Adoption is not an alternative to abortion.

[boston bean]

It's not right to conflate the two.

A very small percentage of women who give birth decide to put their baby up for adoption. Many times they make the decision to abort because they don't want to put a baby they just gave birth to up for adoption. They don't want to make that choice. So they choose something else.

These things are very complicated, humans are complicated creatures. That is why people should keep their nose out of others business.

To assume that adoption is a true alternative to abortion, is akin to forced birth policies.

They just are not a different side to the same coin. They are different decisions.

[FBaggins]

1. Plenty of women feel that it is.

Except for yourself... it isn't your decision to make.

[boston bean]

3. For a very small percentage of women it is of course a choice they could make.

But to try and make an argument that instead of having an abortion women should choose adoption, is an entirely different conversation.

[NCTraveler]

39. I fully agree.

I made a post downthread about your op. I think this post filled me in a little more as to your direction. You could be no more right. Others making the argument that women should choose adoption over abortion is crap. It is an individual and personal decision. Arguing for adoption is nothing more than a method of telling women their abortion would be immoral.

[idwiyo]

10. Just as overwhelming majority of women decide to abort. Would be nice if everyone else minded their

own business, kept their unsolicited opinions to themselves, and let each woman decide what is best for her. You know, without trying to guilt-trip her, outright accuse her of murder, etc. No?

[ehrnst]

54. Adoption is a parenting decision, abortion is a childbearing decision.

I think that the OP is expressing that difference.

Parenting decisions come only after a childbearing decision has been made.

[boston bean]

68. Thanks ehrnst!

[Decaffeinated]

2. New plan... You shush and let people make their own decisions...

[boston bean]

5. Of course, but I am discussing the issue from the side where

people think that women should choose adoption over abortion.

[peace13]

4. I would love to see your research on this insanity.

'A very small percentage of women who give birth decide to put their baby up for adoption. Many times they make the decision to abort because they don't want to put a baby they just gave birth to up for adoption. They don't want to make that choice. So they choose something else.'

I just don't believe that is the biggest reason that women have abortions.

[boston bean]

6. I didn't say it was. There's lots of other reasons.

But if adoption was truly an option that was equal to abortion, why do such a small percentage of women put their babies up for adoption.

[peace13]

9. Do yourself a favor and delete this OP!

You are out of your league on this one.

My response to anyone else reading this is to LET IT DROP! No more comments or this thing will grow as big as a balloon!

[boston bean]

12. I don't understand what you find so objectionable

to the statement that abortion and adoption are not the same decision.

What I find objectionable in the entire conversation is that people think women should not have abortions and then give their babies up for adoption.

I'm not saying that women shouldn't choose adoption. I am saying it's no one elses choice and they are not the same choice to make.

[peace13]

22. I object to your main premise that some women are just too selfish to have a baby and give it away!

You act like carrying a baby is just like taking a morning crap! Get real. I highly doubt that the main focus of your post is even a factor in most abortions. You do realize that carrying a baby to full term is as dangerous as an abortion! You also seem to think that a woman who gives her baby up was in an isolated incubator for nine months. Maybe she went home to granny and left the baby on the steps of the church after it was born. Nobody knows that she had the baby and it didn't effect her career or her family or her education.

Let's focus on males who are too lazy or selfish to use a condom. Let's try 500 posts on how we could actually stop unwanted pregnancies!

[boston bean]

24. wow.... you say a I said lot of things I never said. keep on truckin.

[blueamy66]

106. Wow, I didn't get that at all from the OP.

Actually, I think the OP's post was saying the exact opposite.

[kcr]

128. Where did you get that from the OP!

Yikes. Talk about reading comprehension fail.

[immoderate]

131. The non-sequiter approach...

--imm

[Blue_Roses]

200. true

Hi,

Not trying to nit-pick here, cause I do understand where you are coming from but...

"You do realize that carrying a baby to full term is as dangerous as an abortion!"

...actually an abortion, especially if the procedure is done within the 1st trimester (up to 12 weeks), is much, much safer than carrying to full-term. ( although, many women do not have any problems in a full-term pregnancy either)



After college graduation, I began working as a counselor with women facing unplanned pregnancies. It did entail counseling at a pregnancy termination clinic, as well as offering support when their choice wasn't always to end the pregnancy.

[Sheldon Cooper]

13. You should do yourself a favor and hide the thread!

*presto* the thing you don't like goes away! Isn't that amazing??

[peace13]

15. I can't see you! Thanks!

[Sheldon Cooper]

49. No problem!

It's a miracle!

[Scout]

157. they said "You should do yourself a favor and hide the thread!"

i agree, since you seem to have totally twisted what Boston Bean said.

[hfojvt]

46. here are stats that google brings to me

hence I am not vouching for the political correctness of the source. If somebody has a better one, then show it to me. But this one says

reasons for abortion

unready for responsibility - 21%
too young or immature to have a child - 11%
has problems with relationship or wants to avoid single parenthood - 12%
has all the children she wanted or all children are grown - 8%
can't afford baby now - 21%
concerned about how having a baby would change her life - 16%

that looks like 89% of all abortions for that collection of reasons.

But every single one of those would also seemed to be solved by adoption.

"unready for responsibility?" There is no responsibility if you give the baby up for adoption.

"too young or immature to have a child?" not a problem if the child is given up for adoption.

"wants to avoid single parenthood?" uhm, adoption

"has all the children she wanted?" with adoption, you don't have to keep this one

"can't afford baby now?" Unless that means "cannot afford to HAVE a baby" versus "cannot afford to RAISE a baby" then once again, adoption would take care of the costs of raising the baby. Heck, some couples who want to adopt might even pay for the cost of HAVING the baby.

"concerned about how having a baby would change her life?" Again, if you do not keep it, the baby does not change your life much at all.

Adoption clearly seems like a viable alternative to abortion.

Although I may have to walk that back a bit, because the demand for adoptions is perhaps NOT as large as the supply of aborted fetuses. Not even close. Seems like only about 130,000 children are adopted in an average year http://www.creatingafamily.org/blog/children-adopted-year/

Whereas over a million are aborted. So if even 30% of those abortions became adoptions, that would seem to overwhelm the supply of couples who want to adopt. Maybe there is a huge backlog of couples waiting to adopt, but even that would seem to be cleared out in a couple of years with an extra 300,000 babies being available.

But while it would not be an answer for all of them, it could be an answer for some of them.

[boston bean]

50. Why do you think more women choose abortion over adoption...

hmmmm.. Maybe because it's a completely different decision?

[hfojvt]

77. or it could be because that is how they are taught

Cannot afford to raise a baby? Then have an abortion.
Don't want to have a baby now? Then have an abortion.

A couple other simple reasons too - having an abortion is more private. I have a cousin who had an abortion. Her parents do not know about it, to this day. It is easier on my cousin, no doubt, that her parents do not know about it. If, on the other hand, she had gone to term and put the baby up for adoption, it would be much, much harder to keep that a secret from her parents. Harder to keep that secret from your co-workers and from busybody strangers too.

It also seems logical to me, that some, perhaps many, of those women, want to avoid several months of carrying a baby and also want to avoid the experience of childbirth. As I understand it, my grandmother did it twice, and was afraid that a third time, at age 40, was gonna kill her. But it didn't. She gave birth to my dad, and lived to be 101. Not sure why that was not listed among the reasons though.

