Wrong. Black and special needs results of pro-life policy adherence are available right now and are simply not preferred. As a product of Children's Aid Society in Philadelphia, I've contributed/investigated this issue thoroughly. Black babies are without question available, and are simply not wanted. Well, actually, I know several folks who have done so, among them a completed adoption by one the VERY top VPs of Merrill Lynch (a completed adoption; her Chinese daughter lives very well with a view of the Statute of Liberty to rock to sleep to each night...used to also be a view of the towers ), and, actually, the American editor of Harry Potter, who used to live around the corner from me (he and his partner were in process for a Chinese baby, having already tried and failed once in China). Those folks have no answer for me when asked about active consideration of a black baby, or a special needs baby, here in America, waiting for them. No answer at all. Great; the issue for me is that, given that pro-lifers are trying to shape American policy as it reflects what a woman does with here uterus, they had better DAMN WELL have secured the future of all the results of folks LIVNG that policy...the children, in America, already here, waiting for adoption! Why is ANY American pro-lifer doing anything other than securing FIRST American children that they demand American women produce? Hypocrisy. Am I in the pipeline for adoption, upon my return (if ever) to the UNited States? Yes I am; Laurel and I will be adoptoing a black or special needs baby, because they are the ones ignored by ALL sides, as folks massage their ethics all around the fringes ofthis issue. This is absolutely wrong; there is WITHOUT QUESTION more "red tape" to adopta a foreign baby, specifically a baby from China in terms of what I know about, than there is to do so domestically, in ANY state. Period. Do not forward false information as if its correct; you are pulling this out of nowhere, b/c it is absolutely incorrect. Black and special needs babies are waiting RIGHT NOW for folks, particualrly, in my view, pro-lifers, to in fact BE pro-the ENTIRE life of these children. One, special needs babies are resultants of the pro-life policy; either we are pro-LIFE...or we are not. I don't want to hear from ANY pro-lifer about ANY difficulties regarding special needs kids, or anything (not saying that you are necessarily pro-life; this is to those pro-lifers that might be arguing the same position). All I want to hear from pro-lifers is how they are getting in line to take care of these RESULTS of folks LIVING their policy. Secondly, go, right now, to ANY of the top twenty pro-life sites...and show me where adoption is part of the platform. I'll take just one. I didn't do that. You are referring to someone else. It's even more ludicrous to talk about the number of foreign adoptions and the abdication of minority and special needs adoptions by pro-lifers and NOT call that ethical vacuum to task.
I agree that more black and special needs babies are available for adoption than babies of other demographic groups (I specifically mentioned black babies in my post) - but there has been improvement in this area from the pro-life side of things. More pro-life groups are encouraging blended families (it used to not be recommended for socialization purposes, though this has become a lower risk as blended families become more common in America). You are wrong about red tape, though. Foreign adoptions are more expensive, but the custody decision has generally been taken care of. I know lots of couples who have waited for domestic adoptions to be complete, but the difficulty of obtaining custody releases from a father who is gone or from a vascillating mother can make it extremely difficult to complete an adoption. In other cases, the stipulations that are placed on adopting couples by birth mothers can make it difficult to complete the adoption. This makes no sense. Are you suggesting that there would be no special needs babies without a pro-life policy? What do you mean? The reason there are so many special needs adoptions originating in China is the one-child policy basically encourages parents to do a "do-over" if they have a baby with a hare-lip or the like. I am pro-life and I think it is very important that every baby find a loving home. There are tons of pro-life families raising special needs kids (both their own and children they have adopted). Are you suggesting that married, pro-life moms are discarding their special needs babies? The overwhelming number of children available for adoption are the children of single mothers. I have never heard one speech regarding the pro-life position that did not include an adoption advocacy position that was re-iterated. I don't know what you are talking about here. I think that you would find that evangelical Christians are among the most pro-life and the most "adoptingest" people in the US. I agree that more needs to be done to improve legal complexities that hinder domestic adoption (such as closed versus open adoptions, access to family medical history, barriers against future custody suits by birth parents and thousands of other issues). But given the present realities, pro-life (and pro-choice parents for all I know) are adopting lots of babies. Are you suggesting that people would rather pay $10,000 for a chinese baby than go through a much less expensive domestic adoption? I don't think that foreign adoptions are just tres chic - they reflect the reality that the average domestic adoption process takes more time and requires you to jump through even more hoops than an expensive foreign adoption. http://adopting.adoption.com/child/us-domestic-infant-adoption.html Many people want to adopt an infant (at least for their first child). This can be harder to do in the US. Many people prefer a closed adoption. That is harder to do in the US. Many people don't want a nasty custody dispute after they have adopted the child. That cannot be guaranteed in the US. You accused pro-lifers of not adopting. That is not true. I mentioned foreign adoptions as an indication that many people who adopt are willing to adopt outside of their ethnicity/race. I didn't suggest that it is "more" or "less" righteous to adopt foreign or domestic. I am just raising it as an indication that people are not just adopting blond-haired, blue-eyed baby with five toes on each foot and five toes on each hand.
