Stay Classy Utah!

[lucrezaborgia]

There is a woman who blogs about giving up her son in the late 80's. She dealt with very coercive tactics and was made to feel that she would be selfish to keep her son and that she'd forget and move on. She never did forget and found him right before he turned 18. She was interviewed by Dan Rather for a report on the Baby Scoop Era and how that society hasn't changed as much as we think and how the industry has adapted to keep the supply going. Open adoption is a direct result of this and it's a scam. Open adoptions aren't legally enforcible.

[Bill]

(05-13-2012 11:53 PM)lucrezaborgia Wrote:  Also, those wonderful pregnancy crisis centers run by mostly Christian agencies? They mostly push adoption hardcore and rarely offer actual support or advice on how to raise the child. They push adoption using extremely coercive tactics.

That's a rather sweeping generalization considering the thousands of independently run, local CPCs out there. I'm not saying it isn't the case in some places, but be cautious of generalizations.

The saddest thing about the Nation article you posted? As soon as I saw Greenville, SC, I felt sick.

[Bill]

(05-14-2012 08:56 AM)Naomi Wrote:  [quote='Donb123' pid='93458' dateline='1337001045']

Um.. that's surprising? Presumably most women that do have abortions don't really like to and feel they have no other choice. Presumably it's because they are not financially or emotionally able to care for the baby? One would think that by having the baby their problems wouldn't magically go away.
[/
Yes, stuff like this still happens, in certain communities, that many of us happen to be familiar with. Birth mothers' experiences don't get talked about enough. I've always wanted to get involved somehow in helping girls and young women who want to keep their babies do so. No one should be forced to give up their child for financial or social reasons.

I heard a clinical psychologist say that depending on the circumstances involved, coercive adoption can be as traumatic as post-abortion guilt and both share similar post-traumatic issues. This is truly heart breaking.

In the fundamentalist circles I grew up in, adoption (complete with girl being sent away for duration of pregnancy) was more for the sake of appearances and the "irreparable harm to name and reputation" that would result from out-of-wedlock pregnancy. How tragic is that?

[lucrezaborgia]

(05-19-2012 01:26 PM)Bill Wrote:  That's a rather sweeping generalization considering the thousands of independently run, local CPCs out there. I'm not saying it isn't the case in some places, but be cautious of generalizations.

The saddest thing about the Nation article you posted? As soon as I saw Greenville, SC, I felt sick.

It's really not an over-generalization. Many CPC's are affiliated with adoption agencies. There are many resources on this other than the Nation and there are hundreds of women online claiming that CPC's helped themselves to their babies. Many times with the full backing of their church.

As to the rest, I don't believe you can put abortion issues on the same playing field as adoption ones. It all hinges on whether or not you believe the abortion was of a ball of cells or a baby. Most women I know who have had an abortion are fine and at the end of the day they wonder sometimes but don't have their entire lives ruined. If you believe that it's a baby from the get-go I would imagine you will have guilt issues.

This is not a zero-sum game. Women who decide to carry to term were very unlikely to have an abortion in the first place, so why do these CPC's present it as such? Why do CPC's have such graphic and coercive tactics if it's really about empowering women by giving them more choice? Again, adoption is not the magic solution to abortion and CPC's are in the business of promoting that exact logical fallacy that supports a multi-billion dollar industry.

[lucrezaborgia]

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=20327495

Dude resigned while rest of Utah adoption council says he's too concerned with fathers rights.

Here is something I just thought of. These CPC's probably mean well. In fact, most of them are more than likely to be doing this to save lives...but that's the real issue. Are they saving lives? Is that in and of itself good enough? We all believe that just about anything is permissible when lives are at stake, right? Who cares if coercion and fraud is used as long as we're saving lives???

[Bill]

(05-19-2012 02:08 PM)lucrezaborgia Wrote:  Here is something I just thought of. These CPC's probably mean well. In fact, most of them are more than likely to be doing this to save lives...but that's the real issue. Are they saving lives? Is that in and of itself good enough? We all believe that just about anything is permissible when lives are at stake, right? Who cares if coercion and fraud is used as long as we're saving lives???

That is the question, isn't it? The moral dilemma: is it an absolute? is it situational ethics? How far are people willing to go for their belief on the issue? Eric Rudolph killed people to prevent abortions. Others believe its not their business. There is a broad positional spectrum in between, and for all who claim it to be a pivotal issue, a mere pittance of them put their money or actions where their mouth is.