Reply to thread

Excellent. Besides tax incentives, making the process a little less invasive would be a good way to encourage people to adopt.




I disagree. I had an abstinence-only education and it left a lot to be learned on the side. I think better education (and education in contraception) would be highly beneficial.




The former I had heard in several places (by the way, I think pale rider has a link to the study that proved it somewhere...can't remember which thread that's in at this point, though). The latter is hardly surprising.


If you ask me, the best place to stress these things would be in an educational setting. Abortions aren't even touched on in abstinence-only sex-ed courses. Perhaps the reason people seem to think they're a positive thing is that they haven't been properly educated about what abortion entails - both physiologically and psychologically.




I suppose I agree. Like I've said, I got fed abstinence-only...a course that delivers all the facts would be preferable. Since abstinence would be one of those facts, giving it some time to shine in class would be preferable.




Personally, I find most celebrity PSA's to be contrived and unconvincing. Do they ever work?




If it isn't too emotionally damaging, perhaps a few specialists in adoption could tag along to discuss how they might have gone about things differently.




Raising the cost would just send abortions back out into alleys with coathangers. I doubt any of us want to see that.




Or the father ought to be present for at least some sessions of the counselling.




How limited are we talking?


Back
Top