Adoption girl child

Empty pro-choice challenge of the day: “Why don’t you pro-lifers adopt more?”

Yes, clearly pro-lifers aren't doing our part.
Yes, clearly pro-lifers aren’t doing our part.

It’s a question pro-aborts endlessly badger pro-lifers with: “If you so badly want babies to be born, how many are you willing to adopt?” They hope that by casting pro-lifers as somehow not doing enough to give “unwanted” children a home, they can divert attention away from the deaths they’re responsible for and guilt a few of us into shutting up. If that reminds you of a child snapping, “If you love it so much, why don’t you marry it?,” that’s because the challenge is about as sophisticated.

Sorry, but moral high ground doesn’t come that cheaply, the primary reason being that it doesn’t change the tiny details of (a) who’s making children they don’t want in the first place, and (b) who’s actually killing them and perpetuating that killing. Can anyone think of any other scenario where “I should be able to harm someone unless you aid me in some way” would be taken even remotely seriously as moral reasoning? If I forbid somebody from stealing my neighbor’s car, am I therefore obligated to let the would-be thief borrow my own?

Of course not. It’s preposterous. Again, pro-aborts are (intentionally) confusing the difference between abstaining from harm and going out of one’s way to do good. Our obligation to the former doesn’t necessarily entail the latter. And just because Person A won’t help Person B, it doesn’t give Person C a license to kill Person B. So even if this objection were to reveal that pro-lifers are somehow negligent in this area, it wouldn’t legitimize legal abortion.

It’s certainly true that all people, pro-lifers included, should do their part to find abandoned children homes, including adopting them themselves when they can. But, at the risk of ruining a perfectly good narrative by asking the obvious question, how do pro-aborts know we already aren’t? Do they have any reason other than malice to suggest that pro-life Americans aren’t adopting at a perfectly respectable rate compared to the rest of the population? Heck, how do we know pro-lifers aren’t adopting more than our “choice”-minded brethren? (After all, conservatives and religious Americans are more charitable in other ways.)

Personally, I’m not aware of adoption data to either effect, so if any of our critics can prove they’ve got facts behind the smears, step right up. It is, however, worth noting that even when pro-lifers do exactly what pro-aborts chastise us for allegedly not doing, it doesn’t make them hate us any less – just ask Rep. Michele Bachmann.

Besides, moving on from the macro to the individual level, it’s awfully presumptuous to assume whether the circumstances of a stranger’s personal life – yes, even a pro-lifer – are conducive to providing an orphaned child a good home, whether due to the number of children one already has (conservatives tend to have more kids than liberals), making too little to handle adoption’s steep price tag, being unmarried and therefore unable to provide a two-parent home, or simply because one isn’t good with kids.

Lastly, regardless of how many pro-lifers are personally adopting, the fact is that we’ve more than stepped up to support adoption – just take a look at Students for Life’s rundown of adoption activism and groups, and compare it to Planned Parenthood’s own abortion-to-adoption ratio (fun fact: the United States actually has more crisis pregnancy centers than Planned Parenthood clinics).

Another day, another shabby excuse for mass slaughter dispatched. It’s a sad commentary on our culture that there remain any venues where you can be taken seriously badgering someone to take care of a stranger’s child while cherishing the child’s own mother’s right to kill him or her.

  • LoveTheLeast8

    My parents are pro-life and they adopted my sister!

  • scoutabout

    I’m sorry but your rebuttal seems weak. Have a solution, not just blame. Acting ( and speaking) like you’re on higher moral ground makes me wonder about your true motives. “Taking care of a stranger’s child,” isn’t adoption. That would be babysitting, at best. Adoption is opening your heart to someone who becomes your family. It’s a blessing from God to be an adoptive parent. When you belittle this and point a judgmental finger at others, I wonder who you actually care about.

    • Calvin Freiburger

      If my rebuttal truly is weak, then presumably you could explain how? I don’t see any direct responses to my actual words, just some general characterizations of questionable accuracy.

