OPINION: ADOPTION IS NOT THE ANSWER

OPINION: ADOPTION IS NOT THE ANSWER

Adoptee tells story that contradicts the standard antiabortionist rhetoric.

OPINION: ADOPTION IS NOT THE ANSWER

Adoption Is Not the Alternative to Abortion*

*An earlier version of this article was published here July 12, 2022.

By Megan Wallin-Kerth

Ludicrously Simplistic

With the overturning of Roe many conservative talking points have come to the forefront; for, let’s just say, reconsideration. Most of these I’ll leave for others to debate, but one really gets under my skin, because—unlike the hundreds of other thoughts, some more sensible than others—this refrain is ludicrously simplistic and yet very familiar to me. You’ve probably heard it too, at least a hundred times. Here’s a hint: What’s the oh-so-wonderful alternative to abortion?

Adoption.

Always. Without fail. Rarely a dissenter. And yet, how many people shouting this have actually adopted a child? And of those, how many adopted the kids who are considered “difficult to place?”

For those willing to admit that they know diddly-squat about the adoption process or the foster care system, I’ll give more context.

Color Preference

Most infants, particularly white infants from healthy but low-income mothers (think high school or college students), are placed easily into homes that are generally also white, generally middle class or upper middle class, and have usually passed several levels of intensive screening (varying in different states) prior to becoming a parent through adoption. Those are the facts. White babies usually get sent to somewhat affluent white homes. Babies from other backgrounds sometimes linger for longer times, or often get adopted into homes where their culture of origin is, if anything, a sidenote. Add identity crisis to abandonment issues.

Age Matters

However, infants of any monetary, cultural or ethnic background truly have it much easier than children: The children who are taken away from their natural parents after they’ve already started to reach the stage of being toddlers or even older children have a more challenging path ahead.

Loss and Grief

First, they have the grief and loss that comes with being torn from the parents and family system to whom they are already well acquainted, as well as the customs, traditions, sense of belonging and additional factors that make up one’s feeling of being “home.” They lose it all, and yet they are expected to accept the culture of a new household, family structure, and repeatedly relay their trauma to a constant barrage of social workers and therapists who make it clear that the events which occurred “need to be discussed.” (That need, mind you, is more to provide quotes for said figures to use while testifying about the child’s best interests in court, quite ironically.) What’s not always clear to those kids is that none of it is their fault. Not a single bit of it.

Ill Prepared

Many of those kids are there because their parents were ill-prepared, young, poor, or impacted by trauma or drug-abuse. Some of them were likely told not to get an abortion, because that would be throwing away the “gift of life.” Not all of them wanted their children, but most of them probably wanted to do right by them. However, wanting to do the right thing and being able to successfully carry out the responsibilities of parenthood are entirely different.

Mental Health Conditions

It should be no surprise these kids are more likely to be diagnosed with a slew of mental health conditions, ranging from attachment disorder to ODD (oppositional defiance disorder) to ADHD (attention deficit hyperactive disorder) and PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder). They are more likely to have trouble regulating their emotions. They are more likely to come from families with histories of trauma or self-medication with drug-use. They are more likely to have been witness to domestic violence. And they are all victims of a system that is primarily run by well-intentioned but vastly undertrained and overworked case managers, many of whom get burnt out quickly if they truly care about the children under their broadly defined supervision.

Sad Outcomes

Lastly, the longer a child stays in foster care, the more they face several unfortunate facts: Adoption rates are lower, foster homes are increasingly scarce (and often resort to abusive or coercive methods to control trauma-based behaviors), and it’s not uncommon at all to age out of the system with no solid support. It’s also likely that those with severe trauma—and corresponding behavioral issues stemming from a lack of care—will end up incarcerated, filling jails and prisons. And let’s not even get into the number of failed adoptions, where families commit to adoption and change their minds (this happened to me and another family member), sometimes going so far as to relinquish parental rights after the whole matter has been legally confirmed.

Not So Fast

This is the true nature of the so-called alternative to abortion. People do not understand what they are presenting. It is not a world of lollipops and s’mores. It is not the fairytale full of compassion and hope that we have been indoctrinated to believe when we hear the word “adoption.” It is rather a dysfunctional and overburdened system.

When The Time Is Right

Furthermore, those stating that they would “love to be foster parents once the time is right for their family” should also take heed of the fact that doing so is a sacrifice to any children already in your home, whether biological, adopted or foster. It requires everyone in that household to possibly shift expectations, routines, etc.—and to frequently practice more emotional regulation if the child coming in has some emotional struggles themselves (and spoiler alert: many of them will).

Continue reading

OPINION: The Moral Argument For Abortion

OPINION: The Moral Argument For Abortion

Abortion is a difficult decision.

OPINION: The Moral Argument For Abortion

Abortion is a highly emotional issue that is once again on the front pages of newspapers across the country as conservative states enact more and more restrictive laws directed at a woman’s right to choose. 

By Ezekiel Gracee

Talking Past One Another

Too often in the abortion debate, proponents for each side just seem to be talking past each other, as opposed to actually engaging. The reason? A failure to define the question(s). In this emotionally charged discussion it is important to try to step back, and attempt to place some of the stated arguments into a single conceptual framework concerning the moral permissibility of abortion.

Two Central Questions

There are two central questions at the heart of the debate over the morality of abortion.

  • The first is, who or what constitutes a “moral person”? (That is, a “person”, within the context of moral decision making, defined, depending on your theory of morality, variously as an entity deserving of rights, membership in society, or entry into the utilitarian calculus.)
  • The second is, how do we balance the right of self-determination and autonomy of one moral person against the right to life of another, when the two are in conflict? Obviously this question, weighing the rights of the mother and the fetus against each other, is only relevant if we answer the previous question by saying that the fetus is a moral person.

The argument that abortion is impermissible, to my knowledge, necessarily entails the following answers. (1) The embryo/fetus does constitute a moral person and (2) the right of any moral person to live outweighs the right to self-determination, autonomy, or privacy, of the mother.

Permissibility

The argument that abortion is permissible, on the other hand, can take two routes. The first route is asserting that the embryo/fetus is not a moral person, and thus abortion is prima facie permissible. The second route is to concede the first point; the fetus is a moral person, but challenge on the second point, arguing that the right to self-determination of the mother supersedes the rights of the fetus when they conflict.

Both of these questions are difficult.  The first is, I think, the most interesting. It’s also one that is often avoided by pro-choice people. Prima facie, it looks easy. During our daily life, we generally equate the concept of “moral personhood” with simply looking like a fully formed human being.

The common argument is that a fertilized egg is rendered a moral person via its potential to develop into something that looks like an obvious person. Whether this argument holds water is a whole other can of worms. (I personally think it’s weak.) It is nonetheless one of the arguments used to explain why a fertilized egg has the “moral person” status, which as I said above, is essential to the anti-abortion (ProLife) argument.

The second major question — how we balance the right of self-determination against the right to life — is also a doozy. I think this is an argument that’s often not grappled with as strongly as it deserves to be, especially by political conservatives who generally value autonomy and self-determination extremely high among the “pantheon of rights”.

My Take 

Having outlined how I view the whole debate, it is suffice to say that abortion stands as permissible based on the second — that self-determination trumps life.