Saturday, January 26, 2013

Quick Takes: Wrapping up the (abortion) week

I might as well just start calling this Late Takes!

It's been a hopeful week for pro-lifers, even as we commemorate the horrific and illegitimate man-made law that has costs 55 million American children their very lives.

1)  Wow. Just wow. The March for Life this year in Washington, D.C., marking the 40th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, was a blow-out success. Approximately 650,000 marchers braved the freezing cold and snow on Friday, most of them young, all of them full of love and joy and determined to end the violence of abortion in our land. There would have been more attendees, but the bad weather kept many folks from traveling.

My nephew was there (as well as several friends of mine, including bloggers!), and he was simply blown away and completely energized. Wouldn't you have been? Check it out:

This went on for hours, as far as the eye could see.

Now, the thing that makes me laugh and laugh and laugh (because it really is ridiculous) is that today the major news outlets (CBS, NBC, ABC), as well as Google and Yahoo News, all carried front page banner stories of a D.C. march, with titles screaming out that "thousands" turned out. But dontcha know, it was not the March for Life! No, this front page story was about a very small march for gun control. One of those major news outlets estimated that there were about 1,000 people in attendence. Another story described the procession as stretching for… two blocks. But this little gathering was deemed major national news, and the March for Life coverage, where it existed, was buried. I had to go searching for it. Even my readers on the left can admit to the blatant media bias here, right?

Oh, and there was another "little" march that happened today and that clearly could not compete with the tiny band of gun control demonstrators. It was the West Coast Walk for Life in San Francisco, where over 50,000 marchers braved a hostile city to honor and remember so many little lives lost to abortion.

I am so proud of my dear friend Karen Williams, who once again stood with several of her sisters who've lived through the nightmare of abortion, and who are Silent No More.

2) I am sure that San Francisco boasts many cars sporting the ubiquitous "Coexist" bumper sticker (you know the one), but I like this version a lot better:

3) I have always contended that pro-abortion feminists must disdain their female bodies, and this brilliant quote speaks to that:

Many feminists insist that abortion is necessary for women to participate freely and equally in society. Anyone who disagrees, they argue, has merely adopted patriarchal standards and accepted women’s ‘place’ in society. Yet this demonstrates how deeply the roots of sexism run in our culture. Its premise is a sexist one - that women are inferior to men and in order to be equal, we have to change our biology to become like men - wombless and unpregnant at will. What other oppressed group in history has had to undergo surgery in order to be equal?   -- Marilyn Dickstien Kopp

4) Another brilliant quote came this week from one of my youngest readers, 17-year-old Chris, who is a religious seeker, not a Catholic or even a Christian:
There are two sides to the pro choice movement. The first side is convinced that fetuses aren't really humans/people. The second side is convinced that it's OK to kill humans/people. The former side is factually incorrect, and the latter side is morally incorrect.
As a lover of clarity, that just really grabbed me. And where does that leave Chris, who used to think that abortion should be allowed? He's weighed the evidence and concludes:
Might does not make right; the strong should not kill the weak; no human being should have a "boss" who decides whether they live or die. 
I can't stand abortion anymore. 
Welcome to the growing and ever-more-youthful club, Chris! I'm so grateful to have a sharp mind like yours on the side of life.

5) Two articles you cannot miss.

The first is from Jen Fulwiler, and it's one of the best articles on abortion I've ever read. I am not alone in that sentiment, if postings and comments on facebook mean anything. It's long, but it's worthy of your time:

Jen begins:

When I was younger, I was always particularly shocked when I heard about societies where it was common to abandon or kill unwanted newborns. In college I once read a particularly graphic description of a family in ancient Greece "discarding" a newborn baby girl. I was shocked to the point of breathlessness. I was also horribly confused: How could normal people be okay with this, let alone participate in it? Nobody I knew would do that! Were people that different back then?! 
Because of my deep distress at hearing of things like this, I found it really irritating when pro-lifers would refer to abortion as "killing babies." Obviously, none of us pro-choice folks were in favor of killing babies; to imply otherwise, in my mind, was an insult to the babies throughout history who actually were killed by their insane societies. We weren't in favor of killing anyone. We simply felt like women had the right to stop the growth process of a fetus if she faced an unwanted pregnancy. Sure, it was unfortunate since fetuses had potential to be babies one day, and we recognized that there was something special about that. But, alas, that was a sacrifice that had to be made in the name of not making women slaves to their bodies.
Read the rest, here.

