Responsibility sans abortion?

[montereybayjane]

If there were ever a time where abortion had simply never existed (say far far far in the future in some utopia or let's just imagine,) might giving a child up for adoption be viewed as an irresponsible measure

Comments

[joannaravenclaw]

I would say it'd be irresponsible only if there was no one who wanted the responsibility (i.e., no one who wanted to adopt a child). That is most definitely not the case in this country.

[pink_porcupette]

Even if no one wanted the responsibility, couldn't there be situations where a government-run group home/ orphanage/ whatever-the-term-for-such-a-place-is would be preferable to being raised by the birth parent(s)?
If the birth parent(s) recognized that they wouldn't be able to give the baby a decent home, wouldn't it be a responsible decision to have the child removed from their care and put in a place where they wold at least have a more or less stable environment and the basics of survival? The circumstances they were in might be the result of their own irresponsibility, but I think it could be the better thing to realize their limitations rather than be in denial of the facts.

[joannaravenclaw]

Agreed.

[neonchameleon]

Might adoption be looked at as simply giving your problem to someone else to handle, and not handling it like a real, responsible adult, if abortion had somehow never existed?

It might be - but there's a world of difference between giving a problem to someone who actively wants it, and killing someone to prevent a problem. It might well be frowned on but it wouldn't whip up the hatred - or attract any attention outside the fringe.

[bestdaywelived]

I think that raising a baby on your own as a single mother is way more frowned upon than giving that baby up to a nice, wealthy, infertile white couple who needs it more than you do. There are people that criticize adoptions, but not as many as who criticize single mothermood.

[jcross]

"I think that raising a baby on your own as a single mother is way more frowned upon than giving that baby up to a nice, wealthy, infertile white couple who needs it more than you do."

I believe this is incorrect and misleading for a whole host of reasons. The only qualification you gave that I believe is accurate for adoptive parents is nice. There is nothing suggesting that those prospective parents must be wealthy, infertile, white, or a couple (I assume you mean heterosexual specifically.) People often say things like this to discredit adoption in order to achieve some other goal. Even if all your qualifications were the case currently in America, the origional poster is speaking in theory as suggested here, "(say far far far in the future in some utopia or let's just imagine.)" Not only have you maybe not addressed the question but you've misrepresented any person who may be an adoptive parent. If I were one I know I'd be pretty offended.

[queenlyzard]

*shakes head* I don't think the intention here was to insult adoptive parents, but rather the rigid social norms. While those criteria aren't always true of adoptive parents, it is much easier (in America, anyways) to adopt a child if you are a straight white wealthy couple who believe in a mainstream religion. Which is unfortunate, because there are many of us less "traditional" types who would like to care for children.

I think the comment was meant to point out, however, the absurdity of the stigma against being a single mother (or even a single woman!). I think anyone who puts their mind to it and is mentally competent can provide a good home for a child, but many people disapprove of anything other than the classic nuclear family.

[jcross]

"*shakes head* I don't think the intention here was to insult adoptive parents

[cutout18]

Uh. I mean, just as a point of reference, I've never heard a pro-lifer use "wimp" as the main reason you shouldn't get an abortion. It's mostly the perceived killing thing. But that whole "running away from responsibility" argument is usually just a sideline additional attack supplementing the murder thing

[montereybayjane]

Okay, sure. I understand 100% what it is you're saying, but in my particular profession (working in abortion and reproductive care,) I hear a lot from clients (even those having abortions,) that women shouldn't have an abortion almost because they should be taught a lesson against their leg-spreading ways. Of course I realize that this is not the primary reasoning against it, but it is a reasoning against it and I'm curious what others' thoughts are on it.

I agree with that entire last paragraph, well put.

[lavendersparkle]

I think the whole idea of being against abortion because it allows people to run away from their responsibibilities rather silly. I oppose abortion because it kills humans. Along the lines of "from each according to their ability; to each according to their need", if a feotus needs to continue to be gestated in your uterus to survive and you have the ability to gestate it, the ethical thing to do is to continue to gestate the feotus. My views don't have a lot to do with who's responsible for the feotus getting there in the first place. I don't have ethical objections to adoption although I think I'd have to explore more the effects of adoption upon those involved to come to a firm position on it. I think it would be good if we could do more people who had difficulty in parenting and we had more accepted options for the care of children than nuclear families.

[roseofjuly]

if a feotus needs to continue to be gestated in your uterus to survive and you have the ability to gestate it, the ethical thing to do is to continue to gestate the feotus.

Since this is a debate community I feel comfortable in asking this -- why? Why should I have an ethical obligation to gestate someone in my uterus that I don't want there?

[lavendersparkle]

You've introduced the word obligation and I'm not sure I would put it that strongly. I think gestating a foetus, regardless of how it got into your uterus and whether you want it to be there, is the ethical thing to do if you have the ability to do so without risking your own mental and physical health. I think that for the same reason that I think donating blood is the right thing to do and giving money to charity and holding doors open for people who are carrying stuff. I could do more, just as we all could, but I want to stand up for the general principal that we should try to help other people when they need our help. We could all only deal with the problems which we view ourselves to be personally responsible for and carefully step over people who need our help but we don't want to be there, but the world would be a rather nasty place.

[lady_borg]

I oppose abortion because it kills humans

Did you know that when animals are desexed and they are already pregnant all the young are killed/aborted.

What about them? Or is only with our complete set of dna that you care about?

Not meaning to be harsh but I am honestly curious.