This letter was in response to a pro-choice letter. You would think that they would ask adoptees, natural parents, and adoptive parents. These right to life groups think that they know the answers. They don't. Comments that ticked me off are highlighted.
Responding to Farr’s pro-choice letter
I was rather intrigued by Mr. Larry Farr’s letter to the editor concerning the proper semantics for the abortion controversy. The sentence, “At birth, parents surrender their autonomous control over their child to the government” leaves me rather confused.
Mr. Farr, you are joking, aren’t you? Are you implying that, after birth, you lose the right to self-directing freedom and moral independence? Are you aware that our forefathers fought a war to be rid of a tyrannical government and founded a country in which the citizens would be free of unfounded government intervention into their lives?
The Bill of Rights limits the power the government may exercise over its citizens. According to you, parents — at the birth of their child — surrender that child’s rights to the whims and caprice of the government.
According to the Declaration of Independence, our inalienable rights are endowed by our creator, not the government. It seems that you have complete faith in the altruistic infallibility of the government to decide what is right for the individual. I’ll bet you would have applauded the Dred Scott decision. You probably would have been overjoyed when the government deprived the American Indians of their lands and put a bounty on their scalps. How you would have cheered when Alexander III of Russia decreed that one-third of the Jews in the Pale of the Settlement — an area of Russia in which Jews were relocated in order to segregate them from the Russians —were to be eliminated.
To sum up your letter, you asked two questions. The answer to the first is: The “pro-life” people derive their rights from exactly the same source as the “pro-choice” people. The difference is that the “pro-life” people did not have a bevy of lawyers and sympathetic judges; all they had was medical evidence to back up their claim.
As to the second, aren’t you aware that there are numerous homes for orphans and adoption agencies with long waiting lists for babies?
There is no need for individuals to shoulder the burden of care and cost for unwanted babies. With what is available, your wonderful government could adequately handle the cost and care of unabortioned babies.
— Donald M. Dillon, Jeffersonville
Well actually he is right. When adoptees are relinquished, they do lose all their rights except for the six states that allow unfettered access to the original birth certificate. We are bound by the contract that was between the adoption agency/attorney and both the natural and adoptive parents. A contract that is not in the best interests of the child. I know quite a few adoption agencies that will tell you that. Secrecy is never the best thing for anyone. It usually harms people.
Why are adoptees considered unwanted? Most women want to keep and raise their own child but do not have the resources to do so. Excuse me how about we provide resources for women to raise their own children. The author of this letter wants to encourage more abandonment. Its too much of an issue right now. A child does his best with his family of origin. If that can't happen, then be placed with an adoptive family but only with his rights be fully recognized. This individual would have a person believe that these infertile and suffering families deserve and are owed a family. No woman owes any other woman her child. I do hurt for the families that want a child desparately but they are not owed one.