The second article that compelled me this week was from wonderful Kat (The Crescat). I warn you, it is brutal to read. It is not for everyone. If you read it, you will never, ever forget it. But Kat lived it, and I so admire her courage for putting it out there for all to see.

6) Which leads me again to "the sculpture". Oh, the sculpture!

This is the love and comfort that I see Kat's child sending to her… and the love of all the children that my friends have lost through abortion.

May God bless, heal, and redeem every wounded and aching soul that has been left empty by abortion. There is help and hope for everyone, and so many people ready to assist you. Please, never despair. God's love and mercy is so much greater than sin and death.

7) From mothers without children to children without mothers… please meet Tatiana:

Click my photo for more info and another picture!

As I wrote in a recent Orphan Report post, a family had hoped to adopt her, but when they arrived in her country and met her, Tatiana's needs were far greater than what they had expected. Reluctantly, they had to let her go (and they did go on to adopt another orphan more suited to the level of care they could give). 

So, Tatiana is sill available, and waiting for that very special family that can take on a child with FAS (Fetal Alcohol Syndrome) and possibly other conditions or behavioral issues that have been exacerbated by life in an institution. She is just six years old, and I pray that by her seventh birthday, she will have a family committed to bringing her home.

Have a restful Sunday, and thanks to Jen for hosting!


  1. Young Chris's quotes are SO REFRESHING!!!

  2. Tatiana is so adorable! I hope her family finds her soon!!

  3. Bravo to Chris! He has used his God-given and gifted intellect for it's most perfect purpose: the pursuit of TRUTH. I, too, appreciate his clarity.

    As for the two must-read articles: I totally agree! They are amazing and incredibly, painfully honest. Yes, Leila, the second is shocking to read. And it is because the author was so honest with herself both in the clinic and when she awoke with the memories so many years later, that she could be so fully and beautifully healed. I am so grateful that the author acknowledged the grace she gained from so many joining in the bishops' novena that morning. I was excited that my prayers that morning were part of the tremendous grace she received. I wonder what she'll do with it next...

    By the way, I am SO amazingly grateful that our bishops are standing -- TOWERING -- as beacons to guide us right now. God bless them, and all who faithfully follow them. May so many more be swept into action by the faithful's generous response to the graces God is pouring out on us these days.

    I will continue praying for Tatiana and all the sweet children you post.

    God reward you, Leila, for your work for His children and His kingdom.

  4. Media bias is a freaking understatement. Ugh.

    I love that "coexist" image!

  5. Where can I get a coexist bumper sticker?

  6. Leila-
    Thank you! I love your take on the March and your info.
    Here is my blog post on The March. My son and I went down to DC on Friday.
    (I'm sorry but it did not appear as a link.) The blog is if that is easier.
    It was a brutally cold, snowing, unbelievably long day but so so so worth it.
    Those of us close enough to DC who can get there have got to speak up and defend the defenseless and it was our honor to go and do such this year.

    God bless,
    Chris C

  7. It really bothers me to hear of adoptive parents who choose only healthy children. What about, the next child in line gets a home? Those who give birth to children with problems don't say, sorry, next one please, send it back. It seems a little pro-choice-y to me. I'm sure someone will have an intelligent, spiritual rebuttal and I'll feel shallow for writing this, but I'm hitting *publish* anyway. It's raising my Irish a bit!

  8. Very good point, Allison. I like the "next child in line" approach. I have never thought of this before, but will let it simmer in my thoughts.

    Bravo for hitting *publish* anyway.

  9. Allison, if you are talking about Tatiana, please rethink it. The couple adopted another special needs child, a little girl with HIV who would have never had a place in her society (the fate of those children with HIV who age out of orphanages is dismal, to say the least).

    Sorry, I know you mean well, but I am feeling really defensive of the family now…. These children are all rotting away in orphanages, waiting for parents to risk everything, leave their other children behind in America while they spend weeks on end (and tens of thousands in fees) to rescue these little ones. I would never, ever judge a family for not being able to take on life-long special needs when they believed they were going to be raising a child with mild special needs. (With international, it is often very hard to know until you arrive what medical and psychological issues a child has, as the information is often erroneous). And yet in their broken-heartedness, they made sure that another needy child was able to have a home. They did not have to accept another referral.

    Remember, the referrals from these nations do not come until the family has seen the children, interacted with them, and then they are given the referral by the government, if the family feels the child is the best fit for their family. No one "claims" a child, legally, until they arrive and get an official referral. This is for everyone's protection.

    I have nothing but admiration and gratitude for families who do what most of us would or could never do. God bless them, and God bless them for being honest about what they can and cannot handle as parents. Surely you can understand that special needs can vary wildly, from mild to extremely severe. I would never want a family taking on a child whom they cannot properly care for.

    I hope you agree!

  10. I guess another way I see it is, if you are upset that a family traveled the globe and emptied their life savings to get a child with "only" HIV, then what must you (necessarily) think of me, who has never moved to adopt a child at all, even a healthy one? Do you see what I mean?

    The family should be lauded, not criticized.

  11. I guess I'll take a stab at that, Allison. Maybe it can be put this way: If God said to you as a woman without fertility problems, I will send you either a child with a handicap or one without, which would you choose? Honestly? Don't we all pray that our children will be healthy? And the truth is, something like 95% of parents who are told that their child has Down Syndrome actually do say, sorry, next one please - to their own child, not to someone else's. I think God puts it on some people's hearts to adopt a special-needs child, and gives them the grace to go along with that desire. Or to put it another way, a parent who gives birth to a special-needs child did not CHOOSE to conceive a special-needs child. So maybe we can't be judgmental of adoptive parents who also do not choose to have a special-needs child. Does that make sense? I also think that there are so many children in need that unless we are adopting them ourselves, we cannot criticize other people who don't.

    1. And if I could add to that... you may learn that a child has problems that you could not afford to take care of, and in that way you just cannot help them... and God may have another family in mind that can. I can see it being in the child's best interest for you to admit that you do not feel that their difficulties are difficulties that you can handle, either for financial or other reasons. I don't think you are being judgmental. I understand you having that question. But I think there are some really good answers to that question.

  12. Thanks, Sharon! I admire Allison very much because she does have special needs children of her own, so she is heroic herself. But I wish I had not put the information I did about Tatiana, as I did not mean to open the family for criticism! They provided a loving home to a special needs child in the end, a girl who would otherwise (statistics show) have been a prostitute, drug addict, homeless person and possibly a young suicide, had she not been adopted by this couple. Please, please, let's never see evil where there is none.

    If the bar has been set that we all must travel the world and adopt a severely disabled (or severely emotionally troubled) child (where we hadn't anticipated that to be the case) or be called out if we come home with an orphan with lesser needs, then I am in deep trouble, and I daresay most of us reading this are.

    We are not all called to the same things. Again, bless you, Allison, for the unconditional love you give your children, and bless the families that risk all to proactively seek out orphans who have no chance at life without them.

    Sorry, it's just that I know what the family went through, and the pain involved in their decision, and I hate to see them criticized when they did something that most of us would never do.

  13. I know, I need to stop now, but I have to address the "next child in line" approach. It's totally impractical. For example, what if a couple with a biological toddler girl is called to adopt a special needs orphan, and the "next child in line" is a 15-year-old male young man with severe behavioral problems including violent outbursts, the mental capacity of an eight-year-old, and seizures?

    No one would ever hop on that plane after raising $30,000 if that was the "unknown" that the family faced. It would not be right for the toddler girl to bring such severe needs/older age to the home. And the range of needs are SOOOO different! From HIV (child functioning typically) to severely malnourished, neglected and abused ten-year-olds who cannot speak or walk (and never will) who weigh 12 pounds. The spectrum is astounding. How can people go in blind?

    Also, each American state and each nation has rules for adoption. For example, Canadians in a certain province cannot adopt any child that is less than 18 months apart from another child in the family (stupid rule!). And some homestudy agencies/social workers will not approve families if they are going to break birth order of their kids.

    So, there is no practical or reasonable way that a "next child in line" policy could ever work, and I think it would be terribly ill-advised, both for families and the children. For example, a severely handicapped child with RAD would be so badly served by a family with no experience and no emotional, financial or practical means to care for him. By contrast, there are families who are extremely well suited to take care of such children (I've seen it), and they are the first ones to agree that not everyone is called to do so (and they would advise against it, if a family is not prepared).

