Woman who donated eggs now can’t conceive her own child
I know he’s loved, and that makes me happy. It’s just that I’d do anything for the chance to experience the happiness of motherhood myself….
I’d produced 19 healthy eggs at the age of 31, so I didn’t for one second believe that we’d have any trouble conceiving. But every month, when I discovered I wasn’t pregnant, I felt the same sickening disappointment….
[My doctor] told me: “I’m sorry, we don’t give IVF to women aged 40 and over.” To be honest, it felt like a slap in the face.
I’d helped out the NHS [National Health Service – government healthcare] as an egg donor, and granted the gift of life to another woman. Now, when I desperately wanted a baby of my own, the NHS wouldn’t help me in return.
They were happy to exploit my fertility when I was young, but now that I wasn’t so fertile, doors were suddenly slamming in my face.
~ The UK’s Louise Milano, remarking on the pain of having never met a biological son born via IVF from her egg donation 13 years ago, as well as her own inability to conceive years later, as quoted by The Daily Mail, September 12
[Photo via The Daily Mail]
SHE granted the gift of life to another woman???
3 likes
A similar pain is experienced by girls and women who place babies for adoption. Theirs is often worse because of the mutual bond between mother and child that formed by carrying to term and giving birth. They may hope the baby is loved but they know it suffered from being torn away from the biological mother. Unlike this woman, they could not legally receive monetary compensation. This is why groups like keepyourbaby.com urge that girls and women who have given birth do not place for adoption.
3 likes
They were happy to exploit my fertility when I was young.
And so was she.
AND it’s not a donation when you’re getting paid for it.
26 likes
Right on cue.
Yes, Denise, adoption can be traumatic. But giving women monetary compensation for placing children for adoption would be as wrong, in my opinion, as is selling one’s eggs for profit.
Mothers who place their children for adoption can actually have all of their medical expenses taken care of by the adopting family – and even if she changes her mind after they’ve footed the bill, she doesn’t have to pay them back. Adoptive families are on the hook for all of it, and there’s not a thing they can do about that. It’s the law.
Women who are harmed by egg donation (see “Eggsploitation”) have no legal recourse.
I believe that if we’re going to compare adoption and egg donation, adoption comes out on top. In an open adoption, at least, the birth mother has rights and isn’t nameless or faceless or treated like a commodity or as a means to an end. On the other hand, I see egg donors referred to disparagingly all the time by society. And “gestational carriers” are also referred to in dehumanizing ways, as mere “receptacles” for the children of those who can afford to pay for it.
I don’t think IVF is good for women, and looking at the failure rate, it certainly isn’t good for the innocent lives who are created and then fail to implant in utero.
21 likes
this is one of the reasons why IVF is wrong (exploiting women)
And Denise –
My aunt and uncle who weren’t able to have a child together, THEY ADOPTED a son. I wouldn’t have one of my cousins if it weren’t for adoption. And now that he and his wife are struggling with the same issue, they are trying to adopt as well (domestically).
Please stop the hate against adoption, for some this may be their only chance at a “forever family”. (And yes, I am thinking of children in the foster system. My cousin was lucky enough to be adopted when he was a newborn).
19 likes
I thought the woman’s body only produced a certain amount of eggs for her whole life time and that is it, no way of producing more. It’s not like sperm that can be produced throughout the life of the man. Anyways, she should have never ‘donated’ her eggs.
3 likes
We’re only beginning to see the ethical repercussions of IVF, being such a relatively new technology. Surrogates being coerced to abort babies with birth defects or Downs with the threat of being sued if they don’t, outsourcing to Indian surrogates to save money, elective abortions of multiples, Octomom situations . . . and that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Then there’s all the frozen embryos as well as the dozens of embryos who perish with each attempt. The amount of embryos that have been created and died because of IVF must be an astronomical number by now.
13 likes
Even though all the hormones and the whole donor process seems to have ruined this woman’s fertility she still allowed her sister to exploit herself so that she could have a biological child. Why not adopt? Biology wasn’t that important to her when she sold her eggs. But it seems the reality didn’t hit until after she received the phone call that her biological son had been born. How can an obviously educated “career woman” not put 2 and 2 together until AFTER? It seems so many people have a disconnect when it comes to biology and where babies actually come from.
14 likes
Sydney M
Cause of disconnect = planned parenthood and the prevalent endorsement of contraception by society in general. Society has drunk the contraception kool-aid. Contraception, for a lot of women, gives them a false sense of control over their fertility. Since they “need” to use contraception they assume they are fertile. Many women also assume that they can ingest hormones for years and that this won’t affect their future fertility because “everyone else does it.” Everyone else smoked too but smoking was still bad for everyone. Like the tobacco companies, drug companies have an incentive to sell the Pill and contraception, and the incentive to sell this stuff is not related to “women’s health.” Golly gee willikers, I wonder what that incentive is!
10 likes
Denise did you give up a baby for adoption?
Lets talk about it, if you did. It may be helpful.
6 likes
What incentive does the Church have to assert that contraception and IVF is bad and morally questionable?
The Church is not selling anything? The Church doesn’t profit from providing this information about the Pill and IVF.
