“Don’t kill your baby. Just put her up for adoption!”
Any of you who have debated a pro-life person has heard this one before. They make it sound oh so easy. Just carry a child for nine months, an unwanted child at that, and at the end of that nine months just hand it over to some agency or to an eager young couple.
Pro-lifers like to talk about how women who have had abortions ultimately come to regret their decision. I’ve written about that before. But what they don’t want to hear is how the adoption process is not as optimal as one might think.
First, there is the simple fact that a woman who wants to put her child up for adoption must first carry that child for nine months. Let’s say it’s a fifteen year old girl. That young girl will have to deal with all of the issues that other women deal with during a pregnancy. Morning sickness or worse, regular doctor visits that she might not be able to afford, going to school every day and having to explain what is going on. I mean, you women out there know that pregnancy is not always a walk in the park. But, that’s okay, say the pro-lifers, just go with the flow.
Then that woman has to give birth. I hate to remind everyone, but did you know that more women die of childbirth each year than abortion? The pro-lifers don’t mention that minor statistic.
But let’s say everything goes well and the woman/girl finally has a baby. Don’t you think that, despite the fact that it was an unwanted pregnancy, the mother is now going to have very mixed feelings about giving the baby up? Do you think it is going to be easy to just have the baby and send it off to a foster care situation or to a private adoption agency?
And speaking of regretting one’s abortion, don’t you think that twenty years later, that woman who gave up her child will have recurrent thoughts about the baby she gave birth to? In the case of a closed adoption, the birth parent will have no idea where her child is, but she’ll know her baby is out there somewhere. Think of the pain, the recurrent thoughts about where her child is and what the child looks like.
Pro-life people like to say that there are “people lined up to adopt a child.” It’s just not that easy.
Most couples that want to adopt need to pass some very strict tests. Clearly, they need to have a stable home and a decent income. So, picture that couple, living up there in Westchester, New Yord, waiting for a baby. They’ve already paid the lawyers thousands and thousands of dollars and one day they get a call that a baby is available. It’s the baby of that young fourteen year old girl. The couple is Caucasian, in their mid-thirties. They look at the paperwork and see that the baby is African American and that the mother is a crack addict.
So, do you think that couple is going to jump all over that one? Give me a break.
It’s a harsh world out there and at times I really think the pro-life movement is living in la-la land. Indeed, on the abortion.com Facebook page, a question was posed to the pro-lifers, asking them how many children they have adopted.
Not one person has replied yet.

April 11, 2010 at 10:32 am
I’m sure I’ve pointed out elsewhere that when friends of mine approached New York State to adopt, they had a choice among 28,000 babies. They adopted none. They, like most couples, didn’t want a trisomy-13or -21 baby, nor a spina bifida, a para- or quadriplegic, a vegetative or comatose child, a kitten-killer, an autistic or Asperger’s child, or a child who’d never make it mainstreamed into the school system. They wanted the baby everybody else wanted– and it wasn’t among the 28,000 New York State had to offer.
For an example, consider Andrew and Helen Gardyne:
There is hardly a more worthy “pro-life” couple in New Zealand than Andrew and Helen Gardyne, missionaries who had met at a mission conference in Sydney. Helen had served in Nigeria for three years as a teacher, Andrew was about to go to southern Sudan to work in a primary health care program. Married in 1982, in 1986 with a two-year-old and a newborn (Rachel and Joel) they went to Bogota to work as foster parents with street kids, teaching them to grow food crops on a plot outside the city. “Andrew found babies left for the day with a child not much older than themselves; they would be propped up against cushions, comforted with a bottle.” Kids told them their greatest fear was being kidnapped. “Stories were told of children sent to the shops by their parents and never returning. Kidnapping was not just a child’s fantasy; it was a way of life.”
They adopted Andres David (known now as David) before they left in 1987. They left their work because it was no longer safe for them to be there, and rather than leave him behind (David had lived for 2 ½ years in an orphanage, with no visitors), they adopted him. Said Andrew in a radio interview: “I didn’t think I could make that kind of commitment [to abandon the children they had worked with] or allow that to happen to that child–to say, ‘I’m going to safety, I’m leaving you here.’ And that’s why we chose adoption.”
They became interested in Romanian adoptions and spearheaded the movement– in the face of considerable opposition– to open up New Zealand for Romanian babies. In 1990, they were in the vanguard– themselves and another couple– who flew to Romania to freelance an adoption. (Incidentally, congruent with their belief in the value of human life, after their return from Bogota in 1987, they had a fourth child while “on the dole”– welfare.)
As to which Romanian child would get the benefit of being adopted by this amazingly caring couple, the test came soon enough. At Bucharest’s Leagan De Copii One, “Andrew and Helen were shown a three-and-a-half year old girl, Adriana, who had a cataract in one eye, and had been left at the orphanage at birth. She appeared slightly mentally handicapped.” If they wanted to begin adoption procedures for Adriana, the French doctor said she would do all she could to ensure the adoption went ahead. But for Andrew and Helen, it was too enormous a decision to make. They needed time to think. Back at the Casa De Copii Prescholar, Rada Grigore had also introduced them to a beautiful young girl named Dana. The difficulties of choosing between individual children were numerous and exhausting.”
