I often find that the discourse surrounding adoption is glib.
If you defend fetal rights on the internet, someone will eventually ask you: how many children have you adopted?
The presumption being that if you're not willing to take care of the baby who was not aborted, you're not sincerely interested in the welfare of the children, and your real motive is to control women.
This is an amateur poor-choice tactic. People who are knowledgeable about adoption understand that it's not so easy.
Uninformed poor-choicers don't think about what adoption really entails, and what the process involves, and what the results can look like.
Here are some preliminary requirements before you can complete an adoption:
* Your spouse has to agree to adoption. Poor-choicers never think about that fact when they ask "how many kids have you adopted?"
* You have to have the money to adopt.
* You have to have the appropriate living quarters.
* Your other kids must be open to this, otherwise it's not going to work very well.
The pool of kids to be adopted is relatively small. While there are kids who are waiting to be adopted, they do not always fit the desired profile. These kids often have a lot of baggage. So the family has to be ready to open their doors to kids with serious issues. If you already have kids, this may be a non-starter. Or perhaps the child has some very expensive medical issues.
And I read a shocking statistic to the effect that one in six adoptions failed. That means the kid goes back.
I don't understand how anyone can send back a kid, but apparently it's done. I remember watching a documentary on Radio-Canada about a centre in Montreal that shelters children with severe attachment issues. One kid was chosen for adoption. For many months, he was groomed for this life in the new family with frequent visits. The child finally went to live with his family, and he was sent back after a short stay.
They didn't want him any more.
Of course it was totally devastating, and luckily, this centre still had his room free, so he was able to reintegrate into his old life.
Now some people might think I'm making the case for abortion. Abortion is easy and adoption is hard. Abortion has a payoff for women, whereas adoption doesn't. I realize that having a clear conscience is something of a payoff, but it's still heart-wrenching to send off your baby into someone else's house, which is why so many women choose abortion instead of adoption.
But as the old saying goes "adoption is the loving option". Adoption is a totally selfless act, whereas abortion is totally selfish. I realize that many women try to frame abortion as "best" for the child, as if his non-existence was some kind of lesser of evils. But the fact of the matter is: it's easier to kill than to make the effort to accommodate new life.
I'm pointing this out because I don't want the discourse on adoption to be glib. Personally, I think parenting is probably a better option unless there are some obvious barriers, like drug addiction or extreme poverty. Babies are better off with their moms in almost every situation. The lack of babies for adoption might be a bad thing for people looking to adopt, but perhaps it's not a bad thing for the babies. Adoption doesn't exist to satisfy the whims of their parents, it exists to satisfy the needs of the baby.
Adoption may be the loving option as compared to abortion, but it may not always be the best option for the baby.