# Where are all these supposed unsupportive pro-lifers?



## phathui5 (Jan 8, 2002)

I keep hearing people refer to pro-lifers that say a mom shouldn't have an abortion, but then don't support helping her out after she has the baby. I ask, who are they? All the pro-lifers I've ever met are totally supportive of moms who choose to keep their babies. Our family and others we know have:

* Taken in pregnant moms who didn't have somewhere to stay
* Donated money to crisis pregnancy centers
* Donated diapers, wipes, baby clothes, breastfeeding books
* Driven pregnant moms to prenatal appointments
* Bought food for moms who needed help
* Driven moms with babies to pediatrician appointments
* Rented a breast pump for a mom with a 30-week preemie
* Adopted babies
* Been foster parents
* Work at WIC as a Breastfeeding Counselor

So that's us and the pro-lifers that we know personally. In addition, there are pro-life groups that help with:

* housing assistance (they paid my friend's rent once)
* parenting classes
* maternity clothes
* baby supplies (siapers, wipes, clothes, cribs, high chairs, car seats)
* education assistance, helping moms finish high school or college

And what are they pro-choice people doing to help pregnant moms and children? They're proving birth control and abortions. I would have to say the ones I see doing more to help are the pro-life people. At least among those I know.


----------



## Jenne (May 21, 2004)

Phathui5--
















































































Cool Breezes,
Jenne


----------



## sohj (Jan 14, 2003)

phathui5: pro-choice women do all those same things to help out pregnant women who are keeping the pregnancy.

I've done many of them. And, maybe, I'll be adopting, too.

The only difference is, if a woman make the decision to use birth control, I don't judge her bady for it. Quite the opposite. I think she is being responsible for taking steps to prevent an unwanted pregnancy and, therefore, the need for an abortion.

And, if she has to make the decision to have an abortion, I accept that, too. And I still don't judge her badly for it. And I don't coerce her either way.

It is her body, her decision. Not mine.


----------



## CookieMonsterMommy (Oct 15, 2002)

Phath,

We have PLENTY here right now....In NY. A quick run down (because I;m in a rush....if you'd like, i can fill in more later)

1. Promise baby clothes to a poor mother who is considering abortion, then tell the mom they don't have any more (has happened more often then not that they have no means to support their promises).

2. Refused my offer to give FREE childbirth classes to the women they "saved", because these women are no longer their main priority (I'm assuming because they have to "counsel" more women, as they have an agenda to fulfill)

3. Offered help with discussing options of going through with pregnancy (i.e. adoption, foster care, parents raise it, keeping it, etc), when all they frequently do is push for foster care or adoption if the mom is poor and/or a teen, despite the woman's interest in raising her baby.

4. No follow up call to a mother after the birth of her saved child. BUT I've had these same organizations call a woman who aborted on her due date to remind her that her baby would have been born today had she not "killed it". Talk about harsh and disgusting. This I feel is one of the worst.

5. I've met only one anti-choice activist who adopted a "special needs" saved baby. The special need? The kid was half Mexican. Perfect health.









6. They are available 24 hours a day for crisis "phone counseling" and even in-person counseling, BUT, if a woman needs the maternity clothes she was promised, she must make an appointment within a very narrow time slot (i.e. between 2-4pm on mondays, or on the 2nd wednesday of the month).

I've heard similar stories from women accross the nation that I have spoken to both IRL, on MDC and other internet sources.

I have to leave, but best wishes, and please let me know if you'd like more info, I have plenty. And please note that I am not saying that all are like this, but ALL that I have come into contact with are.

best Wishes, Kelly


----------



## weetzie (May 29, 2003)

Many of the people who are anti-choice are also anti- welfare, and other gov't programs to help the families that these babies are born into, and to help the babies themselves. While it is wonderful that you do those things for mothers who choose to keep their baby, that doesnt negate the lack of societal support for struggling families.


----------



## mcimom (Jun 8, 2002)

phathui5







good for you!


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CookieMonsterMommy*
...Offered help with discussing options of going through with pregnancy (i.e. adoption, foster care, parents raise it, keeping it, etc), when all they frequently do is push for foster care or adoption if the mom is poor and/or a teen, despite the woman's interest in raising her baby...

Yes! I get so tired of this line, "She _shouldn't_ have an abortion, she _should_ up the baby up for adoption." Okay, so not only should this women be deprived of the right to legal abortion, she should then be deprived of the baby she is being forced to carry to term? And, yes, the anti-choice activists I know are overwhelmingly against expanding programs like welfare that would help poor and/or teenage mothers keep their babies with them.

When I workd at a battered women's shelter, we would get women with newborn children who had been kicked out of the town's "crisis pregnancy center", _despite_ having a violent boyfriend or husband to deal with. Once the crisis center had determined that these women were not going to abort nor were they going to be "good girls" and give in to the pressure to relinquish their children, they were out of luck.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CookieMonsterMommy*
...I've met only one anti-choice activist who adopted a "special needs" saved baby. The special need? The kid was half Mexican. Perfect health.







...

I'm so tired of this too. My completely anti-choice BIL and SIL are so proud of themselves for considering adoption...from China. A healthy, baby girl from China.


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *phathui5*
...And what are they pro-choice people doing to help pregnant moms and children? They're proving birth control and abortions...

Pro-choice means exactly that, it means supporting women in whatever choice they make, be that abortion, adoption or keeping the baby. I have done, or know other pro-choice advocates, who have done everything on that list *plus* actively support women's right to not have to continue a pregnancy in the first place.

Pro-choice means supporting _all_ women, not only the ones who agree with your personal agenda.


----------



## EFmom (Mar 16, 2002)

My best friend's 16yo sister got pg by a total jerk. Her initial desire was to have an abortion, but her very catholic family coerced her not to. She got enough "help" to survive from the local anti-choice "crisis pregnancy center" right up until the baby was born. At that point they dropped her like she had the plague. She had planned on placing the baby for adoption, but the child had numerous birth defects and she couldn't find a family.

This girls's story is a very long and painful saga, but suffice it to say it involved rape, drug abuse and eventual suicide. My friend ended up raising the child after her sister's death. The toll it has taken on my friend's marriage and her children is enormous.


----------



## phathui5 (Jan 8, 2002)

Quote:

pro-choice women do all those same things to help out pregnant women who are keeping the pregnancy
Pro-choice women may, but pro-choice groups do not. I checked NOW's site and the last time they were involved with an issue in the Family section of their site was like a year ago. They are the National Organization for Women, but they seem to focus on abortion an awful lot. Abortion isn't women's biggest need.

I did a home visit with a mom from WIC today whose "pro-choice" friends all pressured her to have an abortion as soon as they found out she was pregnant. None of them offered her any practical help. They told her that since she wasn't having an abortion, then she got what she deserved. So she's taking care of her newborn twins with hardly any help. The only help she's getting is from her (pro-life) church, medical assistance, and WIC. Where are the helpful pro-choice women there? The way they saw it, if she didn't want an abortion, she wasn't making the right decision and they weren't going to help her.


----------



## weetzie (May 29, 2003)

It seems as though you are upset about pro-choice people making generalizations about the anti-choice community, yet you are doing it as well. I do not see how this conversation is helpful


----------



## Aura_Kitten (Aug 13, 2002)

Quote:

I keep hearing people refer to pro-lifers that say a mom shouldn't have an abortion, but then don't support helping her out after she has the baby. I ask, who are they?
my dad and all of his friends, to start with. just about all of the republicans around here that i've met. obviously i'm not going to name names because this is a public forum... but it's a lot of people. generally their belief system goes like this: _no women should have abortions_ and then... _those lazy stupid welfare mothers need to get off their ass and get a job; they're just sucking up taxpayer dollars._

my own dad has referred to Them as "welfare families, just like you."







: (this was even AFTER we got off of welfare, which i clarified to him, but it didn't make any difference.) and no, he doesn't believe in abortion. he doesn't believe in premarital sex. he believes women should be subserviant to men. he doesn't believe that taxpayer dollars should go to poor families for aid. he believes in helping the elderly, driving cancer patients to their appointments.... but he refused to give aid to the family of a dying girl who is my age and has a daughter ~ because she had a daughter out of wedlock and is in a committed, but unmarried, relationship to the father. when i was 17 and pregnant and my mom was about to kick me out, he offered that i could stay with him ~ if i stopped being in a relationship to the father of the baby, who was at the time working full time to provide for our new family. uh, thanks dad, but no. (my SO and i have been together for well over 5 years now and he's still my best friend.)

the other pro-life people i know will generally give aid to families who need it _only if the families are willing to begin participating in their church and religion_. forcing people into a religion to get aid ~ yeah that helps.


----------



## mocha09 (Jul 6, 2003)

I don't think naming people we know personally who do this or that in whatever situation is going to add any useful information as to whether pro-choice or pro-life people are supportive of mothers in tough situations.

Obviously, anyone who looks hard enough is going to find tons of examples of both pro-choice people and pro-life people helping new mothers who need help.

The biggest issue I see here has already been mentioned, and that is one of policies of organizations and governments. The same goverment that is vocally anti-abortion is also the same government that slashed medicaid funding, forced mothers of infants and toddlers into work a-la "welfare reform," and cut education spending, mental health services, and child care subsidies. Oh, and then, made an appeal to the American public to do more volunteer work and talked a lot about how charity should be privatized at the public's discretion. Fact is, the public isn't picking up the slack on a national level.

I think it's awesome that there are private organizations that are trying to compensate for the lack of official and government support for at-risk mothers, but short of supporting a woman through parenting classes, rent money, etc. for years and years, I'm not impressed with the overall effect.

I don't agree with Pathius's point, which is that pro-life people do a lot to help out mothers (and the examples she gave were of very compassionate acts, albeit acts that help out the pregnant mother and new mother only); and that pro-choice people don't help out mothers, but only provide birth control and abortions. The entire reasoning behind this POV is flawed.


