Abortion vs. Adoption

Let me start out by saying that I am thoroughly pro-choice. I always have been and always will be. I feel as though the right to have an abortion is absolutely necessary to ensure reproductive freedom, as well as keep women on equal footing with men; however, today while arguing with people about abortion rights, I realized that I couldn't argue against the righ-winger claim that "women could just give their babies up for adoption." Now I disagree, however I really couldn't explain why.



Any thoughts?

part of the issue is being forced to carry to term. It can be very trying, particularly under circumstances of incest, rape or situations where the health of both parties is threatened.

be careful letting them direct the argument to the adoption point.

Think it'll be adopted then? How 'bout if it's not white?

I like Jeneane Garofalo's take on this: 'If you're so keen on seeing all of these unwanted pregnancies come to term, guess what? You're going to raise 'em. You get a Federally assigned 'buddy'. You get to take care of this 'buddy' for 18 to 20 years, devote all of your free time and 40% of your income to providing for the care and feeding of your new buddy.'

Even putting aside those issues (sick, minority) just look at science and demographics in today's society. People who CAN have kids are having fewer and fewer of them. Many, many couples now are deciding to have NO KIDS AT ALL. According to the 2,000 Census, only 49% of our adult population is even married at all. The birthrate is either just at 2.0 children per couple or slightly below. Do they really think vast amounts of people will be rushing to adopt all these unwanted kids?

Then there is 21st Century Science. Infertile couples, who only 20 years ago were unable to conceive, can now have their OWN children with all the advances in science. Will they just stop fertility treatments and ADOPT? Doubt that.

It just seems to me these proBIRTH people just want them to be born and don't really give a damn what happens to them after they are born.

And I am also fully pro-choice.

I do have to say, as a single man who has been on an adoption waiting list for almost 2 years and is now looking into foreign adoption because I just really want to be a dad, there are more of us out here wanting to adopt than you know. And I am "willing" (perfectly happy) to adopt a non-white child.

Also, there aren't orphanages in the US anymore, only Foster care.

I just had to ring in on that. I do believe a woman has a right to choose. (I would just personally love to find a woman who would chose me to be the father of the baby she doesn't want.)

If I don't want to give up my body for 9 months, I don't have to. I would also like to underline the complete lack of social structure for women who give up their babies for adoption; open adoption is a barely-legal concept for instance.

and this argument is one of those...just change the subject a little..and argue with an idea of adoption...which is a good thing..in most folks minds...so, there ya are...u have allowed the person to reframe the debate to a totally different subject. I am certainly not against adoption...i am totally for it...as long as it does not interfere with a womans choice to decide to or not to carry the pregnancy to term.

although it would still require a woman to be an incubator for 9 months. However the equation is not equal. There is not one person ready to adopt at the same time a baby is being born. That just isn't possible. Then the child gets into the foster system and goes from family to family and then the child gets a certain age and is not desireable anymore because he/she is older than most adopted parents want. It is not that simple a problem to have such a simple solution.

Reminds me of THE HANDMAID'S TALE.

First, we have to acknowledge that a fetus does not yet have rights - it is completely dependent on the mother to exist, and the mother's rights override that of the potential person.

Second, there can be LOTS of reasons that a woman might not want to carry a pregnancy to term. Her own health could be at risk, her activities are severely limited for 9 months if she wants to give birth to a healthy child, she is subjected to all the social stigma etc that can go with a pregnancy outside of marriage, and any other number of reasons.

IMO, adoption is usually the more moral choice, but I feel this MUST be the mother's choice.

In addition, I don't know that we can realistically expect all (or even most) unwanted prgnancies to lead to adoptions. Most couples are looking for healthy white newborns, and many children are left in orphanage or foster care systems for their entire childhood.

you wrote "the mother's rights override _that_ of the potential person.

To me that "that" is referring to some sort of right assigned to the "potential person".

If the fetus doesn't have rights it is sufficient to say that the mother's rights include the liberty to choose an abortion by a licensed health care provider under safe circumstances.

