Casey Anthony’s lawyer: “We need to think twice about a country that kills its own citizens.”
I think that this case is a perfect example of why the death penalty does not work and why we all need to stop and look and think twice about a country that decides to kill its own citizens. Murder’s not right no matter who does it, whether its a ritual killing or someone becoming a victim in a drive-by shooting. It’s disgusting, and I think if this case gets any attention, it should focus on that issue, that we need to stop trying to kill our people. The best feeling that I have today is that I know I can go home and my daughter will ask me, “What did you do today?” and I can say, “I saved a life.”
~ Many angles to ponder in this quote by Jose Baez, Casey Anthony’s attorney, July 5, via Mediaite
[HT: Susie Allen; photo via Dr. Lillian Glass Body Language Blog]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
“Murder’s not right no matter who does it….”
You are 100% correct. No woman should kill their child. Timeline makes no difference. Two months into a pregnancy or two years out!!!
“Murder’s not right no matter who does it….”
You are 100% correct. No mother should kill their child. Timeline makes no difference – two months into a pregnancy or two years out!!!
I’m against the death penalty. I do understand that it’s possible to be pro-life on abortion and pro-death penalty, making a distinction between the guilty party and the babies who do nothing to deserve death. But my position is that the death penalty has little or no deterrent value, costs the state far more than life imprisonment, and disrespects human life. Besides, no matter how many safeguards are put into place, we’re only human– if there’s even the slightest chance that we might execute an innocent person, count me out.
I’m anti-death penalty too. Basically for the exact same reasons, Kelsey.
I am also against the death penalty but at least, I’ve often conceded, the adult gets a trial, where the child has no advocate and the child is innocent.
This quote might be nice, had it been said by someone else about something else. By that lawyer, it reeks so badly of hypocrisy, I need to step outside for some fresh air.
I have a strange feeling this guy is personally pro-abort, and his pro-life attitudes on the death penalty aren’t pure.
I have the same sense of awe on those rare days when I return home after praying at one of the local abortion centers and I tell my family that a woman stopped by with her toddler, her baby, her pre-teen to tell us of her gratitude that we were there years before when she was considering the abortion option. Yes, our Nation should reconsider its use of Death as as solution to problems. More people should pray outside abortion centers and offer hope; our government should stop funding organizations who commit abortions.
This coming from Baez?
Irony, irony, irony.
I heard his quote the other day. It made me sick. What he REALLY means is “I helped a murderer get away with it”.
Jose Baez makes a valid point. Many people were already talking about executing Casey Anthony. A jury of her peers decided there was not even enough evidence to convict her. It is possible for innocent people to be convicted — and sentenced to death. Perhaps we need to re-think the whole idea of execution as a possible punishment.
Caylee is dead. Regardless of the verdict, killing Casey wouldn’t have brought her back.
We might also want to consider that yesterday’s unwanted child is often tomorrow’s criminal. How would you feel about preventing an abortion only to find out that the child born was later executed as an adult?
No, Denise, just no. An unwanted child isn’t necessarily going to become a criminal. Plenty of us go on to lead normal productive lives. As to your question, abortion and execution are both wrong in my book. Abortion is definitely worse, but that doesn’t make execution ok.
JackBorsch says:
July 9, 2011 at 4:06 pm
No, Denise, just no. An unwanted child isn’t necessarily going to become a criminal. Plenty of us go on to lead normal productive lives.
(Denise) That’s true. Unwanted children don’t necessarily become criminals. I only meant that it often happens that yesterday’s unwanted child is today’s criminal.
I couldn’t bear to watch that press conference, but heard Dennis Prager cracking up about Baez lapsing into Spanish (what, for his fans -fellow hombres like Geraldo Rivera?). Would a Finnish-American speak in Finnish? Alan Dershowitz in his parents’ Yiddish?
We are not to kill anyone unless they are about to do the same to us. But governments have the obligation to protect society as a whole from criminals, as they do with terrorists or enemy soldiers.
If they can’t execute murderers, perhaps they shouldn’t incarcerate kidnappers, or fine thieves.
Hans we can incarcerate murderers without the need to execute them. Being opposed to execution doesn’t mean that you don’t want society protected.
“Often” does not a fact make. You are of the OPINION that unwanted children often become criminals. Unless you have all of the studies you can link to.
Yesterday’s unwanted child becomes today’s medical waste, Denise.
And the other side of that coin would be that “unwanted” children become today’s most compassionate adults.
I am still wondering if you are prolife? Proabortion? A troll? Some of the things you write are just Out There.
We can’t know or judge the value of a human life. Is a person only the crime they commit? What about the acts if kindness they performed in their life? Even if a man or woman grows up to be a criminal or be executed, their life in between has value and none of us can decide to throw it away.
Carla says:
July 9, 2011 at 5:12 pm
“Often” does not a fact make. You are of the OPINION that unwanted children often become criminals. Unless you have all of the studies you can link to.
Yesterday’s unwanted child becomes today’s medical waste, Denise.
And the other side of that coin would be that “unwanted” children become today’s most compassionate adults.
I am still wondering if you are prolife? Proabortion? A troll? Some of the things you write are just Out There.
(Denise) I often sound “Out There” because the discussion has become stymied and predictable. I tend to think afresh about a lot of matters.
Denise,
Perhaps that no child is unwanted. There are people out there more than willing to love any ‘unwanted’ child, if only the mother put the child on adoption rather than choosing abortion.
Perhaps the biggest crime here is the unwillingness to love the most vulnerable innocent person who hasn’t wrong anyone?
I don’t think there’s any doubt about who’s pro-life and who’s pro-abortion.
Bob says:
July 9, 2011 at 8:27 pm
Denise,
Perhaps that no child is unwanted. There are people out there more than willing to love any ‘unwanted’ child, if only the mother put the child on adoption rather than choosing abortion.
(Denise) As I’ve pointed out, adoption is not — at this time — an alternative to abortion because adoptions can’t be performed pre-natally. If it were possible to remove an embryo or fetus and transplant it into another woman’s womb, it would be an alternative. At the present time, this is not possible.
The alternative to abortion is NOT HAVING THE ABORTION. THEN, if a female carries to term and gives birth and STILL doesn’t want to raise the baby, she may place it for adoption. I am for the availability of adoption despite the fact that adoptees are prone to special emotional problems — some of which can lead to them being on police blotters. Carla has told me not to be specific about those problems but you can look up articles on the forensics associated with adoption. There is one at crimemagazine.com.
I have talked to a woman who has had abortions and she said the reason she sought abortion wasn’t concern about taking care of a baby after she had one but a rejection of the state of pregnancy itself. She believes certain brain chemicals failed to activate that usually allow the pregnant female to face pregnancy and birth “with equanimity.”
