Pro-Abortion Writer Jessica DelBalzo

She loves abortion, hates adoption

Pro-Abortion Writer Jessica DelBalzo

Jessica DelBalzo loves abortion. We know this because she wrote an entire post for RH Reality Check about her unwavering adoration for the legal termination of unborn children and her desire to keep abortion anything but rare. In her opinion, pro-choicers who say abortion should be rare are implying that abortion is wrong and are just trying to please pro-lifers. She writes:

Terminating a pregnancy is not an unethical act, yet suggesting that abortion should be rare implies that there is something undesirable about having one. …

Suggesting that abortion be ‘safe, legal, and rare,’ and crowing that ‘no one likes abortion,’ accomplishes nothing for women’s rights. … Rather than trying to cozy up to the forced-birth camp, women who value their freedom should be proud to say that they like abortion. In fact, they should venerate it whole-heartedly. Abortion is our last refuge, the one final, definitive instrument that secures our bodily autonomy. What’s not to love?

Apparently, without legal abortion, women would lose all control over their own bodies, and they might as well give up all of their other rights, too. But the first feminists of this country saw what abortion really is: the destruction of motherhood, which is the true gift of being a strong female. Women raise and influence future generations more than anyone. That’s power.

But equally distressing as DelBalzo’s deep devotion to abortion and her belief that it gives women power is her hatred for adoption. She works diligently to eradicate legal adoption because she’d rather kill babies than give them to a loving family. As with abortion, she doesn’t want adoption rare, either. She wants it gone. Seriously.

DelBalzo operates Adoption: Legalized Lies, a self-described grassroots initiative to put an end to adoption. The front page of the group’s website shows a child happily holding a handmade sign that says, “Adoption Hurts Babies.” This is perplexing, since adoption leaves a child not only alive, but in a loving home, while abortion either burns the child to death or dismembers it limb by limb. Even if birth parents can’t raise a child, they can give their child a good life, rather than allow her body to be ripped apart and thrown into a bin of medical waste.

In addition, for all of her love of abortion, DelBalzo ironically finds adoption to be “not only unnecessary, but also unethical.” She bases most of her reasoning on the tragedies of the Baby Scoop Era, a period from 1950 through the early 1970s during which unwed mothers were forced to hide their pregnancies and give their children up for adoption. This was obviously traumatic for these young mothers, who suffered from depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and grief. But the Baby Scoop Era ended over 30 years ago. Since the legalization of abortion immediately following the Baby Scoop Era in 1973, over 54 million unborn children have been killed, each of them unnecessarily.

Abortion is the deliberate destruction of a human life. It’s feticide. No one can successfully dispute that. It is the most unethical legal act in existence. The years from 1973 until the end of abortion will someday be known as the Baby-Killing Era. To say adoption is the unethical choice is absurd and contemptible.

While birth parents often feel loss and grief, and adopted children often grow up struggling with their own sense of self, adoption is and will always be a better option than abortion. Rather than being dead, for instance, the child is alive and, more often than not, is happy, with a chance at a successful life. Plus, with the existence of open adoption, many birth parents can remain a part of their children’s lives or hope to be a part of them in the future as the children grow.

While DelBalzo’s extreme statements push the buttons of pro-life America, she is giving pro-choice America an opportunity to contemplate their position. Most pro-choicers I know have said that they themselves would never have an abortion, which means that deep down, they know it’s unethical and unacceptable. I hope that pro-choicers, if asked to state that they love abortion, might just begin rethinking their stance.

  • Guest

    she’d rather kill babies than give them to a loving family.

    This is demonstrably false.  In the article you link above, she does not identify abortion as preferable to adoption, but rather, suggests that a system of “permanent legal guardianship” is better for children than adoption.  That is, the anti-adoption movement supports giving children to loving family if their birth families cannot provide them, but they think that our current system of adoption is not the best way to do that.  I assume that you don’t agree with Ms. DeBalzo’s belief that guardianship is better than adoption because “the caregivers involved are motivated by the desire to help a child rather than secure some sort of status for themselves.”  I certainly don’t agree with her.  But why is it necessary for you to bear false witness against her?