Will saying this win them more adherents? Probably not, and it would be very risky to think it would.
So those who oppose the Church and those who have other motives call the Church names and put their own motives first.
Why do people listen to those who obviously have other motivating factors for saying and doing what they do.
5 likes
Denise if you hadn’t basically admitted to being mentally ill, I’d have some choice words for you. As it is, I wish we could all go back to ignoring her drivel. She dwells in a world that only exists for her and her cohort of convenient anecdotes.
8 likes
As noted above, the use of “donor” and “donation” is completely inaccurate when we’re talking about *buying and selling* eggs and sperm. ugh. Am I the only one who thinks this whole trade is creepy?
12 likes
I think I was born in the last heyday of adoption- after free-love, but before single mothers were socially acceptable. This means I was in an intra-familial adoption. My best friend was adopted. Her brother was adopted. The kid down the street was adopted. The kid around the corner was adopted. Those two also had birth siblings.
The families had material advantages that the birth mothers had no access to. They also had habits of being that were beneficial to the kids- stay married, do your homework, mow the lawn, get good grades, share your toys, be nice to your friends, don’t do drugs. Each and every one of these kids went and found their biological mother. On one hand- they had such beautiful, loving biological mothers. On the other hand- what hashes they had made of their lives. The adoption might have been the one good thing they’d done, ever. Some of them had siblings who hadn’t been adopted. Those poor kids were nearly inevitably drug-addled, abused, alcoholic, school dropouts. Usually, the adopted kid would try to help. The adopted kids were so grateful to not live like their biological siblings.
It’s harsh, it can be lonely- nobody looks like you, for instance- but adoption can be a force for good down the line. At least three biological sibs got GEDs, got into drug treatment facilities, got help, from the kid who had the Joseph and Moses experience- sent away, but returning with riches.
8 likes
I feel really sad for her. I hope she finds some sort of peace.
4 likes
Trying for a first pregnancy at age 40? And she didn’t think there would be any problem? We will probably never know the long-term effects of treatments like Louise had, but I would not be surprised if all those hormones did mess with her future fertility.
I also have to wonder if she used hormonal birth control during those years before she wanted kids. I know several women in similar situations, all of whom went on the pill as teenagers (for cramps, of course ;-) and are now wondering why they can’t seem to get pregnant after 2 decades of denying their bodies’ natural functions. I sympathise with all of these women’s desire for a child; I feel like they were lied to (“swallow these pills now, have all the sex you want, but no baby until you want one, then just stop taking the pills”). I wish the Big Pharma and Repro Tech industries would drop the pretense of ‘helping’ women and admit they’re just out for profit!
8 likes
Okay, please excuse me for being a dummy, but I’m not sure how IVF works. They use donor eggs, but who supplies the sperm, especially if it’s a lesbian couple.
2 likes
IVF just means that the embryo is created in the lab and then transferred back into the uterus. A woman’s ovaries are stimulated with medication, eggs are retrieved, screened, fertilized with sperm, and the embryos are then implanted in a uterus. Beyond that it can be any combination of sperm egg and uterus. It can be the couple’s own sperm and egg used to create the embryo (assuming egg and sperm health are not causing the infertility) which is transplanted back into the woman (which is I gather what this woman would like to do). It can be donated sperm and/or egg with the resulting embryo transferred to the woman who wants to be a mother. Or surrogates can be used with either of those arrangements also. Lesbians typically get the sperm from a sperm bank or a willing friend or family member and fertilize the eggs of one of the women and choose one to carry the pregnancy.
2 likes
@ LizfromNebraska: I don’t “hate” adoption. It may sometimes be necessary. For example, some mothers die in childbirth. There are other things that make it necessary. But there are negative aspects to adoption. Pointing out those negatives does not imply any sort of “hate” for adoption.
I could also point out negatives associated with having babies outside marriage. That doesn’t mean I “hate” single mothers or their children or even single motherhood itself.
The situation this woman is in reminded me of a few of those aspects and has a certain resemblance to them. I was pointing out that the pain she suffers has a parallel in the pain suffered by girls and women who have placed for adoption.
1 likes
Thanks for your explanation, CT. As long as I’m in dummy mode, why is the Catholic Church opposed to it?
I heard that egg donor retrieval is painful. I also wonder what the long term effects (besides the psychological) are on the egg donors.
1 likes
Tyler says:
September 18, 2012 at 10:30 am
Denise did you give up a baby for adoption?
Lets talk about it, if you did. It may be helpful.
(Denise) No. In fact, I used to believe that there should be a campaign to persuade women with unwanted pregnancies to carry to term and place for adoption.
Then I started reading about the statistical connections between adoption and serial murder and adoption and parricide. I remembered programs I’d seen with adult adoptees talking about how haunted they were by questions about their origins and how deeply troubled they were. I thought about some of the adoptees I know. I thought about things I’ve read about women who had placed babies for adoption and been troubled about it for years afterward.
I do know about very successful adoption situations. It can work out beautifully but it does have strong negatives associated with it.
