Adoption, Abortion, and Self

[ADigitalArtist]

I didn't know this. This is very strange to me. As I don't really like babies, I'd rather adopt at 5 yrs +. I'm thinking of doing this as I'm very tokophobic. So hopefully I'll be the exception!

Adopting older comes with a unique set of problems too. Due to how bad the foster care system is (at least here in the US anyway), many older kids have trauma, mental illness, or physical problems coming from poverty upbringing that you'll have to contend with.
Doable, surely, but something to keep in mind adopting an older kid.

 

[Rival]

Adopting older comes with a unique set of problems too. Due to how bad the foster care system is (at least here in the US anyway), many older kids have trauma, mental illness, or physical problems coming from poverty upbringing that you'll have to contend with.
Doable, surely, but something to keep in mind adopting an older kid.

I thought fostering is different from adoption.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It was religious people who started orphanages in the first place, especially Christians. There's millions of children in Christian orphanages and foster care, such as Catholic ones.

I can't help but wonder how many of these children are in orphanages and foster care specifically because of the Catholic Church's position on contraception.

 

[oldbadger]

Anti- abortinists care nothing for the child once born or the mother

How true that is!
I'm shocked about how many self-righteous religions insist that raped women should bear the innocent child and bring it up, but when questioned they mostly insist that they shouldn't have to pay for the child's healthcare, full education thru university, any needed subsistence etc. The answer usually comes back 'She should find a suitable husband to look after her and child'.

Unbelievable hypocrisy imo.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

It is a moot point that they are waiting to adopt an infant. The fact is that they want an infant and there would be no scarcity of infants to adopt if there were not so many babies being aborted, so the excuse "I don't want a baby right now" does not fly; in fact it does not even get to the boarding area.

Why not just be honest and say "I don't want to have the baby because it is a bit inconvenient for me right now."

I'm not talking about adoption in respect to abortion because I believe forcing people to complete pregnancies against their will is more reprehensible than, say, killing a chicken. (And people who kill chickens, by your logic, should admit that they're okay causing more suffering than abortion does because it's too inconvenient for them to take on a vegetarian diet.)

So the two are unrelated topics to me. I'm merely talking about difficulties within the topic of adoption.

 

[night912]

I am not advocating telling anyone what to do with their body, it should be a choice.

Since you clarified that, then what you said below is a moot point.

And as usual, the baby has nothing to say about it.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I thought fostering is different from adoption.

They are. But most surrendered kids go into the foster care system, and then the adoption agencies work with them to find kids permanent families through adoption. And kids go into foster care when they get older. (Again, this is just US, might be different elsewhere.)

Edit: also foster homes have completely replaced orphanages in the US.

 

[night912]

Why not advocate for better birth control or celibacy?

those don't work after the fact of conception. the horse is out of the barn. rape victims don't have that luxury of choice. women's who's health at risk sometimes don't want that choice.

Imo, they should have thought of that before they had sex, unless it was rape or incest, which only accounts for 1% of abortions, and given reliable birth control methods rarely fail, what does that tell us about the other 99%?

Rape and Incest: Just 1% of All Abortions

Choosing to have sex and choosing to continue with a pregnancy, are two separate issues.

Here's why:
1. Using a reliable birth control method correctly that ended up in a pregnancy means that the birth control had failed 100%.

2. Celibacy fails when a pregnancy is the result of a rape.

So the issue here is about what comes after sex, regardless of how it was initiated.

 

[Trailblazer]

Since you clarified that, then what you said below is a moot point.

Not moot, two separate matters altogether, at least in my mind.

 

[Trailblazer]

Choosing to have sex and choosing to continue with a pregnancy, are two separate issues.

But choosing to have sex that results in a pregnancy are connected issues.

So the issue here is about what comes after sex, regardless of how it was initiated.

If it's a baby, then it is up to the mother to decide what to do and she is fully responsible for that choice.

 

[night912]

Not moot, two separate matters altogether, at least in my mind.

But choosing to have sex that results in a pregnancy are connected issues.

If it's a baby, then it is up to the mother to decide what to do and she is fully responsible for that choice.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There's abuse in schools, governments, universities, workplaces... so I guess we should just shut everything down.