    And on the “Legalized Lies” website:

    ” A baby-to-be should not be
    treated like a terminal illness, even if his or her conception was
    unplanned. The expectant parents should be given the support that they
    need, and the child should be welcomed into the world in the same way
    as any other baby.

    “Adoption:
    Legalized Lies” firmly believes that money should never be a factor in
    deciding to raise your baby.  We are happy to help you with
    donations of baby supplies, maternity clothes, diapers, and other
    necessities….We can also help you find local and federal
    resources that can help you during and after your pregnancy.
     Again, money is not a good reason to separate your family.

    Do you oppose supporting women facing unplanned pregnancies?

    • Mountain Man

      So she writes a baby-to-be should not be treated like a terminal illness yet she also says she loves abortion. Something doesn’t add up there.

    • Nlk0505

       the site also says “Our
      members come from so many different cultures, beliefs, and backgrounds
      that it would be impossible for us to take a position in the abortion
      debate.”
      For her anti-adoption group to take a pro-abortion stance may upset some birthmothers who come to the Legalized Lies web site, therefore the group itself doesn’t dare to take a pro-abortion stance. But DeBalzo herself formed an anti-adoption group and she herself loves abortion. It is not a big leap to say that she would rather a child be aborted than given up for adoption.

    • MoonChild02

      Legal guardianship is not a good way to go about it. Legal guardianship can be taken away by the biological parents or the courts at any time. Guardians are under constant supervision by the courts, while adoptive parents are free to move about the country, or have a messy house – which always happens with children, no matter how hard you try, but a messy house is something that is a mark on a guardian’s record, and grounds for losing a child. Under legal guardianship, the child is not a default inheritor, while adopted children are default inheritors. Under legal guardianship, birth parents are still monetarily and legally responsible for the child, not the guardians. Many times, parental rights need to be terminated, like with a couple of my friends whose parents were druggies. Therefore, an adoption makes more sense in those cases, not a legal guardianship. A legal guardianship is not binding or permanent, but an adoption is.

      Of course the adoption system is messed up, there are a lot of legalities that go into it, and the system needs to be paid for taking care of those legalities, as well as taking care of other children who have not been adopted yet. There are also too few social workers to take care of the many, many things that need doing, and even they are paid very little for a job that takes up all of their time. The system needs to be cleaned up, but that will take a lot of money, and a lot of people, which the government doesn’t have.

      It’s not just the adoption system that’s messed up, though. It’s the entire legal system, the entire government. We need to get away from consumerism, and return to the federal republic, or even democracy. We need to get away from the two-party system, and either go back to having no parties or have a multi-party system. We need to get rid of those who are taking bribes. We need to get rid of those who are buying off the officials in our government. We need to get rid of the corporations that are driving our policies, instead of the needs of the people. There are a lot of things that need fixing. It doesn’t mean that we should just drop everything we have, or else a lot of people will get hurt. What we need to do is fix the problems, not start new ones. Getting rid of the adoption system will just end with a lot of kids falling through the cracks and getting hurt.

  • Sarah M

    Once again a woman’s “choices” are axed apart by those calling themselves pro-choice. I’m sure there are terrible practices surrounding adoption in the US that should very well be investigated and ended. But to say this is sufficient reason to never give a child up for adoption does not make a bit of sense. If DelBalzo’s camp cared a thing about expanding choices for women, they would strive to reform rather than eradicate adoption. But no, this is yet another example of pro-choice women attempting to herd their sisters into their narrow ideological camp.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jonathan-Kuperberg/698603245 Jonathan Kuperberg

    Being able to pick and choose which human lives you’ll give your body to support (when ALL mammalian life- not just us humans made in God’s image- requires time within a uterus before it can survive independently) is not something to venerate. Bodily autonomy is not a good thing when it leads to human life being snuffed out on purpose.

  • vinny losasso

    They really are feminazis. LOL.. Of course, Hitler believed that getting rid of the “unwanted” people was a good thing too. They are no better than the Third Reich.

  • Anonymommy

    I’ve seen this poster on several online forums for years, and she is not only pro-abortion, she is pro-infanticide and believes that children as young as 11 should be able to be sexually active.  

  • Pingback: Just How Low Will Abortion Supporters Stoop? XOjane Has the Answer.

  • Pingback: Just how low will abortion supporters stoop? XOjane has the answer. | Foundation Life