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *phathui5*
Pro-choice women may, but pro-choice groups do not. I checked NOW's site and the last time they were involved with an issue in the Family section of their site was like a year ago. They are the National Organization for Women, but they seem to focus on abortion an awful lot. Abortion isn't women's biggest need. ...

No one is trying to make staying pregnant, giving birth and raising a child illegal. However, there are entire groups and lots of money being spent on trying to make legal, safe abortion illegal.

Do you really not see the difference and why the focus is where it is?


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

I was never pregnant as a teen but there were several times I thought I was and I went to CPC's because they would provide a free test.

They leaned heavily toward adoption/foster care for unmarried pregnant teens. They also encouraged marriage. Sorry, but I think getting married as a teen is more harmful than being a single parent. (Not to say it can't work, but most of the time, I don't hear good stuff about it.) They even gave me a booklet that said people who co-habitate are likely to experience domestic abuse, but that the risk level drops if they get married!







(No, actually it gets worse.)

The same center I went to also denied services to a 13-year-old girl who had a baby because she would not press charges against the baby's 25-year-old "father." So this little girl (who was homeless, BTW) gets knocked up by a pedophile who won't support the baby, and these religious organizations decide to punish the BABY for the sick man's behavior?! Aren't the needs of a child more important than getting a mother to do what you think she should do?

Oh, and they also did not tell me anything about how to get welfare, food stamps, medical help or child support if I happened to be pg. Instead, they told me these "inspiring" stories of women "like myself" who "got themselves into this kind of situation" (yeah, without the help of men, I suppose?) and "pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and got a job." Yep, we sinful wanton women got ourselves into quite a pickle and now we should get ourselves out.









So, I think it's great there are women who go to great lengths to help struggling pregnant women and new moms. I think it's irrelevant whether they are pro-choice or not; as long as they help women it shouldn't matter. But I think a lot of people who are helpful in one way are harmful in another. For example, you can donate all the maternity clothes you want, but if you have this attitude that women who "get themselves pregnant" deserve what they get, it's going to show.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)




----------



## gingerlane (May 10, 2004)

This is such a sad thread. Everyone thinks that the other guy isn't doing enough, and that is pretty much always true. But it also implies that you think you ARE doing enough and I don't think that can ever be true. Yes, those are sweeping generalizations and there are no easy answers.

With all the thousands of homeless families, unwanted children, rampant over population of the world... I don't like the idea of abortion, but I cannot support the idea of making it illegal. I think we have failed as a nation on this issue and while I applaud anyone who tries to lessen the burden I don't think ANYONE should be pointing fingers or playing the "we (as a group) do more than you (as a group)" game.

I don't know how to make it better... and I am really saddened by this thread.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

ITA gingerlane.


----------



## LavenderMae (Sep 20, 2002)

I think there is probably a good many pro-choice and anti-abortion individuals who help out preg, women in need. I do not in anyway think that helping pregnant women is unique to anti-abortion groups or individuals.
Also I believe many want to know how these anti-abortion groups are helping women in the long run. Providing a pregnant woman with maternity cloths, temp place to stay, diapers etc.. is really nice but how about 5 years down the road?
Anit-abortion org has a purpose of stopping abortion and they claim to help pregnant women in need to continue their pregnancy so they really do have the burden of prove on them (as in what to they do for all these women and children in LONG run). These orgs should live up to
what they sell.
As far as I know most pro-choice orgs don't claim to finacially support/give a place to live or donate baby items to women who decide to carry a pregnancy to term. I am sure many give women information to where they can be helped in these ways but that isn't the purpose of the orgs.
*NARAL Pro-Choice America works to reduce the need for abortions. Americans need better access to contraception, health care and sex education.
*http://www.ippf.org/about/mission.htm
*MISSION
To achieve reproductive freedom for women, the Feminist Women's Health Center provides woman-centered healthcare and education, and we advocate all options for all women. Our health services and education expand women's choices and empower women's decisions.
http://www.fwhc.org/welcome.htm


----------



## CookieMonsterMommy (Oct 15, 2002)

Hey all I'm back...some very good points on how those who are anti-choice are also anti-welfare AND anti sex ed (which is an issue I have BIG problems dealing with--makes no type of sense!). Basically-don't teach them to have safe(r) sex, don't let them have an abortion when they get pregnant, and restrict their access to healthcare, food and housing assistance.









The suffolk county perinatal coalition (SCPC-don't know if they have a website, but I'm sure they do-google it pr PM me if interested) in Suffolk County NY is a pro choice, private and government funded organization (non-profit) that offers MANY services to women who either chose to abort or (moreso) chose to continue with the pregnancy...what they offer:
Counseling...Baby and Childrens Clothes/Supplies (they have a whole room of diff sizes and only accept the nice stuff), Smoking Ceasation Programs, Transportation to and from Dr's Appts/WIC/DSS/etc, Referrals, Job and Training Referals, Parenting Classes, Case-Workers, and probably the two biggest ones (both of which I'm proud to say I am a part of) FREE doula services (both labor support and post partum), and a free mentor program (where a trained volunteer visits the woman at least once a week for emotional support, help, problem solving, etc) that continues as long as the woman feels she needs these services.

Phath, I really do appreciate what you do for these women, but this is not the norm....What does NOW do? How about advocating for equal rights for women (including pay and jobs? So they can support the kids they birthed), helping stop domestic violence and rape...so no, I don't think they have been directly involved in a program titled "Helping women who specifically considered and avoided abortion" or anything like that, but look at the big picture here. NOW is helping ALL women by the work that they do-they do not hone in on one specific group that may or may not have wanted an abortion.

EF mom's description is VERY typical of what I have heard (altho many times, the "support" stops once the abortion may not been done both legally and electively and it is clear to them that the woman will not abort). Please keep in mind that these centers are funded by people looking to stop abortion, not those wanting to help the new moms....please do not tell me that I am wrong, I come from a VERY anti-choice family, and NONE of the fundraising literature mentions one word about follow-up or after-birth support. None. (And my parents get newsletters from at least 3 or 4 such organizations incl birthright and the Coalition for Life). They mention stopping the "Silent Holocaust" and putting a stop to "Senseless murders of millions of God's precious babies" throughout the literature and newsletter however.









And many anti-choice agencies are religious in nature, and I can personally attest to the women being forced to participate in religious programs to get the services (One 15 year old JEWISH girl was promised a car seat, so she went there...turns out, she'd get the car seat once she had 100 points....you only get points by attending Mass and/or doing Bible study and attending Christian youth group...and this was after she told them she was a practicing Jew....it didn't matter-rules are rules....).

I'm sorry that things are this way. In a perfect world, we wouldn't be having this thread because there would be no need for abortions because everyone would be educated in safe sex AND abstinence, there'd be no peer pressure, no rape, no incest, and pple who were engaging in sexual intercourse would be taking vitamins and be healthy, there would be no poverty, and women would be equal to men. Not gonna happen....Sorry. And it really does make me sad.









Best Wishes All,
Kelly


----------



## Aura_Kitten (Aug 13, 2002)

Kelly ~


----------



## cappuccinosmom (Dec 28, 2003)

I have a question...

Why is it so horrendous that pro-life orgs push adoption? It's been mentioned here with disdain, as if it's an evil thing for them to do.

But doesn't the fact that a woman wants an abortion indicate either that she doesn't want the baby, wants it but can't care for it, or just isn't in a situation to keep it whether she wants it or not? So, if pro-life orgs are trying to save babies from death by abortion, wouldn't the logical thing to do be to help women who don't want thier baby to find a family to adopt it out to?


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Quote:

Why is it so horrendous that pro-life orgs push adoption? It's been mentioned here with disdain, as if it's an evil thing for them to do.
When I think of pushing adoption, I think of those maternity homes that are run by religious people who take in pregnant teens. (Yes, they still have those homes!) Often, the teens do not choose to go to the home; their parents make them go. Some of them want their babies but are forced to give them up, while the home tells them it's what is best because otherwise the baby would be raised by a single parent and that would be "immoral."

Adoption should be the choice of the birthmother. I guess all those places are different; some will encourage and support parenting.


----------



## CookieMonsterMommy (Oct 15, 2002)

Capp, that is a VERY good and valid question.

There is nothing wrong (IMO) with suggesting adoption to a woman who is or is not considering abortion, BUT it is wrong to PUSH things on women. (Your choice of wording as well as mine) You are PUSHing something that YOU think is right, and the fact that you have to push for it shows that there is hesitancy or resistance.

Many of these women are PUSHed to give their baby up for adoption even after they have decided to birth their baby. They express desire to raise their child, and are being told that their baby would be better off with strangers...I feel that this is not always the case (and rarely is the BEST option for this woman and her baby).

For example, they BEGGED and THREATENED (in other words: PUSHED) me to "at least" put my son in foster care, even when I told them that both I and his father wanted to birth and raise our baby (we went to the center for the free supplies that were promised to those in a "crisis" pregnancy, but were turned down because we were not considering abortion in the 1st place...apparently a pregnant 15 year old is not considered a crisis pregnancy unless she needs anti-choice counseling....which brings to light the OPs issue).
Not only was my son wanted and loved, but he is biracial. Mixed children are THE hardest babies to place, so my son would probably STILL be in a childrens home, or foster care at best....MUCH better for him than being in a loving, consistant family with his parents that love him more than life.

The "counselor"'s main reasoning was I was unmarried (still am....and what?), I'd never finish HS (I'm 13 months away from getting my BSN, and yes, I have my HS diploma), the (black) father would probably leave (well, he did leave...in fact he left about 15 minutes ago to pick up some skim milk cuz I bought whole by mistake







), it wouldn't be fair to my son (See above paragraph please). It would have been a HUGE mistake placing my baby up for adoption based on someone elses (at least partially religious) views and opinions.

