Jump to content
Akkula

anti-Choicers getting crushed in Kansas

Recommended Posts

On 8/12/2022 at 6:59 PM, smltwnrckr said:

Well, first of all...

Not a third trimester abortion if she was 25 weeks. Not sure where they decided 25 weeks was the third.  That is right on the edge of viability, and the one crazy abortion example that you found is still before the 27 weeks / third trimester level that I asked for.

Second...

Show me the data that there are as many third trimester abortions aS there are gun deaths. It doesn't exist. Good job finding one example in one of like three existing studies ever to include abortions after 20 weeks, even if it fails to reach what I asked for. I knew there would be one out there somewhere. But how hard did we have to search to find immediate examples of how anti abortion laws hurt and threaten the lives of women at her gestational age? Not.

Third...

Your example tacitly is bad for the a anti abortion position. If that woman had access to actual reproductive health care, she would have been able to make her choice earlier and would have known easier. It's why I laugh when I see people saying they have 'stricter' abortion laws in Europe because they have gestational limits. Yet they allow access to health care and health education for all long before that, so the comparison is silly.

Edit: Actually it's unclear if that last paragraph is true. Since she claims she was having some kind of bleeding in sync with her period over that time. But even still, I have a hard time believing a woman in the South was getting good care and education to help her prevent unwanted pregnancies. On the other hand, this example would also be such an anomaly that it seems like the worst one to use for the case that she's a good example of a 25-week abortion. 

Again, remember that the anti abortion myth of the 7 month pregnant woman getting an abortion is that she carried the pregnancy knowingly and then just wanted it out of her. This is a woman who didn't know she was pregnant, and thus was completely failed by the health care system. I'm surprised your first question here wasn't "Wtf, where does she live and why is their reproductive health care so shitty?!?!" 

So just a few things as I really don't think we'll see eye to eye on this. Not having read the whole thread I don't know why you're asking for specifically for 27 weeks as viability has come down to 22 weeks or so. So if someone comes in for a dating ultrasound that places her at let say 25 and 4/7 weeks by LMP, the margin of error in a late second trimester sono gram is +/- 10 days placing her anywhere from 24 to 27 weeks. I'm not sure what would be satisfactory for you that abortions occur after 27 weeks honestly. I've provided an example in the Turnaway study that you have referenced before and that study as well as the one by the Guttmacher Institute both acknowledge that only a small minority of terminations after 21 weeks are for fetal indications. I've linked a Pew report regarding estimation of total abortions in the US of 930,000 incorporating estimates from states that don't report to the CDC, acknowledging that this doesn't include medical abortions not done in a clinic. As you acknowledge, this type of data is hard to get considering only 2 states require reporting for abortions over 23 weeks and 60 percent of abortions are done in specialized clinics which realistically won't report numbers for obvious reasons. I'll link the Dupont clinic website which clearly states they do abortion procedures for fetus' more than 26 weeks for any cause. As mentioned previously, abortions due to lethal anomalies occur in hospitals and are generally reported.  As far as comparison to gun violence death comparison, I only use it because it was used by another publication that I read that I've forgotten. In short the Gun Violence Archive reports 12k homicide/murder/unintentional and defensive gun deaths. If a large majority of the 1 percent of the "reported" 930,000 abortions were for pregnancies over 21 weeks, in my estimation, it does approach gun violence death numbers that I think both pro and anti second amendment rights advocates could agree on. But I'll concede that there are more gun violence deaths even if they don't include the defensive deaths.

As far as abortion myths pro and con, I have no comments on them other than myths go in both directions such as the one you mention as well as the myth that there were thousands of deaths due to illegal abortions before Roe V Wade. I'm really not here to give pro or con examples whether an example is tacitly bad for anti abortion position. Almost all references I've looked at are pro reproductive health whether you consider that objective or not is for the reader to decide.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/06/24/what-the-data-says-about-abortion-in-the-u-s-2/

https://dupontclinic.com/services/abortion-after-26-weeks/

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/13/2022 at 1:47 AM, IanforHeisman said:

Every single election for the rest of our lives will be a giant shit show..

I can't follow politics anymore,  Look at Reaclearpolitics today, every damned editorial is proclaiming the end of democracy by both the left and the right.  Neither side wants to play by any established rules anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those asking for a recount in Kansas needed to supply $229,600 by 5pm today as a bond to cover the expected cost of a full recount. They were only able to come up with $119,600. So the recount will only occur in 9 counties in the state (including some of the most populous counties) instead of all 105 counties.

