[BlessedbySnuggs]

This article talks about how abortions are on the rise, with the economy being so bad, and money being tight for so many people. It just made me so sad, and a little sick to my stomach.

Meltdown leads to hard family planning choices - Women's health- msnbc.com

ETA: It was also surprising to me, that not one part of this article discussed the idea of adoption, which I think is very sad. I know some people will argue with me, as far as the whole adoption/abortion "debate" but I just don't get it. Why wouldn't adoption be a possibility for some of these women. Not one person in this article mentioned it.

What do ya'll think???

[Stormster]

So sad. Esp. if it was a planned pregnancy the mom was once happy about. Heartbreaking.

[aclee]

One of the hardest things I've read in a while....

I do worry that some women who would consider abortion can't afford that option either, and as a result they will fall into a financial hole that could end with them having all their children in care. This economy is effecting children across the country...

Very sad. I stress about money, and we are financially very sound compared to many families. I try to remind myself daily that for every person that does "better" than me, there are many that would take what I have in a heart beat...


It also makes me see why prices could be rising on the adoption front. Emom's are needing more support.

[crick]

I kept looking for any mention in the article at all where they talk about ALL options available. If they are given resources or information regarding food help, medical help etc. Just like I would expect/want an agency to do when a woman comes in saying they want to place their child.

It touched on a section of "counselling" to be sure this is what the client wanted, but I didn't get the sense that there was information given for other options, including adoption.

I'm torn though since I believe a woman has the right to determine what is the best choice for her. If she feels she doesn't want to or can't parent or carry a child to place for adoption, then that is only something she herself can determine.

[BlessedbySnuggs]

Originally Posted by crick

I kept looking for any mention in the article at all where they talk about ALL options available. If they are given resources or information regarding food help, medical help etc. Just like I would expect/want an agency to do when a woman comes in saying they want to place their child.

It touched on a section of "counselling" to be sure this is what the client wanted, but I didn't get the sense that there was information given for other options, including adoption.

I'm torn though since I believe a woman has the right to determine what is the best choice for her. If she feels she doesn't want to or can't parent or carry a child to place for adoption, then that is only something she herself can determine.

I completely agree....it was just weird that there wasn't one person mentioning the possibility of adoption as an option. I am all for "A woman's right to choose" No matter what the outcome is, I hope they are getting informed with ALL of their options out there....it is just so sad.

[fisbaby]

This article makes me so angry! So many couples out there wanting children in this world and abortion is the popular option?! I won't even go down that road. I will say though that our adoption agency we're researching informed me that for the first time ever they have more birthparents than families in overall comparison.... this too b/c of the economy, more people not being able to afford children and less people being able to pay adoption fees.

[crick]

Originally Posted by fisbaby

This article makes me so angry! So many couples out there wanting children in this world and abortion is the popular option?! I won't even go down that road. I will say though that our adoption agency we're researching informed me that for the first time ever they have more birthparents than families in overall comparison.... this too b/c of the economy, more people not being able to afford children and less people being able to pay adoption fees.

I don't know that it's the popular option, just that specific article was geared towards the increase of it. I think the bottom line of it all is that people everywhere are not as able to have families, regardless if it's biologically or through adoption due to less money.

Personally I wouldn't want someone to carry a child JUST so another couple/person could become a parent. (obviously surrogacy is another matter between consenting people) To me it becomes a situation where we view women as a breeding machine and we've already been down that road as a society. I'd hate to go down that road again where we treat women as a vessel rather than a person. No one should ever be pressured to carry a child based on the thought that there are many waiting parents to be out there. Just my thought on that.

[fisbaby]

Best I keep my opinions to myself on this, I know how the threads turn nasty quickly. I will just say that I am a very strong Catholic and have my religious and personal beliefs on this whole topic. There are options for women who aren't able to keep their child they are carrying, I just wish that more people looked into those options before making a decision. I am VERY thankful to those mothers who chose the option that made all of us mothers.

[crick]

I appreciate your opinion and beliefs. While we may disagree, I'm not about to be nasty or disrespect your opinion at all. I just had a response to your post is all.
I do agree with you on wishing everyone would look into all options before making a decision.

[paigeturner]

There seems to be overriding assumptions that women who choose to terminate a pregnancy haven’t considered all of their options, including adoption. I’ve experienced the gut-wrenching choice inherent in an unplanned pregnancy and while I chose to continue my pregnancy and ultimately placed my child, I refuse to assume that those who chose to terminate a pregnancy didn’t consider all of their options. Making other people parents shouldn’t even be a consideration in my opinion; finding parents for a child should be the goal for those that choose adoption. Subtle, nuanced differences…

What’s striking to me is that in the past few days there have been several threads about poverty and the state of the current economy in this forum. One thread is from the past, where three first mothers from my generation tell the heartbreaking stories of relinquishing their children because of the abject poverty they faced. Another is questioning whether or not infants could be taken from homeless families. It seems like everywhere I look there is more tragic news. On Friday, I watched a 20/20 segment about the economy. They focused on a homeless shelter for families in LA. They interviewed smart, articulate parents who had lost their jobs and their homes and eventually found themselves living in this shelter. The shelter was so beyond capacity that they’d set up tents that entire families slept in. I can imagine that some of these families may have to face an unplanned pregnancy during this crisis. I refuse to judge anyone for making a devastating choice under these (or any other) circumstances.