On the issue of adoption: Mel, I don't know if my answer will satisfy you. It is difficult sometimes to talk about sensitive issues like this, but I hope we are able to do it here. I thought about all my options when I decided to adopt a child. I realized I was unlikely to have a child of my own, and I wanted to choose a trully needy child to provide with a better life. So I researched the subject and I went to several seminars and workshops about adoptions. On the issue you bring up, I remember hearing from several people (non-blacks) who adopted black children. One thing I remember them saying was that they had met resistance from relatives of the child and even from the black community in general, because (so they tell me, I don't know first hand) it appears that some blacks believe strongly that non-blacks should not adopt black kids. Adoptive parents said that they had been openly questioned and even insulted by blacks at supermarkets and public places. For the most part, most adoptive parents said the adoption was worth it, and the positives outweighed the negatives. It was also clearly explained that it is not a majority of blacks who feel that way. But they wanted to make prospective parents aware of the issue, and it does make someone think before deciding to adopt a black baby. Believe it or not, even hair was an issue. One adoptive white mother said she learned to appreciate black parents when she realized how much more care her adopted black daughter's hair needed than the hair of her birth children. She said she had to learn to adapt and schedulle baths accordingly. There were also many issues with foreign babies. The issue of introducing children to their native culture is very important. Each child is different, but we have to be aware of the potential for problems if we ignore their roots. I remember one Korean young woman who spoke out and was very bitter at her adoptive parents because they took them to live to an all-white small town and ignored her roots and her culture and why she was different. She felt betrayed. She felt out of place with the white community, then went to visit Korea but she found it an alien culture, and she felt she didn't fit in anywhere. So, all these types interracial and intercultural adoptions involve sensitive issues and we have to be very careful and open to challenges no matter which way we decide to go. It is not a decision to jump into lightly. Personally, I chose to adopt a girl from Thailand for a number of reasons. I was touched when I visited the orphanage in Pattaya by the desperate need that these children had for attention. Of course, that must be true for all abandoned kids everywhere, but I really felt it strongly when I visited Thailand. One of my reasons for picking Thailand was, I tried to think of which are the kids who would likely have the worse future if not adopted. I thought of the realities of Thai society for young orphan girls, and it doesn't get much worse than that.
Re: On the issue of adoption: It sounds like you made your decision carefully and thoughtfully. I am glad that you adopted your little girl. There are so many complications involved with the adoption process, many of which you detail above. Even folks who have the best intentions regarding reaching beyond their own ethnicity, etc have to weigh the cost that the children will face as they grow up. I hope that someday I will be in a situation to adopt an "at-risk" child, but being a young family and only preparing for parenthood the first time via the non-adoption route, my wife and I were not convinced it was the way to begin our family. I am hopeful our new little one will better prepare us to adopt an "at-risk" child in the future. Adoption is a wonderful thing.