      • scoutabout

        I believe I did explain myself. To recap: 1) talk solutions, 2) don’t refer to adoption in a degrading fashion, if you want anyone to believe you DO care about “some stranger’s child” and 3) sounding angry and condescending doesn’t win people over.

        • Calvin Freiburger

          1.) Which solutions to you believe I neglected, and how are they germane to the subject of whether pro-lifers aren’t adopting enough children?

          2.) Nowhere do I describe adoption in even remotely degrading terms. I honestly can’t see how, when read in the context where it actually appears above, my use of the phrase “a stranger’s child” (not “some,” for what it’s worth) could reasonably be interpreted as such.

          3.) What sounds “angry and condescending” to you?

          • scoutabout

            So you are truly unaware of your condescending tone? And frankly, I didn’t choose to write a column dripping with contempt for the opposing view, so I don’t have to talk about solutions.

            I could copy paste your essay with the parts that are hostile but maybe your talking points have just devolved to this.

            There’s a fine line between speaking up for those who don’t have a voice and alienating the audience you want to reach. I understand you feel the need to defend your view, but when you want people to feel compassion, model it. Kindness matters.

            A final note: speak highly of those who adopt (no, I’m not an adoptive parent). The whole process inspires awe, the relinquishing parent, the adoptive parent, and the child who is loved – the chosen child. Never, a stranger’s child.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            I’m trying to be as patient as I can here. But your not making it easy by meeting my responses with increasing anger and insults, but not clarity. You don’t exactly practice what you preach?

            The “opposing view” I’m responding to is pro-choicers trotting out the utterly-unsubstantiated smear that pro-lifers neglect adoptive children as an excuse to keep killing unborn babies en masse. You DON’T find that contemptible? I made a thorough case for why that’s not just misleading, but dishonest and immoral. If your standard is “be polite to every liar, character assassin, and murder apologist” then I’m not the writer for you. Simple as that.

            “I don’t have to talk about solutions.”

            You’re the one who brought them up, but explaining what you meant is too much to ask?

            “alienating the audience you want to reach.”

            Who have I alienated and how?

            “when you want people to feel compassion, model it. Kindness matters.”

            If you want this conversation to get to the point sometime in the next month, you’re gonna have to specify which of my words were unjustly unkind or lacking in compassion sooner rather than later.

            “speak highly of those who adopt”

            I agree, but it’s a non-sequitur. I didn’t disrespect adoptive parents in this article. Or anywhere else.

            “Never, a stranger’s child.”

            *Sigh* I really and truly cannot comprehend why you insist on reading some sort of insult into that line. It doesn’t say or imply that adoptive parents don’t love or choose their kids. It doesn’t belittle the child.

            But all it means is that typically, the children they adopt originally belonged to a stranger, and as you will see if you bother to re-read the context with an open mind free of the “hostility” you so incessantly rally against, the only reason I brought it up was to contrast the breathtaking hypocrisy of placing on pro-lifers the responsibility to adopt the children of strangers while insisting those children’s own mothers don’t even have the responsibility to not kill them.

  • Blessing Palyo-Herman

    Pro Life Action League utilizes the US Dept. of Health and Human Services to gather statistics in thier booklet: “Sharing the Pro Life Message” available here:

    Information from booklet regarding adoption:
    Last copyright I have is 2011. Probably updated since then. About 40,0000 babies are given up for adoption in the US and 115,000 eligible foster children VS 600,000 couples seeking to adopt.

    Sources of ALL stats in booklet:
    US Department of Health and Human Services CDC. 2008. Adoption Experiences of Women and Men and Demand for children to Adopt by Women 18-44 Years of Age in the United States, 2002.
    Vital and Health Statistics 23. No.27

    Us Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. 2010, July 29. Trends in Foster Care and Adoption FY 2002-FY 2009.

  • Tate Ellison

    It’s not a significant difference. But on adoption there is about a 1-3% higher rate of conservatives adopting (mixed race) to liberals. I don’t mind the healthy competition. as we all need to be encouraged if we have any inclination of children at all.