  14. I did not know that about you, Allison. Even when I wrote my post I thought, well many people here, and I would hope I would be one of them, if asked by God which child we would want, would hope to have the grace to say, "You choose, God." I would love a handicapped child, even knowing that my love for my child would cause his or her suffering to be my own. I suppose that is true of all of our children. My grandson has a sensory processing disorder which may be autism or may fall just outside of that spectrum. When I think of his challenges it makes me think of those precious children in orphanages, and I am so grateful that my grandson was born into a family that loves him and will find all possible resources to help him. It definitely makes me want to pray all the more that those children are rescued!

  15. For 40yrs we've had to deal with the ridiculous idea that a fetus is not really a person yet. All the conversations that reach the key question of "so when does life begin ?" are left in a strange mystical unknown " wow, that's just to complex to answer" place. I believe that people dishonestly short-circuit their reasoning to avoid the fact they have embraced the idea of being masters over other human beings. It has alwYs been the week link in theIr argument and it's kinda refreshing to hear them admit that it really is about controlling the existence of another human being ( that they participated in the creation of ). The issue has always been about controlling others life and I welcome
    the new honest discussion of "so you want the right to be the arbiter of life and death?"
    This is now and has always been the ultimate goal. The end of life issues is maybe an even bigger monster in the coming years. I truly believe that the entire HHS mandate is simply a preemptive move to get the Church out of the way for all the new "compassionate" ideas that involve end of life questions.
    The prolife movement is young, bright eyed , and not buying this crap any more. The pro-choice world is hanging onto lies and I believe they know. That creepy video that wS posted ealier is evidence that they have to appeal to the worst instincts of their side in order to sustAin support. It also always serves them even better to upset the prolife side in order to get venomous reactions that can be used to show us as crazy people. They get great PR mileage out of our rage. At least they are showing their true colors more openly.
    Jen's article is amazing and kats was just brutal. What a terrible victory the Devil accomplished with Roe. Our nation must right this horrific wrong and fight all the future "life" battles that are just around the corner.

  16. Leila, I thought the exact same thing about #1. No secular report on the March for Life but for gun control --sure front page.

  17. Thanks for posting the pictures of the March for Life. There was a little tiny blurp in my local paper way back on the 5th page. This should be headline news.

    Stupid media.

  18. Leila,
    Is the "Coexist (Womb)" graphic available as a bumper sticker or magnet? I'd like to get some (I think it would be a hoot to replace all the regular "Coexisting" bumper stickers with the "Womb" ones - would probably get arrested, though, and get LIFE (haha).

  19. Janet and fRED, I wish I knew if they made that Coexist in a bumper sticker!! Someone needs to make one if they haven't yet! That would be so amazing, to see those springing up everywhere, ha ha!

  20. Good question, Allison. I agree with you that it seems "pro-choicey." The answer Leila, and others posted are ones for me to ponder sometime.

    I think the two different coexist bumper stickers can coexist!

    What's the correct spelling? Judgment or judgement? My spelling is getting worse as time goes by.

  21. I agree with you that it seems "pro-choicey."

    How? Are they killing orphans or voting for the legalization of killing children? And, does that mean if you are not on a plane right now to get an orphan (the next one in line or otherwise) that you are pro-choicey? Doesn't your statement indict all of us, then, as being responsible for orphans who are left behind? Anyone who does not adopt the neediest and most troubled, disabled orphan overseas, or anyone who adopts a healthy, drug-free, domestic newborn rather than checking the box for a disabled child, a brain injured child, a FAS child, is "pro-choicey" and doing something immoral? I don't get it at all, but I look forward to your ponderings and that of the others.

    And, it can be either "judgement" or "judgment". :) I tend to use the former, I think….

  22. No, adoptive parents are not killing orphans or advocating such a horrible thing. I started writing out my current thought, and it's getting all twisty. Besides, I wrote "seems" pro-choicey, not that it is. Bear with me, as I try to sort this out. A pro-life pregnant woman does not get a choice whether or not her expectant child is healthy or not. A pro-life adopting woman does get to choose whether her child is healthy or not. Perhaps that is why it seems pro-choicey in my head.