0 likes
The term “sperm donor” is also used although the majority of such “donors” are paid. The problem with more accurate terms like “sperm seller” and “egg seller” is that they creep people out.
I read of a woman who was a “surrogate mother.” Someone derided her as a “high-class hooker” and she retorted, “Mary was a surrogate for God.”
A woman wrote a book opposing surrogate motherhood in which she derided in the same way using the term “reproductive prostitutes.”
I think the problem here is that few things are more extremely intimate than sexual organs and reproductive means. Thus, the selling of sexual services has been stigmatized.
The terms “sperm donor” and “egg donor” are attempts to ensure that a similar stigma is not applied to the sale of reproductive services as has historically been applied to the sale of sexual services.
However, it may be ultimately troubling that reproductive services are something that is sold. I’ve read that people conceived in this manner had bad feelings about the idea that a payment accompanied their conception. Even if it wasn’t prostitution, sperm selling, egg selling or pregnancy selling amounts to the commercialization of a most intimate human activity.
Perhaps it deserves stigma.
5 likes
@a girl — my son (adopted) and daughter (biological) looked so much alike that people were surprised when they found out he was adopted.
Denise, I think that we know that adoption isn’t easy. I hate when prolifers say “just” place a baby for adoption. I know they mean well, but it’s “just” not that easy.
However, what I can’t understand is when women say they couldn’t bear the thought of their child being out there “somewhere” and choose to abort because at least they know where the baby is (sliced, diced, disembowled, and thrown away with the rest of the “medical waste”). How anyone can think that’s a good alternative to placing a baby for adoption, where s/he may very possibly live in a happy home, is beyond me.
10 likes
phillymiss says:
September 18, 2012 at 6:12 pm
@a girl — my son (adopted) and daughter (biological) looked so much alike that people were surprised when they found out he was adopted.
Denise, I think that we know that adoption isn’t easy. I hate when prolifers say “just” place a baby for adoption. I know they mean well, but it’s “just” not that easy.
(Denise) It’s not that easy for either the mother or the baby. I recall seeing Anna Fisher, one of the first adoptees to write of her experiences in searching for the biological mother, on a talk show. She discussed a case in which a young woman placed her baby for adoption. A few months after the placement, she changed her mind and decided she wanted to raise the baby herself.
There were people who thought she should be “saved” from being returned. Anna Fisher said, “Save her from what — a mother who loves her and wants to take care of her? When I saw that, I felt like I was a baby again and losing my mother.”
Kel says:
September 18, 2012 at 9:13 am
Right on cue.
Yes, Denise, adoption can be traumatic. But giving women monetary compensation for placing children for adoption would be as wrong, in my opinion, as is selling one’s eggs for profit.Mothers who place their children for adoption can actually have all of their medical expenses taken care of by the adopting family – and even if she changes her mind after they’ve footed the bill, she doesn’t have to pay them back. Adoptive families are on the hook for all of it, and there’s not a thing they can do about that. It’s the law.
(Denise) Potentially adoptive parents must always be aware that there is a GOOD chance that the experience of carrying to term and giving birth will mean that the birthmother will NOT place the baby for adoption. A bond has formed — on the baby’s side as well as the mother’s — between the infant and the mother who carried to term and gave birth.
Of course, there will be some who will place for adoption.
There will also be women who plan pregnancies but after having cared for the baby for a few months, will realize they are not enjoying this and don’t have the feelings they believed they would have for the baby they wanted. They will place for adoption. I don’t oppose their placing for adoption at all.
0 likes
Denise, I find your anti-adoption arguments and points disturbing and revolting. But mostly I don’t see the point of your argument. Currently, you simply come across as a person with a beef against adoption, a complainer/whiner with no substantive alternate solution for women who can’t take of their children, but don’t want to kill them.
8 likes
Tyler says:
September 18, 2012 at 7:13 pm
Denise, I find your anti-adoption arguments and points disturbing and revolting. >>
(Denise) Again, I’m not against adoption. It has many negatives. People should be aware of those negatives.
<<But mostly I don’t see the point of your argument. Currently, you simply come across as a person with a beef against adoption, a complainer/whiner with no substantive alternate solution for women who can’t take of their children, but don’t want to kill them. >>
(Denise) I have no “beef against adoption.” I’m not adopted. I’ve never placed for adoption nor have I adopted a baby. It is a FACT that adoptees are 2-3% of the population — and 16% of serial murderers. It is a FACT that adoptive parents are 15 times more likely to be killed by a child than other parents. It is a fact that many birthmothers regret not raising their babies.
My own belief is that a woman who WANTS to have a baby, who YEARNS to have a baby and gets pregnant is unlikely to either abort or place for adoption once the baby is born. This is not iron-clad as some planned pregnancies will end with babies placed for adoption because the mother will learn after a month or year that she doesn’t have the feelings she thought she would have. However, I believe that most women who get pregnant because they want a baby will carry to term and give birth. I think most of them will not place for adoption.
I read that in Canada (I live in the US) in 1989, a study of single pregnant women under 25 showed that 38% aborted, 60% carried to term and raised the baby, and a whopping 2% carried to term and placed their babies for adoption. You might think that thundering multitudes of women should have babies they place for adoption but this doesn’t happen. It’s not my posts that cause this not to happen. I’m merely explaining that there may be good reasons why enormous numbers of women don’t have babies and hand them over to someone else to raise.
