you, and people like you, I did all the things I was supposed to. I was in a stable marriage when I had my kids, and stayed at home to raise them.

    This isn’t about “irresponsible whores”. This is about REAL women and REAL children who don’t all have your happy fucking privilige.

  • goatini

    People who insist that for females, sex must always equal pregnancy and birth, are theocratic moralizers.  Has ZERO to do with “common sense”.  

     

    Common sense is what a sexually active autonomous female US citizen, whose assiduous use of contraception has been successful, has in spades.  

     

    No charge for the clarification.  

  • arekushieru

    Maybe you were completely non-sentient as a fetus, but your generalisation is not even remotely scientifc. Your “it must be OK because it doesn’t know we’re doing this to it” philosophy leads me to hope you are never taking care of me while I am under anesthesia.

    Way to miss her point…. She was talking about how YOU would value that non-sentient, obliviate, non-thinking, non-feeling fetus over a woman who is not only sentient but non-obliviate, thinking and feeling. And you’re telling US to address YOUR points? Hypocrisy at its finest.

     If you had been paying attention, you would have realized I WAS using hyperbole on purpose. 

    orgelquaeler: If you had been paying attention, you would have realized that your hyperbole had missed the mark, enTIREly.

    Since we were talking about a single woman, and since a woman carries a child, I only brought up the woman. Don’t overstate my point.


    Changing the goal posts…? Typical.  You were discussing yourSELF and your wife.  That is in no way comparable to a single woman/mother. Since the woman is the one who carries a *fetus*, the only one to determine what disastrously affects her… is herself.  However, I see you came up with another nice double-standard. If the woman terminates she is being irresponsible.  If the male refuses to use a condom or prevent pregnancy through any other method, that’s not irresponsibility on his part.

  • arekushieru

    …are a hypocrite: 

    For instance, every time your child has a fever, diarrhea, a sniffle, etc… you or your husband will have to take the day off to care for them.

     

    I constantly find it amazing that my wife and I and three children (she a full-time mom) can survive happily on less than $50K a year (no govt. support!!!), yet most people who are much better off financially than us cannot fathom the “expense” of having children.


    What if my wife starts feeling overburdened by the necessary tasks of being a mother?

     

    The necessary tasks of being a mother?  What about the necessary tasks of being a father?  You could take time off work and share the parenting duties (after all, it takes more than being a breadwinner to be a father).  Otherwise, really, she can never take a day off to take care of them.  That’s how MOST households operate, even typically egalitarian ones.  You sure talk the talk, but never walk the walk, a lot, don’t you?

    You don’t have ANY sympathy for the women (who will most likely be single and comparatively less financially stable than their male counterparts) who choose to terminate because they may have children, already, they didn’t have access to contraception, they were raped, etc, etc… do you?

    I (don’t) like how you just ignore that the whole process from fertilization of the egg to birth that involves just the woman’s body is the second most deadly medical condition to her worldwide. Then go on to say that you would have to sacrifice just as much to toil endlessly, when your wife is the one who appears to be toiling endlessly by investing her time and energy in the ACTUAL parenting.  You would have a far easier time walking away from any responsibilities you’ve willingly assumed than your wife ever would. After all, who’s left holding the bag, when someone who is in such a financially vulnerable position as your wife is, if she unexpectedly becomes a widow, when someone whose body is invested in pregnancy the way no one else’s is, as your wife WAS, CAN’T simply walk away from their body and toiling endlessly for the process, when someone whose role is narrowly determined by what sex they are assigned at birth and can’t even move as freely within that definition as their male counterparts can within their more BROADLY defined gender role (as you have proven you have been totally brainwashed by, with your comments about how women are expected to behave just because they were unlucky enough to be born with a uterus), as it was in your and your wife’s case, would be paid less JUST because they are a woman and would be stigmatized and shamed for attempting to move outside of that role.

    As for your comments to PCF, right back atcha, ‘sweetheart’. You have failed to address any of the points being made, not least the one where you are talking out of your privileged ass but most especially the one where you have failed to address where your responsibility lies. Forcing someone ELSE to sacrifice, if not on both ends, at least on the first, but still making it clear that you expect that you shouldn’t have to, is exTREMEly greedy, especially when you know, as a male, that that decision will NEVER primarily affect you. Btw…. Greed. …Is a sin.

    Do you know that you are practically ORGasming at the thought that a child will be punished with a hellish just because their mother was what you so self-righteously deemed irresponsible.  Kinda brings up aNOther paradox, no?  Because, WHAT, in THAT, is REsponsible? 

    Quite sincerely, either put up or stfu.  

     

     

  • arekushieru

    And who is this oh-so-mighty-arbiter of who really needs and doesn’t need what?  You?  *Snort*

    I would rather see charity re-instated: People helping people voluntarily instead of the state making others pay.


    I would rather see charity re-instated: People defending and fighting for the rights of others, here, at home, and abroad, voluntarily, instead of the government forcing others to do so.

  • carolyninthecity

     Maybe you were completely non-sentient as a fetus, but your generalisation is not even remotely scientifc. Your “it must be OK because it doesn’t know we’re doing this to it” philosophy leads me to hope you are never taking care of me while I am under anesthesia

    Well….ya. I mean, that’s the point of anesthesia right? So you don’t feel any pain while you’re being opperated on. It IS ok to do certain things to you (like say, remove an appendix) because you’re alseep and cannot perceive the pain. Where as if you were awake and aware, that would be torturous and wrong. So yes, I do think weather something is sentient has bearing on it’s moral value. (Although I don’t think it’s usuful to try and create analogies for pregnancy and birth because it’s a totally unique experiance). 

    The woman, on the other hand, CAN and does feel very real physical and emotional pain. An unexpected pregnancy can be life-ruining. You can call abortions selfish or morally wrong all you want, but where’s the outrage when a woman has to drop out of school for the baby, or goes into debt from medical bills? Or has such serious complications from the pregnancy that she has to quit her job? Maybe her and her partner aren’t stable. Maybe it’s just an all-around shitty situation that wouldn’t make any sense bringing a child into. 

    Again, who benefits? And why is a fetus, who would never even have any awareness of it’s own existance, never being born a greater injustice then a woman who is very much aware, having to give up everything she wanted for her own life so she can create another one? 

    For me, the thought of a woman having to go through a pregnancy she doesn’t want is far sadder then the thought of an embyo never becoming a baby. 

  • therealistmom

    ‘Mr Marley has been dead these seven years,’ Scrooge  replied. ‘He died seven years ago, this very night.’ 

    ‘We have no doubt his liberality is well represented by his surviving partner,’ said the gentleman, presenting his credentials.

    ‘It certainly was, for they had been two kindred spirits. At the ominous word liberality, Scrooge frowned, and shook his head, and handed the credentials back.

    ‘They are.  Still,’ returned the gentleman,’ I wish I  could say they were not.’

    ‘The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?’ said Scrooge. 

    ‘At this festive season of the year, Mr Scrooge,’ said the gentleman, taking up a pen, ‘it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir.’

    ‘Are there no prisons?”

    ‘Plenty of prisons,’ said the gentleman, laying down the  pen again.

    ‘And the Union workhouses.’ demanded Scrooge. ‘Are  they still in operation?’

    ‘Both very busy, sir.’ 

    ‘Oh. I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,’ said Scrooge. ‘I’m very glad to hear it.’

    ‘Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude,’ returned the gentleman, ‘a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?’