[boston bean]

79. ah, so women should be taught differently.... I see....

[PeaceNikki]

87. you understand that if a pregnancy is carried to term, the father has to

Surrender parental rights for adoption as well, correct?

[PeaceNikki]

89. also, carrying a pregnancy term and delivery is far more dangerous than early termination

Google that.

[OwnedByCats]

146. Adoption is not a viable choice for some

for many reasons, not just the ones you list. Not all women could face putting their child up for adoption. It's one thing to decide this while you're pregnant, quite another once the child is born. Some women have abortions because they couldn't face adoption, but certainly couldn't keep the child themselves for any number of reasons. She still needs to make the decision for herself. I don't think we should judge their decisions.

[PeaceNikki]

86. can you provide data showing there is a shortage of children in the system who need homes?

I was totally unaware of this shortage.

[blueamy66]

108. shortage of BABIES, not children

I'm sure that is what you were getting at....

[PeaceNikki]

110. uh, no... children need homes.

[blueamy66]

145. I realize that.

But there is a shortage of infants in the system available to be adopted. You cannot disagree with that.

My point is that there are alot of older children in our foster care system that need adoptive families.

[uppityperson]

91. Have you ever been around pregnant females or talked to those getting abortions? Ever?

"unready for responsibility?" There is no responsibility if you give the baby up for adoption. Yet you are responsible for the time you are pregnant.

"too young or immature to have a child?" not a problem if the child is given up for adoption. If she is big enough to be impregnated, her body is mature enough to deal with pregnancy and childbearing?

"wants to avoid single parenthood?" uhm, adoption And if you're a teen whose parents kick you out of your home for getting pregnant you little slut you ( for that word) just adopt and no worries about being a single parent. Only a homeless uneducated teen.

"has all the children she wanted?" with adoption, you don't have to keep this one Why not just keep popping them out and handing them off, maybe for Halloween treats?

"can't afford baby now?" Unless that means "cannot afford to HAVE a baby" versus "cannot afford to RAISE a baby" then once again, adoption would take care of the costs of raising the baby. Heck, some couples who want to adopt might even pay for the cost of HAVING the baby. Indeed. I had no costs at all when I was pregnant or after having my baby beyond medical costs, job loss, income decreasing and outgo increasing. And hey, why not just take time off of school or work? After all, in 9 months everything magically goes back to Just As It Was Before? Right?

"concerned about how having a baby would change her life?" Again, if you do not keep it, the baby does not change your life much at all.

Uh huh. Staying in bed for 4 months due to eclampsia, losing your job, being kicked out of your home, beaten, divorced. Small potatoes.

It is true that adoption is a choice of how to deal with parenting, but it is not an alternative to abortion as far as birth control.

[Gormy Cuss]

127. [phone]

more reasons why that post was a simplistic reduction of the thought behind those decisions.

But the "baby does not change your life much at all" if you surrender for adoption is the most ridiculous, naive assessment on the list.

[REP]

154. Adoption is an alternative to raising a child; not to being pregnant or giving birth

[gollygee]

162. Wow you make a lot of assumptions

that adoption would solve all those problems.

Unready for responsibility of baby could also mean unready for responsibility of pregnancy.

To young or immature could mean too young to handle a pregnancy well or take the social fall out of pregnancy

Problems in relationship is a big reason for abortion and you can't just place a baby for adoption if the father doens't want you to, and you might be tied in a problematic or abusive realtionship forever. It's hard for women to have a baby with someone who has been abusive. If they leave the realtionship, then the abusive father gets visitation with the child alone, but if the don't want that they're trapped in the relationship.

All the children they want/children grown - I've just had a baby at 40 within the past few years and it isn't as easy as when you're younger. Adoption doesn't solve that problem. I had a horrible pregnancy and birth with complications after birth that were pretty serious.

Can't afford baby now - might not be able to afford to miss work due to pregnancy symptoms and birth, might not be able to handle changes to job to accommodate pregnancy.

It is a big deal physically and socially to go through a pregnancy and birth. It isn't something that just happens or has no consequence if you place the baby for adoption afterward.

[Hissyspit]

178. Dying in childbirth isn't solved by adoption.

[musical_soul]

208. Honestly, this is what we need.

First, we need more couples to consider adoption instead of giving birth. A child to love is a child to love.

Next, more people need to wait until marriage to have sex. No, this doesn't solve all of the problems because some people still don't want or can have children after they get married. What it does do is provide more financial stability. A lot of people wait until after college to get married, bringing more financial stability. If people can't wait until marriage, then at least wait until they're financially stable. If you don't have the money to raise a baby, then you don't have the money to have sex. If you're not mature enough for a baby (understandable if you're a teenager), then perhaps you're not old enough for sex.

[uppityperson]

210. Are you advising women to not have sex until they are married and financially stable?

Have you ever talked with people who have had abortions and discovered that there are a shitload of reasons they get abortions?

[REP]

153. Fewer than 2% of women surrender their newborn infants for adoption

Source: CDC http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad306.pdf

[Ian David]

7. Also, not all abortions are of adoptable babies.

You can't really place a baby for adoption if it's born without a brain, for example.

[TreasonousBastard]

152. My understanding is that there is a shortage of healthy, white baies for adoption...

others need not apply.

[Small Accumulates]

8. Agree: adoption is the alternative to parenting

The option to abortion is childbearing, with all its attendant perils.

[OwnedByCats]

11. Whether or not people should choose

adoption, is not anyone's call to make except the woman involved. I don't know that anyone said adoption was an "alternative" to abortion, if so the two are not even remotely similar. However, it is one of the choices on the table if a woman finds herself with an unwanted pregnancy. I have nothing against a woman choosing to put their child up for adoption, but then I have no problem with her keeping it because I believe in CHOICE. That also includes the right to put the baby up for adoption, or keeping the baby. Choice isn't just about being able to have an abortion.

[boston bean]

14. Of course. I feel the same way. Don't know what makes you think I don't.

I am discussing the issue from the POV where people truly think that you should choose adoption over abortion. Which limits choice, and is what I find objectionable.

[oldhippie]

16. I understand. You find other people's opinions objectionable ....

.... when they don't agree with yours. People who feel differently on a subject should keep their opinions to themselves and not advocate their position.

It's very clear to me. It's not really hard to figure out.

[boston bean]

18. I guess I have a right to say that I find positions that advocate forced birth

to be problematic.

Do you have a problem with that?

[oldhippie]

25. But you try to deny that right to others .....

... with differing opinions. I don't really have a problem with that either. It is plain for all to see.

Not everyone can get away with it. You seem to be able to.

(And for the record, I am solidly pro-choice, even pro abortion. It is the women's decision only. What I object to is stifling other's opinions.)

[boston bean]

28. Actually, I'm pretty sure that it's me others are trying to silence.

PS I look forward to your support in condemnation of others doing exactly what you seem to think I am doing.

[oldhippie]

30. I haven't seen too many others get into it with Skinner ....

... over trying to ban people that disagree with them. Forbidden opinions, so to speak.

Yes, there are some forbidden opinions on this board. Skinner spells them out fairly well in the TOS. But some want anything they disagree with to be a forbidden opinion.

That's my opinion.