If you start into a defense on why a fetus doesn't have rights you change the argument from a woman's choice to fetal rights. Unless you are very confident of owning a knock-out argument, I'd stay away from engaging that concept.

and as someone who was raised by my step father, I would hope & pray that anyone considering abortion, just know how many couples are desparate to have children. They would love them as their own and would feel the love unconditionally from the parent. At least I would and did.

What about the simple monetary costs of an abortion versus thousands upon thousands of dollars in prenatal care? What is this another right-winger trying to keep the poor in poverty? You people make me sick!

There's your argument.

I can tell you that we actually pay for all the mother's prenatal care.

I said it above, I am pro-choice.

But the prenatal care in the "abortion vs adoption" argument is not valid because there are so many of us out here desperate to be parents (I've been on a waiting list for almost 2 years) that we will pay any expensese, even living expenses for the mother while she's pregnant.

Again, I absolutely agree that women need to have the right to choose. I just wish a woman would chose me to be the fahter of the baby she doesn't want.

That abstinence programs do not work. That birth control options must be taught, and made available without judgement. Tell him the goal for all of us is to reduce the need for abortions by reducing unwanted pregnancies.

Also tell your friend outlawing abortion will only effect the poor. Those that can afford can simply fly over the border to have it done.

While you are at it ask him why conservatives love to talk about getting governments of the backs of corporations but not individuals and not everyone shares his ideology.

is that pregnancy is a medical conditon that is not without risks. I have seen statistics (can't find them now alas) that a safe early abortion carries fewer risks to the womans health than carrying the pregnancy to term. Plus, if they pull out this arguement, ask them how many children they've adopted. I don't know if I'd want to put a child into our country's foster care/adoption system...

I didn't really let them frame the debate, I told them that if they wanted to force the woman to go through nine months of hell, and they'd have to pay for the welfare and social programs to help support it. I just have trouble verbalizing my thoughts sometimes.

So, reframe the debate on an economic level? That's pretty good actually. BTW, Janeane Garofalo is absolutely brilliant. :)

No one is reaquired under law to give up rights to their own body. A pregnancy is always a risk --always.

The forced pregnancy people are totally ignoring a human being who has rights to their own body, in favor of forcing their religious beliefs upon others . Their argument that a bunch of cells is a "baby" is stupid and ignorant but clever in it's use of guilt laden word usuage.

Women cannot be vassals or vessels of the state, should RvW be upturned and never should any woman be forced into doing something to her body because religion, well known for it's mysogeny and it's fear of women's blood, says so.

fetus ahead of the woman. Releasing a child for adoption is not really a choice when you don't want to be pregnant in the first place.

It doesn't take into account the physical, emotional and financial stress placed on a woman who doesn't want to go through a pregnancy.

For a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant, adoption is NOT a choice. It is, simply, forced procreation.

No one should be compelled, by the state, to carry a pregnancy to term. It should be done on one's own free will.

Pregnancy isn't exactly a picnic. My friends and I have often commented that childbirth is as close to death as we ever wish to be. It is only a slight exaggeration.

People who suggest this cavalier approach to forcing women to undergo all the physical risks of pregnancy and then give a child they'e carried for nine months to strangers they'll never meet, and surrender all rights to know what happened to the child they were forced to bear is utterly heartless.

Death is easier. You are allowed to grieve and go on. Never being allowed to know is worse. There is never closure with adoption. It's an unaccceptable option for most women.

Forcing such a choice is reproductive slavery. There is no other way to put it.

but that hasn't changed my feelings on the absolute importance of preserving the right to abortion.

Women who want an abortion will get one, and if they are made illegal, rich women will fly to Canada to get one, and poor women will risk death in a back ally.

I am truly thankful for the young women who had the courage and conviction to reject abortion and to give life to their babies. We're also grateful that these same young women were selfless enough to let their babies go, and allow my husband and me to adopt them.

But that was the moral/ spiritual decision that was these women's alone to make. I respect the pro-life position, but I think that the pro-life movement should focus on changing attitudes toward abortion one heart at a time, rather than trying to legislate morality.

With regard to forcing women to bring their pregnancies to term, this would be outrageous. Pregnancy and childbirth are medically and emotionally dangerous. Also, it is not necessarily the case that there are enough adoptive homes, especially for the many, many babies that are not blond and blue-eyed.

