In those states in the US, where abortion is illegal, what laws are in place for adoption. For example, in Australia, we have, what we call, Open Adoption. The 'birth parents' choosing adoption, can also opt for visitation or access rights. Does America have anything like that?
What are peoples views on birth parents, who opt for adoption, with access rights? I should clarify that I am pro-choice.h
Abortion is legal in all of the United States...women have the basic right of bodily autonomy in all oof the US.... I don't have answers to your other questions since the word "choice" in the abortion issue means only two choices, gestating or aborting.....adoption is another isse.
Adoption is an option for all. They do forfeit parental and visitation rights, but all considering an abortion are given their options. Parents can even surrender an infant at the local fire station or ER. (Sorry, they don't take teenagers)
So birth parents have no rights, and it is because of that, that I would chose abortion. The idea of gifting life, then never knowing that life until that life is old enough to want for same, and all of the emotional turmoil that goes with that for the child, parents and birth parents... it is better to terminate the potential for suffering!
Everyone suffers. None of us would grow if we didn't suffer. How we respond to our suffering and is a large part of the definition of who we are.
True enough! However, how many would intentionally cause suffering? Closed adoption, as is well known, causes suffering for all concerned.
I'd like to see your data on that. Specifically- is it demonstrable that a majority of adopted children turn into adults that are miserable enough that they would be better off having never been born, and/or is it demonstrable that a majority of adopted children turn into adults that emburden society? Unless either is true, then the inverse will be true- that the majority of adopted children turn into adults who enjoy being alive and contribute to society (and I'm betting both these are the case). If so, then its more likely that your child given up for adoption would prosper both themself and society, statistically speaking.
I did say... 'for all concerned' and not merely the infant. Your reasoning makes no allowances for the competing emotions of those involved in the decision to be made.
You made a statement that I suspect is untrue. I asked you to back it up with evidence. What about that is 'infant'?
Actually, you are incorrect. The US does have 'open adoption'. https://www.americanadoptions.com/state_adoption/general_open_adoption
Indeed, if in doubt, then do what I do... Research! I had to research a claim made by Doofenshmirtz. It was no big deal. You should try it! It doesn't hurt. I promise!
https://www.americanadoptions.com/state_adoption/general_open_adoption Given the allowances afforded in open adoption, why would a women terminate a healthy foetus that was consensually conceived? Perhaps, if adoption was more broadly accepted and less stigmatized, women would feel more empowered to chose that option and then build lasting relationships with all concerned.
How is adoption "stigmatized? I don't see that at all....and it is certainly accepted, it's a common practice....what are you talking about? Women have abortions for many reasons...the main one is they don't want to be pregnant and have a kid. Women already know they could have the kid and put it up for adoption.....so what's the problem?
What is better is up to her and only her. Sometimes the child grows up and wants to meet their birth parents. Having 3 adopted children, I don't place any value on DNA.
In most western jurisdictions given the poor (read often appalling) record institutions of all types had when it came to adoption processes it is understandable that in many places there is now an inbuilt bias among social workers and welfare agencies against recommending adoption to young women as a viable option to termination. Given the large number of childless couples in modern society it is perhaps time that bias be carefully reviewed. But in the end all anyone can ethically do is put the three available options on the table for the woman to consider, abortion, keeping the baby and adoption, go through the pluses and minuses of each (with the mothers specific circumstances in mind) and then let them make their own decision. You can't ethically pressure a woman into making a specific choice. And that means the the problem is you will never generate enough 'new' adoptees in Western countries to go anywhere near meeting demand. Even with laws in most countries allowing/requiring contact between biological parent and child.
No one needs to go through a woman's options but her. No one needs to put "options on the table"..they are on the table and women know about them...they don't need someone to tell them.. Of course women will make their own decision...it should be no other way!!! Many years ago it was determined that women will make their own decisions just like men do... And it's no one's business but the pregnant one.. "adoption" has no place in the abortion forum. The issue of "choice" has to do with gestation or abortion...….adoption has as much to do with "choice" as what a woman's choice in cars is..
So your the one who gets to decide what choices every woman on the planet gets to make? Unless and until science advances to the point where women get the 'choice' of deciding whether or not to transfer their fetus to an artificial womb - there are only three options. And they are abortion, adoption or keeping the child. So, taking the above as the inescapable starting point - what part of my post suggested woman weren't necessarily aware of their options? What I said was that for many years (for very good historical reasons) there was a tendency for information providers, social services and other sources of advice to discount adoption as a viable option. I then said changes in legislation and other factors now made adoption more viable than it was in the past - because of the protections now in place for both the biological mother and the child (or do you disagree?). I also noted that even allowing for these changes the number new adoptees would, in reality never meet the demand form childless parents in the West. So where exactly in any of the above do I suggest for a moment that it was anyone but the woman's choice as to what happens with her pregnancy or that adoption is somehow more valid as a choice than the other options available?