    ‘Nothing!’ Scrooge replied. 

    ‘You wish to be anonymous?’ 

    ‘I wish to be left alone,’ said Scrooge. ‘Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don’t make merry myself at Christmas and I can’t afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned-they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there.’

    ‘Many can’t go there; and many would rather die.’ 

    ‘If they would rather die,’ said Scrooge, ‘they had better  do it, and decrease the surplus population.”

  • carolyninthecity

    Also what do you mean exactly by “your generalisation is not even remotely scientific”? 

    What generalization? That fetuses are non-sentient? Because they are. Like, all of them….

  • kj

    Or maybe that girl who gets pregnant takes responsibilty by getting a safe, legal abortion?  Then she won’t need the support of goverment or your charties!  And the teen pregancy rate hit an historic LOW recently.  Check your facts and stop being so self-rightous about the lives and choices of others.  http://voices.washingtonpost.com/checkup/2011/02/teen_birth_decline_back_on_tra.html.

     

    Also, I would much rather pay money to the goverment in the form of taxes than force others to go to so-called charties, many of whom are run by right wingers who force religion or morality on those they profess to be ‘helping.’  I was ‘helped’ by a christian group once.  All it left me with was traumatic memories that make me wake up afraid and an sense of wonder at the hypocrisy of so many religious people. 

  • ack

    People helping people voluntarily instead of the state making others pay. We already help people out even beyond our means sometimes if they really need it.

    The private sector can’t and/or won’t fulfill the level of financial support necessary to provide for the people in need. As it is, government funding PLUS substantial donations and foundation grants can’t support social services. It’s in the benefit of all of us to assist the poor. Childcare subsidies help single moms work, which lowers the need for services for children and pumps money back into the economy. Health care funding assists in disease prevention, allowing for more stable employment and lower long-term costs among recipients. Domestic violence and sexual assault programs help survivors leave abusive situations and/or receive secondary prevention services to reduce future violence, injury, disease, and associated costs. Behavioral therapy for kids who have autism or other disabilities increases independence and lowers the likelihood of requiring state-run care. If those services, funded at least in part by the feds or your state, weren’t available, do you suggest we would just let people live on the streets or in squalor? Some would advocate for this position, but most Americans couldn’t stomach it. This is not to say that we do not, EVERY FREAKING DAY, let people live in squalor, live on the streets, or die. But if it happened on the scale it would if we cut funding, people would be outraged. But weirdly, not enough to make up the costs of actually providing social services.

     

    You benefit from social services for the poorest. So do I. I’m happy to continue to fund them and (GASP!!!!111!!!!eleventy!) increase my taxes in order to do so, as long as the tax structure isn’t regressive. Even if it is, I’ll bite. I pretty much live paycheck to paycheck. But I voted repeatedly to increase my taxes to fund social services and education in my city and in my state. I understand that I benefit from those expenditures, and I don’t think that only people like me or those above me in the economic structure deserve to have things like decent education, health care, food, and sex. 

     


  • plume-assassine

    I just read this article, and my first reaction is to laugh absolutely out loud.

    Others’ hardships must be SO fucking funny to you, sitting on the pedestal of white, male, middle-class married privilege.

     

    The very fact is, I find it perverse that people even consider having children based on the terms of said “expense”.

    Oh yes, it’s so “perverse” to want to be financially stable enough to keep a roof over your head and food in the refrigerator before having children… ? (WTF)

     

    Daycare is a lose-lose situation for parents.

    Well, EXCUSE ME, but not everyone in this world has the financial privilege of opting out of daycare! Not everyone has the means to be a stay-at-home mother/father! How do you expect people to take care of their children at all if they can’t provide for them? Do you expect single parents to not work at all, just so they can stay home with their kids? Maybe you should pull your head out of the sand and look around you before you make sweeping judgments about how others raise their children.

     

    But as long as we live in a society where it is not PC to teach young men and ladies to disciplne themselves– to tell themselves no in the short run to prevent unintended consequnces in the long run, the fact of young parents having to struggle at least financially through the rest of their lives will continue.

    So, let me get this straight, you’re saying that parents below middle-class earnings are just “irresponsible” and “lack discipline”? More generalizing BS. Some of the folk I know who are trying to raise kids around poverty-level earnings are the hardest working people I know, but it still doesn’t get them any where, because of anti-welfare, anti-choice people like you.

     

    Of course, you assumed that the high cost of raising a child (which my wife and I can attest is only at the choice of the parents) is a good reason to end its life.

    Nice try, buddy. Abortion is not comparable to infanticide. There is no child until birth. Your hyperbole doesn’t prove any point aside from showcasing your own irrational nonsense.

     

    It’s my body that toils endlessly for their well-being.

    Listen, I don’t know if you’re aware of this or not, but that is not analogous to pregnancy. Working a full-time job to provide for your family, your already existing children, is not comparable to using your body to gestate an unwanted pregnancy.  

    And what about the whole egalitarian aspect of childrearing? Sounds like your wife is the one doing all the work.

     

    It brings tears to my eyes thinking of my children in that regard!!! 

     Well, isn’t it interesting that YOU’RE the one who brought up “”exterminating”” your own children and infanticide as a thought experiment, not us! None of that nonsense is mentioned in this article or anywhere else on this website, so what the hell is wrong with you?

  • plume-assassine

    Besides, the point of my original response was to make fun of those middle-class parents who are spending $24K on their first year’s expenses and then using that as a reason why some girl they don’t know should have an abortion.

    Pro-choicers are not interested in telling anyone whether they SHOULD or should not have an abortion. Unlike you, we are not interested in telling people what to do with their life or their [potential] children. Our interest is only in ensuring that abortion should always be an available option, whatever the reason.

     

    On a similar note, it’s none of your business either if a woman you don’t know decides to have abortion or not. And her reasons do not matter and do not affect you.

  • freetobe

    Hmmm let me see if i thought things out, weel lets see i got married got pregnant husband became abusive stuck in abusive marriage for nine years divorced lived on my own for over 20 some years raised our only child (by CHOICE) have been celebit for thirteen years,never took a dime from the government.

    I still would rather pay taxes to help others in dire need. Just because some have abused the system ,does that mean that we just let all the rest die a miserable death? Would Jesus do that? Would Jesus turn away a black man whom was freezing to death or gay person? What would Jesus do?

    These are not trick questions so think carefully.

    Could you be celebit by choice for thirteen years- by choice?

    You conservative creeps make me sick, You are all so damn one sided and scared of your own shadows and you know what we are sick to death of your whining about paying to help others SICK TO DEATH OF IT!

    I t does not work with me i know what you people are all about. Money power and control. You are experts at lying and manipulating.

    Go fool your other conservative scardy cats. it does not work here.

    Or better yet go feed your corporate welfare kings. They are whining again on a 15 % tax to pay and tax refunds not big enough oh booo hooo ……

  • ack

    I am not blind to the plight of the single mother. That it exists and is a problem I certainly admit.

    Several other people on this thread have already pointed out your privilege. Yes, you’re working three jobs. Yes, that is completely and utterly ridiculous, as being paid a living wage for one job could mean the difference between living paycheck to paycheck and living on the streets, depending on the health of you, your spouse/partner, and your kids. (I hope you are communicating with your state and federal legislators to advocate for a living wage…)

     

    I’ll restrain myself from going into a blow by blow analysis of how you totally missed the point of the post. “Well, I can do it,” is not a sufficient argument. Ever.

