...Plenty of people want to adopt, so adoption helps keep the potential in there while not significantly harming the biological parents. Why not just put unwanted kids up for adoption?
Sorry, but this is an incredibly naïve point that I feel I have to pull you up on. (For the record, I am very pro-adoption, and, if I wanted children myself, would adopt regardless of my infertility. That is, of course, assuming I was approved after the rigorous process I would have to undergo!) There are many people who want to adopt, yes, but not nearly enough to adopt even half the children who need adopting in the world, especially when you consider the time and expenses of even applying to be an adoptive parent, and laws that prevent same-sex couples from adopting, et cetera. In third world countries this is an obvious problem, but it's also an issue elsewhere. Firstly, I'll reference this publication by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. The PDF can be read
here.
I'll reference the more up-to-date one as well.
'04-'05:
The main points of interest in the report are as follows:
• There were 585 adoptions of children in Australia in 2004–05, an increase of 17% from
502 adoptions in 2003–04.
• 74% (434) of the adoptions were intercountry adoptions, 11% (65) were local adoptions
and 15% (86) were ‘known’ child adoptions.
In the period of '07-'08, things actually get worse.
In 2007–08, there were 440 adoptions of children in Australia, a 23% decrease from the previous year, and the lowest number of adoptions recorded since 1969–70 (Figure 3.1; Table A1). Of all adoptions in 2007–08, 61% were intercountry adoptions, 16% were local adoptions and 23% were ‘known’ child adoptions.
In fact, from the same report:
The overall decline in adoptions in the last 25 years can be attributed to the fall in the number of Australian children adopted—a 17-fold decline, from 2,884 to 170 between 1982–83 and 2007–08 (Table A4).
Ouch.
The first thing you might hit upon is '
an increase of 17%'. That sounds giant, right? The adoption totals in '03-'04 were 502 and 585 in '04-'05. 74% of these adoptions were from foreign countries (there's a definition in that report that states intercountry adoptions are adoptions by parents in Australia of children from overseas), and the rest were Australian children. 40% were male, 60% were females. etc. etc. What's my point of mentioning this? I'm bringing up the very obvious point that certain children are more likely to be adopted than others. If your child is Aboriginal, don't expect it to be adopted:
Four Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children were adopted in 2007–08. Only 96 Indigenous children have been adopted over the last 17 years.
And if they are not adopted in the first year of their life, they most likely won't be adopted, at least in Australia:
'04-'05
• 88% of these adoptions were of children aged under 1 year (Table A4.1)
'07-'08
In local and intercountry adoptions, nearly all children were less than 5 years old (99% and 92% respectively); whereas for ‘known’ child adoptions, most children were aged 10 years and over (69%).
(Known adoptions aren't really relevant because the majority of those are from step-parents, which is an entirely different story.)
Pardon the comparison, which I am sure some will find objectionable, but this is rather similar to a pound (in this aspect). When someone goes to adopt a dog, they will generally choose the boisterous, healthy young puppy who will most likely be with them a long time, rather than the old dog who is perfectly fine but is 'getting on'. 'You can't teach an old dog new tricks,' is one thing that may go through their mind. I'm sure you can imagine the other things.
I'm having trouble finding a good statistic for children that were actually placed for adoption each year, which sadly undermines my point, but I guarantee you there are a bunch of them who aren't getting adopted. As my statistics show, tbh, adoption is only a realistic option for certain children. You can't just put a child for adoption that is an Indigenous male in Australia or something and expect him to get adopted. The reality of the matter is that he most likely won't.
Frankly, I'd rather abort than put my child up for an uncertain chance at adoption. I have nothing against those who put their children up for adoption. It's utterly their choice and little of my business. But I personally would find it worrisome, and there are other women who abort because they think it's the kindest option, not because they just don't care and someone else can take the kid. By the way, we all know that sibling groups aren't commonly adopted together, so if you've had twins (rare albeit), that just gets even more difficult.
While I admire those who make the noble decision to foster parent children who are being shunted around, I do not think foster parenting is a good solution, especially considering the child will likely end up moved from foster family to foster family.
akuchi summed up all the other points I was going to put in my post, so I won't bother reiterating them.