0 likes
I actually agree with Denise, that the practice and industry deserves condemnation and stigma. My reasons are a little more…practical?…though. What bothers me about this (aside from the exploitation of women, as egg “donation” is a heckuva lot more perilous than sperm “donation”) is the lengths the industry goes to in order to hide the identities of the genetic donors. I worry about accidental incest in the case of adoption anyway. The whole thing with IVF/egg/sperm donation is just that much more…dubious.
4 likes
xalisae says:
September 18, 2012 at 7:52 pm
I actually agree with Denise, that the practice and industry deserves condemnation and stigma. My reasons are a little more…practical?…though. What bothers me about this (aside from the exploitation of women, as egg “donation” is a heckuva lot more perilous than sperm “donation”) is the lengths the industry goes to in order to hide the identities of the genetic donors. I worry about accidental incest in the case of adoption anyway. The whole thing with IVF/egg/sperm donation is just that much more…dubious.
(Denise) Accidental incest is indeed a peril. However, there are people trying to normalize incest. Personally, I think this would a disaster for families in general.
Along with IVF/egg/sperm donation there is the whole field of “surrogate motherhood.”
One simple step we can make in evaluating this industry is to end the term “donor” for those who are in fact “sellers.” Should people be selling their reproductive abilities?
It makes people queasy. There may be good reasons for that. Reproduction is a very intimate area. Is it good to make it a matter of commerce?
1 likes
Phillymiss,
The Catholic Church opposes IVF for a number of reasons. The most important one (from a pro-life perspective) is that the way IVF is carried out in practice shows an incredible disregard for human life. More embryos than are needed are routinely created, screened for genetic abnormality and discarded. Others are frozen and left for years – many will not survive the thawing process. In addition, doctors will often transfer several embryos with the hope that one implants. If all implant, the mother is urged to pursue a “selective reduction” (abortion) for the safety of herself and the child who will get to live.
However, even if IVF were carried out by transferring all embryos and never “selectively reducing” them, the Church opposes the practice b/c it is not in keeping with the dignity of human beings – the parents or the child. There’s a lot to say on this aspect of the Church’s opposition, but that’s the short answer. :-)
10 likes
Denise
That is just ridiculous…saying that adopted children can turn into serial killers. That is just plain WRONG. You don’t have ANY facts to back that up! I actually have another cousin who is adopted as well. He didn’t turn into a serial killer. Neither did the one who is married.
10 likes
Denise, you sound like a broken record whenever the adoption topic starts up. And I think your perceptions are a bit dated, perhaps based on the adoption process of former generations–nowadays most adoptions are “open,” so that the biological mother can have some contact with her child, and the child will grow up knowing how much he is loved by ALL his parents. I have also heard the anguished tales of adoptees wanting to find their bio parents, wondering who they are and why they were ”abandoned.” You don’t hear nearly as many of those stories these days.
I have a question for you: if you are so concerned about the quality of life for adoptees, what are you doing to help better the situation?
8 likes
@LizfromNebraska: I’m not saying adoptees are automatically serial murderers OR that they automatically murder their parents. I’m saying the STATISTICAL CONNECTIONS between adoption and these horrors is strong. Look up “The Forensics of Adoption.”
@Mrs. JVR: I write in favor of things that will lead either to greater abstinence or to sexual activity that won’t lead to pregnancy, thus hopefully cutting down on unplanned pregnancies.
For example, I strongly favor the revival of chaperoned dating.
1 likes
@Mrs JVR: I approve of open adoption 100%. Some birthmothers have complained that terms of openness aren’t legally enforceable.
0 likes
I guess I side-tracked everyone with the (however legitimate) adoption parallel.
To return to the topic: Is it a good thing that we have commercialized reproduction?
0 likes
I agree with your post Mrs JVR on 9/18-12 at 1:45pm, from a medical standpoint why in hell did this woman wait until she was 40 years old to decided to have a baby? Was she actually that deceived that she thought she could waste her fertile years away (Doing what? is a good question), waiting until she was considered an elderly primip (I forget the medical term for it right now but she would be high-risk), finally one day conceive when it was more convenient and then carry to term with no problems? This reminds me of something my son says when I say “people should have common sense to know better”. He says “Mom, you give people too much credit”. He is sooooo right. Good grief!
3 likes
I see no real evidence her not being able to conceive has to do with past IVF. Of course she was more fertile at 31 than 40. That’s basic biology.
Even the best fertility clinics have significantly lower success rates for women over 40.
http://fertilitysuccessrates.com/report/United-States/women-under-35/data.html
2 likes
And to the serial killer/adoption correlation, that includes those who were adopted as older children. Of course, children who experience abuse and abandonment early in life(which is often the case in older child adoptions) will be more likely to commit violent crimes. This doesn’t mean adoption itself is the causative factor or have anything to do with domestic infant adoption.
5 likes
Nicole and Denise.
Nicole good posts.