Re: On the issue of adoption: Thanks. It's been wonderful so far. I hope you will follow through with your intentions too. Good luck.
Re: On the issue of adoption: We can all agree on that. What I don't think we will ever agree on is that before the pro-life movement breaks breath to talk about legally controlling a woman's uterus to demand it produce life, all the life currently lacking homes and families is accounted for BY THAT MOVEMENT, as part of being, in fact "pro-life." As much as you say that it is, I still do not see a single major pro-life website where adoption is a central plank with programs and plans for pro-lifers to embrace these lives, these RESULTS of their policy, as a group, as an organized, adopting force. You did mention speeches, I think; I'm sure that adoption is included in speeches; but where is the organised commitment from pro-lifers on this issue? I don't see it; and as a matter of simple truth, were it a reality, it would both really affect adoption numbers in the States, AND the pro-life movement would be KNOWN for it. It would be a slogan, if you will. Look here, and show me the adoption organization and program: http://www.nrlc.org/: Where is the adoption section/program/plank? http://www.lifenews.com/ Where is the adoption section/program/plank? http://www.prolifeaction.org/ http://www.lifedynamics.com/ http://www.all.org/ I could truly go on and on for several pages with pro-life sites that simply do not talk about organizing to adopt and take care of these kids. They don't. Individuals like ASF may be doing their part, but the movement as a whole, IMO, is the height of hypocrisy. It would be different if they were trying to organize adoption and were failing, but the fact that they are demanding uterus-legal action and NOT, organizationally, following-up on, not committing to, the spectrum of that child's life, especially in terms of ensuring a stable, healthy, empowering home for them, is demonstrating what many pro-lifers demonstrate when they say that they are for the fetus, and for teh death penalty: they are NOT for life, or pro-LIFE; they are pro-their choices about life from their framework.
Re: On the issue of adoption: And you would be different because . . . . . . why? Didn't you just start a thread started based on an article by a guy who thought he should get everything he wanted, demanded it, then cried and whined when he doesn't get any of it? Grow up.
Re: On the issue of adoption: You grow up, guy. I started that article as one of a spectrum of responses to the Kerry loss. Got ********-all to do with the charge I place here and now upon the pro-life movement. My position is clear: I'm for life, period. Be it life in the womb, the life of an unexpected mother, life in prison, lives in the Iraqi desert, lives looking for food in Lower Manhattan, or outside the Université Cheikh Anta Diop...LIFE. Abortion is about one group demanding legal supremacy over a woman with regard to her own body...her own life. Fine. That position is what it is. But the lack of a spectrum of life platform by pro-lifers, as reflected in adoption, or even foster care (show me THAT plank anywhere) is PERFECTLY exemplified by your focus on ME, rather than being honest and saying you know what, pro-life, as a movement, is lacking that commitment across the board, and it IS a choice about SOME life, and maybe we OUGHT to rename the movement pro-fetus, because it's NOT pro-"life." But that would be the beginning of a grown-up position; the very thing you've DONE demonstrates that you, personally, aren't there yet. Mel: here are some legitimate charges in terms of pro-lifers' consistency on life and living issues. AM: (Whiny voice) well what about you? what about that post about that other issue's got nothing to do with this? You grow up! You shut up; if that's what you're gonna bring to the table, take it to the kids' table, in the corner.
Re: On the issue of adoption: Thanks. But for the record, I am not in any way part of the pro-life movement. I was just trying to answer your question about choosing to adopt foreign kids or black kids. My personal view is that I find abortion distasteful but that we should not legally force a woman to carry a potential life which she doesn't want. Does that make me pro-choice? I will say this though. I do think many people and organizations which are pro-life are also concerned about the children and are involved in helping them. The orphanage which rescued my daughter and facilitated my adoption is run by the Catholic church, and we know where they stand on abortion. And the agency which helped me with the process of adopting (and also helps with domestic and special cases) is also supported mostly by donations from churches. I am sure that they are not isolated cases. So, just because the pro-life organizations which you linked don't talk about the unwanted children doesn't mean that the religious organizations which support them are not also involved in helping children. My experience is that they do try to help.
