A Rant About What I Have Come to Learn

It has been so long and I have changed so much. It's amazing really.

I used to believe that adoption really was a perfect system. I used to believe that adoption was wonderful, that there were no issues to the arguments supporting adoption.

I used to believe that the abortion debate had simple answers, that abortion was the solution to a lot of problems.

I had no idea how wrong I was. I had no idea how messed up the adoption system was, how easily abortion and adoption could be used by society at large to justify neglecting the needs of our women and children.

Women and children first used to have meaning. Now we set them as last. Their needs come second, third, fourth, last to the overall desires of a society at large that degrades them, and then downplays the harm in doing so.

It's amazing what history can teach you. Knowledge is power, but it, like most power, is frightening and intimidating at times. I am often frightened of the things that I learn, of the little things that aren't spoken about anymore, as though they will never again occur if we do not remember them. Ignorance is indeed bliss; it makes life easier to bear.

For who  could bear to know that their actions and lack thereof can cause another so much damage?

What supporter of adoption could bear to support, if they knew, the theft of babies from their mothers that was the foundation of their beloved adoption system?

The nature of humanity tends to stain even the best of ideas. Adoption is a wonderful idea. Adoption tells a woman that she is not forced to parent a child. Parenthood is a choice. It tells those who cannot bear children that they have a chance, albeit a small one, to have a baby to call their own. And yet, and yet...

And yet women were denied the very choice to parent in the beginning. Their children were stolen from them, immediately off the delivery table, to be sold to the highest bidder. Like the slave trade, people discovered that they could profit off of the sale of another human being. This time, though, unlike the slave trade, their selling of humans was considered "a loving option." It still is. People still profit off of the sale of infants. Adoption agencies know this, and this is what inspires them to coerce women to surrender their children under the guise of "love" and "the best interest of the child." These are the same things, the same statements, that were used when and during the process of stealing children from their vulnerable mothers. What mother is more vulnerable than when she has been kidnapped, drugged, manipulated, degraded, called names? What mother is more vulnerable than the poor, unwed, teen mother? What woman is an easier target than one whom society condemns to failure for becoming pregnant--regardless of how she became so?

They say that if you tell a lie enough, people will believe it. That adoption is always a loving option and is the "best option" or the option that is "in the best interests of the child," or even "the best interests of the woman" are cruel lies that continue to be believed by many of the supporters of adoption. The second someone mentions a demand to regulate the adoption system, its supporters are up in arms, telling the person how "anti-child" or 'anti-family" they are.

But they are neither. They are Family Preservationists.

What is "Family Preservation?" Why do I call myself a Family Preservation Advocate?

Family Preservation is the idea that a woman has a right to raise her child, to keep her own child, if that is what she wants to do. That society has an obligation to make sure that her right to parent is not abridged without just cause. Just cause refers typically to abuse of the child. If the mother is abusing her child, like any parent who abuses their children, the child should be removed from the home, and if it is determined that she cannot be rehabilitated, that the abusive behavior cannot be stopped with therapy, etc., then her parental rights have justification to be severed. It is not justifiable to say that a poor woman should give her child up for adoption, should sever her parental rights, because she is poor, young, or unwed, or any combination of the three. Age, income status, and marital status do not say exactly whether or not the child will be abused. A young, unwed, poor mother may love her child just as much as a mother with a higher economic status, married, or an older mother.

i firmly believe that society has an obligation to support all women in regards to keeping their babies. Most women who choose to give birth to their child end up keeping it, and from what I have learned from the abortion debate, I speculate that helping women keep their children, abolishing the stigma surrounding women who are young, poor, unwed, or any combination thereof, would reduce the number of abortions. I could be wrong. But that is my prediction.

We live in a time where we tell the teenage mother in high school that she is doomed to failure. We may not say it directly. We may sugar-coat it and simply say that she is at higher risk of becoming economically disadvantaged for the rest of her life. But the meaning is still the same, no matter how much sugar is placed on the words.

Society tells the poor mother that she will not be able to adequately provide for the child.

Society tells the unwed mother that she does not have the proper relationship status to properly raise a child.

And with these excuses, we tell her that she must abort or give her child up for adoption if she wants to be "responsible."

Why can we not say that "we will help you overcome these obstacles?" Why is it so hard to say that?

It is simple. It is hard because it would require work from society as a whole. It would mean increasing taxes for welfare, food stamps, cash assistance, education, childcare. And who wants to spend money on people that too many taxpayers consider abusers of the system, irresponsible people, lazy people, etc?

We use the idea that anyone using our tax money for anything, health care, food, clothing, shelter, etc. is lazy, irresponsible, someone who desires to live off of other people. But if we could just unplug our ears and uncover our eyes, we would see the world. We would begin to understand that this is not the case for the majority, and we should not punish the majority for the actions of the minority.

I'm not saying that there are not people who intentionally abuse the system. There are. But when is it okay to punish people in need because there are a few people out there who take advantage of the system? Why do we say "if one person abuses it, no one gets it?"