[boston bean]

32. I know asking admin to support choice is just way to much to ask and out of bounds.

My bad.

[oldhippie]

34. Thank you for reinforcing the point

I think we are done now on this subject.

(And it's *too* much.)

[boston bean]

35. In your opinion. Again, I look forward to your condemnation

of others who are actually doing what you state I am doing.

Have a good one!

[noiretextatique]

176. the democratic party is pro-choice: its the official party position

you can always find "different opinions" in the GOP.

[MH1]

69. Don't know where you got that; presumably from a different conversation

I sure didn't get that from boston bean's reply to your comment.

Whatever else has been said on the matter, I strongly agree with the OP on these 2 items:

1) Adoption is NOT remotely equivalent to abortion in the consequences for the woman, and therefore is not a simple alternative (as in "just pick a or b ... why can't you just pick b?&quot

2) There are certainly people who argue that women should not consider abortion in any case if live birth is possible, because "adoption is a(n) ("better&quot option".

The idea that adoption is a "better" option is complete bullshit, in my opinion. In theory and mostly in fact (although not always, unfortunately), an abortion is a medical decision that is between a woman and her doctor, and protected (again, in theory) by the rules of HIPAA. A woman who gives birth and gives the baby up for adoption, cedes her privacy in the matter FOREVER and IRREVOCABLY. So the consequences are much greater. This is why the right-wing wants abortion to be as difficult to obtain as possible: they see it as "too easy" for the woman to avoid being shamed for having an unwanted pregnancy.

[uppityperson]

92. Isn't that what you are Chiding her about, that she should be quiet?

[oldhippie]

115. Absolutely not. Just the opposite ....

I don't think anyone's opinions should be stifled. BB does. Didn't you see her exchange with Skinner in Ask the Administrators where she tried to stifle certain opinions? No, I guess you probably didn't.

I think she should be able to post any opinion she wants on this discussion board (within skinner's TOS, of course.) She should also allow others to do the same.

[boston bean]

142. sorry, still don't want to have to read anti choice crap here.

you can call it whatever you like.

But since I have no control, obviously I am not limiting anyones 'free speech'

[oldhippie]

164. So we have come full circle. At least you admit it ....

As I said, you don't want to read opinions that disagree with yours.

But since I have no control, obviously I am not limiting anyones 'free speech'

You tried to, but failed.

I think we have just about finished beating this horse.

[boston bean]

165. Admit what? Deny what?? That anti choice bullshit is offensive

as racist comments or homophobic comments are.

I say it with pride. Ive been pretty consistent.

[noiretextatique]

177. how silly. this is a democratic site and the party's position is pro-choice

if you want to read anti-choice opinions, there are plenty of other sites where you can do that.

[oldhippie]

180. I don't think you will find any anti-choice opinions here ......

.... the discussions I have seen differ around who gets the choice, who can have an opinion, what, if any, conditions are put on the choice (age, medical conditions, etc.). It's the old "absolute right" versus "reasonable regulation" debate, which you have about a lot of "rights." I haven't seen a single "anti-choice" sentiment in this or any other recent thread. It's mostly a matter of degree.

[noiretextatique]

204. well...this is a pro-choice site

anti-choice trolls usually do not last long.

[OwnedByCats]

21. Whether one should choose adoption over abortion is entirely dependent upon the woman

as I'm sure you agree, she has to decide. I think all options should be discussed with a woman who is not quite sure what she wants to do, and if she wants to, talk to loved ones she can trust (if she has any), then after that she's got to make that decision herself. I wouldn't agree with pushing one option over another, she needs to know her options of course. Beyond that, nothing should be pushed I agree. It's bad enough that a woman can regret a choice that she made entirely of her own volition, much less a decision somebody else made for her.

[Captain Stern]

102. How does someone thinking you should CHOOSE adoption over abortion limit CHOICE?

It doesn't. At all.

The two choices are still available.

[HappyMe]

104. Exactly.

[OwnedByCats]

137. I believe you feel the same way

I agree with you that it's not an "alternative" to abortion. It's not really an alternative until it's born, it's an alternative to keeping said baby. It's just an option one can choose instead of abortion, if that is what she really wants to do.

[Xithras]

84. Remember that adoption, unlike abortion, is not solely the womans choice.

Which is another reason that many anti-choicers like to push the adoption meme. A woman has a right to completely control her own body, but she only gets 50% of the say in her childs life after it is born. One woman can end a pregnancy, but it takes at least two people (and often an entire courtroom) to end parenthood.

The adoption argument provides a man with leverage over a woman, and a way to control her choices and future. That fact isn't incidental to the argument or to their motives.

[boston bean]

85. Wow! Another good point! I hadn't thought of that. But what you state is true!

Thank you!

[OwnedByCats]

138. That's true

Unless she's completely alone, father not in the picture, other family not involved. Of course that wouldn't be the majority of women, I don't think.

[Scout]

159. beautiful reply, thank you

"The adoption argument provides a man with leverage over a woman, and a way to control her choices and future. That fact isn't incidental to the argument or to their motives."

this is why some women choose to not tell the father/sperm donor that they are pregnant.

[niyad]

99. an idiot tx "legislator" keeps proposing a bill that would make it mandatory to take an "adoption

course" before a woman would be allowed to have an abortion.

[OwnedByCats]

140. I don't think a course is necessary

That reminds me of some clergy who push mandatory "pre-marriage counseling" before they will marry a couple. Making a woman aware of options and answering of any questions is not a bad thing, just don't think a mandatory course is necessary. I think if a woman wants to take one, that's one thing. I don't think it should have to be mandatory.

[niyad]

187. "making a woman aware of options"??? because, without a course, mandatory or not, she has no

clue as to what her options are? is this really what you meant? I hope not, because, if so, damned insulting to women.

[OwnedByCats]

205. I happen to be a woman, and no I don't mean to say ALL

women don't know their options. But guess what, a teenager may not. What planned parenthood does, with ALL women seeking an abortion, is to sit down with them and talk about options. That's not to say none of them are aware, but it's a big decision, one you can never take back. It doesn't hurt to talk to them for a few minutes first and they don't push in one direction or the other - they let you decide. I see nothing wrong with that. A course would be overkill for anyone.

[noiretextatique]

174. anti-choice authoritarians consider adoption an alternative

the woman is just a vessel to them.

[hfojvt]

17. if I urge you to "choose life"

you still have a choice.

For me to have an opinion does not take away your freedom of choice in the slightest. Does not force anybody to do anything.

Any more than your opinion that I should not have an opinion which disagrees with yours forces me to change my opinion.

[uppityperson]

93. Why do you feel the right to "urge" a pregnant person to chose anything? URGING them is trying to

force them into doing something. Of course you have your right to have an opinion, but "urge you to" do anything beyond what they chose is trying to force them.

[PeaceNikki]

95. women choosing their own life isn't acceptable enough for you?

[Sheldon Cooper]

97. But why do you feel that you're entitled to have an opinion at all?

What gives you the right to "urge" another person to "choose life"???? Unless it is your baby, and even then your rights are secondary to the woman's, why the fuck do you have any business sticking your nose into it? Why?

[TreasonousBastard]

150. Probably something along the lines of...

urging a friend not to commit suicide, or taking a recognized medical course of treatment instead of seeing a shaky herbalist...

