As a former patron and patient (as well as all of the women I dated) of Planned Parenthood, I am very familiar with the wide range of services the institute offered financially disadvantaged communities. Abortion is but one of hundreds.
So this is my question; why hasn't anyone ever framed the Church's argument against abortion as Eugenics? I mean, there are literally millions of chidren needing adoption and the Church could even focus on all the orphanges it has closed, but isn't saying, "We only want OUR kind of people (meaning future Christians)" a form of social engineering?
Planned Parenthood is my favorite charity has been for decades . It isn't all about abortions . It's about helping women to survive , helping families who can't afford routine health care ., helping families to control the size of their families using other contraceptives , and education in the general healthcare fields .
The problem is, those who wish to abolish legal abortions would also like to restrict women's access to contraceptives as well. It is not about defending life, it about controlling women.
[archive.thinkprogress.org]
It seems that adoptive parents only want white babies, except for those that go to China for adoptions. As for which type of babies the church wants to be adopted, I suppose that makes sense that they only want kids to be raised Catholic, as far as serving their own agenda.
Given the pervasiveness of abuse within church-run orphanages and other church connected organizations, I think it's unwise for them to be permitted to have ANYTHING to do with women and children.
All churches should be publicly and repeatedly challenged on EVERYTHING.
They cannot be trusted to have any influence over anything.
I say that often and out loud, and don't give a flying rat's ass who I piss off in the process.
It's perfectly okay to challenge any religious influences.
You go girl. I completely agree.
My husband was born in a Catholic home for unwed mothers (after his mother was raped by her sister's husband). At her father's insistence, the child was not given up for adoption. Thankfully that place was closed long ago, but has a large internet presence because, while in the care of that institution the women were pressured into giving their children up. The babies were then sold to the adoptive parents for the benefit of the church. Currently there is a network dedicated to reuniting these women with there long-lost off spring. Every "orphanage" that I have ever heard of (whether run by the church or the state) has a dark side to it.
@KKGator a point that should be made. Since my original post to you I jumped back down the rabbit hole of reading about the place I mentioned. I was wrong about one statement I made, the place did not close, but it has involved into a type of homeless shelter for unwed/poor pregnant women and mothers and their children. Something I found tonight is a report done on the matter by Dan Rather. The place where my husband was born (St. Mary's in Dorchester, MA) is talked about here [danratherjournalist.org]
Almost without exception in this country when I have spoken against the church in any capacity, almost everyone within earshot turns on me. Luckily I am now in the position that I don't have to care so I have the freedom to do so but most people don't and I think that's the reason.
Agree 100%, thanks for posting this.