We’ve always said “pro-choice” is code for “pro-abortion,” because the other side only pushes that 1 of the 3 choices of mothers in crisis pregnancies.
On June 18 the New York Times reported on a major concession made by the other side, the “emergence of a generation of women’s advocates who want to remedy” the pro-abort adoption gap….
It remains to be seen whether this actually comes to pass or is just a PR move by desperate ideologues not only losing in the polls now but also losing their previously presumed position as spokespersons for women.
Pro-aborts promoting adoption would be one “common ground” measure I’d support. The difference between them and us being, of course, our side offers financial and legal assistance toward that end, while their side will only supply a piece of paper with the name of a pro-abortion adoption agency.
But if the bottom line is more babies saved, that would be good.
Promoting adoption also forces pro-aborts to mentally go places they have always refused to go. It is to agree with a pro-life platform plank, to delve into our territory, It is to concede abortion isn’t necessarily the best option for mothers in crisis pregnancies. It is to promote life over death. It is to concede the “pregnancy” is a life in the 1st place. It is to accept that some mothers are willing to sacrifice their interests and to accept responsibility for the the life they have created, which is to admit abortion is self-serving and irresponsible.
The NYT piece was quite interesting. A few highlights:
What if groups that demanded reproductive choices for women actually offered them?…
The idea is simple. It is about choice. Not choice as a euphemism for the right to have an abortion, but choice in the true sense of the word: options, informed consent and support for women trying to figure out what to do with an unwanted pregnancy….
(In other words, pro-aborts do not provide totally informed consent nor provide holistic support?)
The thinking is that all the clinics’ clients, whether they seem uneasy about abortion or not, should have a clear understanding of how adoption works, rather than just be handed a list of references – a list that essentially says, adoption is fine, but it’s not our thing.
To many who have labored for abortion rights, it might seem at first blush that abortion clinics need adoption specialists the way fish need bicycles – that it represents an infiltration of the opposition….
Corinna Lohser… worked at an abortion clinic in Cleveland years ago… [and now] works for Spence-Chapin Adoption Services, a NY adoption agency that supports abortion rights, and has come to regret the lack of information she had been able to provide women in Cleveland….
As Ms. [Christina] Page put it: “It’s like you’ve come to this
g>Italian restaurant – do you really want the waiter saying, ‘There’s this great German place down the block, not sure how much you know about it, but you might like it’?”…
After Ms. Palin’s recent “mama grizzlies” speech, pundits focused more on whether she could call herself a feminist than on addressing her critiques of the abortion-rights message. Feminist groups, she said, want to tell women: “You’re not capable of doing both. You can’t give your child life and still pursue career and education.”
If Ms. Palin feels confident lobbing that point it’s because the right has kept old-line feminists so busy protecting abortion rights that they have less energy to focus on issues like adoption or, for that matter, quality child care for women who want to parent. The Adoption Access Network suggests recognition of one weak spot….
Note that it’s our fault pro-aborts haven’t focused on adoption heretofore.