Wednesday, February 16, 2011

You Breed, We'll Benefit

You know, sometimes, even today, with all I’ve seen and learned about adoption, there comes a point when all I can do is wonder . . .

How in the world does anyone actually think about and come up with such an idea and believe it’s a good one . . .

--“Paying women not to get abortions makes perfect sense. Doing so would reduce the number of abortions — a goal shared by the overwhelming majority of people on both sides of the abortion debate — and increase the number of babies available for adoption (there is currently a major shortage of babies available for adoption in the US, which is why Americans often adopt children from other countries)” - -

And to top it off, there are actually others who agree with this and think it’s a good idea.

Here’s a news flash for the man who came up with such an idea and for all those who believe as he does . . . WOMEN ARE NOT BREEDERS FOR YOUR SELFISH DESIRES! Nobody should ever be expected to carry to term a pregnancy just so they can “cure” the shortage of available babies up for adoption. And to pay a woman to not terminate a pregnancy only to separate her from her child at the end with nothing more than a shrug of the shoulders and a signed check is, to me, disgusting and immoral, in every way.

It has been proven, time and time again, that adoption DOES NOT lower the number of abortions performed in our country. If you really want to lower the number of abortions, take that money (which the author estimated as $363 million per year) along with the billion dollar profits from the adoption industry and invest in Family Preservation instead of Family Separation.

Offer help and support to women facing unplanned pregnancies that DOES NOT include them giving up their child, but instead instills in them the confidence and ability to keep and raise their sons or daughters. Take out the threat of living a lifetime without your child, or failing because you are unable to provide for your child, and replace it with true, beneficial, and easy to find assistance to help women and their children remain together, and I would bet you would see a drop in those numbers.

Women and their unborn children are not mere “pawns” to be shuffled around and used for another’s gain. They are living, breathing human beings. They matter. They count. To degrade them in such a horrific way speaks a lot to what adoption, in today’s world, has done to our society and the importance we place on the mother/child bond.

DNA doesn’t matter, love does.”

Anybody can give birth, but it takes someone truly special to be a mother.”

Family isn’t about who you are related to by blood.”

It’s not the parents you are born to that matter. It’s the ones who raise you that count.”

With such opinions so common in our culture, I suppose it really shouldn’t be all that surprising that such an idea as paying women to continue their pregnancies so they will become the breeders for the desperate couples wanting to be parents, is not only actually out there, but agreed upon by so many.

I mean, it is common to hear the belief that it’s unfair that so many “unfit” mothers can just “pop” out a baby while so many “deserving” women are unable to have a child of their own.

So, sure, why not solve that by gathering up all those “unfit” mothers – single, poor, uneducated, etc – pay them off so they won’t terminate their pregnancy and then use them to provide for the much more “deserving” women who desperately wants a child.

Oh, and, in case that’s not enough, lets also do this . . .

--“As part of the deal, they would have to test negative for drugs and get proper prenatal care.”—

Because, you know, we also have to make sure we provide those “deserving” women with the “perfect” babies too. Us breeders do have to abide by their standards to make them happy and our children must also abide by entering this world (and their greedy arms) as healthy and happy as possible.

How can ANYONE see this as right? How can someone agree with treating another human being in such a way?

What is wrong with us? What is wrong with our society?

The author of this disgusting idea claims . . .

--“It wouldn’t in any way restrict women’s constitutional rights, and it wouldn’t limit women’s options. In fact, it would do the opposite: it would expand women’s options by offering a way out for women who don’t want an abortion but can’t raise a child. It wouldn’t exploit poor women, because the amount of money involved would only be enough to cover the costs of pregnancy and wouldn’t affect mothers’ financial situations.”—

The amount of money involved would only be enough to cover the costs of pregnancy and wouldn’t affect mothers’ financial situations 

… which is exactly how you restrict their rights and their options and exploit poor women.

How can anyone not see that or believe otherwise?

