Why do people think that adoption is the only alternative to abortion?

"You keep the baby, abort it, or give it up for adoption."

Oh my dear god. I think my heart just stopped beating in absolute shock. *falls off her chair in shock*

SOMEONE SUGGESTED "KEEP THE BABY" - indirectly suggesting family preservation.

Wow. I didn't think anyone thought that way on here, judging by the "Do adoption! It's so wunnnnnderful!" replies. You know of whom I speak. O.o

I mean, my goodness, really? A woman should be aware of ALL HER OPTIONS?

I am absolutely astounded, because judging by most of the typical responses, you would think the ONLY OPTION is adoption!!

Snark Hat Off.

That's a very good question. People seem to forget that abortion can only be done legally during the first few months of the pregnancy. There is PLENTY of time to decide about aborting a baby - the main issue is if you have the "courage" to do so without feeling like you just killed a life growing inside of you.

After that you only really have one option: bring the fetus/infant/baby to term.

jlzkcarlos: Your answer was freaking awesome!

Adoption is an alternative to parenting. Only a baby or a child can be given up for adoption. You can not give a fetus up for adoption. Adoption is not an alternative to pregnancy. You would have to go through all nine months of pregnancy. You would have to pay for those doctor bills, and delivery. You would have to risk your health and life through that time. There is no one looking to adopt a fetus, because a fetus dies the moment it is removed from the uterus. Edit: Just thought I'd add that just about everyone knows about adoption. They'd have to live under a rock not to. They seek abortion because they do not wish to use adoption. It may be against their personal morals. It may be that they know that any child they have would not be adopted, and they don't want to have a child just to make it suffer. It may be that they simply don't want to go through pregnancy. The simple fact is that adoption is not the ultimate answer. If it was, then abortion wouldn't exist. Abortion does exist though, and adoption is flawed in numerous ways.

I also must take issue with the statement that abortion has nothing to do with a child after birth and is only about not wanting to continue a pregnancy. If that were the case, it would be like you're able to remove the child from the mother's body to live in an incubator until the normal birth time. Abortion has a direct link to children being here in that it prevents it from happening!

People who are morally opposed to abortion understand that there are 2 main complaints by those who are pregnant and do not want to be: pregnancy and the responsibilities of raising a child. So the pro-lifer figuratively pleads with the pregnant woman, "C'mon, you don't want to kill your baby. We know we can't do anything about your current condition, but you don't even have to take care of the baby if you don't want to. Someone else can do that..."

As for why adoption would be the only option presented in this case, I think a lot of people would assume that they don't need to advise someone to look in their own family to place their child. They would be expected to have that idea on their own.

Why not recommend guardianship? I'm not sure. First, I'd say adoption is more familiar to the general public. Second, maybe they think that the person who is so concerned about not wanting a baby will not care for advice that makes the child their responsibility again some time in the future? Third, maybe they think that it's better for the child to stay with the same guardians (adoption) instead of coming back to the biological parents later and possibly be hurt by the loss of the family known since birth?

Edit: Mei-Ling, I love you - "Oh my dear god. I think my heart just stopped beating in absolute shock. *falls off her chair in shock*

SOMEONE SUGGESTED "KEEP THE BABY" - indirectly suggesting family preservation." :)

When a person wants an abortion for whatever reasons. I imagine they have compelling reasons in their life why they are unable to care for a baby. Its not always about the money. It could be a lot of things why they feel unable to care for a baby.Education, career,relationship, etc.

As for why they must stay pregnant is completely a personal choice. I am strongly pro- choice. It might be religous compullsion for a few who carry on with their pregnancy. If they choose adoption, it would be because they realise their situation hasn't changed much since the time when they sat and decided - abortion or continue pregnancy.

ETA- Oh yes, if you can find a family member who would selflessly raise your child in this selfish world it would be great. But i know if i was to look around i may not find them except my parents who are very old and frequently suffer from serious health issues. Will i want them in their 60-70's to take on this responsibility while nursing their week heart, or battling Cancer ( My family health situation)

Well for some people adoption is a way of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy. I know of two cases specifically where the women knew they were pregant early on and choose not to have an abortion because they are against it unless there is a medical need. They also did not feel they could parent so they gave their babies up for adoption.

Considering that abortion can only be chosen during a pregnancy, and that relinquishment can only truly be chosen after a birth, they aren't really alternatives to each other at all. After a birth, there are two choices -- parent or don't parent. If a woman chooses not to parent or cannot parent, adoption is not the only other option.

It wasn't all that long ago in our history that legal adoption practiced as we now know it just didn't exist. And yet, amazingly, people seem to think it's "the" answer for women who can't parent, or don't wish to parent, and who didn't abort their pregnancies. What is up with that? There are other alternatives. There aren't "just three."

For example, there are extended families who can help and there are guardianship arrangements. Sending a family member's newest member permanently outside of the family is not the only option for women who don't wish to parent or cannot parent, and who did not abort their pregnancies.

I'll bet most of us here know at least one person in our lives who wasn't raised by his/her parents, but wasn't adopted, either.

because--

the industry propaganda and social discontent for women's reproductive rights attempts (very weakly, i might add) to equate the two. in addition, there tends to be a great deal of guilt and shame included in these discussion (eg. "don't kill your baby, give it to a couple who can't have children"). the inherent message is that:

1) abortion is a choice that should never be made

2) others who can't have babies are entitled to one

3) it's the job of a woman who becomes pregnant, unintentionally to bred for others.

ironically, these assertions are frequently made by people who:

have never been pregnant

can't become pregnant

want to adopt

profit from adoption

male

have never placed a child for adoption.

good question

Because they don't want to admit that BIRTH CONTROL is the only real way to reduce abortion. If we admit that birth control is necessary and good, that would mean people are actually having sexual relations..,,.OMG, SEX, the root of all evil!!!

I have absolutely no idea and look forward to the explanations.

Adoption and abortion are two entirely different situations; neither having anything to do with the other.

There are no other options rather than keeping the baby,and if the person is talkin about abortion then evidentally that is NOT a factor for them, and adoption. I'm not campaigning and I'm not religious but I do believe that a baby deserves the chance at life. More often than not the people on here looking for abortion advice are ignorant females that for one reason or another had a stupid moment and "forgot" to use protection...or didn't feel like it,or got "caught up in the moment". I see it like this... if they were adult enough to spread their legs for a man and not use the precautions that are out there,then they are adult enough to spread them 9 months later and deliver the baby they helped make! Why should the baby suffer for its ignorant parents mistakes? And its like the chicks on here that are talkin about "I want an abortion because my schedule can not fit a baby's needs" or " I need to get an abortion because I can not afford a baby right now" but they sure can afford an extremely pricey abortion can't they? And honestly I think if people would stop and use the brains in their heads then they would realize that condoms and birth control cost a lot less than a baby or an abortion. Its not one sided....its just how it is