     

    However, an “admission” that there is a “problem” of single motherhood is, in fact, being blind to the realities that those women and girls face. You go on to essentially blame those women and girls for being single mothers. Your assumption that all females should be “.1%” ready to have a baby doesn’t take into account that some females THOUGHT they were ready at the negligible level you’ve set forth and then decide that they aren’t. Not to mention the… WTF does that mean?… factor. At least .1% ready for pregnancy? 

     

    Seriously, what the hell does that MEAN?


  • kater7

    Congrats – you caught the attention of Stanek’s blog. Be prepared for more anti-choice hyperbole, idealistic notions of raising children, and general slut-shaming. 

  • hspark

    I don’t know where the author of this article lives, but her prices are absolutely ludicrous.  I have 2 kids in diapers right now and  have never spent $160/ month to diaper them.  It doesn’t take much time to shop the sales and use a coupon.  My husband and I have 4 children and we live quite comfortably on one salary.  And that salary is $40,000 per year.  

    Robin Marty’s argument that abortion is ok because the price of raising a child is too high is obscene.  Let’s use the same argument for elderly people who need medicine, oxygen machines, etc.  Sorry, folks, it costs too much to keep you alive so we’re cutting you off.  Of course, you will need to understand that a fetus is just as much a person as a 65 year old human being.  

    Planned Parenthood is not about women’s health, its about making money on abortion.  Abortion is a money-making industry.  An abortion provider’s goal is not to better a woman’s health, but to make money.  Read unPlanned by Abby Johnson.  She worked for Planned Parenthood and saw the truth and now she is pro-life.  

  • goatini

    of a disgraced and disgruntled ex-employee, with such an appalling lack of mental, emotional, ethical, and spiritual fortitude that she’ll eagerly lie and take the big payday from the equally morally challenged forced-birthers.

  • carolyninthecity

    The cost of raising a child isn’t THE reason to have an abortion (there are many, non of which are your business). But it’s certainly a valid reason, and an important one. The point of the article was to point out that anti-choicers (particularly those of the CPC variety) make raising children out to be cheap and easy. And again, just because *you can do it* doesn’t mean everyone else can. Cost of living varries from place to place. $40,000/ year might be enough for you and your family where you live, but it certainly wouldnt be where I live. 

     

    Planned Parenthood is not about women’s health, its about making money on abortion.  Abortion is a money-making industry.  An abortion provider’s goal is not to better a woman’s health, but to make money.   

    LOL. That’s rich. If you’re going to say that about doctors who perform abortions, then it has to be true for doctors who perform any other procedure. Medicine itself is a “money making industry”. ALL doctors get paid for what they do. An abortion can and does better a woman’s health. Sometimes it even saves her life. 

     

  • kj

    No, she is arguing that all those anti-choicers who claim to want to ‘help’ the poor, poor woman are full of it.  They don’t provide tangible support that would really help women and their babies. Providing some dipers and a stroller is nice, but in the grand scheme of things, useless. 

     

    And once again, I will say waht others have said many times.  Pro-choice people like myself and pro choice organizations liked PP have no desire to get people to have abortions.  Abortion is 3% of what PP does.  Pro-choicers would rather girls and women have access to contraceptives that would allow them to avoid having an abortion.  However, as logical realists, we know that rapes happen, contraceptives fail and sometimes a woman will need an abortion.  So we fight to keep abortion safe and legal.  Also PP is a non-profit.  That means that they do not make a profit from delivering services.  They are not in it for the money, they are in it to help girls and women. 

     

    As for your whole ‘the fetus is the same as an elderly person,’ no a fetus is not the same.  The fetus’ life support system is a human being.  An elderly person is relying on machines and electricity.  A fetus’ presense can kill or seriously injure a woman.  An elderly person on machines does not endager anyone.  Also, fetus’ are not legally persons, so they have no standuing. Elderly persons are legally person.  I can go on if you like.

  • janitorial16

    What is important is to make sure the investment in your baby will pay off . If it does , then no cost is high enough .

  • plume-assassine

    The fetus’ life support system is a human being.  An elderly person is relying on machines and electricity.  A fetus’ presense can kill or seriously injure a woman.  An elderly person on machines does not endager anyone. 

    We might as well be machines and electricity, as long as they think of us (and themselves and women in general) as nothing but incubators. That’s all we are to them– objects. They are so used to thinking of women as machines that they don’t even stop to consider that a pregnancy could potentially hurt us in any way (physically, psychologically, financially…)

  • kj

    I didn’t know babies were investments, like on the stock market.  Also, if you can’t feed the child (and the republicans are trying to cut WIC and food stamps, so that is increasingly likely), the cost is too high.  Which is why we need family planning services so women can be sure they are in the right place to have and support a child.  Choice: good for women, good for children,good for families.  The only one it isn’t good for is right wingers who wish to go Republic of Giliad on the back of woman.  They want a theocracy.  See how well that worked for women in Afganistan. 

  • jenh

    I’ve had three children and have never, ever spent $40 a week on diapers!  Is she buying diapers made of gold?  How ridiculous!  Half the “stuff” on Robyn’s list is just unnecessary.  Gadgets and gizmos make for great marketing to inexperienced parents, but babies just don’t need all that stuff.

     

    But the bottom line is, abortion can never be justified by enumerating the costs of raising a child.  Abortion is never the “responsible choice” in order to solve financial questions.  The pro-abortionists never want to talk about real responsibility.  They only want unrestricted sex and abortion.  That’s not responsibility.  It’s selfish, destructive indulgence.  And the one who pays is the baby.

  • beenthere72

    Apparently I’m not?     I’m not dependent on my husband’s income.  In fact, I make about twice as much as him (and you).    I own the house, fence and all.      I’ve got a very privileged life yet, unlike you, I don’t sit on my high horse and force my morality on others.                

     

    There are a lot of things that I don’t want my taxes paying for (and I just paid out a heckuva lot yesterday thanks to large capital gains)   but I accept it because there are plenty more issues deserving of my hard-earned money than there are that are not, and frankly, I don’t want to sit down every year with a checklist of what I do and do not want my taxes to pay for.    I imagine I’d have to pay MORE taxes just to have that all processed.    (I mean really, can you imagine the logistics, and the cost, of processing all that??)

     

  • rebellious-grrl

    Robin, you have clearly illustrated the cost incurred with having a child/children. Children are expensive for sure. I think you included many of the costs not immediately thought of then planning to have a child, like doing laundry all of the time. And not even to mention the emotion and psychological costs of parenting. The medical costs alone for pregnancy and childbirth can be staggering even if you have insurance. But what if you have no insurance?


    Its clear from the actions of the anti-choices/forced birthers that they don’t care about women and actual babies. Once a woman has given birth the gig is up. Thanks for the great article!

     

  • beenthere72

    Wow, she totally cherry picked from Robin’s article so they could so easily attack it.  

  • rebellious-grrl

    orgelquaeler, so poor people shouldn’t have sex? Especially poor single women.
    You guessed it, you are offensive. Quit your slut-shaming and go away!

  • rebellious-grrl

    Stanek is like Fox (faux) News, she makes her money off of the sensationalism and non-factualness of her blog. I think she likes to pick on Robin. When Robin went on leave with her second child, Stanek blogged that she quit being pro-choice because she was having a baby. Stanek is such a princess jerk. I can’t stand that woman.