MANY mothers abort because they also do not want to go through with a pregnancy and birth (i.e. domestic violence, parents/family/baby's father does not know of pregnancy, rape or incest, want to "go-on" with life, stay in school, health reasons, they already have older children, etc etc etc). Birthing a baby changes your life forever (not that abortion doesn't-but there are different levels), and some are not ready for this change.

Also, many abortions are performed based on fetal or embryonic malformations, diseases and would-be birth defects...Many babies are not perfect, healthy, lily-white babies, and these babies are all very hard, or near impossible to place. It is wrong to promise a scared woman that if she births her baby, that baby will be placed with a family that will love, cherrish and care for him/her, when statistically that is not the reality.

That is why I feel it is wrong to PUSH adoption on a woman. Suggest? Sure. Push? No way. Please note that I--as well as most pro-choicers--feel that it is equally (if not moreso) wrong to push an abortion on a woman.

Hope this helps and does not seem snarky.









Best,
Kelly


----------



## Aura_Kitten (Aug 13, 2002)

Quote:

Why is it so horrendous that pro-life orgs push adoption? It's been mentioned here with disdain, as if it's an evil thing for them to do.
here's something to think about... http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/South/07/....ap/index.html

eta ~ kelly, you must have posted at the same time as me; i didn't see your post... great points, all. i was going to quote out all of what i agreed with..... but i agree with all of it.


----------



## LavenderMae (Sep 20, 2002)

I don't think anything should be pushed on a woman, that being adoption, abortion or having a baby.
I also think is wrong for anyone to tell young (and or) poor (and or) single women that the *best* thing for their baby is to be put up for adoption.
I think adoption should be suggested as an option but not the right one or the best one for the woman.

*Klothos, that is just freaking heartbreaking.


----------



## srain (Nov 26, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CookieMonsterMommy*
Many babies are not perfect, healthy, lily-white babies, and these babies are all very hard, or near impossible to place. It is wrong to promise a scared woman that if she births her baby, that baby will be placed with a family that will love, cherrish and care for him/her, when statistically that is not the reality.

Around here, it's my understanding that there are families willing to adopt any newborn, despite severe disabilities. Do you have any information about unadoptable infants?


----------



## CookieMonsterMommy (Oct 15, 2002)

SRain,

Can I provide information....yes. I volunteered for 3 months at our local "childrens home" aka orphanage-Let's call it what it is...(heaven have mercy on me, I just didn't have the heart to continue....maybe later in life), where the kids were ages 2ys-18yrs...I can tell you with 100% truth that of the physically healthy younger children NOT ONE was white. They were about (this is an estimate), half black, 30-35% hispanic 15-20% mixed/biracial, with a couple of asians (i think 2 lived there). And this is a "system" of 3 or 4 houses that are home to literally hundreds of children. Oh yes, there were white children. White kids in wheelchairs, white kids with cleft lip/palate, white kids with missing limbs white kids who were drug exposed, white kids who were orphaned or deserted at 10yrs old......

You said it yourself-"Unadoptable infant"...why must it be an infant? What if this mother attempt to raise the baby that she never wanted but was convinced she shoul birth. Maybe she abuses, neglects or just can't care for this child. maybe she gives him/her up, maybe the state takes the child away...the specifics don't really matter. The point is, because this originally unwanted child is now, let's say 4 years old, he or she has a very good chance of remaining unwanted.

You're welcome to visit their site, but you'd have to google it-It's called Little Flower Childrens Services, and it's run by Father Fagen. We also have a program in NY (although they run mostly out of the city) called "Ya Gotta Believe" and they look specifically for homes for hard to place children. Amongst those on the list are black/hispanic children, and those with disabilities, sibling grps, and older kids.

Also, look up ANY state's adoption website (Usually a link under the department of children and family services, DSS, whatever that state calls it), and they will continually mention that babies and children of color and those with disabilities are very hard to place and most abundant in "the system". The two states I looked into (VA and NY) both have photo galleries so you get a description of the kid as well as a pic or two. The only white kids you really find are in otherwise hard to place categories (they have learning or physical diabilities, are over age 4 or 6, or are part of a sibling group).

Please PM me and I will send you some links if you'd like, I'll have to look for them when I have more time.

Yes, there are families who will adopt a child no matter what-but they fill so quickly, and can usually only adopt one or two because of the high-needs nature of the child and the demands on the new family. And if you know such families, PLEASE urge them to adopt these kids now...don't wait till you "save" a baby, or come across a "crisis" pregnancy. These children are already in a crisis situation-being unloved and unwanted, perhaps neglected, abused and otherwise disadvantaged.

Best,
Kelly

PS-Personal story: My friend Carlos has an older birth brother named Juan...same mom, diff dad. They were put into foster care at ages 1 and 2...eventually put up for adoption at ages 3 and 4. Well, Carlos's OLDER brother was adopted somewhat quickly (I believe shortly before or after his 5th birthday).....Carlos remained a "ward of the state" until he went away to college at age 18....Juan's name is now "John" and still lives with his white birth family....the only diff between them is their skin color-Carlos got his dad's dark skin, black hair and "ethnic" eyes..."John" got his dad's light skin, light brown hair and "regular" eyes....(neither carlos nor juan had any developmental problems, physical deformities, etc)


----------



## Aura_Kitten (Aug 13, 2002)

i googled the adoption requirements + adoption information for my own state ~ i had no idea that in my state alone there were so many children waiting to be placed in loving homes.







100,692!









on one adoption site for my state:

_We have children of all ages, including many sibling groups. The majority of our children are of color.
Our greatest need for homes exists for:

Two or more related children (sibling groups)
Boys ages seven through nine
Infants and preschoolers with special needs
Teenagers_

in addition to having a photo gallery of all children who need adoption, my state also offers a financial subsidy + $$ for adoptive parents. yet there are still so many who need homes.

you can also search for a child who "meets your needs."









the application for adoption is very much like a job application ~ past employment history, income, and references... and that's really it.

i wish we were in a more stable situation so that i could adopt _now_ instead of having to wait at least a few more years. it breaks my heart that there are so many wonderful children without homes.









one of the children still waiting for adoption: _Eddie is a sweet and handsome little boy of Filipino and Latino descent. He receives services for significant developmental delays and is medically fragile. Eddie recognizes familiar people and surroundings and expresses unhappiness through crying. One of his nurses says that he is "easy to care for, easy to love." Eddie does not walk or talk but receives occupatinal therapy and is making good progress. He can now sit up for 45 minutes at a time and grab objects. He is legally blind and has some hearing loss. Eddie also has numerous health challenges and requires 24-hour care. He has reflux disease, a g-tube, respiratory problems and cerebral palsy. Eddie is a sweet boy who needs a family that can meet his very special needs, take him to his various appointments, and love him unconditionally. The family should be willing to work closely with his specialists to maximize his potential._






















please someone, adopt this little boy!


----------



## CookieMonsterMommy (Oct 15, 2002)

Klothos, Isn't that so sad???

I know...I made the mistake (?) of looking through my states adoption registry, and it broke my heart so badly...And even worse, to know that most of these children will remain in this state for years, if not the rest of their lives....I've always wanted to adopt, but am in no position to do so at this point in my life...but when I do, it will be an older child, and he/she will be of color (probably mixed)...

If you pro/anti WHOEVERS know families that are willing AND able to take in some/any of these children, please let them know about the need! And don;t assume that every child that you "save" and push into adoption will be cherrished and loved....

Best Wishes,
Kelly


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cappuccinosmom*
...Why is it so horrendous that pro-life orgs push adoption? It's been mentioned here with disdain, as if it's an evil thing for them to do...

It is wrong to push adoption on women. Adoption is a life-long change in a woman's life and in her child's life. It's something that should _only_ be entered into willingly and without guilt or "pushing" by anyone.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cappuccinosmom*
... So, if pro-life orgs are trying to save babies from death by abortion, wouldn't the logical thing to do be to help women who don't want thier baby to find a family to adopt it out to?

"Pro-life orgs are trying to save babies", that's the first priority, _then_ comes "helping" the woman. If you put helping the woman _first_, then denying safe, legal abortion and "pushing" adoption are both unconscionable.

It's like we are speaking different languages. I trust women. I think women should _completely_ own their bodies and reproductive choices. Therefore, I cannot "push" women in any direction when it comes to those choices.


----------



## RubyV (Feb 4, 2004)

Cookie, I"m from nYC, and I"m familiar with little flower and with the local CPC's. Do yu remember when they got sued by spitzer for meidcal malpractice, I believe it was? They were giving out false information to the women seeking help, like lying about for far along they were so that the women would be unable to terminate pregnancies, etc.







:

3 of my cousins wer adopted thorugh NYS. One black, two latino. All "hard to placd" because they were siblings and children of color.

Adding: I remember one young woman (15 yo) who went to PPNYC for help. Terminated her pg because her parents were abusive







. The CPC down the street offered help: They offered to put her into foster care and have the baby placed immediately for adoption. They offered her NO support for after the birth.

CPC's in the NYC area are notorious for offereing aid, and giving NOTHING to these women. AS an excort for a clinic in NYC, I once walked a poor immiegrant couple over to the cpc's "counsleor" becaue they wanted help staying pg. The couple came back next week to say that they offered them pratically nothing since they weren't planning to terminate to begin with. I don't know what happended to them.

THe counselors were nasty, uncompassionate people who were abusive to the women entering the facilities.


----------



## CookieMonsterMommy (Oct 15, 2002)

TY Ruby....and unfortunately I don't think the OP will ever see our point....

Truth be told, I don't remember that (I didn't even know they were active in that area, I just thought they opperated the "Children's Homes"). BUT I can attest to knowing MANY CPCs that do that (that's why they offer the "Free sonos"....this service is denied to those who are already sure in their decicions to keep their baby-the CPCs fund these sonos ONLY to show the woman a beating heart or other human-like function or detail in order to further try to guilt her into making the decision they want her to make.)

