izzygirl

I've also read somewhere in this thread someone defending abortion over adoption because a full pregnancy has many risks and also that a birth has stronger emotional ties. Abortion has many risks too, from infertility to serious infections. And let's not forget the psychological effect. Adoption and the emotional ties with the baby are very very hard for the woman, but for most women, abortion carry a huge emotional pain too.

Not agreeing or disagreeing with you here...but when adoption is considered, it's not only the emotional state for the woman, but that of her unwanted child as well, that seems to get forgotten in these discussions.

No doubt a woman who decides to abort must live with that decision, however options are weighed, and if she feels that choice was the best one for her, it's a decision she can accept. Obviously the alternative was not an acceptable choice for her..and what people seem to forget is that none of us have the right to second guess and judge, even if it's not the same decision we would make. Simply put, we don't live her life, nor should be so arrogant as to tell her how to.

When women decide to carry the pregnancy to term, it now becomes a choice that doesn't just affect her. A child is given up, gets shuffled thru a system, the lucky ones find caring and loving homes. But they're not all that lucky. And what is considered lucky anyway? Who defines that for these children? Lawmakers? Pro-lifers? Religious leaders?

One of my closest friends was adopted. There are emotions SHE's had to deal with her entire life, it's not only the mother who let her go, who lives with that decision. There are questions that will never be answered. A medical and psychological history that will never be known, which doesn't only apply to my friend but also affects her children as well. It's ongoing. There are indeed emotional scars that those who are given up for adoption live with everyday. And very few people ever take that into consideration.

Oh, I don't disagree with you at all. I was just weighting up the different arguments. As I said, I think that people who don't have any doubt or second thought about abortion, whatever their position is, are either too smart or too stupid, because I think we all can agree that this is a really delicate issue. Actually I maintain that abortion is a social failure, not the failure of a woman or a couple.

I've simply read a post saying that a full pregancy is risky and it sounded as if abortion was a walk in the park and also that adoption had deeper physhological effects and I honestly think it's bullshit. First, an abortion has its dangers too, it will cause heavy bleeding for days, infections are not unfrequent, it can cause infertility, uterine perforations, increase the risk of miscarriage in subsequent pregnacies, etc. And second, the phycological effects of abortion vs. adoption are completely subjective. This is one of the toughest decisions a woman could ever have to deal with. And in most cases, regardless of the final choice, they end up doubting if they took the right decision. A famous case, Chilli from TLC, she stated that she had an abortion when she was very young, and she said she regrets every day for that decision.

Of course I agree with what you're saying; the difference between abortion and going on with the pregnancy is that, in the second case, the woman is taking a decision that will condition another human being's life forever. But that's called parenthood and that's called life. I mean, when a woman or a couple have a wanted baby, they will take decisions such as working more hours so the baby can go to a better university or spending more time with the kid but earning less money. And in the future, the kid can reproach their parents that they didn't spend enough time with him or be thankful because they worked hard to give him/her a good education. Parents will try to take the best decisions ever while raising the kid, but that doesn't assure the kid will be happy. There are plenty of wanted kids that are depressed, miserable, taking drugs, etc.

So, the woman thinks carrying on with the pregnacy is the better choice and decides to give the baby in adoption, thinking it will be the best for him/her because he/she will have more chances to have a good life. Sometimes the kid will live a good and happy life and in other cases that decision and knowing that they are adopted will cause them a traume and problems. But we can't know that.

It's true that there is genetic illnesses they will not know about and the adopted kid will have to deal with unsolved questions... but then... what about sperm donation? Or what about women that decide to be single mothers (traditional way)?

-----------------------

Also, I wanted to add 2 things I didn't mention in my first post. I wanted to give a second thought about an argument used in these debates: "it should be only the woman's choice".

First, why only the woman and not the father? What if the man wants the kid badly? Yes, it's HER body, but it goes against all contemporary laws and morals where equality is the key. In the past, the woman got pregnant, the father didn't want the kid, the woman had the baby and she couldn't claim anything from the man, neither money nor the name. But nowadays, if the woman decides to have the baby, and the man doesn't want it, she can sue him and a judge will force him to pay for the kid expenses until he is an adult and give him his name (at least in here the law is like that and I agree 100% with this law). But, it leaves the father always in a second position. it's the woman's body, yes, but it's just nature. it's just reproduction. Someone had to "grow" the baby, in other species is the male, but in our one we evolved like that. But I don't fully understand that, let's say, sense of entitlement of the woman. By now, you need 2 persons of different sex to have a baby. That's a fact.

And we have cases like Ricky Martin, he resorted to surrogate and egg donation to have his children because he really wanted to be a father. So, maybe the man wanted to have that baby and, given that the women decided no, he will suffer too all his life ebcause he didn't have the baby he wanted. In these debates no one thinks in this possibility, which btw I find kind of sexist, but not sexist with men, I think it's sexist towards women, it's like in the past: "pregnancy is only her thing, and it's her problem".

And finally and probably most important because it's the key: "CHOICE", "ultimately it's the woman's choice". FIne, I agree, but, then I think... until what point is that really a FREE decison and a free choice? I mean, in a big percentage of cases there are economic reasons, external pressures from the family, society, fear of losing your job for which you studied or prepared hard for years, etc. Are you telling me that's totally a free decision?

So yeah, I've spent a fair amount of time reflecting about this. I've argued with myself a lot, and I still don't have a conclusion. I see the different points, I tend to agree with a law that makes it legal under certain conditions so in the end it's up to everyone's conscience and feelings but damn, it's tough.

Honestly, if you're smart about where you stay and watching for deals on flights, traveling to Europe isn't as expensive as some people think. In 2011, 9 days in the UK cost me about $1,200 for flights, hotels, and gig tickets. Last year I was only in Europe for so long because my student teaching in Australia had been cancelled when they couldn't find me a placement, so I had all the money I'd been saving to put towards that. I was only gonna do 2-3 gigs last year until that happened.