One county seeing a recount will be Douglas County, home to Lawrence and the University of Kansas. The abortion restriction amendment lost there with 81.5% of votes being cast against it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/15/2022 at 12:30 PM, CPslograd said:

I can't follow politics anymore,  Look at Reaclearpolitics today, every damned editorial is proclaiming the end of democracy by both the left and the right.  Neither side wants to play by any established rules anymore.

Yeah both parties suck.  Looking at the Forward Party 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/15/2022 at 8:05 PM, FresnoFacts said:

Those asking for a recount in Kansas needed to supply $229,600 by 5pm today as a bond to cover the expected cost of a full recount. They were only able to come up with $119,600. So the recount will only occur in 9 counties in the state (including some of the most populous counties) instead of all 105 counties.

One county seeing a recount will be Douglas County, home to Lawrence and the University of Kansas. The abortion restriction amendment lost there with 81.5% of votes being cast against it.

 

Something about a fool and his money springs to mind...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/15/2022 at 12:15 PM, NMpackalum said:

So just a few things as I really don't think we'll see eye to eye on this. Not having read the whole thread I don't know why you're asking for specifically for 27 weeks as viability has come down to 22 weeks or so.

The reason I am interested in 27 weeks is because there has been a clear shift in the anti-abortion talking point that has shifted away from "late-term abortion" rhetoric to terminology that focuses on abortions in the third trimester, or abortions at 7 or 8 months, as the reason it is necessary to implement abortion bans and abortion regulations. The example that is used over and over now, and has been cited here on this board (be it this thread or other threads) for why we need these regulations/bans is that it is unconscionable to allow a woman to knowingly carry a pregnancy for two full trimesters, for 7 months  or 8 full months, and then decide one day that she wants an abortion. They equate "abortion at any time" and abortion at these late, late stages, and say the first means there will be more of the second. And my argument is that this is a red herring, a canard or whatever else one might call it for a number of reasons.

First and foremost, it was already constitutional under Roe/Casey to regulate and ban abortions at that point... so the idea that any state can't have a law on the books to prevent some maniac woman and her maniac doctor from terminating an 8 month pregnancy without repealing Roe is just flat wrong. Any law that is pursued now, and wasn't pursued prior to the recent ruling, is going to seek to regulate abortions around and before viability because they could have banned at as early as 22 or 24 weeks already. Hence the dishonesty of the anti-abortion right using that example. Second, pregnancies that are ended after the end of the second trimester are so exceedingly rare that they are statistically as close to nonexistent as you can get, thus there is literally no data on this thing that anti-abortion activists now hold up as their boogeyman. Third, if/when there is actual anecdotal evidence and/or qualitative data on the circumstances around one of these unicorns, it is going to be messier and more tragic and complicated than the anti-abortion right wants it to be. 

It's an important point here, because there is a reason for the rhetorical shift on the anti-abortion right. They used to focus on "late-term" abortions (a term that you know holds no real scientific meaning) because abortion access in the first trimester is politically popular, as we are now seeing in reactions to total bans and potential total bans. Now, there are going to be increasing stories of women who face gut-wrenching choices after the first trimester (often around 20 weeks but before viability) which is going to hurt them politically. And so, we see the shift to the mythical elective third trimester abortion as the evil that must be stopped lest Democrats allow infanticide. 

As for the difference between 22 and 27 weeks, it matters for a couple reasons. First, there is a pretty significant difference in development during those weeks. As you point out, 22 weeks is on the verge of viability while 27 weeks is a much more likely point to have a successful birth and a healthy child. But second, even then... viability, especially at its earlier stages, is not a black/white, yes/no thing that applies the same in every instance. So it is still extremely important, IMO, to have the parents and doctors in the position to make informed choices as they are the ones best situated in the place and time necessary to make the best decision for themselves and their families. Taking away a pregnant woman's agency in a terrible dilemma at 22 weeks because of fear of an 8 month abortion, which is the goal of these activists, is unconscionable IMO. 

On 8/15/2022 at 12:15 PM, NMpackalum said:

So if someone comes in for a dating ultrasound that places her at let say 25 and 4/7 weeks by LMP, the margin of error in a late second trimester sono gram is +/- 10 days placing her anywhere from 24 to 27 weeks.

I am glad that you explained a bit into the interpretation process. I do imagine that it could be tough to pinpoint the exact difference between say 25 weeks and 27 weeks. But if anything, that speaks quite a bit to my point... that drawing hard lines in policy is blind to the messy realities that these situations really are. 

