Abortion vs. Adoption

This side debate sprang up in another thread, so it seems good that it should deserve its own topic over here.

Anyway, in the event of unwanted pregnancies, how much is adoption really a viable option? What about the children who go unadopted? How reliable are foster care systems for such responsibility? What becomes of the children raised in them? Would it be better to snuff out their lives (i.e. abortion) before they even have a chance to potentially suffer?

Discuss. :3

Arguing that adoption is a better alternative first assumes that abortion is inherently bad. And considering that whether abortion is bad is 90% of the debate surrounding abortion, I never listen too much to adoption arguments.

Seeing as how abortion is the termination of a life--however primitive--then that must register as in some sense bad, whether inherently or no.

I think all can agree that adoption is a far better option than abortion assuming the child will have a decent upbringing.

The question of this thread is, where is that line drawn? At what point is the potential for a life in either a foster home or an unfit adoptee parents' home unbearable enough that it would be better for that one never to be born in the first place? And in what ways could we begin to forecast such a future if we see both as genuinely competing options?

It's a weighty question. (And one on which I very much have my own convictions, but I'm withholding my answer for now and seeing how other people respond. :3)

Well, I think it's important to make the distinction between adoption and foster care. Parents willing give their children up for adoption and adoption is (supposed to be) permanent. Whereas foster is supposed to be a temporary solution when the child is taken away due to unfit parenting.

Other than that, I see no inherent problem with abortion as long as it's not being used as birth control, i.e. in place of another contraceptive. Because technically it is a form of birth control in and of itself, but you know what I mean.

The problem lies in the scenario where the child put up for adoption never gets adopted, because then it defaults into foster care and because foster care children have this social stigma attached to them they may never get a family.

When they age out at 18 they would end up homeless. After that, suicide is a common occurence.

So basically, you have to first assume they even get adopted, which may not happen, and then you have to assume that they get adopted to a good family, which is very hard to measure.

Whereas, abortion simply removes any chance the child will have a bad life, period.

Abortion is the deadset safe route, there are no guessing games with abortion, there are no what ifs.

Originally Posted by Aziel Satori

The problem lies in the scenario where the child put up for adoption never gets adopted, because then it defaults into foster care and because foster care children have this social stigma attached to them they may never get a family.

When they age out at 18 they would end up homeless. After that, suicide is a common occurence.

As you're making at least a big an assumption, if not bigger, could you please back this up a bit?

That isn't an assumption, it is simply the other outcome.

The fact that a social stigma exists surrounding foster children and the foster system in general is enough to illustrate that something is indeed wrong with the system.

Not all infants put up for adoption get adopted, you know this, I know this.

I illustrated what can happen to them, what does happen to them, the lucky ones, as they say, do eventually find families. But what about the unlucky ones? Do you not give a damn about them?


Those who do not find families get put out on the street at 18, that is not an assumption. That is how the system works. If the child has gotten a job prior to that then they will be prepared for it, but they are on their own the day they turn 18.
But that is not always the case, some simply end up on the streets, and suicide is common in the homeless.

First of all, Rew, LOVE your opening post (seriously).

As a very, very pro-choice individual, I find the abortion/adoption "debate" to be a very tricky, unhelpful one. I'm not claiming that there shouldn't be discussion about it. The reason why is because I see it as part of a three-way debate, and a personal one at that.

What I mean, is that women who become pregnant unintentionally must have their own, individual three-way debate: would it be better for me to keep the baby, put it up for adoption, or abort the pregnancy?

For some women, an unintended pregnancy might not be such a big hindrance on their lives; they have the time and resources to devote to a child. I think that a lot of unintended pregnancies on TV shows tend to go like this ("Friends" comes to mind, Season 8). For other women, their religious and moral views lead them to keep the child, even though resources might be tight.

Adoption is a great option for women who don't have time or resources to devote to a child, or perhaps simply don't WANT to be a mother, but who also might feel that abortion is wrong, or who don't mind going through a pregnancy. It is also a good option for women who cannot access abortion, for whatever reason (it's very sad that this is a problem in the US, even with Roe v. Wade still "upheld").

Abortion is a great option for women who don't want to have a baby, or go through a pregnancy, for whatever reason. Perhaps this woman is embarrassed to walk the halls at her high school while pregnant. Maybe she's afraid of the pain of childbirth, or of the physical stress that pregnancy and labor will put on her body (such as vaginal tearing or c-section). Maybe her health might be compromised by the hormone changes and weight gain. Maybe she's angry that her one-night stand doesn't have to deal with this decision, and she doesn't want to, either.