Denise, it seems the problem is not that babies/children are adopted but rather that they are not adopted soon enough. Instead of harping on the negatives done by adopted children, focus on the good done by adopted children. I would also suggest you always mention ways adoption can be improved so that any negatives that could result are reduced, and the ways of ensuring that more adopted kids become well-adjusted is increased.
5 likes
Tyler says:
September 20, 2012 at 7:58 am
Nicole and Denise.
Nicole good posts.
Denise, it seems the problem is not that babies/children are adopted but rather that they are not adopted soon enough. >>
(Denise) David “Son of Sam” Berkowitz was adopted as an infant shortly after his birth. So was serial murderer Joel Rifkin. So was serial torture slayer Lawrence Bittaker.
I wrote a story about Robert Lee Bennett Jr., the notorious “Handcuff Man,” who burned and tortured male homosexual prostitutes. He was adopted at 18 months. It is possible that what went wrong occurred before he was adopted.
Marlene Olive, who murdered both adoptive parents, was adopted as an infant right after birth.
The adoption itself may be the root of a kind of splintered identity and confusion.
Instead of harping on the negatives done by adopted children, focus on the good done by adopted children. >>
(Denise) I got a hug recently from a friend who is an adoptee.
As a prisoner, David Berkowitz is considered a positive influence on his fellow inmates and often counsels them.
I focus on negatives because it is important that anyone involved with adoption be aware of its dangers — and those dangers are severe. Few things are more dramatically “anti-life” than serial murder and parricide both of which are strongly connected with adoption.
I would also suggest you always mention ways adoption can be improved so that any negatives that could result are reduced, and the ways of ensuring that more adopted kids become well-adjusted is increased.
(Denise) I do support — strongly — adoptions being “open.” I support studies to see if adoptive parents treated adopted children differently than their own children and how that might be changed.
However, I believe that few adoptions are the result of pregnancies that were planned and wanted by the woman who was impregnated. SOME assuredly were as the mother died in childbirth or shortly afterward. But MOST adoptions are the result of pregnancies that were not wanted or planned.
The focus should be on ensuring that the women who get pregnant are those who want to be mothers. That will decrease both abortion AND adoption.
Fewer abortions is good.
Fewer serial murderers and parricides is also good.
0 likes
Denise
If a pregnant mother was determined not to raise her preborn child would you counsel her to have an abortion or to place her child for adoption?
3 likes
Tyler says:
September 20, 2012 at 5:07 pm
Denise
If a pregnant mother was determined not to raise her preborn child would you counsel her to have an abortion or to place her child for adoption?
(Denise) Good question. I would want her to have all the facts about adoption and abortion. I would force her to see a picture of an embryo or fetus at her stage of pregnancy. I would tell her facts about it: that it has a heartbeat, a brainwave, arms and legs, etc. I would say something like, “If this is a human being, you will destroy a human being in an abortion. Do you want to do that?”
It may be better to place the child for adoption. However, she should be aware of the negative facts associated with adoption. She should know that an adoptee is much more likely to become a serial murderer than another person and much more likely to murder adoptive parents. She should know other facts concerning special problems of adoptees.
She should also know about open adoptions, the various degrees of openness and whether or not it is legally enforceable. She should consider whether or not openness may address some of the special problems that adoptees have.
All things considered, if she was pregnant and absolutely could not raise a child, I would probably counsel toward the adoption — but I definitely would want her to know the negative facts associated with an adoption so her decision to place for adoption would be an informed one.
Then I would counsel her to try to ensure that she does not become pregnant in the future unless she wants to raise a baby.
0 likes
Denise, why would say “If this is a human being…”? Are you unsure about whether a preborn child is a human being?
Would you be ok if the mother chose abortion? Do you think abortion should be legal?
Which do you think is worse, morally speaking, for a society: abortion or adoption?
3 likes
Tyler says:
September 20, 2012 at 11:29 pm
Denise, why would say “If this is a human being…”? Are you unsure about whether a preborn child is a human being?>>
(Denise) I would say, as I have before, that I have a reasonable degree of certainty that a human being exists very early in the pregnancy. I believe it is possible that it exists at conception or very close after it.
<<Would you be ok if the mother chose abortion? Do you think abortion should be legal?>>
(Denise) I’m not sure that abortion should ever have been legalized in the first place. It is my belief that had the problems of fertile females been adequately addressed when it was illegal, legalization would never have happened. However, the fact was that it was legalized. Therefore, one of the first steps toward reducing it is a system of what I call “Forced Information” in which girls and women seeking abortion must see a picture of the embryo or fetus at the stage they are at (or be told what it looks like if they are blind). Outlawing it completely at this time will create a vast underground. Outlawing it might work after Forced Information has reduced abortion rates.
<<Which do you think is worse, morally speaking, for a society: abortion or adoption?>>
(Denise) Probably abortion. There is an immediate killing of a human embryo or fetus. Although I don’t call unborn “babies” until late in pregnancy, they are HUMAN embryos and fetuses and their deaths carry moral weight.
