Abortion v Adoption

[Dinogrrl]

Even people who don't 'accidentally' get pregnant consider abortion.
My mom did. She thought she was pregnant at a time when she was taking Accutane, which can cause severe birth defects. My family simply was not, a still is not, able to handle a child that would need round-the-clock care. And I honestly don't know of many people who would go out and willingly pick a child like that for adoption when there's plenty of perfectly healthy children out there.
So yes. She would have had an abortion.
Except she didn't need to, because the wierd readings on the pregnancy test were from ovarian cancer, not a child 9_9.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Does it make so much of a difference that you are killing them a few years earlier?

Again, you are talking of "killing" a fetus. You may see this as a legitimate way to characterize an abortion, while I see it as the equivalent of calling it murder. In the case of a child that is 5 years or 15 years old, it would be taking the life of a living human being. On the other hand, while it is a shame to have to abort a fetus, it is not the same as killing a child (at least, it isn't the same to me). If we are talking about a single instance, adoption would seem to be the much preferred choice. The truth is that we are talking about some astronomically high numbers, and I have to agree with Pah - the system (current state) is already unable to find placement for a massive number of kids. To add huge numbers to that system (especially without funding it) is almost incomprehensible.

Not if people would actually be responsible and stop "accidentally" getting pregnant.

As Khale said, that isn't going to happen. To act as if everyone in the world is suddenly going to mature enough to prevent unwanted pregnancies is wishful thinking - and planning on such an occurence is a recipe for disaster.

TVOR

 

[Khale]

Again, you are talking of "killing" a fetus. You may see this as a legitimate way to characterize an abortion, while I see it as the equivalent of calling it murder. In the case of a child that is 5 years or 15 years old, it would be taking the life of a living human being. On the other hand, while it is a shame to have to abort a fetus, it is not the same as killing a child (at least, it isn't the same to me).

I can't really argue this since it is mostly our personal opinions on death and life so... on to the next bit.

If we are talking about a single instance, adoption would seem to be the much preferred choice. The truth is that we are talking about some astronomically high numbers, and I have to agree with Pah - the system (current state) is already unable to find placement for a massive number of kids. To add huge numbers to that system (especially without funding it) is almost incomprehensible.

It is true that it would be incomprehensible to try to add all these children to the system at once. However, as Fluffy stated this would be best implemented as a gradual shift. The funding and reform would (with any luck and compassion) closely follow that shift. I don't believe that any political group would shoot themselves in the foot by declaring all abortion illegal at a single point in time.

 

[Pah]

I agree pah but I think that the scenario you suggest would only happen if there was an immediate shift from abortion to no abortion. A gradual shift over time would allow slack to be built into the system, allowing it to grow with the increasing demand.

That's possible - getting a social policy going by education instead of law. But I wonder if adoption is already mentioned in pre-abortion counceling. I have a feeling, no knowledge but just a feeling, that it is by some state law.

 

[Pah]

http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/air/air_vol9no1_1995.html
The following appears as footnote 22

In the U.S., the States of Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Montana, Mississippi and Indiana have enacted statutes that expressly proscribe the nature and content of informed consent in pre-abortion counseling and decision making.

The referenced article then goes on to say

In the United States today, the following elements of informed consent have been mandated in a number of States:

1. the medical risks associated with pregnancy termination;
2. the probable gestational age of the unborn child;
3. the alternative risks associated with carrying to term;
4. the medical assistance benefits, if childbirth were elected;
5. the father’s liability for financial assistance;
6. the opportunity to review printed information, descriptive of fetal development; and
7. some waiting period for deliberation, usually 24-48 hours.

 

[Pah]

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Voice of Reason
Again, you are talking of "killing" a fetus. You may see this as a legitimate way to characterize an abortion, while I see it as the equivalent of calling it murder. In the case of a child that is 5 years or 15 years old, it would be taking the life of a living human being. On the other hand, while it is a shame to have to abort a fetus, it is not the same as killing a child (at least, it isn't the same to me).

I can't really argue this since it is mostly our personal opinions on death and life so... on to the next bit.

Actually it is law and not personal opinion.

