Abortion v Adoption

[Lycan]

For those of you that voted adopted how many of you have adopted children of your own?

I voted adoption but have not adopted because I cannot afford another child. I have 2 kids and upon the birth of the second knew I could not afford anymore so I underwent sterilization. If I ever become able to afford another child I will certainly adopt, but because I cannot adopt at this time in no way disqualifies my views on adoption and abortion.

As for doctors refusing to perform sterilizations, you can always find a doctor who will. I was 24 when I had did mine, my doctor was hesitant for the "you are so young" reason. I told him that if I was ever in the position where I could afford another child, I would be able to afford to have the tubal reversed or adopt. He then agreed. You may have to look for them but you can find them.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

But in this "Free" society we all are forced to do things all the time...

We have laws that say you have to wear a seatbelt when in a vehicle whether you want to or not. Not everyone wants to wear one, but everyone has to. The law takes away the free choice, but was intended to save lives. Which is exactly what abolishing abortion would do, take the free choice to save lives. The same can be said of assault, the law takes away the free choice of knocking random strangers up side the head, but is in place protect people. Because of the nature of man, a completely free society is an impossibility. IMHO, people pitch a fit when they are adversely affected by someone else invoking personal liberties, but refuse to acknowledge a problem when their own impede or affect others.

I agree, free societies will always be regulated, and the regulations come from reason and are legislated by democratic process.

We are not forced to wear seatbelts, it is merely suggested. Forcing women to have children is much more invasive and personal, and dierectly affects their health for better or worse. It is not like assault - it is one's rights over the fate of their own body. Forcing a woman to having a baby against her will and not allowing them to have proper medical attention is comparable to torture.

 

[KateTacular]

As for doctors refusing to perform sterilizations, you can always find a doctor who will. I was 24 when I had did mine, my doctor was hesitant for the "you are so young" reason.

And imagine what the response would have been if you HADN'T already had two children. Yes, technically, there ARE doctors out there that will do it, but it's not always feasible for someone to get to one. Imagine a person with little money who lives in a rural, "Bible Belt" region. It's likely that it would just be impossible for him/her to get to a doctor that would sterilize them [lack of money, can't take any time off work to travel, etc...].

 

[Ardhanariswar]

i think abortion is okay during the first trimester... thats where i would draw the line. i really dont like the adoption system in the U.S. statistics show that white males get first preference, then white females, then black males, then black females. Personally, i would not want to face the uncertainty about having my child brought up in an abusive houshold if i gave it up for adoption. Id rather commit the sin of murdering (if you want to use such a dramatic word) and let it be reborn to other parents, more caring and deserving. Sure, ive sinned, but if i cannot properly support it... theres not much point to life is there?

actually, theres a new statistic which shows that states (forgot which) with the highest abortion rates, have the least amount of crime. wierd? def ya.

concerning te matter of abortion or adotoption, im leaning towards abortion. sure its bad, but think of the children. our society is going downhill anyway. people will do what they want. Personally, i hope that will never get to the situation where i will need an abortion (if i was female)... but if i needed to, i would... but then again, i really would not be in any such situation because i have values and morals....

and since i cannot have children of my own, i plan on adoption!

 

[michel]

I am not trying to spark another debate within this one, and if necessary, we can open another thread for this:

To those that say (unequivocally) that ALL abortion is wrong, what answer do you give to the children that currently live in orphanages and foster homes? Secondly, how many adopted children currently live in your house?

Just asking,
TVOR

That's a good question TVOR; I have no adopted children in my house, because I would not judged 'good enough'.

Whilst any couple can have as many babies as they want, if you want to adopt (at least here in England) you have to be 100% 'perfect'. I am disabled, and 56 years old (so there is no way I would be allowed to adopt). Marie and I have considered fostering, but we know that once we have a child under our roof for a while, it would break our hearts if they were to return to their parents.

Thirdly, we have two children, and we want to give them the best start in life as possible; it would be unfair on them. But I can see your point.

 

[Lycan]

We are not forced to wear seatbelts, it is merely suggested.
Forcing women to have children is much more invasive and personal, and dierectly affects their health for better or worse.

I don't know where you live but here in Texas it is a law, not a suggestion.

It is not like assault - it is one's rights over the fate of their own body.

It is not just fate of their own bodies but the fate of both themselves and the baby. So yes it is like assault.

Forcing a woman to having a baby against her will and not allowing them to have proper medical attention is comparable to torture

Denying an abortion is a far cry from denial of proper medical attention.

 

[Fluffy]

One problem with this is the unwillingness of many, many doctors to sterilize people who are unmarried, young, and/or have not had a child yet, even though that would be the entire point for a lot of people. Also, the cost can be prohibitive for many people.

This does seem like a weird position from the doctors point of view unless there is some kind of high risk factor during the sterilisation procedure which I am otherwise unaware of. They may be afraid of getting sued but I doubt even this would be a large problem for them. I agree the cost could be a problem but this is something I often forget coming from a country with free medical care.

Why don't you just lie and tell them that you have already had kids? They won't turn you away then.

I told him that if I was ever in the position where I could afford another child, I would be able to afford to have the tubal reversed or adopt. He then agreed. You may have to look for them but you can find them.

Ah I was not aware that the process was reversible, in that case it degrades the doctor's position even further.