Did Mr. Baez really save Casey’s life? Many commentators believed that if she were convicted, she had grounds for appeal on incompetent representation. That opening statement gave an elaborate scenario that was never really supported by evidence and which really could not be proven in any case. While the burden of proof legally rests with the prosecution, many observers believed this attorney trapped himself — and his client — by making so many specific allegations in that opening. They believed the inability to prove either the molestation accusation or the means of death would likely work against Casey in an unfair way (even if she could have been fairly convicted).
It may be that his defense had less to do with the acquittals than intrinsic weaknesses in the case against Casey Anthony.
Denise, adoption is an alternative to abortion since the top reasons women choose abortion are alleviated by adoption:
#1 Having a baby would dramatically change my life
#2 Can’t afford a baby now
#3 Don’t want to be a single mother or having relationship problems
#4 Have completed my childbearing
#5 Not ready for a(nother) child
Only when you get down to #6 “Don’t want people to know I had sex or got pregnant” does adoption fail to alleviate the reason for the abortion.
Source: Guttmacher
ADOPTION is an beautiful, life-affirming alternative to abortion.
My own position on the death penalty is one of indifference. Justice could work with or without it, and there’s nothing wrong morally or theologically with a death penalty. My main interest in discussing it is to clear the landscape a bit, rather than to advocate for a specific policy. Thus, almost everything I say about it is a bit of devils advocacy. ;-)
Kelsey:
“But my position is that the death penalty has little or no deterrent value, costs the state far more than life imprisonment, and disrespects human life.”
But of course whether it has deterrent value is irrelevant if it’s an unjust penalty. The ultimate injustice would be to kill someone because it deters others from crime, if it’s not also true that the person actually deserved to die. Justice means deserts. The question of deterrence really has nothing to do with justice at all. So a punishment must first be just. The hope is that a just penalty will deter — but the latter cannot be the basis of a punishment. “It’s wrong to kill offenders, but that’ll deter better so let’s do it.” No.
As for disrespecting life — not under a forfeiture rubric. In fact, the forfeiture rubric would have it that not killing the offender is precisely disrespectful of human life. In the Old Testament we specifically see the symmetry of a forfeiture rubric cited in the Noahic Covenant — a covenant some would argue (I think with good grounds) still applies to all humanity. Jesus offers no teaching on the matter, utterly disregarding broad civic issues which might have confused him with contemporary Zealots. Only Paul touches on the issue, using language that’s consistent with a divinely purposed state prerogative (not a “right”) to inflict even deadly punishments.
At any rate, the Roman church does consider the death penalty to be of a kind with abortion — not in the least. Ratzinger, post-E.V.: “There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.” Which is to say that Catholics should not regard arguments with others concerning the death penalty as carrying the same valence as arguments concerned with abortion. There’s just no comparision.
So I’d emphasize that deterrence is not the major issue when thinking about the death penalty, and that the penalty’s disrespect of human life, to a forfeiturist, is encountered precisely when it’s not carried out — not when it is. The forfeiturist would want to hear you acknowledge their view of justice by saying something like “human life is not sacred enough that a murderer can possibly forfeit his own life. However sacred it is, it falls short of that.”
Because then the forfeiturist would point to the Noahaic covenant, if you’re a Christian, and ask whether God was concerned with justice just there, or was negligent of it.
BTW, a sound theology of Hell generally relies on the idea of forfeiture.
ninek: “We can’t know or judge the value of a human life. Is a person only the crime they commit? What about the acts if kindness they performed in their life?”
Non sequitur. Forfeiture considers life even more sacred than those who oppose the death penalty. Life is so sacred that those who destroy it deserve death, would say the forfeiturist. The forfeiturist claims to know the value of human life. It’s absolutely sacred. God’s Noahic command is a forfeiturist view, uncontroversially.
Life is so sacred that if you forfeit it, how well you treated children and old people are matters that can’t possibly recover you from deadly deserts. You forfeited your life because you took one.
“…their life in between has value and none of us can decide to throw it away.” Some would argue that God has conveniently removed that decision from your judgment, in the stipulation of the Noahic covenant. Your judgment is limited to whether they did actually murder or not. You don’t need to decide to inflict the death penalty — God decided that for you. Just determine guilt.
Easier said than done, obviously. My point is that whether the sentence should be death or not, to someone concerned with the Noahic covenant, is not your decision anyway. God already made it, so it would be hubristic to sublimate your guilt into a mode of thinking where you imagine carrying out the sentence would be a decision on your part.
Do my remarks raise a hornets’ nest of further problematic issues? Of course. With good folks on all sides of ’em. But since when does even our best thinking (far short of which I fall) ensure a smooth sail in a fallen world?
Denise, even if it is true that adopted, unwanted, or abused children are more likely to become criminals, it will never justify the preemptive killing of those children to prevent this. You realize you are talking about millions and millions of people? If abortion is a solution to this, we might as well kill troubled teens as well. I mean, they are more likely to commit crimes as well! And like Carla pointed out, many unwanted children grow up to be very caring adults BECAUSE of their experience growing up.
And not wanting to be pregnant is no more a reason to kill the child than not wanting to pay child support is reason to kill the mother of your unborn child.
Lrning says:
July 10, 2011 at 9:34 am
Denise, adoption is an alternative to abortion since the top reasons women choose abortion are alleviated by adoption:#1 Having a baby would dramatically change my life#2 Can’t afford a baby now#3 Don’t want to be a single mother or having relationship problems#4 Have completed my childbearing#5 Not ready for a(nother) childOnly when you get down to #6 “Don’t want people to know I had sex or got pregnant” does adoption fail to alleviate the reason for the abortion.Source: Guttmacher
(Denise) If the pregnancy itself isn’t the problem but concern about caring for the baby after birth, then why is it that so few females place their babies for adoption? Here’s a possibility: When pregnant, many females plan to place the babies they will have for adoption. However, the process of carrying for nine months and giving birth causes feelings to change. They become extremely attached to the baby and, after it is born, no longer want to hand it over to someone else to raise. Even though it may mean becoming a single mother or going on welfare, they decide not to place the baby for adoption.
The truth is that females may place their babies for adoption — regardless of the legality or illegality of abortion — and very few of them do.
<<ADOPTION is an beautiful, life-affirming alternative to abortion.>>
(Denise) Again, adoption is an alternative to raising a baby you have had but do not want to raise. It can’t be done pre-natally. However, there may come a time when it is possible to transplant an embryo or fetus from one womb to another. At that point, adoption will become an alternative to abortion as the female who doesn’t wish to be pregnant may end her pregnancy with no harm to the embryo or fetus and another female who wants to be pregnant can carry it.
Regarding the beauty of adoption: Jeremy Strohmeyer’s adoptive parents have said that they wouldn’t have adopted him had they known of his biological history — a mother in and out of mental hospitals and a father in prison. Nevertheless, they stand by their son and will visit him in prison. The beauty of adoption appears to be lost on Joel Rifkin, David Berkowitz, Joseph Kallinger, Kenneth Bianchi, Robert Lee Bennett, Jr. (about whom I wrote an article), Lawrence Bittaker and many others.
