Should pro-life crusaders have to adopt?

On the pro-choice side of the abortion argument, I have often heard comments about how pro-life protesters should have to adopt all the unwanted babies they convinced women not to abort. I initially thought the same when I first became a reproductive rights activist and saw one of the protesters with a sign that said “Adoption is the Loving Option”. I mean, how can you claim to be an advocate for life and tell women to put their unwanted babies up for adoption when you won’t adopt any babies yourself?

To be fair, plenty of pro-life advocates have adopted or fostered children. But that’s beside the point I’ll be making.

Being pro-choice, in my opinion, means believing that women should be able to decide for themselves what they feel is right for them in regards to pregnancy, parenting, and birth control. That also means acknowledging that what feels right for me is not the answer for all women.

The pro-life view is the polar opposite with advocates telling women what they believe is best for all women regardless of each woman’s situation or what she wants. They tell pregnant women that their only option should be to give birth and some even go as far as to tell non-pregnant women to keep their legs closed unless they are willing to carry a child to term.

In this regard, I realized thinking that people that push a pro-life view onto women should have to adopt or foster children would diminish my pro-choice view. It seems hypocritical to believe that a woman shouldn’t be forced to carry a pregnancy she doesn’t want while also believing that people who are crusading against abortion should be forced to take in children. How can you be about having choices and then believe your opponents should be forced into a choice? If being pro-choice means acknowledging that one choice isn’t right for everyone then we should acknowledge that adoption or foster parenting isn’t right for everyone, including those who protest outside abortion providers claiming to stand for life.

Of course, they could be adopting and fostering children. Just as they could stop badgering women outside of clinics and focus their efforts into things that would help provide for the children resulting from unintended pregnancies. I would encourage these pro-life advocates to do those things if they truly care about the well-being of children they’re trying to save. I don’t, however, think it should be a requirement of them to take in children in order to push their pro-life view onto others, even if I don’t agree with what they do.

3 thoughts on “Should pro-life crusaders have to adopt?”

  1. Or you could consider not encouraging anyone to foster or adopt because they are pro-life. I, personally, can’t imagine growing up as the token of their cause, nor to be held up as the child that was saved, having my picture (or physical presence holding up a sign) with a statement about how I could have been aborted but was saved by being adopted. (a fallacy btw.)

    Adopted people are real live human beings, with feelings just like you, wanting to be respected for who we are, not some hypothetical pawn to be parried back and forth in this never ending game. We also have unique challenges that come with being adopted.

    Personally, I’d suggest that they get busy pushing for legislation that provides a minimum of paid family leave for a year, with job security to go back to if they wish to reduce abortion.


    1. I certainly wasn’t suggesting they should be adopting for anything other than giving a child a loving home. I have seen children being used for their cause. I’ve seen adult protesters bring their children or grandchildren to hold signs. I went to a small seminar for teenagers held by the state’s big pro-life group (which I have yet to talk about) and the 40 year old woman leading the thing showed off her adopted girls like they were the poster children for abortion. Considering she’s been working with this group since she was a teenager, I wonder if part of the reason she adopted was to have that token for the anti-abortion cause. What better way to make people feel for that cause than to have a little girl from China who was abandoned and practically dead when she was found, but was saved and adopted into a loving home? Honestly, its terrible if there are pro-life people who have an ulterior motive for adopting.

      I agree with you 100% these people should be pushing for things like paid leave, job security, or other things that help support mothers or things that ensure children are being taken care of. Or at least support affordable access to contraceptives so women are less likely to get abortions. Its these things that effectively reduce abortion rates; not sidewalk counseling and screaming at women outside of clinics. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the group seems very narrow minded. Its “ban abortion”, “close down Planned Parenthood”, “put your child up for adoption” and not much else. Well, you can ban abortion, but that won’t help women who have children and are in a situation where she might have some difficulty taking care of that child. Or do they except all the women who aren’t in the ideal situation to raise a kid to put children up for adoption so that they can take them in and use them like pro-life trophies for their cause?


      1. I don’t know what the answer is to make the penny drop. I do know what it is like to be told by people I don’t even know I could have been aborted so…. Argh…


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: