Monday, October 20, 2008

A Slight Departure




We have long proclaimed that adoption and abortion are two separate issues. Once a women chooses to terminate a pregnancy, then adoption is a moot issue. It is only when a baby is carried to term that adoption rears its ugly, eugenic head. So, here I go, breaking another one of my rules.


The "adoption, a loving option" inanity does not ring true to those of us who have been separated by this institution. It makes me wonder just what is behind these anti-choice protests. Is it a genuine belief that a zygote is life or is it a church/agency wanting to rake in some bucks while pushing its own eugenics program? I suspect the latter. Plus, I get very testy when some religious group tried to impose their dogma on the rest of the country via our national laws.

Separation of church and state is still a part of our constitution, Oh Self-Righteous Ones, and your rights end where mine begin.

This is an issue to which I had sworn I wouldn't give space or credence. But having had a loved one shouted at and called a murderer when she went into a women's clinic, it is hard not to enter the fray. Now, when our reproductive rights are being frantically, and, might I say, desperately challenged, it is time for those of us who really believe in reproductive rights to step forward and have our say.

The National Organization of Women lists adoption as a "reproductive choice." If any of these people have ever been pregnant and had the pressure and coercion laid on them that we mothers of adoption loss have had piled on our backs, they might re-think that word "choice." I should think that it would be a duty for NOW to protect a single and/or poor woman's choice to keep and raise her baby.

So, in its own way, the NOW is in bed with the anti-choicers. Either way, mothers are being guilted by one group into carrying a pregnancy to term, and given no support by the other when that full-term baby is grabbed by the agencies and social workers through coercion and emotional bullying.

It is to the industry's and to the Christian Right Wing's advantages to chip away at Roe v Wade. It is probably due to the adopters in their ranks that allows NOW to ignore the predation on women that occurs with adoption. This is why NOW's voice has no more power than it does and why we are having to scream at the top of our lungs. Women are becoming predator and prey..reproductive cannibals...and it is sick, sad and totally unethical.

We have a choice, next month. We can choose to carry on this madness or we can put someone in the White House who, at least, seems to have an open mind. We need to write our letters, we need to use our votes and we need to protect the right to choose whether or not we, our daughters and granddaughters can make our own decisions concerning our own bodies and our babies. It's not just Roe v Wade that is in peril, but also the right of women to safe, effective birth control regardless of age or marital status. That's a biggie and should not be ignored.

Right now, we still have a modicum of choice. While some states have eroded the right to choose, there is still the option to go to a more open state and have a procedure done there. If the adoption industry and the, so-called, "Moral" Majority have their way, we are back to the maternity homes, forced surrender and loss of acess to birth control.

Can we, as women, really afford a giant step backwards?

I might also note that important issues such as the economy and its effect on the middle class and the poor, healthcare and education are Jonahs, at risk of going down the gullets of the big business fish. So use your right and responsibility to vote. It is one of the few things we can do.



4 comments:

Chris said...

Robin..

Reproductive Cannabilism....good choice and really describes the persona surrounding some who are childless.

And should the Pro-Lifers have their way... not only would 'forced surrenders' en masse be replicated from the EMS...women would find themselves with a 'forced pregnancy'.

Sandy Young said...

Voting IS sexy. Mine is cast,absentee. I feel good about my choice, and pray that others will still be allowed choice after this election.

The Liberties of millions of women are at stake this time. Please, may they stay in place.

Well done, as ever.

Sandy

Marley Greiner said...

Oh, I love the term "reproductive cannibalism."

NOW, on a national level, has always been in bed with the enemy on this issue (as has Planned Parenthood. National PP, in fact, used to link to NCFA. Some moms made a big fuss about that a few years ago, but I'm not sure if they took it down.)

Local NOW chapters are another story and can go either way. California NOW fights records access because, according to them, sealed records protects women from domestic violence. My own chapter supports records access. Supposedly a few years ago national passed a resolution in support of access, but I've never seen it anywhere.

Of course, there are many more mom issues NOW could move on, but won't. One thing is for sure though, they aren't adoptee friendly.

I've blogged a couple times about NOW's rejection of CUB more than 30 years ago. I sent one of the blogs to Olga Vines when I was still a NOW VP, and not surprisingly, ever got a reply.

Marley Greiner said...

Robin opined: The "adoption, a loving option" inanity does not ring true to those of us who have been separated by this institution. It makes me wonder just what is behind these anti-choice protests. Is it a genuine belief that a zygote is life or is it a church/agency wanting to rake in some bucks while pushing its own eugenics program? I suspect the latter. Plus, I get very testy when some religious group tried to impose their dogma on the rest of the country via our national laws.

I reply:

It's not black or white and it's very complicated. I'm on rather intimate terms with the more radical end of the anti-aborts (not the Life Chain folks who are boring boring boring). I think the major impetus really is "baby saving." But it's tied in with bourgeois family structures, marriage and behavior. At one time many were happy to just "save the baby" but about 15 years ago the campaign became much larger. It's not enough to "save the baby", it has to be put in an evangelically correct home. Much of the anti-abortion movement is about movement and church growth. Many CPC annual reports start with the number of conversions. It's a two-fer if they can convert the mom (and dad is even better) and get the baby into the proper home. And we can never discount the importance of punishment for female transgression.