Placing a baby for adoption means the CHANCE of a good and happy life even though it is also strongly statistically correlated with violent deaths in the form of serial murder and parricide and also is connected with other severe problems. I’m not trying to say girls and women should not place their babies for adoption, only that they need to know the facts connected with it.
However, I believe that what is BEST for society in general is for those women who become pregnant to be those women who want to both have and raise babies. The unborn should not be ripped out of wombs. Babies should not be handed off to strangers to raise.
And before you ask, I DO have grave reservations about so-called “surrogate motherhood.”
0 likes
I have a story here http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/blog/article/kill-my-parents-the-story-of-marlene-olive/index.html
It is about a tragedy that began with a 10-year-old child asking, “Daddy, what does the word ‘adoption’ mean?”
I’m not suggesting that Jim and Naomi shouldn’t have adopted. They might have lived longer childless but those years might have been lonely and frustrating. Prior to being murdered, they enjoyed 15 years of the joys of raising little Marlene.
Nor does Marlene necessarily regret being alive. She served less than 4 years in a juvenile detention center for the murders of her adoptive parents. At one point, after winning her freedom, she was hoping for a reunion with her birthmother.
That adopted kids are 15 times more likely to kill a parent is something to consider but not necessarily dissuade a person from adopting. Parricide is a relatively rare crime even among those most likely to commit it. Also, a shorter life might in some cases be preferable to a long and boring one.
0 likes
Interesting Denise. You seem to be a numbers person.
I am glad to see that you have softened your position on adoptiong and that adoption does not imply the child will be a “serial murderer” and that it only increases, in your opinion, the chance that this may occur.
Denise, what did you mean whan you said the following:
“It is my belief that had the problems of fertile females been adequately addressed when it was illegal,”
What fertility problems are you referring to?
Why, in your opiniion, is abortion only “probably” worse than adoption when statistically abortion always results in the killing of a human being where as adoption does not?
Denise there are logical problems with your following statement:
“Also, a shorter life might in some cases be preferable to a long and boring one.”
First, you can’t compare the subjective perception of two individuals with respect to their perceived quality of life. Second, for every objective standard that you set up to judge the quality of a person’s life I could set up an opposing objective standard. Third, a person who is killed prematurely (theoretically having a shorter life) will never know if the remainder of their life would have been be boring or more preferable - this last point reveals the sin of presumption we are all prone to.
Your “forced information” theory, which you have expressed before, now has a name. However, I think another name for it is “informed consent.” I think most people support this idea. However, most people expect a certain level of tact when information is provided. They also want the option to be able to decline the offer of information. I agree with this ability to decline the information; however, the service provider, such as a Doctor, should also then be able to decline service if the patient declines the information the Doctor wished to provide.
2 likes
Tyler says:
September 21, 2012 at 11:06 am
Interesting Denise. You seem to be a numbers person.
I am glad to see that you have softened your position on adoptiong and that adoption does not imply the child will be a “serial murderer” and that it only increases, in your opinion, the chance that this may occur. >>
(Denise) This is not a matter of opinion. Adoptees are 2-3% of the population. They are 16% of serial murderers. Adoptees are not doomed to be serial murderers. They are more likely than non-adoptees.
Adoptees are 15 times more likely than other people to kill 1 or both parents. They are not doomed to commit parricide, only statistically more likely to do so.
Denise, what did you mean whan you said the following:
“It is my belief that had the problems of fertile females been adequately addressed when it was illegal,”
What fertility problems are you referring to?
(Denise) Of course I refer to the problem of fertile females becoming pregnant when they aren’t prepared to carry to term and raise babies. Eliminate unwanted pregnancies and you go a long way toward eliminating abortion. You don’t eliminate adoption (mothers will die in childbirth and for other reasons) but decrease it.
<<Why, in your opiniion, is abortion only “probably” worse than adoption when statistically abortion always results in the killing of a human being where as adoption does not?>>
(Denise) I can’t really completely compare them. For some pregnant women, the adoption issue is irrelevant — they’re not going to complete the pregnancy. Since adoption can’t be done pre-natally (as yet), it is often irrelevant to abortion seeking females.
Denise there are logical problems with your following statement:
“Also, a shorter life might in some cases be preferable to a long and boring one.”First, you can’t compare the subjective perception of two individuals with respect to their perceived quality of life. Second, for every objective standard that you set up to judge the quality of a person’s life I could set up an opposing objective standard. Third, a person who is killed prematurely (theoretically having a shorter life) will never know if the remainder of their life would have been be boring or more preferable - this last point reveals the sin of presumption we are all prone to. >>
(Denise) Some people have shorter lives because they adopted children who killed them. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have adopted. The quality of life may have been superior for enjoying what they could of parenting because the child killed them.
<<Your “forced information” theory, which you have expressed before, now has a name. However, I think another name for it is “informed consent.” I think most people support this idea. However, most people expect a certain level of tact when information is provided. They also want the option to be able to decline the offer of information. I agree with this ability to decline the information; however, the service provider, such as a Doctor, should also then be able to decline service if the patient declines the information the Doctor wished to provide.>>
(Denise) I prefer Forced Information because we’re removing a choice: the choice to get an abortion without knowing what is being destroyed.