  • rebellious-grrl

    You must be a Stanek groupie. The anti-abortion side is also a money making industry. They need abortion to make their money, unlike PP. Antis like Stanek make money off of being anti-choice. Conservative groups make money from donors by opposing abortion. So yes, they need abortion too.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Jen you are really an insulting troll. Are you calling Robin a liar? Who the hell are you to judge?

  • ldan

    This. I keep asking what’s so irresponsible about getting an abortion…and never getting an answer.

     

    What’s not responsible about taking stock of your situation and not bringing a child into the world that can’t be well cared for? What’s not responsible about setting up the appointments, doing the analysis and possibly some soul-searching, getting the funds together, and possibly putting up with the harrassment getting to said appointments?

     

    Why is gestation somehow more responsible considering that one’s body will mostly go on ahead doing that all on it’s own (or, you know, spontaneously abort all on its own as is very frequently the case…are our own bodies irresponsible then)?

     

    An abortion takes some planning and responsibility. Deciding to carry to term and getting appropriate care takes planning and responsibility. Wanting a child and preparing home and life for it takes planning and responsibility. Gestating takes the same kind of responsibility that breathing does.

  • ldan

    Besides, I’m 100% ready to have an abortion, and my partners know this going in. So it’s more that they should be .1% ready to deal with that fact.

     

    Why should anyone expect those who don’t want children, for whatever reason, to be lifelong celibates? Is that remotely realistic?

  • saltyc

    We will buy the same name-brand stuff in new condition at the thrift store for pennies on the dollar! Our clothes come from the same place. If you are thrifty enough, and willing to do a little work yourself, you can easily drop zeroes off your above figures.

    High-quality thrift store merchandise is limited. Middle-class people shopping at thrift stores just take the good stuff away from the people who can’t drive to target. Not saying don’t do it, just don’t brag about it like it’s the same as volunteering or something.

     

    I can’t stand someone lecturing everyone how to live when they really have no new information to offer.

  • saltyc

     If contraceptives are only 99.9% effective, the people should at least be .1% willing to have a baby.

    And even 0.1% willing is willing enough for org. The new one-drop-rule.

    How many employers will hire someone who’s 0.1% willing to work there?

    Hey how about a baby-sitter who’s 0.1% willing to watch your child?

    Or a cab driver who’s 0.1% willing to drive you to your destination?

    But 0.1% willing is enough to be a mom, wow you must really understand the commitment motherhood entails.

  • forlife

    Everyone keeps talking about pro-lifers not understanding that it is hard to raise children, especially for poor women. As pro-lifers, we make up roughly half of this country. Do you think none of us are dirt poor ourselves??? It is interesting…pro-lifers are either portrayed as rich, elitist brats who do not know the first thing about poor people. Or we are uneducated hillbillies who are not elistist enough to understand why the ability to kill one’s own offspring is “progressive” and necessary. Whichever ad-hominem is more convenient for whatever kind of arguement you happen to be making.

    The fact that you mention things like laundry costs shows that you are out of touch with poor parents. When I was poor and had a baby, I sure as heck did not have access to a washing machine. This article just reeks of consumerism. Human beings have been raising children for hundreds of thousands of years (and many continue to do so) without most of the crap you mentioned. It is shocking that our species was able to continue reproducing without things like toys, disposable diapers, strollers, or swaddles.

  • littleblue

    @crowweps: If you had been paying attention, you would have realized I WAS using hyperbole on purpose. 

    “His remark wasn’t intended to be a factual statement.”  Where have I heard this before?

     

     

     

     

  • arekushieru

    Or we are uneducated hillbillies who are not elistist enough to understand why the ability to kill one’s own offspring is “progressive” and necessary.

    This entire statement points to the fact that you just might be an uneducated hillbilly, after all….  The ONLY reason you can even make the claim that abortion is about the ability to kill one’s own offspring, is due to a woman’s physiognomy… and just that… and that’s just… sexism and misogyny.

    It is shocking that our species was able to continue reproducing without things like toys, disposable diapers, strollers, or swaddles.

    It is shocking that half of our species is unable to grasp the simple fact that an extended lack of simple consumerism came at a devastating cost, to families, to women, to children, to pregnant women and, yes, their fetuses. Medical advancement is part of that consumerism and has only occurred in recent years, comparatively.  I hope you never took your baby in to see the doctor, if you sneer at consumerism (although, I would consider that child abuse), then.

    Btw, were you forced to have this baby?  Probably not.  The majority of ProLifers continue wanted pregnancies and abort unwanted ones, as well. Which means that makes your baby, and even those of ProLifers who take the former option, a product of a ProChoice decision.

  • arekushieru

    They only want unrestricted sex and abortion.  That’s not responsibility.  It’s selfish, destructive indulgence.  And the one who pays is the baby.

    Hey, look at this: [ProLifers] only want unrestricted sex and pregnancy decisions made by and for the male partner! [If they didn't, then they wouldn't always be asking, "Well, what about the MEEEENNNZZ!". Nor would they hold the fact that there is no corollary to pregnancy in women that would force men to be just as 'responsible' as women, AGAINST women] That’s not responsibility! It’s selfish, destructive indulgence.  And the ones who pay are the woman and the baby. 

  • arekushieru

    Or, rather, allow them to avoid having to make a decision, full stop.  Because it’s the unplanned, unwanted, untenable pregnancy that creates the circumstances surrounding a stressful situation.

  • ldan

    Who says we’re justifying abortion based solely on the costs of raising a kid? It’s one factor among many that would be weighed in that decision. The article is about the way pro-life organizations frequently work to convince women to complete pregnancies by offering to help support them…trying to weigh in on the fact that costs are part of the equation those women are calculating. And then the support turns out to be some diapers and formula, maybe a car seat (that will be rapidly outgrown), rather than coming anywhere close to balancing out the actual cost.

     

    Don’t you think that babies born into crummy circumstances, particularly to parents that don’t want them, pay a harsher price than those who aren’t even born?

     

    I don’t see how aborted fetuses pay any price at all. Did the carrot I had for lunch pay a price? Its life was ended, and if all we’re talking about is life…? Or are we now weighting some life as more valuable/important than other life? I thought that was antithetical to the anti-choice position that claims a blastocyst is every bit as important as an adult?

  • arekushieru

    Nah, L-Dan.  Because that egg cell isn’t nearly as important as that blastocyst and the woman isn’t nearly as important as her egg cell.  And even within the blastocyst stage, they try to find wiggle room.  There is no way that a parasitic twin, fetus in fetu, hydatidiform molar pregnancy, etc… are as important, in the blastocyst stage, as a favourably progressing blastocyst or embryo.

  • colleen

    The fact that you mention things like laundry costs shows that you are out of touch with poor parents. When I was poor and had a baby, I sure as heck did not have access to a washing machine.

    Because people who aren’t ‘out of touch’ know that all a woman needs need to raise a child is a freeway overpass for shelter and a riverbank for the laundry.

    It’s the Republican dream!

  • colleen

    dupe

  • jenh

    Did you really just equate a human being with a carrot?  Do you truly believe your carrot was alive?

     

    “If all we’re talking about is life…?”  What a revealing statement.  Life is no big deal, eh?  At least not the baby’s life.  No loss there.