I have a close friend who is adopted. I care about him very much. He is mentally ill, an alcoholic and cross drug-addicted. I’ve asked him if being adopted may have adversely affected his life and he replied, “No question about it. I’ll be asked does your family have a history of this illness or that illness and I always have to say ‘I don’t know.'” The biological history of his adoptive mother and father isn’t his biological history.
JackBorsch says:
July 10, 2011 at 11:53 am
Denise, even if it is true that adopted, unwanted, or abused children are more likely to become criminals, it will never justify the preemptive killing of those children to prevent this. You realize you are talking about millions and millions of people? If abortion is a solution to this, we might as well kill troubled teens as well. I mean, they are more likely to commit crimes as well! >>
(Denise) I’m not for one minute suggesting that any of these people should never have been born. I’m suggesting we shouldn’t be so quick to sugarcoat adoption itself. It is possible that the practice of open adoption may alleviate some difficulties. It is also possible that we must accept that females who get pregnant are, in general, mothers and must be expected to raise their kids even if that means welfare or the child growing up in unusual or eccentric circumstances.
<<And like Carla pointed out, many unwanted children grow up to be very caring adults BECAUSE of their experience growing up.
And not wanting to be pregnant is no more a reason to kill the child than not wanting to pay child support is reason to kill the mother of your unborn child.
(Denise) Again, I’m just telling you what this woman told me. She had the abortion because she rejected the experience of the pregnancy itself. She believes that certain brain chemicals often fail to activate during an unwanted pregnancy as a result of which the process of pregnancy itself is viewed as intolerable.
I myself have never had an abortion.
This quote brings up an interesting point, even though I believe Casey Anthony is guilty, does she desrvere the death penalty is a different question altogether. Mr. Baez is happy about saving a life while ignoring the question of punishment. Seems as if either she’s guilty of murder and has to be executed or she is found not guilty so no punishment, with the DP there seems to be no middle ground.
This is actually a good argument against the DP. It creates an unfortunate dilemma, either you kill someone who is guilty of homocide or you let them go unpunished.
He may be right about this, there are better more humane ways to punish someone for this crime, but a punishemnt is still needed. If it turns out there is a case where there’s a 1% chance a convict is innocent, at least they can be released from prison. With the DP there is no reversal and that is dangerous. Besides I think there’s a difference between saying someone deserves to be punished for a crime and someone desevres to die. I don’t know if are government should be in the business of deciding who deserves to die.
Back to Casey Anthony’s case, it looks to me like all the evidence pointed to murder or manslaughter. The alternative explanation was that it was an accident and was made to look like murder but this was just a theory by the defense attorney to provide another explanation.
The fact is there was no evidence for an accident and I don’t understand the logic of that plan anyway. If there WAS an accident and they made it look like murder then who would they frame it on? They were the last ones seen with her, if it looked like murder then her family would be the only ones that could be linked to it. Personally it just doesn’t make sense, all of the evidence points to something intentional, whether it was an actual killing or just willful negligence, this doesn’t look like an accident to me.
Denise, despite your anecdotal examples, adoption is an alternative to abortion for the majority of women choosing abortion in the U.S. Why? Because it alleviates their self-stated reason for choosing abortion.
Your sad stories about adoptees are just that, sad stories. A genetic predisposition for criminal behavior does not mean that individual will be a criminal.
Based on what you’ve written, your friend’s difficulties seem to be more a case of the repercussions of not knowing his biological family health history than a problem inherent in being raised by adoptive parents.
You seem to be trying to make the case that adoption should not be encouraged as an alternative for women who are considering abortion. I wholeheartedly disagree with that viewpoint. Adoption saves lives. In my opinion, that makes it beautiful.
Lrning says:
July 10, 2011 at 1:38 pm
Denise, despite your anecdotal examples, adoption is an alternative to abortion for the majority of women choosing abortion in the U.S. Why? Because it alleviates their self-stated reason for choosing abortion.
(Denise) Then it shouldn’t matter whether or not abortion is legal. Most women with unplanned pregnancies will have their babies and place them for adoption.
Should research be done on transplanting embryos and fetuses from womb to womb?
Lrning says:
July 10, 2011 at 1:38 pm
Denise, despite your anecdotal examples, adoption is an alternative to abortion for the majority of women choosing abortion in the U.S. Why? Because it alleviates their self-stated reason for choosing abortion.>>
(Denise) Then perhaps females aren’t really getting abortions. They are having babies and placing them for adoption in massive numbers. Abortion may be a myth. <<Your sad stories about adoptees are just that, sad stories. A genetic predisposition for criminal behavior does not mean that individual will be a criminal.>>
(Denise) Those individuals may not have had “a genetic predisposition for criminal behavior.” Rather, the fact of being adoption and the difficulties inherent in adoption may have contributed to their misbehavior. Both Joel Rifkin and David Berkowitz expressly said they were motivated by feelings of abandonment related to adoption. <<Based on what you’ve written, your friend’s difficulties seem to be more a case of the repercussions of not knowing his biological family health history than a problem inherent in being raised by adoptive parents.>>
(Denise) He was adopted during the era in which adoptions were always “closed.” <<You seem to be trying to make the case that adoption should not be encouraged as an alternative for women who are considering abortion. I wholeheartedly disagree with that viewpoint. Adoption saves lives. In my opinion, that makes it beautiful.>>
(Denise) The alternative to abortion at this time is carrying to term and giving birth. I support research into the possibility of transplanting embryos and fetuses from womb to womb.
Js: I don’t have an opinion either way but your last paragraph presumes rationality of the actors. A possibility your remarks don’t account for is that wildly irrational plans were attempted.
Not saying that’s probable. But limiting the range of possibilities to only rational acts current exhaust the possibilities. It’s a bit of a detective show approach, where the audience hook is trying to figure out something that makes complete sense in the end.
A LOT of crime isn’t like that at all.
Sidebar – Denise – “. She believes certain brain chemicals failed to activate that usually allow the pregnant female to face pregnancy and birth “with equanimity.”.
That is rationalizing her behavior. There is no “chemical” that is activated by the brain to make a woman face a pregnancy and subsequent birth. Hormones are certainly in place for a woman’s body to change as she carries a child. Some women simply do not wish to have a child and when faced with an unplanned pregnancy, they kill the child before birth.
You have written, Denise, about adopted people being troubled and of criminal mind and behavior. Have you ever done research on Dave Thomas (founder of Wendy’s?) or of Halle Berry, Ella Fitzgerald, former President Gerald Ford, Scott Hamilton (skater, Olympic gold medalist), Nelson Mandela, Steve Jobs, co-founder of Apple, to name a few? You may be surprised to find that people who are adopted, who have been in foster care, who have not grown up in their biological family are no more likely to be criminal in their behavior than a person who grows up in their biological family.
