Perhaps no comment during the recent oral argument before SCOTUS regarding Mississippi’s Roe-defying 15 week abortion limit received more attention than Justice Amy Coney Barrett statement that a mother’s option to give a baby up for adoption at birth rendered abortion was unnecessary in most cases. Numerous abortion defenders have attempted to discredit her assertion, and, like all of the pro-abortion arguments I have seen and heard so far, fell short in logic, honesty and ethics
Today’s Sunday Times letters section exemplified the disconnect among reality, self-interest and fairness that continue to plague abortion fans, no matter how passionately they argue their position. The Times dedicated the section to rebuttals of Comey’s assertion. That the editors deemed these the cream of the crop is telling. Also telling: no letter selected by the editors supported Comey. Here are the key quotes from each:
Anne Matlack Evans, of Napa, California writes in part,
In 1954, my mother, a single mother of three young children, had no other option than to do just what Justice Barrett proposes. After losing her job because of the pregnancy, she took refuge with her mother and, several months later, gave birth to a child whom she gave up that very day….
The consequences of my mother’s pregnancy and the baby’s adoption profoundly affected my mother and us children. She was traumatized by the pregnancy and the necessity of abandoning a child — especially so after caring for us. She felt ashamed, stigmatized and less able to protect her existing children.
Ethics Alarms Comment: Why did a single mother have three children? Why did she get pregnant again? She felt ashamed and stigmatized about giving up a live infant for abortion that she couldn’t care for, but apparently would have flt no stigma or shame if she ended the nascent human being’s life before it could be born. That’s exactly the confused attitude that our culture needs to change. Her unborn child “existed” before it was born.
David Leonard of Kennett Square, Pennsylvania writes in part,
Before Roe v. Wade my wife and I adopted in Chicago a Black newborn daughter in 1968 and a 2-month-old son in 1971. We celebrate the happy family they helped to create.
In 1968 our adoption case worker told us that about 300 Black children a day were put up for adoption in Chicago by mothers from around the country, and no more than 10 percent of these children were ever adopted. They went into orphanages or foster care instead…
Black mothers who cared deeply about what would happen to their children if they were put up for adoption (as did the parents of the two infants who joined our family) were rightly fearful of the traumatic and inadequate care they would receive if fostered.
Were Roe v. Wade to be overturned, adoption would not be a realistic alternative to abortion for many babies born into single-parent and/or poor households, and foster care systems would be further overwhelmed.
EA Comment: Better to kill them, then?
Karen Kempler, of San Francisco, reasons,
When I was a freshman in college, I got pregnant…I was trying to get an illegal abortion (I never wanted children), but when my widowed mother found out, she sent me to a home for unwed mothers…After I gave birth… I told her she would have to choose me or the baby. She chose me, but when I came home, she withdrew my support for college and kicked me out of the house to support myself.
So, Justice Barrett, safe haven laws aren’t the solution. An unwanted pregnancy can destroy a future, a marriage or even a life.
EA Comment: How is the baby responsible for how Kempler’s mother reacted to her pregnancy? An unwanted pregnancy can “destroy a future, a marriage or even a life;” an abortion always ends a life. Every ethical system holds that the latter is the unethical resolution of that dilemma.
Ann Whitfield Powers of Portland Oregon writes in part,
We are fortunate to know our son’s birth parents. While they were sure that placing their child for adoption was the right thing to do, it was incredibly hard for them….Even as my heart filled with love for this new child, it was breaking for the pain and loss I saw on the birth parents’ faces. Justice Amy Coney Barrett acts as if it’s no big deal to put your baby up for adoption…
EA Comment: It is not a big deal for the birth parents when compared to the magnitude of the “deal” for the adopted child given a chance at life.
Mary Kelly, Denver, Colorado writes in part,
The birth mothers of all three of our now adult children have tearfully told me that they hope their child “doesn’t hate” them for placing them for adoption. They are racked with guilt and have been for decades. Our children have wondered over the years why they were placed for adoption, but not their older or younger siblings…Adoption is a blessing beyond belief, and it is also fraught.
EA Comment: OK, it’s “fraught.” Better to kill the children pre-birth than to have them feel betrayed by their birth parents? My son’s adopted; his Russian mother gave him up because she couldn’t care for him. I think I’ll ask him about this letter. ALL these letters….
Ann Crosbie,Carlsbad, California, writes in part,
…Your body knows you have given birth and it wants you to be looking for that baby. You walk into a room with that feeling like when you’ve forgotten your glasses. There are tears. There are jags of tears and “what ifs” even when you aren’t forced to place a child for adoption. Because, to be clear, that is what the justice is suggesting — not that a woman would make the choice to go through the pain of relinquishing her baby. I made it through it all, and remain happy with the outcome, because I had a choice.
Ethics Alarms Comment: A choice between letting a human being progress through the stages of life to birth and eventually childhood and a full life, or avoiding that awful feeling that you’ve “forgotten your glasses.”
Jessica O’Dwyer, Tiburon, California writes,
…In many ways, my family is the “model adoptive family” — in reunion with birth relatives, happy and well adjusted, open in discussing feelings. But for years my kids cried themselves to sleep wondering why their birth mothers “gave them away,” while their birth mothers and siblings express anguish and sadness at missing large chunks of their children’s lives.
Adoption is a huge, profound event with never-ending ramifications. To pretend it’s an easy and uncomplicated alternative to abortion is naïve.
Ethics Alarms Comment: Do you see a theme here? Deflection, avoidance of the issue, denial. Whether adoption is “fraught,” easy or hard, it allows a human being to live. What is naïve is to believe the alternatives are equal in value and ethical validity.