You use a poor woman who is facing an unplanned pregnancy, you pay her just enough to supply her baby, and then you walk away. And you believe this is a good thing for her?

Expectant and new mothers have the RIGHT to financial support to keep and raise their baby. (United Nations – Declaration of Human Rights.)”

But such a thought as only paying them “enough” to cover pregnancy costs without affecting their financial situations goes completely against that right. In fact, it completely strips them of it because instead of supporting them and helping them to keep and raise their child, you are suggesting help should only be offered if they are willing to give up their child, and only long enough for them to give birth and hand their son or daughter over.

You are restricting their rights. You are limiting, if not completely taking away, their options, and you are exploiting them in the worst of ways – by using them as breeders to feed the adoption need instead of helping them as mothers to be able to provide for their children.

And this is sadly, so much the truth of adoption. We help, we support, but only if a mother is willing to lose her child forever. We pay her expenses, give her somewhere to live, send her to college, whatever it takes, as long as, in the end, she provides another baby for the growing list of couples waiting to adopt.

And that is, so much, why the ideas of this particular man are even sadder than one would think. Because what he is suggesting is already happening . . .

Under the disguise of supposedly reducing the number of abortions in our country, adoption agencies follow this very same train of thought. They bring a pregnant woman in, they pay her, support her, just long enough for her pregnancy costs to be covered. And then they take her baby and set her out into the world, empty-handed and broken hearted while they provide yet another infant to that “more deserving” women waiting on the sidelines.

It is the dark truth of what adoption has become in today’s world. It is the horror so many women face, day after day, year after year. The only difference is, this man put it in terms the adoption industry wouldn’t dare use because they have researched and learned that it is much better to present it as a loving option and win-win-win situation versus an outright call to pay all those poor, unfit mothers for their babies so that they can provide the best of benefits for all those hopeful couples waiting on the side.

***You can find the article I quoted here . . . We Should Pay Women Not To Get Abortions.***

17 comments:

  1. Cassi you once again have said so clearly what needs to be said.The quote so clealy shows everything that is wrong with American adoption, the underlying belief that it is right and moral to commodify women and children.In America it seems to an outsider, everything and everyone is for sale to the highest bidder.It is repugnant, particularly when done under the guise of salvation.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You are incredibly articulate in saying what needs to be said and covering all the beastly bases. Thank you! Your voice is so very needed. I, for one, am grateful for you and your blog.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Paying a woman for her child = human trafficking
    HOW can people NOT see that?

    ReplyDelete
  4. To read this, today of all days is heartbreaking. Whoever this imbecile is he needs someone to shove something in his mouth so he can stop spewing rubbish out of it.

    Basically he is promoting human rights abuses, child trafficking, human trafficking etc. I can see the number of young women impregnanted by men who want to profit from them and then being tossed aside once the babies are born.

    This is revolting.

    I so agree with you Cassi, if there was anything they could do with all the money, the should combine it and invest some of it in fabulous school programs that help prevent many of the unplanned pregnancies and then with the rest, help women get on their feet and instill the confidence in them to raise their children.

    Sorry but I hope this guy rots. He is evil personified.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Excellent post as always!! I know I have made people's eyes bug out of their heads when I tell them that I had an abortion. They look at me and say, "Oh my GOD!! YOU, of all people? You, who were spared that by your mother?"

    I always reply with the same answer.
    "It is not the responsibility for fertile women to provide children for the barren", and I will also go on to say that there are times I wish I HAD been aborted. I wouldn't have known it then, and I wouldnt know it now. It would have been much kinder for my first Mother and myself.

    I wasn't "spared". Abortion wasn't a legal option then. And, women who surrender would not terminate, and vice versa. It's always the religious right who says this, or someone aligned with the NCFA.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hate to stir up controversy but this post is inarticulate and unpersuasive. You really haven't responded to the substantive claims that the original article makes. It's quite a bit better argued than your rebuttal.

