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

But I don't see how the right to life starts before birth. And the without bodily integrity there is no right to life - otherwise someone could control your body and decide it should be dead!

Sorry i seem to be hijacking this thread as some sort of stream of consiousness

Actually, though, if I had been adopted formally by someone unknown to my mother, that may have helped her.

the fact that i was raised by my gran and my mum lived in the same small town (so I grew up knowing who my mother/sister was, but had to cross the street when I saw her as i was not allowed to speak to her for various gran-stipulated reasons) obviously made it hard for us both.

But simply, from my mother's point of view, it would have been better for ger to have an abortion.

However, saying that, my mother is strongly pro-life and regards abortion as murder, so she wouldn't agree with me on that.

loopy, that's nothing to do with abortion. Entirely separate issue - although fascinating it just doesn't apply to 99.9% of human beings and is hardly the basis for a universal system of human rights applying to everyone.

To get an answer, you'd have to talk to the individual conjoined twins involved in any particular decision, not make some blanket rule that applies to everyone. Because philosophically they are entitled to decide what happens to their own bodies but practically those bodies are not independent.

Edam, without the right to life no other rights can apply. So that's the most fundamental human right. 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.
Til birth - til 24 weeks - never.
(Am pro-choice btw, as the best solution of a bad lot).

Nobody knew my mother was pregnant until the day i was born. She didn't want a baby, and had her head in the sand during the entire pregnancy. She was only young.

She didn't raise me - I was raised by my gran and called her mum (grew up thinking my mum was my sister). Got in contact with my mum at 17. Tried to develop a relationship with her and it was hideously painful for both of us, with a lot of resentment on both sides. She often said 'it ruined my life when you were born' and 'I wish I had killed myself whilst i was pregnant'.

After 14 years of trying we both gave up, and don't speak any more.

Having a baby you don't want can ruin your life. Mine hasn't exactly been a walk in the park either. To be honest it would have been far bvetter if my mother had faced up to things and had an abortion. She may have gone on to have a happier life, and I wouldn't have known anything about it.

sterryerryoh, I see what you are saying, I guess I made the comment as I know no one here in the UK who has managed to adopt at birth, and those who have adopted babies has been after they have been in foster care for many months.

As a mum of a newborn I find this a bit upsetting (ie to miss out on this special time) - in the US adoptions direct to adoptive parents at birth seems more common.

getorf

thats a sad story, very sad indeed

its not always black and white is it

So in the case of conjoined twins sharing organs, one can just cut off the other to regain "bodily integrity"?

What about adoptions that fail? Sadly there are adopted children who are handed back. Adoption is not a panacea.

Anyway, adoption is irrelevant to the debate about time limits for abortion. During pregnancy, you are talking about a human being's body and autonomy over your own body is THE most basic human right. Everything else flows from that. You can't have freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom from persecution, torture and so on without that fundamental basis. Hence any decision about an unwanted pregnancy, adoption or abortion, is up to the individual involved.

By its very nature, a foetus or unborn baby, whatever you want to call it, has no autonomy or independent existence. So the argument some anti-abortionists try to use that this is about two bodies and two human beings is nonsense. Human rights begin at birth.

The strongest counter-argument against the "just give it up for adoption" line is not, in my opinion, that adoption can be ropey; it is the argument for bodily integrity/sovereignty of self. Pregnancy is a state that happens to a woman's body. If said woman has the right to bodily integrity, she should have the right to opt not to be pregnant. Even if you afford the zygote/embryo/foetus personhood status, it doesn't weaken the argument from bodily integrity because no person has the right to use another person's body for their personal gain without the permission of the person whose body is being used. Iyswim.

Just a couple of views.

A friend of mine gave her baby up for adoption. She was adamant that she didn't want any more babies, was on the pill injection, and only discovered that she was pregnant (she still had periods, was rather overweight so just assumed that she had put on more weight) until after the abortion limit.

She had her baby adopted. Initally the baby was taken into foster care for a period of 3 months, even though the adoptive parents had been assigned. iirc she 'signed over' the baby at 6 months.

Her life after that broke down. She went completely off the rails. This was in a small town, so everyone knew she was pregnant, and she was judged horribly on giving her baby up. She was very much shunned. She moved away in the end. She still, 10 years on, feels guilt and self loathing, and it has affected her relationship with her son (who was two when the adoptive baby was born) as she feels how can she love her elder son when she gave her yiounger one away. She says that the day she signed her baby away was the worst in her entire life, and regrets the adoption hugely, even though, at the time, she made the decision to adopt based on sensible and practical considerations (she was single, no job, no money, the father wasn't interested, shock from discovering she was pregnant so late in the day).

So I agree with the OP - no, just blithely saying adopt as opposed t o abort is not the answer.

MumNWLondon - The US model has no protection for the adoptive family, when it comes to relinquished children. The birth mother can change her mind at any time throughout the pregnancy, up to and including the day of the birth. There is no real post-adoption support in the US in the same way that we have here, and many adoptions are still covered up in the States, where the child doesn?t always find out they are adopted.
In this country, there is always discussion on contact with the birth family, and the adoptive family and social services will take on the needs of the birth family, and often contact (whether direct or indirect, or with siblings, birth parents or extended family members) is maintained throughout the adoption.
As I mentioned before, most adoptions are NOT relinquished - social services will try very hard to work with the birth family to ensure that adoption is the last resort by choice, and will look to the family prior to putting the child in care. It is true that Mums who relinquish babies in the UK do not get a say in where their baby is going - but I would be more than sure that the baby will go to a ?good loving home? far more here than in the US where they have one visit from a social worker, and pretty much anyone can adopt. Adopters here have years of training and assessment. As I said previously - no one goes into this with their eyes closed.

