“Please don’t kill your baby! You can put it up for adoption!”
This is a common chant that women seeking abortion services are subjected to as they walk into their local abortion facility. Those “sidewalk counselors” with too much time on their hands love to “inform” women of that option, which of course implies that women are just vacuous and ignorant about their choices in the first place. Indeed, when I think about it, the woman will also get (real) counseling on her options once she enters the facility. Is that insulting to that woman? Hmmmmm….fodder for another blog perhaps?
What many people don’t realize is that most abortion clinics in this country have lists of adoption agencies right in their office if the woman decides to utilize that option. Some clinics even have their own adoption agencies as well.
When I was active in the pro-choice movement, I always enjoyed asking pro-life leaders how many children they had adopted. My thinking was that, since they promoted it as a more welcome option than abortion, they surely walked the walk and adopted babies themselves. But, with one exception that I could remember, the reply was always that they hadn’t adopted. They all had the same lame excuse that they were going to adopt but they couldn’t do it at that time, blah, blah. Putting aside their total hypocrisy for a moment, let’s talk about the adoption option and how it’s not always the best thing since sliced bread.
First of all, it means that the woman has to carry the child for nine months. Now, to those pro-lifers who believe that the woman is just a breeder reactor anyway, that doesn’t sound like much of a problem. But any pregnancy is wrought with problems, physically or emotionally, and so adoption subjects them to those potential issues.
Then, after the baby is born, the woman has to hand it over to strangers. Let’s face it, even though the baby was not wanted in the first place, it’s got to be very difficult for the woman to carry the baby for nine months then hand it over to someone else. There are so many conflicting emotions that she has to deal with.
Third, once she does hand the baby over to someone else, chances are the woman will be thinking about that child for the rest of her life. Anti-abortion folks like to suggest that women ultimately come to regret their abortions. Well, there are many women who come to regret putting up their children for adoption also.
Fourth, from the child’s perspective, sometimes learning that she is adopted does not do a lot for that child’s self esteem. Indeed, in my day it was a downright embarrassment to have been adopted. It was evidence that you were not wanted by your birth mother. Today, adoption is more acceptable but there still are so many possible emotional ramifications.
The bottom line is that adoption can lead to both great joy and tremendous pain. It is a matter to be taken seriously and, despite the implorations of the pro-life movement, carrying a child for nine months and handing it over to a stranger is just not that simple.
Like the other options, it is not perfect and it should be left up to the woman to decide which one is best for her.

September 2, 2012 at 3:53 pm
Love this, Pat. There’s plenty of scholarly evidence to suggest that abortion is not always the best answer. And having witnessed a young woman hand over her infant, even though she believed it was for the best, came at an especially painful cost. This young woman was a patient of mine (in my former life as an OB nurse) and gave up her daughter because she had just started her career in business. When she handed the child over to the lawyer, outside the hospital, I thought I’d never stop wailing. It was so incredibly sad. My own cousin, pregnant at 18, was forced by her mother to give up her child for adoption. She and her daughter reconnected 32 years later because the daughter needed medical information. They were able to spend another four years getting to know each other whlle daughter under went all manner of heroic cancer treatments.
And while I have friends who have adopted two Chinese girls and are one big happy family, the girls still hurt that their biological mothers abandoned them.
There’s no easy answer. But one thing is certain…the thugs who lurk outside abortion clinics have NO business interferring especially because they promote misinformation and, all too often, lies.
LikeLike
September 2, 2012 at 5:21 pm
Erratum:
My intention was to write that adoption is not always the best answer.
LikeLike
September 4, 2012 at 8:36 am
Thanks, Kate, for sharing those personal stories. It’s always easy for folks to get caught up in the general rhetoric but when you hear individual stories, it shows that it’s not fair to make sweeping generalizations.
LikeLike
September 2, 2012 at 4:25 pm
This is another of those “life is tough so let’s kill people” articles. For the child anything is better than the death penalty. For the adult anything is better than employing the death penalty.
LikeLike
September 4, 2012 at 8:39 am
John, you say “anything is better” than abortion. I really wonder if you really think that? You’re not a dumb man, you’ve experienced a lot of life. Can you not admit that there are many, many women (including several that I know personally) that are “okay” after they had an abortion? Now, I know you first reaction will be that “the baby is not okay”. I get it, I get it. But now that you’ve talked about “the adult”, it is simply not true that “anything is better than (abortion.” If you insist it’s true, prove it please
LikeLike
September 4, 2012 at 8:50 am
I can’t prove it but I think it’s obvious. Raping is horrible, stealing is horrible, bullying is horrible, pederasty is horrible, homosexual acts are horrible, torturing is horrible, “contraception” is horrible, solo masturbation is horrible, but killing somebody else is the worst thing you can do.
