“In 1954, Joanne Schiebel was a young unmarried college student who discovered that she was pregnant. In the 1950s, her options were limited. She could have had an abortion – but the procedure was both dangerous and illegal. She could have gotten married, but she wasn’t ready and didn’t want to interrupt her education. Joanne opted, instead, to give birth to the baby and (placed him) for adoption. And so it was that in 1955, a California couple named Paul and Clara Jobs adopted a baby boy, born out of wedlock, whom they named Steven.”
From the Susan B. Anthony List (with a minor change by me in parentheses, which previously read “put him up”).
October 8th, 2011 at 8:30 am
Thank you for relaying this powerful story. I had no idea.
Per the “fostering persepctives” website, these other famed indivuduals were also adopted and, like Steve Jobs, made quite a positive difference to the world:
Charles Dickens
George Washington Carver
Aristotle
Louisa May Alcott
James Michener
Edgar Allan Poe
October 8th, 2011 at 1:32 pm
I think it’s quite distasteful that you and other Biblethumpers
use Jobs to exemplify a position he (and his wife Laurene) didn’t
support – I’m most confident they were not ‘pro-life’.
That’s about like – albeit on a small scale – the Brady campaign
using me or other gunrights advocates in an anti-gun ad.
Reep tastelessness never ceases to amaze me, esp after reviewing
their continually poor election results.
Bill Wiese
San Jose CA
October 8th, 2011 at 1:44 pm
Mr. Wiese:
This post is about adoption. I hope we can all agree that adoption is a wonderful thing. Can we not?
Actually, I have no idea where Jobs stood on abortion, nor do I care. What I do know is that the world is a better place as a result of Jobs having been born and for the opportunity adoption provided his parents, him and the world.
You know, even those in favor of abortion typically also are in favor of adoption. It’s a choice.
Thanks for your comment.
October 10th, 2011 at 1:59 am
Mr Jantz,
Whenever CA Reep players bring up adoption etc. it’s usually as a cover or codeword for anti-choice stance. (Heck, you even brought up the term abortion in your article.)
I sure do get the feeling this was a shout-out to the antiabortion faction
of the party which has essentially (at least in part) rendered it generally unelectable in CA.
Maybe if CA Reeps just shuddup about these matters, the party actually might lose its stench and get a viable demographic to return to the party (or at least occasionally vote for it) someday. The huge single F demographic just won’t vote R (largely due to this alone).
Right now Reeps are irrelevant: fluttering near the below 1/3rd point in the legislature, no up-list or down-list statewide offices (dunno, someone Reep may be state dogcatcher) nor Governor. More claptrap about these stances – codeworded or not – only further hampers any wins.
Thanks for playing.
Bill Wiese
San Jose CA