On Friday, The New York Times published an opinion piece from Elizabeth Spiers, a Democratic digital strategist who was adopted as an infant, that argues that adoption can be significantly more difficult and traumatic than abortion.


The opinion piece comes as the United States Supreme Court hears oral arguments from Mississippi to uphold the state's 15-week abortion ban.


"As an adoptee myself, I was floored by Justice Barrett's assumption that adoption is an accessible and desirable alternative for women who find themselves unexpectedly pregnant. She may not realize it, but what she is suggesting is that women don't need access to abortion because they can simply go do a thing that is infinitely more difficult, expensive, dangerous and potentially traumatic than terminating a pregnancy during its early stages," Spiers wrote.

Spiers stated that though her adoption would be considered "idyllic," it was one that resulted in lasting trauma for her and her biological family. She states that her biological mother, whom she got in contact with decades after being adopted, said she apologized for giving her up and was heartbroken about the years lost.


"I'm no Nobel Prize winner, but I still resent being used as a political football by the right. I believe that abortion is a form of health care, and that every woman should have access to it if she needs it. But perhaps more than that, I resent the suggestion by people like Justice Barrett that adoption is a simple solution, and I resent it on behalf of Maria, who found the choice she made traumatizing and still feels that pain, 44 years later. Even when an adoption works out well, as it did in my case, it is still fraught," wrote Spiers.

Spiers argues that adoption can be a significantly more traumatic experience for the mother and child. She states that mothers go through a sort of "biological brainwashing" while pregnant, bonding with a child over the nine months that a mother carries it. Children also experience trauma through what researchers reportedly call "relinquishment trauma," Spiers wrote.

"The premise is that babies bond with their mothers in utero and become familiar with their behaviors. When their first caretaker is not the biological mother, they register the difference and the stress of it has lasting effects," she continued.


Spiers specifically goes after Justice Amy Coney Barrett, saying that Barrett thinks mothers can chose not to bond with their children while carrying them, for assuming the mother will be supported financially and otherwise, and for assuming that the child will find a home and not end up in childcare.

"What Justice Barrett and others are suggesting women do in lieu of abortion is not a small thing. It is life changing, irrevocable, and not to be taken lightly. It often causes trauma, even when things work out, and it's a disservice to adoptees and their families, biological and adopted, to pretend otherwise in service of a neat political narrative," Spiers concluded.

In response to Spiers' op-ed piece, Daily Wire editor emeritus Ben Shapiro picked apart Spiers' arguments in a 17-point Twitter thread Friday morning.


"This article from Elizabeth Spiers in the NYT is true, bats*** lunacy. Let us examine the ways," Shapiro's thread begins.

"1. Bearing a child and giving it up for adoption is significantly less difficult, expensive, dangerous and potentially traumatic for the child than, you know, stabbing it in the head and sucking it into a sink," wrote Shapiro.


Shapiro then noted that Spears said adoption is often a good thing, "But wait...she'll buy it back momentarily."

"Your birth mom wanted to give birth to you and give you up for adoption, and you benefitted from that. Now you argue that your birth mom is upset she missed years with you. You know what would have stolen all of the years? ALL OF THEM? Killing you in the womb," Shapiro wrote in response to Spiers' paragraph about her talking to her birth mother.

"Both your birth mom and adopted mom are happy with the adoption decision. But you're paternalistic enough to doubt their happiness," Shapiro continued.


Shapiro then stated that Spiers resented being "used as a political football," because of her adoption. "Glad you're here to resent things. You know what would have prevented that? You being aborted." He goes on to state that Spiers said abortion is a form of healthcare, yet her entire piece "is an acknowledgement that abortion takes a life, because you're here to write the article."

"You say that Maria still feels the pain of adoption and you say that adoption is traumatizing. You know what could be painful for the mother and is certainly both painful, traumatizing and deadly for the child? You guessed it," wrote Shapiro.

Shapiro argues against Spiers' statement that adoption is not an "unalloyed good," that there are no "right or wrong answers," writing: "I'm pretty sure I found the wrong answer, though: killing you in the womb."


"This take that human biology is an imposition is completely pathological. 'Forced to give birth' implies that the intervention is the pregnancy rather than the abortion. And the 'biological design' by which you become attached to your child is not an evil. This is sick," Shapiro wrote in response to Spiers comments on "biological brainwashing."

In response to the biological bond comment, Shapiro wrote that another permanent way a bond between a parent and child can be taken away is through abortion. He also noted that adoption is "certainly less traumatic for the child" than being aborted.

"And you have to love the argument that a mother can't choose to put her child up for adoption because of that biological brainwashing but can choose to kill it," Shapiro continued, in response to her "biological brainwashing comment."

"Then she makes the utterly specious argument that pro-lifers ignore the problems of child-rearing. That argument is always idiotic. Pro-lifers do care about raising kids. But the argument itself is nonsensical. It is like arguing that we should not ban murder of the homeless unless we also provide them state-subsidized housing. You can argue for the housing, but the ban on murder is non-negotiable," wrote Shapiro. "Only Democrats talk about women being 'punished' with a child, a la Barack Obama. No pro-lifer talks this way," Shapiro stated.

In response to Spiers' comment on relinquishment trauma, Shapiro wrote, "I can think of a trauma for a child far worse than relinquishment trauma. Can you?"

Spiers has since stated that she received "anti-choice backlash" over the piece.



No comments:

Post a Comment