When we refuse to help women keep their children, we set them in a bad position for which to negatively judge them more. Oh, she gave her child up for adoption? What kind of mother doesn't want her child? Oh she had an abortion? What kind of mother murders her baby? Yet the same people who say these things are those who refuse to help her in the first place. Refuse to help her when she becomes pregnant. Refuse to love her.

Who would Jesus, when asked for help, ignore?

What pregnant woman in need would Jesus refuse to help? A young one? A poor woman? How about an unmarried woman? Would He refuse to help her?

You may not agree with my beliefs of Christ, that he would help women regardless of her economic status, regardless of her age, regardless of anything. But I don't believe that he would do otherwise. I truly believe that the first thing that He might say after finding out that a pregnant woman is in need would be "what is it that you need?" "How may I help you?" "What can I do to help you?" I don't know. I can't say for sure, but I believe that he would do anything he could to help vulnerable women, protect them from those who want to take advantage of them, protect her from those who desire her child to make a profit (abortion or adoption industry), and help her be the mother that she probably wants to be.

That is why I support family preservation. That is why I support helping women. That is why I support loving all women keep their babies. That is why I do not support the abortion or adoption businesses. That is why I do not use either business to justify neglecting the needs of poor, young, and/or unwed women who become pregnant.

I have changed. I used to justify neglecting the needs of women. I have learned that nothing is as good as it seems. That women typically do want to keep their own children. That people profit off of separating mother and child.

As I have grown, I have come to love women more. I do not care if my taxes go to feed a child, a family, a person in need; if my taxes go to education, to health care. Who am I to deny someone care on the basis that I do not agree with what they have done? Who am I to tell a woman that I will not help her and she can just deal with becoming pregnant? Who am I to tell a woman what is in her best interests? Who?

I would rather my tax money go to helping those in need, helping keep families together, rather than tearing them apart via war or poverty.

United, We Can Stand.

Photo Source: DonnaBellas.Com

It's amazing how divided people are when it comes to abortion. Sometimes it's hard to see through all the mudslinging--which is completely normal for any political stance, really. 

And yet, everyone, or I should say most people, on both sides of the abortion debate--and even those in the middle can and do have common ground and common beliefs. Don't believe me? Think it's impossible to get along or share beliefs with "them"?

Well let me ask you a few questions:

• Do you believe that women and children should be supported?
• Do you think that all children should be and could be born wanted, loved, and cared for?
• Are you sick how society seems to degrade pregnant women?
• Do you believe that women deserve better than the circumstances and polices that are currently in place?
• Do you think that policies should be improved to benefit the lives of women, children, and families?
• Do you believed that everyone should be more educated on the topic of sex?

Chances are that you answered some of these questions, if not all of them, with the same answer as your supposed "counterpart."


And this is just the tip of the iceberg. Here are some more questions for you to answer:

• Do you think that forced abortions are wrong?
• Do you think that forced adoptions are wrong?
• Do you believe that it is wrong to coerce or pressure or manipulate someone into having an abortion?
• Do you think that it is wrong to coerce or pressure or manipulate a woman into giving her child up for adoption?
• Do you love women--regardless of whether or not they choose to be mothers?

Once again, you are probably answering these questions in the same way that someone with differing views on abortion would answer them.


There is some common ground in this issue. There's a lot more than I am posting here, I'm am sure.


If we can all unite on these common goals, I believe that we can all actually achieve something. Both sides will only benefit from unison. Of course there are issues that divide both sides (or else we'd all be on the same side 100% and there would be no debate whatsoever). 


Don't you think that it is possible to unite with your fellow man, woman, and child to make life better and safer for all? Don't you think that reducing the maternal mortality rate is an amazing goal? Don't you think that every woman deserves to have the healthiest pregnancy possible (should she decide to become a mother)?


Stop dividing yourselves, people. The last time people were so divided about who was and was not deserving of certain rights, or deserving the title of "person," the division ended in a war in which a huge number of lives were lost. Let's not go through that again. Let us be better. Let us learn from history. Let's work together, not fall apart. 


United, we can stand. Divided, we will fall.

Introduction Blog Post

I am a simple soul that likes to do research. I love reading, and I pride myself in finding accurate information for my posts. If you spot something that is incorrect, please let me know.

I also want to say that I am not a doctor. I'm also not a lawyer. So don't treat me like either. I cannot, and do not diagnose. I cannot and do not perform in legal practice. I am, however, in college and aim to get my Law degree. But until I have that, just know that i am not a Lawyer. Not a professional in any way,really. I suppose I am more comparable to someone from Wikipedia. I use many sources for my articles to try to make the best articles that I can.

My blog will also discuss issues in regards to pregnancy, child rearing, family problems, abortion, adoption, and the benefits/risks/facts about all of these things.

Thank you for taking the time to read this post. I hope that you enjoy my blog.

-Roni Melton

If you have any questions or comments, you can always find me on Facebook at my page Roni Melton: Family Preservation Advocate.