Right to Life...But Not to Live?

The argument that many, if not most, adoption supporters will use when stating their case is that every child has a "right to life". This usually follows on the heels of a staunch anti-abortion stance, in which these adoption lovers yammer on about these unborn babies and how they all deserve a chance to live, and adoption is the great win-win solution to ending their lives.

Even anti-abortion legislation gives the right to life of an unborn child, seemingly, greater weight than those rights of the already living...namely the woman carrying this forming being. Some anti-choice mongers would go so far as to even force a woman to carry to term if it means sacrificing her own health and well being, because the developing fetus within her carries MORE of a right to life than she herself, the fully-formed, already breathing, surviving, tax-paying human being.

But this isn't an argument about whether or not abortion should or shouldn't be legal. That's for another day.

No, this is about rights...and where the seem to stop being important.

Because I what I want to know is, where are all these staunch supporters of the rights of these unborn, these fetuses, these children, once the children are brought into the world? What happens to these children's rights once they ARE born and become (ahem) adoptees?

Seems like nobody is taking up the torch for their rights once they pass through the birth canal.

Because the right to LIVE is not nearly as important as the right to LIFE, is it?

Case in point: these people who would force a woman to bring a child into the world and give her baby to strangers are the very SAME people who would fight to PROHIBIT these children, once grown, from obtaining their original birth certificates, from reuniting with their biological families, from reconnecting with their roots.

People like KATHLEEN HOY FOLEY, who wrote this disgusting article for the Daily Record, posing as a "birthmother", (http://www.dailyrecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080525/OPINION03/805250317/1096/OPINION),

but it's interesting to note that she ALSO has her signature on an Ohio Right to Life advertisement. Seems she is quite the staunch supporter of the Right to Life and, interestingly, quite strongly anti-adoptee. http://www.columbusrighttolife.org/Signature%20Ad%202008/SigAd%20final%201.pdf

So which is it, Kathleen? Are you a New Jersey "birth" mother or an Ohio right-to-lifer? I'd like to know; I'm sure there are many others as well.

And you have your various religious and church groups who also are in the right to life camp, yet oppose the right to open records and, well, the right to LIVE for adoptees. So they support fetuses, but oppose the already born.

Funny.

So I wonder why that is...why on one hand, we have people so strongly pulling for "our" (as in, the "adoptee") right to life, and yet, once we are born and placed in our loving homes, we are no longer supported in our right to LIVE? To live our lives, the way WE see fit, to access OUR histories and records and roots, to be the people WE were born to be?

Can someone answer that for me? Why does the right to life stop as soon as life begins?