LikeLike
September 4, 2012 at 5:38 pm
Why don’t you tell your friends in the anti abortion christian terrorist movement that “killing somebody else is the worst thing you can do.”
LikeLike
September 4, 2012 at 6:33 pm
Don’t play games with me, Evi. You can defend yourself forcefully if someone is attacking you. You can, even better, defend me forcefully if someone is attacking me.
LikeLike
September 9, 2012 at 12:29 pm
That reply makes no sense given the question.
LikeLike
September 11, 2012 at 6:00 pm
It would make sense, Evi, if you were able to read.
LikeLike
September 2, 2012 at 4:58 pm
Another great article Pat.
Thanks for revealing the misguided thoughts of the Anti Abortion movement on the issue.
Once again, their misogynistic tendencies are undeniable . . .
LikeLike
September 2, 2012 at 5:23 pm
Not just misogynistic but myopic….their brain can only pick up one wave length that is powered by patriarchy and works on men AND women…
fetus fetus fetus fetus fetus fetus fetus fetus fetus fetus fetus fetus fetus
LikeLike
September 4, 2012 at 8:41 am
Thanks, Elean. It just fries my fat ass how “they” keep suggesting that it’s so darned easy to carry a child and give it away. But then, they think any woman who would even contemplate an abortion is so darned heartless that they would not care if they carried the child for that long and handed it over to a lawyer.
LikeLike
September 3, 2012 at 7:16 am
It is another thought provoking part of an unwanted/unplanned pregnancy! I have always admired a woman that can “give” her baby up for adoption…because I can’t even begin to understand the heartbreak they feel…every show you see or article you read is alway sooo sad!!
Why the “!?*!?* protester’s outside in the “gutter’s and ditches” yelling at the women think….”I must tell her abt adoption…she’s an idiot and surely hasn’t thought abt that option!!” Why do they think that women don’t look at all the options…I don’t know!!
LikeLike
September 4, 2012 at 8:43 am
Thanks, Lorraine and, again, what gets me is that they think it’s soooo easy to put a child up for adoption but for the most part, they, the pro-lifers, are rarely on the receiving end. Hey, John, care to name any of your buddies who have adopted? I know you haven’t
LikeLike
September 3, 2012 at 11:19 am
It’s absolutely amazing how the so-called “pro-lifers” DON’T care for real children! The child taken in by Hedda Nussbaum and her partner (not legally adopted, having been scavenged in an extracurricular manner from the NYC social services) was beaten brutally time after time and left to die slowly. But she’d been “rescued.”
Clearly, the aim of the so-called “pro-life” movement is not to enhance or improve the welfare of the fetus (they can’t) or the child, but to make themselves feel good by being recognized as “rescuers.” That’s why it’s important for them not to draw attention to the sequelae which await children whom they don’t want to raise themselves.
For them, death is the focus, which is why Mr. Dunkle can’t get past his meme.
LikeLike
September 3, 2012 at 12:46 pm
I get the sense that Chuck is slowly drawing in others to his second favorite pro-killing argument — life is tough so let’s kill people. He refines this slightly — let’s keep it legal to kill everybody but let’s concentrate on killing the poor.
And he manages to slip in his favorite — a prolifer (Dunkle) by definition has a warped personality. Therefore, let’s keep it legal to kill people.
Corner him and he’ll start using curse words to hide the humanity of the victims, curse words like nigger and kike that were used to hide the humanity of other victims. He forgets to do that above but now that I’ve called attention to it, I’ll bet that’s the last tie you’ll see him refer to young
people as “children.”
LikeLike
September 4, 2012 at 8:38 am
Mr. Dunkle will now tell us about the child living within 300 yards of him who is being abused and neglected by her parents, about whom the whole neighborhood knows and about whom he has done nothing.
LikeLike
September 4, 2012 at 8:58 am
Are you kidding, Chuck! I know of dozens — I live seventy-five yards from Planned Parenthood. Those children are not just going to be abused and neglected, they are going to be pulled apart, slowly, my feeble daily protests notwithstanding..
LikeLike
September 4, 2012 at 9:50 am
Not pulled apart. More like suctioned. Let’s not tell lies.
LikeLike
September 4, 2012 at 10:44 am
Which would you rather be?
LikeLike
September 4, 2012 at 2:36 pm
I’d rather be the winner of the Powerball, as long as you asked.
LikeLike
September 4, 2012 at 6:38 pm
No, would you rather have your arms and legs separated from your torso manually, or would you rather be pulled into a wind tunnel where that powerful force would tare you apart?
