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

[vosene]

Having read the quite lengthy thread on whether the abortion limit should be lowered (I think it's fine at 24 weeks incidentally) I just wanted to vent a little about one particular point. Whenever I've debated the issue of abortion with either the completely pro-life or simply people who want to limit the abortion criteria, the same issue continually comes up: why can't they just put the baby up for adoption instead?

Now, I've had personal experience with this because an anti-abortion family member put their child up for adoption and seemed almost idealistic about the kind of life that child would then lead. However, my friend who has adopted 2 children herself and is a social worker would tell you otherwise.

So many people seem to be under the illusion that EVERYBODY in the UK wants to adopt a gorgeous little newborn and that there are seemingly people queuing around the block to become adoptive parents. Do we honestly believe that this is true? Do they not understand how long is takes for people to be vetted and approved? Agencies are absolutely crying out for people to adopt children, but unfortunately most of those children aren't little 'untainted' babies, they're young kids with serious problems. People only want the babies because once kids get past a 'certain age', they're practically discarded on the adoptive rubbish heap. Is that fair?

How many of you actually know people with adopted children? I only know one- my friend, and I know rather a lot of people with children.

It makes my blood boil that in a similar way to people that fecklessly use abortion as a back up for their inability to ever use contraception (although I do think this is uncommon), other people will justify removing a woman's right to abortion by saying that the baby can be adopted.

My friend has told me how most young babies are actually passed from foster parent to foster parent in the first few months/ year of their life before they'll even get a chance to be adopted. For the unlucky, they just move on into care.

So, whilst I'm aware of just how emotive this issue is, AIBU to think:

1)Putting your child up for adoption is probably just as difficult as having an abortion and is not a somehow easier or 'better' option.

2)To assume that your child will be lucky and will be adopted by a kind, loving family is misguided and unfair on the child.

3. That most people using the 'adoption' argument against abortion are simply unwilling to accept that not many families in this country (or in many countries for that matter) actually want to adopt because they can have their own children instead.

If the abortion limit was lowered and this adoption solution was proposed instead, we would see the number of kids being fostered or in care go through the roof, and I doubt very much that the numbers of 'prospective parents' would actually increase as well.

Lots of interesting points and theories on this thread - some of them not factually correct. In terms of ?giving a baby up for adoption? it certainly isn?t as easy as that - most babies/children up for adoption in this country (over 95% of them according to the latest figures I have seen) were not relinquished by the birth family - they were removed into care. Adoptions of relinquished babies are very different, and the birth mother will be subject to lots of counselling and discussion, and social services will almost always look to family members to see if they can raise the child, before they go through the court processes of placement orders and foster care, and then waiting for a family to be matched (which, even if straightforward can take months and months)
If a pregnant woman does not want to continue with her pregnancy for whatever reason - or has come to the (no doubt very painful) decision that she doesn?t want the baby, to then have to subject herself and her unborn child through all of the above, and knowingly place her child into the care system, would probably be more than most women could take. Relinquished babies are rare for a reason.
OP - you stated ?My friend has told me how most young babies are actually passed from foster parent to foster parent in the first few months/ year of their life before they'll even get a chance to be adopted. For the unlucky, they just move on into care?

I don?t know where your friend got this information, but I would question it. It is not the case in my experience that young babies are passed from foster home to foster home - social services will always try to minimise disruption unless there is a problem, and the foster carers that I have met (particularly those with very young babies and newborns) will have that one child from as early as possible right until the adoption, in order that the child is given the best chance to form good attachment with his/her future parents.
I don?t know what you mean by ?For the unlucky, they just move on into care? - that?s what a foster home is - care!
It is true that there are children waiting to be adopted - many of them older children, those with disabilities or special needs, those with serious trauma and sibling groups mainly - but if there are healthy babies in the system, they are usually matched with an adoptive family very quickly - there are more adoptive parents waiting for ?babies? than there are babies waiting for adoptive parents.
There are lots and lots of families who want to adopt - just because you can have a biological child doesn?t prevent you from adopting as well, and I think your statement that ?To assume that your child will be lucky and will be adopted by a kind, loving family is misguided and unfair on the child? is actually a little unfair on adopters. CURRENT processes mean that adopters go through an extremely rigorous, lengthy and exhaustive assessment and judging process before being able to adopt and even when matched with a child, the assessment and matching continues to ensure that everyone is 100% sure of the match. No adopter goes into adoption with their eyes closed, and I doubt anyone would put themselves through it if they didn?t intend to give that child a kind and loving home
You are right, OP when you say that adoption is probably as difficult as abortion - it is certainly not an easy option for a birth mother, - but there ARE people queuing round the block, as you put it, to adopt and have a family

A private detective who specialises in tracing birth families for adoptive people described adoption to me as 'punishment for women who transgress'.

Maybe it's different these days, but back when my mother was adopted, abortion was illegal and adoption was forced on unmarried mothers. They were made to carry their babies and give birth and have the baby taken away. Incredibly painful and the cause of life-long trauma for the mother and probably most of those children.

I don't think any sensible or reasonable person would want to return to those days.

(Of course, the men who got women pregnant outside marriage got off scot free...)

3) YABU. There is a shortage of babies available for adoption in this country at present

I was unaware babies were a commodity to be handed around!

So we should all have babies we don't want & give them away! There was no way I would ever have considered adoption.

YANBU.