One of my twin daughters was stillborn at 32 weeks. This is clearly too late for an abortion, but still...
I know that she had feelings and felt pain, despite the fact that she hadn't been born. Does life outside the uterus have greater value than that inside? Just because she was never born doesn't mean that her life was any less valid than her sister's. If she had died at 31, 30, 29 etc. weeks I would have felt the same. The question is, at what age does this stop being the case? Why 24 weeks?

You may not like the argument OP but it's an option that works for many people.
Cory, after conception at some point is where you'd have to draw the line. Too many variables before that. Every mundane activity could lead/not lead to sexual activity which could result in a conception.

I think Loupy Loo makes a valid point. Can anyone who gives birth to a child guarantee him/her a happy childhood/lack of psychological trauma? The only thing they are giving them is life, quality of is out of their control.

2-300 children are adopted by UK parents from overseas each year, so there's a fair bit of "slack" in the current system before there would be a shortfall of people meeting the current standards to adopt babies. People generally - but not always - adopt from abroad if they want a baby.

The experience we have had in the UK means that I believe a return to the adoption experiences of the 50s/60s is extremely unlikely.

Not that I'm arguing for a change in abortion law because of it!

I think on 1) YANBU but on 2) and 3) YABU.

agree 100% Pranma. I think people can be careless as there is always the option of abortion

yet when you try and say this, one gets accused of being a pro-lifer

I dont agree with OP

And what about the life my 5yr old already had?

It was more about that child, than the unborn one.
I can't understand people who care about something not born, than the lives people are already living.

I was adopted, if my biological mother had aborted me I'd never have known, I wouldn't be here and there would be no me to care about it.

I just hope she made that right choice for her, as I did.

There are lots of people who want to adopt babies, although often very sadly these babies get passed from foster carer to foster carer as the paperwork involved in giving up a baby at birth can be lengthy.

I know 3 friends who have adopted - one adopted a 9 month old baby who was given up a birth and lived with a foster carer until they got him. They were waiting for years for a baby.

Another friend adopted a three year old. It was initially hard as he had issues, but 5 years on he is a well adjusted lovely boy who had been given a second chance at having a good life.

The third friend has adopted 2 children, her and her husband couldn't have their own children bu now they have their lovely family.

So YABU -

1. there are plenty of families out there wanting to adopt babies, esp newborns which is only possible if baby is giving up before birth

1. I am sure adoption is hard, but a late abortion is also hard

1. All families adopted and checked to make sure they are suitable

IMO though the US open adoption model is far better as that way the person giving up their baby can be sure they are going to a good loving home AND not wait for the "knock" in 18 years time because they can maintain some type of minimal contact etc

With you there Pranma.

I think that the best solution,wherever possible,would be not to get pregnant in the first place if you dont want a baby.Simplistic?Yes.I am not talking about the 'raped 13 yr old',the victim of incest or the parents with an appallingly ill foetus nor do I mean other victims of rape or cases where a mother has to have medical treatment[eg chemo] which means continuing with the pregnancy risks the mothers life.No.I mean the 'got drunk and didnt use a condom' brigade and the 'oh dear it really isnt convenient for us at the moment'people who prefer to abort [kill] their potential child than give it the chance of life either with them or through adoption.
The really simplistic attitude is the,'oh I'll have a termination' that we so often hear.Mitigating circumstances there are many but so often it seems to come down to convenience and I find that deeply disturbing.

Hmmm yes Edam, but you could also say the same if you died at, say, 6. There is now no "you" so you shouldn't worry about it.
The fact is, we are talking about life and death. Not having sex doesn't involve killing life, it is just not creating it. The morning after pill, Cory, is a grey area for me (this and the coil, IMO are abortive), but at whatever stage an actual abortion is killing a baby/foetus/embryo. Yet again, the question is at what stage do we give value to this life?
I think we are all allowed to have our own opinions on this, but in mine I think that once an egg is fertilised and implanted, the decision to kill that life should not be taken lightly. And although adoption is a traumatic experience for all parties, I think it is more humane than killing life. You can have your own opinion though, I don't mind.

muggglewump
That is very much about you-and that is fine, but not everyone will see you at the heart of the decision, but rather the potential life your child could have had and that is their perogative.

loopy - I was a surprise baby when abortion had been legalised, so my mother could well have made a different choice resulting in me never being born. In which case there would be no 'me' to worry about it. Hence doesn't bother me in the slightest.

The odds against any human being born are fairly massive, even if you discount the miracle of the Big Bang/Planet Earth becoming suitable for life/life on earth developing from tiny single cell organisms to homo sapiens. Just starting from your own parents, think of all the eggs and sperm that didn't result in babies... (Actually thinking about my Dad's reproductive capacity in those terms is quite yuck, but YKWIM!)

I know my last post sounded frivolous, but there was a genuine question in there: at what point should we start feeling guilty about depriving somebody of a life? Most people seem to agree that after birth would be a definite yes. Many people agree about late abortions. What about the morning-after pill? It is still depriving somebody of a life. What about using a condom? What about celibacy?

I really don't think we can expect everybody to draw the line in the same place.