On 8/15/2022 at 12:15 PM, NMpackalum said:

I'm not sure what would be satisfactory for you that abortions occur after 27 weeks honestly. I've provided an example in the Turnaway study that you have referenced before and that study as well as the one by the Guttmacher Institute both acknowledge that only a small minority of terminations after 21 weeks are for fetal indications.

Correct. And I've pointed out the blind spots in the data, primarily tied to the methodology. These studies are not designed to look at what percentage of total abortions/miscarriages/stillbirths in the country are for "convenience" as the anti-abortion right likes to put it. But, these studies do highlight how there are women who get abortions after 20 or 21 weeks for reasons other than to save the life of the mother and/or fetal abnormalities. But, again, 21 weeks and 27 weeks-to-8 months are very different things, and thus I will always point out that difference. 

On 8/15/2022 at 12:15 PM, NMpackalum said:

I've linked a Pew report regarding estimation of total abortions in the US of 930,000 incorporating estimates from states that don't report to the CDC, acknowledging that this doesn't include medical abortions not done in a clinic. As you acknowledge, this type of data is hard to get considering only 2 states require reporting for abortions over 23 weeks and 60 percent of abortions are done in specialized clinics which realistically won't report numbers for obvious reasons.

Yes, and this speaks to what I was stating earlier that there is no data for third-trimester abortions. 

On 8/15/2022 at 12:15 PM, NMpackalum said:

I'll link the Dupont clinic website which clearly states they do abortion procedures for fetus' more than 26 weeks for any cause.

Yes, I've seen that the Dupont clinic does this. My understanding is that such an abortion would be illegal in the bluest of the blue states - California - and thus probably illegal in most states under Roe/Casey. I know CA has been working to expand abortion rights, largely in reaction to the anti-abortion right. Because Dupont is in DC, I'm guessing they don't have as much of a problem with GOP state legislators imposing bans. But the fact that a service is advertised is not data on the service itself. 

On 8/15/2022 at 12:15 PM, NMpackalum said:

As mentioned previously, abortions due to lethal anomalies occur in hospitals and are generally reported.

As far as comparison to gun violence death comparison, I only use it because it was used by another publication that I read that I've forgotten. In short the Gun Violence Archive reports 12k homicide/murder/unintentional and defensive gun deaths. If a large majority of the 1 percent of the "reported" 930,000 abortions were for pregnancies over 21 weeks, in my estimation, it does approach gun violence death numbers that I think both pro and anti second amendment rights advocates could agree on. But I'll concede that there are more gun violence deaths even if they don't include the defensive deaths.

Again, I am pointing out that 21 weeks and 27 weeks are much different, and I am confident that there are not more gun violence deaths in this country than there are third-trimester abortions. Not even close. One has to be an expert in the field and/or a professional researcher with a research library account to find one anecdotal example, and even that example is borderline. 

On 8/15/2022 at 12:15 PM, NMpackalum said:

As far as abortion myths pro and con, I have no comments on them other than myths go in both directions such as the one you mention as well as the myth that there were thousands of deaths due to illegal abortions before Roe V Wade. I'm really not here to give pro or con examples whether an example is tacitly bad for anti abortion position. Almost all references I've looked at are pro reproductive health whether you consider that objective or not is for the reader to decide.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/06/24/what-the-data-says-about-abortion-in-the-u-s-2/

https://dupontclinic.com/services/abortion-after-26-weeks/

As for your consistent push back against the claims for deaths due to illegal abortions before Roe, I am sure those numbers are exaggerated as you point out. I have not done a lot of research there, but I would be comfortable saying that the numbers that do exist likely have holes in them too. After all, the first real abortion restriction in this country were poison control measures, so it would take a historian as much as a physician to parse that out. I will say this, though - it's no coincidence that the states with the highest maternal mortality rates, infant mortality rates and worst overall health outcomes for mothers and babies are largely states with the most restrictive approaches to abortions. Outlawing and severely restricting abortion makes pregnancy more dangerous for women. Thus, it makes being a woman a riskier proposition. 

