The Two “A’s”: Abortion and Adoption
If, one were to take seriously (which is admittedly hard), the left’s seriousness about reducing abortion as in Mr Clinton’s (in)famous: safe, legal, and rare … there is the problem of adoption. [note: in the following I’m going to ignore the clear conundrum raised by the question unasked or unanswered by those to whom that phrase has meaning, which is if abortion is not problematic, then why is rare valued.]
Adoption is held as an mythological sign for the pro-choice crowd. Both asking, well if you pro-lifers are so serious about saving babies why aren’t y’all adopting. But, examining the adoption procedures in this country a little more carefully the answer becomes clear. Because the largely pro-choice crowd has raised immense barriers to adopting. Getting qualified for an adoption costs close to $20k for legal fees, home studies and the like. The question is … Why?
Well, one reason one might suggest is that because the parents of the child are giving up their moral and legal responsibilities toward the child, they cannot be depended upon to insure the quality and home for the child so the state must do that instead. But, at what cost? A great number of well qualified caring parents are excluded from the process because they lack the disposable income in order to jump through the states required adoption hoops.There is another conclusion to be drawn from the existence to high barriers to adoption. That is, that orphans and children needing adoption (in this country) are in fact rare. If the problem of excess orphans was actually acute, essential moral market forces would bring the barriers down. That they haven’t and that adoption agencies and their lawyers successfully continue to charge high prices for their services is
Actually another highly likely reason is that legislators setting guidelines for abortion (often) forget TANSTAAFL when they make their laws. What cost adding one more check, after all it might just save one kid from misery? Well, there is a cost. But it’s not apparent.
There is another conundrum present. The pro-choice crowd consistently paints abortion as easy, pregnancy as difficult, adoption as freely available (and a choice rarely chosen by the pro-life side). However, that begs a question. If the reason that the high barriers to adoption exist are in fact that in giving up their responsibilities toward the child mean that the state do due dilligence in vetting the parent then that begs the question: Why does that at the same time exclude the state from exercising due diligence when a pregnant mom wants to terminate her child. Is she not as well, yeilding her moral and legal responsibilities toward her offspring as well?
Filed under: Abortion • Ethics & Morality • Government • Mark O.
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
Hello. This is my first visit to your blog but it seems adoption is not your major focus. I also have no idea if you have any personal or professional connection, experience or knowledge of the subject. It does not appear so.
Let me introduce myself. I have a personal connection to adoption and as a result have made it my life’s work. I have researching, writing and speaking publicly (as an expert) on the subject of adoption for nearly 40 years.
1. There ARE some orphans and/or children currently within the US who cannot be reunited with family for a variety of reasons and who might benefit from adoption. the figure is approximately 100,000 of such children.
2. Adoption of such children is virtually FREE – except for a few filing fees – and often even provides subsidies. Or, one can become a foster parent and care for them without the complications of adoption, yet doing an equal service to a child who needs a loving, safe, stable home and family.
3. Adoption which are currently 440k+ are charged by baby brokers, many with adoption “agency” names, some even religious or “not-for-profit” agencies which still reply of the resdistrubution of children to pay salaries and expenses – i.e. to stay in BUSINESS.
4. Adoption is a multi-billion dollar international and domestic industry! Children worldwide are TRAFFICKED for adoption. Anyone who pays such a fee is more than likely supporting flesh peddler who likely has kidnapped a child and brought it to a foreign orphanage, who them then in turn “sells” the child to a US adoption intermediary or agency. if not outright kidnapped, their mothers poverty and/or inability to read has been exploited. In most countries they have no concept of adoption and believe their children are coming tot he US to be educated and will be returned.
The encouragement of which is IMMORAL!
This is not a right/left; red/blue; liberal/conservative issue! The United Nations clearly states that adoption should always be a “last resort” for the child.
Instead or pitting expectant mothers between a rock and a hard place: abortion or adoption, the moral, ethical, humane and decent thing to do is provide more FAMILY PRESERVATION services and options! We do not need not encourage more adoptions since every adoption represent the tragedy of a fmaily who did not receive the support they need to remain together. Nor should anyone consider paying outrageous fees to adopt.
Mark,
Where did the figure of $20,000 come from? I thought foster care adoptions were basically free.
Why do most people condemn women getting an abortion while they turn a blind eye on women leaving their children on the streets, and worse on garbage cans… They turn away from abusive fathers who have 2 or 3 jobs a day, trying to feed a family of 6, and venting out their frustrations on their wives and children.
Josef,
From my impressions of my acquaintances who adopted.
Hazel,
Uhm, who exactly turns a blind eye to children left on the streets or abusive fathers?