Does She Really Think Death Is Better Than Adoption?

 

Over at Salon (yeah, I know), Joan Walsh weighed in on the leaked Dobbs opinion.  It’s the usual Joan Walsh stuff, but one argument stuck out.  She makes it in response to Justice Barrett’s comment, made during her confirmation hearing, that abortion seems less and less necessary given the option of adoption.  Walsh’s counter-argument goes like this:  Abortion should remain lawful because giving live babies up for adoption can be upsetting to their moms.  

My question (if I were Walsh’s editor) would be: “How about you explain to your readers why giving a live daughter up for adoption is more upsetting than killing her?” Walsh does not bother with that question, and her silence on that point is telling.  Here’s why:  If gestating babies are as inconsequential as pro-choicers like Walsh say they are (not a human; not a life; a clump of cells), then abortion is no more morally consequential than cutting your hair.  But I doubt Walsh would ever make the claim that donating one’s cut hair (to be made into wigs for cancer patients, for example) is more upsetting than throwing it in the garbage.

So if donating one’s hair to charity is not particularly traumatic (and why should it be), why should giving one’s baby up for adoption be so upsetting?  It’s upsetting because the feminists are perfectly wrong about what they say about gestating babies.  Gestating babies are not just clumps of cells. They are little humans getting their bodies ready for life in the world.  And what’s more, moms are going to love their newborn babies even more than they love their own hair.  So Walsh is stuck making the argument that the abortion procedure remains necessary because it is the more reliable way for moms to emotionally disassociate from their babies before the love (and therefore the upset) sets in.

It seems to me the polite word for this justification is “sociopathic,” because in my opinion, Walsh’s justification embodies as ghoulish and solipsistic a message a woman can make to her child:  If you are born, giving you up to live a full life without me will make me sad, so I am going to close my eyes and have you killed before you are born.  That way I won’t be so upset. 

The funny thing is pro-choicers like Walsh are always congratulating themselves on their “compassion.”  I wonder if they think marching in the cause of “Death Before Adoption!” will help that image, or hurt it?

Published in Journalism
Tags:
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 22 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Ray Gunner: So Walsh is stuck making the argument that the abortion procedure remains necessary because it is the more reliable way for moms to emotionally disassociate from their babies before the love (and therefore the upset) sets in.

    I guess that’s why pregnant women viewing prenatal ultrasound images is problematic for abortion enthusiasts. (And yes, I know there’s a lot of disagreement on that topic; I think there’s a lot of distorted reporting on it as well.)

    • #1
  2. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    “Sociopathic” is kind of a nice way to put it. After all, people can hardly be blamed for mental illness, even if it makes them dangerous to others.

    I’m tired of the euphemisms for “wicked.” It’s just wicked to kill babies. Let’s call evil by its name. 

    • #2
  3. kedavis Member
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Ray Gunner: My question (if I were Walsh’s editor) would be: “How about you explain to your readers why giving a live daughter up for adoption is more upsetting than killing her?” Walsh does not bother with that question, and her silence on that point is telling. 

    It really all comes down to selfishness, doesn’t it?

    • #3
  4. EODmom Coolidge
    EODmom
    @EODmom

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    “Sociopathic” is kind of a nice way to put it. After all, people can hardly be blamed for mental illness, even if it makes them dangerous to others.

    I’m tired of the euphemisms for “wicked.” It’s just wicked to kill babies. Let’s call evil by its name.

    What’s been left out of this discussion is Planned Parenthood’s role: in addition to promoting abortion, they profiteer from baby body parts. I believe that’s a big part of the “no limit” language now. Planned Parenthood (and probably others) sell body parts to various institutions (like PittMedical) for research etc.  It is reasonable to think they’d like them as fully developed as possible. Humanity has sacrificed children throughout history, but to continue to do it now is undeniably evil.  

    • #4
  5. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    Ray Gunner: My question (if I were Walsh’s editor) would be: “How about you explain to your readers why giving a live daughter up for adoption is more upsetting than killing her?”

    If you think about it, both options are giving away your child.  However, I would rather live with the adoption option because any guilt or regret I felt would be far less than choosing death . . .

    • #5
  6. Buckpasser Member
    Buckpasser
    @Buckpasser

    I’m sure she thinks the death penalty is much more barbaric.

    • #6
  7. Ray Gunner Coolidge
    Ray Gunner
    @RayGunner

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Ray Gunner: So Walsh is stuck making the argument that the abortion procedure remains necessary because it is the more reliable way for moms to emotionally disassociate from their babies before the love (and therefore the upset) sets in.

