Mothers and Babies - Why Can't We Love Them Both?
by Sarah Gage
A response to Dr. and Mrs J.C. Wilke's "Why Can't We Love
Them Both?", Chapter 31 UNWANTED
I have to admit, I was pretty enthusiastic when I first read the
title, "Why Can't We Love Them Both" in reference to pregnant
women and babies. (After all, wouldn't it be nice if people loved
pregnant women, not just the idea of getting their babies for adoption?)
Unfortunately, the Wilke's still seem to enjoy referring to pregnancies
as "unplanned" pregnancy or "unwanted" pregnancy
and have no problem with the idea of removing babies from their
mothers (and fathers?) to be used for adoption. Just how does this
"love them both"?
Just what is an "unplanned" pregnancy anyway? It used
to be that pregnancy was considered a natural thing and babies were
considered a gift from God to their actual parents. Pregnancy might
be referred to as a "surprise" rather than as "unplanned".
Yet in recent decades, everyone in society wants to regulate pregnancy,
plan pregnancy and delay pregnancy until women are in their 30's
or 40's (when many are unable to reproduce).
Interestingly, males are somehow exempt from pregnancy prevention
- this is still considered a female responsiblity. Even in modern
times, women may be accused of "getting themselves pregnant
on purpose just to make men miserable." "She needs a brick
tied between her legs," a friend of mine said about a mother
he knows who is pregnant for the second time, expecting twins and
hospitalized for the next several months. My response? "He
needs a brick tied between his legs." Why is pregnancy
always considered the woman's sole responsibility?
Delaying pregnancy is supposed to be a cost savings to society,
yet the cost of fertility treatments and buying babies (surrogacy,
adoption) or the raw materials to make babies ("donated"
eggs, sperm) for aging men and women who are no longer fertile is
high. There are increased health risks to older mothers and babies
and a great many unborn babies die in the "process" when
IVF treatments and other techniques are used. Not to mention the
emotional cost to a human being who is unrelated to one or both
of her "parents" and will grow up cut off from one or
both sides of her real family. And then there are the emotional
and health considerations for the woman used as an incubator to
produce a baby for "real parents".
As a pregnant woman experiencing a surprise pregnancy while I was
single, I thought of myself as the mother of my child and never
did seek an abortion. Yet so many people in society were eager to
accuse me of being "unwed", and of not planning. The Pro-Life
community in particular seemed to view my child as a "crisis"
meant to be "saved" and used for infant adoption. Indeed,
rather than my child being unwanted by me, it turned out that my
motherhood was unwanted. The intent of those around me was to terminate
my motherhood one way or another. There certainly were no "congratulations"
over this blessed event - although sickeningly there were people
drooling over the possiblity of getting a nice healthy white baby
for adoption.
My very religious parents were advised by Catholic "experts"
that it was their fault I was pregnant - talk about manipulating
people through the Catholic guilt trip. In her embarrassment, my
mother who was ordinarily pro-life actually begged me to get an
abortion. "Maybe you will lose this baby anyway," she
said hopefully. When my mother confessed that she wanted to help
me keep my baby, the "unbiased counselors" hoping to get
a newborn baby for their adoption customers rationalized that I
would have more children later. The "professionals" at
the church social services felt I would be "better off"
if my child was removed from me. They called me a "birthmother"
rather than "mother" - to emphasize that I was expected
to surrender my child for adoption. If my family and I kept my daughter
(showing it could be done) no doubt I would be a "bad example"
for other young women and ruin the perfect look of society. We were
advised that the best way to love a baby was to discard her ("give
her up for adoption") so that unrelated people (a "loving
couple") could use her as a replacement for the child they
could not have.
If blacks, Jews and other minorities are persecuted in our society,
the "unmarried" mother is surely just as persecuted. After
her born child has been removed (if ever so cunningly) from her
mother, people immediately begin talking about how they "saved
a baby from an abortion" because her own mother "just
didn't want" her baby. Fathers generally get no choice at all.
A baby is not being "saved" from an abortion when her
mother is pressured to surrender ("give her baby up").
Instead the baby is being "saved" from being taken home
and loved by her own family members. Some of these adoption businesses
even have disgusting slogans like "Adoption is a loving abortion."
What a sick thing to do, making the adopted child feel so terribly
unwanted and accusing a mother of aborting her baby when she has
done no such thing!
I agree with the Wilke's when they ask, "Why not love mothers
and babies both?" Why not love fathers as well? Say "Congratulations,
Mom!" or "Congratualtions, Dad!" to expectant parents
even when they are not married. Offer to help the real parents out
and stop suggesting that single moms and dads sacrifice their "adoptable"
babies for adoption.
Return to Domestic Adoption - Adoptees and
"Birthparents" Speaking Out
|