Back on topic
Baez no more saved the life of Casey Anthony than I did … it was the jurors who found that the prosecution did not present a case in which they showed that she had killed her daughter. The prosecution did a lousy job …
Lee says:
July 10, 2011 at 5:20 pm
Sidebar – Denise – “. She believes certain brain chemicals failed to activate that usually allow the pregnant female to face pregnancy and birth “with equanimity.”.
That is rationalizing her behavior. There is no “chemical” that is activated by the brain to make a woman face a pregnancy and subsequent birth. Hormones are certainly in place for a woman’s body to change as she carries a child. Some women simply do not wish to have a child and when faced with an unplanned pregnancy, they kill the child before birth.
(Denise) She said she had no concern with “stigma” or embarrassment or even the conditions of raising a child. She said it was the condition of pregnancy that she found intolerable. She also indicates that she did not make a “choice” to have an abortion. Rather, as soon as she realized she was pregnant — in her 4th month of pregnancy — she immediately began looking for an abortion and never “for one second” considered carrying to term. Again, she says that wasn’t because she feared any stigma at having a baby out of wedlock or fears about raising a child but because she couldn’t tolerate being pregnant.
It seems to me that she may be right that, in at least some cases, it could be the state of pregnancy itself that is found intolerable. She gives an example of a beautiful married woman married to a wealthy man who died in an illegal abortion. As a married woman, she couldn’t fear stigma. Since she was wealthy, she didn’t fear raising the baby in poverty. Indeed, she didn’t even need to spend that much time raising a baby but could have hired people to do it for her. Why did she have an illegal abortion if not because she found pregnancy itself intolerable?
Denise – you will have to ask the woman why she had an illegal abortion – because I cannot answer that for you.
I had an abortion prior to 1973. There was nothing wrong with the baby – I came from a wealthy family, who could well have afforded to help raise the child – indeed, we had people working in our household for us – so that was not the issue.
For years I bought into the lie that I had the abortion so that I could 1) finish my education (elementary.secondary special ed teacher). 2) would not embarrass my parents – I was unwed 3) because I was told that THIS is what would happen – the child would be aborted and I could go on with my life as though nothing had happened.
I believed that story for years … about 25 years, Denise. I would give an explanation for my abortion with the justification that the baby should have been aborted because … take your pick.
The point I am making Denise, is that this woman about whom you are writing is justifying her abortion to you. It matters not why she had the abortion – the fact remains that she did have an abortion – her child is dead.
She may always justify her abortion. She may always speak of her state of pregnancy as being intolerable – there are others, some of them who are in the fashion and show industry that cannot take the time to be pregnant (Nicole Kidman comes to mind)- others who are anorexic or bulimic that cannot stand the thought of gaining weight.
It matters not why anyone has an abortion or repeat abortions – the fact remains that we who have had abortions are very good at justifying why we had them and why some repeat the procedure. This is known as trauma re-enactment – repeating the same behavior, hoping for a different outcome and it is not uncommon in abortions.
Our justification of our abortions do not make abortion correct or right. Casey Anthony’s justification and cover up of her daughter’s murder does not make it right, either. However, I truly believe that Casey has compartmentalized the murder and the loss of her daughter.
In many ways, she is like an abortion survivor – trying her hardest to party the act away, using alcohol or drugs to numb the memory.
If you are still in contact with the woman, you may wish to tell her about Rachel’s Vineyard.(877 HOPE 4 ME) These weekend retreats are a great starting point for healing from an abortion procedure. There is no judgement, no condemnation, only gentle support and assistance for those who suffer from abortions.
@Rasqual if I understand you, you’re saying I’m assuming there is a rational explanation to this incident when there isn’t necessarily.
I think I get what you’re saying, I don’t mean to narrow the amount of explanations to only rational ones, I suppose anything is possible. I was just expressing my feelings about how the situation appeared to me. It looks like a conspired act and the only other explanation I know of is one that was (from what I’ve heard) theorized by the defense attorney that doesn’t. It just looks like a very thin argument for her.
I’m sure it’s a thin argument, but don’t consider actions doubtful if it wouldn’t make sense for people to do them.
Sometimes, I grant, it’s tough to tell the difference between a tall tale that’s TOLD in desperation, and a tale that’s true and was enacted at the time by a desperate person.
The former could probably be detected by probing empirically, but the latter should not be ruled out by reasoning as if the perp’s actions would have been rational.
Something like that.
The are no unwanted children, only unaccepting and unloving adults. Love is a choice and alll children have intrisic value, regardless of the circumstances surrounding their birth. To apply a subjective value to a child based on “wantedness” devalues the child to mere property and creates an environment which is ripe for abuse, neglect, and abandonment.
To those who promote adoption: If this is the best outcome for a problem pregnancy, it should be a popular choice. Is it?
Indeed, it seems like there should be no abortion controversy. Females with problem pregnancies always carry to term and give the babies up for adoption.
Denise, the best outcome is that a child be raised in a loving, nurturing home.
Why is abortion more ‘popular’ than adoption? I don’t know. I could guess at all kinds of reasons, but that would be just guessing. It seems likely that the women having abortions don’t value the life in their womb. Virtually all of the reasons that women give for having an abortion (per Guttmacher) have everything to do with the woman and nothing to do with the child.
Adoption is a loving and unselfish choice for a woman considering an abortion. It saves a life. The value of saving each of these precious lives is not measured by the ‘popularity’ of adoption.
It seems that you believe adoption is a great solution to a problem pregnancy. Only you propose moving up the adoption date and custody transfer to a time prior to birth.
Casey Anthony, as sociopath as they come. Do I think she killed CayLee? Absolutely.
There are women who have no capacity to bond with or love children, and not all are sociopaths.
We should dispense with any notion that it is “natural” for women to want to be mothers or to nuture. Just like all men are not fit to be fathers.
Lrning says:
July 11, 2011 at 8:45 am
It seems that you believe adoption is a great solution to a problem pregnancy. Only you propose moving up the adoption date and custody transfer to a time prior to birth.
(Denise) Let me make one thing clear: I think abortion — ripping an embryo or fetus out of the womb — is an ugly and brutal solution to a problem pregnancy.
I have profoundly mixed feelings about adoption. The transfer from womb to womb might render adoption somewhat less problematic.
I would like to see far fewer problem pregnancies and see far more pregnancies greeted with joy.
“It seems likely that the women having abortions don’t value the life in their womb. Virtually all of the reasons that women give for having an abortion (per Guttmacher) have everything to do with the woman and nothing to do with the child.”
I definately agree with this.
When you see a woman who is obviously pregnant, do you say, “Congratulations! Are you planning to keep this baby or place it for adoption?”
I’d also like to know about baby showers for girls and women who are placing for adoption. Since you don’t bring them baby items, do you bring them new clothes and exercise equipment? Or what?
How do you celebrate with the girls and women who place babies for adoption?
Do you think that by praising adoption enough, abortion will disappear on its own regardless of legality?