And in how many of those does the leadership actively move perpetrators around the world just to avoid them being caught and prosecuted?

Also: schools, governments, universities, workplaces... are worth reforming and / or fixing.
Losing any of these would be devastating to society.
But do we really need institutional religion?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why not advocate for better birth control or celibacy?

The irony is that unwanted pregnancies tend to be a bigger problem in countries with high religiosity. Simultaneously, those religious folks in those same countries are also the ones that tend to be "against" birth control and sex education. Which, off course, explains the high rate of unwanted pregnancies.

As for celibacy, that's a dream (or a nightmare ). People are going to have sex.

Why not advocate for having the baby and giving it to a couple who cannot have their own children?

As the OP states, already today there are more orphans then there are people willing to care for them. Adding more orphans is not the answer.

Also, why would one force a girl / woman to go through the very severe thing that is pregnancy and sacrifice a year of her life? Pregnancy is serious business for the women. It puts much stress on the body and severely impacts your life. For many, especially the young that are still students, this amounts to a lost year and severe emotional / psychological impact.

I am concerned about an unborn living thing because it has a soul and a right to life.

And you are entitled to your religious beliefs.
But why should other people care about your religious sensitivities?

 

[Fool]

You are painting religious folk too broadly. Not all religious people abuse nor are all abusers religious.

the vast majority of people are religious, or have a belief system.

people who abuse fit within that profile. i'm not saying all people. I'm trying to show that being a kreligious whatever doesn't help someone by trying to further "their" religious cause. a need is not met with a religion. its met with immediate response to the need.

 

[Spirit of Light]

To all of those who find abortion deplorable, there are tons of children needing parents. Why are you worried about an unborn\unliving thing, when there are children needing a stable home and other basic needs?


there is real violence and indifference being targeted towards children. Where is your religion on this matter?


51 Useful Aging Out of Foster Care Statistics | Social Race Media -.

If i had the money to go through an adoption of a child i would have done it, unfortunatly it cost a lot of money, even if i was to adopt a Norwegian child it cost to much right now.
But if i one day earn enough money i will adopt a child.

 

[firedragon]

To all of those who find abortion deplorable, there are tons of children needing parents. Why are you worried about an unborn\unliving thing, when there are children needing a stable home and other basic needs?


there is real violence and indifference being targeted towards children. Where is your religion on this matter?


51 Useful Aging Out of Foster Care Statistics | Social Race Media -.

There is a false dichotomy in your post. You dont have to be either this or that. You can be both, and have different shades.

I will never forget one guy asking "why are you interested in helping rape victims when there are others who need more help, are you a perv?". This same question was asked in real life, also in this very forum. Well, it seems like saying "I have a mother, and three sisters, so I have a particular affinity to this particular cause" has no effect. Because this type of question has that black or white type of false dilemma inbuilt.

Its absolutely unfair to do that. There are some people who may have an particular cause in their minds and souls. There maybe others who have other causes in their minds and souls.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There is a false dichotomy in your post. You dont have to be either this or that. You can be both, and have different shades.

I will never forget one guy asking "why are you interested in helping rape victims when there are others who need more help, are you a perv?". This same question was asked in real life, also in this very forum. Well, it seems like saying "I have a mother, and three sisters, so I have a particular affinity to this particular cause" has no effect. Because this type of question has that black or white type of false dilemma inbuilt.

Its absolutely unfair to do that. There are some people who may have an particular cause in their minds and souls. There maybe others who have other causes in their minds and souls.

I don't think your comparison works.

For one thing, the anti-choice movement is, well, a movement of many people, not a single person like in your analogy.

Yes, no one person who's passionate about the issue of sexual assault will operate a shelter for domestic abuse victims, represent assault victims pro bono, AND lobby to improve the laws around sexual assault, but in the movement as a whole, we see all these things. In general, if some situation

Likewise, in a movement that were actually about "protecting life," we would expect to see a diversity of ways that this is expressed. It wouldn't just be about abortion.

The second issue is that even if we assume that the anti-choice movement is specifically focused on abortion or fetuses, its behaviour still doesn't make sense.