I also dislike it when people say to infertile couples 'just adopt'.

at "just adopt"

Edam your statement reflects a lot of current day thinking about adoption- it is based on the harsh experiences of women in the last century.
Adoption has moved on since then, adopters are better prepared for the trauma even a tiny baby can suffer through adoption.
There is letterbox and sometimes even direct contact between birth parent and child.
There is now a system called concurrency care in some areas, where babies and young children can go straight to the adopters (acting as foster carers) where it is appropriate until the final order is made. So no "pillar to post"

Adoptees have better support in place.
sterrryerryoh has written a good post so I shall try not to repeat.

Adoption is about what is best for the child. We adopters go through a rigorous process of education and interviews, health checks and referees we are grilled about our friendships and family relationships the information is scrutinised and double checked.When it all works out every one says oh they make it sooo hard to adopt, When a bad adopter slips through it is too easy to adopt.
Social workers don't just hand a kid over and wave bye bye.
There are introductions at the FCs then your house where they make sure the match looks like it will be ok.
There are fortnightly then monthly visits for at least six months-when finally they write to the court and say they are ok with it.
All through this the birth parents can still contest the placement order. They rarely win but the stress is still very high.

So the comments on here about adoption are hard for me to swallow. It is not a punishment for errant women, it is not snatching a child and raising them behind a brick wall- we adopters no matter what the birth parents did have to keep them in contact of how well their children are doing. Even as we spend all our time repairing the damage.
We are told to keep their birth names unless there is a security risk.
Most women who give up or lose their children to adoption often see us not as the parents but as glorified foster carers until they can come back into the child's life, and the whole contact system is set up so that birth families don't feel "left out"
no matter how much they left out caring for the child when it was in the birth family.

Yes, but the point is that the (relatively few) parents who adopt babies today are parents who can pass a very rigorous investigation. You could say that they are very high quality prospective parents. If the number of babies to be adopted were to increase dramatically due to changes in abortion law, are we sure that there would be enough parents who could still pass the test, or would it have to be dumbed down?

I understand what you are saying.

But, I do wish adoption were put forward as a more realistic option. I had an abortion at 18, which really messed me up for a while. I wanted to have the baby adopted, and my GP very strongly recommended against it. He said it was a very traumatic experience, whereas abortion was simple and never upset anyone. ]

I see what you're saying about it being idealistic to assume people will approve of adoptions, but it would be nice if that attitude could change.

Sorry the point to my post was we go through all of that, only to be told by some that they would rather kill their un-born child than have them raised by people as dedicated as current prospective adopters.

I understand your point, Silver, not least since my family is also part adopted. But I think there is a serious risk that if the number of babies to be adopted were to rise dramatically, the rigour of the adoption process would have to relaxed, perhaps to the point where it would be better for some of those babies not to be born.

It is well known that not all foster homes are ideal- because there simply aren't enough of the good ones to go around. The same could happen with adoptive families.

I know loads of people who were adopted and who have adopted children. There was no 'passing from foster parent to foster parent' going on. That only happens when the mother refuses to sign the adoption papers because she wants to retain the option of having the child back. I think adoption is an ideal solution where someone becomes pregnant and does not feel they are in a position to raise a child. Abortion is something I could never do, regardless of the pain of having a child adopted.

Silver1, I would have rather killed my baby than put myself and DD through the adoption process, yes.

I felt like killing myself as it was, never mind having to tell everyone about it and live with the judging forever.

Sorry if this sounds very black and white, but as a child who was fostered and longed to be adopted, I ask you this:

IS it better to have a less-than-brilliant childhood
or
to be dead?

I had a horrible childhood but am so glad to have had the chance of living.

But mugglewump, as loopyloops has said, you cannot presume your dd would rather be dead that go through the adoption process.

Then again, loopyu, if you carry that argument to extremes, then you would feel guilty about contraception too, or just not having sex. Think of all the children I have failed to give birth to over the years because I had a headache/dh couldn't be arsed/we were watching the telly. Would it not be better for them all to have the chance of living?

Anonymityitis, thank you for your post about the trauma the adopted child suffers. I don't feel that most people understand this because it seems illogical that a newborn could have any memory of what happened.

I find it hard to understand myself but I feel it. A therapist said to me that even if you don't remember in words and pictures, your body holds a memory of your feelings during a trauma and disruptions to bonding during early life affect the physical development of the brain.

I do think it must be harder for adoptive parents than natural parents. It is hard enough having your own children, but an adoptive parent has a baby who is resistant to bonding because of the pain of being removed from its birthmother whose natural instinct it was to try to bond with. It must be a really sensitive and gradual process to rebuild the trust. For babies who have been removed because they have been abused it must be even more difficult.

When I met my birthmother as an adult I desperately wanted to bond with her, and have criticised her for being a bit closed off emotionally, but she pointed out that I didn't act in any way like I wanted to bond with her, I acted like nothing bothered me and I was fiercely independent and didn't need anyone. She didn't want to overstep the mark by trying to get too close. I was still resistant to bonding even though I wanted to. I was protecting myself from getting hurt.

I'm wondering whether my adoptive parents had enough support for the additional bits of parenting required for an adopted child that you mentioned. It sounds like things have progressed a lot since then.

Sorry for hijacking, the thread has made me think about it all again when normally I don't think about it much.

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.

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!)

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.

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.

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.

With you there Pranma.

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

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.

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