I appreciate your willingness to take the time and have a robust discussion on this topic, and to actually try and sift through what data does exist and where holes are in the data. These are the kinds of conversations I wish happened in legislative halls on the issue. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/16/2022 at 11:04 AM, smltwnrckr said:

The reason I am interested in 27 weeks is because there has been a clear shift in the anti-abortion talking point that has shifted away from "late-term abortion" rhetoric to terminology that focuses on abortions in the third trimester, or abortions at 7 or 8 months, as the reason it is necessary to implement abortion bans and abortion regulations. The example that is used over and over now, and has been cited here on this board (be it this thread or other threads) for why we need these regulations/bans is that it is unconscionable to allow a woman to knowingly carry a pregnancy for two full trimesters, for 7 months  or 8 full months, and then decide one day that she wants an abortion. They equate "abortion at any time" and abortion at these late, late stages, and say the first means there will be more of the second. And my argument is that this is a red herring, a canard or whatever else one might call it for a number of reasons.

First and foremost, it was already constitutional under Roe/Casey to regulate and ban abortions at that point... so the idea that any state can't have a law on the books to prevent some maniac woman and her maniac doctor from terminating an 8 month pregnancy without repealing Roe is just flat wrong. Any law that is pursued now, and wasn't pursued prior to the recent ruling, is going to seek to regulate abortions around and before viability because they could have banned at as early as 22 or 24 weeks already. Hence the dishonesty of the anti-abortion right using that example. Second, pregnancies that are ended after the end of the second trimester are so exceedingly rare that they are statistically as close to nonexistent as you can get, thus there is literally no data on this thing that anti-abortion activists now hold up as their boogeyman. Third, if/when there is actual anecdotal evidence and/or qualitative data on the circumstances around one of these unicorns, it is going to be messier and more tragic and complicated than the anti-abortion right wants it to be. 

It's an important point here, because there is a reason for the rhetorical shift on the anti-abortion right. They used to focus on "late-term" abortions (a term that you know holds no real scientific meaning) because abortion access in the first trimester is politically popular, as we are now seeing in reactions to total bans and potential total bans. Now, there are going to be increasing stories of women who face gut-wrenching choices after the first trimester (often around 20 weeks but before viability) which is going to hurt them politically. And so, we see the shift to the mythical elective third trimester abortion as the evil that must be stopped lest Democrats allow infanticide. 

As for the difference between 22 and 27 weeks, it matters for a couple reasons. First, there is a pretty significant difference in development during those weeks. As you point out, 22 weeks is on the verge of viability while 27 weeks is a much more likely point to have a successful birth and a healthy child. But second, even then... viability, especially at its earlier stages, is not a black/white, yes/no thing that applies the same in every instance. So it is still extremely important, IMO, to have the parents and doctors in the position to make informed choices as they are the ones best situated in the place and time necessary to make the best decision for themselves and their families. Taking away a pregnant woman's agency in a terrible dilemma at 22 weeks because of fear of an 8 month abortion, which is the goal of these activists, is unconscionable IMO. 

I am glad that you explained a bit into the interpretation process. I do imagine that it could be tough to pinpoint the exact difference between say 25 weeks and 27 weeks. But if anything, that speaks quite a bit to my point... that drawing hard lines in policy is blind to the messy realities that these situations really are. 

Correct. And I've pointed out the blind spots in the data, primarily tied to the methodology. These studies are not designed to look at what percentage of total abortions/miscarriages/stillbirths in the country are for "convenience" as the anti-abortion right likes to put it. But, these studies do highlight how there are women who get abortions after 20 or 21 weeks for reasons other than to save the life of the mother and/or fetal abnormalities. But, again, 21 weeks and 27 weeks-to-8 months are very different things, and thus I will always point out that difference. 

Yes, and this speaks to what I was stating earlier that there is no data for third-trimester abortions. 

Yes, I've seen that the Dupont clinic does this. My understanding is that such an abortion would be illegal in the bluest of the blue states - California - and thus probably illegal in most states under Roe/Casey. I know CA has been working to expand abortion rights, largely in reaction to the anti-abortion right. Because Dupont is in DC, I'm guessing they don't have as much of a problem with GOP state legislators imposing bans. But the fact that a service is advertised is not data on the service itself. 

Again, I am pointing out that 21 weeks and 27 weeks are much different, and I am confident that there are not more gun violence deaths in this country than there are third-trimester abortions. Not even close. One has to be an expert in the field and/or a professional researcher with a research library account to find one anecdotal example, and even that example is borderline. 