I'd sure like an anti-choicer (who honestly believes that these centers are also for the women) to address my issues about the formation and funding of these centers and organizations. If they are also there to help women, why do they mention ONLY preventing abortions in ALL their newsletters and fundraising literature?? The only thing I've EVER seen even close to helping mothers was a call for a donation of baby items-BUT they were in turn selling these (yes at a cheap price) in order to raise money for a used sono machine.

Also, I'd like to add that NOW is also working to make midwifery and birthing centers legal and available in every state. Why? Because they believe in women's choice, women's equality and women's rights in general. Please add this to my list of things that they do to support women in general (which I feel is much more important then singling out a much smaller group of women i.e. only those who considered abortion and then were "saved").

It also bothers me very much that these CPCs go against FACT, SCIENCE and MEDICAL RESEARCH to coerce (sp?) these women. Namely, blatently lying about stages of zygotic/embryonic and fetal development for example telling a 15 y/o-or even a 25 y/o who has just missed her period that her "baby" already has a heart beat, tiny limbs and a brain...the age of the "baby" would be about 2 weeks in this case, and is far from having ANY of these features, or telling this same woman how much the abortion would hurt her baby-when basic anatomy and physiology states that a functioning brain (and spinal cord) is needed to feel ANY sensations--that's basic, simple fact. And I've talked to more then 10 counselors who have told me that they are told to disregard medical text books and the like and stick to the anti-choice literature and statistics. almost all anti-choice people who have admitted that these are lies often employed have stated blatently that they will say "anything" to prevent this abortion.

Ruby, who do/did you escourt for?

Best Wishes,
Kelly

PS-Ruby, I definately agree with what you said about the "couselors" who hang out around the abortion clinics. The majority of those I;ve seen have been very rude, mean, judgmental, threatening, angry and down right malignant in nature.... We call these types "Sidewalk Terrorists" because that's what they do. I've seen them threaten the women, one said somehting like "I saw you park your Altima back there....I hope nothing happens to it while you're in there killing your baby", I've seen them group in front of a providers door, hugging or holding hands so that no one may enter w/out pushing them, and they had 911 on speed dial to press charges for assault







: They shove gruesome pictures in womens faces (a lot of women who are just there for a pap, or to get birth control, or even prenatal care etc), scream at them that they're going to hell, scare and children that might be with the women "Tell your mommy not to kill your baby brother or sister!" I heard one scream to a woman's 3 or 4 year old daughter. This is a large percentage of those I've seen. Does this seem to ANYONE to be a very "woman centered" or caring program??

I will admit that I have come across some very polite counselors, who simply ask the woman something to the effect of "Do you want some more information? You don't have to do this, there is help". BUT I still take issue to what these pamphlets contain, more of the above mentioned lies, as well as horrible pictures-the worst I saw was a brown paper garbage bag filled with dead and mutilated full or near term babies covered with things like coffee grinds, banana peels, etc...with a caption that read somehting like this: "Does your baby really deserve this". And please-1st of all, any material passed must be disposed of in a red plastic bag (that's the law). 2nd, regular trash is not allowed to be placed in a medical biohazard bag, 3rd of all, a VERY small % of abortions are done this late in pregnancy, and those that are have been determined by a medical doctor to be necessary (usually fetus is incompatable with extra-uterine life i.e. anencephaly). I really hope that these "babies" were just very life like dolls, or trick photography. You really have to wonder about the person who put that ad together.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Quote:

I really hope that these "babies" were just very life like dolls, or trick photography. You really have to wonder about the person who put that ad together.
Someone who would do that - and then show the pictures - obviously has no respect for children. I thought pro-lifers cared about children? Or is it just their religious beliefs they care about?

I mean, I volunteer at the rape crisis center, but I don't take pictures of dead rape victims and show them all over town in my "prevention" efforts!


----------



## CookieMonsterMommy (Oct 15, 2002)

Grease....

It all goes back to how MANY pro-choicers feel about anti-choice organizations--they are there to push their agenda by any means necessary.

Prevent abortion. Period.

--Kelly

ETA: it may be a few days until i can post/view again--lets PLEASE keep this respectful (as it has been) so that when I do come back, it's not removed or locked. TY all!

PS-I'd love to hear from the anti-choicers out there and any responses to what has been said.


----------



## Peppamint (Oct 19, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *phathui5*
I keep hearing people refer to pro-lifers that say a mom shouldn't have an abortion, but then don't support helping her out after she has the baby. I ask, who are they? All the pro-lifers I've ever met are totally supportive of moms who choose to keep their babies. Our family and others we know have:

* Taken in pregnant moms who didn't have somewhere to stay
* Donated money to crisis pregnancy centers
* Donated diapers, wipes, baby clothes, breastfeeding books
* Driven pregnant moms to prenatal appointments
* Bought food for moms who needed help
* Driven moms with babies to pediatrician appointments
* Rented a breast pump for a mom with a 30-week preemie
* Adopted babies
* Been foster parents
* Work at WIC as a Breastfeeding Counselor

So that's us and the pro-lifers that we know personally. In addition, there are pro-life groups that help with:

* housing assistance (they paid my friend's rent once)
* parenting classes
* maternity clothes
* baby supplies (siapers, wipes, clothes, cribs, high chairs, car seats)
* education assistance, helping moms finish high school or college

And what are they pro-choice people doing to help pregnant moms and children? They're proving birth control and abortions. I would have to say the ones I see doing more to help are the pro-life people. At least among those I know.

I personally support my church (which in turn gives a majority of it's income to the local food bank, a local shelter for battered women and children, and the crisis pregnancy center) as well as directly giving to the cpc sometimes. I participate in the annual Walk-a-thon: which is a program where you get people to sponsor you for a donation and you walk a few miles. The kids I will load up in the jogging stroller and walk this September. In previous years I supported other walkers, but this year the timing works out so I can walk myself. In previous years it always fell on the weekends I was assigned to work and last year it was held the weekend after I gave birth and I was enjoying my BabyMoon.

Once ds is old enough to want to go to Grammy's house (my 3.5yo asks to spend the afternoon with my mom all the time and has since 2yo) I plan to volunteer to answer phones, counsel or whatever they need.

I would be happy to act as a post-partum doula for a mom who needed assistance as well, but I do view my family as my first priority which is why most of my donations have been monetary up to this point.

Peace,
Michelle


----------



## Peppamint (Oct 19, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pugmadmama*
It is wrong to push adoption on women. Adoption is a life-long change in a woman's life and in her child's life. It's something that should _only_ be entered into willingly and without guilt or "pushing" by anyone.

Does not the same thing apply to abortion? It does _IMO_!

FTR, from what I understand Crisis Pregnancy Centers can vary a lot. Some operate on compassion, others on guilting the mother... I suppose it depends on the feelings of the director/board.

The same applies for Planned Parenthood... some strongly suggest abortion from the word go and others offer it as a choice and mention adoption etc. Again, it depends on management.


----------



## grisandole (Jan 11, 2002)

Oh yes, there are so many homes just waiting to adopt special needs kids









Go to www.adoptuskids.org

Kristi


----------



## RubyV (Feb 4, 2004)

I was an escort with PPNYC, NY clinic defense task force, and Voices for Choice. I have done about 6 different clinics in tthe NYC area.


----------



## weetzie (May 29, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *busybusymomma*
Does not the same thing apply to abortion? It does _IMO_!

Of course it does! I do not think that anyone would argue that pushing someone into abortion is just as wrong as pushing them into adoption. Its about respecting choice!


----------



## Peppamint (Oct 19, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *grisandole*
Oh yes, there are so many homes just waiting to adopt special needs kids









Go to www.adoptuskids.org

Kristi

Just out of curiousity, don't a lot of parents choose to do overseas adoption because of the cost and red-tape of adopting here? I admit I don't know much about it... paying a $1250 midwife's fee was a lot of money for us, I can't imagine coming up with thousands of dollars to adopt. I







those who are able to do so and do it!


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

That's another thing I wish would change - that those wanting to adopt children would be able to, even if they were not married or heterosexual or high-income.

So not only do we have all these kids no one wants, we have a lot of people who want to adopt kids but who will never be "approved."


----------



## Missinnyc (Aug 21, 2003)

I am sure there are organizations on both sides that care only about an agenda, and not about people. I have seen as many hateful, terrible pro-choicers as I have pro-lifers (and I've seen a lot of both).
FTR, I am adamantly pro-life and I support welfare and any other form of help a mother needs, no matter what her decisions are or whether she has all the premarital sex in the world. I do not support decisions I don't agree with, morally (like, I wouldn't escort a mother into an abortion clinic) but I certainly wouldn't try to hurt her ocne the deed was done, nor would I try to punish her. If a woman had an abortion but needed help, I would help her. If she needed counselling or money or housing, I would do my best.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

What I especially don't get are the pro-lifers who want to deny Medicaid to BABIES! (Oh, and to pregnant women.) So now that you've done your duty and gotten the mom to give birth, the baby should not get its medical care funded?!









I'd say that such pro-lifers, as well as those who are against welfare and housing assistance, should come here and explain their positions, but I know I would not be able to refrain from judging them and it would just turn into a huge attack.


----------



## Satori (Jan 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Greaseball*
They leaned heavily toward adoption/foster care for unmarried pregnant teens. They also encouraged marriage. Sorry, but I think getting married as a teen is more harmful than being a single parent. (Not to say it can't work, but most of the time, I don't hear good stuff about it.) They even gave me a booklet that said people who co-habitate are likely to experience domestic abuse, but that the risk level drops if they get married!







(No, actually it gets worse.)


