Sunday, August 19, 2012

How can first mothers talk to those who want to adopt?

Lorraine and reunited daughter, Jane
Dear FMF:

I am the anonymous poster who is the daughter of a very damaged adoptee. I am from Utah and I chose to parent as a single teen based on my mother's experience as an adoptee. I feel very confident discouraging any one from giving up their baby, but what do I say about adoption to friends that want to adopt?  I want them to know the true situation, but it is so hard when they feel like adoption will solve all their problems. And most of them believe that the mothers truly want to give up their children. Have you covered this before?
------------------------------
Let  us applaud you for dealing with the zeitgeist in Mormon-dominated Utah and keeping your baby. Yep, even for me it is very difficult to talk to people who are hell bent on adopting and telling them about birth-mother grief and the long-term impact on the adoptee. A friend wrote me about this very issue, and she remembers crying on the phone with her friend when adoption was being considered. After the adoption, they remained friends but drifted apart somewhat, as the other couple had a young child and she did not, adding however, "their adopting was a further wedge between us." She wrote, "They may not feel it but I certainly do, because today, twenty years later, adoption still finds its way into our conversation in ways that seem hurtful, or at least uncomfortable, for me."

But back to you. You can only save the world one person at a time, and you started out by keeping your child. By living in Utah, surrounded by people who think adoption is only wonderful, you are in a more difficult position than most. We have had an anonymous Mormon first mother commenting on another blog last week who wrote: "i love adoption and am SO grateful with my experience with it." Maybe what you will accomplish more than you realize is being an example to other women in Utah that it is possible to be a single mother; and you can talk to them about how damaged your own adoptee mother was by the fact of her not being raised in her family of origin.

The best thing would be to tell those who want to adopt about the difficulties of your own mother, and suggest that they read various blogs to learn how complicated it is for the adopted person to grow up among genetic strangers.

I've listed below a few of FMF posts that could be helpful. 

The longterm impact of giving up a child

An adoptive mother asks "How can adoption be less horrific on first mothers?"

The saddest story of all: Opting for adoption today

No Matter How Adoption is Done, Grief Remains for Mothers

 


40 comments :

  1. It is not simple for young teen mothers to keep their babies and raise them all alone. These blogs make it all sound easy to be a teen mom. In reality, it is not. I have seen several teen moms struggle, primarily because they did not want to be a mom at that time in their life. Once gave her child up for adoption 4 months after trying, she realized, it was too much.

    ReplyDelete
  2. No one thinks it is easy to be a teen mom without tons of support, and even then it is hard. But if you are going to have the baby, you should keep him or her.

    ReplyDelete
  3. True, not easy being a teen mom, in fact not easy being a mom period. But it's a heck of a lot more rewarding than losing your child to adoption.

    Giving up your baby does not make you a non-mom; it makes you a mom without her child. The pain never fully goes away, even for those who insist they made the right decision.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The majority of single women in Utah keep and parent their children and no one thinks boo about it. Don't characterize an entire state you've never been to based on a handful of things you've read on the internet.

    ReplyDelete
  5. From the statistics forwarded to us by a Mormon, it is safe to say that more single mothers in Utah give up their children to adoption than elsewhere in the country, due to the influence of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

    Utah is without question the go-to state for women who wish to relinquish their children without interference from the fathers who wish to raise their children. The laws of the state are designed to circumvent the rights of the fathers--regardless of where the child was born. And this is not simply based on a handful of things we've read on the Internet. This is a fact.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The demand for babies isn't going to stop--unless, of course, we return to the old way of thinking in which illegitimate babies were thought to have the same impurities as their immoral parents. And, no adoptee wants to be thought of as a bad seed nor does a first parent want to be seen as immoral. So, that's not the answer.

    Yes, telling prospective adopters may stop one or two of them, but it won't stem the tide. The prospect of a baby of "their" is dangling in front of them. Only the strongest among them will be able to put others needs ahead of their own. Most of them have also been through a trauma, and adoption has been offered to them as a way to help relieve that traumatic experience.

    It's the supply that needs to be stopped.


    ReplyDelete
  7. Children need to be raised with their families. If a mother is unable to support a newborn, then she has a right to support, financial, educational, medical, etc. Help her learn to care for her child, both mother and child will be better served.

    from UNICEF's website:

    The Convention on the Rights of the Child, which guides UNICEF’s work, clearly states that every child has the right to grow up in a family environment, to know and be cared for by her or his own family, whenever possible.  Recognising this, and the value and importance of families in children’s lives, families needing assistance to care for their children have a right to receive it. When, despite this assistance, a child’s family is unavailable, unable or unwilling to care for her/him, then appropriate and stable family-based solutions should be sought to enable the child to grow up in a loving, caring and supportive environment. 

    In other words, adoption is a last resort measure.
    Yes, I am a FM.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Congratulations to the mom that kept her child.

    To Anon that insists that mothers don't want to be a mother at that time, why don't you insist that your state institute a birth control law that allows schools and counselors to provide condoms and the morning after pill as well as realistic counseling regarding the truths about pregnancy, abortion and adoption?

    Reality is that people will never stop coveting what is not theirs. Women are trained to be mothers from the moment we hold our first baby doll to the day we die and men are trained to think that they have to provide for children - if they want to....

    Society is geared toward the least intelligent, most likely to fail, rather than to guide those that are in need into productive realistic lives... because of this, we fail our children by making them believe that they have to marry and make babies - isn't a few billion a too many already? Why can't we teach them to be thinkers and doers and, for those that truly feel the need, parents that raise children not driven by their biological imperative?

    Good grief....

