Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site cbdkc1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!bellcore!ulysses!burl!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!pmd
From: pmd@cbdkc1.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness
Message-ID: <1344@cbdkc1.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 11-Mar-86 13:17:37 EST
Article-I.D.: cbdkc1.1344
Posted: Tue Mar 11 13:17:37 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 12-Mar-86 23:38:50 EST
References: <11560@watnot.UUCP> <9534@ucla-cs.ARPA> <610@bunkerb.UUCP> <179@valid.UUCP>
Reply-To: pmd@dkc1.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc)
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus
Lines: 48
Keywords: adoption

In article <179@valid.UUCP> pete@valid.UUCP (Pete Zakel) writes:

>The statement about the waiting list for adoption is EXTREMELY misleading.
>Yes, there are many people looking for a child to adopt.  But what KIND of
>child?  A WHITE one.
>
>There are many "adoptable" babies, young children, etc., that are NOT white
>that are begging to get adopted.  But the majority of adopting parents are
>white and want white children.  And what about problem children?  Rather than
>being adopted they are usually just shuttled from one foster family to another.
>Which ends up costing society because problem children become problem adults.
>-- 
>-Pete Zakel (..!{hplabs,amd,pyramid,ihnp4}!pesnta!valid!pete)

So what is a consistent answer to the problem with regard to abortion?
If the lack of "adoptability" is used a justification for abortion (and
it often is) then it is only a justification for those who don't get adopted.
The point is that, for any given individual, (we all like to be treated
like individulals and not statistics, don't we?) no one really knows whether
a child is "adoptable" or not until she has had a chance to be adopted.
To tell a Black woman that *her* baby is not adoptable because she is
Black is appropriating statistics to determine an individual's fate (a
common misuse of statistics).  Finding adoptive parents *is* more difficult
for minority children in general, but that doesn't say much about any
particular minority child.  (If pro-choice folks wan't to argue  for
abortion as an individual choice then they ought to use arguments that
make sense on the individual level).  This issue is complicated by the
fact that often the state will not allow a black child to be adopted by
a white couple because there is an impression that this is not the proper
setting for the child's upbringing.

Another question about these "problem" children is whether or not they
"should" be unwanted.  Accepting the fact that they are is one thing,
but proposing abortion as part of the answer only reinforces the notion
that it is OK to "get rid of" "problem" children.  With abortion we
justify getting rid of those whom we statically predict will fall into
the "unwanted" or "problem" category (and tacitly use it to justify the
abortion of those that won't--just for equality's sake, I suppose).  But
the question still remains:  Is it acceptable for these "problem" children
to be shunned by society?  Any solution that makes the child bear all the
consequences seems to imply that it is.  We might admit that our attitudes
toward such children are really predjudice and ought to change.  But
we are really accomodating those attitudes when we propose solutions
that involve getting rid of those who are the object of such attitudes.

-- 

Paul Dubuc	cbdkc1!pmd