On the choice to be an incubator

In debates about abortion, anti-choice activists often advocate the option of putting a child up for adoption as and alternative to abortion for women who do not wish to, or have no means to raise a child. In the United States in particular, a dangerous rhetoric has developed to counter the Planned Parenthood slogan “Every child a wanted child”.
Pregnant Pause is a good example of this. They argue that every child is a wanted child, as up to two million American couples are currently waiting to adopt a child, and 1.3 million abortions are carried out in the US every year. If only every woman who found herself unwantedly pregnant chose to carry the pregnancy to term, all of these babies would find happy, loving homes with one of the two million couples waiting to adopt them!
The US-based anti-choice lobbying organisation National Right to Life makes this bold claim: “Adoption is a thoroughly responsible, helpful-to-all alternative to abortion that is, unfortunately, not well understood.” The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children and abortionfacts.com go a step further, to paraphrase the Planned Parenthood slogan as “every unwanted child a dead child” and “Every Child a Wanted Child, and if not wanted, kill!”, respectively. Ultimately, what we are being told here is that women who choose to abort an unwanted pregnancy are murdering children, and that instead they should simply act as incubators for those who want to adopt children instead.
A similar discourse can be observed among anti-choice organisations in the UK, though it is more subtle. Care Confidential gives information about the different options available to pregnant women. Just a quick glance at the paragraph heading on their abortion and adoption pages gives you an insight into which way Care Confidential leans. After some more-or-less factual information on medical and surgical abortions we get “What are the health risks of medical abortions?” and “What are the health risks [of surgical abortion]?” The list of “risks” is rather more extensive than those given by the NHS, with in some cases drastically inflated numbers and in-depth discussion of “post-abortion stress”. When it comes to adoption, the paragraph headings are “What’s good about adoption?”, “What is the adoption procedure?”, “What support is there for adoption?” The page makes no mention, for instance, of mental health impacts of carrying a pregnancy to term to then give the child up for adoption, nor of the risks posed to a woman’s physical health by pregnancy and childbirth.
Alternatives Pregnancy Choices Newham has a similar approach. The organisation states that women are entitled to have “all the information about all three options” (keeping the baby, adoption and abortion). Yet a good two thirds of the information page on abortion is dedicated to risks and particularly potential mental health issues. There is a certain implication here that women should feel guilty and traumatised after an abortion. The adoption page, on the other hand, concentrates on describing the improvements in approaches to adoption, how the woman would be involved throughout the process, for instance through being able to choose the adoptive parents, and how she can change her mind for up to six weeks after the birth.
Particularly worrying is the fact that these organisations offer information and counseling to women in unplanned pregnancy situations, who may often be in a vulnerable position and in need of factual, impartial advice rather than the
railroading, judgmental “information” offered by anti-choice organisations.
The leaflet Baby Adoption Today [PDF] published by the Adoption Support Society and linked to from the Care Confidential website makes at least a token effort to address some of the emotional issues around adoption, with questions like “I couldn’t go through 9 months of pregnancy and then give my baby away”, and “What would I say to family and friends afterwards – pregnant one week and without a baby the next?” The answers it gives, however, are far from unbiased.

It’s still hard to decide. Isn’t an abortion more straightforward in the long run? It may seem to be in the short term, but in the long run you could be coping with the emotional problems and depression that can follow and abortion and which may be ongoing. If you choose adoption, you may also experience similar emotions but your baby will have the chance of life in a loving home.

I am particularly concerned by the answer to the “What would I say to family and friends” question:

You may feel awkward or embarrassed. Tell people you decided on adoption because, although it was a very painful choice, you believe it was the right and loving decision for you and your baby.

There are other problematic passages in the leaflet, characterised by the assumption that the default state of a woman is to want a child, and that only external circumstances prevent her from being able to keep and raise that child herself. Advocates of adoption as the alternative to abortion often fail to deal with a number of basic issues: that there may be more than one reason for not wanting a child beyond simple inability to support them economically at a particular point in a woman’s life; the emotional and physical effects on a woman of carrying a pregnancy to term and giving the baby up for adoption; and the social, economic, and educational impacts of this process.
The disruption that even a “normal”, complication-free pregnancy, where the woman fits all the social norms of being happily married and financially stable, causes to a woman’s life is significant. I have watched friends and colleagues go through this: doctor’s appointments, loss of energy, physical side effects, being off work sick. Imagine now someone who fits the stereotype of the Baby Adoption Today leaflet: relatively young, not in a financially stable position, possibly not in a long-term relationship, either still in education or possibly in an unstable, low-paid job. Some of the issues this woman might face if she chose to carry the pregnancy to term to give up the child for adoption include:

