Feminists Would Rather a Child Be Killed Than Be Given Up for Adoption

Modern third wave feminism has quickly gained a reputation for being anti-male, anti-motherhood, and for believing that a secretive group called the ‘Patriarchy’ control society, keep women down and preserve misogyny in the West. This is a reputation that is fully deserved, as feminists have championed ludicrous causes such as cracking down on manspreading, mansplaining, claiming videogames are sexist, climate change is sexist and pedalling myths such as the gender wage gap to even some claiming that all men should be subject to a curfew. Meanwhile ignoring the rampant misogyny and violence against women in other parts of the world, particularly in the Middle East.

One of the causes that most feminists champion is the so called right to abortion or as they like to call it, reproductive rights. They call this position pro-choice but it should be more accurately be described as pro-abortion or pro-death. This is because in recent times feminists have promoted abortion as the only option to unexpected pregnancy, and pro-life people are not even allowed to put the alternative view forward that abortion not only kills a child but damages the well-being of the mother. This is demonstrated by the enacting of exclusion zones around abortion clinics in Australia which limits the ability of pro-life advocates to offer information about alternatives to abortion.

Pro-life campaigners have often promoted adoption as an alternative to abortion if the mother cannot finically support a child, it offers the opportunity to couples who cannot have children to raise a child and relieves the mother of carrying the burden of an abortion. But even this option is demonised by feminists and is considered worse than abortion.

This was highlighted by a recent article titled ‘Adoption Is a Feminist Issue, But Not For The Reasons You Think’ by feminist writer Liz Latty published on the blog ‘The Establishment’. Even though the article was first published on an obscure blog it soon went viral and was republished on the Huffington Post and the Australian radical feminist Facebook page Destroy the Joint. The fact that this article went viral and was endorsed by the feminist establishment proved that it is a widely-held view in the movement. It is also not the first time the anti-adoption movement has been given a platform by the mainstream media.

The writer’s case against adoption is that women are pressured into it by being told they are unfit to be mothers and there exists an adoption industry that is not concerned with the welfare of women. The article also suggests that adoption has a racist element to it because it is black women who are mainly forced into adoption to benefit privileged white couples who want children. The article also discusses the identity crises the children who are given up for adoption face, which probably is the only constructive point in the entire article. However, unless you’re a nihilist, this still does not prove that killing a child is better than giving them up for adoption.

The arguments against adoption in this article and alleged cohesion that is involved could easily be applied to those women who are forced into abortion and the presence of the abortion industry. Often pregnant women are pressured by family, friends and dare I say other women to have an abortion because they would be unable to handle motherhood. Abortion clinics have a business model that relies on enough women entering their doors seeking an abortion. The reality is, a woman will live the rest of their life with the memory of an abortion, not to mention the trauma that women experience post-abortion.

The writer seems completely oblivious that the arguments they use against adoption are some ones that can be used against abortion. However, for some reason which is not explained in the article the author appears to believe that all abortions occur because of women’s informed choice. The sympathy they have for the adopted child they express is worthless given that they believe that it is a better option to kill the child than for them to be brought up in a loving adopted family.

If there is an adoption industry in Australia, it isn’t very big given we have such an appallingly low adoption rate but a disturbingly high abortion rate. Our low adoption rate is reflected in the way pro-life campaigners assist women with unwanted pregnancies. Most of the time they assist the woman to keep their child and provide financial assistance in the early stages motherhood, so contrary to what this author believes pro-life campaigners are actually the strongest campaigners of keeping mother and child together. The horrors of forced adoption that haunt our past are long gone and pro-life campaigners now strongly believe pregnant women need our support and do not deserve to be judged for the way they came to be in their situation.

This demonization of adoption is yet more proof of the culture of death that now pervades both the feminist movement and left in general. They are the ones who take away choice from women with pressuring them into abortion which is partly influenced by their disdain for motherhood. If this feminist author was really concerned about welfare of pregnant women they would write the same article critiquing abortion.