Adoption is another risky and difficult proposition for the prospective birthmother. If forced to bear their baby, many women, especially immature and younger teens, will keep it. (I know this from hard experience). Thus, there will be many women and girls who were at best luke-warm about having a baby taking home a needy, crying infant that they have little patience and commitment to care for. This is a recipe for disaster, since people who have children they don't want have a nasty habit of neglecting and physically or emotionally abusing those children.

How many will adopt children of color? Darn few, I imagine.

white babies with brown hair and brown eyes? Are they as unwanted as children of color?

but after the child is born, they couldn't give a rats ass. Cuts to the financial help given to the poor (the most likely to have an unplanned pregnancy), cuts to schools and scholarship, cuts to day care, cuts to EVERYTHING. If the child is white, then yes, there will likely be an adoptive parent waiting. Minority children, or children who are given up after infancy, do not have enough people waiting for them for a person to use this as a catch-all.

Not to mention the fact that it is the woman's body, for christ sake. I once had a freer-type tell me that my pro-choice stance was akin to someone saying if they had a slave, then they have the right to kill the slave, and wouldn't I be against that? (and by proxy, if I am against that, somehow I should also be against abortion). If the slave (or any person) was for some reason growing INSIDE of a person, then do what you need to do. Apples to oranges.

It's your body.

who married a homophobic, right wing, religious zealot. Getting pregnant was very difficult for them & she had several miscarriages. I asked once if they considered adoption. Her answer stunned me. "No, we don't want to take the chance that we will end up with a homosexual child." ~~GASP! Since then she has had 3 children. I hope none of her children are homosexual as her husband will probably disown them.

I think many of the zealots who want to force women to carry pregnancies to term with the offer of adoption as the solution, would never adopt these babies themselves.

You might try explaining to him that "pro-choicers" aren't taking away any options from women..unlike the pro-preggers.

sexual behavior.

My mother died from cancer when I was about 1 yr old. I spent alot of time floating around family members before ending up with one. Never adopted, never legally anything. I have found when talking to others with my kind of crap, adoptees do not fair so well. Even in the best of situations there is often an incomplete identity. As far as foster children....I know there are some kind, caring people out there, but...I'm not sure that any professional even understands how that missing bond between mother and child affects ones psyche. I have never had any children because of my childhood or lack thereof, and am grateful every day for it. Somehow I always knew were I to have a child my misery would be compounded beyond endurance. I thoroughly understand the cycle of abuse, and the desperation of those who have never learned to cope. To me it is far, far more than a fetus. It can be several life times of unnecessary pain and unfortunate consequences.

And, it haunted me for years, tore at my soul and inner being. Eventually, I adjusted to it and accepted that what I'd felt all along that it was "best for the baby," remained true and that it wasn't about me.

Two of my daughters have had abortions and suffered far less. They went on with their lives. One has refused to have any children, and for her, I think it's a wise decision. The other has married the man who caused the first ill-timed pregnancy and they have two great kids and have become excellent parents.

However, the baby girl whom I gave up at birth found me this past year. During my ongoing conversations with her, she thanked me for giving her life. We've had interesting discussions because she is also pro-choice and a progressive liberal. She has chosen to not have any kids herself.

There are no easy answers to this issue. I've seen both sides and have no strong advocacy for adoption versus abortion, especially if the abortion is early in the pregnancy. But, having talked with my lost daughter, I also recognize that life is a path that cannot be pre-determined as "good" or "bad." I do think that abortion should be a thoughtful and considered decision, based on a series of facts and possibilities. Wherever one is at the moment of decision isn't where one will end up over a lifetime.

of infants and children waiting to be adopted in the U.S. It indicates that Canadians are adopting these children of color from our country rather than from overseas - China, Eastern Europe, etc. One can pretty much assume that if abortion were outlawed the numbers of these babies would skyrocket and placing them would pose difficulties even with Canada willing to take our "unwanted". Sad.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/11/60minutes/main673597.shtml

Antichoicers are all about the welfare of the child. Can they not see that sometimes a mother's choice to end a pregnancy is the best for all concerned?