Denise, what are you arguing for? Adoption can be a good choice for some, bad for others. Women deserve help and support to decide what is the best decision for them. Yes, I think that more support would help reduce abortion, just like assisting low income women, more education, and a whole host of other things will help reduce it. It doesn’t mean that abortion should stay legal while we work on these things.
Denise, here’s the one thing you said that I agree with:
“I would like to see far fewer problem pregnancies and see far more pregnancies greeted with joy.”
You have “profoundly mixed feelings” about adoption. Okay. You know very troubled people that blame their adoption for their troubles. I know people that have wonderful lives and credit their adoption for that.
I can’t make sense of your list of questions above. A woman in a crisis pregnancy needs a lot of support, whether she is keeping the baby or giving it up for adoption. Sometimes that support includes a place to live, career counseling, life skills training, parenting skills training, financial assistance, health care assistance, material needs such as clothing, bedding, baby items, etc. Pregnancy Centers and other agencies around the country provide this type of assistance to women in crisis pregnancies.
I don’t understand your hostility toward adoption as an alternative to abortion. But I do know that every women that decides to give her child up for adoption instead of aborting has saved a life. Am I advocating that every woman who finds herself in a crisis pregnancy give her child up for adoption? No. With sufficient support, many women in crisis pregnancies go on to find joy in parenting their child.
Why is abortion more popular than adoption?
One word:
MARKETING.
Quiz: Can you provide at least one name of at least one abortion provider?
Quiz: Can you name at least one adoption agency?
‘Nuff said.
Ninek, do you really believe that?
that marketing is the reason women want abortions and not adoption. You don’t think there is anything else to it.
I can tell you as someone who just finished college at a very liberal school, in a liberal part of the country, we don’t talk about abortion. There is a lot of talk about bc but none about abortion, if you want information about abortion you will to seek it out same with adoption. Denise posed a very good question and you sememd to have brushed it off.
Do you think women are that impressionable? That they drive by PP and never drive by adoption clinics and that makes them think abortion must be better?
You don’t think it has something to do with wanting the problem to disappear and not having a real live child in the world with someone you most likely don’t want to have a child with? Not having to walk around pregnant and then one day having no baby?
If you want to abolish abortion you at least need to understand why its popular. Abortion sells itself
We should consider what God says, instead of being wise in our own eyes.
“And will you profane Me among My people…killing people who should not die, and keeping people alive who should not live…? Ezek 13:19
Wrong.
Planned Parenthood is going into our high schools and junior high schools marketing their ‘services’ to young people. Parents tell their teens, “abort or get out of my house.” and those parents were indoctrinated by Planned Parenthood in college or high school.
Adoption clinic? Huh? I have NEVER seen a sign over a business or establishment that reads “Adoption Clinic.”
Water is better for us than sodas. But, for decades people drank soda instead of water. Why? Marketing.
If you don’t think marketing has worked on you, then you’re not merely sheeple, you are blind sheeple.
Lrning says
I don’t understand your hostility toward adoption as an alternative to abortion. But I do know that every women that decides to give her child up for adoption instead of aborting has saved a life.
(Denise) I’m not hostile toward adoption. However, adoption isn’t an alternative to abortion. It’s an alternative to raising the baby when a female has had a baby and can’t or doesn’t want to raise it.
It can’t be done before the birth. A female may plan to put the baby up for adoption but change her mind because carrying it to term and giving birth causes an attachment to the newborn so she feels that she must raise it herself. Indeed, perhaps adoption DOES prevent abortions by being available even though female rarely make use of it. However, the fact is that they rarely put babies up for adoption.
There are valid reasons why relinquishment is rare. Many adoptees have a strong sense of abandonment and wish they had not been adopted. Joel Rifkin has said, “My whole life is about adoption.” David Berkowitz started the “Summer of Sam” to prevent babies from being given up for adoption. No, I’m not saying Rifkin and Berkowitz should have been aborted. I’m saying we shouldn’t sugarcoat the truth about adoption.
Denise Noe says:
However, adoption isn’t an alternative to abortion.
You can keep saying that, but it doesn’t make it true. As I’ve shown before, adoption is an alternative to abortion because it alleviates the majority of reasons women choose abortion.
What “truth” about adoption is being sugarcoated? I don’t think anyone has denied that some adoptive situations are less than ideal. But you’ll never convince me that any baby is better off dead through abortion.
Wow, does Planned Parenthood really tell over a 300,000 women a year that they are aborting serial killers? I didn’t realize that. I guess ya learn something new everday. I had no idea that the jails were full of nothing but adoptees. I mean, I know some people who went to jail even though they were raised by their own parents or mothers, but I guess they must be the exception, lol!! And Berkowitz as a pro-choice activist, my that is a new one!!
But seriously, abortion fans, the criminal/killer rationale is just another coping mechanism that post-abortive women use to rationalize what they did to their own flesh and blood. I went through all kinds of crazy rationalizations when I was recovering. I’m so thankful that I have recovered, and I hope that you do too. Help is out there. I recommend Silentnomoreawareness.com as a good starting place.
Psst, hey, you guys, should we take up a collection for Casey so we can give her a humanitarian award? After all, if she’d let her daughter grow up with grandpa and grandma, she woulda killed somebody when she grew up! Casey was so thoughtful to save us all, wasn’t she?
Uh-oh, I just realized: Elton John, Sandra Bullock, and Angelina Jolie are all in mortal danger!! Please please won’t someone help them before their children murder them in their sleep!?
Ninek: An astute one word answer (“Marketing”).
The “safe, legal and rare” folk seem to like the monopoly.
Kind of like the tobacco lobby, aren’t they?
Lrning says:
July 11, 2011 at 5:35 pm
Denise Noe says: However, adoption isn’t an alternative to abortion.You can keep saying that, but it doesn’t make it true. As I’ve shown before, adoption is an alternative to abortion because it alleviates the majority of reasons women choose abortion.
(Denise) Then I can assume that the majority of females with problem pregnancies carry to term and then place their babies for adoption?
Should I assume that well over 1 million babies are placed for adoption each year?
Should I assume that after 60 million babies have been killed in America, that the jails might be just a little less crowded? They’re not? D’oh!
Should I assume that after 60 million babies have been killed in America, that Child Protective Services workers are as lonely as the old Maytag repairman? After all, we were promised that abortion would end child abuse. It didn’t? D’oh!
ninek says:
July 11, 2011 at 5:42 pm
Wow, does Planned Parenthood really tell over a 300,000 women a year that they are aborting serial killers? I didn’t realize that. I guess ya learn something new everday. I had no idea that the jails were full of nothing but adoptees. >>
(Denise) Adoptees are 2-3% of the population. Obviously, they aren’t that large of a percentage of the imprisoned since there aren’t that many adoptees. (Again, why would adoptees be such a small percent of the population if unplanned pregnancies typically lead to adoptions?) However, adoptees are 16% of serial murderers. Does that tell you something? Does that tell you that adoption can lead to feelings of extreme abandonment and confusion? Does it indicate that adoptees might feel a sense of not fitting in with their families?
