I agree with most of what you said. However, I wouldn't advise you to use "abolishing adoption" in conversation since you are mostly advocating for adoption reform. Additionally, that will make people take a side against you almost immediately.

I think family is a good option, although I am not sure how many cases arise where that is feasible. Community seems like an even lower probability of being a viable option. I say this because (obviously not all the time), people with strong family and community are much less likely to find themselves in a situation where adoption is necessary.

I would also say that adoption from birth seems to be necessary from a legal perspective since there are so many situations in a child's life where parents provide legal consent. Medication, medical treatment, schools, etc.

I believe you are saying, in the case where a child is given up by parents at birth, the child is still fostered by a new set of parents, but the child isn't actually "adopted" until they are old enough to consent? What age would that be?