     

    Once again, pro-aborts trot out the egg cell and sperm cell lunacy, knowing full well that pro-lifers have never claimed that a single egg cell or sperm cell is a human being.  No, science confirms that the new life comes into existence at the moment the egg and sperm cells meet.  You know that, too, but it’s of no use to you to be honest in this debate.  Your “arguments” are pure sophistry.  You are intellectually dishonest.  It is a fact of science that a unique human being is created at conception.

     

    Development, viability, independence, health or utility are irrelevant to the fact that a unique human being is now already here and has the right to live.  The truth is that the child in the womb is no less valuable than her mother.  Even if the child is presently a blastocyst, or an embryo, or a fetus, or whichever classification you choose to use, the child is still a human being who has the right to live.

     

    If you truly cannot recognize that the aborted fetus has paid with her life, if you seriously think abortion is no different than eating a carrot, then you are in grave danger and I pity you.

  • prochoiceferret

    Once again, pro-aborts trot out the egg cell and sperm cell lunacy, knowing full well that pro-lifers have never claimed that a single egg cell or sperm cell is a human being.  No, science confirms that the new life comes into existence at the moment the egg and sperm cells meet.

     

    Funny, I thought science also confirmed that an egg cell and sperm cell are alive prior to fertilization.

     

    You know that, too, but it’s of no use to you to be honest in this debate.  Your “arguments” are pure sophistry.  You are intellectually dishonest.  It is a fact of science that a unique human being is created at conception.

     

    No, actually it’s not. A zygote is no more a human being than a germinated apple seed is an apple tree. But it’s cute watching otherwise intelligent human beings try to argue that it is. A bit like watching someone defend Intelligent Design.

     

    Development, viability, independence, health or utility are irrelevant to the fact that a unique human being is now already here and has the right to live.  The truth is that the child in the womb is no less valuable than her mother.  Even if the child is presently a blastocyst, or an embryo, or a fetus, or whichever classification you choose to use, the child is still a human being who has the right to live.

     

    And no matter what the blastocyst/embryo/fetus is, it does not have the right to live off the body of a woman. No more so than any other person, in fact. Sorry if this is mildly inconvenient for your misogynist ideology.

     

    If you truly cannot recognize that the aborted fetus has paid with her life, if you seriously think abortion is no different than eating a carrot, then you are in grave danger and I pity you.

     

    In grave danger of being subject to more inane anti-choice strawmen, apparently.

  • arekushieru

    What a revealing statement.  Life is no big deal, eh?  At least not the baby’s life.  No loss there.

    Oh, yes, if only women would realize that their existence is all that matters, that they’re no better than the fetus they are incubating, actually even less. [Where is a similarly enforceable cry for men?  Oh, no, that would just be imMORAL.]  No loss to a woman if her dreams, wishes, aspirations, goals, desires, hopes, wants are completely ignored in favour of the mere eXIStence of a fetus.  That her rights are so completely and easily overridden by the mere eXIStence of a fetus, when [again] you would have trouble finding circumstances where a man’s rights are overridden in such a manner.

    If you truly cannot recognize that the aborted fetus has paid with her life, if you seriously think abortion is no different than eating a carrot, then you are in grave danger and I pity you. 

    If you truly cannot recognize that a pregnant woman can and does pay with her life and her surrendered dreams, aspirations, hopes, wishes, wants, desires, if you seriously think a woman is no different than a fetus being incubated inside a woman’s body, then you are in grave danger and I pity.

    Btw, there are no ProAborts, here, nor are there any babies or children involved in abortion, unless we’re talking about someone like Lina Medina.

  • kirjava

    here’s one future abortion provider who plans to donate her Saturdays for free.  That doesn’t mean the patient will be able to have a free abortion (facility charges, etc.) but yes, some of us are willing to do this for free.  And, btw, the other medical procedures I could be performing with that time pay a damn sight more than abortion.

  • crowepps

    When I was poor and had a baby, I sure as heck did not have access to a washing machine.

    Some of us live in cold places, where the ice covers the creek in winter, and your hands get too cold using frozen rocks to bang the dirt out of the clothes.  In addition, the kids can’t be allowed to run around outdoors naked all day, and start to stink if their clothes aren’t washed.

     

    A lot of the negative implications of terms like ‘uneducated hillbillies’ actually arise from the fact that children bear lifelong scars like cognitive deficits and physical disabilities from the effects of poverty: chronic malnutrition lowers their intelligence, insufficient shelter and substandard medical care affect their health, and the minimal parental attention possible when raising eight or ten children instead of two leaves emotional scars.

     

    I suppose you have every right to choose to inflict poverty and hunger on your own children by being unwilling to be responsible about your family size, but it seems kind of foolish to try to convince other women that such a miserable, minimal existence is a desireable option for their children.

  • starrsitter

    There is no other circumstance whereby one person can be (legally) compelled to give over the use of their body or any part of it to another person.  Even if it means that person will die.  EVEN if the first person caused the need.  Why, then, do anti-choicers feel perfectly comfortable demanding this of pregnant women? 

    I’ve never gotten an answer that didn’t at least imply that pregnancy is an acceptable punishment for being a sexually active woman.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Kirjava, thank you!!!!!!!

  • ldan

    Did you really just equate a human being with a carrot?  Do you truly believe your carrot was alive?

     

    “If all we’re talking about is life…?”  What a revealing statement.  Life is no big deal, eh?  At least not the baby’s life.  No loss there.

    Err, actually, that’s your argument. It’s all about the fact that there’s a life there, right? Nevermind that the person carrying it is also a life; what they want doesn’t matter once there’s a fertilized egg? It doesn’t even have to be viable for you folks to consider it sacred, given the tizzy folks are in over contraception and the possibility that a fertilized egg might not get to implant.

     

    You go on and on about that life being ended, as if life, in and of itself, is the valuable thing.

     

    The carrot was to point out how silly all this hyperventilating over the mere fact that it’s alive is. Seriously, the carrot is, in fact, alive.

     

    Oh wait, it has human DNA! Just like tumors and the cells that I slough off every day. But it’s DNA that’s distinct from that of it’s life support! Just like fetus in fetu. I mean, what else is there about a blastocyst to get worked up about? Why should I prioritize the life of a potential person over that of an actual person in any way?

     

    What’s so special about it? Particularly when so many of them naturally never make it to birth. Without a better argument than “it’s alive!” you’re stuck with the silliness of comparing it to a carrot.

     

    Once again, pro-aborts trot out the egg cell and sperm cell lunacy

    Not I. A blastocyst is precisely that precious little life you keep talking about after fertilization. (also not a pro-abort, by the way…I’m not going to try talking anyone into one, or push them down the stairs, for goodness sake). If that precious little human being has such a powerful right to live, why don’t you go picket the IVF clinic instead of the abortion clinic? You’d save a lot more there for every woman you turned away. For that matter, push for research into why so few of them even implant. What a splendid place to put your money.

     

    But really? My life *is* more valuable. It’s an actual life, with thoughts and emotions and people who would be affected by my absence, rather than a potential life that has never been conscious, never felt a thing. What currency is that embryo paying with when it is cut off from life support? What has actually been lost? What, in fact, makes a potential life so much more valuable than actual lives that it should be allowed to force other people to act as life support for it?

     

    I don’t think you have a clue what you’re talking about when you claim our arguments are mere sophistry. You might want to look that one up.

     

     

  • ldan

    Pretty much. It all comes down to “you had sex, therefore you gave permission for your body to be used.”

