Statesboro, GA, USA
No, that [adoption] is not the answer, though it is an answer, and not a bad partial answer. If it was a good answer, there would be no problem for you with the number of abortions, because there wouldnít be any, would there?
You have to assume something, that we quite disagree on, for your statement to be anywhere near plausible: that people will always choose the good or best when given the chance. In such an ideal world law would not be needed, we would just offer the best, and watch the alternatives dwindle away. But since I don't think people always choose the good, even when it's available, I think making something detrimental to human-rights illegal would be helpful in greatly reducing it, when some people are going to choose it by default as the "easiest" thing to do. I'm not under any illusion that such measures would eliminate abortion. But neither am I under the illusion that the measure of how good an alternative is, is how many people avail themselves of it.
More of the same might help, yes, but I think the problem is that it doesnít address some of the problems that many women have with the issue.
What are these problems?
Well, I think we need to ask women who are having abortions what these issues are instead of asking people who are insulted at the thought of women having abortions in the first place. Youíre more likely to get an accurate answer.
Bob, you assume much. Firstly, you assume I have to ask them myself, when they already have been asked. I have read research, and percentages, of what post-abortive women have themselves said regarding why they chose abortions. I can mention them. But very few reasons, if any (and these of much smaller percentages) are not addressed or answered by the adoptive alternative.
One study you can refer to is "Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives". The following link has a short article, with a link to the larger study results inside.
You've been conspicuously silent in giving any reasons for abortion that might not be addressed by adoption, so let me request that you provide a few, either from your own thoughts, or from all the women you've asked.
Not for you. Not for society. Not for God. Not for the police or the government. Not for Christ. Itís really going to have to feel like itís an answer that feels better for them.
There are a lot of "nots" in that sentence! Why such an either/ or approach? If more are involved in this than the woman, then that tells me that her needs should definitely be included, but not exclusive. It is curious to me that you left out the unborn human being, which is as central to this discussion, if not moreso, than the mother. Much more of their lives are affected, don't you think? You say it's only a potential life, but the mother's happy preferences without laws that limit or ban abortions, are only potentialities as well.
It just doesn't stand to reason that you would make one human consideration supreme (which doesn't jeopardize life, and which I've never denied should be included), to the exclusion of all others.
There really are advantages to having an abortion, and there may be many commonalities from woman to woman, but each woman may in fact be different, and you donít know until you ask.
It's been asked. So, Bob, what are the advantages to having an abortion over an adoption that are not trivial? I'm sure, though you have a Y-Chromosome, you could at least imagine one for the sake of discussion. Either that, or derive one from all the women who have been asked for research purposes.
You're insistence upon a reason from me (or from women in Georgia?), that you yourself cannot provide or even conjure, is a smoke-screen. If not, I'd like to resume the discussion surrounding such reasons, when you get the time.
If it were such a great solution, there would be no abortions and all the children that might otherwise be aborted would be adopted. Itís not even close.
It is a great solution. It is also a solution which requires more effort. One must actually go through childbirth. It is not financially burdensome, probably about the same as abortion, though I haven't financially compared the procedures of child-birth with abortion.
Again, yours is the fallacy of thinking that the goodness of a solution correlates with how many people avail themselves of it. I'm sure spousal abuse is far greater than a loving participation in counseling ... does that mean that such counseling is not a good alternative, and that striking my wife should be legalized, since people will naturally choose the better course of action?
The bottom line is, as long as dehumanizing rhetoric is used in speaking of an unborn underdeveloped human being, and that women are persuaded into thinking that abortion is akin to an appendectomy, why would they choose something that requires more time and effort? It wouldn't matter, if such were true. But if such isn't exactly true, as the science of embryology leads us to believe, then adoption is the best choice even though not being the easiest choice, and not having the advantage of being an out-patient procedure one could have in the morning, and go to work the next day, or go shopping at the mall.
There are also some folks who believe that there are inherently racist elements in the adoption process, where white folks frequently get the pick of kids from other races. This is an issue in the community of social workers of color, or it used to be at any rate.
Can anyone say "Red Herring"?
As the Caucasian father of two Chinese children, and as someone who knows a friend who has adopted a child of another race, I can tell you that none will object to these children being adopted into loving families, who are not racist themselves.
Basically, adoption doesnít work as well because of different cultural values on the subject and because itís not clear that it really has all that much of an effect on abortion rates anyway.
Cultural values can be changed, as they are not absolutes.
And there would be no way of telling whether or not it has an effect on the abortion rate. One thing is very obvious however ... every woman who gave up her child for adoption could have chosen abortion instead. And if abortion were more restricted, and adoption more promoted, then there is little reasonable doubt that the abortion rate would fall, and adoptions would rise.
You love it, for example, but youíd never say that itís made Abortion a non-issue for you.
Sounds like a non-sequitur. I'm not female, so personally, abortion is a non-issue for me. I don't think abortion is ethical or moral, so personally abortion is a non-issue for me. I've never felt the need to get rid of a child, or had the feeling that I couldn't raise a child, so personally abortion is a non-issue for me. But abortions still happen, in a pretty much on-demand fashion (though thankfully laws have limited this), so socially abortion is still an issue for me.
My argument is that adoption can make abortion a non-necessity for many women who might think it to be a necessity.
What these facts have to do with your above sentence, I cannot tell.
For something to be a solution to Abortion, it should really make a substantial contribution to making Abortion ago away, at least thatís what I think. Otherwise,m youíre simply not talking about a solution, are you?
No, not a total solution. I think on-demand abortion should be illegal. So adoption is merely an alternative to abortion, not a total solution.
It's not that simple Bob. I'm sure you feel that good counseling, and building support systems is preferable to exhibiting violence and abuse in personal relationships, right?
It would therefore be ridiculous for me to suggest that the only proper way to deal with abuse is to allow the democratic process to play out (through the improvement of the deficiencies of counseling) and turn the numbers around ... and until your methods win out, without the help of any legality, we'll just have to say that violence and abuse is a viable and nearly-respectable option with its own advantages.
My point is, since you obviously think counseling is a good alternative to violence, and don't feel that its value is diminished by the many many people who choose to partake in violence rather than trouble with counseling, you understand the position of believing in a good alternative, and also of seeing the necessity for legal restrictions on those who will not choose the better on their own.
That position which you doubtless hold, in essence, is not different than my own regarding abortion.
Abortion is something that helps regulate how those families function internally and externally. It helps place the notion of the family first, and helps define the linkages between one part of a family and other parts of a family.
Only in the sense of removing a person from the "family" ... and other alternatives do that just as well. Abortion is not unique in that role, except in its ease and "convenience" and out-patient status.
Men are the ones who tend to be in charge of names and paternity in the more formal sense in most varieties of American culture. With the use of the power of abortion, they can lay down their own statements about who is related to whom and who is to be, in some senses, literally cut out of the family tree.
Abortion as a feminist backlash against patriarchal domination of names! I see. Only, the mother gets to actually terminate the life, rather than just determine the name, just to show she won't be pushed around. Sounds reasonable.