I had a really good job when I got the surprise news I was pg with dd and ended up having a lot of complications and a lot of bed rest which caused serious financial issues. I ended up going to my local CPC and talk about a shock! I had to listen to over an hour of preaching about how sinful I had been and they were seriously trying to talk me into giving dd up for adoption and even offered me a place to live that was several hours away with a family but I would have to attend church and bible studies daily and give the baby up yada yada yada if I wasn't going to marry the father who had violence and drinking problems. They weren't to happy when I declined, I was 24 years old for crying out loud! I had a good job and would be fine financially as soon as I was off bed rest. Anyway they never have indicated they were religious based or else I doubt I would have ever gone in there for maternity or baby clothes. I donated a bunch of stuff about a year later and mentioned I would like to have another baby one day they about hit the roof and started in about how I need to get married first and what not. I no longer donate anything to them instead I give to a local org that will give to any mother in need without harassing them









I think some of this abortion stuff just goes to far, like last month I thought I was having a heart attack and had to park on the other side of the hospital which is right next to an abortion clinic and there were protesters out there and they were trying to stop me from going to the hospital so they could tell me about all the things that go on in the clinic. I had no idea is was an abortion clinic (I don't live in that city, it was just the nearest hospital) and at that point my only goal was to save my own life but yet these people were more interested in showing me pictures and yelling at me then getting me a friggin wheel chair and helping me into the hospital. I have no sympathy for either side at this point.


----------



## Aura_Kitten (Aug 13, 2002)

Quote:

It's like we are speaking different languages. I trust women. I think women should completely own their bodies and reproductive choices. Therefore, I cannot "push" women in any direction when it comes to those choices.
ITA.


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *busybusymomma*
Does not the same thing apply to abortion? The same applies for Planned Parenthood... some strongly suggest abortion from the word go and others offer it as a choice and mention adoption etc. Again, it depends on management.

Pro-choice means exactly that. Planned Parenthood does not push abortion "from the word go". It offers abortion as a choice, just as it offers continuing a pregnancy and adoption as choices. If a Planned Parenthood clinic is pushing abortion, they are not doing their job and they are going against the mission statement and intentions of Planned Parenthood.

I'd love to see links to nationally recognized anti-abortion organziations that provide links and information to safe, legal abortion. I seriously doubt such a thing exists but I'd love to pleasantly suprised.

From the Planned Parenthood website:

Pregnancy and Parenting: _Planned Parenthood is dedicated to the principles that every individual has a fundamental right to decide when or whether to have a child, and that every child should be wanted and loved._

Scroll down on this page to see non-coercive information about adoption.


----------



## Peppamint (Oct 19, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pugmadmama*
Pro-choice means exactly that. Planned Parenthood does not push abortion "from the word go". It offers abortion as a choice, just as it offers continuing a pregnancy and adoption as choices. If a Planned Parenthood clinic is pushing abortion, they are not doing their job and they are going against the mission statement and intentions of Planned Parenthood.

There are moms here at MDC who have had this experience. But then again, since these moms are what you call anti-choice (love the name calling- not) you can choose to believe them or not.


----------



## gingerlane (May 10, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *busybusymomma*
There are moms here at MDC who have had this experience. But then again, since these moms are what you call anti-choice (love the name calling- not) you can choose to believe them or not.









Forgive me, but what's wrong with the phrase anti-choice? Are pro-lifers in favor of a woman's right to chose or not?

And no, pro-abortion would not be a fair word for someone who is pro-choice, most of us are not so much interested in seeing more abortions occur as we are with the belief that women should be free to make the choice.

Please, if pro-life does not involve the absence of choice, tell me what it does involve. Not trying to be snarky, just curious if I've missed part of the equation.


----------



## Missinnyc (Aug 21, 2003)

I think there is also a mindset that SOME (not by any means all or most) pro-choicers have that I have experienced, where they think that because a woman did not have an abortion, she deserves no help.

I chose not to abort my DD and to continue to go to college. My DH does the same, but because of it, we rely heavily on federal loans to go to college, and my DD has Medicaid. We consider it a good choice, because as soon as we graduate, we'll be in good jobs and be able to pay them back and we'll ( I hope!) be members of the community who give back. But we have encountered flak from many of our pro-choice acquaintances, who think that because we chose to keep our DD, we should be totally self-reliant and not use any federal loans to help with school costs, and should not use Medicaid (silly, as we barely ever see the Dr, anyway). They think we had our choice to get out for free, with an abortion, and since we made this choice, too bad for us if we need help.

Again, I don't think there are generalizations to be made. We all need to do whateveer we can to help women and children.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

I got a lot of flak for TTC as a college student who relies on food stamps and Medicaid. These people would have called themselves pro-choice, but really they were pro-abortion for those who they considered unworthy of reproduction.

Others have told me they got the same attitude from Planned Parenthood - they were discouraged when they wanted to parent or TTC because they weren't "ready" in someone else's eyes.


----------



## gingerlane (May 10, 2004)

Those acquaintances need a good talking to. It's like the whole WAHM or WOHM issue... feminism is about choice, so I can be a feminist and stay at home with my kids OR go to work. Some people get all worked up about the extreme side of an issue and fail to see the root issue. I'm sorry these people took this stance with you. It's really quite deplorable.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MissinNYC*
I think there is also a mindset that SOME (not by any means all or most) pro-choicers have that I have experienced, where they think that because a woman did not have an abortion, she deserves no help.

I chose not to abort my DD and to continue to go to college. My DH does the same, but because of it, we rely heavily on federal loans to go to college, and my DD has Medicaid. We consider it a good choice, because as soon as we graduate, we'll be in good jobs and be able to pay them back and we'll ( I hope!) be members of the community who give back. But we have encountered flak from many of our pro-choice acquaintances, who think that because we chose to keep our DD, we should be totally self-reliant and not use any federal loans to help with school costs, and should not use Medicaid (silly, as we barely ever see the Dr, anyway). They think we had our choice to get out for free, with an abortion, and since we made this choice, too bad for us if we need help.

Again, I don't think there are generalizations to be made. We all need to do whateveer we can to help women and children.


----------



## LavenderMae (Sep 20, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MissinNYC*
I think there is also a mindset that SOME (not by any means all or most) pro-choicers have that I have experienced, where they think that because a woman did not have an abortion, she deserves no help.

I think that attidude just sucks (for the lack of a better word). I am pro-choice and in no way feel that way. I think all women should be helped if they are in need no matter what choice they make. Medicaid is for people like you (and me too) who can't afford medical insurance for their children, I mean who do your friends think should get it or do they think it (medicaid) shouldn't exist at all?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MissinNYC*
Again, I don't think there are generalizations to be made. We all need to do whateveer we can to help women and children.

I completely agree!!!


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *busybusymomma*
There are moms here at MDC who have had this experience. But then again, since these moms are what you call anti-choice (love the name calling- not) you can choose to believe them or not.









What name calling???

If a Planned Parenthood counselor pushed a woman towards abortion, that person is _not_ doing their job correctly. If an anti-choice clinic worker pushed a woman into not having an abortion, they _are_ doing their job correctly. See the difference?


----------



## Peppamint (Oct 19, 2002)

A pro-life thread was recently crashed by pro-choice moms who in turn called us anti-choice.







That would be like me calling a pro-choice mom anti-life, and from what I understand that's not allowed.


----------



## Peppamint (Oct 19, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pugmadmama*
What name calling???

If a Planned Parenthood counselor pushed a woman towards abortion, that person is _not_ doing their job correctly. If an anti-choice clinic worker pushed a woman into not having an abortion, they _are_ doing their job correctly. See the difference?

But isn't that what you expect from a crisis pregnancy center? That tends to be their philosophy!


----------



## gingerlane (May 10, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *busybusymomma*
A pro-life thread was recently crashed by pro-choice moms who in turn called us anti-choice.







That would be like me calling a pro-choice mom anti-life, and from what I understand that's not allowed.

I see your point, but I still don't understand why "anti-choice" is wrong. "Anti-life" implies that pro-choicers are actively trying to PUSH people into abortion, not simply fighting for their right to CHOOSE an abortion. I have to ask, what is inherently wrong with the phrase "anti-choice"? Pro-lifers fight so that women do not have the CHOICE to abort. Is it one of those phrases that means one thing in bare bones semantics but has a social stigma attached? Again, not trying to be snarky, just trying to understand the politics behind these phrases.


----------



## Tigerchild (Dec 2, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *phathui5*
I did a home visit with a mom from WIC today whose "pro-choice" friends all pressured her to have an abortion as soon as they found out she was pregnant. None of them offered her any practical help. They told her that since she wasn't having an abortion, then she got what she deserved. So she's taking care of her newborn twins with hardly any help. The only help she's getting is from her (pro-life) church, medical assistance, and WIC. Where are the helpful pro-choice women there? The way they saw it, if she didn't want an abortion, she wasn't making the right decision and they weren't going to help her.

Here's a pro-choice mom with a helpful hint from afar--please help this mom find a local chapter of MOTC (mother of twins clubs). Almost all of them have benevolent funds/programs, and they will be able to support her in the gaps--and offer her special fellowship as well.


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *busybusymomma*
A pro-life thread was recently crashed by pro-choice moms who in turn called us anti-choice.







That would be like me calling a pro-choice mom anti-life, and from what I understand that's not allowed.

Why the eye-roll after "anti choice"? "Anti-life" is obviously inaccurate. In fact, it's just silly.

Pro-choice means just that, you support a woman to make _her own choice_ once she is pregnant. Anti-choice means you think women shouldn't have that choice in the first place or you think the government is in a better position to make the choice of who should be allowed to have an abortion than individual women. Isn't that your position? Why is that name calling?

The term "pro life" is like the term "partial birth abortion". Both are misnomers, both are propaganda. I refuse to be bullied into using made up terms that make no sense.