It will be argued that these are not the same things, but "rights" are flexible things, and there are many gray areas involved.

If you truly believe a friend is going down the wrong path, do you not have the obligation to make your concerns known?

At what point would it be considered "forcing" your opinion on her?

[Sheldon Cooper]

151. No, you do not have any sort of 'obligation' to make your concerns known.

Butt out.

And furthermore, attempting to equate contemplating abortion to contemplating suicide is ludicrous.

[TreasonousBastard]

156. Why not? If I have a friend going through a rough time...

a crisis even, who are you to say I should shut up. Even if they mention it intending a way of reaching out? I am talking about tough times for someone where major decisions are being made. Job changes, relationship troubles... unintended pregancy... tough times, people want to talk.

Or, are you saying that contemplating an abortion is something completely outside the human experience and should be considered something unique and subject to its own rules?

[LanternWaste]

175. What other valid medical procedures are considered "going down the wrong path..."?

What other wholly valid medical procedures are considered "going down the wrong path..."?

[TreasonousBastard]

183. Who said anything about "going down the wrong path", but...

there are lots of valid medical procedures you might want to talk over with people you trust. Bypasses, stomach bands, tube tying, amputations... Discussing things like this are part pf love and friendship, are they not?

[hfojvt]

201. it's not an obligation

it is a choice.

I can choose to get involved.

Why do YOU feel that you are entitled to tell other people to "butt out"? How are the choices that I decide to make with my own life, any of YOUR business?

Ironically enough, you are doing the very same thing that you are chiding me for doing - urging other people to act the way you think they should, and to think the way you think they should.

Why do you think you are entitled to do that?

[gollygee]

170. Urging someone to do what you think is best

might make her choose something that is not best for her. I would never urge a woman do either have an abortion or not. Women who are pregnant but don't want to be should search their hearts and make the best choice for themselves, because THEY are the ones who have to live with the decision. You don't have to live with their choice.

[Le Taz Hot]

19. A friend of mine

had a baby back in the '60's. She was a single mom to 2 already, struggling, no help from her family, and she found herself pregnant. She ended up having a baby and giving it up for adoption. Fast forward about 8 years later, still not doing a lot better financially, she gets pregnant and this time had an abortion. She's in her 70's now and she says there is not a day that goes by that she doesn't think about that adopted child. She says she rarely thinks about the abortion.

This is not a one-size-fits-all situation. Each woman is different. Each situation is different. Every woman needs to be able to make her own decision in her own way about each pregnancy. Notice how no one else is involved in that decision, except perhaps her doctor.

[boston bean]

20. I agree. Thanks for the post.

[demmiblue]

23. Kicking for peace13!

[boston bean]

26. .

[Le Taz Hot]

27. Oh yeah,

Check it out:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024025526

[me b zola]

70. K&R!

[PeaceNikki]

51. lol

[HappyMe]

29. Being pro-choice means you have a choice.

I think that abortion should stay legal, but I also would not have one myself.

What somebody thinks about an issue personally doesn't take away another person's choice.

[boston bean]

31. "What somebody thinks about an issue personally doesn't take away another person's choice"

Thats a tough one. If it couched as a personal decision with no moral judgment when discussing, my opinion is that's fine and great and is what choice is. Pro choice persons don't say they don't think any woman should have an abortion and then discuss all their moral arguments as to why, and then on the other hand state I am PRO CHOICE!

Choice means the decision is ones own, no one elses. Keep it like that and I will agree whole heartedly.

However, that is not what is happening in reality, and is why we find ourselves in a fight for the right to continue to make decisions over own bodies.

[HappyMe]

44. But here's the thing - anybody can

say that they find something morally wrong and not take away the other person's ability to make their own decision.

You can tell me 2x per day for the next week to have an abortion. That doesn't mean I am going to decide to do that. Your opinion that I should have an abortion won't enter into my final decision at all. It works the other way also. Tell me for the next week that I shouldn't have an abortion, and your opinion still won't enter into my final decision.

I said in my other post that I would not have an abortion, but that doesn't make me an anti-abortion person.

[boston bean]

45. happy, why do think we are having attacks on womens rights?

It's persons opinions that drive this.

Hey if you say womans choice, and I support that, great!

[HappyMe]

62. If they are saying that abortion should be illegal,

then yes, that is an attack on women's rights.

If they are stating that they think adoption is an alternative without saying that abortion should be illegal, I don't think that is an attack.

[boston bean]

64. Persons who feel that women should choose adoption over abortion

are anti choice. Let's not confuse the issue.

[joeglow3]

71. That sounds like a moral judgement

I thought those were wrong...

[boston bean]

72. LOL

Weak response and one I have heard often in anti choice circles. Making it seem like the person who objects to the limitations on choice is the one doing the limiting or judging.

[joeglow3]

76. Forgot the sarcasm tag

[PeaceNikki]

66. do you consider restrictions, barriers, lack of availability and additional costs to be an attack on

Choice?

I do. And that's been happening with alarming frequency. Creating a culture where even "supporters" of choice insist it be rare helps feed those efforts to restrict.

We don't fight to expand access to things we insist MUST BE RARE.

[HappyMe]

73. Yeah, those things would be an attack.

But I didn't think that those things are being discussed here.

I'm not going to get dragged into the 'rare' discussion.

[OwnedByCats]

160. Ok just to explain again what is meant by "rare"

People here, on DU (not going to speak for others outside this message board), are saying "rare" not to mean only some women are allowed abortions based on certain criteria or the lack of availability. Of course that's not what is meant. I don't know why everyone thinks that. A pro choice person is not wanting a situation where only some women can get the abortion they need. That's just silly talk.

What is meant is through education and availability of contraception, making it free if necessary and available to all, would cut down the need for the procedure. Not all abortions are the result of ignorance about contraception, but some are. Why do you think organizations like Planned Parenthood give women who have gone to them for an abortion free birth control afterwords? Why do you think they educate and push for the use of it? It's called trying to prevent an unwanted pregnancy in the first place. Finding yourself in a position to have to choose abortion is no happy occasion. I've been there, I had an abortion. It wasn't easy and it was a scary time. I would rather have not gotten pregnant in the first place. That doesn't mean abortion should be taken off the table for any woman. It should be available for any woman who needs one (also free if necessary) because we all know that even if all women were using bc, no contraceptive is 100%. There will also never not be a medical need for abortion for some women who's lives are in danger. But what is wrong with actively trying to prevent unwanted pregnancy? If I had a teenage daughter, I'd make sure she had protection because I wouldn't want her to have to go through that hard choice, if it was possible to prevent it. I wouldn't just do nothing and think "oh well, if she does get pregnant, there is always abortion". Teaching her about her body and how it works and using birth control is something she's going to need until she's menopausal, it's important.

I used to participate in a chat room on AOL dedicated to preserving freedom of choice many many years ago, way back in the 90's. Pro-lifers would come in and spout their nonsense and we would tell them it was none of their business. We always preached about the importance of birth control, but abortion should still be available nonetheless.

I don't know what the problem is here, maybe it's a word thing. Maybe the word "rare" shouldn't be used because it's confusing things I think. By no means is anyone here talking about removing any woman's right to have an abortion, no matter why she needs one.

[boston bean]

161. I think you need to read through some more of the responses

before you can state what you have said regarding what people mean.

