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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

getorf

thats a sad story, very sad indeed

its not always black and white is 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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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

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!

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

//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?

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.

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