I’m working on an article (not blog) which will in part cover the weird anti-abort allegation that the anti-adoption and adoptee rights movements are a pro-abortion stealth op.
I found a curious quote in an essay by Dr. Jean Garton–Helping Families in Need–The Adoption Option published over 10 years ago:
When the founder of an anti-adoption group was asked how she would counsel a teenage daughter who became pregnant, she said she would counsel her daughter first to keep the baby, second to have an abortion, third to commit suicide, and only fourth to put the baby up for adoption.”
Although the essay is footnoted this quote isn’t, which makes me pretty curious. Goggle has been no help. If anybody knows the real source for this, not Garton’s alleged quote, please post it here. And commentgs are always welcome.
Thanks.
I have actually heard birthmothers say this (well, not the suicide part). That having an abortion would have been so much more bearable emotionally, because it ends there. Whereas with adoption, it is ongoing, neverending–you are constantly asking yourself, “Is he okay?”, “Did I do the right thing to relinquish her?”, “Will he seek me out when he turns 18?”, “Will she ever understand what made me do it?”
But, I can’t help you with that specific quote. Just saying that I’ve heard similar sentiments before.
I lost my firstborn to adoption and also had an abortion after that loss. Hands down, for me, abortion was the easier way. I knew the minute I left the hospital without my baby, that I had just made the biggest mistake of my life. My pregnancy wasn’t the mistake, my child wasn’t the mistake, Adoption was the mistake. I have never, not one minute in my life, regretted the abortion.
My 2nd born daughter would become pg when 19 and unmarried. The only question I asked her.. ‘Are you going to have an abortion’. She said, NO! The word ‘adoption’ was never mentioned. Told her she could come home and I would help her with her baby, but she would marry the father soon after. That big bouncing baby boy is now 19 yrs old, and I thank the Goddesses that this guy, my grandson, never lost his family and we didn’t lose him to adoption.
Wish I could help you on the quote, is first time I heard it, though I know of several mothers who would have preferred an abortion over losing their children to adoption.
Why give this writer any acknowledgment? Who cares what this anti-natural familist has to say? Abortion is not adoption.
Found this:
Unlike Carole Anderson of Concerned United Birth Parents, they are not zealots. When asked what she would do if her teenage daughter became pregnant, Anderson claims that she would suggest suicide as an option preferable to giving up a child for adoption. [FN107] The
The footnote had the entire quote in it.
I found it here:
https://www.law.duke.edu/journals/djglp/homepage/djgv2a2.htm
Marley,
I read an article in the National Review(editor William F Buckley) a number of years ago, which was about adoption reform, searching, and abortion.I remember one quote which said something like “So-called adoption reform organizations are nothing more than fronts for pro-abortion feminists.”
I know it was at least 4 or more years ago, but I think it was a June issue.
I think James Dobson’s organization, Focus on the Family, has also made some claims like that.
Hey! suicide would have been the only thing that would have prevented the nuns from taking my child then sell to waiting adopters.
kitta3 said…
“…I remember one quote which said something like “So-called adoption reform organizations are nothing more than fronts….”
Marley – kitta3’s comment reminds me of a similar one you might want to check out:
Check Letter #291
http://priestsforlife.org/lte/lte29.html
“Hey! suicide would have been the only thing that would have prevented the nuns from taking my child then sell to waiting adopters.”
Only if you did it before the birth. Then again, abortion also spares mothers and children from the lifelong consequences of adoption.
Kate wrote:
I have actually heard birthmothers say this (well, not the suicide part)
I have, too, and I recently posted here my old letter to the Weekly Standard about that. I don’t think anyone believed me.
Marley
Thanks so much Alejandro! This is a huge help. I’m very suspicious of unsourced controversial quotes, esecially when somebody is trying to make a point.
Marley
Kitta wrote:
Marley,
I read an article in the National Review(editor William F Buckley) a number of years ago, which was about adoption reform, searching, and abortion.I remember one quote which said something like “So-called adoption reform organizations are nothing more than fronts for pro-abortion feminists.”
That’s sounds like Marvin Olasky’s 1993 piece, “The War on Adoption.” He wrote another one in 1997 about the “forgotten option.” Olasky is real important, I think. He is Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” archetect. He and his wife Susan have a dandy little book out there on adoption and the “care” of unmarried moms. He supports shotgun weddings and women staying in abusive situations. After all, no matter how bad it is, it gives the kid(s) a dad in the home. He also loves Gladney.
Pat Robertson and Larry Crane, the lead lawyer in the ACLJ’s appeal in Sundquist both claimed that records access was a stealth pro-abortion campaign.