[OwnedByCats]

163. Well then we must have some

right wingers hanging around here then. Why would anyone who is pro choice say abortions should only be granted to some women to make them "rare"? That doesn't make any sense. I read through some other threads and I didn't get that from anyone - I must have missed the ones you're talking about. I certainly have never said anything like that in my defense of the "rare" comments.

[OwnedByCats]

166. So just to be clear ...

as to what I think ...

If anyone here considers themselves "pro-choice" but you think we should deny some women their right to an abortion to make them rare, then you're not pro-choice.... at all. Actually I'd like to know who around here actually thinks that. Come on, don't be shy ...

[PeaceNikki]

186. Here's my standard c&p reply

We should discuss the harm, stigma and confusion that can be caused by the words we choose. ESPECIALLY with people who support choice and may not realize the potential harm or that the party has updated the language. The words in question of this thread are "safe, legal and rare" - specifically taking note of the word rare. In context of abortion (not unwanted pregnancies, abortion). The national party removed it because of the fact it's open to interpretation... and all of the reasons outlined in the OP.

*I* get that you and other liberals are very very likely to fully support choice. *I* get what you *MEAN* by rare. We *all* want to make unwanted pregnancies rare... but do you not see, even a little, how using the "rare" language can be harmful? There have been massive attacks in every state on abortion since 1989. And they are getting worse. And, as such, I feel it's incredibly important to discuss how our language forms our societal beliefs and vice versa. To quote LeftyMom from another thread...


LeftyMom
19. That's the political genius and moral cowardice of the phrase.
To pro-choice people it means "unplanned pregnancies shouldn't be common, for women's sake." To the mushy middle it means "abortions for deserving women but not for those trampy other women." To anti-choicers it means "let's whittle away at legalized abortion even if we can't get a ban past the Supremes yet."

It's a political Rorschach ink blot. It means what you want it to mean.

I have had at least 2 conversations here with people who literally said, "oh, hey. wow - I really hadn't thought about it like that, I will change my language". Others have been nasty, combative, dismissive and rude. And there's been a lot in between.

Bottom line - it's a discussion. This is a discussion board. It's an important topic to me and I thought to many other DUers. Again- the word that causes confusion, anger, harm, etc was REMOVED from the party platform for these reasons. It's just weird that so many DUers are fighting it.


Here is this is the Democratic Party altered platform (with "safe, legal, rare" removed):

Protecting A Woman's Right to Choose. The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way. We also recognize that health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. We strongly and unequivocally support a woman's decision to have a child by providing affordable health care and ensuring the availability of and access to programs that help women during pregnancy and after the birth of a child, including caring adoption programs.


See? It's possible to support all of the things you discussed and leave the frequency out of the policy discussion to avoid the confusion and/or potential harm.

Ideally, abortion rates drop as a byproduct of the rest but we keep the focus on what it should be. We typically don't fight to expand access to something we want to be rare.

The discussion of this is not new. It's just new to DU. It's not that controversial.

In conclusion: correct, we should not use 'rare' in context to abortion.

[OwnedByCats]

207. I do agree, I think the frequency comes about when talking

to pro lifers some of the time. Trying to make out it's a rare procedure, or we're trying to make it rare, falsely thinking a pro life individual is going be ok with it "rarely" happening, appeasing them somehow. At least, that seems like the case some of the time. But you know as well as I do that "rarely" is not going to be good enough for them. A lot of them don't even think it's ok for rape/incest victims or mom's health.

So you're right, you can leave the term "rare" out of the discussion and I really have no problem with that. The people who are pro choice I think generally understand this, and like I said if anyone here is proposing "rare" in the form of denying abortions - they aren't truly pro choice.

[whopis01]

111. But as a society we impose our morals upon one another

Tell me for the next week that I shouldn't have an abortion, and your opinion still won't enter into my final decision.

That is true when you are talking about a discussion between two people. But a person who is determined to tell you every day to not have an abortion may also go around telling others that you (and others like you) shouldn't have abortions. And when they tell enough people and convince enough people then abortions will be illegal - and that most certainly will enter into your final decision.

Our laws (at least in a very basic theory) are a codified collection of our shared morals. Which in turn means what society finds morally unacceptable is likely to be made illegal.

So, I would agree with your first sentence in a strictly literal manner - "anybody can say that they find something morally wrong and not take away the other person's ability to make their own decision". Yes, someone can say that and then not take away someone else's choice. But if they wish to take away another's choice, saying it is morally wrong can also be the first step towards that.

In my opinion it is important to fight back against this lest it take a foothold. When someone tells me that abortion is morally wrong, I tell them that they are wrong. It may not be the right choice for them, but it is not morally wrong.

If I may ask you a question - since you said that you would not have an abortion - is that because you find it morally wrong? And if so, do you distinguish your personal morals from others? Or do you consider it morally wrong in general, but still feel it is an individual's choice? (I am in no way trying to say that you are anti-choice or imposing your will on others - I am just trying to get a better understanding of your view on the subject).

[HappyMe]

117. I will reply to you in a bit.

I have a bunch of things to do right now - I didn't want you to think that I'm ignoring you or avoiding a reply.

[oldhippie]

126. "... do you distinguish your personal morals from others?"

That right there is a very important question, and I think the crux of the contention here.

There is a great sentiment among many that we should not force our morals upon others. Unless, of course, they are moral values that we can get the others in a society agree with. It's been that way for a long time. It creates conflict.

Good post.

[HappyMe]

136. I don't know that I find abortion morally wrong,

it's just that having one isn't the choice I would make. I wouldn't be comfortable with that decision for myself.

I think that whether something is morally wrong or not is up to each person. I am not going to impose my morals on anybody else. I find it interesting that you tell people that say abortion is morally wrong that they are wrong. Aren't you then imposing your moral standards on somebody else?

I think that people can think that an abortion is not right for them, and still be pro-choice. What somebody else decides for themselves isn't going to effect me. This is why I think that the morally right or wrong needs to be removed from the discussion entirely.

I often wonder if all the people howling about morally wrong really believe that. I wonder if they just jump on the talking points bandwagon and give it no more thought.

[boston bean]

139. Thinking it is morally wrong to have an abortion for oneself is fine.

Who says it's not.

You are making a false equivalency.

Saying one believes that abortion is not for them and then writing an OP that states generally, people should not have abortions, is the one limiting choice.

You can't possibly think these two things are the same.

[HappyMe]

143. I can think what ever the hell I want.

I was replying to someone else.

[boston bean]

144. of course you can. I can too.

[whopis01]

168. Individual morals work well as long as they are kept to oneself

I find it interesting that you tell people that say abortion is morally wrong that they are wrong. Aren't you then imposing your moral standards on somebody else?

Absolutely. And unashamedly so - when the situation calls for it. Which is in response to them pushing their morals upon myself or others.

I think that whether something is morally wrong or not is up to each person.

This makes sense in a philosophical discussion, but falls apart in implementation. It runs into problems when you have people whose moral code tells them that it is acceptable to infringe upon the rights of, or otherwise harm people that don't follow the same moral code.

I think your example and my example are two different situations - you are talking about the person who believes that abortion is morally wrong for themselves, but feels it is up to others to make their own decision. My example is the person who believes that abortion is morally wrong, period. That is the person to whom I was referring when I said I would tell them that they are wrong.