I mean, I know some people who went to jail even though they were raised by their own parents or mothers, but I guess they must be the exception, lol!! And Berkowitz as a pro-choice activist, my that is a new one!!>>
(Denise) Berkowitz killed females in “lover’s lanes” to try to prevent conceptions that might lead to babies being born who would be “abandoned” through adoption. Joel Rifkin killed prostitutes in the belief that if they conceived, they would give babies up for adoption.
Does the above justify abortion? No. It should lead us to try to prevent problem pregnancies and ensure pregnancies generally are a cause for joy by the female who has gotten pregnant.
Well, upwards of 50% percent of serial killers were abused as children, almost all of them by their biological mothers. So, your argument could be turned around to support more adoptions than single mothers keeping their children.
I still don’t know what you are doing besides insulting adopted and “unwanted” people.
And seriously, citing Berkowitz for anything is just silly. The guy lied about everything to try to get sympathy for his trial, and lied after his trial for sympathy.
Hey, Cecile tweeted that she’s giving Berkowitz the Pro-Choicer of the Month award! Go Sam!
Jack,
Sigh.
I am sorry about Denise Noe and her adopted=serial killers stuff.
Stick around. It is the tip of the iceberg.
ninek,
Thanks for the laughs today!! :)
Carla,
I am seriously confused on what she is driving at. Abortion? Banning of adoption? Sterilizing women who can’t care for their kids? Who knows!
Ninek, you are hilarious. :)
You are not alone in your confusion.
You will learn to skim. :)
Denise Noe says:
Then I can assume that the majority of females with problem pregnancies carry to term and then place their babies for adoption?
Should I assume that well over 1 million babies are placed for adoption each year?
Um, you can if you want. But it’s not all that difficult to look up the statistics and see that those assumptions would be wrong.
You’ve commented similarly several times now and it just makes no sense. The fact that fewer people choose a particular alternative doesn’t eliminate that alternative.
84% of adoptees think abortion is dumb.
Yes ninek! And 100% of adoptees would rather be alive than dead.
ninek says:
July 11, 2011 at 9:43 pm
Hey, Cecile tweeted that she’s giving Berkowitz the Pro-Choicer of the Month award! Go Sam!
(Denise) He was trying to prevent CONCEPTIONS in lovers’ lanes. He would be a recipient of a chastity award.
I’ve never said that being an adoptee equals being a serial murderer. Nor have I ever said that many adoptees aren’t very happy and successful. I know one man who was adopted and enjoyed a happy childhood. He is doing all right.
However, there is a statistical link between being adopted and many negative things. That doesn’t imply inevitability but points out that the population may have certain special problems. I don’t think it’s at all far-fetched to suggest that adoptees may often struggle with a sense of abandonment or be troubled by questions surrounding their origins. It is possible that open adoption may address some of these issues and lead to a lessening of the negatives associated with adoption.
There also appears to be something of a mystery associated with adoption. People who oppose abortion often say, “There’s adoption.” Many people regardless of their stand on abortion say, “Adoption is the most beautiful thing in the world.” Yes I read a study found that in the U.S., “an estimated 4% of non-marital births result in adoption, and there are about 20 abortions for every baby given up for adoption.”
It seems to me that there must be reasons why placing babies for adoption is rare. One possibility is that many females plan to place their babies for adoption but the experience of carrying for 9 months and giving birth leads them to keep the baby they were planning to relinquish.
There could also be other reasons why having babies and placing them for adoption is rare. I think this mystery should be explored.
There could also be other reasons why having babies and placing them for adoption is rare. I think this mystery should be explored.
Ninek says: I know over 60 million reasons. Worldwide I know even millions more.
And your math is lacking: 84% of serial killers weren’t adopted, if we are to believe your statistics, of which you do not note your source.
Further, even if adoptees experience problems, we don’t murder people because life is challenging. Oh wait, we do. By the millions. Because they’re too small to fight back.
Denise, I don’t mean to be too hard on you, but we all want pro-choice people to think. Think about what’s going on and start connecting the dots.
For example, in New York City, they’ve all but declared war on crisis pregnancy centers while their abortion statistics soar above the national average. There is a war against motherhood. Maybe it started with Freud, telling everyone to blame their mothers for all their adult anxieties. Maybe it’s The Pill, which ushered in an era of casual sex without expectation of responsibility. Maybe it’s the media, which runs adoption horror stories more often than adoption successes. Maybe it’s the abortionists who market their services to our youth, luring them in with free condoms and “oh your parents don’t understand you” techniques to separate them from the very people who support them. Maybe it’s because adoption agencies don’t have worldwide ‘federations’ with generous donations from everyone from the US taxpayer to the United Nations.
Maybe it’s not a mystery at all to people in the pro-life movement.
I’ve heard a high percentage of serial killers are pro-choice.
100% of abortionists are serial killers.
ninek says:
July 12, 2011 at 12:08 pm
There could also be other reasons why having babies and placing them for adoption is rare. I think this mystery should be explored.
Ninek says: I know over 60 million reasons. Worldwide I know even millions more.
(Denise) This is precisely the mystery that needs to be solved. Adoption is available yet many females choose to abort problem pregnancies.
<<And your math is lacking: 84% of serial killers weren’t adopted, if we are to believe your statistics, of which you do not note your source.
(Denise) The source can be found here:http://www.crimemagazine.com/adoption-forensics-connection-between-adoption-and-murder
Yes, the majority of serial murderers weren’t adopted. Adoptees are a very small percentage of the population, 2-3%. They are disproportionately represented as serial murderers but are far from the majority.
<<Further, even if adoptees experience problems, we don’t murder people because life is challenging. Oh wait, we do. By the millions. Because they’re too small to fight back.>>
(Denise) Again, what I’m trying to pinpoint is why, with adoption available, it is appears to be an unpopular choice — at least if my information is correct.
I’ve heard a high percentage of serial killers are pro-choice.
100% of abortionists are serial killers.
Well said, Praxedes.
Denise Noe says:
Again, what I’m trying to pinpoint is why, with adoption available, it is appears to be an unpopular choice — at least if my information is correct.
You could put calls into some Crisis Pregnancy Centers and ask their counselors. My local CPC says that the women that walk in their door view that they have 2 options, abortion or having and keeping the baby. In fact, the women are appalled at the thought of “giving up” their baby in adoption. I’m quite certain it has nothing to do with serial killer stats.
It would make an interesting psychological study to discover why killing an unborn child is preferred to giving that same child to another family through adoption. Perhaps its just easier to pretend that the unborn baby isn’t a real person. Heck, there are plenty of people arguing just that…the unborn aren’t real people, just potential people. Perhaps more women don’t choose adoption because they’ve bought into the pro-abortion lies.