In view of NOW’s treatment of CUB in the 1970s, it’s fascinating how anti-adoption and pro-abortion have been used to attack women’s autonomhy. Killing 2 birds with 1 stone.
Thanks anon. for your tip on Priests for Life. I don’t now how I missed that. I’ve got a lot on them. I’ve seen Frank Pavone in action in person a few times. I ran into him in the loboby of a hotel in downtown Washington once. I should have tried to pick him up.
Hey, whatever happened to Ralph Reed? That boy loved adoption.
I once heard a rumor that Dobson was a eugenicist before those pesky Nazis gave it a bad name and he reinvented himself as a child-rearing expert. Anybody know if that is true?
The association between Dobson and eugenics is true. He once worked for Paul Popenoe, the American eugenicist. I think that was back in the 60s…or earlier. The Denver Post ran a long article about it…Dobson’s organization, Focus on the Family is located in Colorado Springs.The article was published over a year ago.
Popenoe began devoting his time to “family improvement” in his marriage institute…when eugenics lost favor due to WW2 and Hitler. He also wrote a marriage counseling series in Ladies Home Journal, “Can This Marriage be Saved?” Dobson worked for him as a young man and wrote some books about families and children from a ‘Christian” standpoint.
Now, he advises the Pres…lucky us…(pardon my sarcasm)
I once heard a rumor that Dobson was a eugenicist before those pesky Nazis gave it a bad name and he reinvented himself as a child-rearing expert. Anybody know if that is true?
I recently heard this again too, I was surprised it to hear it come from a national news program.
Marley: In view of NOW’s treatment of CUB in the 1970s, it’s fascinating how anti-adoption and pro-abortion have been used to attack women’s autonomhy. Killing 2 birds with 1 stone.
Response: Marley, there is a connection between the
pro-abortion, pro-adoption, and
anti-abortion movements.
1. Pro-abortion movement: Abortion decreases the #’s of babies born.
(is it really about giving a women’s choice or making women think it is? or could there be a “plan in progress” deciding which babies babies should be born?)
2. Pro-adoption movement:
The decrease in the #’s of babies results in the cost of adoption to increase.
(is it really about “in a child’s best interest” or could there be a “plan in progress” deciding the betterment of society is through demographics and the distribution of babies? Who stands to gain by the increase in cost? Who is able to prove to be the most substantially suitable in society?)
3. Anti-abortion: The propaganda to stimualte a need for adoption. (is it really about “saving” a life, why is adoption presented as the only alternative to abortion? could there be a “plan in progress” to be a mind game to further an agenda?)
Take into account the BSE is about
#’s of “white” babies, not black
babies.
Take into account 78% of abortion clinics are located in black neighborhoods and the population of black americans decreased from 1973 to today.
If someone wants to believe the women’s movement was about women’s autonomy they are sorely deceived of being used for “a plan for humanity in progress” which is much bigger than any one issue here. It’s called eugenics.
Kate made comments such as …
‘I have actually heard birthmothers say…’
‘and ” Did I do the right thing to relinquish her? “
Mothers aren’t birthmothers . and most did not relinquish ; they were forced.
to Kate:
re mothers who lost their precious babies by whatever means.
If they wern’t tricked or forced they were led to believe they had no choice because of socio economic reasons. Or they were subjected to China’s draconian one child policy . Or their babies were grabbed from them for airlifting (export)at the height of the Vietnam War .Or their countries had such corrupt totalitarian regimes that they couldn’t afford to feed their children and had to place them in orphanages and so on and so forth .
Anyway please observe protocol: stop objectifying mothers .We are human beings fortunate enough to give birth , but unfortunate enough to have our babies taken to meet the demand.
Dr Jean Garton needs a biology lesson : she quotes a little girl ,who says,
” I grew in mummy’s heart instead of her tummy . “
Imagine growing a zygote (which would eventually develop into a baby at full term ) in one of the auricles or ventricles ? Is this how adopters educate our children? Tut Tut Tut
Anyway my baby grew not only under my heart ( in the correct place ) but emotionally in it.
Marley said,
I’ve seen Frank Pavone in action in person a few times. I ran into him in the loboby of a hotel in downtown Washington once. I should have tried to pick him up.
I would have told him; god gave us water for more than just drinking. Then I would have handed him a bottle of shampoo. ick, ick, ick!!
” I grew in mummy’s heart instead of her tummy . “
Mmmm…sounds like a case of heartworm to me.
” ” I grew in mummy’s heart instead of her tummy . “
Isn’t this what rosiewhatsherface says about the children she bought? Weird, really weird!
