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.