    I guess that’s why pregnant women viewing prenatal ultrasound images is problematic for abortion enthusiasts. (And yes, I know there’s a lot of disagreement on that topic; I think there’s a lot of distorted reporting on it as well.)

    Agreed. And it seems to me the strength of the pro-life movement owes more to Dr. Ian Donald, pioneer of the obstetric ultrasound, than just about anyone. 

    • #7
  8. Ray Gunner Coolidge
    Ray Gunner
    @RayGunner

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Ray Gunner: My question (if I were Walsh’s editor) would be: “How about you explain to your readers why giving a live daughter up for adoption is more upsetting than killing her?” Walsh does not bother with that question, and her silence on that point is telling.

    It really all comes down to selfishness, doesn’t it?

    It does.  It comes down to a willful blindness to the inarguable scientific FACT that the abortion procedure involves two distinct living specimens of our species.   The idea that one of those specimens should have the unquestionable discretion to order the death of the other cannot be right. 

    • #8
  9. kedavis Member
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Ray Gunner (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Ray Gunner: So Walsh is stuck making the argument that the abortion procedure remains necessary because it is the more reliable way for moms to emotionally disassociate from their babies before the love (and therefore the upset) sets in.

    I guess that’s why pregnant women viewing prenatal ultrasound images is problematic for abortion enthusiasts. (And yes, I know there’s a lot of disagreement on that topic; I think there’s a lot of distorted reporting on it as well.)

    Agreed. And it seems to me the strength of the pro-life movement owes more to Dr. Ian Donald, pioneer of the obstetric ultrasound, than just about anyone.

    And the photographer who captured a tiny hand grasping a surgeon’s finger.

     

    • #9
  10. Ray Gunner Coolidge
    Ray Gunner
    @RayGunner

    Buckpasser (View Comment):

    I’m sure she thinks the death penalty is much more barbaric.

    I remember the late, great P.J. O’Rourke citing this as the leftist’s greatest feat of mental gymnastics:  Being both pro-abortion and anti-death penalty at the same time. 

    • #10
  11. Full Size Tabby Member
    Full Size Tabby
    @FullSizeTabby

    Ray Gunner (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Ray Gunner: My question (if I were Walsh’s editor) would be: “How about you explain to your readers why giving a live daughter up for adoption is more upsetting than killing her?” Walsh does not bother with that question, and her silence on that point is telling.

    It really all comes down to selfishness, doesn’t it?

    It does. It comes down to a willful blindness to the inarguable scientific FACT that the abortion procedure involves two distinct living specimens of our species. The idea that one of those specimens should have the unquestionable discretion to order the death of the other cannot be right.

    The arguments are always only about the mother. It is necessary to the arguments never to mention the baby (or “fetus” if you want to be less confrontational), because then you have to deal with the fact that the baby (or fetus) has different DNA from the mother. A woman’s hair (or a tumor, also often frequently cited) has the same DNA as the woman. 

    • #11
  12. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    Ray Gunner (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Ray Gunner: My question (if I were Walsh’s editor) would be: “How about you explain to your readers why giving a live daughter up for adoption is more upsetting than killing her?” Walsh does not bother with that question, and her silence on that point is telling.

    It really all comes down to selfishness, doesn’t it?

    It does. It comes down to a willful blindness to the inarguable scientific FACT that the abortion procedure involves two distinct living specimens of our species. The idea that one of those specimens should have the unquestionable discretion to order the death of the other cannot be right.

    The arguments are always only about the mother. It is necessary to the arguments never to mention the baby (or “fetus” if you want to be less confrontational), because then you have to deal with the fact that the baby (or fetus) has different DNA from the mother. A woman’s hair (or a tumor, also often frequently cited) has the same DNA as the woman.

    The personhood arguments, as such, haven’t worked and I think I know why. They don’t care that there’s a unique, irreplaceable person in there. They want their “consequence-free” sex and, by golly, they’re going to have it! Women need to be just as carefree and profligate with their reproductive faculties as men in order to be “equal.” 

    Of course, acknowledging that women and men aren’t the same isn’t trending, unless we’re talking about trans-men or trans-women and then they’re totes different! 

    As Klavan says, “feminism: making first-rate women into second-rate men.” Only the creepy pro-abort men attacking pro-life women compete for awfulness. 