----------



## Peppamint (Oct 19, 2002)

Just like we don't have the "choice" to kill a baby after it's born, I don't think we can call it just a "choice" when a woman is pregnant with a baby (call it generic names like fetus or embryo if it makes you feel better). I'm not anti-choice unless it means ending another life when that life is not threatening yours. So while I respectfully call you "pro-choice" because that's what you want to be called- pro-lifers are continually called "anti-choice". I just don't get the thing about respecting choices and not name calling and why it doesn't happen for certain people.









But I don't want to argue about it, you're not going to change my mind about it and I doubt I'll change your mind.










PS- pathui5- sorry to have gone







T!


----------



## LavenderMae (Sep 20, 2002)

The terms, zygote, embryo and fetus aren't "generic" names they are infact the real names of certian stages of development. Calling a zygote,or embryo etc.. a baby would be more inline with using a generic name if you want to get technical about it.
I call you anti-abortion. Although I do think anti-choice is fitting,the anti-abortion movement does infact want to eliminate a woman's right to choose.


----------



## Peppamint (Oct 19, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sheacoby*
The terms, zygote, embryo and fetus aren't "generic" names they are infact the real names of certian stages of development. Calling a zygote,or embryo etc.. a baby would be more inline with using a generic name if you want to get technical about it.
I call you anti-abortion. Although I do think anti-choice is fitting,the anti-abortion movement does infact want to eliminate a woman's right to choose.

But if I call you anti-life in return what does that accomplish?









What next? Will women want the right to choose to get rid of a baby after birth? Funny how just being removed from a mother's uterus via a hole in the abdomen or descending the birth canal suddenly renders a blob of tissue into a human being. Or is it?

I'm just glad more people are recognizing that newborns feel pain and deserve pain relief for surgeries, circumcisions etc... maybe someday people will recognize they have those same feelings in the womb.


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *busybusymomma*
Just like we don't have the "choice" to kill a baby after it's born, I don't think we can call it just a "choice" when a woman is pregnant with a baby (call it generic names like fetus or embryo if it makes you feel better). I'm not anti-choice unless it means ending another life when that life is not threatening yours. ...

What do you mean by "not threatening yours"? Can the threat mean the women will be maimed by something like a stroke or must she be in danger of death? Of killing herself by her own hand? What must the odds be that a continued pregnancy will kill the women? 5%? 50%? 90%? And who gets to decide when the odds have tipped in favor of the woman?

I think that *no one* can be trusted to make those choices other than the woman herself. You think the government is in a better to position to make those choices (because someone _will_ make them, abortion will never comlpetely disappear and so it becomes a matter of who can have it and who cannot.) You want the choice removed from the woman's hands. Fine. Why not stand by that position instead of hiding behind nonsense terms like "Pro-life" (the opposite of which is the ridiculous "anti-life") and "partial birth abortion" (a non-existant medical procedure)

Further, "Fetus" and "embryo" are not "generic names", they are the scientifically correct names. I can see why you would be against using the correct terms, as they do not futher your cause, but I have no need to go along with your unwillingness to use them.

Whether or not the pre-born (or baby if you like) should have the same rights as the already-born (women) is a matter of serious _debate_ with strong opinions on both sides. That women die when abortion as a legal option is taken away is a _fact_. I absolutely refuse to call "pro-life" the movement that is proposing that women return to back alleys for unsafe abortions where death is much more likely outcome than it is with legal abortion.


----------



## librarymom (May 25, 2004)

And maybe someday you (busybusymama) will recognize that abortion is a medical procedure and as such should be between my doctor and me. You have no say in medical procedures affecting MY body.

But I won't hold my breath.


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *busybusymomma*
...What next? Will women want the right to choose to get rid of a baby after birth? ...

Yes. That's it. You've unmasked us. We want the right to "kill babies" after birth. Because that's women for you...murderous, unreasonable, sinful creatures held in check only by a patriarchal goverment.

Good grief, if that's what you believe women to be, no wonder you think the government is in a better position to manage my womb than I am.


----------



## mama ganoush (Jul 8, 2004)

My experience with the "pro-lifers":

I have been pushed into oncoming traffic by them.

I have been spit on by them.

I have been followed home by them, where they sat outside my house much of the night.

I have had all of my car windows smashed by them.

I have watched them punch a 16 year old girl in the face.

I have listened to them scream at women that they are "murdering stupid ignorant whores who will burn in hell."

I have had them verbally threaten my life, and the life of fellow volunteers.

yeah, real supportive bunch there...


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

One of them told me she wished all women would die during abortions.

Somehow this doesn't match their "pro-life" philosophy.

And then there is always the death penalty thing...


----------



## LavenderMae (Sep 20, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *busybusymomma*
But if I call you anti-life in return what does that accomplish?









What next? Will women want the right to choose to get rid of a baby after birth? Funny how just being removed from a mother's uterus via a hole in the abdomen or descending the birth canal suddenly renders a blob of tissue into a human being. Or is it?

I'm just glad more people are recognizing that newborns feel pain and deserve pain relief for surgeries, circumcisions etc... maybe someday people will recognize they have those same feelings in the womb.









Well, see I'm not anti-life so no the name wouldn't fit. You are anti-abortion and that's what I call you.
You are the only one I believe who has called a fully developed fetus a blob of tissue here.
In all the many years that women have been aborting (legal, illegal, herbal ect...) as far as I know there has never been an out cry for the right to murder babies. The only ones I have ever come across who make that leap in rationale are anti-abortions individuals/org.

I agree that is a good thing that people are now realizing infants feel pain!


----------



## Peppamint (Oct 19, 2002)

never mind, this isn't accomplishing anything.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Quote:

So long as my tax dollars fund it, I have a right. Pay for your own abortion.
Since when are we given the right to decide how our tax dollars will be used? There are a lot of things I am paying for that I would rather not be.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

:

So, if someone *can't* pay for their own abortion, exactly who is going to pay for their:
increased food cost
time off work
medical bills
maternity clothing
etc...








If someone can't come up with hundreds of dollars for an abortion, is forcing them through a pregnancy and birth really a logical conclusion?


----------



## Aura_Kitten (Aug 13, 2002)

of course, TiredX2, because gosh, don't you know they can just put all the babies up for adoption?


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Well, sure, I *know* that adoption is the only solution for unprepared adults. BUT, just wondering how they would get to that point


----------



## Raven67 (Apr 20, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *phathui5*
I keep hearing people refer to pro-lifers that say a mom shouldn't have an abortion, but then don't support helping her out after she has the baby. I ask, who are they? All the pro-lifers I've ever met are totally supportive of moms who choose to keep their babies. Our family and others we know have:

* Taken in pregnant moms who didn't have somewhere to stay
* Donated money to crisis pregnancy centers
* Donated diapers, wipes, baby clothes, breastfeeding books
* Driven pregnant moms to prenatal appointments
* Bought food for moms who needed help
* Driven moms with babies to pediatrician appointments
* Rented a breast pump for a mom with a 30-week preemie
* Adopted babies
* Been foster parents
* Work at WIC as a Breastfeeding Counselor

So that's us and the pro-lifers that we know personally. In addition, there are pro-life groups that help with:

* housing assistance (they paid my friend's rent once)
* parenting classes
* maternity clothes
* baby supplies (siapers, wipes, clothes, cribs, high chairs, car seats)
* education assistance, helping moms finish high school or college

And what are they pro-choice people doing to help pregnant moms and children? They're proving birth control and abortions. I would have to say the ones I see doing more to help are the pro-life people. At least among those I know.


Never mind, I forgot I am trying to swear of of anti-abortion threads. As a psychologist, I have learned not to argue with the delusional.


----------



## Aura_Kitten (Aug 13, 2002)

Quote:

Well, sure, I *know* that adoption is the only solution for unprepared adults. BUT, just wondering how they would get to that point
well how they get to that point is completely irrelevant, as long as they do.









(at least, this is the attitude i've encountered time + time again w/ pro-lifers...)


----------



## CookieMonsterMommy (Oct 15, 2002)

Klothos and Tired.....

Ummm-DUH!









All the CPCs would pay for all of this like they promised!









Remember??








:










Hehehe...couldn't resist.









Tired+Klothos+Cookie=








:


----------



## midnight mom (Feb 4, 2003)

I haven't read all the posts just yet, don't have time right now.

I got pregnant at 15 and considered abortion, even went to an abortion clinic. And my experience with anti-choice people was not pleasant. They did not try to talk to me rationally, (or offer me any kind of help for that matter) all they did was yell and scream and name-call. WTF???

Had they approached me differently, well you never know. And I could have used all the help I could get, I was 15 years old, homeless and pregnant, with a mom who was strung out on heroin.

JME--just my experience!!


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

I think too many of these pro-lifers are that way only because of their religion, instead of because they genuinely love babies. IME, those who care about babies are the ones who offer to help pregnant women in whatever way they can, and those who only care about what some religion says are the ones who scream that you're a filthy whore when you walk into PP to get condoms.









Some of them love babies and religion too; they are more rational.


----------



## cappuccinosmom (Dec 28, 2003)

Greaseball, I agree with you.

When you combine pro-life beliefs with a deep anti-child attitude, you get a really, really bad combination. Just like religion without love is empty, being pro-life without compassion is useless and counterproductive.

I am shocked at the number of people I know who are prolife because of religion, but have a real dislike for babies and children, find pregnancy, birth, and breastfeeding abhorrent, and think of their own children as bothers and little wreckers-of-peaceful-life.









And I am very prolife.


----------



## Aura_Kitten (Aug 13, 2002)

Quote:

Just like religion without love is empty, being pro-life without compassion is useless and counterproductive.


----------



## mom2x (Apr 5, 2004)

My state has had a real bad year w/ finding abandoned babies in dumpsters and such. It makes me wonder how much continuing support these women/girls receive.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

That opens a whole nother can of worms though (about *what* is required to abandon a child, should it be a crime, etc...).