“Marley: In view of NOW’s treatment of CUB in the 1970s, it’s fascinating how anti-adoption and pro-abortion have been used to attack women’s autonomhy. Killing 2 birds with 1 stone.”
Yeah, NOW knowingly or otherwise played right into the hands of the patriarchal powermongers when they decided they themselves wanted those babies sooooo baaaaad that they just had to promote adoption.
NOW members are phoney elitists whose position on adoption shows the truth about them more than anything else.
As for abortion: adoption causes abortions. I have personally heard women say many times that they would have an abortion before a child of their’s ever went to adoptors. How strange there is not a middle ground in this, that there are not other alternatives than adoption or abortion for mothers. Hmmm, wonder why that is? Could it be because polarizing issues are a cornerstone of keeping politicians and preachers in their positions of power?
Let’s face it folks, we are not a naive group here, this abortion thing is about power, it has nothing to do with babies.
And whatever did happen to Ralph Reed? The tiny man was very prominent at one time making his absolute proclamations about what women could do with their bodies and their babies. What the hades happened to him?
I think that strange poem also says:
“Not flesh of my flesh,
nor bone of my bone
But, still miraculously
my own.
Never forget
for a single minute
You didn’t grow under my heart
but in it”
How odd…not only are adopted people told they grew in a person’s heart, an impossible form of reproduction..but they are told they must never forget this impossible act…not even for a minute.
No wonder the stupid poem is written by Anonymous
In view of NOW’s treatment of CUB in the 1970s
MAJOR MISTAKE NO# 1
If your supposed to be a group that represents natural parents of adoption loss – You DON’T INVITE non-natural parents to join your group. How many times can you keep making the same mistake before you get it?
MAJOR MISTAKE NO# 2
Adoption is not a gender issue. Yes mother’s have taken the worst of the assult but what about father’s? What about the few father’s willing to take responsibility? – they are intentionally left out – if not by the system then by the mothers?
Adoption is an attack on natural families.
Regarding Major Mistakes 1 & 2:
Yeah, it’s a a kick in the teeth of real parents to let adoptors and slaves run a group that’s supposed to be for them. Group successfully neutralized with only itself to blame.
And it is certainly true that men have been used for adoption also though few seem to notice or care since they all like to believe they are in the driver’s seat. I guess it’s just more proof how adoptionists manipulate the truth so they can continue abusing. Fathers are either absolutely vital to child-rearing, smart choosers calling the shots, worthless cads, or pests who get in the way of the adoption mandate, filling whatever stereotypical position adoptors and adoptionists need to help perpetrate their abuse.
to Anonymous, with reference to your comments about fathers being left out: truly, adoption abuse of parents is not a gender issue. Families are comprised of men as well as women! duh….and many of us gave birth to sons.
And I have talked to men who have cried over the loss of their children. But when mothers seek help, as you know, the first thing the agency or ‘counselor ” does is try to divide and conquer….demonizing fathers as well as the rest of the family… The father is viewed as the enemy (and in some cases, it is true, he has behaved very badly)…but if the preservation of the natural family is the goal, the father and his family cannot be excluded. And children need their fathers….we need to encourage more fathers to become involved in preserving their/our families, instead of viewing this as a ‘women’s issue”.
JMO
Families are comprised of men as well as women! duh….and many of us gave birth to sons.
kitta3 , there’s no reason for the sarcasim.
Yeah, it’s a a kick in the teeth of real parents to let adoptors and slaves run a group that’s supposed to be for them. Group successfully neutralized with only itself to blame.
Yeah, CUB invited NOW way back in the 1970s and didn’t learn a thing from it. For a group that boasts about how they were the first or their longetivity, it’s apparent they were never really about natural parents.
I don’t want to hear “any” more shit about a group that’s proven to be no different than any other
pro-adoption support group.
“sounds like a case of heartworm to me.”
That little gem is sooo funny .Just proves that they aren’t very human.
I hope the adopter is able to see the irony of constantly asking herself ,
” Is she okay without his/her mom?”
( No she is NOT okay without her mom who is far far away in China )
“Did I do the right thing to demand / steal her from her mother”
( What a stupid question.)
“Will she seek her mother out when he is able to get open records? “
( you bet she will if he is able which is not likely considering she is from China )
“Will she ever understand what made me do it?”
(What do you think ?)
Sheesh .
anonymous,
I was agreeing with your comments about adoption not being a gender issue.