All of this makes me overwhelmingly sad.

[crick]

That's true Paige...that we shouldn't assume they haven't considered all their options. I'm definitely guilty in this. I guess I'm thinking more along the lines of the professionals being sure to discuss and provide info on all options. Then again...like you say, if a woman has already considered her options and made her decision, it's not fair to assume or put pressure on her to "re-consider" etc.

Guess I'm trying to make sense of all this because it's all so sad and coming up with "stuff" that I shouldn't be.

[loveajax]

It's kind of interesting too when I think about "counseling" at different places. For example, I doubt that Planned Parenthood "counsels" people about considering adoption (I don't know this for sure). And I suspect adoption agencies don't "counsel" women about the abortion option (again, not sure). To me, it would be nice if there was sort of a "neutral" place where women could go if they were pg and unsure of what they wanted to do (maybe there is such a place?). I would hope that at least both counsel women about resources available should they decide to parent. I really don't know about that either!

The economy is really just creating all sorts of dilemmas for so many people, and it's so sad. I know how "lucky" we are in the scheme of things, and I am still feeling pinched.

[belleinblue1978]

This is one of those times when I think that people need to remember that parenting is a privelage and not a right. Other people shouldn't have to carry children for other people unless it is a surrogacy.

[Mom-2-2]

Originally Posted by crick

Personally I wouldn't want someone to carry a child JUST so another couple/person could become a parent. (obviously surrogacy is another matter between consenting people) To me it becomes a situation where we view women as a breeding machine and we've already been down that road as a society. I'd hate to go down that road again where we treat women as a vessel rather than a person. No one should ever be pressured to carry a child based on the thought that there are many waiting parents to be out there. Just my thought on that.

I have to respectfully disagree on this one. I also don't want to create a nasty abortion debate on this forum, but I can't help myself--I felt compelled to respond. I don't think the ONLY reason to carry the baby would be for someone to become a parent, but I think the most compelling reason to carry a child would be to allow that child to live and avoid killing a baby. I don't want to demean anyone who has considered or actually had an abortion--I understand why people do it, and I understand the temptation to categorize a pregnancy as a "fetus" and not a child. I understand unplanned pregnancy is HARD and that it is natural to consider making it go away. But it can't be undone. Once the pregnancy has occurred, it is a baby. Surely a child's right to the life created through the woman's actions trumps the woman's right to decide whether to carry the child. In nearly all cases (except rape), she has already exercised her right to "choose" what to do with her body when she engaged in sexual activity. The pregnancy is a natural consequence of those actions. I guess it all comes down to your beliefs regarding when the baby becomes a baby, because I don't believe any compassionate human being would agree it is OK to kill a baby. It seems so clear to me that it has to be at conception, or possibly implantation, because there is no other clear place to draw that line other than birth. I would argue most of us would agree a baby at 39 weeks gestation is a baby. If you disagree that is a baby, then I guess we just disagree. But to me it seems clear.

OK, I am getting off the pedestal. I am wondering if I should submit this reply or not, because I realize this is an endless debate that has been ongoing for so many years. I will probably not change anyone's mind on an adoption forum. But just in case...

[belleinblue1978]

Originally Posted by Mom-2-2

I have to respectfully disagree on this one. I also don't want to create a nasty abortion debate on this forum, but I can't help myself--I felt compelled to respond. I don't think the ONLY reason to carry the baby would be for someone to become a parent, but I think the most compelling reason to carry a child would be to allow that child to live and avoid killing a baby. I don't want to demean anyone who has considered or actually had an abortion--I understand why people do it, and I understand the temptation to categorize a pregnancy as a "fetus" and not a child. I understand unplanned pregnancy is HARD and that it is natural to consider making it go away. But it can't be undone. Once the pregnancy has occurred, it is a baby. Surely a child's right to the life created through the woman's actions trumps the woman's right to decide whether to carry the child. In nearly all cases (except rape), she has already exercised her right to "choose" what to do with her body when she engaged in sexual activity. The pregnancy is a natural consequence of those actions. I guess it all comes down to your beliefs regarding when the baby becomes a baby, because I don't believe any compassionate human being would agree it is OK to kill a baby. It seems so clear to me that it has to be at conception, or possibly implantation, because there is no other clear place to draw that line other than birth. I would argue most of us would agree a baby at 39 weeks gestation is a baby. If you disagree that is a baby, then I guess we just disagree. But to me it seems clear.

OK, I am getting off the pedestal. I am wondering if I should submit this reply or not, because I realize this is an endless debate that has been ongoing for so many years. I will probably not change anyone's mind on an adoption forum. But just in case...

You know what saddens me about your post the most? Is that you lay all the blame at the feet of the woman. There is a man that takes part in this too, and he too should foot some of the responsibility. Why do women do this to each other over and over rather than being supportive?