    I meant to write that it is better to ponder than rush to judgement. If I am to indict anyone then I'd have to indict myself because I'm not on a plane to get an orphan. Too bad I am not in a position to adopt an orphan of any age, health status, nationality, etc.

    It would be nice if the "next child in line" policy would work then everyone would get adopted. But that won't work.

  23. Lena, I appreciate it. I am just having such a visceral reaction to this, for some reason. It seems very wrong, and here is why:

    "Pro-choice" is a euphemism for abortion. Having or making a choice is a very different thing than being "pro-choice". There is nothing of the animal of "pro-choice" in adoption. Adoption is the antidote to abortion.

    Having a choice is not inherently immoral. Making a choice is not inherently immoral. But "pro-choice" (i.e. being okay with the killing of unborn children) is inherently immoral.

    There is not one thing about adoption that is "pro-choicey", but there are a lot of choices that need to be made and considered when one adopts.

    The distinctions are so important, and to lump what this heroic couple did, in choosing to bring a desperate child into their family, with a pro-abortion mentality is an injustice.

    I am reacting strongly to that injustice. Thanks for understanding. It's just hard for my mind to wrap around.

    Another way to look at it: I choose to help the poor in my city (through St. Vincent de Paul, etc.). Someone could accuse me of being "pro-choicey" for not choosing instead to send my money (or myself) to Calcutta and choosing the more desperate people to help (and frankly, at that point, I will have chosen one over the other again, as I would then be "pro-choicey" in choosing to help the poor in India, rather than focus all my work and money on the poor in Phoenix).

    It's a no-win situation.

    We really we should be applauding good wherever it occurs, and not criticizing that the good done is not "enough" or not done the "right way".

    Bottom line: Adoption has no part of "pro-choice" (pro-abortion) about it.

    1. One more thought: A birth mother who chooses to place her child for adoption is not being pro-choicey in any way, even when she chooses one family over another for her child, or even when she lets the state choose. Adoption, by its nature, has many choices inherent to it, very unlike a child's conception and acceptance into his biological family. They are not analogous in that way.

  24. I'm on my phone, so sorry if this is slightly disjointed. Flowery writing on a 2inch screen is tricky. ;)

    I kind of understand Allison's sentiments. I would agree that pro-choice isn't the best descriptor, because I'm ANYTHING but pro-choice, but understand where she's coming from. I think it's a fear of selfishness, at least it is for me.

    When we started the adoption process, we had to do a lot of soul searching. What were we able to, realistically, care for when it came to special needs? Filling out that portion of the paperwork was torture for me. You have to "check off" what special needs you'd be accepting of. We spent weeks staring at that list. It felt WRONG to pick and choose what needs our future child would have - after all, we couldn't do that biologically, could we? But at the same time, our family WAS better suited to care for certain needs rather than others, based on our resources and experiences. Would it be wrong to recognize our abilities and resources.....or would it be prudent? To this day, I'm not sure what the answer is. I know there is another little boy in Peter's home country that we adore, but who's special needs terrify me. Yes, we did CHOOSE Peter over this child because of what we felt we could and could not cars for. I will admit that this still haunts me, and we might end up going back for this second little boy someday. I don't know.

    At the end of the day, though, I know two things:

    1. One little boy with special needs WILL have a home sometime this year
    2. A second little boy has a family praying for him every single night, and we may be the only family covering him in prayers right now.

    There can't be anything bad about these two facts. I hold tight to them, and pray for God's will to be done. That may mean boy #2 ends up in our home and I have to overcome my fear of his special needs. Time will tell if I really did make a decision based on selfishness or not.

    All this to say, yes, I know where Allison is coming from. I pray about it every day.

  25. Heidi, that was beautifully stated, and what a heart-wrenching decision you've had to make. But wouldn't it hurt like a knife in your heart if someone directly accused you, after all you've been through, of acting selfishly by not taking in the second child, too (or instead of the other child)?

    I am probably overreacting, but for some reason I find that kind of accusation (or even the implication) unbearable. Yes, I know, I'm too invested in this discussion. But I know a bit about the good families involved in these kind of adoptions, as well as the pain and agony and sacrifice they go through to do something that 99% of people would never even consider. The alternative to "choosing" a child is to stay home and leave the special needs orphan without families, care or love.