As for your consistent push back against the claims for deaths due to illegal abortions before Roe, I am sure those numbers are exaggerated as you point out. I have not done a lot of research there, but I would be comfortable saying that the numbers that do exist likely have holes in them too. After all, the first real abortion restriction in this country were poison control measures, so it would take a historian as much as a physician to parse that out. I will say this, though - it's no coincidence that the states with the highest maternal mortality rates, infant mortality rates and worst overall health outcomes for mothers and babies are largely states with the most restrictive approaches to abortions. Outlawing and severely restricting abortion makes pregnancy more dangerous for women. Thus, it makes being a woman a riskier proposition. 

I appreciate your willingness to take the time and have a robust discussion on this topic, and to actually try and sift through what data does exist and where holes are in the data. These are the kinds of conversations I wish happened in legislative halls on the issue. 

 

Great factual conversation guys. Even though you might never agree it’s a good discussion based on facts.  Bravo. 

  • Like 2
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/16/2022 at 11:13 PM, sactowndog said:

Great factual conversation guys. Even though you might never agree it’s a good discussion based on facts.  Bravo. 

I actually don't think we disagree on a lot of it. Ive actually seen some of the downstream effects of the ruling from the infertility side. Many abortion clinics in NM are feeling a large bump in demand. The abortion providers are actually worried about the increased notoriety or popularity, depending on your stance, as NM generally flew under the radar as a no restriction state. Most in NM didn't realize that there we were one of the 6 states that had no restrictions including myself. They worry and rightfully so that there will be new legislation coming. 

I think the only quibble I have is that of the number of later terminations that occur. I rarely see adoptions and I'm pretty sure that I could find several people willing to support and adopt a baby within an hour.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/17/2022 at 6:14 AM, NMpackalum said:

I actually don't think we disagree on a lot of it. Ive actually seen some of the downstream effects of the ruling from the infertility side. Many abortion clinics in NM are feeling a large bump in demand. The abortion providers are actually worried about the increased notoriety or popularity, depending on your stance, as NM generally flew under the radar as a no restriction state. Most in NM didn't realize that there we were one of the 6 states that had no restrictions including myself. They worry and rightfully so that there will be new legislation coming. 

I think the only quibble I have is that of the number of later terminations that occur. I rarely see adoptions and I'm pretty sure that I could find several people willing to support and adopt a baby within an hour.

Yeah I wonder how many of those are not dire situations. @smltwnrckr ‘s I am a murderer post had a huge impact on me.  Might be the best post ever.  

  • Like 2
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/17/2022 at 6:14 AM, NMpackalum said:

I actually don't think we disagree on a lot of it. Ive actually seen some of the downstream effects of the ruling from the infertility side. Many abortion clinics in NM are feeling a large bump in demand. The abortion providers are actually worried about the increased notoriety or popularity, depending on your stance, as NM generally flew under the radar as a no restriction state. Most in NM didn't realize that there we were one of the 6 states that had no restrictions including myself. They worry and rightfully so that there will be new legislation coming. 

I think the only quibble I have is that of the number of later terminations that occur. I rarely see adoptions and I'm pretty sure that I could find several people willing to support and adopt a baby within an hour.

I hear this alot, but the fact that there are so many unadopted children in the foster system shows the system is not working, and that people who preach adoption don't practice it... or at least enough of them do not.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/17/2022 at 7:58 AM, SharkTanked said:

I hear this alot, but the fact that there are so many unadopted children in the foster system shows the system is not working, and that people who preach adoption don't practice it... or at least enough of them do not.

There is also a lot of what I would consider unethical coercion going on in the adoption system. As someone who has considered adoption, but really doesn't want an adoption to be the result of coercion, it is hard to navigate that. 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/17/2022 at 10:15 AM, smltwnrckr said:

There is also a lot of what I would consider unethical coercion going on in the adoption system. As someone who has considered adoption, but really doesn't want an adoption to be the result of coercion, it is hard to navigate that. 

Explain.  What coercion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/17/2022 at 8:20 AM, RSF said:

Explain.  What coercion?

So this is just some observations that I've had from considering adoption and seeing friends adopt, so I will admittedly say that this is something I am still considering and will probably evolve. And I'm sure I will offend some on here. So be it. As stated, I am still working my way through these things, so they are evolving.

But at least where I am at, you have three main options for adoption: a religious organization, the foster system, or if you are rich international adoption.

The last one I find to feels like an exploitative kind of retail transaction where you go to the third world and baby shop and I'm not wealthy enough to do it anyways. The first one is often associated with the pregnancy crisis centers, which I have all kinds of ethical issues with, as well as generally anti-choice organizations that really push the abortion/adoption binary that I have a problem with.

