Thursday, February 17, 2005

"I'm not sorry" nonsense

Random surfing this afternoon, and I came across this:I'm not sorry FAQ. I'm not sorry is a websit that posts stories about women who do not regret their abortions. Loverly bunch of gals. Anyhoo, I'm reading through the FAQ and I come to the following:

What about adoption? Why didn't you consider that as an alternative?

One of the anti-choicers' favorite arguments against abortion is that women who have abortions are depriving prospective adoptive parents. However, one only has to take a look at the literally hundreds of thousands of children in foster or state care to know that is not the case. Unfortunately for the great majority of these children, they will not be considered for adoption because they have committed a grave since they're no longer babies. It is rare that you'll hear a prospective adoptive parent sigh, "Oh, I just want a seven-year-old so much!" We have always had huge respect for people who adopt older or special needs kids. Contrary to popular belief, adopting kids from the state is not that expensive. Some states will bend over backwards to help out people who want to take in these kids. Yeah, it's definitely not easy to handle them, but those who can appreciate that parenthood isn't one long Hallmark moment and are willing to stay the course know that going in. Another reason for not going with adoption that's been cited by many of us is the thought of the now-grown child showing up on our doorstep expecting an Oprah-type happy reunion with their "real mom" or weepily demanding to know why we gave them up. As far as we're concerned, whoever signs the adoption papers is the parent, and we're completely for adoption records being sealed other than the medical history of the bio-parents. If you're going to give the kid up for adoption, accept that and move on. Don't write letters, don't send gifts, don't go for visits, and respect that fact that the kid is no longer yours. Adoptive parents also need to stop giving kids ideas that they are not his/her "real parents."

First off - I can't let the "anti-choice" thing slip by, since there are many choices that "PRO-LIFERS" advocate. Let's run down the list ... there is abstinence, birth control, adoption, and parenthood. The only "choice" we don't care for is the death of life in the womb. So, really, we are only "anti" one particular choice. Call us anti-abortionists. I'm fine with that.

Next ... adoption. The above paragraph would almost be laughable, if the issue weren't so serious. The HUNDREDS and thousands of children available in Foster care come with baggage. They have parents fighting to regain custody. Or, they have health and/or psychological issues that makes it unadvisable, for those not properly equipped and prepared, to take on such a challenge. Not everyone can handle a crack baby or one with FAS who will develop who knows how many problems as it grows into adulthood. Comparing raising a child with SEVERE disabilities to dealing with an unruly teen (parenthood not being a Hallmark card) is just laughable.

To say that women should get an abortion, because adoption is such a plague-ridden option? Please. And, as for the argument that women should abort so no one will show up at their door in twenty years looking for their mother ... honestly, I don't even know where to begin with that one.