A lot of you have commented that each case has to be reviewed on its own merits. However, I must say that I worded my question very carefully so as to avoid making a blanket moral statement. For example choosing the abortion option is not so much saying that all unwanted pregnancies should be aborted, just that it is better for them to be aborted but sometimes one must resort to the unfortunate but necessary evil of adoption and vice versa.
I don't think adoption services are meant for people who just enjoy banging each other, then throwing their kid to live w/ strangers...
Actually I think you will find that this is exactly what the adoption service is for. Except in the case of rape and orphanage, unwanted children are the result of parents who enjoy banging each other and sending them off to live with strangers. Since a women can only get pregnant once a year (realistically) I don't think there will be a massive influx of unwanted children if women are forced to take their pregnancys to term.
If the woman wants to carry the fetus to term, then adoption is better.
If the woman doesn't want to be pregnant at all, then abortion is better.
Choice and free will are very important I agree. I think it is unfair to only consider the choice of the women and not the foetus, or if you do not believe that the foetus has free will, at least the potential of the foetus having free will. Besides that their is the choice of the father but that is a whole other kettle of fish (I love that expression
).
However, these rates are based on "perfect use" by women--that means using the method exactly as prescribed during every act of sexual intercourse.
From about.com. This is very important and must be taken into consideration. It is unfair, for example, to include statistics on the effectiveness of contraception which are down to human error and not the fault of the product. Secondly these statistics seem to feel that more than one contraceptive can't be used at the same time. If you are really worried about the risk then use the pill, a condom and spermicide.
Let's also not forget that it's
sometimes rather difficult to
get a hold of it.
This is true but if you couple this with multiple contraceptives and better sexual education then you are reducing the chance of an unwanted pregnancy to that of aliens coming down and impregnating you whilst you sleep. In other words, yes you will never get something to be 100% effective but you are accepting this when you decide to have sex and the consequences of your action are part of this acceptance.
I'm not necessarily arguing that abortion is wrong. Just that unwanted pregnancies are the fault of the couple engaging in the intercourse not the contraceptive.
there are just far too many children out there who will never get a chance to be adopted. and these children grow up feeling rejected and and i just don't think that is right.
Definitely a possibility but if this is the case and these children truly would prefer to be dead than alive then why dont they all kill themselves? At least this gives them the option.
So those of us who NEVER want children should remain celibate? Sex isn't just about making babies, it's an expression of intimacy and love.
Not necessarily. I am at a loss to see why, if checked regularly, sterilisation of both partners cannot lead to a fine sex life without children. Again if this risk is too much for you then celibacy might be your only option. Otherwise I am expressing myself intimately even though I know it might result in me having to take a potential life. Now this unfortunately just comes down to which you view as more valuable and I'm not about to degrade either position through inadequate language but this is the basic idea.