I got this idea from an episode of Law & Order:SVU where a canister of frozen embryos had been stolen. Finn, very well played by Ice-T, had the following exchange with an anti-abortionist (paraphrased):
AA: We believe that life begins at conception. Frozen embryos should not be destroyed. Women should volunteer to carry them to term, and then they can be adopted.
Finn: That should be good news for many gay and lesbian couples.
AA: No. We only support adotpion by the right people.
Finn: Yeah. Straight, married, white Christian couples.
AA: We’re not prejudiced. Christians come in all colors.
That got me to thinking and asking anti-abortion people if they support gay and lesbian adoption. Most said no because “children need both a mother and a father.” Yet they didn’t think that single woman shold be forced to give up their chldren, but should do it for the good of the child.
Pro choice and pro gay/lesbian adoption. I believe children should be raised by people who *want *them and can provide a decent life for the child. Sexual preference is irrelevant.
Pro-life, pro gay/lesbian adoption. I know several gay and lesbian folks who would make wonderful parents, so I can’t imagine being against that if the goal is to encourage more healthy babies be brought to term rather than aborted.
I’m about where Cecilis on abortion, and I don’t think it’s my place to decide on gay/lesbian adoption. If it were, I guess I’d say that mother+father would be the ideal, but it’s stupid to keep kids away from loving parents who are capable of raising them, as they seem to be in too short supply.
ETA: And, yes, Chessic, that bugged me a bit, too. But I figured it was a slight difference in terminology. To me, anti-abortion seems more absolute than pro-life.
I think it’s pretty cool: 77 votes, and it doesn’t matter what side of the abortion debate we’re on: we all believe gays/lesbians should be able to adopt. That’s a pretty good feeling. Now if we could take that and transfer it to reality, the world would be a better place.
I’m pro-choice, pro-life and support adoption by couples (of same or different gender) and singles. Voted pro-choice, as I dislike the idea of abortion and hate that too often the only choice is “abortion vs delivery” but I do believe abortion should be an available choice.
Well, the whole name thing is part and parcel of the controversy: both sides disagree on the definition of “life.” By calling themselves “pro-life,” that side is asserting their belief of what “life” means. By calling the other side “anti-abortion,” the pro-choice folks are, in a sense, doing the same (or at least denying the other side’s definition). The nature of this debate almost forbids the pro-choice people from using the term “pro-life” for the other side; it would be like acquiescing to the assertion that life begins at conception, and that fetuses of all ages are living beings, which most (AFAIK) pro-choice people simply do not believe.
At least that’s the way I understand the state of things. It’s a sticky wicket, I’ll admit - I don’t think any other major controversy has this kind of problem with names.
People who believe in choice typically approve of life, in general. Pro-life is rather a meaningless phrase, when you get right down to it. Anti-abortion much better sums up the position of being against abortion. If you’re offended by having your position stated clearly, perhaps you should rethink your position.
The problem is that saying “anti-abortion” sounds like you think nobody should ever, ever, ever, EEEVER have one or access to one. Which isn’t my own position.
There’s a reason Magical Thought believes that naming things gives you power over them, it sure does a lot to spin them.
Pro-choice and for gay adoption. I’ve yet to be convinced that either have negative impacts on society or anyone not directly involved, whereas the same can’t be said for the converse.