So, my argument (and I use that term loosely - I don't think you and I have much of an argument with each other - more just nitpicking about fine points) is that your philosophy works well as long as everyone plays by it - but when you are dealing with people who wish to force their morals upon others, there really is no other way of pushing back.

I often wonder if all the people howling about morally wrong really believe that. I wonder if they just jump on the talking points bandwagon and give it no more thought.

Yes - I think that is exactly what is going on. And it makes the one person with a loud voice very dangerous when others just fall into line behind them without putting any thought to their actions.

[get the red out]

33. Difficult topic to discuss

This is a topic that is very individual to each person who must make a choice regarding a pregnancy. I don't know how to even discuss this issue in light of my belief that every woman must be free to choose.

[boston bean]

42. It is difficult, because adoption is obviously a choice one may make

It's just not the same choice and an alternative to abortion.

That is all I have tried to state. And there are people out there that think it is an alternative and there is no need for an abortion. It's part of the anti-choice movement.

[NCTraveler]

36. "Adoption is not an alternative to abortion."

For a small percentage of people it is. That is why these blanket statements never work out well. If a woman gets pregnant, doesn't want the child, contemplates abortion or adoption, she might choose adoption. That means it was an alternative for her personally. That is in complete contrast to your statement.

"These things are very complicated, humans are complicated creatures."
You are exactly right on this. That is why you shouldn't make such a black or white statement. It is an alternative for some. They are not different decisions for some women. It is a part of the decision making process for some women that go hand in hand. It gets very tiring to hear people decide what is and isn't right with respect to a womens decision making process for her own body.

[jeff47]

58. The first paragraph is actually a 2-stage decision

It's not that the woman says "I'll do adoption instead of abortion". It's a two-stage decision.

First, she decides "abortion or no abortion"
Second, if she choses no abortion, she moves on to "adoption or no adoption".

In the end, the overall effect of those two decisions may be adoption instead of abortion, but they were still two decisions.

[NCTraveler]

65. Pretty simple.

For some they are two options in the decision making process.

[jeff47]

83. Except even in the cases you describe, there are 4 options.

Adoption isn't the alternative to abortion. Adoption is the alternative to raising the child.

The alternative to abortion is giving birth.

[NCTraveler]

88. Once again, pretty simple. nt.

[jeff47]

96. Then why did your post say that wasn't the case?

You entered the thread with "adoption can be an alternative to abortion".

[NCTraveler]

98. Because deciding to carry to term and give up the child for adoption...

can be a choice in a womens decision making process.

[RobinA]

118. You Know This How? nt

*

[jeff47]

125. Because the second decision is moot without the first.

Can't put the child up for adoption unless she decides not to have an abortion.

[Starry Messenger]

37. I knew I would have gotten family pressure to not put an infant up for adoption.

I also didn't think my job would keep me on if I was carrying a baby. There was no way to physically do what I was doing nine months pregnant. I couldn't afford a baby and risk being out of work over one. I got an abortion.

[Raine1967]

59. This post is spectacular.

This is something that people seem to forget -- these are real life situations that do still happen.

They shouldn't, but they do. Thanks for bringing up an issue that is not nearly brought up enough in these discussions.

[Starry Messenger]

81. Thanks. These last couple of days have been tough here at DU.

Someone suggested that more education and self-respect would lead to fewer abortions, via expanded use of contraception, etc. I had my diaphragm fail, so I don't really see what more self-respect would have afforded me in this instance.

Stuff happens.

[Raine1967]

82. I Was 21, just out of college.

I used protection, So did he. Having a baby wasn't going to happen. Nor was giving up something for adoption that i was consciously preventing.

I shouldn't have to explain to anyone why I made the choice I did. It seems lately people are being asked to do just that.

Choice is choice. The reasons why shouldn't be a part of the equation. There are many reasons women choose not to have children.

Abortion is a medical procedure. It's that simple.

and for all the people out there claiming safe legal and rare... I can assure you that the states that are closing clinics around the country are doing a damn fine job in making this procedure less safe.

Not less rare.

[boston bean]

101. Thanks to you both for sharing your experiences!

[Starry Messenger]

133. Cosign all of that. Your last point is dead on.

Excellently stated. That ought to be plastered all over the nation.

[Nye Bevan]

38. If a woman sees adoption as an alternative to abortion, I respect her choice.

If a woman decides to choose abortion instead, I also respect that choice.

It's not really up to you to lecture women about what their "true alternatives" are.

[boston bean]

43. I respect the choice.

[libodem]

40. I totally agree

Thanks for putting it so well. K&R.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

41. also adoption can be quite traumatic for the women who give up their kids.

additionally, adoption is not that easy for the child either. i know several adopted kids who are quite resentful at their birth parents for giving them up. one of them is heavily involved in a group of adopted kids who have started a movement to make giving up kids less of an option.

pretending as though adoption is psychologically easier than abortion is completely dishonest

[boston bean]

47. Yes, very true.

It's a totally different decision to make.

[Marrah_G]

182. I could never resent my birthmother for giving me up.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

195. i am sure most kids don't but if you hear anti-abortion activists talk about abortion

you would think it has no associated issues, which it does.

i am by no means against adoption, i just dont believe its 'easier' for the woman.

[StevieM]

197. I hope you have a place in your life for her. I can't imagine that she doesn't love you with her

whole heart.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

48. "These things are very complicated, humans are complicated creatures"

Yet you appear totally comfortable with issuing blanket statements while, with apparently not a whiff of irony, demanding that "people should keep their nose out of others business."

Hmmm.

[boston bean]

53. ummm yeah, less interference from nutty right wing pro forced birthers

would help a lot. I agree.

I smell or whiff no irony in my position.

I'm for CHOICE.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

123. And adoption is a choice...

perhaps the whiff I'm getting is bullshit.

[boston bean]

132. of course adoption is a choice, what is not choice

is telling a women that instead of an abortion they need to bring a baby into this world and have it adopted.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

134. Perhaps you should have included that sentiment in your OP (nt)

[ehrnst]

52. Adoption is an alternative to parenthood, not childbirth.

Adoption is a parenting decision, and is not an option until a childbearing decision is made.

[Auntie Bush]

55. I wouldn't want to give birth to a baby ( that I carried for 9 months.) and give it up

for adoption...then spend the rest of my life wondering what happened to it. Was it being mistreated or abused, was it happy, how is it doing in school, does it hate me for giving it away, is it looking for me, do I have grandchildren, are they still alive? etc etc etc

I can't believe men don't think of these questions when they deny a woman an abortion and tell her to give it up for adoption if she doesn't want it or can't afford it.

[OwnedByCats]

148. Yes this one of the reasons some women don't choose adoption

It's not always "I don't want to be pregnant and give birth" or "I can't have family knowing I got pregnant in the first place", sometimes it's just because the woman in question cannot personally choose adoption. I feel the same way, that is precisely what my feelings would be. All the power to a woman if she thinks she can go through with adoption, that's fine - but not everyone can do it.

[pnwmom]

56. Of course it is -- for some women. You're making a blanket statement

that just isn't true.

For most women who choose abortions, an adoption is probably not an option they'd consider. For THEM, it isn't a true alternative.

But for other women, it is. There are women who choose that alternative to abortion every day.