----------



## mom2x (Apr 5, 2004)

We have the law that says you can leave your baby at a hospital, police or fire station. Somebody left the baby at the hospital indoor parking garage, which wasn't technically the hospital. There was a big thing about whether or not to prosecute the mom. Anyway, I guess that is a whole other can of worms. (what is a can of worms?)


----------



## CookieMonsterMommy (Oct 15, 2002)

Mom, OT, but a can of worms is what a fisher uses for bate....

You take the damn lid off and the buggers all start crawling out and you can't re-cap it w/out killing the worms.

(If you weren't really asking, I apologize sheepishly







)

And Pug, I should have added you to my little







: icon along with Tired and Klothos.







My MDC reproductive heros!

Okay, so has this thread convinced ANYONE of ANYTHING, or just reaffirmed previously held beliefs? I think the latter.

Best Wishes, Kelly


----------



## mom2x (Apr 5, 2004)

No. I was really asking. I thought they came in those styrofoam cups w/ the holes in the lid. I'm a little punchy from drinking coffee tonight.

And I agree w/ you re: reafirm the latter.


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CookieMonsterMommy*
...And Pug, I should have added you to my little







: icon along with Tired and Klothos.







My MDC reproductive heros!...

I'm so flattered! Really!

I'm not so sure about threads like these just reaffirming previously held beliefs. Personally, I find threads like these really make me look closely at my beliefs on a given issue. Sometimes, yes, I am simply reaffirming. But other times I come away more committed to an issue and other times I come away with more doubts about an issue. I think all of that has value. I'd write more, but I've got to get back to jumping!








:


----------



## cappuccinosmom (Dec 28, 2003)

Wow, I actually got applause from Klothos! Will wonders never cease.


----------



## janerose (May 9, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CookieMonsterMommy*

Also, look up ANY state's adoption website (Usually a link under the department of children and family services, DSS, whatever that state calls it), and they will continually mention that babies and children of color and those with disabilities are very hard to place and most abundant in "the system". The two states I looked into (VA and NY) both have photo galleries so you get a description of the kid as well as a pic or two. The only white kids you really find are in otherwise hard to place categories (they have learning or physical diabilities, are over age 4 or 6, or are part of a sibling group).


I'm only on the 2nd page of responses, but had to add my 2c here. I've been the person who was considering adopting a child from social services. After 5 years of infertility treatments we'd pretty much given up on getting pg.

First, let me say that I don't disagree with anything you said. I just thought some additional info for people not familiar with the state adoption process would be helpful for someone.

We debated back & forth numerous times the pros & cons of adopting a older child, a child of a different ethnic background, a child with disabilities, a sibling group. We decided that we were comfortable with a child of any race & with mild to moderate disabilities. However, since we're both young (in our 20's) we weren't comfortable with adopting a 10 year old or a large sibling group, KWIM? Many families aren't able to provide the type of enviroment, services, time, etc that children with severe disabilities have.

After speaking to several caseworkers my understanding is that most children who are legally free for adoption have actually been in the foster care system for a minimum of a year often more. Although many of them may have been taken from their parents as infants, it takes a *LONG* time to terminate parental rights. It's not uncommon for a child to enter foster care as an infant/toddler (with a fairly good chance of getting adopted -- even being a minority or having some disabilities) and end up not being legally free until they're older (and with less of a chance).

We were told that basically what we wanted, 1) an infant or toddler 2) of any race 3) with or without disabilities, was only possible with foster-adopt. This was not an option for us. After 5 years of heartbreak I simply could NOT handle the possibility of "our" child being taken from us.

We were blessed with a pregnancy last December. We've already decided that if we decide to add another child to our family in the future we'll adopt through the state. Since we'll be older & have some parenting experience a older child will be better for us then.

Basically the whole state adoption situation sucks, IMHO.

Oh, and if anyone wants lots of info on state adoptions you can go to www.about.com Look up adopting & find thier "state photolistings" page (usually in a sidebar somewhere). They have links to all the states. Also, www.adopting.com is an awesome resource.

Holly


----------



## janerose (May 9, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *busybusymomma*
Just out of curiousity, don't a lot of parents choose to do overseas adoption because of the cost and red-tape of adopting here? I admit I don't know much about it... paying a $1250 midwife's fee was a lot of money for us, I can't imagine coming up with thousands of dollars to adopt. I







those who are able to do so and do it!

A lot of parents choose to do overseas adoption because they can get a healthy infant/toddler without having to wait years & years like they often would with a private domestic newborn adoption.

It is NOT cheaper to adopt overseas. The least expensive program we found was the Ukraine, which ran $8-$12K depending on what region you were adopting from, if you adopted more than one child, etc. The most expensive program we found in general was Guatemala, which seemed to run mid to high $20K. Domestic infant adoption in the US costs about the same range, depending on what agency you're adopting from, if you're looking to adopt a white or minority child (yes, newborn minority adoption is often less, although still usually over $10K)

Many people adopt internationally because they believe it's just as humanitarian/important to provide a child from another country a home as one from the US.

The red tape is just as crazy, often more so, overseas, but you also don't have to worry about the birth family changing their minds & reclaiming the child. Frankly, though this doesn't happen nearly as often as you'd think. Private adoption agencies in the US usually require *huge* amounts of counseling for birth parents, and birth parents normally choose the family they want their child placed with from a stack of dossiers. Agencies will generally only give birth parents dossiers for families that match their requests (ie: specific religion, married people only, specific race, etc).

As I said in the previous post, we spent 5 years ttc. For at *least* 3 of those we would have gladly adopted, but weren't able to afford private domestic adoption or international adoption. As I also mentioned in the above post, state adoption was not an option for us at that time. It is totally heartbreaking to sit and surf on-line, seeing all these children who need homes, and know that you're sitting childless because you (1) can't afford the paperwork or (2) aren't able to provide the child with the right type of environment, emotional resources, monetary resources, etc for their situation.

I know someone earlier mentioned something about her brother & his wife looking to adopt a healthy girl from China. I assume because the statement was followed by an







that she doesn't agree with this. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE everyone try to be understanding of those who are adopting. Especially if they've gone through ANY sort of infertility. I can't tell you the number of times I was made to feel like an "awful" person because I wasn't willing to adopt an older, sibling, minority group, with disabilities.







: People who have no other way to build a family except through adoption deserve the right to have healthy, whole, children who they raise from infancy if that's what they choose. You miss out on SO much when you feel you can't carry a child yourself. Now that I'm pregnant myself I know just how much. EVERY child deserves a home...regardless of the country they're from, their age, race, and whether or not their disabled.

*hugs*

Holly


----------



## srain (Nov 26, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *janerose*
We were told that basically what we wanted, 1) an infant or toddler 2) of any race 3) with or without disabilities, was only possible with foster-adopt. This was not an option for us. After 5 years of heartbreak I simply could NOT handle the possibility of "our" child being taken from us.

That's pretty much what I thought- I really believe that if a mother puts a baby up for adoption at birth, it will almost always be easily adoptable. My question was about mothers choosing abortion or adoption for their children, and I felt like folks were claiming that unless the baby was perfectly healthy and white, it was doomed to a life in an institution. Sibling groups and kids available for adoption at older ages don't really seem relevant to that choice....


----------



## EFmom (Mar 16, 2002)

Quote:

A lot of parents choose to do overseas adoption because they can get a healthy infant/toddler without having to wait years & years like they often would with a private domestic newborn adoption.
I'm the mother of two children adopted from China (and was also taken aback by the eyerolling). Another big factor for many people is the predictability of the process in some other countries. Now, that's not to say that there aren't sometime unpredictable situation, but for the most part you have some idea going into it (with many countries) that if you meet the criteria and jump through the myriad hoops, you will adopt a child. That is not the case with private newborn adoptions, where you may never be selected by a birth mother, and where the birth mother may change her mind.

We also looked into adopting from the state, and what we found was a huge variation from county to county. In my county, it was almost certain that we, as caucasians, would not have a child of a different race placed with us because of the prejudices of the local officials against transracial placements.


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *janerose*
...I know someone earlier mentioned something about her brother & his wife looking to adopt a healthy girl from China. I assume because the statement was followed by an







that she doesn't agree with this. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE everyone try to be understanding of those who are adopting. Especially if they've gone through ANY sort of infertility...

That was me...and I've been dealing with infertility for over a decade (I had several miscarriages before having my son, who is now 12, and have been unable to concieve/adopt.) My BIL and SIL get pregnant if they look at each other and they have no problem carrying pregnancies to term. They say they are considering adoption because they are so against abortion. But it makes no sense...they absolutely will _not_ adopt an older child or a minority or a child will special needs here in the United States, where they want to prohibit abortion. But they are willing to fly half way around the world to adopt a baby girl from China. I'd have a lot more respect for them if they'd just admit they want a girl (they have a houseful of boys and always says "we hope it's a girl!" before the ultrasound tells them otherwise) and stopped pretending it's because they are so committed to "life" (whatever the hell that means)

And, yes, their nearly super-human ease in concieving and carrying children to term combined with their total lack of compassion for our infertility has made me bitter about the whole situation. But I hold my tounge in person with them, so I'm venting here.


----------



## CookieMonsterMommy (Oct 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *srain*
That's pretty much what I thought- I really believe that if a mother puts a baby up for adoption at birth, it will almost always be easily adoptable. My question was about mothers choosing abortion or adoption for their children, and I felt like folks were claiming that unless the baby was perfectly healthy and white, it was doomed to a life in an institution. Sibling groups and kids available for adoption at older ages don't really seem relevant to that choice....


SRain...I wonder if what you read was taken out of context, because it seems as if this proves MY point...she was willing to adopt an infant of any race and one was not available for direct adoption...? So it's also the state that holds these kids up. If she had went there asking about a white healthy infant, she more than likely would have been refered to a private agency and waited a LONG time, because healthy white babies are in HIGH demand.