I was not my intent to be sarcastic although I can see how it looked that way…
It should be obvious that families are made of men and women, equally, but over and over I hear mothers say that adoption is a womens issue…..and I think it is a family issue..
sorry for the misunderstanding
Kitta 3 says ,
“How odd…not only are adopted people told they grew in a person’s heart, an impossible form of reproduction..but they are told they must never forget this impossible act…not even for a minute.”
Good comment. No surprise that adopters label us as “birthmothers” ;they can’t quite fathom out that mother means giving birth ,so they must repeat the meaning , when in truth the mother word is adequate enough.
Here is the correct version for those adopters who are not quite sure of our offsprings’ Origins.
FLESH OF OUR FLESH
BONE OF OUR BONE
AND OUR OWN
NEVER FORGET FOR EVEN ONE MINUTE
YOU GREW UNDER MY HEART AND FOREVER IN IT.
Upper case is used to ensure that the message is sufficiently audible to wake up our offspring from their adoption – induced sleep.( and to drown out the very unnatural adoption version.)
Kate says ,
“I have actually heard birthmothers say this (well, not the suicide part). That having an abortion would have been so much more bearable emotionally, because it ends there. Whereas with adoption, it is ongoing, neverending–you are constantly asking yourself, “Is he okay?”, “Did I do the right thing to relinquish her?”, “Will he seek me out when he turns 18?”, “Will she ever understand what made me do it?”
Are you not constantly asking yourself as the adopter ,”Is she okay without her mother?””Did I do the right thing in taking her from her mother?”
“Will she seek her mother out when she turns 18 ? ” “Will she ever understand what made me do it(take her from her mother) ? ”
Have a quiet moment with yourself and go figure .
check out who’s giving pointers to adopters
http://reunionwritings.wordpress.com/2006/08/30/inspired-by-msp-a-dear-birthmother-letter
I knew an adopter who had the adoption version in a frame on her refrigerator for the children to always be able to see.
Here’s a side by side recap
of both quotes sited here
for the adoption impaired:
ADOPTION VERSION:
Not flesh of my flesh,
nor bone of my bone
But, still miraculously my own.
Never forget for a single minute
You didn’t grow under my heart
but in it”
CORRECT VERSION:
Flesh of our flesh
bone of our bone
and our own
Never forget for even one minute
You grew under my heart and forever in it.
I think that’s pretty sound advice – although I think I’d leave out options 3 & 4 altogether. To me, there are only two – keep your baby or terminate. That’s what I did 32 years ago and though it was a loss, I cannot even begin to imagine the kind of loss that my natural mother felt.
Deborah says, ” To me there are only two – keep your baby or terminate .”
Absolutely .
And yet ,I once asked a medical social wrecker ,”What will happen to this mother if you take her child ? ”
The s/w in a contemptuos tone ,replied ,”She will probably kill herself.”
Anonymous said…
‘check out who’s giving pointers to adopters’
well well well, looks like
OUSAs blog even has a link to that site. whats up with that? since when did OUSA start support giving adopters advice on how to write dear birth mother letters?
I went to the site of the addy you posted, I saw a lot of blogs and C.U.B. there too. Are you saying that OUSA is linked there too?
If this is true, I think “WE have a problem, Houston”
“”If this is true, I think “WE have a problem, Houston” “”
I would have to agree! As the old saying goes.. ‘One is known by the company they keep’.
Any truth to the ‘rumor’??
Not a rumor.
Who’s handling OUSA’s blog site?
The offending site in question is:
http://reunionwritings.wordpress.com/2006/08/30/inspired-by-msp-a-dear-birthmother-letter
OUSA’s blog with link to this site:
http://originsusablogportal.blogspot.com/
Actually, I have seen this coming for awhile, the “soul” of adoption being the key to everything about adoption.
Personally, I see no reason for us to collaborate with these sites, but the person that runs the “soul” is liked way to much by Origins.
I have thought a lot about leaving Origins as I see the lines blurring too much.
This is the vision of “soul” of adoption to reason, talk and get those that adopt to see the pain.
A cold day in hell it isn’t going to happen, but the “soul’s” owner has that dream and tried it on antiadoption and it died.
“”A cold day in hell it isn’t going to happen, but the “soul’s” owner has that dream and tried it on antiadoption and it died. “”
Yes it did and for the reason you stated.
Adoption has no “soul”.
but the person that runs the “soul” is liked way to much by Origins.
wonder how many members have seen that shit.
I have thought a lot about leaving Origins as I see the lines blurring too much.
many have – someone’s we know is real good at reaching but as for leadership needs to shit or get off the pot.
We’re you able to find this quote?
No, and I am highly suspicious of it–the suicide part.