  • Workplace discrimination: Although this is illegal in the UK, it still happens [PDF] What’s more, the government is currently not collecting or publishing statistics on distrimination due to pregnancy so we have no meaningful ways of addressing this.
  • Missing out on school/university: This can be simply to attend doctor’s appointments, but also due to physical side effects of the pregnancy – loss of energy, morning sickness, etc. Over the course of the nine months, this can be incredibly disruptive and damaging to a young woman’s education, and significantly impact her future educational and career choices and path.
  • Having to take time off work: Never popular, often seen as a justification for employment discrimination; in a job paid by the hour or with few or no benefits, this will also have a significant financial impact on the woman throughout her pregnancy.
  • Social stigma: To be fair, there is a lot of this going round, regardless of whether a woman chooses abortion, adoption or to keep the baby. Adoption, however, seems to offer the worst of both worlds in this area: unlike an abortion it’s not something you can keep secret, and after months of visible pregnancy having to explain to friends, family, colleagues and the nosy lady next door that you aren’t keeping the baby can be extremely challenging.
  • Lack of benefits/legal protection: A woman keeping her baby would be entitled to maternity leave – both to help her recover physically from pregnancy and childbirth, and to give her time to bond with and look after her child. A woman giving her baby up for adoption, while she doesn’t have a child to look after, has still gone through the same physically traumatic experience of pregnancy and child birth and is additionally going through what may be a very stressful adoption procedure. Yet as best I can tell, she would be expected back at work the day after giving birth. At best, this is a legally grey area.

To be honest, even in my stable relationship and middle-class, salaried job with exceptionally good benefits I wouldn’t want to put myself through any of the above unless I genuinely wanted a child. To ask a woman to put her life on hold for the better part of a year, to expose herself to risks of short- and long-term health problems, discrimination, of not being able to fulfill her life ambitions as she misses out on educational, social and employment opportunities, so that her “baby will have the chance of life in a loving home” is beyond reasonable. There may be women out there who are selfless enough to do this. Ultimately, though, denying women the choice, presenting adoption as the only option for a woman in an unwanted pregnancy situation, asking them to make such sacrifices for a bundle of cells they never wanted is not a viable alternative. The message proponents of adoption send to me is that I am only valued as an incubator; that the baby that may come out of my uterus to be adopted by others is of more value than anything else I can offer society through who I am, what I can do or what I personally aspire to.

8 thoughts on “On the choice to be an incubator

  1. Mouse

    Very ‘important’ article! I’ve contemplated adoption as an option in later life, and even though I feel it could be one of the most satisfying ways to ‘have’ a child, I’ve never actually thought of the link between mothers affected by anti-choice movements and the adoption organisations.
    The idea that women who fall pregnant should carry to term for the baby and for the sake of another person who is desperate for a child is scary, thinking that way over-romanticises the process of pregnancy, childbirth and motherhood – and is freakishly close to some of Margaret Atwood’s ‘Handmaid/Wife’ visions in A Handmaid’s Tale.

    Reply
  2. MarinaS

    This is an excellent piece, and I’d like to strengthen it further by adding some numbers to show that about adoption is not a viable alternative to abortion in terms of caring for the children born. Because it’s such a pernicious red herring, and is complete bullshit even *without* the good arguments you make about the various costs/punishments for women who carry unwanted (and sometimes wanted) pregnancies to term.
    For example: there were 408,000 children in foster care in the US in 2010. Out of those, 53,000 were adopted.
    The rest were the kind of children those mythological adoptive parents don’t want: not newborn babies, not able bodied, not healthy, not white.
    Further to that, extrapolating from average abortion rates per 1,000 women in the US in the last 5 years, there are roughly 300,000 – 350,000 abortions performed in each year. Some of these pregnancies would produce babies that the people on the adoption waiting lists don’t want, as detailed above, but say 200,000 adoptable babies per year – how long before supply outstrips demand?
    People conveniently forget that once upon a time, in all kinds of countries (Romania, anyone?) where abortion was illegal, there were thousands and thousands of orphanages in which, even if children were not mistreated, not neglected, not abused, they still got a mediocre education and impersonal care. Happy endings these institutions definitely weren’t.
    And this was in the time before IVF, when more couples were unable to have children of their own – what will happen to all these unwanted given-up babies who can’t find adoptive homes now, I wonder? Especially in countries steadily turning their backs on proper welfare state provisions, as the UK & US are doing right now?
    The potential for suffering and neglect of these children is chilling, because the simple fact is that there are *not* enough potential adoptive parents out there, and even the ones who are out there and willing to adopt often prefer to wait for the “perfect” baby for years than give a happy caring home to a child who doesn’t fit their list if requirements. The way in which anti-choicers wilfully ignore these facts in their rush to force women to carry to term is just another way in which they are profoundly anti-woman, anti-child, and anti-life.