0 likes
I just got a letter from serial murderer David “Son of Sam” Berkowitz. Although a Born Again Christian, he doesn’t concern himself too much with the abortion issue. He believes adoption is “flawed” but that it can work out “beautifully.” He knows 3 women who were in an orphanage for the first few years of their lives before being adopted. They are happy and well-adjusted. He had the advantage of being adopted close to birth but obviously it didn’t work out so great. However, he believes “where there’s life, there is hope” so, if forced to choose, supports adoption over abortion.
0 likes
Denise, by the way, you only need to provide information about abortion (or anything for that matter) if it is legal. If abortion was illegal, your concern about getting women the information they “need to know about abortion” would be alleviated. The fact that abortion would be illegal would contain all the information that expecting Moms would need to know: Don’t get one.
2 likes
Tyler: Why, in your opiniion, is abortion only “probably” worse than adoption when statistically abortion always results in the killing of a human being where as adoption does not?
(Denise) Tyler, what is more “anti-life” than serial murder?
What is more heartbreaking than the murder of a parent by his or her own child?
Adoption statistically strongly correlates with both of the above. This is not opinion but statistical fact.
0 likes
(Denise) Tyler, what is more “anti-life” than serial murder?
What is more heartbreaking than the murder of a parent by his or her own child?
Denise, all murder is anti-life. Abortion falls in that category, as it deliberately takes a human life. All murder is heartbreaking.
Do you believe abortion takes an innocent human life?
3 likes
Kel says:
September 22, 2012 at 9:58 am
(Denise) Tyler, what is more “anti-life” than serial murder?What is more heartbreaking than the murder of a parent by his or her own child?
Denise, all murder is anti-life. Abortion falls in that category, as it deliberately takes a human life. All murder is heartbreaking.Do you believe abortion takes an innocent human life?
(Denise) Abortion is in a special category because pregnancy is such a special condition. When abortion was illegal, it was never prosecuted as murder despite often being called murder. It was always in its own special category of abortion. The girl or woman was not usually prosecuted. The abortionist was prosecuted and the penalties suffered by the abortionist weren’t nearly as severe as the penalties for murder.
I think it is quite possible abortion ends a human life early in pregnancy and am pretty certain a human life is ended by the second trimester. For example, my friend Eleanor Cooney had an illegal abortion at the beginning of the 4th month of pregnancy. The law didn’t stop her because she wasn’t going to complete the pregnancy no matter what. She doesn’t believe the fetus was a human life. I believe it was.
0 likes
Denise: “I prefer Forced Information because we’re removing a choice: the choice to get an abortion without knowing what is being destroyed.”
How are you removing a choice if the person you offer the information to is the person refusing to accept it or listen to it? Isn’t the person who is refusing to accept the information the person removing the choice?
(Denise) I can’t really completely compare them. For some pregnant women, the adoption issue is irrelevant — they’re not going to complete the pregnancy. Since adoption can’t be done pre-natally (as yet), it is often irrelevant to abortion seeking females.
You just did compare them when you said that they can’t be compared. Denise, you are not acknowledging fully the harm of abortion. You are ignoring your understanding that a preborn child is a human being. Women who want complete a pregnancy are the same women who will have an abortion. And when you state that adoption is irrelevant to women seeking an abortion you are avoiding to answer the question, or willfully misunderstanding it. Furthermore, here you are implying that abortion is inevitable when it doesn’t have to be – women don’t give up their ability to choose life when they become pregnant. Just like you are aware that women have the capability to accept responsibility for their sexual activity and therefore are able to avoid unplanned and unwanted pregnancies, women can use this same capability to not have an abortion.
So I will repeat a revised version of the question: In your opinion, which is the preferrable choice for a woman: 1) knowingly stay pregnant (and thereby avoid an abortion) and then place the child for adoption; or 2) to have an abortion?
Please state how you feel about this sentence you wrote:
“For some pregnant women, the adoption issue is irrelevant — they’re not going to complete the pregnancy.”
—
(Denise) Of course I refer to the problem of fertile females becoming pregnant when they aren’t prepared to carry to term and raise babies. Eliminate unwanted pregnancies and you go a long way toward eliminating abortion. You don’t eliminate adoption (mothers will die in childbirth and for other reasons) but decrease it.
You seem to think an unwanted pregnancy is a problem. Doesn’t this means you think an “unwanted” preborn child is problem? Failing to acknowledge that each pregnancy is a child (or children) is a huge mistake. Furthermore, you are implying simply because the bio Mom doesn’t want the child that the child is unwanted by everyone – this is simply not true.
1 likes
Tyler: You just did compare them when you said that they can’t be compared. Denise, you are not acknowledging fully the harm of abortion. You are ignoring your understanding that a preborn child is a human being. Women who want complete a pregnancy are the same women who will have an abortion.
(Denise) I think you meant to say “women who won’t complete a pregnancy.” Yes, if they are pregnant and won’t complete it, they will abort or commit suicide.
