Instead of Abortion, Adoption should be mandatory for unwanted children.

Pro starts by claiming that to choose to abort a child is to deprive a family that is unable to have children of the very thing they so desperately crave. Pro later refutes themselves on this point by admitting that there are more children available for adoption than there are families willing to adopt them. The consideration then should be focused on a child doomed to die (I don't contest that a fetus is a human being) versus a child doomed to a life in foster care. Pro claims that foster care is the preferable option. In isolation, I would agree with Pro on this point. Considering those two options without any other outside factors would land me firmly in the foster care camp every time. I doubt there's many people that wouldn't say the same. It's a no brainer. But Pro is neglecting to factor a whole host of things into that equation before landing on the foster care side. First, there's the picture that Pro paints of what a typical foster care home is like. I don't doubt that there are foster homes out there that live up to the rosy picture that Pro paints and I don't doubt that there are people as passionate about adopting and fostering lots of children as the people that Pro describes. But if we are talking about making adoption mandatory, we're talking about nationwide adoptions taking place in tens of thousands of foster homes and they are all going to vary. Do they all live up to this standard? Do they all live up to ANY standard? What is the average foster home environment like? Well, a look at the suicide rates of foster children may shed some light on this. Children in foster care are almost 3 times more likely to consider suicide than their peers that are not in foster care and almost 4 times more likely to actually attempt it[1]. Long-term foster care children are also much more prone to psychiatric problems later in life than people that had a regular upbringing[2]. These are not healthy environments to raise a child in. Another factor that Pro neglects to mention is the effect that giving a baby up for adoption has on the mother. They simply dismiss the mother's feelings on the matter, perhaps even going so far as to imply that the mother is relieved to have the responsibility of the baby taken care of on their behalf, describing the "burden" being taken away from them. I by no means intend to play down the emotional strain that having an abortion involves. A woman can be the most ardent supporter of abortion in the world. But in that moment, there's something visceral that takes over and they can't help but be overwhelmed by it. And then of course there's a lengthy grieving period afterwards. But I would argue that the grief felt by a parent forced to give their child up for adoption is, at best, just as bad, and at worst, even worse than the grief felt because of abortion. With abortion, despite the unfortunate circumstances, one thing that is semi-positive is that you know at all times where the child is and that it's not conscious. With adoption, there are so many things that can run through a mother's mind and it's something that will be there for the rest of the mother's life. Where is my child? Are they ok? Who did they grow up to be? Are they even still alive? Is that them there in line at the DMV? And so on. Of course, there are open adoptions. These are arguably even worse though. Imagine the pain of interacting with your child, unable to tell them who you are, some until they reach a certain age, some never at all. All this time, hearing them call another woman mommy. Imagine how deeply that one word would cut into her soul every time it was said. Another factor that Pro has neglected to mention is whether or not making adoption mandatory will actually cause it to happen. They simply assume that it will. Even if making adoption mandatory was the right thing to do, if it doesn't cause significantly more adoptions, it would be pointless at best. And if there are any unintended side effects on top of that, the lack of additional adoptions would create no positive impact and the unintended side effects would create plenty of negative impact, resulting in an overall net loss, morally speaking. The worldwide average abortion rate is 35 abortions per 1000 women (aged 15-44). In countries where abortion is legal, those rates are 34 in 1000. And in countries where abortion is illegal, those rates are 37 in 1000[3] The temptation here is to make a silly joke that if you want to reduce abortions, you'd be better off supporting abortion than rallying for mandatory adoptions. But I'll opt instead to stick to the point. It is unlikely that making adoption mandatory will cause a significant rise in children being brought to term and put up for adoption. It is much more likely that there will instead be the unintended side effect of a significant rise in DIY abortions and so called "back alley" abortions taking place without any health regulations keeping the performers of those abortions under check. The result of this would be devastating. 68,000 women die every year from unsafe abortions and there are between 2 and 7 million that sustain permanent internal injuries or end up with incomplete abortions or suffer infections and/or disease[4]. All things considered, the conclusion is that, on balance, mandatory adoption would be worse than women having the option of adoption or abortion. It therefore should not be enforced. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... (page 11) [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [3] http://www.thelancet.com...(16)30380-4/abstract [4] http://www.who.int...