Lrning says:
July 12, 2011 at 2:44 pm
Denise Noe says:Again, what I’m trying to pinpoint is why, with adoption available, it is appears to be an unpopular choice — at least if my information is correct.You could put calls into some Crisis Pregnancy Centers and ask their counselors. My local CPC says that the women that walk in their door view that they have 2 options,abortion or having and keeping the baby. In fact, the women are appalled at the thought of “giving up” their baby in adoption. I’m quite certain it has nothing to do with serial killer stats.
(Denise) Actually, being appalled at placing a baby for adoption and the serial murderer statistics might be connected even if the girls and women aren’t aware of the connection. Carrying for nine months and giving birth may form a profound chemical and emotional connection — on both sides. The female forms a strong bond from carrying and giving birth to the baby. The baby is used to that particular chemical make-up and suffers a kind of automatic sense of loss when separated from the biological mother.
Thus, the experience of carrying to term and giving birth makes it psychologically impossible for most females to separate from the baby. Being formed inside a particular womb makes it automatically traumatic for a baby to be completely separated from the biological mother and that is reflected in the negatives associated with adoptees.
This might mean that, for the vast majority of females with problem pregnancies, having the baby and placing it for adoption is not a possibility. People who oppose abortion must recognize that the only alternative to aborting a problem pregnancy for most females is to have the baby AND raise it.
Denise Noe says:
Thus, the experience of carrying to term and giving birth makes it psychologically impossible for most females to separate from the baby. Being formed inside a particular womb makes it automatically traumatic for a baby to be completely separated from the biological mother and that is reflected in the negatives associated with adoptees.
Citations please.
Lrning, as a post-abortive woman, let me take a crack at your question:
Why did I make an appointment for an abortion rather than choose adoption?
1) I was young and did not have the life experience to judge how I would deal with a catastrophic loss over the long term
2) I thought that abortion was a single event from which I would eventually recover
3) I thought that I would look at all children who’d been born that year and wonder if they were mine.
4) I thought that number 3 would haunt me and be nearly impossible to live with.
How was I wrong?
1) The loss of the child was more devastating than I imagined, after the fact.
2) The loss of the child, the child’s absence, exists, continues to exist and the absence is always felt and the sense of absence has never been covered over.
3) I look at all children (now adults) born in a certain year and lament, “she could have been mine” or “he could have been my child’s friend” and “my relatives children and my child could have had a relationship”
4) The loss haunts me. 4 grandparents never knew, cuddled, or spoke to their grandchild. Cousins never met their cousin. A father gets no birthday phone call or visit from his child. I will die with no one to sing kadesh for me. I will die with no one to bury me. I will die with my mother’s antique jewelry and no one to pass it down to that will value it in the manner that I value it.
Of course, words don’t really do it. There was a presence while I was pregnant. Then, I went home alone. The alone-ness was and is a dreadful silent thing.
PS There was a terrible thing that was in the news, a terrible demise for an adopted child. The newspapers and newscasts were full of it, for weeks, with every sordid detail pored over. Don’t think for a moment it didn’t affect my thoughts about adoption. I worried that an adopted child could be abused and meet the same fate. The media at the time had a field day with the event, while at the same time Planned Parenthood was involved in a super-aggressive campaign on college campuses and probably in high schools. Don’t think for a moment that PP wasn’t capitalizing on the negative view of adoption.
Ninek, that’s heart breaking. I am so sorry for your loss.
I agree with Jack. That is simply heartbreaking ninek. I’m so sorry.
You are both so sweet. Though atheists live without hope, as a Christian I do have confidence that I will be reunited with my family.
Lrning says:
July 12, 2011 at 4:48 pm
Denise Noe says:Thus, the experience of carrying to term and giving birth makes it psychologically impossible for most females to separate from the baby. Being formed inside a particular womb makes it automatically traumatic for a baby to be completely separated from the biological mother and that is reflected in the negatives associated with adoptees.Citations please.
(Denise) This is a hypothesis. It helps explain mysteries that cry out for explanation. Adoption is reflexively cited as the solution to problem pregnancies — yet very few pregnant females place their babies for adoption.
Adoptees are 2-3% of the population. One would expect them to be 2-3% of serial murderers. But they are not. They are 16% of serial murderers. This strong correlation calls out for explanation.
Denise,
There you go with the serial killer stats again.
Since over 90% of serial killers are male, can I assume you have no issues with girls being adopted?
Since over 80% of serial killers are Caucasian, can I assume you have no problem with adoption for other races?
Lrning says:
July 13, 2011 at 10:39 am
Denise,There you go with the serial killer stats again.Since over 90% of serial killers are male, can I assume you have no issues with girls being adopted?Since over 80% of serial killers are Caucasian, can I assume you have no problem with adoption for other races?
(Denise) I’m not against adoption per se. The reason I mention those statistics is to show that there are problems with adoption.
Lrning, the fact is that adoption is available but few females with unplanned pregnancies carry to term and place babies for adoption. Is this just a mystery? Or could there be reasons this is so?
Adoptees are over-represented among children needing psychiatric care. They are over-represented among those diagnosed with ADD and other disorders. They are over-represented in the juvenile justice system.
Why should this even be surprising? Adoptees by definition have a kind of duality of identity. For some purposes — such as hereditary illnesses — the families raising them are no more relevant than a random person on the street. Adoptees are likely to suffer feelings of alienation and (in closed adoptions, the rule until recently) have a huge question mark about their origins.
Denise Noe says:
The reason I mention those statistics is to show that there are problems with adoption.
84% of serial killers are not adopted.
There are problems everywhere.
Denise, I notice you say a lot against adoption. What is your solution here? Do you suggest fixing the problems that come with adoption or do you have an alternative to adoptions altogether?
JS says:
July 13, 2011 at 3:02 pm
Denise, I notice you say a lot against adoption. What is your solution here? Do you suggest fixing the problems that come with adoption or do you have an alternative to adoptions altogether?
(Denise) I’m not necessarily “against” adoption. I’m FOR recognizing truth and the truth about adoption is that it is problematic. That doesn’t mean I oppose it. In fact, I wrote an essay in which I pointed out a circumstance in which I believe placing the baby for adoption should be MANDATORY: that of babies that survive abortions.
I know there will be adoption but adoption is not extremely common and there are good reasons why it is rare. My postings point out some of those reasons.
I am very much in favor of the practice of open adoption wherever it is possible. Children have a tendency to fantasize in extremes. I have read that adopted children tend to fantasize that the biological mother is some sort of beautiful goddess or was a prostitute and that he or she was conceived in an act of prostitution. Joel Rifkin murdered hookers in the belief (wrong as it turned out) that his biological mother was a hooker. If an adopted child grows up with information about the bio mother, seeing her photographs, perhaps even talking with her or seeing her occasionally, that child is more likely to recognize that she is a regular person and neither the Virgin Mary nor a Scarlet Woman. This may alleviate many of the difficulties I point out.
Adoption is rare. There are reasons for that.
