If we rule out adoption and abortion, what are we left with?

First, create a society in which people feel supported and able to care for their children.

Second eliminate private adoption and dispel myths about infant adoption.

You do those two, and the only need for adoption will be for those TRULY unable to care for their children, or deemed "unfit" by a judge to raise them.

And abortion will always be an option for a pregnant woman, but you can't put abortion and adoptin in the same sentence, as one is removal of a fetus, the the other has nothing to do with a fetus.

Sometimes adoption is the only right answer. In the case you have described above, that seems to be the case. At least an open adoption would allow the child to have some contact with their first mom... Most adoption reform advocates aren't saying that ALL adoptions are bad, just that there need to be changes about how adoption is handled in our culture. Lack of information does nobody any good.

Finally, I was an "unwanted" child. I have problems, but I'm happy to be here, to be alive. My first mother told me a few days ago she was very unhappy during the last few months of her pregnancy. Of all the alternatives: death in-utero, life with a woman who didn't really want me, or living the life I had; I would choose the one I lead as an adoptee.

I guess all I'm trying to say here is that you can take the "unwanted" label and shove it. Every child, every person, has value. Why should the value of that little girl or any other "unwanted" child be determined by someone elses opinion? My mother-in-law payed a great deal of money to carry my husband to term. Is he worth more than I am? If your child was conceived for free and you had a normal pregnancy, are they worth more than me and less than my husband?

You get my point. My issue isn't with you, but with your choice of words.

EDT: I also want to add that this is my perspective. Others on here would rather have been aborted than be an adoptee. Understand that I respect their feelings, as I've struggled with some pretty serious issues myself. It's not easy, but I just felt the need to stand up for those of us who are labeled as "unwanted" from birth.

Of course parenting would be the obvious answer. However it really isn't a good plan to say that you have to raise the baby you gave birth to. Especially when you look at the number of children abused by their parents on a daily basis. The sad truth is that not everyone should be a parent and just because someone can get pregnant doesn't mean they can or are capable of parenting. If someone truly doesn't want their child the child is much more likely to suffer from abuse, be it physical, emotional or physiological. So unfortunately there will always be a need for adoption. Just because there is help and programs out there doesn't mean they will be used. Kinda like you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink

The only other option if there would be no adoption would be orphanages. Were they would be overcrowded and again not properly taken care of. Yes there would be foster homes, but there are only so many that choose to foster and they can only take so many at a time..

And you did the right thing with the little child. The mother didn't want her and really didn't seem to care where she went as long as she went.

Very few children are "unwanted". More often mothers are scared because they can't give their children every financial thing that we as a society believe they deserve.

So what should society do?

Make it easier for young or poor mothers to get the help they need to raise their children, without labeling them or targeting them for taking their children.

Society needs to increase the amount of family stepping up to help, we once thought it took a village to raise a child, so why can't extended family help? My daughter will tell you she doesn't have a daddy, instead she has a Grandma, a PopPop, a Uncle Mike, An Auntie Sam, and a Sean. She seems to think that having all those are better then just having a daddy.

Society needs to make birth control and sex education available to all, you said you don't want answers like that, but it will help. There are too many who practice obscure methods (like douching) because no one has taught them that it doesn't work and then taught them the appropriate measures to take.

If and only if all these fail, meaning mom cannot parent even with help, family cannot raise the baby, dad or dad's family cannot raise the baby. Where guardianship is not an option. Then we need to go to open adoption. Where no families ties are lost and information is always there for the adoptee to access and know his or her roots.

CONDOMS

Stop stigmatising unmarried women who have babies! help girls and women to care for their children and keep families together. these problems shouldnt exist, we dont live in the dark ages, we all KNOW that babies are made from SEX and there are condoms, and the pill, and the metal bar thing, and even the morning after pill if you wanna consider that.

i am against abortion. i am also adopted, and while adoption isnt perfect at all im glad my mother didnt take the option of 'going to england' cos whatever problems i have i would rather this then never having existed. so keep families together if possible and give out free condoms and contraceptive methods.

*IF* (and you did not specify this, so I can't assume) you are referring to foster adoption, then very few people here, no matter what, would suggest that a child remain in an abusive situation. Even those adamantly opposed to ALL adoption generally understand that those children cannot be parented by abusers. In those cases, some feel that foster adoption for legitimate abuse is ethical, others feel that permanent guardianship is preferable. Either way, though, I want to make it clear that abused and neglected children do not have to remain with their abusers.

If we are talking about private sector newborn adoption? Well, most of the mothers who relinquish would have preferred to parent, so in the absence of an ethically flawed business model (agency), likely would have.

As for the very small margin of women who truly do not want to parent their infant? Well, I'm kind of a believer in foster care handling those few cases. Frankly, there wouldn't be enough cases for all these agencies to truly make a go of it, from a financial perspective, and I'm uncomfortable with money changing hands for an adoption.

Well, there are two options:

1) Parenting, whether the biological parents want to or not. Whether they would be able to be good parents or not, even with help and support.

2) Not allow pregnancy without a license. Mandatory birth control and other draconian methods.

Neither one sounds good to me.

We need to have universal health care that covers abortion services.

Also, the ratio of abortion clinics to churches should be 1:1 in every city.

Duh! Parenting. It is the choice of the majority of parents who are facing an unwanted pregnancy.

Please do not confuse the issues of domestic infant adoption with foster adoptions. They are completely different. How do you abort a 2 year old???

Parenting. *gasp* *shock* *horror*

Imagine that, a mother parenting her own child!

On a more serious note:

Unplanned does not necessarily mean unwanted. (Look up pregnancy and child development books)

Also, adoption does not necessarily mean unwanted. It means the parents either didn't know about the resources, could not afford the resources, weren't PERMITTED to use the resources, or didn't have access to the resources.