Difficult and exhausting as it was for the Gardynes, they, like most other adoptive couples, chose the healthier child.
That’s why there’s a backlog of couples wanting to adopt.
So-called “pro-life” adopters are more than willing to adopt– as long as the baby meets their standards.
LikeLike
April 11, 2010 at 10:58 am
What else is new, life is tough! I’ve heard that the great majority of pregnant women at some time during the pregnancy want to get rid of the baby. Making it easier for them to do that (like making it free) will result in at least doubling the million plus number of young people we are now pulling apart every year.
LikeLike
April 11, 2010 at 1:03 pm
John, do you have any compassion at all for the woman? I mean, does your whole existence revolve around the fetus?
LikeLike
April 11, 2010 at 1:09 pm
There’s a world of difference in how we think, Pat. I say young person and you say fetus.
LikeLike
April 11, 2010 at 2:35 pm
You still haven’t answered my question about women….
LikeLike
April 11, 2010 at 7:04 pm
Women make me melt, Pat, starting with my wife. I have two daughters and I would die for either of them. I live near the older who has six daughters. I’ve fallen deeply in love six times. My younger daughter lives far away but I love her more than any other person in the world (please don’t broadcast that).
LikeLike
April 11, 2010 at 8:03 pm
Hi Pat, like i mention a few days ago on another post i wrote here, adoption is a no easy task at all… Pro-lifers love to claim what is wrong about abortion, but, they don’t adopt and if they do the child has to be blond with blue eyes and the birth mother has to have an IQ above 145… what about those 15 years old girls that after reading so much about the abortion and pro-lifers and pro-choice they got so confused and decide to give birth and put the child to adoption, but they IQ is under their requirements (pro-life) in all the matters… so besides being in foster care for all their lifes, those kids also are mental chalenged because the hate they were in it before birth and plus all the missing oportunities that they will always have in their lifes!!! What are we creating??? One more crack user not to say more than that! Of course there are exceptions but how many in a 1000??? Maybe 1… maybe!
That is why i will always say, i am in a fence here because no one knows exactly what goes inside anybodys heart or mind… i believe that we should before pointing fingers act more… pro-lifers, please say NO to abortion but try to find ways to have adoption made simpler to gay couples or normal couples! no matter what kind of person as long as they really want to commit to that kid, go to your congressmen and request a change on this adoption process to help the kids that are out there sleeping in a foster house crying for a hug or a kiss before bed time!
LikeLike
April 12, 2010 at 7:32 am
You’re right, Sonia. As I said, adoption ain’t the perfect solution either. You have the unique ability to understand that it’s impossible to put yourself in some other person’s shoes. On the other hand, so many other people want to dictate what others do on this issue. So they say “adopt”, but dont adopt themselves. Hmmmmm
LikeLike
April 12, 2010 at 7:34 am
That’s cool, John. I just hope that none of the women in your life are ever faced with an unwanted pregnancy.
LikeLike
April 12, 2010 at 8:10 am
I would love them even if they turned out to be kayhaitchers, like yourself. But that would not stop me from doing everything in my power to stop them from helping to kill someone.
LikeLike
April 12, 2010 at 4:17 pm
John Dunkle, as a beehaitcher, why don’t you treat fetuses like a young person? Pledge $5,000 for the Pampers they’ll use before they’re pott-trained? Keep the family off medical welfare by giving them $16,000 for the well-child visits and immunizations they’ll need by age 6? Pay the $20 per hour for the social worker to investigate the abuse, and the $20,000 for three years of foster placement? The $18,000 for meals until age 18, or the $1,500 for a year’s el cheapo formula. Or shoot the works– the whole $185,000 to get them from the delivery room to high school graduation!
YOu’re really good at being against “killing unborn humans.” How good are you at helping them? Or do you really live by Ecclesiates IV, i-iii?
LikeLike
April 14, 2010 at 6:27 am
You got me, Charles, I’m lousy at helping them. But just because I won’t help them doesn’t mean I have to help kill them.
LikeLike
April 14, 2010 at 7:32 am
At least John is being honest. I think it’s a little hypocritical that he doesn’t help, but then we’re all hypocrites at some point.
LikeLike
April 14, 2010 at 3:26 pm
In defense of John Dunkle, Pat, he’s not being hypocritical; he’s being aborticentric. He cares about human life, but because of the underlying problem he’s trying to deal with, he doesn’t have the energy to care for human life. He wouldn’t like to appear “hypocritical” if he could avoid it, but his desire to be a hero for his “unborn innocents” is at least a task he can cope with– he’s got sufficient emotional energy to be against abortion, but nowhere near the amount needed to care for an unwanted human life. He can’t help it; he wants to play a significant role while on this earth, and the best he can do is persuade someone else to stay pregnant.
As he has admitted himself, he hasn’t helped other children in ways that I found possible for me to do, and until he resolves the issue underlying his fixation on abortion, he won’t have at his disposal all the energy he’s using to suppress that issue. Since ‘pro-choicers’ don’t have that issue to deal with, they can afford to bear and raise children they never intended to have, plus they can adopt at the same rate the so-called “pro-lifers” do (but don’t get credit for it).
