Did she just say "Abortion is something that poor women do, or women who are selfish do, and women like me who want to have kids..."?

I've listened to it twice, and that's what I've heard.

Abortion is something only poor women and selfish women get? The hell? Please tell me I'm misinterpreting.

Thanks for posting this! I feel like huge points were brought up in under 4 minutes, and framed really well.

Anna - I think she was talking about the language that is used to demonize poor women who abort, as opposed to the language of "successful" women who "terminate" when there are complications.

Anna -- she was describing how abortion is framed, not describing the actual reality of abortion.

Also, I find the argument that feminists are anti-adoption very disingenuous. Dan Savage just dismissed feminist's reaction to pro-adoption as if we were all just "pro-abortion" without stopping to consider why some of us might be wary of the adoption industry: which has spent generations profiting off of women as "breeding stock" and has worked hard to lobby against choice laws specifically because having more white babies available for adoption = more money for the adoption agencies. That, and there is no transparency and accountability with most American adoption agencies: where does the money go? Not to the mom... how profitable are these agencies, and should they be?

I got a little red in the eyes when Savage hauled off with his "right-wing ploy to undermine abortion rights" comment because it was just incredibly facile.

Amy Richards wrote candidly about getting an abortion at nineteen in Manifesta: Young Women, Feminism, and the Future, which she co-wrote with Jennifer Baumgardner. She also appeared at the end of Baumgardner's documentary I Had an Abortion, just long enough to say the words "I had an abortion." She clearly made that comment simply to regurgitate, not support, anti-abortion rhetoric.

I am both an advocate for adoption and an adoptee, and I feel that what Dan Savage had to say was right on the money. For people who are truly desperate for children, such as my heterosexual parents were or many, many gay couples were/are, adoption is not about finding the designer child but simply finding any child. It is, as a rule, not the intentionally exploitive process described by Mighty Ponygirl. But I'm not exactly an expert, just a primary source, if you will. I would highly recommend watching the documentary Daddy and Papa for further insight on gay men and adoption.

Ah, okay, that makes *so* much more sense to me. I obviously shouldn't listen to these things at work when I'm only giving it half an ear!

Jessica: Note that I am describing the adoption industry and not single instances of parents who want children... please don't misconstrue what I'm saying as "all adoptive parents are racists" because you would be hilariously wrong to attempt to paint me in that brush.

Even though abortion is still nominally legal, there are still many unwanted children in this country. It is by no means impossible for adoptive parents to find kids to adopt, unless they really are unwilling to take anything other than white American babies.

And, if that's the case, fuck them.

Savage was presenting adoption as a better alternative for some women faced with unwanted pregnancies, not as a means for helping out all those couples who look to adoption for kids of their own.

And in some cases, particularly the case of women who speak at demonstrations indicating they'd rather have given birth and given up the child than gone through with an abortion, it is indeed a better alternative.

In those cases, I guess he's speaking in favor of a support network that helps women make the choice they want to make, whatever it may be, even if they're under duress of some sort. That, to me, is pretty much what the pro-choice movement is about.

I'm puzzled by some of the reactions in these comments. I think the points Amy and Dan made were pretty clear.

Amy's point has to do with the language the pro-choice movement uses. Her point of view is that the anti-choice movement has been far more flexible with its rhetoric -- "abortion stops a beating heart" etc. She argues that the language in which abortions are discussed more generally in society has changed, while the language of pro-choice feminism has remained static. Abortions for "fetal abnormality" are OK. Class is an important factor.

Dan's point is -- I think -- even more important. No woman should be forced into an abortion; whether it's explicit state coercion, or the more subtle coercion of economic and social circumstance. But should she choose to end a pregnancy then it should be legal, safe and not stigmatized.

The points Amy and Dan are making are about connecting reproductive freedoms to broader questions of gender equality. I thought they were kinda interesting (although I'm not convinced that pro-choice language has remained as 'static' as Amy seems to believe.)

keshmeshi -- exactly. The "wait time" for parents that I've talked to who have not specified a race they would like to adopt is between 4-6 months... far shorter than the time it takes to "bake your own."

