You’re probably destined to write a post about something you go to bed thinking about. Here’s what kept me up last night:
In every era, there’s been a tragic contrast between the burden of unwanted pregnancies and the burden of infertility. But this gap used to be bridged by adoption far more frequently than it is today. Prior to 1973, 20 percent of births to white, unmarried women (and 9 percent of unwed births over all) led to an adoption. Today, just 1 percent of babies born to unwed mothers are adopted, and would-be adoptive parents face a waiting list that has lengthened beyond reason.
My first thought was… is he pining for the days when young girls and women were forced sent to “visit relatives” for nine months?
My second thought was… is he lamenting the fact that there just aren’t enough white babies to adopt? If that’s not the case then why did he write: Prior to 1973, 20 percent of births to white, unmarried women (and 9 percent of unwed births over all) led to an adoption.
My third thought was… does he really view giving up a child for adoption as a commodity rather than a gut-wrenching decision? He seems to be saying: Hey, there’s market demand here! “Mid-life, upper-middle class” infertile couples need more product!
Sorry if that sounds harsh, but I’ve had friends who have had abortions and friends who have given their babies up for adoption. Both are heartbreakingly difficult decisions; both can leave emotional scars. What bothers me most is how cavalier Douthat’s approach is when it comes to giving up a child for adoption. It is not the easy choice, simply because there is no easy choice in these situations.