LikeLike
September 5, 2012 at 5:20 pm
You are asking a forced choice question now? You asked what would I rather be and now you change the subject about what form of murder I should choose for you to kill me?
Seriously? What kind of whack job are you, anyway?
LikeLike
September 6, 2012 at 4:43 am
You had just changed the topic from murder to powerball, Park, and immediately you accuse me of changing it: “now you change the subject about what form of murder I should choose for you to kill me?”
Do you guys lie intentionally or reflexively?
LikeLike
September 4, 2012 at 11:32 am
Thank you for the peek into your world of fantasy, Mr. Dunkle. Real children don’t exist there. I wonder why.
LikeLike
September 4, 2012 at 6:40 pm
Oh, real children do exist there, Chuck. Real adults don’t exist here is more like it.
LikeLike
September 4, 2012 at 8:28 am
Charles,
You’re right about death as their focus. In fact, it seems to be smothering the life right out of them. They gasp and groan ‘prolife’ when they should be more direct—“Oh, God save MY life”
LikeLike
September 4, 2012 at 8:46 am
Good thoughts, Parker.
LikeLike
September 4, 2012 at 8:54 am
Park! You might be Chuck’s first convert! Well, they say Muhammad started with one.
LikeLike
September 4, 2012 at 4:42 pm
Gasp and groan? Hilarious.
LikeLike
September 4, 2012 at 6:40 pm
Thanks, Kate.
LikeLike
September 4, 2012 at 2:44 pm
Dunkle thinks solo masturbation is horrible (as is rape – no distinction?)? John, in private ask each of your children and any grandchildren over 25 (both genders) if they ever solo masturbated. Take a week or so to collect the data. Meanwhile, why the “solo” limitation?
LikeLike
September 4, 2012 at 6:42 pm
Because in the preceding sentence I had covered mutual — “contraception.” What were your other questions, Dave?
LikeLike
September 5, 2012 at 4:11 am
in the preceding clause I had covered “contraception” and other forms of sodomy
LikeLike
September 5, 2012 at 6:33 am
But John, doesn’t masturbation prevent abortions?
LikeLike
September 5, 2012 at 7:23 am
I suppose it could. So do pederasty and bestiality.
LikeLike
September 5, 2012 at 10:16 am
Notice how John’s mind lurks in the genitalia of others? The expression “Dirty Old Man” comes to mind.
LikeLike
September 5, 2012 at 11:19 am
Did I miss something here? Is this blog really about motor scooters?
LikeLike
September 5, 2012 at 2:43 pm
The explanation by the rapists’s helper does not make sense.
Another way to prevent abortion is abstinence. Is that horrible, too?
I await your survey results.
LikeLike
September 5, 2012 at 3:20 pm
No, abstinence is a good way to avoid having a child tortured to death.
I’m not a priest, Dave! I would never ask someone to tell me her sins. We Catholics tell our sins in Confession. We don’t submit or take surveys.
And how can I be a rapists’ helper. I tell you killers’ helpers that if you’re determined to kill someone, kill the rapist, not the child.
LikeLike
September 5, 2012 at 5:15 pm
You don’t ask anyone to tell their sins because you are not qualified as a priest, not that being a priest is anything magical. It doesn’t absolve you of any wrong doing. It only makes you feel like you’re OK. It’s all magical hocus pocus….
LikeLike
September 5, 2012 at 6:24 pm
You’ve degenerated into the nonsensical, Park. What the heck are you trying to say?
LikeLike
September 9, 2012 at 12:34 pm
Good point Parker.
Don’t think you will ever get an answer that is worth reading.
Like a serpent in the grass, he speaks with forked tongue. He has no desire or capacity to genially answer a question properly. I don’t think he has the intellectual expertise as well. That is why he likes to intimidate innocent women for no reason.
LikeLike
September 5, 2012 at 3:23 pm
The so-called “pro-lifer’s” morbid fascination with sexuality is treated at great (and highly profitable) length in Freudian circles: As with Death itself, the basis of the preoccupation with others’ sexuality is fear– Freud posited a strong connection between the sexual urge and death, for one thing, and he also pointed out how fear of one’s own loss of self-control (in clinical cases, repression) arouses in the subject the fear that at some point he will lose so much control that he will not be able to regain it and thus become a permanent victim.
This parallels the “pro-lifer’s” fear of his own death, which is the quintessential loss of control.
This extreme form of dog in the manger attitude says quite a bit about the sorry interior life a “pro-lifer” has. But as I’ve pointed out before, for their women, after the first pregnancy, sex becomes a duty….