    Please forgive me, and thank you for your wisdom, from someone who has been there.

  26. There’s a most interesting case currently before the Supreme Court in Colorado, which you will want to read/think about!

    A Catholic hospital in that state has been sued for negligence over the deaths of twin unborn children. The mother, pregnant with them, died of a heart attack while in the hospital. The children’s lives could’ve been saved by emergency Caesarian section but (sadly and negligently) weren’t – so they died with her.

    According to Colorado’s laws covering wrongful deaths however, a child is not deemed to be a person until it has been born alive. What this means is, if an unborn child dies due even to proven medical malpractice or neglect, the parents have no right to compensation!

    The hospital, although run under pro life policies (being a Catholic organization), is nevertheless defending itself in this case by using the state’s aforesaid law – as it has every right to. And two lower courts have already ruled in the hospital's favor - against granting any compensation. How will the Supreme Court decide? Even more importantly, what will the citizens of Colorado think of the final outcome? Will parents simply shrug and accept the bizarre legal notion that their unborn children are worth nothing?

    Read about the case here:

    Be aware that the news article is attempting to paint the hospital authorities as hypocrites for acting against their own pro life credentials, but if you think about it, the hospital has made a brilliant move, which can only help to turn the spotlight on the state’s ridiculous definition of a person – and maybe even cause it to be changed. God has His ways!

  27. I was not accusing or judging anyone; I was stating my feelings. In my world, I often hear of people that abort their sick kids with the exact same condition as mine and of mothers of kids with CF who sterilize themselves, then want to adopt and have a laundry list of tests for biological mothers to undergo before they'll adopt their babies because they don't want another child with CF. I also have had 2 local women tell me with saccharine, spiritual smiles that they'll only accept kids with no health problems because "they just can't handle it like I can." My reaction here was not logically thought out; again, it was my feelings.

    I know that "the next child in line" is *literally* impractical and that adoption is not *literally* pro-choice-y; I said that it SEEMED that way (I don't want this sick kid, like abortion.).

    I reread about the above family and am very glad that they rescued a child and came home.

    I'll make sure that any upcoming commenting has no inkling of feelings and is revised to contain only facts and logic.

  28. It would hurt, yes, knowing what we are going through to bring Peter home. However, I think it would hurt more precisely because it's something I worry about myself. Does that make sense? Like someone saw through to my deepest worries and fears and called me out on it. That would hurt more than any association to the pro - choice movement.

  29. Allison, I hear you, and I think we both reacted with "feelings". I don't mind people talking about their feelings; that's not quite it. I'm okay with emotions here (I just let loose a bunch of them), but I needed to make sure that there was no confusion about the good these families are doing. or example, a pregnant mother is obligated not to kill her own child or "weed out" the "defective ones"; but no one is obligated to cross the ocean, drain their savings, and adopt a special needs child -- that is grace and gift.

    I think what you are saying about attitudes is absolutely valid, and in a nation where we abort the "imperfect" without a second thought, I can completely understand why you feel that way. It is absolutely wrong, wrong, wrong, that someone would abort a child who is not healthy, yes. Without question. But adoption is another issue entirely, and no one is obligated to adopt at all, even healthy children. If they were, the Church would require us to adopt, and she doesn't. It's an apples and oranges situation.

    I think it's valid to say that God calls some folks to things that he doesn't call others. I also think that some people do stay in their comfortable world and do miss a higher calling. I think both those last two sentences are true at the same time.

    Here is something we can both rejoice over. The Davis family is adopting two older children from overseas who have CF and are stuck in an orphanage. You can imagine their suffering, I know. The family is very close to picking them up, and they are fundraising (I believe there is a $1500 matching grant for them going on right now). Please pray for them (everyone) and if anyone can send them a (tax deductible) donation to help get those kids home (and proper medical help), that would be amazing! Here is the link, both to their sponsorship page, and then from there to their blog:

    Again, thanks for hanging with me, Allison, I know we both feel very passionately about this whole subject, and precisely because we love special needs children. Your children and family are beautiful, and you inspire so many, including me!

    Heidi, yes, makes sense to me.