From where I stand, I see it like this. There are three reasons that people who want babies and don't get them are impeded:

1. racism - they want a baby that "looks like them." I don't think this is a very large % of the population, but they sure as hell are vocal.
2. unfit - This is sort of a dead-end to argue from... no one argues that people who are unfit to parent should be allowed to adopt, the only debatable item here is the transparency of the rules governing fitness and numerous horror stories about how arbitrary the call is.
3. money - This is probably the most common reason that people who want to adopt cannot and it's really where my arguments are stemming from. It costs an incredible amount of money to adopt a child in this country and there is no accountability for where that money goes. It's not going to the woman who does all the heavy lifting... that would be unethical. How many mothers still have to pay their own medical expenses, or how many couples have to pay the medical expenses in addition to the adoption agency's fees? So where does that money go...? I understand that adoption agencies need to cover their overhead costs, and there are going to be certain fees and charges associated with background checks and attorneys, but there is no oversight. There is no itemized report of where your money goes to beyond "it will cost you $10,000 to adopt from us, it will cost you $30,000 to adopt from them, it will cost you $50,000 to adopt from those guys." To me, the unpaid exploitation of the body of another human being for profit is slavery. Now add in the fact that most of these agencies are strongly anti-choice and you have a group that is basically attempting to outlaw abortion so that they can make money off of women's pregnancies, particularly by being able to broaden their market to include more of group 1. So as far as I'm concerned, feminists have every right to be suspicious of the big umbrella of "adoption."

Hmm.

First, I agree with mt above--Richards was not phrasing herself entirely clearly, but her statement that 'poor women get abortions' was in service of the following comments on how word choice ('abortion' vs 'termination') has been used to divide women into different moral classes. She didn't appear to be intending to state that only poor women get abortions; she was discussing how the issue is framed differently when different classes of women are under discussion.

I was not entirely sure how to take Savage's comments about abortions under duress. From what he said later, he might have been meaning that very broadly, as Paul G. suggests. I hope that is what he means, anyway, and I agree in that case. It would be lovely if all women (and couples and other kinds of families, for that matter!) were totally free to make their own choices regarding their pregnancies, regardless of social, economic, religious, legal circumstances. That would be great. . . if only.

But I'm not sure that's what he meant, anyway. 'Under duress' is usually a phrase used to talk about women coerced into having abortions--not subtly by economic considerations or something, but forcefully by an outside power. And this certainly feeds into right-wing talking points about how bad abortion is and how horrid it is that so many women are supposedly coerced by feminists and 'abortionists' into having abortions. (Not to make light of situations in which women are/have been coerced into terminating or carrying to term--but I think we can all agree that the anti-choice crowd is looking at the wrong culprits here.) So his not-fully-stated argument here is treading on shaky ground, I think.

Dan Savage is not anti-abortion, but he and his boyfriend have adopted a son in an open adoption, and considers the birth mother part of the family. Also, he is against closed abortions for many reasons, but the profitability of the industry is high among those reasons (somewhere after feelings of abandonment for the child and lack of medical history to reference).

I wish he wouldn't call it "terrible" though because CA at least has a hospital drop policy that I think is very healthy, if under-advertised.

Even though abortion is still nominally legal, there are still many unwanted children in this country. It is by no means impossible for adoptive parents to find kids to adopt, unless they really are unwilling to take anything other than white American babies.

I recently had a friend go through the adoption process, and it didn't sound easy at all. And the whole process, at least for her and her husband, took a lot longer than 4 months.

She and her husband first had to become approved to be foster parents, which involved the state bureaucracy and took a long time.

Then, since they were going to do an international adoption (Guatemala), federal bureaucracies (and many delays) took over.

It was over a year before the adoption took place, and still about 6 or 7 more months before she could actually bring her son into this country.

This friend went through Guatemala because the process was slightly easier than an in-country adoption would be (also based on more factors than mere time).

I don't disagree that there are unwanted children in this country. Unfortunately, adopting them, even if you're not worried about race, is difficult.

It's also true that those who adopt interracially or internationally face accusations of colonization. There is frankly a level on which adoptive parents can't win for losing.

I would certainly agree that the system is broken. When I was facing a rather dismaying amount of vitriol over going through fertility treatments (my favorite was the person who said I just wanted a blue-eyed blonde, which of course is why I married a Latino; in fairness, she gets her blue eyes from him), I got the "why don't you just adopt" a lot. And my only response was, hey, you wanna give me the $20K? In a heartbeat. I'm adopted myself. So yes, the system is broken. However, it seems to me that the feminist response should be to work toward reform of the system rather than condemning the practice out of hand. If we are pro-choice, we want to give women more choices, not fewer.

It's also true that those who adopt interracially or internationally face accusations of colonization. There is frankly a level on which adoptive parents can't win for losing.