LikeLike
September 5, 2012 at 6:27 pm
See above, my response to Park.
LikeLike
September 5, 2012 at 9:14 pm
Let me help you with your understanding of when life begins. It is impossible to know if a zygote/embryo/fetus is alive or will live to birth at any point. And it is equally impossible to tell if the zygote/embryo/fetus is composed of enough human DNA to live as a human. Those things are simply impossible in a scientific sense. It is a scientific fact the DNA of the zygote/embryo/fetus may not “express” the correct phenotype to advance or continue to live. The zygote/embryo/fetus does not have a notification system that says “I am alive” or “I am dead”, one must simply wait and see if the genotype expresses the correct phenotype.
In addition to that problem, you have a problem with the “Law of Charity” and the “Theory of Choice” that you must overcome. Pro lifers claim to save life, yet they do not choose to save born life that they know is alive and actually begging for help. They choose not to save life and instead attempt to save fetuses that may or may not be alive. So first you do not choose to save life and the zygotes you do choose to “save” most likely are dead.
I hope this helps with your understanding as to why one cannot prove “life at conception” and I hope you understand that you are choosing to let born babies die.
Further, it’s pretty clear that pro lifers who would choose to save a fetus will in fact cause the death of a born child, baby or adult through willful neglect of born, hungry, homeless children or through homicide of doctors and nurses. Just ask John Dunkle who wishes harm on those who are prochoice. He calls them killers helpers but, in fact, HE is the killer’s helper (see his newsletter and blog; join him as he visits the killers in jail). HE is the one who threatens staff and volunteers outside abortion clinics. He IS the killer’s helper.
LikeLike
September 6, 2012 at 3:20 am
I didn’t get passed this, FoL, “It is impossible to know if a zygote/embryo/fetus is alive,” because you’ve ruined your case hardly before you’ve started.
Should I read the rest? Will that explain it?
LikeLike
September 6, 2012 at 11:07 am
I just read the rest. About the only thing I learned is how effective my “killers’ helper” term has become.
The confusion in the remainder of that first paragraph is mind numbing. In paragraphs 2 & 3 you switch into debate mode.
I stink at debate, FOL. Besides, this blog is not for debate, Nobody should be trying to “win.” We all should be trying to arrive at the truth, and our truths differ: you think might makes right and I don’t. Let’s start from there.
LikeLike
September 7, 2012 at 6:29 am
The ‘effective’ adjective that you use for your ‘killer’s helper’ term lacks a semantic context. In other words, the adjective ‘effective’ is a humpty dumpty term with no meaning.
Your claim that the blog is ‘not for debate’ and your reasoning that ‘nobody should be trying to win’ is without merit. Further, making a personal attack on someone’s writing by labeling it ‘mind numbing’ does not forward any discussion toward truth, a discussion that you state is what the vague ‘we’ should be having. Additionally, that you self-righteously claim ‘we all should be trying to arrive at the truth’ suggests you are positioning yourself as the final authority on this blog.
Finally, your assumption that I think ‘might makes right’ begins your journey toward truth on the false footing. How does one begin a journey toward truth with a falsehood?
LikeLike
September 7, 2012 at 9:47 am
I’ll skip paragraphs 1 & 2. In paragraph 3 you say you do not believe might makes right. You do, though, believe an adult may kill a child because the laws says he or she may and because she has the power to kill her. What’s the difference between that and might makes right?
LikeLike
September 7, 2012 at 10:38 am
1. Why skip the paragraphs?
2. At no time was there any mention of belief that an adult may kill a child.
3. You persist in arguing your point of view that I believe that might makes right. Yet, alas, you’ve no proof, only assumption.
LikeLike
September 9, 2012 at 12:40 pm
Friend, JB is a mental midget. You are writing to an aged failing brain of a person that supports the beliefs of Anti Abortion Christian Terrorists and wants to defend and martyr them! Good luck with that!
You might as well have a discussion with the magical beliefs of Paul Ryan and the Catholic Church.
We need to keep people that believe in Religous cults out of the legislative process.
We have yet to read a literate reply from JB. At best he is the artful dodger of reply.
LikeLike
September 7, 2012 at 11:50 am
I. too many points — let’s do one at a time
2. Pro-deathers believe an adult may kill child. You are pro-death, aren’t you?
3. I’m assuming you’re pro-death. Am I wrong?
LikeLike
September 7, 2012 at 5:31 pm
1. no, let’s do them all at once
2. Pro-deather is a concep in your mind, kind of like war mongerers, kind of like Republicans
3. You’re assuming.
LikeLike
September 7, 2012 at 5:39 pm
You’re running and pretending not to.
