« Go ahead, smell my hair | Main | Ban on the run »

June 09, 2005

Pro-choice. But not that choice.

Heather Sokoloff's article in today's National Post is a hum-dinger. It's about a woman named Krista Jones, who entered into a relatively open adoption agreement with a couple who now raise her baby as their own. Jones visits her son three times a year. Now, I'm not sure how I'd feel about such an arrangement — well, I guess I do: weird — but that's hardly the point. The point is that Jones could have had an abortion and didn't. Everyone loves a happy ending, right?

Not so fast. Says Jones:

Literally every person I told, with the exception of my mother and my best friend, asked me why I didn't just get an abortion.

That set my head a-spinning. Just what kind of lowlifes is this woman having conversations with? Or am I being unfair? Apparently, the stigma against "abandonment of one's child" — abandonment into loving arms, that is; not so much to a scalpel and a metal dish — is widespread and very real, especially when it concerns these so-called "open adoptions." This can't just be a product of our society's sugar-coated outlook on abortion, though it can't help. The idea that anyone could consider adoption dishonourable — under just about any circumstances, never mind when the alternative is abortion — is as nauseating as it is fascinating.

Jones herself certainly sounds like she has her head screwed on right:

Everyone said, "Why would you do that?" It bothered me greatly that people could be looking at pictures of this child and saying this.

Indeed. I've always believed that a healthy, happy child was the best anti-abortion argument you could make, but apparently it's not enough for some people. (I tried to open comments for this post, but technical complications got the better of me — I'll have to try it again on a future post. Nevertheless, I'm interested to hear from anyone who can shed any light on this anti-adoption sentiment.)

Posted by Chris Selley at June 9, 2005 09:52 PM