Welcome to Gaia! ::

New member, new post, new topic.

I constantly hear that adoption is the solution to abortion. If a woman has an unwanted pregnancy, she should carry it and then give the child up for adoption, as there are millions of families that want children.

There are three problems that I find wrong with this as a solution, at least personally. Product Varies With Use, I Am Not A Lawyer, Your Mileage May Vary, Etc.

1) It is not the job of the fertile to provide children for the infertile. This is not a communist society, and those who can are not made to give of themselves for those who don't have. I do not have to chew food for those without teeth despite the fact I have a working set of teeth, I do not have to give money to those who are without money (bar taxes, which are taken without my consent) despite the fact I have a bank account, and I don't have to give blood for those who are in accidents despite having the universal type. Telling me that because another couple wants a child and that I am depriving them of their child is like telling me that I should give up a kidney of mine for those poor people who are on dialysis.

2) Adoption is not a solution to pregnancy. It is a solution to parenting. While many couples are more than willing to pay the bills for a pregnant woman who will give them a child, the birth mother still has to stay pregnant. Many women who would accidentally concieve--the childfree, the poor, those without health care or who are at high risk during pregnancy--would still have to take on those risks for someone else, and thus would not want to be pregnant at all. While a great many women would have no problem being pregnant for another person, it should be done freely, not as an obligation.

3) As the adoption system stands, I find adoption as morally rephrehensible(sp?) as many anti-abortionists find abortion. I believe that if a family really wants to open thier home to a child to love, as a great many adoption couples say, they would not put filters on the children that come to them. I believe that beggars cannot be choosers. I believe that no one should be told that adoption is the best while thousands of children are without homes and have not and may never be adopted. I believe the practice of snatching up perfect desired children--and putting more in to be taken--takes chances away from children who could find homes. I believe that denying people the chance to adopt based on gender, sexuality, finances, or race is one of the fundamental problems that must be addressed. And I firmly believe that giving a child up for adoption personally would be abandoning a child and would be immoral of me as a human being who values life. This means that in the eyes of a great many people, I would rather be a murderer. But in my eyes, better to kill than to abandon.

I want every child to be wanted, loved, and given a home. As adoption stands right now, it is a corrupt system and I will have no part in it whatsoever or endorse it.

I admit, in some ways adoption doesn't work as well as it could. But the whole point is that these children are given life, a chance to live at all. And adoption isn't all bad, for example, I have 4 adopted cousins from Columbia and they are most likely getting a better life here than they were there.

It's never an issue of quantity over quality. It's simply an issue of basic human rights. I don't want the world to be overflowed with unadopted unhappy children, but if it means that these kids get a chance at life, a chance to experience and make their OWN decisions, instead of having the most important decision of their life being made for them, then their life would be better. If someone's life is s**t, or is going to be s**t, you don't just KILL them. And if you want to kill someone to make your quality of life better, do you do it?

That's why abortion doesn't work for me.

I don't think that adoption is the solution to abortion. If everybody adopts, it's not going to stop abortions. What would stop abortions is stopping premarital sex and the like. (As if that's going to happen...)

But I do think that adoption is a better solution to unwanted pregnancy than abortion.

The problem with trying to stop premarital sex is that not everyone believes there is something inherantly wrong with premarital sex. I, for one, find no problem with it or any sexual practice as long as all parties are consenting, honest, mentally set human adults.

That is why used the words, "and the like." It's not just the teenagers and the unmarried having abortions. It's the adulterers and the married couples, too.



The problem occurs when those consenting, honest, mentally set human adults make a mistake, get pregnant without meaning to, and decide that the only way out is to get rid of their child.

And Mcphee, you're not helping...
But yeah, some pro-lifers don't think there's anything wrong with pre-marital sex (that should disprove the part about us all being Christian bible-thumpers that want to do away with sex forever). The point we agree on is no abortion. xd

Adoption is getting rid of the child too, only now you'll have a child who will try to look for you after they turn 18--or, if you never allow yourself to be found, a child with no genetic and blood ties. I have too many health problems to give a child up for adoption, as I would never let that child find me or come into my life.

No, it's not removing the child before it is born, as abortion is. But it is, at the most basic level, getting rid of the child without any implication that you will care for it in the future or ever (unlike taking a child over a friend's, where you are expected to come back and get the child later on). Especially if you have the records sealed and don't allow the child to find you or contact you under any circumstances. It's just getting rid of a person who is now concious and will later know they were gotten rid of-- and in my personal case, most likely condemning a child to foster care for 18 years and a lifetime with no family connection.