I'm also not sure how older kids don't seem relevant, when these unadoptable babies are placed in foster care when the agencies don't come knocking down the door trying to place them, and they quickly GROW UP and become unadoptable "older aged children". So I'm puzzled at how this wasn't relevant.

Please ask Jane how many WHITE older healthy kids there were that were in the system since infancy....my guess there'd be none because they were all snatched up.

Please do me and yourself a favor...call a private adoption agency, ask how long is the wait for a healthy white baby (assuming that you already did all the paper work, got visited and approved by a social worker, etc). Years. Ask how long the wait for a mixed, black or hispanic baby with or without disabilities. They'd have one MUCH quicker. Educate yourself and take a chance to open up your mind. These babies are not being adopted like we ALL hope they would be. THAT is why they are all now 4,5,6,16 years old, and that ADDS to their "unadoptableness" (yes, I made that word up







)

Best Wishes,
A Very Frustrated Kelly

PS-Jane-FTR I don't jugde who adopts who. I don't care if someone, who may only be able to adopt one child because of the cost and emotional tolls. wishes to wait 5 years to adopt the "baby of their dreams". The issue I take is with those who claim that all babies/children/whatever who are placed for adoption have equal chances of actually being adopted, when statistacally, rationally, clearly, that is not the case.

Even my father, a staunch Conservative Repulican, member of countless anti-life organizations has stated that he feels sorry for all the black babies that never really have a chance at life, even after they're "saved" and born.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Having a certain kind of child (or any child at all) is not a "right." It's a privilege and an awesome gift. If you have adopted or conceived the kind of child you wanted, it's because the scales were tipped in your favor, not because you "deserved" it.


----------



## girlndocs (Mar 12, 2004)

i just want to say, i am in AWE of you mamas, and yes, this thread (and others here) has affected the way i see things. i've gone from "on the fence" to strongly pro-choice ... and passionate about making abortion *unnecessary*.

and now volunteering as an escort at an abortion clinic is a life goal for me.

than you for all your facts and passion.


----------



## RubyV (Feb 4, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *girlndocs*
i just want to say, i am in AWE of you mamas, and yes, this thread (and others here) has affected the way i see things. i've gone from "on the fence" to strongly pro-choice ... and passionate about making abortion *unnecessary*.

and now volunteering as an escort at an abortion clinic is a life goal for me.

than you for all your facts and passion.

I was an escort for years. It's scary. But, in a strange way, fullfilling. What you do isimportant.

When I was at PP as an escort (this is vounteer, btw), many of the women (young in their teens) weren't going in for abortions. They were going in for routine gyn care.

It's an eye opening experience. If you'd like to start another thread, there are a few of us here who could tell you more, I"m sure.


----------



## srain (Nov 26, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CookieMonsterMommy*
Please do me and yourself a favor...call a private adoption agency, ask how long is the wait for a healthy white baby (assuming that you already did all the paper work, got visited and approved by a social worker, etc). Years. Ask how long the wait for a mixed, black or hispanic baby with or without disabilities. They'd have one MUCH quicker. Educate yourself and take a chance to open up your mind. These babies are not being adopted like we ALL hope they would be. THAT is why they are all now 4,5,6,16 years old, and that ADDS to their "unadoptableness" (yes, I made that word up







)

Done! The receptionist estimated 2 years for a white infant, 1 year for a black infant. It's not like there are all these black babies piled up waiting to be adopted. We completely agree that older children are hard to adopt. What I said was "if a mother puts a baby up for adoption at birth, it will almost always be easily adoptable." And I still stand by that!


----------



## CookieMonsterMommy (Oct 15, 2002)

Srain:

Yes, it will be almost immediately adoptable. But not adopted. Please look into the stats.

This is the last time I will post Re:Adoption of white vs. black babies, mostly because it is way OT. But also because it is frustrating (as I'm sure it is for you too) and I do not think it will accomplish anything.

Thank you,
Kelly


----------



## mama ganoush (Jul 8, 2004)

also, the local miami Herald just did a huge story on the staggeringly large number of African-American babies/children who have not been adopted and stuck in the the foster system cycle, and the article went on to say that this was the case across the nation. And the Florida agency is trying to reach out to African American families to get them to adopt cause they have had such little success getting these children adopted through prospective white families.


----------



## mom2x (Apr 5, 2004)

I thought it was hard for a white family to adopt an African American child. (my source might be Law and Order, so this may not be true)


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

I think it depends on the individual state. Some put priority on same-"race" adoption, others do not.








T

Love the sig mom2x


----------



## Aura_Kitten (Aug 13, 2002)

a bit







T, but, on the subject of adopting babies of different races...

did anyone see that photo that was banned several years ago of the white woman breastfeeding a black baby?


----------



## EFmom (Mar 16, 2002)

Quote:

I think it depends on the individual state.
In my state it varies right down to the county level. In my county, the head of the department in charge of this will do just about anything to avoid a transracial placement, including leaving children in foster care for many, many years.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

totally







T at this point







:

Quote:

did anyone see that photo that was banned several years ago of the white woman breastfeeding a black baby?
Nope. Banned from where/by who?


----------



## Aura_Kitten (Aug 13, 2002)

(







T )

man, it was years ago, but if i remember right it was banned from the art gallery / art show that it was going to be in by the state / country...

let me see if i can dig up the article (and photo).


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

I'd love to see it (just cause I love nursing pics) but don't go out of your way looking for it, not worth much time/effort







Thanks, though!


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

I saw it long ago in a perfume ad...United Colors of Benetton?


----------



## MaryLang (Jun 18, 2004)

I think that there are plenty of supportive pro-lifers.
But I do not whole-heartedly believe in welfare.
For the most part from what I've seen personally, so many people "play" the system. Welfare should be there to get you through a rough patch, not to live off of for year after year. Some people need to man-up (womyn-up?) take reasponsiblity for they're actions, and that dosen't have to mean have an abortion.

I try to be as supportive as I can, myself. I became a foster parent 2 1/2 years ago, and let me tell you its wonderful helping babies find homes. In response to the pp, there are a lot of african-american babies in the system, but a lot of times the system makes it very difficult for a white couple to take an african-american child. I was once called to take an african- american little girl until they realized I wasn't trained in ethnic hair-care, something that was never brought to my attention prior and honestly seems silly to me.
Sorry, I guess I went of topic a little.
Last point:
Pro-life: some help women, some do not.
Pro-choice: some help women, some do not.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

If "taking responsibility for your actions" means never receiving any help and possibly taking on more than what you are capable of, I wouldn't encourage that. I think that regardless of one's opinion of the mother, the baby does not deserve to be punished for the circumstances of its birth. A baby born to a single teenager who has no money deserves to have its needs met just as any other baby. It seems our government has this attitude that it should deny the babies things like food and medical care just to get back at the mothers for daring to have them in the first place. Like that new rule that denies welfare mothers extra benefits when they have more children. The children do without because other people do not approve of their parents. Why is that fair?

Every parent needs help. Some need more than others. Some need help in the form of money, some need childcare, some need parenting education, etc. Regardless of who these parents are, don't we want to help them? Don't children do much better when their parents receive the help they need? And isn't that what every pro-lifer wants: the best for the children? (Well, no, I know it's not what they all want, but some do.)

And if men took responsibility for their actions and for the children they created...would non-livesaving abortion even exist at all?


----------



## MaryLang (Jun 18, 2004)

I totally agree with the men needing to take responsibility for they're actions. And like I said, welfare is there to help. I think when your on welfare you should be focused on providing for your children and eventually getting off.
If you know how to work the system it provides everything for you and if you are a good,up-standing, truthful citizen in need of a little help you get nothing.


----------



## phathui5 (Jan 8, 2002)

"And if men took responsibility for their actions and for the children they created...would non-livesaving abortion even exist at all?"

Yes. I don't think that men are to blame. My brother in law's ex aborted their baby even though he offered to raise it himself without her help. He still mourns the child that he doesn't have. Abortion hurts men too.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Quote:

And if men took responsibility for their actions and for the children they created...would non-livesaving abortion even exist at all?
Yes, because no birth control is 100% so there will always be unwanted *pregnancies* (if not unwanted children).


----------



## Jwebbal (May 31, 2004)

I think it's important for people to realize that even those women who desperately want children might be forced to consider abortion. My partner and I were faced with that possibility when I was trying to become pregnant. We might have had too many eggs than could be safely carried, or we might have had a genetic abnormality that would cause severe impairment or even death if the pregnancy went to term. Most only consider the possibility of a mother's life being put in jeopardy, but there are other cases where a mother might have to abort even if she wants children.


----------



## MaryLang (Jun 18, 2004)

A good friend of mine just lost her baby Tues. He had severe neuro problems and died an hour after he was born. She knew this from the beginning, but the thought of ending his life never crossed her mind. He had problems, he wasn't perfect and as long as he was in her womb he was safe and that is all that mattered. Her life was in danger numerous times over the last few weeks, but that can not justify killing a baby. She waited until it was life and death for her before she let them take him. And I think she is the most couragous woman I will know. Abortion can never be justified. Taking a baby early because of medical problems and doing what you can is a diffrerent story.
An embryo IS a human entity!


----------



## LavenderMae (Sep 20, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MaryLang*
. Abortion can never be justified.

Of course you realize this is ONLY your opinion, right!?


----------



## MaryLang (Jun 18, 2004)

Killing is NEVER justified!


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

I've always thought that a baby who was going to die at birth should die in a peaceful, loving environment. And that if it were my baby, I'd want to hold it as long as I could before it died.

But I can't imagine what that would be like, and I could understand why a woman would want to hurry and abort the child she knew would not live so she could be that much closer to conceiving a child who might.


----------



## mama ganoush (Jul 8, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MaryLang*
Killing is NEVER justified!


I assume you are a very active anti-war activist then.

as well as a vegetarian and also active in the anti-death penalty movement.


----------