    1. "Women are not breeders for your selfish desires."

    Clearly not. The point isn't to pay women to pump out children. Peter repeatedly emphasizes that there isn't enough money involved for that to make sense. The point isn't to fix the shortage of adoptable babies. Instead, the point is to make sure that financial hardship doesn't force women to make difficult moral choices that they wouldn't make if economic circumstances didn't force them to do so. If the article had been couched as "expanding choices for women" instead of "paying" them to carry babies to term, you probably wouldn't have reacted the way you did.

    2. You say that it has been proven that adoption doesn't reduce the number of abortions. First, you offer no evidence to substantiate this claim. Second, even if true that's completely irrelevant. In this case, the same number of unwanted pregnancies will happen whether the subsidy exists or not. On the margin $3000 would convince some mothers to end that unwanted pregnancy with an adoption rather than an abortion. Given that a fixed number of babies will be conceived, this seems like it reduces the number that are aborted all other things equal. That's a good idea. As for "family preservation", it's difficult and often counterproductive to subsidize. Do you really want to encourage families to stay together when the relationships are failed and/or abusive?

    3. "Offer help and support to women facing unplanned pregnancies that DOES NOT include them giving up their child, but instead instills in them the confidence and ability to keep and raise their sons or daughters." I agree with this sentiment. Perhaps women should receive the subsidy whether they put the child up for adoption or keep it themselves. This subsidizes not aborting the child rather than adoption specifically. Still, not all that persuasive an argument. Even if your first priority is that women would keep their children, surely it's better for them to put them up for adoption than abort them in your worldview. In other words, the policy may not get the best outcome, but it is an improvement over the status quo.

    4. Your post now descends into non-argumentative rhetoric about love and families. Not much to respond to here because it's all just complaining about adoption. Seems like you've got an axe to grind against the system more than rational arguments to oppose it.

    As far as previous comments go, calling a person "evil personified" isn't an argument. It's an ad hominem attack. This argument is an interesting one and it deserves a more reasonable response than that.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Even if your first priority is that women would keep their children, surely it's better for them to put them up for adoption than abort them in your worldview."

    Actually, I believe what Cassi says is that it's better to support families who are capable of parenting.

    The automatic response is: Adoption or abortion?

    And it's not always that way. There's parenting too.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Cassie,
    Another wonderful post. You have put into words the thoughts I had as I read that repulsive article this morning. If only I was as articulate as you are!

    Of course, those who believe that adoption is wonderful will never be persuaded by the words of the adoptees or natural mothers who actually live the life of adoption loss.

    If this article was truly only about preventing abortions, why does he only want to give the money to the mothers who choose adoption? Shouldn't he give it to the mothers who decide to parent too? After all, the abortion was prevented either way. No, this man is only out to find a way to provide more infants to feed the adoption industries greed.

    ReplyDelete
  9. You have to laugh when people like Anonymous come up with such nonsense.

    I think Peter is making a very big leap and trying to fix both. And in fact the anti-abortion movement is usually related to people trying to find more babies available for adoption. If he was JUST trying to offer alternatives to fixing the rate of abortion, then he wouldn't have even mentioned adoption in the first line rather he would have suggested something with a little more intellect along the lines of offering women guidance in their options down the track with a view to parenting.

    You see the problem is with this article is the fact this idiot (because he really is!) believes that by throwing money to women to prevent abortions will actually do anything to help. Instead it will increase the amount of women who get pregnant deliberately and abandon their children which will only lead to larger issues down the track. Not a very well thought out plan.

    You think by laying out your response in numbered paragraphs makes your comment articulate and valid but it in fact clearly illustrates the fact you THINK you know more than you do. And that you are incredibly smug.

    As for being evil personified, anyone, ANYONE who feels it is okay to involve money and women and babies in the same conversation unless they are arguing against it, is guilty of promoting the sale of human beings. Yes I know he tries to rebutt that but he does a very poor job of it.