[boston bean]

61. I agree wholeheartedly. Not sure what makes you think I don't.

I am discussing the idea that women SHOULD not have abortions and SHOULD put their babies up for adoption instead. Which is quite a common argument in nutty anti choice circles.

[REP]

172. Many don't make a free choice, either; they are coerced by the for-profit agencies

Jordan isn't alone. On an adoption agency rating website, Bethany is ranked poorly by birth mothers. Its adoptive parent ratings are higher, although several adopters described the coercion they felt "our birth mother" underwent. But neither is Bethany alone; in the constellation of groups that constitute the Christian adoption industry, including CPCs, maternity homes and adoption agencies, Bethany is just one large star. And instances of coercion in adoption stretch back nearly seventy years.

Ann Fessler, author of The Girls Who Went Away: The Hidden History of Women Who Surrendered Children for Adoption in the Decades Before Roe v. Wade, has meticulously chronicled the lives of women from the "Baby Scoop Era": the period from 1945 to 1973, when single motherhood was so stigmatized that at least 1.5 million unwed American mothers relinquished children for adoption, often after finishing pregnancies secretly in maternity homes. The coercion was frequently brutal, entailing severe isolation, shaming, withholding information about labor, disallowing mothers to see their babies and coercing relinquishment signatures while women were drugged or misled about their rights. Often, women's names were changed or abbreviated, to bolster a sense that "the person who went away to deliver the baby was someone else" and that mothers would later forget about the babies they had given up. In taking oral histories from more than a hundred Baby Scoop Era mothers, Fessler found that not only was that untrue but most mothers suffered lifelong guilt and depression.

The cultural shift that had followed World War II switched the emphasis of adoption from finding homes for needy infants to finding children for childless couples. Karen Wilson-Buterbaugh, founder of the Baby Scoop Era Research Initiative, has compiled sociological studies from the era, including Clark Vincent's speculation in his 1961 book Unmarried Mothers that "if the demand for adoptable babies continues to exceed the supply...it is quite possible that, in the near future, unwed mothers will be 'punished' by having their children taken from them right after birth"--under the guise of protecting the "best interests of the child."

The Nation Shotgun Adoption

There is much more more about this available, but I picked the most neutral, non-book source.

[pnwmom]

173. That was true in the period cited in the book -- 1945 to 1973.

Now that abortions are much more easily available, it is much less so.

[REP]

181. If only that were so.

[pnwmom]

185. Do you have more recent data to point to?

Because 2013 is not 1973.

[Prism]

57. There are roughly eight times more abortions than adoptions in the U.S.

I say roughly, because abortion information is incomplete and estimated. I gleaned my information from the Guttmacher Institute (Planned Parenthood's research division) that put abortion at about 1.1 million per year. There were about 135,000 adoptions in 2007 and 2008 (taken from childwelfare.gov).

No idea of the relevance of this info in regards to this discussion, but I was curious about the statistical comparison while reading this thread and just thought I'd share the info I dug up.

[SheilaT]

60. It seems to me as though most who say,

Don't have an abortion, just give the baby up for adoption have never been pregnant.

It's nine months, and even if your pregnancies are relatively easy, as mine were except for some fairly unpleasant morning sickness, it's still nine full months of being pregnant, of enduring the nausea, the profound and often uncomfortable changes in your body. Then there's childbirth itself, which even at its easiest is no picnic.

Oh, just have the baby and give it up for adoption. Yeah. I'd just like to see every single person that advocates that, especially the male persons that advocate that, actually go through a pregnancy and see how they feel.

It is a very personal choice. A woman who has a baby and relinquishes it to others is making the choice that is the right one for her. NOT one that should be mandated for all. Or even pushed beyond a mild suggestion.

[boston bean]

63. Thank you for stating this so succinctly and getting it.

[MH1]

75. Excellent post. nt.

[Brainstormy]

67. I completely agree

[ljm2002]

74. I guess I would word it slightly differently...

...and say that while adoption is one alternative to abortion, it is not the only acceptable alternative and the two cannot be equated. Carrying a baby to term and giving birth is physically stressful and a much higher risk to the woman than having a safe, legal and preferably early abortion. Women are not obliged to give birth anytime they are pregnant and you are right, those who claim adoption is the only acceptable alternative are advocating forced-birth policies.

K&R

[Vashta Nerada]

78. A woman should decide what's best for her.

No one else should make that decision for her.

Let's leave it at that.

[boston bean]

80. I certainly would like to.

[RobinA]

120. But You Never Do nt

*

[KT2000]

90. Excellent post - and

thank you.

[uppityperson]

94. Abortion is about continuing a pregnancy or not. Adoption is about what you do after giving birth.

They are related, but different choices at different stages.

[niyad]

100. in glancing over the responses very quickly, I notice that the adoption proponents made no

references to the health risks of a woman carrying a pregnancy to term, as though this were of no consequence whatsoever.

[PeaceNikki]

112. and those risks are FAR greater than early termination

[whttevrr]

121. I had to stop reading them and just scroll down to post a reply of support.

It's scary how many people think they can decide such things for others.

I believe the majority of Americans believe in Choice, I just wish they knew how important it is to vote for people who also believe that way.

[REP]

155. See here for the psychological sequelae women face with adoption:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024027788

[gollygee]

171. There are also financial and social consequences

There are jobs that are difficult or impossible when pregnant, and pregnancy can cause a lot of absences. Birth and recovery absolutely can. That is time off without pay that not everyone can afford.

And there are huge social consequences, beyond the emotional and psychological consequences of always wondering what the baby's life is yet. Plus of course she has to get the father's permission to make that choice, which can be impossible, and dangerous to even attempt if she's in an abusive relationship.

It is a very difficult choice. I know for some women it is the right choice, but it is in no way a choice someone can make for someone else, or should even try to influence. It's a choice someone has to live with forever.

[Orsino]

103. For laws or lawmakers to conflate the two is wrong.

As with abortion and contraception.

[whopis01]

105. The problem is not considering adoption as an alternative to abortion

The problem is defining adoption a morally better choice than abortion. It is not.

A pregnant woman has a number of potential alternatives - adoption and abortion are two of them. There are others as well. And the choice between all of those alternatives is hers to make.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

107. You know what it is when you get right down to it....

The classic "white male asshole" is in an absolute PANIC that they are becoming extinct.

[PeaceNikki]

113. Exactly. there isn't a shortage of children who are in desperate need of homes.

[Avalux]

109. Others may not but I agree with your premise.....

Going through a 9 month pregnancy and delivering a baby for the purposes of adoption is not equivocal to an abortion.

What about the woman who may have to explain the pregnancy to her family, friends and co-workers? What about enduring the physical changes and risks of being pregnant and giving birth?

Anyone who thinks a woman should not have an abortion because she can just give the baby up for adoption are not taking things like this into consideration.

[whttevrr]

114. Forced birthing is a scary thought for this man, can't imagine what its like for a woman...

Hang in there boston bean.

[bravenak]

116. My birth control failed.

I was working at a gas station for 8 bucks an hour, and had previously given birth to a child who died of a genetic disorder. I was told that there was no test for Zellwegers syndrome pre-birth, you have to do a liver biopsy and wait a few months for results that may be inconclusive. I was having similar problems with my pregnancy that I had before. I could not take the chance that I would spend another year watching my babies body fail her. I could not watch another child die. Had an abortion.

