Tuesday, February 25, 2014

Adoption is the Option

Adoption is the Option
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
February 25, 2014

A recent column in The Indianapolis Star written by Sandy Sasso, rabbi emerita of Congregation Beth-El Zedeck in Indianapolis, calls to “Fight poverty, promote sex ed to reduce abortions.”

Nowhere in her liberal diatribe calling for less government intrusion in people’s bedrooms, but then hypocritically demanding government funding for abortion and birth control, did the good rabbi ever mention the word ADOPTION. Nowhere – not once in her entire screed.

The one aspect of Sasso’s column with which I agree is her pronouncement that “we all want to reduce the number of abortions.” How we get there is a different story.

Yet, another one of her assertions, that “The most important fact is that no one is ‘pro-abortion,’” is both na├»ve and disingenuous. Sasso’s statement is not a “fact” as she avers; it’s barely wishful thinking. Planned Parenthood, an abortion mill advocating for abortion, makes its money performing abortions. They would not remain in business were it not for the thousands upon thousands of abortions it commits year in and year out, raking in millions and millions of dollars on the deaths of the unborn for whom there is no one to speak up when the woman or worse yet, girl, in the examination room is told that it is alright to slaughter her own flesh and blood.

Fighting poverty is a great idea suggested by Sasso, but poverty is not the reason young women having abortions are pregnant in the first place. The reason is a poor education starting at home – a home that ideally should have a mother and a father.

The generations of teen and out of wedlock pregnancies are more often the result of a lack of education, but this is a generational, systemic crisis that sex education in the schools has not cured. Nor has the inculcation of condoms in the schools diminished the pregnancy/abortion crisis.

Sex education must start with the simple fact that condoms, the pill, a diaphragm, or any other forms of birth control are not 100 percent effective. The only foolproof manner of avoiding pregnancy is the abstinence of the behavior that would result in pregnancy – sexual intercourse. Offering condoms in schools send the absolute wrong message – that such an offer is a tacit approval of the behavior requiring the condom in the first place.

Then there is the issue of who is paying for those condoms in the schools. If condoms are in public schools, they are being financed by the people – the taxpayers, as tax dollars are used to fund that enterprise.

This is yet another area where Sasso is wrong. She writes “The opponents of reproductive rights have found a new argument to promote their cause: fiscal conservatism.” Sasso is wrong on two counts. Conservatives do not oppose reproductive rights. Conservatives oppose reproductive wrongs. It is wrong to slaughter an innocent baby in the womb – as Jewish and Catholic beliefs support life beginning at conception. It is wrong for that conceived baby not to have a voice while a Planned Parenthood agent is encouraging such a slaughter. It is wrong for abortion to be used as a form of birth control.

Here is where adoption comes into play. Adoption – once again, a word and concept never presented by Sasso in her editorial. There are thousands of American married couples desiring children, who, for one reason or another have not been blessed by G-d with conception. These couples can and will provide the unwanted child with a home and most importantly, a life – a safe harbor from the abortionists butcher knife. American babies being adopted by American couples – that should be the goal.

Sasso is also wrong to say fiscal conservatism is a new argument against abortion. This has been a long-standing battle between conservatives and liberals. Sasso plunges way into the deep end when she wrote conservatives “want to ensure that the federal government pays neither for abortions nor contraception, regardless of the fact that these are constitutionally protected rights.” Sasso does not seem to understand the definition of the word fact. She has twice used it to suggest something she believes is true when in FACT it is not.

Yes, it is a fact that conservatives, and many independents and moderates, for that matter, object to any taxpayer dollars funding abortions and contraceptives. It is not a fact, however, that a federally funded abortion or contraceptive is a constitutional right. The landmark 1973 Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade granted rights of privacy, but did not mention either abortion or contraceptives. And the growing sentiment coming from the vox populi is to call for the overturning of Roe in a march to the Supreme Court each January.

Using Sasso’s faulty logic though, according to the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, we the people have the right to bear arms. Should the federal government then provide the general public with those guns?

Sasso then suggests that no one is calling for the secession of federal funding for Viagara. Think again, rabbi. The federal government should no more be funding Viagara than it should abortions or birth control. It shouldn’t be in the baby business at all – including adoption – that should be the work of synagogues, churches, and various other legitimate religious organizations.

Abortion can be reduced with honest sex education extolling the virtues of abstinence as a surefire way to avoid pregnancy. Abortion can be reduced with honest sex education offered with guest speakers telling of the true life horrors of what happens to the fetus during the abortion procedure. Abortion can be reduced with honest sex education offered by women who underwent the deleterious procedure and how they regretted it. Abortion can be reduced by encouraging adoption and reminding those considering abortion that there are loving couples who desire nothing more than to raise, nurture, and love a child, yet are unable to produce one on their own.

That Rabbi Sasso never once mentioned adoption in her editorial raises more questions than it answers. Does she support abortion more than adoption? It creates a cacophony between her profession and the issue at hand. Sasso never mentioned that abortion has killed more blacks than the Ku Klux Klan. Sasso, a rabbi, never decried abortion in the Jewish community as a second Holocaust either.

Abortion is not our portion. Adoption is the option.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and educator living is Westfield, IN. He is an active member of Congregation Shaarey Tefilla in Carmel, IN.

1 comment:

  1. Great words! Adoption is a selfless, live giving option that should be honored and celebrated. Especially if abortion proponents claim they want to reduce abortions. Unfortunately, they usually just SAY that and obviously don't mean it. Abortion is a multi-billion dollar business and adoption would cut into the planned parenthood profit margins. Praying more people are willing to open their eyes to the truth and start supporting life and love by promoting and honoring adoption :-)