Next Up In The Desperate Push To Rationalize Abortion: Attacking Adoption

The couple above and their sign outside the Supreme Court building triggered a series of telling attacks on the option of abortion after a photo of them was tweeted and went “viral.” Mark Hamill, the “Star Wars” star who has supported himself of late by being the voice of “The Joker” in animated “Batman” features, led the way with this incoherent but snarky tweet:

Attacks on adoption and those advocating it as a non-homicidal alternative to abortion are one more manifestation of how the Dobbs decision has unmasked so many of the pro-abortion progressives who had been hiding behind the deceitful “choice” trope. Now we are hearing advocacy for up-to-the-moment-of-birth abortions, and rationalizations for the procedure ranging from economic benefits to the economy and avoidance of disruptions to women’s ambitions, to arguments that children in poverty, with health problems or in unstable families are better off if they never draw a breath. This long-delayed candor will be, in the long run, a beneficial development. Finally abortion ethics can be debated acknowledging the unethical priorities and values that have been used to sanctify it for so long.

I see now that he attack on adoption was inevitable. Examine these recent abortion advocacy pieces: “Conservatives love to paint adoption as the solution to abortion. Adoptees aren’t buying it,” and “The Insidious Idiocy of ‘We Will Adopt Your Baby’ Memes.”

The first is a collection of straw man arguments—for example, the point is not that adoption is a “solution” to abortion, but rather an alternative to ending the life of an unwanted unborn child. Nobody suggests that carrying a child to term is easy, cheap or without risks, but preserving a human life trumps those matters in any ethical equation. The article also concentrates on the rejection of international adoption by a couple that “never wanted kids” but who had been convinced that adoption was the “moral” thing to do. If they didn’t want children, it’s hardly surprising that they would find any adoption process overly burdensome. Moreover, if they didn’t want children it was unethical for them to try to adopt a child.

Then Vanessa Taylor’s essay turns into another exposé on the many perils of international adoptions, from crooked agencies to emotionally damaged children. That’s fascinating (our son is an international adoptee, from Russia) but completely irrelevant to the issue of abortion limits in the U.S. The writer of this collections of deflections and skew arguments concentrates on a single adoption critic, Tory Bae, who herself was adopted from South Korea and apparently thinks she would have been better off never being born, or something. Bae is prone to saying things like “Adoption is trauma,” “My [good] adoption was an outlier,” and “For us adoptees, it’s not your right to buy us to build your family.”

Well. First, again, international adoption is not germane to domestic abortions. Second, good adoptions are not an exception to the rule, and the article cheats by concentrating on international adoptions, which have risks and complications domestic adoptions usually do not. Third, even assuming (arguendo!) that “adoptions are trauma,” I contend that the trauma is considerably less than that of being vacuumed and scraped out of a womb.

Finally: what makes Tory Bae the authority on this issue? She’s affirmatively weird: she didn’t want children but tried to adopt. She is a U.S. citizen who admits that she had loving parents, but opposes adoption. I want to know if she would rather have been erased from existence rather than having the opportunity to make a living being an anti-international adoption activist. How many other adoptees would prefer extermination to life, however challenging? I’m pretty sure how my son would answer that question, and he was definitely only rescued from abortion by pure luck, in the form of a single mother who thought her son should have a chance to live.

“The Insidious Idiocy of ‘We Will Adopt Your Baby’ Memes” takes off from the couple holding the sign above. Apparently they aren’t really in a position to adopt, which makes the “we” part of the sign dishonest. Nevertheless, it doesn’t change the validity of the sign’s general assertion at all: adoption is an option, and an ethically superior alternative to abortion. If the author of the article can rebut that, great; instead, Magdaline Taylor resorts to deflection, cherry-picked statistics and ethics-free arguments. Examples:

  • “It would be nice to think that those forced to carry a pregnancy they never wanted will at least be able to find a comfortable home for their child, and oh look, here’s one now.   But, of course, this is a complete fantasy.”

Complete fantasy? No pregnant women can find good homes and loving parents for the child they don’t want to raise?

