Welcome to Gaia! ::

Do you mean choosing adoptiong over abortion or choosing adoption as in adopting kids?

Personally, I'd rather go through an illegal abortion (should it come to that) that might scar me for life or even kill me, then to give birth to an innocent kid and have them lead a lifetime of pain and scars in the adoption system.

Or if your talking about adopting kids:
Again personally - I plan on adopting at least one kid in my life.
Perferably an older child, slight mental/physical issues don't bother me, but I am not able to give the best type of care to.....say someone with autism, it's just something I can't do - not because I don't want to, just because I can't, I lack some ability.

Reading things over and over like the second paragraph you quoted, and worse, like the stories that make the news because they are so gruesome. while doing research on the abortion front have given me the insight that even though I didn't have the best of childhoods', those children have it much worse off. And if the other side is just willing to push the adoption issue without thinking about the kids inquestion, well then I guess It's my job to be woman enough to step up to the plate and give one or more of those kids something better.

They didn't choose to live the life they are living, but it could be my choice that changes it all.

As pro-choice as I may be, I feel that the main (if not the only real) justification for aborting is as a means of preventing women from undergoing the stresses of raising and/or bearing children. Adoption is NOT a substitute as it is even more selfish to expect someone to raise a child for you than to just put your uterus on the back burner, so to speak. To produce a child, only to give it to someone else, is nonsensical if not arrogant. Likewise, to produce a child only to cast it aside because of issues with that particular child is the highest form of reproductive arrogance.

Which, of course, leads to the question of aborting based on defect. I don't feel that it's particularly good rationale, as various problems are more difficult than others, and of course as the ability to determine problems in utero arises (Oh, look! We have an autistic fetus! Or they could just be a goth-in-training . . .), there will be issues in which problems are worth nipping in the bud and which have ethical constraints where the problems found are not life-threatening, just aggravating.

I don't feel that aborting a child based on ability is any better than aborting based on gender. Honestly? If you're not thinking about this based on the efforts you'll have to put forth to raise ANY child, let alone raising one differently based on ability, then why does it make a difference what the child actually is?

The concept of keeping sibling groups together is a double-edged sword. On one side, yes, it does retain some sense of family for the children. On the other side, it's sad to see them rot in the adoption system just because people only want to adopt ONE child. This upsets me...if I do choose to adopt, I'll definitely look into adopting siblings, if only to keep them together and give them a better life at the same time.