Dear Ms. Feverfew –
It never ceases to amaze me how adoption sneaks up and smacks me upside the head when I least expect it.
There I was, merrily minding my own business while I was doing some research for something else and I came across this gem of a quote from John Holdren, President Obama’s current adviser for Science and Technology. It is from a textbook he co-authored with Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich titled Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment.
“Responsible parenthood ought to be encouraged and illegitimate childbearing could be strongly discouraged. One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption – especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption.” (John Holdren, “The Human Predicament: Finding a Way Out”, Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment, pg. 786. Emphasis mine).
So according to one of the top advisers to President Obama, in Holdren’s progressive society women who get pregnant but are unmarried have three options:
- If marriage does not happen and adoption is not chosen, then a required (i.e. forced) abortion
Except for that last one, it sounds an awful lot like what the LDS church tells a woman who finds herself pregnant and unmarried.
I also find the notion that if someone really wants to keep their baby, then they would have to go through with adoption to prove their are a good parent particularly specious. Kind of reminds me of the whole “If I loved my child any less, I would still have him with me” and “adoption is about love” nonsense that many folks in the “Christian” right spew. (I use the word “Christian” parenthetically because I don’t think there is anything Christian about the practice of separating an infant from his or her mother simply because she may not have attained a socially acceptable socio-economic status in her life).
But back to the matter at hand – I sat here this morning, dumbfounded to have discovered such elegant harmony between two entities that are typically portrayed as being diametrically opposed on many issues. I am left wondering where is the compassion for the mother, for the baby at the center of all of this from either side? Where is the voice for family preservation? Once again, you would think that a died-in the wool progressive like John Holdren would be all for human rights and family preservation, just as one would assume that a church which places such profound emphasis on the family would be all about keeping families together.
So now, instead of researching the things I really need to be researching to prepare for comps, I am sitting here, perplexed, stupefied, and stumped over how to reconcile this. I can feel the smoke starting to pour out of my ears as these so-seemingly different ideologies collide somewhere between my frontal cortex and thalamus.
I think I need some Tyelnol. A lot of it.
Your pointy-headed, over thinking mother