Re: On the issue of adoption: Fair enough; I just want acknowledgement that the front lines of the pro-life movement simply have not attached a meaningful adoption plank or strategy to their platform nor fervently promoted it among their adherents, and that that failure is telling in terms of any critique of the overarching ethics of their position, particualrly as informed by the numinous.
Re: On the issue of adoption: So you're only for freedom of speech that you like? Sucks to be held accountable for your opinion, huh? People are dying right now, without health care because you refused to compromise. But you are going to wrap yourself in your own self importance because that's all you got.
Re: On the issue of adoption: I did a search for keyword "adoption" on the National Right to Life Website. I got 192 hits. On the lifenews website, I got 91 hits. Both are websites of primarily political organizations. You are looking at these organizations in a narrow way. I am not familiar with all of the organizations that you are referencing, but most of them are political. They are more like the "Emily's List" of the pro-life movement. You wouldn't go to Emily's List to get an abortion, I wouldn't go to NRLC to adopt a child. However, many community, grassroots pro-life organizations (which are aligned to the political organizations) are all about adoption. The foremost example of these are crisis pregancy centers. Type that into Google and you get 976,000 hits. There are literally hundreds of local crisis pregancy centers in the US. They offer compassionate counseling, assistance with safe housing and physical needs for pregnant mothers, access to prenatal and medical care and assistance in job placement and adoption services. One of the more prominant examples is Bethany Christian Services (www.bethany.org). If you go to their website, the first two page tabs are: I'm Pregnant Hoping to Adopt They are one of the nation's largest private adoption agencies, for both domestic and international adoptions. They are a 100% pro-life agency and place children in Christian homes. Go to any major adoption site on the internet (adoption.com, adoption.org, adoptioninformation.com, adopting.com, 123adoption.com, etc) and you find cross-links to crisis pregnancy resources (almost exclusively run by pro-life professionals and volunteers) because they are so inextricably linked. I agree that there is a lot of room for improvement in adoption public policy - I wish that it was higher profile in the pro-life movement. Personally, I think that some groups like National Right to Life are so focused on legislative victories that they sometimes forget about changing the culture that has led to 1.5 - 2.0 million abortions a year. Adoption needs to be a bigger part of what they advocate. But to paint the entire pro-life movement with the "they don't adopt" brush is superficial. BTW It is currently National Adoption Awareness Month (http://national-adoption-month.adoption.com/).
Re: On the issue of adoption: This is the most adult thing posted her today. If you redefine "adult" to mean "vacuous." No, this isn't a freedom of speech issue, guy. Pro-lifers exercise freedom of speech in multiple mediums everyday. I'm exercising mine in challenging the fullness of their program, and the fact that their truncated vision is predicated upon a moral vision of life that is artificially limited by interests in the movement. When both parties exercise their speech, what's left are the ideas, upon which folks can ruminate and engage as they see fit. An...adult way to engage the issue. Where are you coming from on health care? How did I refuse to compromise? I actually did compromise, personally: BushCorp. didn't want universal health care, fine; we took our economic, social and comunity output and took it to a placethat was giving as much as its getting. Compromise. [opposite meaning]This has been a wonderful, illuminating discussion with you; I look forward to critically examining in a Socratic mode your fascinating ideas, frameworks and witty challenges.[/opposite meaning]
For the record, most Pro-Lifers do not like government interference in their lives and are staunch advocates of personal liberty. But they understand that the right to liberty must be subordinated to the right to life. If you believe, as many Pro-Lifers genuinely do, that pre-born babies are human beings, than it is not hard to understand why they believe in personal liberty (reproductive freedom). But they do not believe that reproductive freedom trumps the right to life. Perhaps you disagree with Pro-Lifers regarding what constitutes an individual life, but Pro-Lifers have an ironclad philosophical argument when it comes to interpreting the Constitution and other Founding Documents (Declaration of Independence, etc). Abortion-is-okay people can only justify their position under the Constitution to the extent that they can prove that pre-born infants are not human beings. If it is true that pre-born infants are human beings, the entire pro-abortion house of cards falls. I hope that most abortion-is-ok people are dead (no pun intended) certain of when a pre-born child becomes a human being, because otherwise they have a lot to answer for. As my wife and I are reading up in anticipation of meeting our new baby (who is currently just over seven weeks gestation) - I am amazed to find that it already has a heartbeat (heard that over two weeks ago), arms and legs, most of its vital organs (though not fully developed) and even its own fingerprints and toeprints. Amazing. I am very concerned about protecting his/her rights - even before baby is born.