     

    There are so many levels of creepy wrongness there. Starting with the whole “you gave permission for use once, now you can’t take it back,” which ties into the whole idea of sex sullying one forever. It’s why rape is only worth taking seriously when it happens to ‘good’ women in that worldview. The rest were asking for it in one way or another.

     

    I’d think that using contraception at all was pretty explicit denial of permission for gestation, as well. But no, apparently not. Once pregnant, all such issues of consent are null and void. I’m not really sure why…other than this whole sanctity of life thing that doesn’t extend to actually keeping them alive and healthy once born.

     

    Not to mention the implication that children are punishment for sex! What a wonderful way to look at them.

     

    Ugh.

  • arekushieru

    I don’t believe the carrot, itself is alive.  The plant which it ‘sprung’ from, however is.

    However, you brought up something interesting, with your mention of fetus in fetu, and potential vs actual person.  Fetus in fetu pits two potential persons against each other, yet no one seems to mind ending the life of one for no more reason than non-consent by the pregnant woman.  Why is that?  Because women ARE less than fetuses in the Anti-choice, GOP, Fundamental Christian worldview….

     

  • crowepps

    I don’t believe the carrot, itself is alive.  The plant which it ‘sprung’ from, however is.

    Carrots are a root vegetable.  So long as they are in the ground, they are alive.  When the root is pulled from the ground and the top is cut off, the carrot in one’s fist being munched on does appear to be ‘dead’ but actually you are actively killing it as you eat.

     

    Suspending the carrot in a glass of water will cause it to grow new leaves, even just putting the top in a saucer of water will produce new leaves.

     http://science-mattersblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/plants-grow-carrot-top.html

    Dead and alive are not the neat, mutually exclusive binary the anti-abortion activists want everybody to believe is reality.  Most human conceptions fail naturally and never develop all the way through to live birth.  The ones which are successful in developing deserve increasing amounts of respect as they approach successful birth.  No fetus, only alive potentially and as yet untested, deserves anywhere near the respect owed to the live woman, a completed, proven viable reproductive success.

  • arekushieru

    But, is it the aboveground, leafy parts or the vegetable, itself, that are alive and produce the new leaves, as in, have all the leafy parts actually been removed, because, it seems to me that they aren’t when I buy them fresh from the grocery store?

    Good, summation, crowepps.  Even via the most basic reproductive measurements, a woman is more valuable than the fetus.

  • crowepps

    If you put the leaves in water, I don’t think they will grow new roots.  It would be interesting to find out, though!

     

    Never have seen exactly what all the excitement is in “unique new DNA that’s never before existed!!”  Every single person on Earth has unique DNA that’s never before existed and there doesn’t seem to be any huge anxiety to make sure they all stay alive.

  • hspark

    Do you have any stats to back this up?

    PP made a $112 million profit from abortion in 2006.  

  • hspark

    Yep, its great for the children who don’t even get a chance to live.

    The women made the choice to have sex and they got pregnant.  Their choice should be whether to keep the baby or give it up for adoption, not kill it.  

  • therealistmom

    Whatever income that came from providing abortion services goes directly back into the organization to provide services, primarily the 97% of services that AREN’T ABORTION. The only reason that the numbers might appear skewed is because a $500 surgical procedure takes up more on the “books” than a $10 contraceptive prescription.

    I would like to the see the sourcing for your number as well- from an actual PP affiliated source, not an anti-choice site.

    There is a reason that PP depends on donations and federal support- because it DOESN’T MAKE MONEY.

  • therealistmom

    There are embryos and fetuses involved in abortions, but no “children”. The majority of implanted blastocysts don’t result in viable pregnancies to begin with- the human woman isn’t invested biologically in having to produce myriads of offspring. We ALREADY have 7 billion people on this planet, many of whom live in wretched conditions and die of starvation or disease. Certainly ensuring the woman “pays” for having sex is way more important than providing for born children right?

  • elburto

    Here’s their dream, 17 year old Heather with her twin babies Millstone and Sufferance, living in a tent city under an overpass with other young women like her. Their babies are neither loved nor wanted, their parents unable to provide for them. But money for food and matches has to come from somewhere, so every night half of the women stand by the side of the road, waiting for the very people who put them in this position, entitled misogynist men, to abuse their bodies and dignity all over again, for pocket change.

    The Republic*nt Dream there, poor women as slaves and convenient orifices to unload into on the drive back from the office, because the little wifey at home is exhausted from having had six kids in as many years.

    The tent city kids, uneducated and sick, can then be put into abusive foster homes to prepare them for their ultimate goal and reason for being – cannon fodder and grist for the Republicunt war mills. No more nice, white, middle class kids being killed in pointless, unfair oil wars, just the poor, the weak, the unwanted, whose mothers will consider their early deaths a blessing, because they’ve been saved from the theocratic United. States of Dystopia.

  • ldan

    You realize that a huge percentage of those ‘children’ are killed by natural processes during the first 13 weeks of gestation? Nobody much mourns the flushed blastocysts that never had a chance to live.

     

    I still never get an answer for why agreeing to have sex = agreeing to provide my body as life support when no other such action equals that sort of contract. Even if my actions (accidentally or on purpose) harm someone, I’m not on the hook for bodily life support or even a blood donation. But somehow sex is different?

     

    Now, if your actual goal is controlling female sexuality so that they return to a place where they’re far more constrained by biology than men are, well, then your position makes complete sense. It’s vile, but at least it makes sense.

  • ldan

    The leaves will not. But leaving a few tiny ones on the root top will help it sprout more leaves faster because they are creating some energy to fuel the process. Roots gather water and nutrients, leaves gather energy. Thus they support each other and work together. This is also why many weeds are going to come back over and over (and over…and…yes, it’s spring and I’m sick of pulling them). They store a lot of the leaves’ energy in their taproot and can use it to keep resprouting.

     

    Life is a lot more complicated when you don’t need black and white answers. Strangely, abortion becomes a much more nuanced thing too when you don’t just require the simple binary of life=good, dead=bad. And even that is giving credit to folks who only use that argument because it gets them more traction than ‘women should be afraid of sex, they need to carry babies to remind them that sex is dangerous to them and should be curtailed’.

  • ldan

    Not too worried about the quibble. Even if the root were dead, it had to be pulled out of the ground, thus killing it, to make it to my table. So maybe I didn’t actually kill it by chomping into it, but it died for me. (oh hey, I can use carrots to segue into Jesus as avatar of the nearly universal dying-and-reborn god of agricultural mythology and probably piss some other troll off.)

  • rebellious-grrl

    I call it anti-choice capitalism, when anti-choice groups make money off of abortion. I don’t think Stanek has made her income tax returns public so can’t give you a number on that. Like other anti-choice groups and leaders she has a shopping section to make purchases on her website. She probably makes money from speaking fees, unless she works for free. So hence making money from abortion.

    See the article, ‘Egg-as-Person’ Crusade Drives Big Money to Anti-choice Groups. http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/08/17/eggasperson-crusade-drives-big-money-antichoice-groups

     

    Anti-choicers do nothing to reduce the number of abortions. “They need abortion like firefighters need fires” – Charlotte Taft (RHRC writer) “the so-called Right To Life movement is the hoax of the century.”  http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/09/15/antichoice-hoax-century

     

    PP does far, far more than Stanek could ever do to reduce the number of abortions. Anti-choicers are hypocrites!