    Reply
  3. Nineveh_uk

    As women whose children are stillborn after 24 weeks (or born alive at any point but then die) are entitled to maternity leave, and it is illegal for any woman who has had a baby to return to work for a fortnight (4 weeks in a factory), I would expect that legally a woman whose baby is adopted has the right to have full maternity leave. However, I would also expect the social pressure on such women whose baby to return to work much sooner would be very strong, and it’s easy to imagine a woman who took maternity leave in those circumstances suffering discrimination.
    Also, given that a large proportion of women having abortions already have children, do the leaflets deal with how to answer the questions of a sibling? Five year olds don’t know about abortion, but they definitely notice that one day Mummy isn’t nine months pregnant any more.

    Reply
  4. Milena Popova

    Thanks for the clarification on maternity leave. I know about stillborn after 24 weeks but couldn’t find anything on adoption.
    And good point about siblings – no, I’ve seen nothing on the subject in my research. Another way which women who seek abortions are stereotyped by the anti-choice lobby who seem to have extremely limited understanding of the women they’re trying to influence.

    Reply
  5. Nineveh_uk

    I’m pretty confident about maternity leave and ordinary paternity leave, though additional paternity leave is ruled out as that is explicitly to care for the child.
    extremely limited understanding of the women they’re trying to influence
    Working in a fairly female-friendly environment, I’m still trying to envisage any of my 20-45 year old colleagues, let alone myself, announcing that (a) they were pregnant, and (b) the baby would be adopted, whereupon (c) they would take maternity leave. And having to explain this to every single person that they met who made a friendly enquiry for the next year or more (and the rest of their career every time they applied for a job and had to explain a career break). “Awkward or embarrassed” doesn’t begin to cover it (and no, they shouldn’t have to feel like that, but that’s the world we live in. People don’t even like to mention in-progress IVF, and that’s much more socially acceptable).

    Reply
  6. Katherine

    One other thing is you can’t guarantee that you will give birth to a child that people WANT to adopt. People looking to adopt, and agencies that facilitate adoption, screen out children born with or likely to be born with disabilities or serious medical issues. Can you imagine going through a pregnancy being told that your child has adoptive parents lined up, only to give birth to a child with congenital heart defects and suddenly have to raise that child yourself? This happened to someone my parents knew.
    Also I imagine that most people looking to adopt are hoping to adopt a child that looks roughly like them (and perhaps is born to parents of roughly the same personality as them), and I don’t imagine that the pool of adopters and adoptees would match up that well. My parents had a child adopted and the policy at the time was to match children up with parents from a similar demographic – I don’t know about the differences in demographics though.
    Adoption can still feel like losing a child, only you have a much longer period of pregnancy to get used to the unborn child. Any claims of depression resulting from abortion would apply double or more to adoption.

    Reply
  7. Guy Rintoul

    Interesting article Mili… very thought-provoking and well-reasoned as ever. Two questions coming out of this for me:
    1) Do you [we, I] agree that there is a place for these biased or non-neutral organizations at any stage of the abortion and/or adoption processes, regardless of whether women are given the choice of using them and regardless of whether or not there is a neutral alternative?
    2) Is it possible to legislate neutrality? Short of pulling them completely, who would be responsible/how do you vet leaflets and information such as this to make sure it’s neutral and fair? Can we trust/expect people to all be at a level where they are capable of weighing up the arguments and coming to an ‘on-balance’ conclusion as to the best course of action for them? We may be able to evaluate multiple sources and come to an informed decision on our own, but it’s fair to say not everyone can.
    OK, so not really two questions as a long braindump of things now running through my mind. Good post.
    Guy
    P.S. Haven’t had a chance to read the other comments yet, so will try to find time later to go back and read them fully.

    Reply
  8. Guy Rintoul

    Oh also, I guess the other related question – and one that I’m not sure should really be a factor in the abortion debate as it implies that it can solve all the ‘issues’ surrounding abortion, rather than being a separate debate – is whether or not the adoption process should be easier to get children out of the mediocre orphanages that MarinaS mentioned.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *