to hate the, ''the baby could be adopted'' argument.

If someone wants to adopt then there are thousands of children waiting. Or they can offer a foster placement or some respite care.

Why don't all these thousands of would-be adopters do that?

I'm not anti abortion so know this sin;t aimed at me but

But the OP seems to indicate that all adoptive relationships can go haywire: not so.

I know of a good few (including my own FIL) who adore their adoptive parents and were given an excellent start in the midst of a warm family.

yes adoptive aprents and famillies face raised risk factors for family issues but whilst people shouldn't tell people not to have abortions, adoption is a valid option that can be considered too.

I'd actually love to foster but am barred due to the boy's SN. Was a part of ourt life plan before though.

Litchick, we are talking here about adoption v abortion. If a mother decides to have her child adopted instead of having an abortion, then that child will be adopted as a baby. So the 'older children' argument is valid for this particular thread.

Sorry, 80% succeed.

The figures for adoption breakdown are one in five. That is not a teeny tiny amount of children.
And yes, older children are over represented in these figures ( oh well that's okay then) but babies are still the subject of failed adoptions.
And they don't just go springing off to another, lovlier family. Adoptions take time to break down. Then it takes time to set up again.

There are 70,000 kids in the care system,the most vulnerable least advantaged children in society, do we really need more???

I have spent over ten years representing children in the care system and have been a foster carer for five.

If people want to adopt there are thousands of children waiting...

As Silver1 said, these tend to be older children who may have been in foster care. However, 75% of adoptions succeed and I think it is unfair of Litchick to imply that there are not many people seeking to adopt and that a significant number of adoptions break down, in order to back up her point of view.

I don?t know why people think there are no adopters waiting - there are so many families waiting to adopt babies - that isn?t really the issue. It?s that adoption isn?t necessarily the best alternative to abortion - the 2 things are so different, the only thing they have in common is that they are both options for pregnant women who don?t want to become mothers, and that no one would ever choose either option short sightedly.
?Unwanted? babies could be adopted (as mentioned in the OP) but the issues that adoption throws up makes it a whole different concept to early-pregnancy abortion, and carries totally different emotions and outcomes

According to Adoption UK, one in five adoptions break down. While clearly a minority, I would not call that very, very few.

Litchick not sure where your "facts" come from.
About 1/5 adoptions break down- these tend to be older placements, and also many of these children move on to another successful placement or they were too damaged to be able to function in a family.

As for the rest well...

I suppose that's the essential difference between those who agree and those who disagree with abortion, Mugglewump. To me, as soon as the child is conceived it is a living thing who has the same right to live as I have and you have.

Litchick, there are loads of families waiting to adopt babies. Why do you think so many people are going abroad to adopt? Where did you get the idea that finding an adoptive family is nigh on impossible? That is completely and totally untrue. And very, very few adoptions 'break down'. I have only heard of one and it was all over the papers in Ireland because the father was Irish. That is how unusual it is. I would imagine a very, very small percentage break down.

OP I completley agree with you.

No one has the right to force a woman to carry a child to term. The very idea is repugnant.

Yes, there are families waiting to adopt babies, but not as many as we think, and there is a distinct lack of families wanting to adopt imperfect babies, let me tell you.

Even finding a respite placement, never mind a foster placement, let alone an adoptive family, is nigh on impossible.

Then there is the fact that no one ever wants to talk about...how many adoptions break down.

One wasn't a child though, it was a foetus.

Well, in my opinion, both children had equal rights and getting rid of one to improve the quality of life of another is not a justification.

//It's not quite the same Fairycake.
You will not have set in motion the circumstances that requires another person to need your kidney, but the act of unprotected sex can lead to a foetus requiring your input to live.//#

By this reasoning, a father or mother could be forced to donate blood or organs to save the life of their sick child. They can't be, because whether or not you "caused" the existence of the needy party is irrelevant. That party still has no right to your body.

And what of me? I conceived on the mini pill, while using a condom. My surgical team wouldn't strilise me at dd2's birth (section #2) because it was 'not guarenteed' My GP wouldn't refer me for tubal ligation, because my baby wasn't a yr old (she was 5mths, my 2nd, I only wanted 2). My dh was waiting to see a dr about a vasectomy (v long wait list here).

I fell pregnant the very first (and only for a further 8mths) after dd2 was born. I had a section, so was sore & she was 5mths old when I was ready.

That first time, I fell pregnant. I found out a couple of weeks later due to tiredness & nausea. My periods hadn't returned because I was BF. I was bloody unlucky, while trying to prevent it from happening. I had no option. 2 very bad previous pregnancies left me with some minor medical issues, and I didn't want to put my body through more but having to have another section.

There was no way on this earth I would have considered adoption. 1/ because it was the pregnancy part that was harrowing for me & 2/ because in years to come, if (when) that child came looking for me, I would have to explain why I have 2 daughters & why I had to give it away. Therefore more pain. And there is no way that I would have a child & abandon it. Not having any idea what kind of life it is having, or what it is thinking.

If I was made to go through that pregnancy I would have driven my car into something hard. I was a mess & there was no way my children deserved to live with that! They are more important than a foetus. And no one has the right to say otherwise.

I am not sorry for what I did. I made a decision, with my dh for the best of our family.

It's not quite the same Fairycake.
You will not have set in motion the circumstances that requires another person to need your kidney, but the act of unprotected sex can lead to a foetus requiring your input to live.

but strawb, if the children are saying they want to be foster carers, surely that triggers discussion?

sterrry- It's simply what I've seen many many times. It also something I would NEVER discuss in a classroom as it's a rather sensitive issue for many children and families in the school. There's a time and place for opening your mouth and discussing certain views.

//The question is, for how long does the right to bodily integrity of an independant being trump the right to life for a dependant being.//

No, that isn't the question. The question is, "under what circumstances does one person's right to life override another person's right to bodily integrity?" And the answer is "never."
Nobody has the right to use my body to stay alive: I cannot be forced to give up a kidney, a lobe of my liver, or even so much as a pint of blood to keep any born person alive. So why should different rules apply when the needy party is unborn?

Edam, I don't understand how the act of birth affects your right to life. Please see my comment above regarding my stillborn baby. One baby was removed from me at 32 weeks breathing and living, feeling pain and being loved. The other had died, but just a couple of days previously they were in the same state, with the same feelings. The act of removing the living twin from my uterus did not change her right to life. What is is about birth that changes that right? A baby in utero is still the same baby, with the same feelings but with more protection from the outside world.
A very poorly premature baby who relies on intubation and IV has no less right to life, does it? Yet without the assistance of medical intervention it is not an independent being. Having said that, any newborn baby is unable to fend for itself, so does it only become a proper person when it is able to feed itself? Should infanticide become legal if it is in the best interests of the mother?

Strawberrycake - foster carers are never ?unqualified? and they don?t earn money through fostering - they get expenses. Often they will be expected to care for a troubled child with barely any notice period at all, and they give their whole lifestyles over to this role.
Also I would beg to question your statement ?Adopting a baby is VERY desirable but it's not popular to adopt one with any kind of problem?
All adopted children have issues
I do find your comments a little blinkered, and you seem to be against the system - does this come across in your discussions in the classrooms?

No one can decide you should be dead if they respect your right to life, whether they control your body or not. Even in the days when a husband controlled his wife's body (legal rape in marriage) he still couldn't legally kill her.

Obviously this is not every case but in the (deprived) area I work as a teacher there are a number of adopted/ fostered children in the school who were given away soon after or at birth, 2 of whom were abandoned soon after birth (one was actually found in bins by the school she now attends). It's sad to say but these 'unwanted babies' have problems. One has foetal alcohol syndrome very severely, two have mental health problems and brain damage believed to be as a result of drugs in the womb and another is known by the entire area to be given up by her mother who is a local sex worker, information that was fed back to her sadly. It's sad to say but the women who didn't want the baby made no attempt to protect their baby in the womb, in fact let harm come to them knowingly. They are not attractive potential adoptees as a result of this. Adopting a baby is VERY desirable but it's not popular to adopt one with any kind of problem, they often end up being fostered repeatedly, and they are the most vunerable. It's rare to find in this day and age a woman who cares about the baby's well being but yet can give it away.

Also there are some crap adoptive mothers out there! I know of a real extreme case. Where we are around 80% of children to be adopted are of an ethnic minority but around 80% of prospective parents are white british. The council no longer do cross-race adoptions so many many children in care or in below standard placements here are black. I think the experience varies massively from area to area. Here fostering is a nice earner, two children equal a very good wage for someone unqualified. I've even asked my class what job they want when they're older and a few have said 'foster parent'! It is a job to many, no bonding, just meeting needs such as clothing etc (as cheaply as possible) and it's bye bye forever when they're too old to bring in cash anymore. It really is sad to see children in this situation, I've been in many a care review meeting faced with the difficult dilemma of moving a child AGAIN from what they know and have sort of settled with balanced against trying to find them a good quality placement where they are well cared for.

That's the nub, isn't it Edam... there are those who believe the right to life does start at conception, at "quickening", or at birth.

NWMum - I think I misunderstood you then - you?re right, it would have been fantastic to have adopted from birth - my son was placed with us at 5 months old (which is pretty young) we were linked with him when he was 10 weeks old, which was when the placement order was granted. He was not relinquished, he was removed at birth and placed in one foster home until he came to live with us. We waited 2.5 months from finding out about him, which was really hard. The thing is, though, when you adopt, you go through this enormous process, and it stops becoming about you, the adoptive parent, from very early on and is all about the child (and often about the birth family too) - adoptive parents are right down the pecking order. Which is as it should be. I guess the thought of adopting the American way fills me with fear - it was bad enough waiting the 10 weeks between linking and matching panel, wondering if anything would go wrong, and then going to matching panel, desperately hoping they would say yes. The thought of doing that through a whole pregnancy when mum can change her mind at any minute, would just be so traumatic. On balance, I would much rather have done it the UK way and have the social services backing, even if it did mean missing out on 5 months of my son?s early life. Through the training, you are prepared for not having a newborn, so you never come to expect a newborn - it?s a form of grieving that you accept - to be honest, we were just thrilled that he was as young as he was, and we still got to have a ?baby? thinking that we never would have.
To link back to the OP, as an adoptive parent we have to talk to our children about the reasons that they were in care and adopted. I will have to speak to my son about the circumstances regarding his birth family and the reasons he and his siblings were removed - which is hard enough, but hopefully he will understand that it was the best thing for him (and consequently for us) - if he had been relinquished, I would find that very difficult to explain to him. How do you make him feel as though his life is better now, when rejected at such a young age? Adoption is not an alternative to abortion - it is a completely different concept