If adoption were abolished?

Question

do you think there would be more abortions, or more family guardianship?

Answer 1

I agree with Joshua M. Parents who aren't prepared to give birth to an innocent life, much less parent that life, aren't the best equipped to take on the awesome responsibility. Thus, more abuse, neglect, babies dying in hospitals or in homes . . . dumpsters.

Social workers work to find the best solution that fits the needs of a child in foster care (emotional, psychological, physical, familial, the whole gamut). If a child can't be adopted, long term guardianship or kinship foster care are the permanency plans of choice; however, kinship foster care still puts the financial responsibility of the child on the taxpayer, because the relatives will qualify for, and receive, funds and stipend aid, as well as Medicaid, for the child.

I've said this many times today on this site: if the parents can't (or won't) make the necessary changes that will make it possible to return the child home to a SAFE, SECURE environment, return home won't happen. The alternate permanency plan (selected along with return home when the child first goes into foster care) comes into play. In order to reduce the length of time the child has to wonder what will happen to her, as well as to satisfy federal regulations as per the Adoption and Safe Families Act, social workers and agencies are required to provide each foster child concurrent permanency plans.

Sadly, adoption due to having to place children into foster care (and terminate parental rights) won't go away, nor will social workers work themselves out of social work careers. Too many things interfere, such as poor parenting of the parents, drug/alcohol abuse, mental illness, domestic violence, etc.

Answer 2

I would not know about abortion I believe those numbers will remain about the same...

Family guardianship would be swell if there is Family, my children were denighed by their family--no one wanted them and all known members were asked...

so, I suppose if they could not be adopted then the state might pay someone like me to raise them as little orphans?

Either that or Uncle Chester may have wanted them and molested them for years...that happened so often in the past when families struggled to care for the children who for whatever reason needed substitute parents--some uncle got his hands on them because his wife couldn't have children and decided that her sister's kids were better then nothing.... and aunts and uncles pretended they were the parent's until the acutal parent stepped forward to discover the child had been abused--or married off to some cousin....  

My uncle grew up in an orpahnage--and no one ever adopted him--at 16 he went back to his birth mother who solicited him... he would have loved to have been adopted....  but, never was...and that was way back..... 1940's... every summer people would come and pick up a few boys take them home have them work the fields or farm, molest them and return them to the boys home--- I guess, we could go back to the old orphanages for all the children who have no one???

Answer 3

As a birthmom, I'd have to say that unfortunately, there would be more abortions.  I honestly don't know what I would have done without adoption.  I know I would not have been able to choose abortion, but just as much, I know I would not have chosen family guardianship.  Perhaps I would have chosen suicide.

Answer 4

There would be less abortions.  

More babies from unprepared parents who can't afford them. More financial hardship.  More kids w/o insurance. More need for universal care.  More need for welfare.  More need for lawyers to prosecute dads.  More people struggling.  More kids growing up with parents who didn't want them.

More babies in dumpsters.

Answer 5

The fact of the matter is that people don't care about adoptees and their birth families. The lack of statistics on adoption over DECADES makes it pretty clear.

I don’t believe that abolishing (infant) adoption would change the rate of abortion at all. I do believe that it would be beneficial to family preservation to take all of the tax money that is going towards families who adopt infants and put it towards helping the natural families parent, and I don’t see anything wrong with that. But a lot of people disagree with me because a lot of people don’t believe in family preservation if it means they won’t get an infant.

Joshua M: More need for universal health care – is a bad thing??? Doesn’t universal health care help all of us? Would it be bad because it gave women the means by which to get on their feet with a new baby?

Confidentgal: “If a child can't be adopted, long term guardianship or kinship foster care are the permanency plans of choice; however, kinship foster care still puts the financial responsibility of the child on the taxpayer, because the relatives will qualify for, and receive, funds and stipend aid, as well as Medicaid, for the child.”

I think that the thinking should be changed to “If a child can’t be placed in kinship care, then long-term guardianship is the next best thing. Adoption by strangers should be a last resort.” There are many tax breaks and social programs that tax payer monies go to within either of these situations: kinship and stranger adoption. I don’t understand why tax money going to family preservation is ever challenged unless it is challenged by people who want to adopt and then feel that after getting the child of their dreams they still aren’t getting enough.

Confidentgal: “Too many things interfere, such as poor parenting of the parents, drug/alcohol abuse, mental illness, domestic violence, etc.”

You forgot to add money and coercion. I know this may seem like a non-issue to you, but to those of us who have lived it, it is a very real problem that exists today, and one that needs to be addressed.

The lack of statistics adds to the myths that Uncle Chester of the adoptive family is more or less likely to abuse an adopted niece or nephew than Uncle Chester of the birth family. Who knows who Uncle Chester is going to molest? Better to spend a bit of money to figure out who these creeps are to begin with.

Truth be told, I would be very happy to see the numbers of infant adoptions drop to very low numbers, but that probably won’t happen until we get the money out of it; too many people making too much money on our sons and daughters.

Answer 6

When you say 'if adoption were abolished' do you mean if it was simply made illegal for people to become parents to children not biologically related to them?  Wouldn't that cause a lot more children to be in foster care?

I guess I'm thinking of older children. There are a lot of older children in situations where family guardianship is not an option, and they're a little too old for abortion.

Answer 7

Well this will never happen but just "suppose" that this were the case for your entertainment...

If adoption was illegal then I think that there would be hundreds of thousands of children in the "system" and stuck  in foster homes because no one can adopt them.  I think that abuse and neglect would rise tremendously.  I also think that abortion would increase.  Lastly, I think that there would be more children left at the doorsteps of Firehouses, hospitals, police stations and dumpsters.

Answer 8

If adoption were "abolished" there would be hundreds of thousands of children abandoned, abused, and I hate to say it but there would be a lot more infants found dead in dumpsters.

Answer 9

Again, I think more mom's would raise their own children.  But I think that guardianships would rise at a much faster rate than abortions.  Abortions might rise a little, but I doubt it would be much.

Answer 10

I think there would be a lot of abandon kids on the street and the pedifilers would be out in there numbers.

Answer 11

I think there would be more abortions.  But then again, women are choosing to kill their babies way more than to give them life, anyway.

Answer 12

Sorry couldn't sleep.. and I don't much feel like killing people online...lol...

It would help strengthen families instead of tearing them apart... and at least reduce the amount of abortions that we who were in the system have to do to protect our child from ending up like we did.. I will try to get Lisa here to talk more about it... as i am not the one to give a detailed explanation.

But I asked her to come here before but she said she did said one thing that was not adoption friendly and was attacked by everyone... she said people were so mean to here and hurtful it gave her a tear...

If I can get MikeIike in here he is 9th generation stolen child.

Him and his wife after their own child was stolen have got 3 abortions since to keep them from continuing from feeding off his blood line like vampires.. and him and his wife have no problems talking about it. But I doubt he has any interests talking to people who buy possibly stolen children....

But I will try... if you think I am bad... he is 9th generation even I have a hard time handling what he says, makes me sick when I think about the things he talks about.

A lot less ex-foster care kids would have abortions out of fear of losing their children just like the majority of us myself included if they knew their families could take them at least.

I can never have a child as it will be taken right out of the hospital. .... and I have never done anything but live in care when I was a kid...