Welcome to Gaia! ::

Come on, you know what i'm talking about.

Most pregnant woman don't need an abortion in order to live their lives (only very few woman do and most of the time the doctors would probly try to save both first unless their unable to and it still has great risks. Not all surgeries save lifes even if that was the plan).

Except Waters is talking about pregnancy. You still have to take care of that kid for nine months.

I agree with you, but adoption doesn't solve unwanted pregnancy, just unwanted parenthood.

There are people out there -- such as myself -- who do not consider adoption an option. At all.
If I were unable to abort an unwanted pregnancy, I would sooner kill myself and take the fetus with me than live with myself after putting that child up for adoption. Adoption is not going to happen for me. End of story.
What option is left for me if I can't find a family I trust that would take care of the child, and I can't care for it myself?

And how exactly would I put a 10-week-old fetus up for adoption?

Would you consider Open Adoption (where you would get to find a family that you trust to raise the child, and even get the option to let that child know you as it was growing up)? Just curious.

I also couldn't imagine putting a child up for "Closed" Adoption. There are far too many flaws in the Adoption System for me to place yet another human into it.

Obviously, no one is talking about birthing a non-viable unborn human and trying to give it up for adoption.

Though, I am almost certain that pregnant women can start looking for potential adoptive families through Open Adoption. She would still have to carry the pregnancy to term, but I think part of the agreement is that the adoptive family pays all her medical bills (and possible more money for living on).

Eventually, with fetal transplant surgery, one actually could give an unborn human up for adoption.

See? this is what I don't get.
People would choose to kill themselfs or an innocent unborn child instead of giving a chance for them to live without you having to worry about caring for them?
Please explain why adoption is far worse then abortion cause I really want to know and understand.

Who says the child would be unhappy or never get adopted? Who says there will be no family that is trust worthy and willing and able to adopt a child that needs a home and a family?

And who said anything about putting a fetus for abortion? That made no sense,sorry.

I know plenty of kids who have been raised by their parents, who wonder why they don't love them. Really that doesn't have much to do with adoption so much as the adoptees world view/personal view. My boyfriend was adopted and he's more afraid that he's going to find out that his mother wanted an abortion, when she was pregnant with him (abortion was illegal in Canada until 1988, he was born in 1986).

However that says he does not feel a lack of love because as he puts it "My parents REALLY chose me." They'd been trying to have kids and found out that they couldn't.

Statistically speaking children are more likely to be put into a loving home, than they are to be put in a home that is abusive. Not simply because of the fact people are screened and all that fun stuff, but also because statistically speaking there are less abusive households than there are normal loving ones.

The child is NOT just as likely to get adopted into a bad home, or not adopted at all. I don't know who's been telling you this, but they're lying. Especially newborns, even if they aren't white. There is a waiting list for them and the screening process is extra, in order to cut down the waiting list. For instance, if you are able to/have had a child before chances are they will not let you adopt a newborn. If you are over a certain age, same deal etc.

Not only this but I've never understood this "I'm going to kill you because I love you, instead of letting you lead a life." Truthfully, every arguement I've heard made by people who would rather abort than give their child up for adoption has sounded selfish.

(please note, these are not all from you)

- "I wouldn't want to live my life knowing my child is out there and I'm not raising them." aka "If I can't have them, no one can."
- "It's more kind." Even though after they ARE born they can choose to end their own life, but if they're killed they can't choose to keep living.
- "I don't want my DNA out in the world." It's not yours.
- "I don't want to bring another person into the world." So they kill off their child if they get pregnant instead of themselves from the getgo. They're allowed to live, but it's wrong to bring in more than that.
etc.

There has never been one arguement that is for abortion but against adoption, that is not completely self centred (but usually dressed up to be "for the childs own good") IMHO.

1) The person who is being put up for adoption.

2) Your best friend would rather be dead? Then really, I have to ask, why isn't she? I mean really and truely if someone wants to be dead than it's easy enough. The difference here is her mother gave her a choice to live out her life. What she does with it now is just that, her choice. If she decides to live a good life, she can. If she decides to kill herself she can do that too, though I hope she wouldn't.

