One thing that intersectionality means is reflection on how Amy Coney Barrett's musings on adoption as a solution to the problems caused by forcing women to give birth erases the experiences of adoptees and, most completely of all, birth mothers.
*conjugation error. I'm a trained scholar who proofreads his writing but lets solecisms in tweets go 🙃
Adoption -- as an *industry*, as an institutionalized practice -- commodifies children and dehumanizes mothers. The logic of commodity exchange requires objectifying the product. That is Barrett's logic.
To those of you who point out that Barrett is a right-wing Catholic with transracial international adopted children and is looking out first and foremost for fellow right-wing Christians's avid desires for other people's babies, I say: There it is.
*Christians'
I'm agitated these days 🙄
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I want to welcome those of you who followed me after seeing my recent tweets about Amy Coney Barrett, forced birth, adoption, erasure, and misogyny. I want to thank everyone who listens to #AdopteeVoices and rejects the "disgruntled ingrate" framing used against us. (1/n)
Increasingly I have used Twitter to work through the implications of my two basic moral commitments as an adoptee in reunion: 1) Sealed birth records are a gross injustice and should be universally abolished; 2) Family preservation takes moral priority over family creation.
(2/n)
I tweet about a lot of stuff, mainly libraries (I'm a public librarian), philosophy (I'm a PhD and erstwhile professor), and cycling (I love it & I do it year-round & it sucks here in Boston). Also (mild) shitposting. This account has no brand identity. (3/n)
I don't know how to explain to anyone who has never considered what it is like to be an adoptee how fully horrifying it is to hear a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States musing about the desirability of conjoining forced birth with child trafficking.
yes I said it: in the context in which Amy Coney Barrett imagines it, adoption is unquestionably a child-trafficking industry.
there is an extreme degree of misogynistic indifference to suffering required to speak as Barrett does of the relinquishment of a child as solving, rather than vastly compounding, the dehumanizing injustice of forced birth.
If we’re going to get ontologically scrupulous in restricting the scope of the Person entity to “real human beings,” it is only fair to survey the range of metaphysical/epistemological options for implementation. These include but are not limited to the following:
1. Meinongian: The real subsumes but exceeds the actual. So sure, let in Franklin W. Dixon and Carolyn Keene! They are non-actual realities.
2. Lockean: Persons extend only so far as continuity of memory. If author A gets bopped over the head and becomes a total amnesiac, then create a new entity instance B for everything created by the subsequent person occupying that body.