Re: On the issue of adoption: I think we are just goingto see this differently, and that's okay; you are talking about hits, I'm talking about planks and platforms; you, and ASF, are talking about religious support organizations, I'm talking about the front-line, platform-driving organziations. Painting pro-LIFERS with a single brush is unfair. Saying that the major players that we all know in the pro-life movement do not have an adoption platform, do not have a foster care platform, and have not attached a "life continuum" strategy to engaging kids who are the result of women living their birthing policy seems so clear, so self-evident from the facts, that I struggle a bit with the second-tier engagements and offers as if that's the movements' front-line troops, so to speak. But if we can conclude on some common ground, we CAN say that adoption of kids into stable healthy empowered homes is a great GREAT thing. As an adopted kid, I thank my lucky stars everyday that my dad and mom made the choice they made, and chose me, and taught me the things they have, including the primacy of a woman over her own body, be it in terms of how a man approaches a woman sexually, or in terms of how a woman has the final and ultimate say as to whether or not she wants to submit herself to the radical changes in her body, mind and spirit that define bringing life into this world. When women ask me what they should do (and this has only happened twice...no not mine!), I say err on the side of life. I'd like to say that resting replete in the knowledge that those wroking so hard to ensure that that woman does exactly that are working just as hard to galvanise their adherents and others to provide homes for those babies. The reality, especially among black babies, is far from that hope, and, for me, there's some real hypocrisy in that truth, in that gap. Allright, I'm done now.
Re: On the issue of adoption: Every pro-life movement that I have had personal involvement in has included the issues of euthenasia, post-abortion counseling, adoption, etc in its agenda. But because of the legitimacy of some of the points you are making, I promise you that next time one of the pro-life political organizations calls me begging for more money to overturn partial birth abortion - I will criticize them for not calling me and asking for money to support improvements to adoption legislation and to increase the number of domestic adoptions. That way maybe there will be some good fruit born out of this discussion?
Caught this in the New Republic today referring to another article in the Washington Monthly [New Republic]RUTHLESSLY EFFECTIVE DEMOCRATS: The notion that the congressional Democrats are hopelessly ineffective is so deeply and unanimously held that it permeates media coverage and has seeped into the popular culture. In her current Washington Monthly cover story, Amy Sullivan argues essentially the polar opposite: The Democrats are a ruthlessly effective fighting force, outmaneuvering the Republicans at every turn. Read the article. She's right! Well, maybe not 100 percent right--her defense of the Pelosi/Murtha two-step, in particular, seems unconvincing to me--but certainly much closer to the truth than the vapid conventional wisdom she so convincingly eviscerates. It makes you wonder why the "ineffective Democrat" trope has gotten so deeply entrenched at a time when Democrats have stopped the GOP legislative juggernaut and seized a huge advantage in the polls. I think the answer is that everybody has an interest in perpetuating it. Lefty bloggers exist in large part to flay Democrats for their lack of spine and to show that they have better ideas for winning power. Republicans like to push the idea that, no matter how badly they screw things up, you can't vote for the Democrats because they don't know what they stand for (the theme that helped Bush beat Kerry in 2004). Reporters and centrist pundits like to have a nice balanced storyline, and as the stories of Republican corruption and incompetence have proliferated, the demand for counterbalancing stories about Democratic disarray has grown. --Jonathan Chait[/New Republic] and now...the article