<<And when you state that adoption is irrelevant to women seeking an abortion you are avoiding to answer the question, or willfully misunderstanding it. Furthermore, here you are implying that abortion is inevitable when it doesn’t have to be – women don’t give up their ability to choose life when they become pregnant. >>
(Denise) I put this specific question to Eleanor Cooney: “Would you have been more likely to have the baby and place for adoption if there had been greater honor for birthmothers when you were pregnant?” She answered that adoption was “quite irrelevant” because “I just wasn’t going to complete the pregnancy.” She elaborated that, “What many people don’t understand is that it is the PREGNANCY ITSELF that is unwanted.” She continued that she found the physical changes inherent in pregnancy simply intolerable and ended the pregnancy to avoid them. She wrote, “If in some wildly alternative universe, I had completed the pregnancy” there would have been no question of adoption and “no stigma.”
<<Just like you are aware that women have the capability to accept responsibility for their sexual activity and therefore are able to avoid unplanned and unwanted pregnancies, women can use this same capability to not have an abortion. >>
(Denise) Talk to Eleanor Cooney. She’ll tell you that abortion was inevitable in her case. She believes that some sort of brain chemicals fail to activate allowing a pregnant woman to accept the physical changes of pregnancy.
<<So I will repeat a revised version of the question: In your opinion, which is the preferrable choice for a woman: 1) knowingly stay pregnant (and thereby avoid an abortion) and then place the child for adoption; or 2) to have an abortion? >>
(Denise) If she is willing to carry to term, she should carry to term. If after carrying to term, she STILL doesn’t want to raise the baby, she should place for adoption. I believe the process of carrying to term will usually bond her and the baby to each other which is a major reason this choice is so unpopular.
Please state how you feel about this sentence you wrote:
“For some pregnant women, the adoption issue is irrelevant — they’re not going to complete the pregnancy.”–
(Denise) Of course I refer to the problem of fertile females becoming pregnant when they aren’t prepared to carry to term and raise babies. Eliminate unwanted pregnancies and you go a long way toward eliminating abortion. You don’t eliminate adoption (mothers will die in childbirth and for other reasons) but decrease it.
You seem to think an unwanted pregnancy is a problem. Doesn’t this means you think an “unwanted” preborn child is problem?
(Denise) At the present time, there is no way to transplant the human embryo or fetus from one womb to another. Thus, there is no way for a baby to be born other than the human female carrying to term.
Failing to acknowledge that each pregnancy is a child (or children) is a huge mistake. Furthermore, you are implying simply because the bio Mom doesn’t want the child that the child is unwanted by everyone – this is simply not true.
(Denise) No one else can carry to term except the female who is pregnant.
Let me ask you a question: Why is carrying to term and placing for adoption so uncommon?
0 likes
(Denise) I put this specific question to Eleanor Cooney: “Would you have been more likely to have the baby and place for adoption if there had been greater honor for birthmothers when you were pregnant?” She answered that adoption was “quite irrelevant” because “I just wasn’t going to complete the pregnancy.” She elaborated that, “What many people don’t understand is that it is the PREGNANCY ITSELF that is unwanted.” She continued that she found the physical changes inherent in pregnancy simply intolerable and ended the pregnancy to avoid them. She wrote, “If in some wildly alternative universe, I had completed the pregnancy” there would have been no question of adoption and “no stigma.”
(Tyler) Denise you are deflecting here. You did not answer my question directly. You brought up another story to make your point. Since you have done that I will have to assume that you agree with the point of the Mother in your story is making (please be more direct in your answers next time). This mother completely failed to acknowledge the fact that her pregnancy is the result of the life growing inside her. She failed to acknowledge the humanity of the preborn chil. In fact, she so completely ignored this reality she was ok with abortion. Denise and you this Mother need to learn to be more compassionate.
(Denise) Talk to Eleanor Cooney. She’ll tell you that abortion was inevitable in her case. She believes that some sort of brain chemicals fail to activate allowing a pregnant woman to accept the physical changes of pregnancy.
(Tyler) Denise, not that your arguments weren’t overreaching before, but now, with this argument, you have really overextended your unspoken/unwritten claim that mother’s can deny responsibility for aborting their preborn children. “Lack of the right kind of brain chemicals” – this is your reason for supporting abortion – just crazyness. WOW. It took you so long to say it. It now seems that you support abortion Denise and it is disheartening.
(Denise) At the present time, there is no way to transplant the human embryo or fetus from one womb to another. Thus, there is no way for a baby to be born other than the human female carrying to term.
Once you again you are simplying expressing your support for abortion. You are calling a preborn child a problem. That is just wrong Denise. It is awful. I wish you understood that.
(Denise) Let me ask you a question: Why is carrying to term and placing for adoption so uncommon?
First, I don’t have the facts at my disposal to say that your claim is true – even though common sense may sugguest it. Second, let’s assume the obvious reason is that most people want to have children whether they were planned or not, this answer does not help your argument for abortion nor your argument against adoption. The fact that most human beings want to raise their children illuminates another reason abortion is unnatural and adoption is altruistic.
Denise, I think it might be anti-adoption attitudes like yours that may lead to adopted children feeling unwelcome in society. Your attitude towrards adoption may be facilitating the next parricide.
http://rachelsvineyard.org/
1 likes