Pointing out problems with adoption should never be taken as advocating abortion. I think we have to recognize that the vast majority of females who carry to term and give birth will want to raise the baby. One implication of this is that we need to do more to ensure that females who get pregnant are at least prepared to become mothers. That doesn’t mean that every pregnancy must be planned but that females will not engage in a particular sex act unless they are at least open to the possibility of pregnancy or unless they cannot get pregnant for some reason such as being sterile or post-menopausal. Contraception is a vital part of this goal as is encouraging abstinence from the sort of sex that leads to pregnancy. There are a whole slew of things that we need to work on.
Denise says: “I have read that adopted children tend to fantasize that the biological mother is some sort of beautiful goddess or was a prostitute and that he or she was conceived in an act of prostitution.”
Well, in my life a total of 8 of my friends plus one of my relatives was adopted. Maybe you should stop fantasizing yourself and ask some real live adopted people what they think. You are talking about adoption as if it were still 1950.
Your problem is with your own attitude. We do not have a pollyanna fantasy that adoption is a magical thing that leads to perfection and unicorns and fluffy clouds and rainbows. No one needs to be told adoption isn’t perfect.
But you obviously have an obsession with serial killers. Maybe you should stop using serial killers as a social barometer.
“I have read that adopted children tend to fantasize that the biological mother is some sort of beautiful goddess or was a prostitute and that he or she was conceived in an act of prostitution. Joel Rifkin murdered hookers in the belief (wrong as it turned out) that his biological mother was a hooker. If an adopted child grows up with information about the bio mother, seeing her photographs, perhaps even talking with her or seeing her occasionally, that child is more likely to recognize that she is a regular person and neither the Virgin Mary nor a Scarlet Woman.”
Hi Denise. I was adopted, my (adoptive) brother was adopted, all of my cousins were adopted, two of my best friends were adopted, my father-in-law was adopted and three of his six siblings were adopted. I should also mention that all of the adoptions were closed adoptions. I literally laughed out loud when I read what you wrote. I’m not trying to be offensive. It’s just honestly funny to see what people make adoption out to be when they have limited real-life experience with it themselves. I can tell you for a fact that I never fantasized that either of my birth parents were deities or in the sex business. I’ve never killed anyone, nor have any of my adopted relatives or friends, to my knowledge, anyway. I’ve talked at length with my brother, my cousins and my father-in-law about what they thought about their adoption and I’ve had some pretty lengthy conversations with my father-in-law’s siblings (his family and my family were close friends before I met and married my husband). Only one of my cousins has met her birth parents and my father-in-law is the only one of his siblings that has met his. None of the other’s were interested enough to meet them. When I’ve asked them why not, almost every single one of them has said something to the effect of “I have a family, I don’t need another.”
I’m not saying adoption is perfect. The very fact that there is adoption means that something didn’t go right. But I don’t know anyone who was adopted that heard absolutely nothing about their birth parents while growing up. I grew up hearing about how my parents fought to adopt me. They were my foster parents initially and my birth mother wanted to keep parental rights but keep me in foster care until I was ready for school. I knew how much I was loved and I knew that I was incredibly blessed to have the loving family I did. I grew up understanding that my birth mother did a really selfless thing by giving me up.
There’s a lot of evidence that genetics factor more strongly into whether someone will become a serial killer than being adopted. Mental illness is genetic. Most likely, a person who turns out to be a serial killer and also happened to be adopted was adopted *because* their parents were mentally ill and lived unhealthy lives. A higher percentage of the mentally ill’s children are put up for adoption than the children of those who are not mentally ill. That’s really important to consider before you go pointing out, “See! Adoption causes children to become serial killers!” Because, really, that’s just silly.
I should make it clear that someone who turns out to be a serial killer doesn’t necessarily have a parent that is a serial killer. Many mental illnesses are tied to serial killing. And whether someone says that feelings of abandonment that resulted from adoption contributed to their becoming a serial killer doesn’t actually mean that being adopted did that to them.
Studies have been done that try to understand why some children who are abused grow up to be abusers and some do not. They all have the genetic predisposition, but not all follow in their parents’ footsteps. The conclusion they’ve come to is that it’s not just the genetic predisposition to abuse, but it’s also personality and temperament of the child that decides. Genetics are responsible for a whole lot in our lives, even personalities and temperaments. Genetics contribute a lot to how we respond to issues. A serial killer who was adopted may have inherited genes that resulted in a temperament that would cause them to feel extreme abandonment over anything. They most likely would feel abandonment over something had their birth parents chosen to parent instead of give them up for adoption. The mentally ill are more likely to have negative feelings about events in their life than those who are not mentally ill. It’s much more likely that these serial killers who attribute their behavior to being adopted feel negatively about being adopted *because* they are mentally ill.
I DO have experience with adoptees. I know ONE case where adoption worked out beautifully. The man enjoyed a good childhood and felt privileged to be adopted by the parents he had. He grew into a healthy man. I know another case where the adoptee was pretty ordinary and that case could also be called a success.
My cousin is an adoptee raised in a middle-class household with parents who got along well and treated him well. He became a career criminal, stealing his first car when he was 13. He was not a violent criminal but a career thief from an environment that doesn’t typically produce law-breakers.
I have a close friend who is an adoptee. He is an alcoholic and sometime illegal drug user who has worked haphazardly and struggled with mental illness throughout his life. He believes being adopted contributed to his mental problems but doesn’t blame his adoptive parents for them.
I’ve asked people around me about their experience with adoptees. One said, “I’ve only know two or three but they’ve all been head cases.”
Another said, “I know two. One is all right and the other is a crack addict.”
Another said, “I’ve known a few and they’ve all been disturbed.”
Another said, “I dated two women who were adopted. Both were hard to get along with.”
Adoptees are statistically more likely to suffer from certain types of mental disturbances. This may be related to genetics and other factors. One person believes that females who plan to give babies up for adoption often don’t take good care of themselves during their pregnancies. This could contribute to problems for the babies born. It is also possible that, in at least some cases, adoption itself is a factor in their higher rates of disturbance.
76% of all known 20th century serial killers are from the U.S., despite the U.S. comprising only 4.5% of the world’s population.
Clearly there is a mysterious problem with a Constitution-based federal republic form of government.
Statistics are fun!
76% of all known 20th century serial killers are from the U.S., despite the U.S. comprising only 4.5% of the world’s population.
Clearly there is a mysterious problem with a Constitution-based federal republic form of government.
LOL! *like*
Denise, I grew up with SEVERAL adoptees. Today, they are happy and well adjusted parents. They’re also teachers, human resource managers, scientists, and doctors.
I also know several adoptive families full of happy, well adjusted children.
It’s people like you who purport stereotypes and prejudice against adopted persons who are the problem.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1737667,00.html
“Adoptees More Likely to be Troubled.” This is a Time magazine article.
They can be happy and well adjusted. “More likely” means just that. They have higher rates of disturbance.
Good grief, Denise.
Give it a rest already.