 

[The Black Whirlwind]

i have an adopted cousin from china. she was dumped into a trash can by her parents, but then was put into an oprphanage and adopted by my aunt and uncle. she is a very nice person, and i think that adoption is better because then you dont have the moral costraints or the guilt (if you care about killing something or not, that is) if you had an abortion, and you can help a pair of frigid people have a child to love and care for. defineteley approve adoption over abortion. no brainer.

 

[michel]

Again, you are talking of "killing" a fetus. You may see this as a legitimate way to characterize an abortion, while I see it as the equivalent of calling it murder. In the case of a child that is 5 years or 15 years old, it would be taking the life of a living human being. On the other hand, while it is a shame to have to abort a fetus, it is not the same as killing a child (at least, it isn't the same to me). If we are talking about a single instance, adoption would seem to be the much preferred choice. The truth is that we are talking about some astronomically high numbers, and I have to agree with Pah - the system (current state) is already unable to find placement for a massive number of kids. To add huge numbers to that system (especially without funding it) is almost incomprehensible.



As Khale said, that isn't going to happen. To act as if everyone in the world is suddenly going to mature enough to prevent unwanted pregnancies is wishful thinking - and planning on such an occurence is a recipe for disaster.

TVOR

TVOR, could you please qualify the reason why you see a difference?

 

[TheHeretic]

There are no easy answers to such controversial questions.

Abortion is more fixed. You know exactly what you are doing.

Adoption is a mixed bag. The child may have a horrible, or excellent life. But I think everyone deserves this oppourtunity.

Killing a potential human being is never the best option, but is sometimes the ONLY option.

I cannot give 1 answer here because circumstances vary. Each choice has its place.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

TVOR, could you please qualify the reason why you see a difference?

Michel -
I make the statement you are referring to based on my view that the fetus is not yet a viable human being. Opinion's on when the fetus becomes a human being range from the moment of conception for some people, to the moment of delivery for others. I am firmly in the latter camp. To me, the mother's health and well being trump that of the fetus until the moment that a baby is delivered into the world. Until that very moment, I view the fetus as a part of the woman's body - albeit distinctly different in terms of potential (as opposed to any other part of her body).
So, for me, while the aborting of a pregnancy is a terrible choice for any woman to have to make, it is still her choice, because it is her body. Contrary to what many of the hardline Pro-life literature would have us believe, I suspect that it is a decision that very few women make with a cavalier attitude and little forethought.

I base all of my views on abortion on one aspect, and one aspect only. If my wife were pregnant (at any stage of the pregnancy) and the doctor told us that "due to complications, it is an either/or situation", I would unhesitatingly, without exception, choose the health (much less life) of my wife over that of the unborn fetus. EVERY time.

Basically, I value the rights of the woman over the rights of the fetus. I understand that there are people that disagree with me, and my line of thought, but I don't understand why anyone would value the fetus more than the woman.

Mind you, Michel, that I am not Pro-Abortion, and I resent very strongly being labeled as such by others that disagree with my position. I would not deign to label someone that disagrees with me as "Pro-Slavery".

On a last note, I find it odd that men (being one myself) should have as much input on this entire subject as women, since women are the ones that are pregnant. That is for another thread - perhaps someone would like to start that thread.

Thanks,
TVOR

 

[Khale]

Actually it is law and not personal opinion.

I believe we were discussing the philisophical (is that the word I'm looking for?) reasons as opposed to the legal reasons. In that case it would be personal opinion.

Truthfully though, I don't always agree with the law on matters such as these. Take for example the current bans on gay marriage. I would consider that to be a violation of human rights. However, the current laws in place would make it seem that it is acceptable.

 

[Pah]

I believe we were discussing the philisophical (is that the word I'm looking for?) reasons as opposed to the legal reasons. In that case it would be personal opinion.

Truthfully though, I don't always agree with the law on matters such as these. Take for example the current bans on gay marriage. I would consider that to be a violation of human rights. However, the current laws in place would make it seem that it is acceptable.

There is a philosophy of law as well as a philosophy of life and or belief. We are talking about social policy and that is implemented in law. The philosophy of right and freedoms (Locke is an example of such a philospher) is what governs the current status of our social policy. I believe law is of great importance to the discussion and has a place at this table.

The national policy of abortion has been tested in our federal courts whereas gay marriage has not. The social policy of same-sex marriage has been installed into state law based on a belief system other than constitutional law but is not a federal marriage policy.

But those are my opinions and have been dismissed before - I'll live.