I will be honest: I have never met a person who was pro-life that was NOT pro-adoption.
Honestly, I believe the best place for a child is with their birthfamily. However, I also acknowledge that there are circumstances that make it impossible for a birthfamily to parent. Those reasons are many and varied, and not something that I wish to discuss in this post. But I do want to take a moment in this month that recognizes adoption and point out that I truly feel that the ideal situation for children is to be parented by their birth parents or through a kinship adoption.
That said, I don't understand how one could be pro-life without being pro-adoption. The idea of the pro-lifers is that they advocate for the innocents who have no voice and no other advocate. However, that advocacy does not stop when the innocent is born! No, instead, pro-lifers must continue to advocate for programs and interventions that assist birthparents in providing a quality of life to their child or that assist agencies in placing a relinquished child with a permanent, loving adoptive family. Without continuing to advocate for that child, a pro-lifer turns into an "anti-legal abortion" rather than a "pro-lifer." Proponents of the choice of life must continue to promote a quality of life for that child throughout it's life.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
At least in theory, I'd agree. I've met many a pro-lifer that in theory supports it. However, there's a great distance between supporting it verbally and actually going out and doing something, especially when facing the challenge that is adoption.-
Quite a few prolife churches have mounted campaigns to promote adoption as the logical choice for any Christian family.
Post a Comment