The mainstream anti-choice movement seems to have no interest in preventing abortions by any means that make a pregnant person happier or better off.

For instance, we recently expanded paid pregnancy and parental leave here in Canada. This directly addresses several of the major reasons why people get abortions, but none of the anti-choice groups in this country said anything in support of the measure. They also haven't campaigned to improve this system further (since pregnancy and parental leave for self-employed people is still an issue).

I can't count how many times I've heard about anti-choicers picketing abortion clinics and hospitals, but do you know how many times I've heard about one of the picketers offering money to pregnant people going in if they choose not to go through with the abortion? Exactly once (in the Netherlands, IIRC).

The actions of the anti-choice movement don't make sense if we assume they're motivated by "protecting life" generally. They don't even make sense if we assume that they're specifically focusing on fetuses, or even if we assume they've narrowly focused just on the issue of abortion.

OTOH, if we assume that the anti-choice movement is motivated by a desire to punish pregnant people for having sex they don't approve of... well, everything they do can be reconciled with that.

If you disagree, I invite you to tell me one way that the mainstream anti-choice movement tries to prevent abortions that has the effect of making a pregnant person happier or better off.

 

[firedragon]

I don't think your comparison works.

For one thing, the anti-choice movement is, well, a movement of many people, not a single person like in your analogy.

Yes, no one person who's passionate about the issue of sexual assault will operate a shelter for domestic abuse victims, represent assault victims pro bono, AND lobby to improve the laws around sexual assault, but in the movement as a whole, we see all these things. In general, if some situation

Likewise, in a movement that were actually about "protecting life," we would expect to see a diversity of ways that this is expressed. It wouldn't just be about abortion.

The second issue is that even if we assume that the anti-choice movement is specifically focused on abortion or fetuses, its behaviour still doesn't make sense.

The mainstream anti-choice movement seems to have no interest in preventing abortions by any means that make a pregnant person happier or better off.

For instance, we recently expanded paid pregnancy and parental leave here in Canada. This directly addresses several of the major reasons why people get abortions, but none of the anti-choice groups in this country said anything in support of the measure. They also haven't campaigned to improve this system further (since pregnancy and parental leave for self-employed people is still an issue).

I can't count how many times I've heard about anti-choicers picketing abortion clinics and hospitals, but do you know how many times I've heard about one of the picketers offering money to pregnant people going in if they choose not to go through with the abortion? Exactly once (in the Netherlands, IIRC).

The actions of the anti-choice movement don't make sense if we assume they're motivated by "protecting life" generally. They don't even make sense if we assume that they're specifically focusing on fetuses, or even if we assume they've narrowly focused just on the issue of abortion.

OTOH, if we assume that the anti-choice movement is motivated by a desire to punish pregnant people for having sex they don't approve of... well, everything they do can be reconciled with that.

If you disagree, I invite you to tell me one way that the mainstream anti-choice movement tries to prevent abortions that has the effect of making a pregnant person happier or better off.

So you decided that I am with those "anti-choice" whoever? ON what basis? Please explain.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So you decided that I am with those "anti-choice" whoever? ON what basis? Please explain.

I have no idea what position you personally hold. Nothing in my post spoke to your personal views.

Care to respond to the points I did make? I'd be especially interested in a response to this:

If you disagree, I invite you to tell me one way that the mainstream anti-choice movement tries to prevent abortions that has the effect of making a pregnant person happier or better off.

 

[firedragon]

I have no idea what position you personally hold. Nothing in my post spoke to your personal views.

Care to respond to the points I did make? I'd be especially interested in a response to this:

If you disagree, I invite you to tell me one way that the mainstream anti-choice movement tries to prevent abortions that has the effect of making a pregnant person happier or better off.

I dont speak for or against this so called "Mainstream anti-choice movement". So that question is not relevant to me. None of this is relevant to me mate. If you are looking for a person to debate this with, its not me.

It just not fair to tell you "if you care about abortion, you must care about children as well". You could go on an on if you like with "if you care about children, you must care about teens, then old people, then strangers, the wayfarer, the man on the moon" etc, etc. No. Thats wrong.

Thats all. Cheers.