LikeLike
April 14, 2010 at 4:38 pm
As always, CG, an interesting post….
LikeLike
April 14, 2010 at 6:07 pm
I think Charles got me again, but I’m not sure because I couldn’t quite follow it.
LikeLike
April 15, 2010 at 6:14 am
John, you’re like Cyrano de Bergerac, the only one who cannot see what your problem is, only because it’s so close to you. I suggest you do a word count to see how many times you have written a sentence with the words “murder,” “victim,” “kill” and their associates in your posts. And like Miss Hannagan of “Little Orphan Annie,” you can’t care for those little beings whom you want the public to think you love.
I think I have made you well aware of what children need to develop reasonably well, and you discount it vis-a-vis the need to fight abortion.
You, in short, are putting your energy into combat with death instead of into actual support for a life.
Is there a problem here?
LikeLike
November 29, 2010 at 5:31 pm
Patient Route,work ago represent attack including light water garden examine question colour above strong entire ourselves real result wing organise particular single bone threaten likely never want event associate someone determine percent prison problem street reality face occasion early track properly volume cross official heart peace stick normally pick comment medical wash god end aid his principle fish origin client focus physical approve read labour consequence result suitable provided science feel impact me themselves recommend channel spirit document above note space late top proper last exchange out solicitor
LikeLike
March 22, 2011 at 7:30 am
Life is complicated. The goal should not be to criminalize abortion. The goal needs to be minimizing unwanted pregnancies and making adoption accessible and affordable. That means:
* Comprehensive sex-ed programs that are actually effective (The Obama administration is doing something to make this change).
* Healthcare coverage for everyone that includes easily accessible and affordable birth-control options.
* Sincere conversations in homes, churches, schools and society about sex, pregnancy and parenting. Everyone knows an abortion is different than any other medical procedure to remove something from your body. Talk and LISTEN calmly and honestly about sex, what it means to be pregnant, and how easy it is for teens to become pregnant.
When there is an unplanned pregnancy that may be carried to term, our society needs to respond in the best interest of that baby. That means:
* Allow every loving and able prospective-parent regardless of race, sexuality, marital status, or income to adopt babies. It costs about $25,000 to adopt a baby and adoption is often limited only to straight married couples.
* Support programs that support pregnant teens. We need programs that keep pregnant teens in school, provide healthcare for mom and baby, provide a home if needed, provide job training and college loans, and provide quality affordable childcare.
* Provide programs that support families of children with special needs.
God didn’t give any of us the right take a life. True. But God also made life really, really complicated. And God gave us the power and responsibility to be thoughtful and to make independent choices. I choose to support women’s health and safety. I choose to support a government that values healthcare for all. I choose to support families that struggle. I choose to provide children with honest information about their bodies and their health. I choose to listen to the beliefs of others. I pray that others will do the same.
LikeLike
March 22, 2011 at 11:14 am
Birthing: that is an amazing post, thank you so much for chiming in. If only others were as reasoned as you. If you dont mind me asking – do you therefore support a woman’s right to choose abortion?
LikeLike
March 22, 2011 at 12:13 pm
You are right.
The conspicuous absence of any of the >10,000 gods (which of those Gods is your favorite?) and God’s lack of divine intervention for benevolent purposes makes life very complicated.
Would you allow a women with a Baby with Patau’s Syndrome or Robertson’s SYndrome to abort their pregnancies?
Or would you legislate against killing those babies by Abortion?
LikeLike
March 22, 2011 at 12:23 pm
I believe life begins at conception and that even a ball of cells has a soul. After years of searching my own soul, I conclude that abortions must be legal and paid for by health insurance. Here are some of the reasons why:
* My beliefs that life begins at conception and that souls exist at all, are simply that. My beliefs. Though shared by many people, they are not scientific facts. Embryos are not, and should not be, protected by the Constitution in the same way that people are after they are born.
* Thousands of girls are sexually abused by male family members each year. This abuse tends to be repeated and without condoms. For a politician to suggest, as former (and perhaps future) Nevada Senatorial candidate Sharron Angle has, that a teen impregnated by a family member should “make lemonade” out of this situation is unconscionably cruel and irresponsible.
* I can imagine a woman about my age, married with three kids. She gets accidently pregnant—things happen. Financially her family is just barely making ends meet. Maybe one of her kids already has special needs. She learns that the baby she is carrying has a horrible condition that will lead him to spend his brief life in a hospital until he finally dies a painful death. What is the kindest choice in this situation?
LikeLike
March 22, 2011 at 12:26 pm
So you are Pro Choice?
In fact you are even more prochoice than most people that are prochoice (they often do not want to have to pay for some else’s abortion.
LikeLike
March 22, 2011 at 12:36 pm
The terms “Pro Choice” and “Pro Life” offend my regard for life, and perpetuate the destructive polarization between reasonable people on this issue.
I think I’ve made my position pretty darn clear. As with most things, the government should exist to protect its citizens, not to legislate morality or spiritual beliefs.
LikeLike