Really the problem with Congressional Democrats is not their polling numbers or their ability to vote together as a bloc. The biggest problem is a) developing b) formalizing c) communicating (internally) d) selling (America) policy. Pelosi and Reid are not crafting any legislative agenda worth rallying any base. Republicans are not doing so much creative policy development either, but they have a lot more momentum on numerous policy issues in part because they lead the executive branch and/or there are so many back-burner issues that can be resurrected at a moments notice whenever they decide they want to change the media's attention (as has recently been the case with immigration). Congressional democrats are basically being reduced to an advocacy/lobbying group instead of a legislative force. They get all jacked up about investigating Patriot Act 'abuses', the Ports management issue, the NSA leaks, Abu Ghraib, etc. But they are almost completely reactive to whatever agenda the Republicans or the press set for the day. Even as a Conservative, I honestly wish we still had a strong bloc of principled and articulate legislators like P Moynihan, John Breaux, Zell Miller, Sam Nunn, etc (I have rather less hope and affinity for congressional democrats) who could actually rock the boat on both sides of the aisle and move the agenda by the force of their ideas rather than the shrillness of their voices. It would provide the Republicans with a reason to get off their butts and deal with policy, as well. Instead, we have a bunch of intellectual slobs on both sides of the aisle. When pedantic idiots like Biden, Kerry, Reid, Harkin, Hatch, McCain, Graham, etc are our most prominent, agenda-setting senators - our Republic is not in a good way. The House is what it is. 435 people looking out a) for themselves and b) their rather narrow local interests the 1% of the time they take their attention off themselves. Along with your handful of weird idealogues who have never even attempted to craft any policy because they know it would never make it out of committee.
Zell Miller principled and articulate? Please. He didn't earn the nickname Zig Zag Zell because of any moves on the gridiron. His principles one day were forgotten the next on issue after issue. And yes, I thought so when he was a shill for Clinton before he was a shill for Bush. The man is so paranoid and so worried about being viewed as important that his only principle is/was whatever was currently in his best interest.
This is one of the dumbest things I've ever read. It ignores that 1) what we have here is a democracy AND a constitution; and 2) that "liberals" don't have secret meetings ; and 3) that liberals don't have the power to do what this article say they do; and 4) when has any democrat in congress, liberal or otherwise, said that if you don't accept same sex marriage, you hate homosexuals? I couls say so much more, but this article barely deserves anyone's time.
Boy, that really doesn't match up with what I saw on Real Time With Bill Maher last night. Intelligent, articulate, well-spoken - and didn't hedge when asked about running for president. It's obviously way early, but I'm in Biden's camp. He'd be about one million times better than the current guy.
Did you watch any of the Judiciary committee hearings for Roberts or Alito? This guy could give a collective BigSoccer a run for its money on the BS scale. And for a supposed foreign policy expert, he still has yet to offer a cohesive, comprehensive foreign policy position. That and he is a known and proven plagarist. Can you imagine just how far we have come in America since the time when the revelation of Biden's plagarism basically ended his early bid for the Democratic nomination. Basically, senators rarely make good presidential candidates. They are not good at debate formats because they are not used to having to express themselves in relatively few words. It is not that they cannot say something that sounds impressive - the problem is when they are asked to say it succinctly. Plus, they never know when to stop. They end up tying themselves into logical and grammatical knots. Kerry is a prime example of this. He ended up winning and losing the debates by beating Bush - then continuing to palaver on and beating himself by putting too many words, too much 'nuance' and ambivalence on display. Keeping it simple stupid is a smart course for electioneering. Guys who speak essays are never going to appeal to the electorate because people grow concerned that the candidate is still trying to persuade himself that he knows what he is talking about.