...But I was hoping you would weigh in on this. I really wanted to get your viewpoint on the subject.

You apparently never go to Planned Parenthood, where a full array of choices are available. The reason pro-choice is so proactive on the abortion end of the argument is that no one is organizing protests and PACs against, or shooting at, people who advocate parenthood.

When I see a well-known feminist promoting adoption, I'll rethink my views. The mainstream feminist movement has rotted at the heart, having long ago lost its original commendable goals of protecting and increasing the opportunities for women. Their views on abortion are extreme. The idea that one can base one's entire political viewpoint on whether or not one is permitted to kill fetuses is a little weird to say the least. Their support of Bill Clinton, who routinely abused and harassed women (and may have raped them) solely because he supported their abortion agenda, coupled with their simultaneous attacks on the women he abused, destroyed whatever remaining credibility the movement had.

Planned Parenthood does discuss adoption, but you have to dig for it on the website. And as I read through it, I noticed one other thing about the website:

Check out this primer for woman who are pregnant, and trying to make decisions.

Notice anything? Lots of useful information, true. Including a lot of information on adoption. But what's missing? Look carefully.

There is damn little, if any, of this document which asks what is best for the child, even if it means sacrifice on the part of the adult.

All of the discussion is focused on the woman, and under those circumstances, the idea of treating adoption and abortion as an even choice, like picking fish or a burger at McDonalds, is not surprising.

Everything is from the viewpoint of "what will this do for me? What is best for me? What will happen to me? Will raising a baby enhance my life? How will a child affect my relationship with a partner? How will being pregnant affect me? How will having a baby affect my career?

Is having a baby the best choice for me?
Is raising a child by myself the best choice for me?
Is raising a child with a partner the best choice for me?
Is placing the baby for adoption the best choice for me?
Is having an abortion the best choice for me?
Which choice(s) could I live with?
Which choice(s) would be impossible for me?
How would each choice affect my everyday life?
What would each choice mean to the people closest to me?
What is going on in my life?
What are my plans for the future?
What are my spiritual and moral beliefs?
What do I believe is best for me in the long run?
What can I afford?

The entire website is like this. I suppose this is just a natural offshoot of the modern "Me Culture," which may explain some of the problems our society is having with both children (and marriages for that matter).

Clue for nonparents out there: when you are dealing with kids, it ain't about you any more. If you are thinking only in terms of "what will this do for me?" you are already halfway up Shit Creek, and your kids are too. Sure kids do a lot for you, and add something great to your life. But that can't be the top priority, or it doesn't work.

When you are looking at it selfishly, it becomes reasonable to treat the choice between abortion and adoption as nearly equivalent, requiring a complicated and difficult decision.

When you are looking at it from the kid's viewpoint, it's a choice between the potential for a long and happy life, and being dead. A somewhat clearer choice when it's not all about you, isn't it?

If the parents in question are poor, we'll make sure they have to choose between food and day care after the baby is born, but that's another issue.

Assuming they cannot raise the child at all--a very big assumption (my parents were poor when I was born), poor parents can choose adoption instead of abortion as well. And yes it's tough. Really tough. BUT THE KID IS NOT DEAD.

...might I suggest a vasectomy?



What a splendid suggestion! Why don't you ask him? Do we want to speculate about what his answer might be?



The family in the article had serious problems that would make another child very difficult. A vasectomy, a procedure that is quick and inexpensive, is an obvious solution. If the man is a self-centered jackass (it's all about ME), either too cowardly or too "macho" to get one, that's not my fault. My wife and I had a choice: surgery for her, or a minor outpatient procedure for me. Under those conditions, any man who would then make his wife go through the surgery doesn't deserve to be called a man. Sitting on an icepack for a couple of days didn't kill me, and knowing my wife didn't have to pump hormones into herself any more was a major plus. As was tossing out the box of condoms. ;)

First of all, the woman involved is more than a support facility for the womb. Pregnancy, though natural, is a very stressful and far from safe condition. To suggest that a woman remain pregnant against her will because some people find abortion offensive is tantamount to slavery.

Again, it's all about the woman. But I covered that.

And you make it sound like there's a Pregnancy Fairy running around attacking defenseless women. If you can't deal with a kid, don't have sex, or figure out effective birth control. The horrible secret that nobody wants to face is that there IS no such thing as 100% effective birth control (at least that's reversible). If you are having sex, you are risking a pregnancy.

Although the concept of abstinence causes feminists to have apoplexy, it works. Every time. And it is possible. Even teenagers are not animals. This entire controversy seems to be based on the idea that people are dragged into sex and pregnancies like goats in rut. While I don't think it's very smart to teach kids only about abstinence, and ignore all the other information they need to know, it is proper to teach them that abstinence is the best and most effective way to prevent not only pregnancy, but also potentially fatal STDs and, not totally unimportant, the emotional stresses of casual sex.

Second, you have no idea what you suggest when you suggest giving up a baby for adoption. It's not like giving away a puppy. People believe that the mothers who do this are OK with it. News flash: they mourn.

Of course adoption is traumatic. In fact, I would say it takes a lot more commitment and guts than getting an abortion. BUT AT LEAST THE KID IS NOT DEAD! Cripes, doesn't this count for ANYTHING?

Third, a full grown chicken has a more highly-developed brain than a fetus in its first trimester.

This kind of comment is totally irrelevant, and sounds more like it came from the Radical Feminists Survival Kit instead of from you. If this was the way we thought, we could just kill severely retarded or senile people and save ourselves a lot of trouble. And a severely retarded person does not usually have the potential to become a fully functional human being like a fetus does.

A really nasty person would probably point out that the idea that the fetus was dumber than a chicken was probably not a lot of comfort after your miscarriage. My wife had a miscarriage too--it is quite common in early pregnancies. We didn't lose a chicken. We lost a child. A newborn child is probably not as smart as a chicken either, but that doesn't mean we can throw it into the snow if we don't want it. Heck, I have to deal with people every day who I would swear would lose an IQ contest with a chicken, but I don't advocate killing them, much as I might want to.