    • #12
  13. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    EODmom (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    “Sociopathic” is kind of a nice way to put it. After all, people can hardly be blamed for mental illness, even if it makes them dangerous to others.

    I’m tired of the euphemisms for “wicked.” It’s just wicked to kill babies. Let’s call evil by its name.

    What’s been left out of this discussion is Planned Parenthood’s role: in addition to promoting abortion, they profiteer from baby body parts. I believe that’s a big part of the “no limit” language now. Planned Parenthood (and probably others) sell body parts to various institutions (like PittMedical) for research etc. It is reasonable to think they’d like them as fully developed as possible. Humanity has sacrificed children throughout history, but to continue to do it now is undeniably evil.

    They either have, or have had abortion quotas. They have fixed overhead to meet every single month that has to be covered by abortion revenue. Then throw in the fact that some people in Planned Parenthood make a hell of a lot of money. Tina Smith, the senator from Minnesota made a lot of money off of planned parenthood.

    • #13
  14. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    OK I went to the trouble of looking this up. You have to give them an email.

    She says it’s traumatic living in a state that is retarding abortion availability.

    She says this more directly:

    Barrett said something when arguments were made before the court in December that chilled me then, and chills me to this day. Why do we need abortion, she asked, to lift “the consequences of parenting and the obligations of motherhood that flow from pregnancy” when there’s an easy adoption option? “Why don’t the safe-haven laws take care of that problem?”

    Safe-haven laws, if you haven’t heard of them, let a parent drop a baby off at a fire station or a hospital to relinquish custody, supposedly no questions asked. I cannot imagine the anguish of a mother who makes use of a “safe haven” to give up her baby. If a woman who bore five children and adopted two, like Barrett, has so little empathy for other women, we are well and truly [REDACTED]. While pro-choice people are accused of treating the termination of a pregnancy lightly, here is Barrett treating the abandonment of an actual, living baby as a good thing.

    I’m not a good writer, but I don’t think the way she’s using “abandonment” is accurate or cogent here. I suppose that’s what you have to do to make things move left all of the time.

    Psychological abandonment issues are an issue for the child in adoptions, and that makes it even more confusing.

    https://www.thenation.com/article/society/roe-supreme-court-mourning/

    • #14
  15. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    RufusRJones (View Comment):
    Psychological abandonment issues are an issue for the child in adoptions, and that makes it even more confusing.

    Not really. You think kids raised by their biological parents don’t have psychological issues? And I mean all of them! It’s called being alive.

    The moral calculus behind this concern is “better off dead than to have to struggle with the idea that your birth mother chose for you to live (with psychological issues) rather than kill you.” Maybe adoptive parents should explain it to their adopted kids. She chose life. We’re grateful.

    • #15
  16. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):
    Psychological abandonment issues are an issue for the child in adoptions, and that makes it even more confusing.

    Not really. You think kids raised by their biological parents don’t have psychological issues? And I mean all of them! It’s called being alive.

    The moral calculus behind this concern is “better off dead than to have to struggle with the idea that your birth mother chose for you to live (with psychological issues) rather than kill you.” Maybe adoptive parents should explain it to their adopted kids. She chose life. We’re grateful.

    I meant to say psychological attachment issues. If the mother is anxious or angry, it can happen and it’s hard as hell to fix. The council adoptive parents on it.

    • #16
  17. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    OK I went to the trouble of looking this up. You have to give them an email.

    She says it’s traumatic living in a state that is retarding abortion availability.

    She says this more directly:

    Barrett said something when arguments were made before the court in December that chilled me then, and chills me to this day. Why do we need abortion, she asked, to lift “the consequences of parenting and the obligations of motherhood that flow from pregnancy” when there’s an easy adoption option? “Why don’t the safe-haven laws take care of that problem?”

    Safe-haven laws, if you haven’t heard of them, let a parent drop a baby off at a fire station or a hospital to relinquish custody, supposedly no questions asked. I cannot imagine the anguish of a mother who makes use of a “safe haven” to give up her baby. If a woman who bore five children and adopted two, like Barrett, has so little empathy for other women, we are well and truly [REDACTED]. While pro-choice people are accused of treating the termination of a pregnancy lightly, here is Barrett treating the abandonment of an actual, living baby as a good thing.

    I’m not a good writer, but I don’t think the way she’s using “abandonment” is accurate or cogent here. I suppose that’s what you have to do to make things move left all of the time.