That is true. And for good reason. Rich white people have been practically buying children internationally for years now, while many perfectly healthy african-american babies sit waiting for someone to take them home in our urban areas. This is a real problem, and it's not just a straw man.

Spottieottiedopalicious, your comment doesn't address the people who object to interracial domestic adoption, nor the oftentimes very real legal barriers put up against them. I'm not saying they never happen: I'm saying people raise the same objections, and that the system often is set up to discourage them.

And now that I've posted that, someone will come tell me all the real reasons why those objections are made, which brings me back to "can't win for losing." If Caucasian parents adopt within their own race, they're racists. If they adopt interracially, they're colonizers.

Couples should think carefully about the cultural implications of adopting interracially before they adopt. Friends looking to adopt explained to me how an employee of the agency they were using, a WOC who was herself adopted by a caucasian couple related to them the difficulties in being brought up "as if she were white." It shouldn't be illegal for a white couple to adopt a minority baby, but they should be prepared if the child (or teenager) expresses a desire to identify more strongly with the race of the birth parents rather than the race of the adoptive parents.

Some day, when I settle down, I want to adopt. And so I've spent a lot of time thinking about, what kind of adoption I'd want and whether I'd like to adopt internationally.

In the end I decided that an open adoption would be the best choice for me and that again complicated adopting from outside my own country.

I don't know how my future child will think about her origin when she grows up, but I don't want to limit her choices.

I don't think that there's any obvious answers in this. I can understand parents who want a child that looks like themselves because they don't feel competent enough to handle it.

I myself have limits about what kind of child I'd want to adopt, I don't feel competent enough to handle for instance a handicaped child.

Children are always about the feelings of their parents, there's no one who brings children into this world for the good of the child. And the ones who "adopt" for the "good of the child" just come across as a bit condecending to me.

"That is true. And for good reason. Rich white people have been practically buying children internationally for years now, while many perfectly healthy african-american babies sit waiting for someone to take them home in our urban areas."

Good point.

I mean, I've even heard of rich white Canadian and European people internationally adopting healthy infant African-American people, but obviously not enough of them do so for everyone waiting for parents.

"It shouldn't be illegal for a white couple to adopt a minority baby, but they should be prepared if the child (or teenager)..."

Or older adult!

"...expresses a desire to identify more strongly with the race of the birth parents rather than the race of the adoptive parents."

Good point! It definitely needs more thought than "we'll just be colorblind" or "we'll just go to America for a newborn."

I remember a response to a mean article by Tama Janowitz (see http://relativechoices.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/12/the-real-thing/#comment-633 ):

"My cousin is very depressed because her adopted Korean son has gone back to Korea to teach English, has fallen in love with a Korean girl, and intends to make his home in Korea. Her adopted Korean daughter married a white guy, but his family doesn’t like her, so she is going to leave him and move to California where she thinks she will fit in better..."

WTF? He's settling down with someone he loves, she's leaving an in-law family that doesn't love her, and their mom is depressed instead of thrilled about it? Jerk.

"...Both of these kids wish they’d never been adopted into a different culture. However, my relationship with my own two birth children is not all that great–it only works from a distance. Eventually we have to let go of our adult kids and just hope we never have to depend on them, or if we do, that they will have some sense of obligation to do their best, knowing that as parents that’s what most of us do.

"— Posted by Dawn Willis"

Now the part about knowing you'll have to let go of an adult daughter or son someday, whether you adopted or conceived, is right on.

"I don't think that there's any obvious answers in this. I can understand parents who want a child that looks like themselves because they don't feel competent enough to handle it."

And/or because they expect their applications to get fast-tracked? For one example, I heard that a Dutch person can adopt from India faster if she's Indian-Dutch herself (it was in a Radio Netherlands website article series which doesn't seem to be up anymore). :/

While I think an open adoption is a great option for some people, I don't agree with Dan's assessment of closed adoptions as something "terrible." It can protect the adoptive parents from going through the great trauma of having to return a child they have adopted to the birth mother. While this may not be common, it does happen, and I can understand why people would want to feel secure that it will not happen to them. Any thoughts on this?

The complete video from their appearance at City Arts & Lectures is at
http://fora.tv/2008/04/08/Amy_Richards_and_Dan_Savage_in_Conversation

I have trouble respecting the opinion of Dan Savage. Sometimes in his columns he refers to women as if they are completely repulsive just because he doesn't care to fuck the. He is very down on the vagina which is fine for him personally but he is a sex advice columnist - he needs to keep that to himself. He also regularly denigrates lesbians as well as people who are overweight. So fuck him.