The Right to Have Children: A Double Standard?

Comparing the process of having children to the process of adoption, one might detect a hint of a double standard with regards to the "right" to have children.  The eugenics movement in the U.S. was terminated due in part to criticism that it infringes upon one's personal rights to reproduce, even is said person may be classified as "unfit" to care for children.  Thus, the current protection of children's well being is largely reactionary, wherein a child may be taken by the Child Protective Services after the parent concretely demonstrates their degree of unfitness.  The model for adoption, however, differs greatly, and is much more proactive.  I will discuss this apparent double standard, including possible resolutions and their limits.

Part of feminist theory is the establishment and upholding of women's reproductive rights.  What is it that makes reproducing a "right" in the first place?  Part of reproduction is the child that is produced as a result, but based on what I've seen so far, little feminist attention is paid to that issue, with the feminist approach focusing more on issues surrounding the mother and her empowerment.  A possible explanation for this is the polarization of the abortion debate, where one side is concerned with "women's rights" and another is concerned with "saving children from being murdered."  Thus, the discussion of issues surrounding children carries with it the baggage of the abortion debate, making it an unfavorable issue, being associated so much with a highly polar opposition.  The subject of children is often a matter left to the abortion opposition, when it should be at the forefront of issues surrounding reproduction in feminist discussions and models.  Children are simply too much of an integral part of the process of reproduction to be left out as subjects of discussion on either side.

Comparatively, in the context of adoption, children are seemingly given a much higher priority.  One might hear phrases like "not everyone can be a foster parent, but anyone can help a foster child."  In addition, there are certain legal requirements that anyone seeking to adopt a child must meet, based on things like income, "ability", and criminal background.  Thus, one might conclude the existence of a double standard for the importance of a child's well-being based on whether the child is adopted or born to someone.

Unfortunately, there are no clear solutions to this dichotomy.  Decreasing or removing the legal requirements for adoption will not benefit the children in question at all, and attempting to impose restrictions on who can give birth to children is costly, impractical, and ethically dubious.  Yet, the dichotomy exists.  What can be done?

In order to better address this dichotomy, I propose that the issue of children should become a larger part of the feminist debate over reproductive justice, and not be left as just part of the platform for opponents of abortion.  Making the issue of children a larger part of the discussion of reproductive justice may help address the birth/adoption double standard as well as depolarize the abortion debate, hopefully leading to social reform that is better informed and the result of greater cooperation.

What do you think about this apparent dichotomy?  Please let me know in the comments if you have any unique insight, information, or perspectives!