  • “Adoption isn’t a substitute for abortion rights.”

Nobody says it is. Adoption is an ethically, morally and legally superior alternative to killing unborn children. Taylor’s statement is like saying that working for a living isn’t a substitute for the right to have taxpayers pay your bills.

  • “Whether someone gives up a child for adoption or not, pregnancy is still associated with significant risks and burdens — including maternal death and homicide — that adoption can never solve.”

Pregnancy causes homicide? No. Adoption “solves” one problem and one problem only: it provides a route for a nascent human being to have the opportunity to live, and in the ethical balancing process, that is a major benefit.

  • “Adoption is also expensive — according to American Adoption, it can cost upwards of $70,000, or $20,000 more than the average American’s salary’

It also can cost a lot less: the author looked for the most expensive estimate on the web. Google lists adoption expenses ranging from $5,000 to $20,000 as well as the $70,000 number.

  • “The supposed availability of adoptive parents does absolutely nothing to reduce the horrors of forced birth. Knowing that some rich couple might give your baby a home means little when you have to sacrifice your job, goals, time, money and possibly relationships to be pregnant and give birth, and it means even less when you’re faced with the phenomenal physical and financial costs related to it”

And the horrors of being rubbed out before birth? Typically, the article never acknowledges that there is a small, growing human organism involved in every abortion. “Means little”? To my son, his mother allowing him to be born meant a lot. In fact, it meant everything.

So the strategy of the pro-abortion activists includes denigrating adoption and the people who are willing to raise a child as their own. If you can accurately judge the legitimacy of a cause by the character and values of the people who advocate it—and often you can—this is damning evidence.

3 thoughts on “Next Up In The Desperate Push To Rationalize Abortion: Attacking Adoption

  1. “She’s affirmatively weird.”

    Thanks for that. “He or she is affirmatively weird” will go into my arsenal of criticisms to make of various lefties. There’s a lefty opinion writer named Jeet Heer. His academic body of work involves writing about comic books! Henceforth, any rebuttal of this guy’s output will begin with, “First, Jeet is affirmatively weird.”

  2. Pro-choicers become apoplectic over adoption because it undercuts their argument about abortion being slavery. I don’t know if you’ve seen the trend, but the left is increasingly trying to frame abortion as slavery for women.

    If you support safe haven laws, this means that most of the pro-choice arguments fall flat. The woman doesn’t have to be a parent; she doesn’t have to give up her career; she doesn’t have to take any responsibility for the kid. Safe haven laws are actually more of a compromise than pro-choicers even realize because they say, as a society, we think it’s okayish to abandon your child because you don’t want to take care of them.

    Crisis pregnancy centers run by protestants and catholics are also all over the place for the time during pregnancy. For women that want it, help is available in many places. Single mothers are not abandoned in this country.

    The other reason the pro-choicers don’t like adoption is because most people who adopt are Christians. This means that the adopted child will be raised in a religious home, and in the mind of the pro-choicers, it’s better to kill the child than it come to know Jesus.

    So, there’s an anti-Christian thread and there’s a certain level of dishonesty to pro-choice arguments.

    You’re seeing it all play out right before your eyes.

  3. I’ve tried posting this five or six times from two different computers. Don’t know why it’s not showing up.

    They are so dishonest, it’s disgusting.

    For decades, those who opposed abortion were told that abortion was necessary because people like them weren’t willing to adopt children. It was routine to demand that those opposed to abortion be willing to adopt unknown numbers of children or else they were hypocrites or something.

    There have always been people willing to adopt and the United States makes it incredibly difficult to do so. Now the tactic has changed to smear the people who identify themselves as willing to adopt.

    This was always about killing the unborn. Whatever smoke and mirrors they put up now about the hardships of adoption or the cost or what have you is just another tactic.

    A Facebook friend of mine spent all week posting reductionist memes about abortion and its foes and failed to see the irony when she ended the week expressing sympathy for a relative who lost unborn twins in a miscarriage.

    You see, the twins were wanted.

    That’s the rationale for killing that they are defending. If you’re wanted, you are allowed to be born or mourned if you die.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.