    Psychological abandonment issues are an issue for the child in adoptions, and that makes it even more confusing.

    https://www.thenation.com/article/society/roe-supreme-court-mourning/

    My youngest child, Darling Daughter, was left on a street corner in Guangzhou when she was one day old by a mother who probably, if she did as so many in China did, watched from a distance to make sure someone found her. I have often wondered how that woman would feel if she could know what her daughter has become. And I’m infinitely thankful that she chose the path she did.

    I find nothing in Barrett’s comments in any way offensive.

    • #17
  18. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):
    Psychological abandonment issues are an issue for the child in adoptions, and that makes it even more confusing.

    Not really. You think kids raised by their biological parents don’t have psychological issues? And I mean all of them! It’s called being alive.

    The moral calculus behind this concern is “better off dead than to have to struggle with the idea that your birth mother chose for you to live (with psychological issues) rather than kill you.” Maybe adoptive parents should explain it to their adopted kids. She chose life. We’re grateful.

    I meant to say psychological attachment issues. If the mother is anxious or angry, it can happen and it’s hard as hell to fix. The council adoptive parents on it.

    Attachment issues are tough and tragic. And they happen in biological families as well, especially with kids on the Asperger’s-autism spectrum. But, so are psychological issues like PTSD and severe OCD, which can be debilitating. I have more experience with the latter than the former, but I wouldn’t wish any of them on any child or parent. 

    Life is hard. Our aim should be to figure out how to make the best of it for everyone’s good. Start by not killing babies. 

    • #18
  19. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):
    Psychological abandonment issues are an issue for the child in adoptions, and that makes it even more confusing.

    Not really. You think kids raised by their biological parents don’t have psychological issues? And I mean all of them! It’s called being alive.

    The moral calculus behind this concern is “better off dead than to have to struggle with the idea that your birth mother chose for you to live (with psychological issues) rather than kill you.” Maybe adoptive parents should explain it to their adopted kids. She chose life. We’re grateful.

    I meant to say psychological attachment issues. If the mother is anxious or angry, it can happen and it’s hard as hell to fix. The council adoptive parents on it.

    Attachment issues are tough and tragic. And they happen in biological families as well, especially with kids on the Asperger’s-autism spectrum. But, so are psychological issues like PTSD and severe OCD, which can be debilitating. I have more experience with the latter than the former, but I wouldn’t wish any of them on any child or parent.

    Life is hard. Our aim should be to figure out how to make the best of it for everyone’s good. Start by not killing babies.

    Free psychotherapy for people with attachment issues. 

    What level of prenatal care, or even care after that in some of these cases, can the government force? 

    • #19
  20. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    Before an otherwise normal individual commits a heinous act, that person needs to be morally convinced of its inconsequential nature. Otherwise, the act itself would consume their every waking hour of every single day.

    Slavery is easier to countenance once you are convinced that you are merely dealing with property, not people. If you owned the Hope Diamond it would be well within your rights to toss that sucker into the depths of the ocean if you chose to.

    The eugenicist classifies humans on a pseudoscientific scale, therefore “sub-humans,” or as the Nazis called them “untermensch,” are disposable since they are not really your moral or legal equals.

    For the abortion crowd, “a clump of cells” is just a culture in a Petri dish. “It can’t survive outside of the womb!” they scream. Of course, neither can a two-year old, at least not on a longterm basis.

    This is what should disturb all of us: The type of rhetoric coming from the left is not confined to abortion. They are increasingly using language that will justify mass murder on a larger scale. The “haters” and the “domestic terrorists” need to be dealt with. Fall in line or just fall dead. They don’t care.

    • #20
  21. Cassandro Coolidge
    Cassandro
    @Flicker

    One thing about eugenicists is that they really are eu-genicid-alists.  They may not admit to wanting to kill you, but when they envision a future, they envision one in which you (or your loved ones) were never allowed to be born.

    • #21
  22. Joseph Stanko Coolidge
    Joseph Stanko
    @JosephStanko

    Stad (View Comment):

    Ray Gunner: My question (if I were Walsh’s editor) would be: “How about you explain to your readers why giving a live daughter up for adoption is more upsetting than killing her?”

    If you think about it, both options are giving away your child. However, I would rather live with the adoption option because any guilt or regret I felt would be far less than choosing death . . .

    The thousands of women at pro-life events holding signs saying “I regret my abortion” would doubtless agree with that sentiment.

    • #22
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.