Why are so many adoptees pro-choice when they claim there is a "primal bond" from before birth with the mother?

Wow, great question! I am very pro-choice. I also believe there is a strong bond between mother and baby during pregnancy. I've only read excerpts of the Primal Wound. I believe some of it, but find other parts of it to be too subjective to apply to most adoptees. I realize it's only a theory. The problem I'm having with some of the other answers is this. I used to think that abortion was just about fetal tissue. Take a look at any day by day pregnancy book or watch an "in the womb" documentary. By 12 weeks, the fetus is clearly human with all limbs (not just buds) with fingers and toes, a beating heart, a brain, a face, ears. With all major organ systems in place and it just being a matter of growing, I don't see how anyone can say there's not some level of cognition there.

Honestly, I'm not trying to get all pro-life here, I am 100% pro-choice. I just find it odd that some think bonding occurs only past the point where most abortions are performed, sometimes only after the point of viability. That isn't the issue. It's clear bonding occurs much earlier than some would like to think.

Because the choice was with the parents not the child. The child lives with a choice other people made for them. With abortion the child obviously doesn't live with that. There is a difference. People don't consider the child which is amazing considering the child is at the centre of it all. I agree with others, being pro-choice isn't pro abortion. I don't think it is RIGHT to abort a child, but sometimes it's the only choice when the child will grow up in an unloving environment. There are so many children who are abused and murdered by their parents because they can't cope. In some cases abortion is the better choice, not neccessarily a GOOD choice, it's a tragic choice really. But the option should be there, otherwise there will be even more unloved children.

I've learned recently that primal wound is not just with biological parents. I bonded to a foster child we had for a while, so much so it was like he was biological. I met him after 7 years the other day and it felt like my reunion with my biological mother. My heart was racing like crazy, I felt super awkward and all I wanted was a big hug. I was so hurt by him being taken away from the family that the scar started to throb, I cried and cried for hours that night. It was like my heart was ripped out twice, before any child should know what heart ache is.

I would never have an abortion. The option should be available, though. From the moment I peed on the stick, & got a positive I fell in love with that little ball of cells. There was not a doubt in my mind that I wasn't already bonded. Other women may not feel this way which is why I remian prochoice & still believe there is a primal bond. Sometimes that bond isn't experienced by women until later in the pregnancy or after birth. So, if women want to have an abortion, they should be able too.

& anyway abortion is before birth, before the fetus is even capable of sustaining itself outside of its mother. The primal bond is normally referred to AFTER the birth of the baby, the damage done when the baby is seperated from its mother.

LOVE the question...it uses logic and not all of the BS that gets tossed around because of personal missions or feelings. I agree with your point--why does an argument for pre-birth bond ONLY apply for anti-adoption but all of a sudden these "bonded" pre-birth beings all of a sudden are NOT sentient when we terminate this life? I do think that is the very definition of hypocrisy. This is a painful topic with a lot of very intense emotion attached to it--but I believe in "owning" decisions whatever they may be and how uncomfortable we might feel about them.

The fact is we can have an opinion about this but we don't know. Anyone here declaring they know exactly when someone is sentient or not is WRONG and purposeful for their own mission using whatever is convenient for them...and I love how they declare something as if it is fact. It isn't.

Me personally? I am erroring on the side of conservatism...just in case, right? I'd like to assume and base my opinion on this topic as abortion is morally wrong for me--even in the case of rape. I don't even believe in abortion in the case of potential deformity or mental deficiency. I believe this living person has a purpose by its own existence and it is wrong to apply value based on my own criteria to this life. There is value, even if it is for the benefit of the people around them, hospital folks, etc.

By the skin of my teeth, I will call myself a hesitant pro-choice person because I can't declare what a woman should do in her own set of circumstances but I am NOT pro-abortion. There is a difference.

I am not into the whole primal wound stuff. I believe that when a baby is born it wants what is familiar, as do all animals. They want warmth, comfort, and food, and what we know is what is comfortable. Since the mother smells familliar and the sound of her voice is familiar babies are more comfortable with their biological mothers. If you were to live with another woman so her voice was just as familiar, and you were to sprinkle the other women with the amniotic fluid of the biological mother then the baby would find her just as comforting. That bond has nothing to do with who you are as a person - its about how you sound and smell. Eventually that smell reaction is transferred to the smell of your breast milk, and the comfort of your touch. I don't see the schism there though, since abortions are performed before the brain has developed enough to be considered sentient, which is before any bond could be made. I am pro-choice, and I still think that babies are comforted by their mother's smell and sound because its familiar. I don't think its hypocritical because the baby doesn't have enough brain to make that connection until after the cut off point for abortion.

This is a good question so please don't take offence by my answer. I'm not an adoptee so am answering as a natural mother. My understanding of pro choice is that it's a woman's choice whether she goes through with a pregnancy or aborts. Being pro choice doesn't automatically bring in the thought of surrendering if a woman has doubts about wanting to raise a child. Depending on the situation a woman will decide to parent, think about abortion if they're not sure and adoption only comes into the equation if she doesn't want to abort or parent.

I'm sure this topic has been thoroughly explored, but I'd like to add that being pro-choice is not the same as being pro-abortion. Just because you believe something is wrong doesn't mean there should be a law against it.

1) Being "pro-choice" DOES NOT mean your "pro-abortion". Pro choice means you support a woman's right to choose to continue a pregnancy or to abort.

2) Abortion happens within the first few weeks of pregnancy. The baby isn't viable outside it's mother. The baby has no ears, eyes, emotions or anything to "start bonding" with. It's a cluster of cells. Adoption happens when a baby is viable, "sentient" and learning from it's surroundings.

3) Abortion is death. Nothing comes after death. Adoption starts with loss, but everyone involved must go on. With all the issues associated with the the situation.

4) There are some adoptees who say they wish they had been aborted. So, they can be as pro-choice as the next person, and STILL wish they'd never been born/adopted.

5) There are adoptees who say they've HAD abortions, and don't regret them, because of their own experiences as an adopted child.

There is a huge difference between a 5-20 week old fetus and a fetus at term. I wouldn't abort a baby who could survive out of the womb just as I wouldn't surrender a 5 week old fetus.

Apples and oranges, despite the fact that they are both fruit they are hardly the same thing.

I am Pro-Choice.

Why?

I have no right to dictate what is best for other women or judge them because of it.