And the middle one (foster system) I find quite problematic for myself because it puts me in a position to root for forcible separation of families. Foster adoptions are the result of traumatic events, addiction, conviction, etc. I had a close friend who adopted a very young one through the foster system, and it worked great for them as they ended up getting to fully adopt the kid, but it was after a months-long process of fostering before the child was fully adopted. That process included going to court dates and hearings, wherein the blood mother would have the opportunities to file for and fight in court to get her baby back. And thus, they were in the position of having to root for that woman, who was an addict, to fail in her recovery and fail in any efforts to reunite her family through the court system in order for them to keep the child that they desperately wanted to keep. I don't think I could do that with a clear conscience. That doesn't mean I don't think the foster system should exist, or that I think abused and neglected kids should be kept in those situations. But even when it works, like it did with my friend (the mother didn't really put up much of a fight), it's still coercive really on both sides. It sets up a situation where you pit one family against another, and the state can decide which family is "better." I don't think I could participate in that process that entangles adoption with the criminal justice system. 

Again, these are initial observations, not fully formed positions. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/17/2022 at 10:41 AM, smltwnrckr said:

 

And the middle one (foster system) I find quite problematic for myself because it puts me in a position to root for forcible separation of families. Foster adoptions are the result of traumatic events, addiction, conviction, etc. I had a close friend who adopted a very young one through the foster system, and it worked great for them as they ended up getting to fully adopt the kid, but it was after a months-long process of fostering before the child was fully adopted. That process included going to court dates and hearings, wherein the blood mother would have the opportunities to file for and fight in court to get her baby back. And thus, they were in the position of having to root for that woman, who was an addict, to fail in her recovery and fail in any efforts to reunite her family through the court system in order for them to keep the child that they desperately wanted to keep. I don't think I could do that with a clear conscience. That doesn't mean I don't think the foster system should exist, or that I think abused and neglected kids should be kept in those situations. But even when it works, like it did with my friend (the mother didn't really put up much of a fight), it's still coercive really on both sides. It sets up a situation where you pit one family against another, and the state can decide which family is "better." I don't think I could participate in that process that entangles adoption with the criminal justice system. 

Again, these are initial observations, not fully formed positions. 

My wife and I adopted our daughter out of foster care.  And the foster care people were always up front about adoption chances (we fostered 3 kids, and our daughter was #3), so 'rooting' really wasnt any kind of necessity.  Especially since the birth mother never bothered to show up for any visitation or court dates.  That's why I asked.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/17/2022 at 8:48 AM, RSF said:

My wife and I adopted our daughter out of foster care.  And the foster care people were always up front about adoption chances (we fostered 3 kids, and our daughter was #3), so 'rooting' really wasnt any kind of necessity.  Especially since the birth mother never bothered to show up for any visitation or court dates.  That's why I asked.

Maybe rooting is too strong of a word, but if and when the adopting parents want to keep the child, it puts the interests of the adopting parents against the interests of the birth parent in a way that I find to be coercive, or at least potentially coercive. I think it gets more complicated for my family, as we have one sone and would be adopting for our second. So the idea of fostering two and before adopting with another young one in the house means the process impacts him. If it was just the two of us, I think it would be different. 

I say this as someone who also strongly considers the other side of it as well. We wanted a second. Bad. It hasn't worked out. Maybe those stakes on our end add to the careful consideration of how we would approach the process. Could I be even-headed and deliberate about it, and not fight to keep the child against the other parents no matter what? I dunno. It's something we are weighing.

I am happy that it worked out for your family. I don't doubt that the child is in a better and happier situation. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I may digress for a moment.  Unrelated posts reminded me of a story.

 

When we were 1st considering fostering (with an eye towards adoption), we were recommended to a private agency that worked with Child Protective Services on placements.  It was an Evangelical agency, and as dirty Papists we were hesitant because RCs arent always their favorite people.  So the director comes to the house to interview us/grill us.  An older man, boisterous, a stereotypical Evangelical.  So, he goes thru his pitch, explaining their mission.  And the 1st question out of the gate was 'Are you born again'.  My wife glares at me, because she knows what I'm thinking - "No, sorry.  We got it right the 1st time'.  But, for one of the few times in my life, I played the diplomacy card.  "We were both baptized in the Catholic faith.  I'm afraid we are going to have to disagree on the answer to your question'.  

I guess he at least respected the response, because that's the agency we worked with.

 

 

Back to your regularly scheduled lunacy...

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...