No, and no where did I say that. This is the Abortion Forum. The issue of "choice" here is whether a woman chooses abortion or gestation NOT every choice she'll make after that. The issue of "choice" here, in this forum, is whether a woman chooses abortion or gestation Here: ""But in the end all anyone can ethically do is put the three available options on the table for the woman to consider, abortion, keeping the baby and adoption, go through the pluses and minuses of each (with the mothers specific circumstances in mind) and then let them make their own decision""" . . I've never seen that. The "demand" is for perfect newborn white babies. Many kids actually age out of the system because no one adopted them. Here: ""for many years (for very good historical reasons) there was a tendency for information providers, social services and other sources of advice to discount adoption as an option"" Here:""But in the end all anyone can ethically do is put the three available options on the table for the woman to consider, abortion, keeping the baby and adoption, go through the pluses and minuses of each (with the mothers specific circumstances in mind)""" Again, the abortion issue centers around two choices, abortion or gestation, not every other choice she'll make in her life (adoption/schools for her kids/what to wear). Adoption should maybe have it's own forum ….it's a choice like what car to buy, hasn't anything to do with the abortion issue/debate..
It's implied by your because your limiting a woman choice (completely unrealistically BTW) to a simple binary decision - abortions 'yes' or abortion 'no'. Exactly how many decisions major in life are actually that simple? Implying it is that simple relegates the issue to the level of a simple coin flip i.e 'heads I keep the baby, tails I don't'. Your arbitrarily imposing a completely unrealistic view of the decision making process on all women. Now I grant you for some small percentage of women it may be that simple bit it my experience (talking about the subject with women who have had to make that decision (and watching others talk about it on TV or on-line - well it is never that simple. Again what a nice, simple binary decision making process it all is . Abortion or no abortion. Toast or bagels for breakfast, do I buy that blouse or this one? Yes I agree, its completely about the woman's choice. And realizing that I don't fat - how alone a woman can be when they have to make that choice I refuse to believe most woman, most of the time teat it as such a simple yes, no decision making process. For some woman the decision may be relatively easy to make. For others? I don't know if you are a counselor (of any type) or know one well enough to discuss their job with them. But the counselor's I have had dealings with, while they may have a 'script' or interview template to work from DONT just quote that document word for word. By default their job entails at the least; - obtaining the basics of their clients background; - (active) listening their clients as they talk; - providing them with basic information about their options including potential post decision issues. The last bit is important because you can assume everyone is fully versed those choices and issues. A well educated professional woman yes almost certainly, a teenager from a poor background? I have. Social welfare provides in my country have had their training and education framed by the appalling standards of historical adoption processes in the Commonwealth. So its 'racist' thing now? Given the lack of available children in my own country available for adoption I have known/witnessed the pain childless couples go through in order to find an adoptee. It may be different in America but over here those couple don't give a dam about race, religion or background. The vast majority want a child to love and raise, nothing more and nothing less. Oh I agree there may be an affluent sub-group of 'designer baby' wannabees in the mix but most couples seeking to adopt desperately want a child to love, nothing more, nothing less. And they don't give a dam about color - most of them anyway. I cant talk to the US adoption system but over here babies available for adoption are rarer than politicians who keep their promises. 50 year ago, before birth control options became widespread? yes that problem would have occurred. Now?? not a chance in hell. The only sub-group where that still applies are abused or severely handicapped infants. And how brave are the parents who take on that challenge - I have no words.
No, and no where did I say that. This is the Abortion Forum. The issue of "choice" here is whether a woman chooses abortion or gestation NOT every choice she'll make after that. MYGOODGAWD...WTF...THIS IS THE ABORTION FORUM....WHY TF are you having a problem with that ? This is the Abortion Forum. The issue of "choice" here is whether a woman chooses abortion or gestation NOT every choice she'll make after that. You don't 'fat" ?? That's good to know. Again, WTF...we were NOT discussing the ease of the decision...we were discussing the decision and how it's the only one pertaining to the ABORTION Forum. It canNOT be assumed that women need "counseling"....and certainly shouldn't be force fed counseling ... Ya, it's racist when the most desirable babies up for adoption are white. I don't care how things are in your country.....and here is a Big Fact: Women are not obligated to provide kids for anyone. So whether there's kids available or not has NOTHING to do with abortion. That's your response to : FoxHastings said: ↑ Many kids actually age out of the system because no one adopted them.""" ??????