  30. This is so weird. I see a comment from Francis in my email inbox, but I don't see it here. ???

  31. Thank you, thank you, thank you for your understanding and for not yelling at me (Not that I think anyone did.)! I dashed off my comments from the gut and would do much better to wave my hands around, talking and laughing and crying while spilling coffee with you and these ladies at a cafe. And I'll try to be logical and not take things too personally (I have, after all, never adopted, so it's all strictly ideas for me.).

    I have a link to the Davis' on my blog and have sent them money several times; I'll go and check out that matching grant (It's been a while since I've visited.).

    I've got to get the slackers out of bed...
    Love, A

  32. Allison, no, thank you! You did something for me in asking that question and I need what you gave me: You gave me an opportunity to think of these situations in a whole new way, and I think I had a bit of a eureka moment! I got clarity on something and I hope to do a post on it soon, thanks to the springboard of your question. I am so grateful! And, I would love to do exactly what you describe, sitting around at a cafe, where we all know that even if our voices get more pressing and excited, it doesn't mean we are fighting! (I'm such an Arab at heart.) This written forum does not lend itself well to intonation and nuance of emotion, does it?

    Anyway, you are wonderful, you know I love you, and I hope to post my "new" thoughts (always trying to understand concepts better, always trying to find simple philosophical truths and distinctions) soon, on a post of its own. Thank you, friend!

  33. And I was working out in my mind and through these comments why I agreed with Allison's feelings.

  34. Lena, then we all got something out of it. :) I am glad she said it.

  35. Leila, I just discovered your blog and started reading it, and wanted to chime in on the adopting special needs kids discussion.

    But, first I wanted to say that I love that bumper sticker and I totally want one.

    Anyway, back to adopting international special needs children. I currently only have 4 biological children, none of which are special needs, however, when I was 14 years old, my parents adopted a special needs, 6-yo girl from Jamaica. My parents also had 4 biological children, ranging in ages from 7-16.

    To be honest, it was hard, it was very, very hard on our family bringing in another child from another culture with special needs. And her needs weren't really all that intense...certainly not as intense as other children's special needs may be. It was good for us, and I love my sister, but it was so very, very hard. My mom said several times that she is glad she already had raised 4 children before taking on my sister.

    Adoption, especially, of an older child is very different from having a biological can't really compare the two. Yes, when you have a biological child you get what you get, you can't pick and choose. But, you also have that child from the very beginning. And, to some extent, you can choose NOT to give your child certain problems (like fetal alcohol syndrome or drug addiction or attachment disorders)...but of course there are other special needs that can occur that you have no control over.

    Parents who adopt an older, special needs child are doing a wonderful, wonderful thing..but I do believe they really need to pray and pray and pray over which child is right for their family. Some families have better resources or are better able to handle some special needs than others..and that's okay. And it's totally different from having a child born to you.

    Now, I don't have any experience with having my own special needs child, but I would guess that as a child grows, their needs get greater and require more resources, more therapies or whatever. So, I would think there would be a huge difference between "growing up" with a special needs child and adopting one who is older and already has those needs.

    Plus, being raised in an orphanage can create special needs, when those needs or problems would not have existed if the child had been raised in a loving family from the get-go (such as attachment disorders, problems resulting from abuse, etc.). At least with my sister it did...her first 6 years in a orphanage and what she experienced while there left it's lasting mark on her and that was part of what made it so hard when she first came into our family.

    I think it is very brave of that family to realize that child's needs were greater than what they could handle and that they were called to adopt a different child. Tatiana is absolutely adorable..and I pray she finds a family soon!

  36. What's with the weird lingerie post above? How do these people find your blog?

  37. Blogger has a spam filter, but occasionally spam comments slip through and need to be marked manually as spam.

    They are posted by spambots. There's not an actual real person doing the posts; it's an automated computer process.

    The thing that kills me is that spammers wouldn't do this sort of thing if it didn't net results. So SOMEONE out there is clicking on spam links and/or generating revenue for them, so they keep doing it. Ugh.

  38. Ugh, did they show up here? My internet has been spotty today. JoAnna, thanks for deleting them, if that was you! I hate when I see them in my email inbox, and in the past few days there have been a lot of them. Sigh….


PLEASE, when commenting, do not hit "reply" (which is the thread option). Instead, please put your comment at the bottom of the others.

To ensure that you don't miss any comments, click the "subscribe by email" link, above. If you do not subscribe and a post exceeds 200 comments, you must hit "load more" to get to the rest.