Agreed. Adoption is awesome. I’ve never heard of anyone objecting to religious based adoptions. I have 2 adopted children so I’m kinda living in that world. Where did you hear this?
I recall reading it some time back. My brother & his wife adopted 3 children through LDS social services. Afterwards I heard LDS social services no longer does adoptions. I don't know 100% if this is true, and if true, why. I am only speculating that concerns about blowback about using religious criteria (e.g., hetereosexual couple, LDS) to place children may be an explanation.
Understandably some object to such religious-based criteria as discriminatory against same-sex couples, which they are, but this is one area where I have no objection to carving out a religion-based exception. The goal should be to place as many children as possible into loving homes, and if one way to do it is to allow religious adoption services to "discriminate" in this way, then I'm OK with it... provided that non-traditional families are not systematically discriminated against in the market. (I believe a same-sex couple equally as capable of giving a child a stable, loving, nuturing home as a hetereosxual couple.)
As a policy preference, creating financial and other incentives for women to carry to term and for people to adopt HAS to be part of the equation if we want to reduce abortions. I should add putting in place a functioning, reasonably generous safety net for women and families to help care for children, which HAS to include health sector reform that provides universal access to quality care at a reasonable price, something many of the most ardent foes of abortion oppose, without seeing its link back to incentivizing at the margin the thing they hate so much.
The thought of abortions makes me queasy, but so does the state compelling a woman to have a child and interfering in her most intimate decisions about control over her own body and reproduction.