She has the option now, her mother gave her that, instead of just deciding for her.

3) How many children do you know who are born at the age of 5 or above?

4) I'm not saying that I have the warm-fuzzies for the adoption system either. But really, every institution has problems and kinks, and part of the problem is the people adopting. Most people want to raise the child from the get-go.

However there is a waiting list for a reason. Because people do not just decide "Hey! Well I can't get a newborn right now, I guess I'll go for a 3 year old!" These people are willing to wait YEARS to get a newborn, so I don't think you adding a child or not adding a child is going to change their minds.

White babies are not specifically what people want. People generally want children of the same race as them, because caucasian is the predominant race in Canada and the US, caucasian children are in the highest demand. However, that being said if you go onto an adoption agency and look for children under the age of 1, see how many you can pull up. Because I've done it and I didn't find any.

5) This isn't true. I understand people wanting to abort severly disabled children, as an act of compassion. I do not agree with it, nor condone it, however I understand and sympathize with their reasoning. I believe that there can be reasons people choose to abort rather than adopt out, which are not completely selfish, or that I can sympathize with, though I may not agree with them myself. Just as I can understand the general idea behind people wanting to have abortion available to them, though I do not agree with it.

However I believe that some people would rather kill their child than reliquish control of them, which is why they do not consider adoption.

1) She would rather have not experienced it? I would rather have no experienced stepping on a nail (twice) in my past, however that doesn't mean I would rather my parents killed me first. I would rather not have experienced failing EXT, feeling heartbreak, watching loved ones die etc.

There are plenty of bad experiences, and everyone has them. It's part of life and of being alive. If she would rather not be dead, now, how can you justify saying she'd rather have been aborted? Being aborted would mean she would not be alive now.

Or perhaps what you mean is she would rather have not gone through difficult periods in her life, and wishes there was another alternative.

2) The odds are in favour of a newborn being put up for adoption, so long as it's relatively healthy. In fact there is a very slim chance your child would not be adopted.

According to this source 63% of children are in fostercare for LESS than 2 years. Only 14% stay in fostercare for 5 years or more. Not to mention that only 20% of people that are in fostercare are up for adoption. PLUS only 6% of people in foster care are under the age of 1.

3) Some people give their children up after they're older, if they realize they can't take care of them. My boyfriend was given up when he was 6 months old, his brother was taken from his mother (not the same biological mother) and raised by his grandparents for awhile, then given up by them when he was 3.

Not to mention that not everyone waiting is caucasian.

4) It's understandable in the sense that we as humans forget that the way we see the world is coloured by the fact we've experienced it as we are. People look at disabled people (and I mean in more severe forms, not like, they have 6 fingers) and imagine what it would be like for them, living like that. They forget that, that life is all the other person has known.

Parents sometimes worry that their childrens' lives will be miserable, if they are disabled, because THEY would be miserable if they were to become disabled. In a way they are trying to save their child from living a life where they cannot experience things the way the parent would imagine they would want to experience it. Not to mention if they were planning on giving the child up for adoption.

It doesn't mean they're right, but I can understand the underlying reasoning.

It's kind of like, if the technology was available and it was shown your child had a defect, would you change it? Would that be okay? Why would/wouldn't it? Where would it end?

Some people might say that if their child was born with brittle bone syndrome they would change it for their own good. I can completely understand that, I mean could you imagine going through life and worrying about your bones breaking with everything that you do? But another person may decide that they're going to change their childs sexuality. Is that okay? Why/why not? I mean you have to admit it would be much easier to be straight in today's world than it would to be gay. Especially if that person wants to be married (not a problem in Canada anymore) or raise a family. But would a person choose to change something like that if according to their moral code, there was nothing wrong with being homosexual? Would it be okay to deny them to right to change something like that?

The problem is not the idea behind it, it's where the line is drawn.