Because We Wouldn't Want To Save Any More Babies Than Absolutely Necessary

Baltimore Law Aims to Undermine Charitable Work of Pregnancy Resource Centers, Say Pro-life Activists

A bill passed by the Baltimore City Council in November and signed into law on Dec. 4 will require pregnancy resource centers operating within the city to post signs stating what services the facilities do not offer. Signs -- to be posted outside the centers -- must state that they do not provide or give referrals for abortion or contraceptives.

Pro-life activists say this is the first time in the United States that a nonprofit service provider has been required to post such signage. They believe the law is intended to undermine their efforts to help women make an informed decision about an unplanned pregnancy. The signs will turn more women to Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers, they say.

Abortion supporters hate crisis pregnancy centers for "tricking" women into actually knowing enough about their babies not to kill them. "Tricking," of course, includes informed consent, sonograms and information about adoption.

Birth Mothers Speak Out

In contrast to this viewpoint of adoption, there's this view.

Abortion or Adoption

Having an abortion was easier than giving the baby up for adoption.
Duh. Doing the right thing is frequently more difficult.

I've known several women who have given babies up for adoption. It's extremely painful, and it's a pain that doesn't go away in a few weeks or months. That's because, unlike after an abortion, you can't tell yourself that "it" wasn't a baby, that "it" was just a clump of cells. Once you've spent nine months with someone, you stay kinda attached to him or her.

The only good point made in the linked post is that there needs to be more comprehensive help for birth mothers. I agree with that. The birth mothers I know dealt with their adoptions in a variety of ways, mostly constructive (it doesn't sound like the woman linked has done that very well). Some are religious, others are not. But regardless, we need to help women more and longer after adoptions than what is currently done. The fact is, adoption is a much harder choice to make than having a "20-minute procedure." We should treat it with more compassion and understanding than we currently do.

Abortion and Sterilization for a Greener Earth

The Daily Mail of the U.K. has this story of young women having abortions and wanting to be sterilized to "save" the planet.

Had Toni Vernelli gone ahead with her pregnancy ten years ago, she would know at first hand what it is like to cradle her own baby, to have a pair of innocent eyes gazing up at her with unconditional love, to feel a little hand slipping into hers - and a voice calling her Mummy.

But the very thought makes her shudder with horror.

Because when Toni terminated her pregnancy, she did so in the firm belief she was helping to save the planet.

Incredibly, so determined was she that the terrible "mistake" of pregnancy should never happen again, that she begged the doctor who performed the abortion to sterilise her at the same time.

He refused, but Toni - who works for an environmental charity - "relentlessly hunted down a doctor who would perform the irreversible surgery.

Finally, eight years ago, Toni got her way.

At the age of 27 this young woman at the height of her reproductive years was sterilised to "protect the planet".

Incredibly, instead of mourning the loss of a family that never was, her boyfriend (now husband) presented her with a congratulations card.

I've always been surprised that doctors won't perform sterilizations on young women who want them. I'd rather a woman get sterilized at 20 because she doesn't want children than to have abortions at 22, 24, 25, 29, and 34 because she was one of the women that either didn't take contraception properly or who was simply one of the oopsie statistics.

I understand, to some extent, the argument doctors make about not sterilizing young, fertile people. After all, young adults have a horrible track record for good decision-making. And there's always the chance these women could change their minds.

But there are also many doctors who make a fine living reversing these sterilization procedures. Or adoption. Don't forget adoption.

So, as aghast as the Daily Mail is about women wanting sterilizations for silly reasons (my one baby is going to destroy the planet!), I cheer them for the decision not to bring offspring into the world for which they are unwilling to care. After all, if they are so selfish that they think having offspring is selfish, wait until they expect other people's children to be paying for their social services for the elderly.

Texas Legislator Proposes $500 Bonus to Stop Abortions

This has got to be one of the worst ideas I've seen on how to stop abortions.

A Texas legislator has proposed that pregnant women considering abortion be offered $500 not to end their pregnancies.

Republican State Sen. Dan Patrick, who also is a conservative radio talk show host, said on Friday the money might convince the women to go ahead and have babies, then give them up for adoption...

Critics say the proposal would violate Texas and federal laws against buying babies, which Patrick rejected as "the typical ridiculous criticism."

This proposal sends all the wrong signals about stopping abortion and just gives more ammunition to the pro-abortion fanatics.

First, $500 isn't enough money to give women the incentive to go through a pregnancy they don't want, then the pain of childbirth and the various problems that can occur. And if I'm wrong, do we really want to encourage women to get pregnant this way for money? We want fewer women creating babies they are unwilling or unable to care for, not more.

Secondly, this reinforces the opinions of the radical feminists who think that
all pro-life supporters are against abortion because they think we need more white babies for adoption. The stipulation that the money is available after the baby is put up for adoption reinforces this idiotic notion.

Third, is this really a government function? One of the arguments conservatives make about abortion is its inherent governmental intrusion. We don't want the federal government telling states what rules they can have governing abortion, and it seems to me that this is the worst sort of government intrusion, as well as a waste of taxpayer dollars.

Representative Patrick may think this gimmick will stop some abortions, but, in my opinion, it will only reinforce the stereotypes certain radicals have of pro-lifers.

Silencing Christians in the Public Square

Great Britain is doing the same thing to Catholics there that Boston did to Catholics here: get them out of the adoption business.

Catholic officials told reporters today that the government was engaging in Orwellian strong-arm tactics against the religious freedoms of Christians in attempting to force Catholic adoption agencies to adopt children to homosexual couples.

The comments came in response to yesterday’s announcement by Prime Minister Tony Blair that British Catholic adoption agencies could not expect an exemption from a new law prohibiting “discrimination” in the provision of goods and services.

“Some legislation, however well intended, in fact does create a new kind of morality, a new kind of norm - as this does,” Cormac Cardinal Murphy O’Connor told BBC Radio 4's Today program.

The forcing of Catholic services to adopt children to homosexual couples can only be aimed at silencing Christians in this area, since homosexual couples can adopt through secular agencies, says Anthony Esolen, editor of Touchstone Christian magazine.

(T)he purpose of legislative tactics to force churches to act against their conscience were specifically and only attacks on the freedoms of Christians.

At the time of the closing of Boston’s Catholic adoption agency last year by a similar legislative move, Esolen pointed out that homosexuals can legally adopt children from secular agencies and could not possibly benefit from the strong-arming of Boston’s Catholic adoption agency.

Esolen wrote, “The conclusion seems inescapable: the Church was given the ultimatum not so that homosexuals would benefit, but so that the Church would be hurt, either by a capitulation that would signal its subservience and irrelevance evermore, or by a curtailment of the freedom of Catholics to practice their faith in the public square.”

This was echoed by Bishop Nichols who said last week, “Catholic adoption agencies do not obstruct adoption by same sex couples.”

“Any such request made to Catholic agencies are referred to other agencies that are able to respond. Granting an exemption to Catholic agencies will not alter the legal rights of same sex couples seeking to adopt children,” Nichols added.

In my opinion, the purpose of these laws is to force Christians to accept and treat homosexual behavior the same as heterosexual behavior, whether this agrees with their religious beliefs or not. It seems that all the talk about accepting everyone's views doesn't really count when you are talking about Christian views.