LikeLike
September 8, 2012 at 5:47 am
You’re quite full of ASSumptions.
LikeLike
September 9, 2012 at 4:44 am
How old are you, FoL?
LikeLike
September 8, 2012 at 4:19 am
OK, FoL, you’re too much fun to lose. Let’s start with the start, that “effective” (sometimes single quotes are called for, not here), lacks a semantic context (whatever the heck that’s supposed to mean).
I’ll rewrite my statement to make its obvious meaning even more obvious: when an enemy adopts your language, your know your message has gotten to him (iow, been effective). You said that I, not you, were in fact the killers’ helper. I don’t the like it that you’re calling me a killers’ helper but I do like it that you’re learning to talk straight.
I lack the smarts to do them all at once, so you’ll have to bear with me as I continue point by point.
LikeLike
September 9, 2012 at 12:43 pm
But JB, you said you like Convicted Murders…
You are the only Killer’s helper here!
LikeLike
September 8, 2012 at 7:15 am
Friend of Logic~~
People call so-called “pro-lifers” ignorant– as in not choosing to argue more than one term at a time– and they are, but it is a willful ignorance, exercised in order to control the debate. This is why Mr. Dunkle wanted you to “slow down.”
They need to control the debate in order not to have to deal with the conflicts between reality– the need to care for real human life– and their fantasy version– in which they are heroes “rescuing” “unborn innocents.”
LikeLike
September 8, 2012 at 11:25 am
Chuck loves to do this, FoL; i.e., jump in to add to the confusion.
Call it controlling the issue if you want, but what I’m trying to do is eliminate a favorite pro-death tactic of piling on and mixing up point after point to prevent me, and usually the pro-deather herself, from noticing how stupid each examined point actually is.
What you do here, though, is a different pro-death tactic. Here you call my “mind-numbing” comment a personal attack. But anybody who reads your first paragraph up there fairly would have to agree with me. You say we don’t know if the zef is alive in spite of the fact that this blog is all about whether or not we should continue to kill her legally! That’s mind-numbing. The mind becomes even more still when it tries to digest “express,” phenotype, notification system, and genotype in one short paragraph.
So what I’m trying to do here is get you to drop the big abstract terms, that nobody including yourself knows the meaning of, and talk plainly. Only then will we be able to see the weakness of the argument. (Then, again, maybe that is exactly what you don’t want us to see.)
LikeLike
September 8, 2012 at 2:14 pm
Charles,
There is no better example of attempting to pile on and control the messaging then what Dunk demonstrated at the Allentown Womens Center this morning. Fortunately, his inarticulate verbosity sounded only like mutterings from afar. Now that the police have outlawed his bullhorn, he is left with shouting through a toy megaphone which is simultaneously comical and pathetically indistinct.
So when he accuses anyone of mind-numbing, consider it a form of projection. He knows he’s beyond mind-numb to brain dead but is wont to admit it. Instead, he projects his own foibles on others.
LikeLike
September 8, 2012 at 6:46 pm
is wont to admit it — huh?
LikeLike
September 9, 2012 at 3:26 am
I was worried that the transition from electricity would render me ineffective, but Kate’s squeal proves otherwise. As the teenager said, “Kate, you’re sooooo transparent.”
LikeLike
September 9, 2012 at 6:55 am
I’m sorry dear. In order for you to insult me, I must first value your opinion. Nice try though.
LikeLike
September 9, 2012 at 7:47 am
Don’t kid me, Kate. You hang on my every word.
LikeLike
September 9, 2012 at 12:46 pm
JB, please be careful… You like murderers!
So if you use the word ‘hang’ it is of concern.
And your replies are so dumb. Can you construct better replies that actually have relevance?
LikeLike
September 9, 2012 at 9:56 pm
Adoption is not perfect and it should be left up to the woman to decide which one is best for her. This is really true. Adoption has both advantages and disadvantages. But I guess adoption is still a better option than abortion.
LikeLike
September 10, 2012 at 5:53 am
Not for the woman who does NOT want to be pregnant….the better option is what she wants…
LikeLike
September 10, 2012 at 7:43 am
And what about the kid who wants his mother dead. Is the better option what he wants? Or do I smell sexism and ageism.
LikeLike
September 10, 2012 at 7:16 am
Gabrielle, there are a lot of people who wish they’d never been born, and they know how to make the rest of us feel the same way.
LikeLike
September 10, 2012 at 7:39 am
Wow Chuck! What an egoist! You really think you know how to make others feel as you do? I can only speak for myself, of course, but everything you write makes me thankful I’d been born.
LikeLike