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.

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.

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.//#

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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...

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

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

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.

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...

Sorry, 80% succeed.

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.

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.

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?

See my post below

Lots of people face adoption barriers that vary between areas but are due to age / smoking / weight.

I am not anti aboprtion

I am anti teh current adoption laws: the screening etc yes, the long lists of barrriers to get voer wrt to age etc- oh god yes

Better with a parent 3 months over the age limit and a smoker than in a care home IMVHO

Sancti - I know many that have worked out very well too, I'm not saying I don't.

But far too many breakdown for my liking.

But teh ones that went well mean it is an option

One option only

But valid

And would those from the broken adoptions prefer not being born at all?

I have no idea: I woudl wager it varies but I can see why people think that route should be at elast mentioned as an option

Obviously foster care and respite care is very different to wanting to become an adoptive family, litchick.
And this thread isn?t about people who want to adopt - it?s about pregnant women considering adoption as an alternative to abortion. relevant to this particular topic: there are more adopters who want to adopt healthy babies than there are healthy babies, so when talking about more babies in the system, then yes - there are families there waiting to adopt. For older children and hard-to-place children, there are far fewer adopters - but that is a different subject.
For what it?s worth, I would think that giving a child up for adoption is more problematic in the longterm than having an abortion - but that is an uninformed opinion as I have done neither

Haven't read it all but I was adopted by a "loving and kind" (on paper) couple and yes there were all sorts of problems especially with the extended family, uncles aunts and cousins making cruel remarks and terrifying me.

But I am glad to be alive

Litchick A lot of people want to adopt a baby not an older child. You are bringing a separate issue into this thread.

Sorry to hear that, milady (not that you?re happy to be alive! That?s great news!!) - but about your extended family. Hopefully the support and training that adopters go through currently will help to minimise those experiences for children in the future

Haven't read all yet (will do in a mo) but wanted to say that
in some ways you are not being unreasonable but it totally depends on how you see abortion.

for some people termination is just very simply killing a baby. therefore all of your objections above seem like a better option that death. choosing life (albeit not perfect) over death.

However that is about the child, I agree that for the mother.father it is a much more difficult issue.

I know 5 people of various ages whohave been adopted and all into loving caring families, and also a lovely friend who has adopted from china because she was told she was too old to be a parent to a child from the uk.

With every respect, by talking about the problems of adepted children, the OP makes an unjustifiable argument.

Certainly, we can talk about how difficult life can be for a child given up at birth for adoption. We can also talk about what life is like for children born with serious disabilities. But really we need to consider the question of whether it is better to have been born than never to have been born. And given that we none of us understand what it feels like never to have been born, we none of us can comment.

So let's not try and pretend that abortion is ever in the best interests of a foetus. It's all about the mother, surely...