    You say Cassi's argument is weak etc but no, not really. It comes from a human perspective and not that of a moron who has no idea what it is like to carry a child and then separate from them.

    Sure this guy can talk through his head about what he wants to do but seriously I have never seen such a poorly devised plan.

    Giving anyone money to place their child for adoption is child selling, even if it was only $1. Anyone who cannot see that is just outright stupid (as in lacking intellect)

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anon,

    It is very common practice for those who want to condemn abortion also have an ulterior motive to increase the amount of adoptable babies. The others who mentioned it are completely right, if his intent was not to increase adoptions, he never would have mentioned it as a "solution" to lower the number of abortions. And Myst is 100% right, to pay a woman even $1 to continue a pregnancy just to feed a demand, as adoption is, is wrong and it does toe that line of human trafficking.

    A poor, single pregnant woman does not mean, in return, that a child will grow up in a failed or abusive family. Nor does adoption promise it will save a child from such a life. I fully believe, unless there is a proven risk of harm to the child, family preservation should always be the first thing we fight for.

    You seem to carry the belief that abortion is wrong but the act of separating a mother and child through adoption is not and will cause no harm. I don't agree with that train of thought. I think taking a child away from his or her mother is very damaging to both mother and child. I don't, and never will believe, it is the answer to unplanned pregnancy.

    In fact, I believe the very threat of a mother having to live the rest of her life without her child has an influence on the number of abortions that are performed. I also believe it's a terrible thing in our society that we want to only help women if they lose their children in the end.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Reducing the numbers of abortions by creating more separation of a mother and child is not the answer. It's nothing more than an act of causing more damage that often lasts a lifetime. And no, it is not better to do that to a woman than have her terminate her pregnancy.

    As for my mention of love and family, I used those examples of proof as to why I believe that such horrific thoughts like paying a women to continue a pregnancy in order to feed into the demand of adoption can actually be viewed as a good idea by so many in our society.

    By taking away the importance of the mother/child bond, by making giving birth nothing more than an act that holds no importance and disregarding the fact that the best place for a child is with his or her mother, we allow such thoughts and ideas to take root and find no problem with using women as breeders to satisfy the desires of hopeful adoptive couples.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I have to add this too, because it always seem to get lost in such arguments where people try to link abortion and adoption together . . .

    A women first decides whether to carry a pregnancy or not. If she terminates her pregnancy, that is where it ends, if she continues her pregnancy then, and ONLY then, does the decision turn to parenting or adoption.

    The two decisions are not related!

    ReplyDelete
  13. "A women first decides whether to carry a pregnancy or not. If she terminates her pregnancy, that is where it ends, if she continues her pregnancy then, and ONLY then, does the decision turn to parenting or adoption."

    Absolutely. Totally. Completely agree. I am also troubled by the forced mingling of these issues. Thank you for this post Cassi.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Excellent article. It is refreshing to see another woman taking a stand against the reproductive exploitation of expectant women. I had to laugh at this quote though:
    “Anybody can give birth, but it takes someone truly special to be a mother.”
    If ANYONE could give birth we wouldn't have women trolling for babies so they can "relive" what they could not create, which was a newborn.
    Do adoptive parents/agencies really say that crap?

    ReplyDelete
  15. "what's wrong with society"? Too many things to even begin writing about Cassi. Maybe if folks spent less time "following" burnout Celebs like Charlie Sheen, and put some REAL time and effort into ANY cause worthwhile, this world would be a MUCH better place...

    ReplyDelete
  16. Hey FuckHoles who believe this is Money for Babies and not about saving lives why are you not just as pissed when the greedy government pays greedy abortion clinics to kill the babies. If you think that this is not a scam to decrease government responsibility and put money in the pockets of those baby killers your fucking stupid and useless to society and maybe you should take the babies place.

    FuckIng Murderers

    If you support Abortion you are an Accomplice.

    ReplyDelete