I don't believe that abortion is inherently a bad thing. I don't believe that it's murder, and I certainly don't believe that it should be any nation's foremost concern when it comes to protecting lives and ending violence. In addition, since a first trimester fetus can't feel pain and has absolutely zero cognitive thought, abortion is not hurting the fetus.

There are two things, though, before I end, that I think are very important to note about my position on options to deal with unintended pregnancy:

1) I focus on the mother. Solely. She is already a full human being, with her own rights, as well as her own life. While we could argue day in and day out about which options are better, it doesn't matter. What matters is what each individual woman thinks. If I'm ever faced with an unintended pregnancy, I'll deal with it in the way that best fits my life and my morals (and no, that does not automatically mean I'd pick abortion). But don't forget that the attractiveness of each option is going to be different for every woman.

2) My favorite approach to the abortion debate is this: WEAR A CONDOM. For a list of reasons why condoms are great, email me (for the sake of keeping this conversation appropriate). While many unintended pregnancies are the result of condom misuse or breakage, I'm not suggesting that using contraception would completely and utterly eradicate unintended pregnancies. Instead, I'm suggesting (as many studies suggest) that comprehensive sex education in middle school and high school, and cheap and accessible contraception, the number of unintended pregnancies would drastically drop. And then, with a drop in unintended pregnancies, we would see a drop in both abortions and in the number of children put up for adoption (as well as teen mothers dropping out of school, by the by).

Yes, probably the same percentage of women who have unintended pregnancies will end the pregnancy with abortion. But since it would be a percent of a MUCH smaller number, as would the percent who put children up for adoption, we would see a drop in, like, EVERYTHING.

Sadly, some will never be satisfied until abortions stop occuring, and I'm sure some aren't even happy with adoptions happening.

However, that day will never come since there is no 100% effective preventative measure outside of abstinence, and that really isn't a viable option.

If the protection of life is more important than the protection of liberty, why are pro lifers not advocating a totalitarian regime? The murder rate and other forms of killing would decrease drastically, if not dissipate altogether. Of course, this would have to be a regime without the death penalty. Otherwise you're not pro-life, you're simply anti-choice.

Sapphira has an excellent post, mostly sums up what I want to say, but the fact that someone's beat me to the punch has never stopped me from voicing my opinion before.

I favour adoption over abortion, but am still pro-choice.


A basic assumption is that, with a very few exceptions, being alive is better than being dead. Having an abortion means that roughly one less person will be alive in the end. This, to me, is indeed a bad outcome.

However, this doesn't change my stance on abortion still being legal. I've explained my reasoning there enough times by now, I think.


This is getting a bit tangential. In essence, I don't think it's quite an "either-or" debate. Clearly in each individual situation it comes down to that but as an overall stance I think it works better to just have both. People can put up for adoption or abort as they see fit (well, there are some limits, but again, tangential at this point.) and while I'd prefer people to put kids up for adoption I'm not going to force them to at gun point, nor am I going to condemn them for not doing so.

I don't really care if suicide is common in homeless people. suicide is when the person decides to end his/her life. Abortion is when someone else decides. I'd rather see someone go through with childbirth and hear about the child killing themself, then wonder what good could have come from not having the abortion.

Of course, I don't see suicide as inherrently bad.

So you are pro-suffering? A bit inhumane don't you think?

Originally Posted by Aziel Satori

So you are pro-suffering? A bit inhumane don't you think?

READING COMPREHENSION IS AN ELUSIVE CREATURE INDEED.

That simply relates to the idea that life is more sacred than anything else. The people who believe this, the so-called pro-lifers (although often in actuality simply anti-choicers) believe that no matter how much a child will suffer, no matter how incapable of functioning a child will be upon birth, no matter how unfit the parents are etc, once the egg is fertilized, that foetus must continue its development and become a living entity, because they consider the state of being alive in and of itself more important than the ability to actually use that life.

Which is a flawed viewpoint. This disregards the enjoyment of life and the ability to maintain that life for the simple state of life's existence and the preservation thereof.

Further, this would mean that suicide itself must be bad as it is the ending of one's own life, and that the death penalty is bad for the obvious reason that it is simply state-sanctioned killing. So again, if you are not in support of all of these, and are not in support of societal safeguards against the taking of life, you are not pro-life. You are anti-choice - you simply wish to restrict the mother's liberty for the sake of a future life her as-yet unborn foetus will have, regardless of the quality of that life.

I hate to quote one of the worst Bond movies, but "what's the point of living if you don't feel alive." Many of these "pro-lifers" would rather subject someone a life of unfathomable misery than have that life end.

As I said, it is an inhumane stance to take.

I was clarifying for the benefit of Tigerboy over there.

Then you wasted a post I would say.

It contained points I felt like making regardless of the clarification, however.