It's nobodies business what choice I make, and I didn't need somebody to advise me to think about adoption. It's nobodies business what decisions women make with their bodies.
People who think they know shit, judge situations without knowing shit.
You are right, by the way. Adoption is not an alternative to abortion. Taking a chance giving birth is an alternative to abortion. I almost died every time I gave birth, I bleed and bleed. The doctors said I was lucky to be pregnant in the modern age or they would not have been able to save me. A lot of women still die in childbirth. I had a friend who died of infection a few years back after giving birth to her fifth baby, her boyfriend talked her out of having an abortion. He took her choice from her and she died to make him happy.

[PeaceNikki]

122. I'm sorry you went through that and I am sorry about your friend.

This is a deeply personal decision between women and their doctors. The reasons why we make the decisions are nobody's business. And nobody else has a right to judge or restrict those choices. Ever.

Thank you for sharing your story. Peace and love.

[bravenak]

124. I thank you.

Much love!

[OwnedByCats]

149. You did the right thing

I would think by anyone's standards, it was the right thing. I know some would still have expected you to go through that, but what do they know? Nothing. You made the right choice for you.


I am also sorry about your friend.

[bravenak]

167. That's why I don't think people should give advice unless asked for it.

Women need to be able to make the best choice for them without judgement.
And thank you, I do think I did the right thing for me and my family. Most women do if they are given the choice to do so. It's hard.

[OwnedByCats]

169. I agree completely

I'm glad you were able to make that choice for yourself. Those of us who can are the lucky ones.

[Swede Atlanta]

119. I don't think that statement is categorically correct.......

it depends on the reason for the prospective abortion.

If the reason for the abortion is to protect the life of the mother, genetic conditions of the fetus, rape or incest then I agree that adoption is not an alternative.

If the reason for the abortion is because the putative mother is not mature enough, lacks sufficient resources or for other "environmental" reasons cannot sustain and nurture the baby after birth then yes adoption is an alternative. It is possible to make adoption arrangements under which the adoptive parents will provide for the gestational mother's physical, medical and other needs during and immediately after the birth as well as care for the developing fetus.

I am not suggesting that a woman should not have access to abortion services but there are situations in which the reason for the adoption is one of the mother's situation. In those cases a well-crafted adoption may avoid the need to abort the fetus and give adoptive parents a child they want and can provide for.

[ieoeja]

158. As already stated by so many here, adoption is an alternative to raising a child.

Enduring pregnancy and giving live birth is the alternative to abortion.

[abelenkpe]

129. Adoption is not an alternative to abortion for women needing an abortion

for health reasons: baby not developing properly, risk to mother's life, or when one twin is not developing properly and threatening the viability of the other healthy twin. It's a medical procedure that saves lives. Adoption would not solve any of these problems.

[Lars39]

130. No such thing as "a little bit pregnant"...you are either pregnant or you are not pregnant.

Adoption is what can occur after the pregnancy, labor and delivery is over.

[peace13]

135. Adoption can occur after pregnancy provided the baby is healthy!

Pity the woman who carries through with a pregnancy and plans on putting the baby up for adoption only to find out that the baby has issues due to problems before or during delivery! Good luck with that!

[SidDithers]

141. Good point...

abortion is an alternative to pregnancy and childbirth.

Adoption is an alternative to parenthood.

Sid

[TBF]

147. Reproductive health decisions = between a woman & her physician

What is so hard to understand about this? *sigh*

[noiretextatique]

179. wow...you really got some crazy responses

[CountAllVotes]

184. My late mother was adopted

And oh what a fine messed up chaotic life I had growing up. She never knew who she was and woah did she ever carry that cross. It was her burden her entire life and she died wanting to know who she was.

She bore three children and never really wanted any she told me.

[enjoylife1966]

188. just my two cents

I actually stepped away from my multiyear lurking on this forum and created an account just to comment on this post. I'm really uncomfortable with the viewpoint that adoptees are damaged and spend their lives seeking to fill some unspoken emptiness in their lives. I was adopted as an infant, and have no issues whatsoever with feeling abandoned, etc. If anything, I always felt a little more special because I was specifically chosen (and this is how my parents presented adoption). My real parents are, and always have been, the people who cared for me, raised me, and continue to love me as I do them. I do feel for those who feel some loss, but I have yet to have one of my friends who are adoptees express this feelings - weare all to busy living happy, complete, and loving lives.

[winter is coming]

189. The adoptees I've known are all over the spectrum when it comes to how they feel about it.

Which, since they're individuals, isn't really that surprising.

[boston bean]

190. Ok.

Welcome to DU.

I do think you have missed the target as to what my post was about.

[enjoylife1966]

191. Thanks for the welcome

No, I understand your point, and have been following all the adoption posts over the past few days. I just think there needs to be another perspective to the discussion. I've read several comments insinuating that adoption is a poor choice as we end up with all sorts of issues, and that this is the norm and should be considered when thinking adoption vs abortion. Adoption is the best thing that has ever happened to me, and that outcome should be known as well.

[StevieM]

198. I don't question the quality of your adoptive parents. But I don't believe it is correct to say

that adoption provides a better life, as is often stated. Adoption does not ensure a better life--it ensures a different life. You don't know what your life might have been if your first mother could have kept you. And statistically speaking, birth mothers often suffer a great deal.

[Marrah_G]

194. Frankly BB, this post and the others on adoption have had some hurtful things in them

Abortion is a valid choice. Adoption is a valid choice. Demonizing either is wrong.

As an adoptee I am left with the feeling that more then a few on this thread think that it would have been better for me to be aborted. I don't care if that's what any of you meant, but that is the way these threads have made me feel. I am pretty sure I am not alone in that.

Because of that I am going to trash this thread and the others.

It's hurtful. Very hurtful.

[boston bean]

196. Of course adoption is a valid choice.

What it's not is an alternative to abortion.

Most of the posts I see aren't condemning adoptees but practices where adoption if forced, and an understanding that many women suffer greatly after putting their children up for adoption.

It's not an easy choice and it entails completely different decisions to consider. That has been my point all along. And I think most understand this. There are also many who feel quite differently than you. I'm not judging the feelings, I really can see both sides.

[gopiscrap]

192. welcome to DU

[Marrah_G]

193. Thank you for saying that

[flvegan]

199. Such an absolute. Are you sure?

Please show your work.

[Nye Bevan]

202. Ummmm..... it pretty much is, if you are pregnant and don't want to raise a child.

Yes, it's complicated. And yes, people should keep their noses out. And whatever choice a woman makes, I respect it. But it does seem that there are precisely two choices a woman can make if she is pregnant but does not want to be a mom. And either alternative is just fine.

[cbdo2007]

203. That is like saying - Abortion is not an alternative to birth control.

[musical_soul]

206. Adoption is a painful decision.

So is having an abortion and then finding out later on that the fetus was more developed than you thought it was and therefore may have been a person.

[uppityperson]

209. Reputable abortion providers can accurately tell how far along you are. Good grief.

Date of last menstrual period. Palpation. Ultrasound. All of these are used to determine the age of the fetus.

What do mean by "a person"? And are you concerned abortion providers are lying to the pregnant woman?

This is a reason to not go to back alley abortionists but to be able to go to a legal, hygienic medical professional.