  • kj

    And speaking of someone who is studying to be a therpist right now, I can tell you that those scars are difficult, if not impossible to treat.  They lead to life long issues with relationships and impede a person’s ability to function as a whole person.  Even if the child recieves proper food and shelter, if a parent is emotionally unavalible, that child will have issues.  It isn’t pretty and it is super difficult to treat.  And, of course, if republicans get their way and cut mental health funding, there won’t be anyway to treat those kids- free clinic are already overwhelmed and staffed by unpaid interns, but if funding is cut, they will close altogether, leaving very ill people with no help.

  • lindseyadopted

    i dont understand why some people are so against gettting government help but yet they are for killing their unborn child. it makes no sense.. if you need the help take it thats what its there for. a young girl without help can get it this way. give the child up for adoption and you dont have any expenses! and you can still attend college or school wheather you keep the baby or not. have  you seen the abortion videos on youtube. there is one that actually shows it happening and shows the ultrasound of the baby at 12 weeks old trying to move away from the instrument thats trying to invade their home it shows the mouth wide oopen in a silent scream. can you imagine being trapped and having your arms and legs ripped off your body! or having someone poor solution on you to burn you to death or worse yet to think yay im coming into the world i can feel the eair on my skin .. o wait why are you turning me around this feels strange then bam!! the  dr cuts the baby neck and sucks out the brains from the skull!!! how is that better than making some sacrifices and giving your child life?  i was adoptd as a baby and we got my brother at a day old. and my sis in law wanted to abort her baby and i stopped her thank God!!!  and now she is the most beautiful little girl… everyone has circumstances that will prevent them from doing what they want or things that tell them they cant do it. but i would die For my children! i wouldnt let me child Die so I could have a easier life!!!!!!!!!!

  • forced-birth-rape

    ~ Young girls do not have to have extreme unwanted vaginal pain to give the republicans, the christians, and pro-forced-birthers their sadomasochistic, misogynistic, pleasure.

     

    Can you imagine a woman, little girl, raped woman, or raped little girl being forced to have something bigger then a bag of sugar forced in or out of her vagina against her will, that is sexual torture. Imagine her having to anticipate it for nine months when she is scared of it.

     

    Women and little girls are just cunts to you people.

     

    Women and girls do not have to serve their vaginas up to be used and abused to satisfy you people who think all females are for is sex, babies, and serving christian wife beater men.

     

    My mother was beat by my christian asshole father because I cried when I was sick as a baby, me being born did not do me or my mother any favors. Because I was born me and my mother both had shit lives. ~

  • beenthere72

    I don’t understand why some people are against having the government help the poor, women and children get healthcare, etc, yet are in favor of forcing women and children to carry every pregnancy to term.   

  • crowepps

    Having used pregnancy to identify the ‘slutty’ women, and inflicted the punishment of childbirth on women for having sex, it really drives the message home if they are punished for being ‘improvident’ by having to watch the children starve afterwards.

  • ldan

    A 12-week old fetus has nothing resembling the nervous system to be able to be afraid or fear pain, even if (as evidence strongly suggests) they weren’t in a state of constant sedation until after birth. Can you imagine how horrible the process of being born would otherwise be to a full-term infant with all of the brainpower and fully-functioning nerves of a newborn?

     

    There are a ton of changes that occur at birth that do draw a line between existence pre- and post-birth. Watching a organism squirm from stimuli requires the nerves of a planaria; attributing emotion and thought to it is much like seeing faces in the mountains of Mars. It’s our brains matching what we see to patterns we already know.

     

    Otherwise, if it’s all about the pain and terror, I’m afraid that it should be abortions for all…after all, dying out as a species is a small price to pay to avoid inflicting the pain of birth on every single person who enters the world, right? It’s far worse than anything remotely possible in the vast majority of abortions. Something like 1-3% of abortions happen in the zone where this is even slightly controversial.

     

    If you think they’re thinking things like “yay im [sic] coming into the world…” you’re simply delusional and anthropomorphizing something you know very little about.

     

    Women are not required to give their energy, time, and possibly health and life, to gestate infants for the adoption industry. Pregnancy is not simply a matter of deciding to carry and magically poofing a baby into exisistence. You erase all of the issues that can be faced during pregnancy by implying that it’s that simple; which is disrespectful of the work and sacrifice made by those who do chose to *give* the gift of life.

  • arekushieru

    The man made a choice to have sex and they got pregnant… oh… wait….  That’s right, men CAN’T get pregnant.  Sucks to be you if you have a uterus, then, although there’s not sexist or misogynist about that, AT ALL. /snark

    Btw, abortion doesn’t kill.

  • equalist

    Let’s use the same argument for elderly people who need medicine, oxygen machines, etc.  Sorry, folks, it costs too much to keep you alive so we’re cutting you off.

    Obviously you’ve never seen how the medical community treats those with insufficient or no health insurance because yeah, that’s exactly what happens.

  • equalist

    Maybe then you forgot the cost of laundry soap and water and how increased use of both factor into costs of raising a child?  As for people raising children for thousands of years without needing those things, you’re right, they did.  Now just look at the deathrates of children in the past few hundred years before some of the more modern tools for child rearing came out.  Things like childproofing equipment to keep precious little bundles from tumbling down stairs, climbing into refrigerators, drinking cleaning solutions, and cutting themselves open on kitchen knives.  Those aren’t free you know.  Same with car seats that shouldn’t be bought used for safety reasons, but get outgrown at an insane rate unless you have the means to get the really expensive convertable ones.  As for diapers, initial cost and replacement for ones that get washed to death is EXPENSIVE.  Granted, not as expensive as disposable, but then most daycares refuse to use cloth diapers, and if you’ve got a single mother who relies on daycare so she can work and feed herself and baby, then she’s stuck following the daycare rules.  There’s also clothes, and yes, even clothes at a thrift store can be massively expensive when you’re talking buying en masse, which you are when it comes to children who suddenly don’t fit in anything they own anymore (happens about every three months for YEARS for the record).  Children go through clothes at an insane rate, especially babies unless you prefer to keep yours in the same feet pajamas smeared with breakfast, snack, lunch, and the occasional leaky diaper.  That’s a healthy suggestion right there.  And none of that even goes into health care costs, which more than the occasional doctor visit or vaccination (which are expensive to the extreme if you don’t have insurance, or your insurance sucks) but we’re also talking fever reducers and other over the counter meds, thermometers and other medical equipment that seems minor but can be insanely expensive when added up and none of which are covered under most health care plans.   Face it.  Kids are expensive, even when you’re not buying the latest and greatest.  It’s not consumerism, it’s providing for the health and safety of the children you’re trying to force people to bring into the world.  Think about it this way, what’s the point of fighting so hard for that fetus to be brought into the world if the parents can’t afford the necessary things (even beyond safety equipment and sanitary conditions like clean clothes and diapers to things like food and shelter) to keep him/her here?