I agree, free societies will always be regulated, and the regulations come from reason and are legislated by democratic process.

We are not forced to wear seatbelts, it is merely suggested. Forcing women to have children is much more invasive and personal, and dierectly affects their health for better or worse. It is not like assault - it is one's rights over the fate of their own body. Forcing a woman to having a baby against her will and not allowing them to have proper medical attention is comparable to torture.

There are other ways of encouraging a certain behaviour in a population other than by making something illegal. Besides it is not as if the women would have to keep the baby for the whole 9 months since it could be delivered prematurely. As science progresses, this time will become shorter and shorter.

 

[Dinogrrl]

I have issues with extremely premature babies and keeping them alive, but that's not the point of this thread.

And I wasn't aware that the sterilization process could be reversed. I would imagine it may or may not work, but...you mind giving us a link to a website explaining it?


Anyway, I know that if I could, I'd just say "here's my uterus, and my ovaries, TAKE THEM AWAY plzkthnx." But that's also because my family's prone to ovarian cancers and such (my mom had it when I was younger ._. it was scary), and it would make my world if I could just get rid of it all and never have to worry about it XD lol.

 

[Fluffy]

I have issues with extremely premature babies and keeping them alive, but that's not the point of this thread.

And I wasn't aware that the sterilization process could be reversed. I would imagine it may or may not work, but...you mind giving us a link to a website explaining it?

Well this might not be correct but it seems to me that if sterilisation is done by cutting through the relevant tubes depending on gender then if these tubes were just reconnected then they would grow back together again? That would explain why sterilisation isn't 100% effective if this happened by accident in the body without the doctors realising.

 

[Dinogrrl]

That's what I was thinking they'd do. But that just seems to me like a procedure that would fail more often than not...but maybe I'm just being pessimistic.

 

[Lycan]

vasectomy reversal - http://www.vasectomy.com/ArticleDetail.asp?ArticleId=7&DoctorId=
tubal reversal - http://www.tubal-reversal.net/

 

[johnnys4life]

Guess how many people there are waiting on waiting lists to adopt even deformed children? Let's just say, A LOT. Some people truly can not bear children. My friend was born without ovaries. Another girl I know has only one kidney and couldn't take the stress of pregnancy on her body.

So I suppose you are asking which is better for the woman, since we all know which one is better for the child! I wouldn't want to have been aborted, no matter how bad life gets, I'm grateful for it, and if you aren't, that's a problem you need to fix.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Intolerance of the viewpoint and values of others is a problem that needs to be fixed as well.

TVOR

 

[Pah]

Based on current AFCARS estimates released January 2000, there are approximately 520,000 children currently in foster care in the United States. Of these, 117,000 are eligible for adoption.

http://statistics.adoption.com/information/adoption-statistics-foster-care-1999.html

See the site for more data.

Of the 500,000 women seeking to adopt, only 100,000 had actually applied to adopt a child. (National Center for Health Statistics, 1997)

http://statistics.adoption.com/information/adoption-statistics-hoping-to-adopt.html

Lets see now - there seems to be more avavlable for adoption than those actually willing to adopt.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Lets see now - there seems to be more avavlable for adoption than those actually willing to adopt.

Odd that the line of people waiting to adopt children with handicaps should be so long, while perfectly healthy children go wanting....

If I didn't know better, I'd say someone has skewed the facts a little...:tsk:

TVOR

PS - lest anyone wonder, I trust Pah's statistical references before the anecdotal "evidence" provided by others.

 

[Hallenee]

I know of people that have been happily adopted but I also know of many more people who have been passed from family to family because they had problems and my aunt was almost sexually abused in a children's home. I would rather face the guilt of knowing I had not allowed a child to live than to face the guilt that I could be letting my child live a life of misery. And it would be the entire life because what happens in your childhood can affect you later in life.

 

[Sunstone]

Welcome to the forums, Hallenee! That's a pretty name.

 

[Lycan]

Well then since there are alot a children that need to be adopted, child abuse exists, people can't deal with taking responsibility for themselves (and their offspring), and people suffer.... Let's just kill them all, kill all of the unborn babies, kill all of the suffering kids in foster care, kill any child not adopted by oh let's just say 3, kill any child taken by CPS because their parents beat them, kill all the kids ever molested....and while we are at it let's just kill the homeless, kill abused wives, kill alcoholics, kill people with illnesses, hell we will just kill em all and then we won't have it on our conscience that we let someone live that might experience suffering.

 

[Pah]

I know of people that have been happily adopted but I also know of many more people who have been passed from family to family because they had problems and my aunt was almost sexually abused in a children's home. I would rather face the guilt of knowing I had not allowed a child to live than to face the guilt that I could be letting my child live a life of misery. And it would be the entire life because what happens in your childhood can affect you later in life.

Although I am firmly pro-choice, I must take exception to your reason for having an abortion. My postion says that pro-life can not base a decision on potentiallity, so negative potential should not count either

Just a thought and if you want to continue this sub-topic, may I suggest you start a thread. Hehehe. That would make it a first thread as a result of your first post. Glad to have you here!!!!!

 

[Sunstone]

I think it's pretty well established by Pah's statistics that adoption is not a cure all for abortion. That is, there are not enough people willing to adopt children for adoption to be a cure all for abortion.