  • equalist

    A woman giving up a child for adoption still has to go through a minimum of six weeks from work for recovery from the birth, devistating if she’s a single mother who already has children who need that paycheck to keep coming in.  And it’s even longer if there are complications and she has to be put on bedrest to keep her body from aborting the fetus on its own.  She still has to go through any dangers to her own health, life, and future fertility that may arrise from complications during the pregnancy.  I gave up my son for adoption, and honestly that was one of the things that terrified me most, was something going wrong during the pregnancy or delivery that would prevent me from ever having other children later in life.  I had nightmares regularly about having to tell the wonderful couple anxiously awaiting his birth so they could take him home that something had gone wrong, and since he was my only chance to give birth to and raise a child of my own, I’d changed my mind and was going to keep him.  Then there’s the issue of schooling for the girl or woman who chooses to give up a child for adoption.  If she has to drop out or misses too many classes in college due to bedrest or recovery time, most of the time, financial aid, grants, student loans and scholarships that allow her the opportunity to continue her education will disappear, and along with them, most of her chances to return to school to finish her education.  A girl or woman who gives up a child for adoption still has to live with the lifelong changes to her body that come with pregnancy.  We’re not just talking the loss of her figure here either.   Because of my three pregnancies, I have lingering back and hip issues that cause excruciating pain at times.  Because of a negative reaction to all prenatal vitamins that my doctor could think to recommend, and a severe reaction to most substances high in calcium (mostly milk and milk products, but even some lactose free and soy milks with added calcium), my pregnancies stripped my body of calcium to provide for my children.  As a result most of my teeth are crumbling due to lack of calcium and I shudder to think of the condition of my bones.  I also went from healthy iron levels before my first pregnancy to anemic during and for up to a year after each of my pregnancies.  These are perminant or long term changes to a woman’s body that can’t be aleviated by handing the product of the pregnancy that causes them over to someone else to raise.  Relinquishing a child will not suddenly fill her bank account with paychecks missed because of pregnancy, or pay bills that fell behind during that time.  Choosing to allow another family to raise her child will not suddenly return the funding options to the table that were lost due to her pregnancy.  A woman may choose adoption as an alternitive to abortion and still suffer many of the same circumstances that were cause for her to consider abortion in the first place, either for the short term, or as perminent results.

  • beenthere72
  • arekushieru

    I LOVE that article, beenthere!

  • amysays

    http://adoptioncritic.com/

     

    Read some of this blog. (I know you won’t, but I tried). I was adopted and suffer serious psychological effects primarily due to being an adoptee. And I was adopted by a “perfect, married, wealthy, Christian couple”. Women are not required to birth babies just so someone else can have the baby they “always wanted”. It is rarely a “choice”, for the original mother. I’m sure there are adoptees out there who are perfectly fine, but there are many others who are not. And my mom (first mom) was also not ok. She suffered severe depression and attempted suicide because she could not get over her loss. She was talked out of an abortion because it was “morally wrong” to her family, and then talked out of parenting because she “wasn’t fit to be a mother”. Way to get babies for sale. If I were aborted I wouldn’t be here to care, and maybe she could have had a good life. 

  • arekushieru

    I think you missed the whole point of the blog.  This article was about whether anti-choicers would put up or shut up if they were told to pay for all the costs of the resulting children that they ‘saved’ from abortion, whether that be through adoption or the financial, emotional and physical supports that birth parents would need to raise their own child.

  • equalist

    I think the issue here is that you’re talking about a woman who was “talked out of” anything.  That’s not choice, that’s pressure and coersion at best, and force at worst.  My son’s adoption was a wonderful experience for me because it was my choice completely.  I made the decision for adoption, I selected his family, and I made sure everything went the way I needed it to go for me to be secure in the decision.  A girl I knew at the time had also given a child for adoption, and had intense issues from the experience because she wasn’t given the choice to make her own decision.  Whereas my son’s adoption was celebrated in the delivery room by myself, my family, and his adoptive family, along with the nursing staff and doctors at the hospital where he was born, my friend’s adoption was a secret thing, something that wasn’t talked about during the delivery, and was never spoken of after it happened.  When she brought up the issues she had regarding her adoption to her family, she was assured that “it was for the best”, and the issue was dropped, leaving her unsure, questioning and wondering.  The issue wasn’t that adoption was the problem, it was how it was handled.  It wasn’t her decision, it was her family’s, which left her uncomfortable with the whole situation and turned it into a bad experience for her.  The fact is, this can be the case whether the choice is made for adoption, abortion, or parenting.  A woman who isn’t allowed to make her own choice is going to be uncomfortable and unhappy with the choice that’s made.

  • arekushieru

    Equalist, that’s exactly my cousin and his wife’s experience with the whole process of adoption.  From the time she discovered she was pregnant, she and her husband made sure that the couple they eventually chose to relinquish their twins to would (be able to) keep them in contact with the children and give the children any information they may have requested on the matter.

  • amysays

    Who is this in response to? 

  • arekushieru

    It’s indented farther than your post and right underneath it, so I would say you.

  • equalist

    I think a lot of people don’t realize that’s an option, but there are a lot of adoptive families out there willing to maintain contact with birth parents, or unwilling to if that’s the birthmother’s (and birthfather’s) preference.

  • amysays

    I understand that it is indented and “technically” is a response to me, I just thought it had to be a mistake and that you accidentally clicked reply to me. I’m not sure what in the world you though I was referencing… I was not commenting WHATSOEVER on the blog, nor was I criticizing  he original posting–I thought it was great. I was responding to LindsayAdopt or whatever (it is indented further than her post, although there are many other responses to her comment as well, so it did get a little lost), when she made a comment along the lines of “you can always give the baby up for adoption” which is a major trigger for me getting pissed off. Pro-Choice and anti-“current adoption system” people like me who are also adoptees tend to get annoyed at those who think adoption is a “simple” trade off for abortion. 

     

     

     

     

  • arekushieru

    My apologies!  I gathered from the way the comments were staggered that you were commenting on the original article.  But, you’re right, with all the other comments that preceded it, it did get a little lost.  Context makes all the difference in some cases, is all I can say….  Again, my apologies!

  • ack

    You have to be pretty savvy to know that or figure out that you need to ask for it, though. A lot of women and girls have gotten involved in adoption wanting to know the child without the child knowing her. The letters and photos stop. Phone calls stop. Updates stop. It has to actually be in the contract for her to have standing in a lot of cases, and for underprivileged groups of females, that’s a lot to expect.

  • arekushieru

    Which still seems to place the interests of anyone else above that of the child….

  • ack

    I totally agree. At the same time, however, I can recognize that adoptive parents might think they’re prepared for a prolonged connection when they’re not. Serious counseling needs to be done with people (both the person who gave birth and the person/s who adopt) to figure out what kind of adoption is right for them.

     

    And no, Branjelina, that doesn’t generally include collecting children from developing countries when you could have, you know, provided clean drinking water or economic opportunities for the WHOLE FUCKING VILLAGE.

  • crowepps

    The post overall is actually about the idea that adopting will help solve overpopulation/the environment but she talks about adoption from the trenches and has some really great insights — one snippet: 

    For most people who want a baby, what they want is partly the baby, and partly the sense of hope and possibility, the openness and the rich future. Any child given up for adoption has already experienced at least one major trauma and loss – that may or may not affect them signficantly down the line, but what we know about adoption is that that loss is not invisible. Older children often have experienced many of those losses and traumas – while it is in some measure an illusion that even birth children have infinite possibilities, that is even clearer with adoptive children. And adoptive parents need parents who are prepared to acknowledge and deal with the fact that they may be a signifier and a site of hope for their families, but they have already experienced trauma and loss that are real to them. We know from previous generations of adoptees that pretending the birth family never existed, pretending the loss of first parents didn’t hurt is a bad idea – but not everyone who wants a child is fully prepared to shift their expectations.

     

    http://scienceblogs.com/casaubonsbook/2011/05/you_should_just_adopt_is_adopt.php