    ReplyDelete
  9. Margaret Susan Hoffman LyBurtusAugust 20, 2012 at 7:57 PM

    My expert mom friends here speak from many years of networking with other moms and their own experiences. I believe the same and have made my life's work sharing and educating as many people as possible about the many issues involved in adoption for all concerned and the importance of family preservation. I feel very blessed that my own daughter did so well in her adoptive home but until I completed my 15 year search for her I agonized more and more as I heard the stories of adoptees who were affected greatly from being adopted. Mother to forget and go on, not possible. Only now do I feel some healing. We both missed most of each others lives and can never get that back. If a women was helped and supported for just a short time most will make it.
    Churches need to promote family presevation and foster care, not adoption by strangers.
    If u want to love a child, foster one and keep their lines of communication to their family open until a family member is able to step up and then u can help the next child. Fathers right's should not be denied.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I am sure that those adopters who are seeking to "save" a child, also believe they can only change the world one person at a time.

    I thing HDW is probably right about the demand for babies. It isn't going to go away unless fertility treatments become much more effective. An infertile women is not going to be able to identify with the problems of a fertile women who is ambivalent about raising her own child or unable to for economic reasons.

    It may be possible to change the minds of the fertile who decide to adopt but I doubt it. They probably discovered before adopting that plenty of people do not approve of what they are doing such as family members or infertile adopters.

    ReplyDelete
  11. iTo Anon August 19, 2012 8:27 PM and also to Lorraine:

    You are both right... in that you are not talking about the same thing.

    Yes, MOST single mothers in Utah keep and raise their children -- by far.

    Yes, MORE single mothers in Utah surrender their children to adoption than in any other state. It should be noted that a fair number of them are not from Utah... as per the horrible, anti-family laws that Lorraine pointed out.

    Those are not the same thing.

    As another Utahn (and an adoptee) I understand the instinct to 'bristle' when Utah gets slammed on this blog -- which is often. There is much about Utah that is worthy of love, including a lot -- a LOT -- of people.

    There is NOTHING in the adoption universe that is even a little bit okay in Utah. Zip. Nada. The whole thing is a big clusterf&$@k. I hate Utah *for that* as much as anyone. More than a lot.

    I was adopted here, into a Mormon family, from elsewhere. I am one of the statistic adoptees... 'received' from not-Mormons, adopted to Mormons. My own adoption (and those like mine) is so very offensive to me.

    The State of Utah and the LDS Church are not one-in-the-same. Huge influence? Yes! Majority of lawmakers are also Mormons? Probably (I don't know definitively... but I would be surprised to find otherwise). I know it's tempting to see this state and that church as the same entity... but they are not.

    There are people here who care and are working to change the level of power and influence. Did you know we have a gay member of state congress? Shouldn't be a big deal (and isn't in most places) but in Utah, it's something I'm happy about. I have to celebrate the small victories or I will go crazy... or sink into hopeless depression.

    The hatred for Utah as it pertains to adoption is understandable. I share it. But adoption is not all Utah is about. I still love this place... despite the horrible, embarrassing backward ways it gets attention.

    Just hoping to add a different voice.

    Utahn, adult adoptee, democrat, pro-choice feminist, raised Mormon (recovering) :-)

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anon from Utah:

    Yes, I know, we slam Utah a lot because of the influence of LDS in all things, but I do understand the difference and I did write a glowing profile a few years ago of the Demo mayor of Salt Lake City for a magazine, so I know whereof you speak. LDS is so pro-adoption that it is hard to separate the two.

    Thanks for adding your perspective, and find us on Facebook! and introduce yourself. I am from Michigan and...I admit to being defensive about my native state if it is dissed.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Lori, that's one mistake this culture (East and West--read Daniel Quinn) keeps making over and over and over and over and over again--trying to deny that we humans are biological creatures with biological imperatives. Suggesting more of the same denial isn't going to fix the mess we're in.

    Creating babies in test tubes or via gamete donation or purchasing someone's infant such that the someone grieves their baby and winds up having three in compensation even though none of them replace the missing child? None of that has anything to do with biological imperative. If we did not have these options then infertile people would have to do what infertile people always did before the 20th century--go without. Only when it results in a normal conception and birth could it be argued to come from that imperative.

    I'm not fussed with how intelligent someone is or how productive they are in the opinion of a stranger or outsider--that's another mistake we make, seeing society as a machine or a factory, and humans as its cogs. This has also been a damaging metaphor to everyone who's been touched by it. No one has to be a perfect cog. No one has to be a cog at all. We should value one another, period, whether or not we think they will be the scientist who cures AIDS or the inventor of the next useless but wildly popular widget that takes society by storm.

    People have always entered into culturally recognized relationships and have always had children. What we need to do isn't discourage them from these things but instead, place these things into their proper context. Give them the tools to be productive in a way that makes sense in their own lives as well as potentially becoming parents. Basically, encouraging the development of well-rounded human beings.

    While we're at it we could stand to evolve society back to something in which parents can both work for a living and be parents. The worst thing we ever did in that vein was imprison women at home and deprive them of jobs during the advent of the Industrial Revolution, and then structure the workplace to cater to men with wives at home. We still structure the workplace that way, even though technology permits us to do otherwise. Time to change it to better suit the reality.

    (While we're at it we could stand to institute some trade tariffs to protect domestic production too--but this comment is too long as it is. Sorry about that.)

    ReplyDelete
  14. I am a mother by adoption who is very sympathetic to birthmothers and has been moved by Lorraine and Jane's stories.

    Trying to talk prospective adoptive parents into ruling out adoption completely is not going to work. What may work is asking people interested in adoption to see birthmothers as human beings and to refuse to adopt from a girl or woman who is hiding her pregnancy from anyone in her life. I believe there are some women who really do want to give their babies up for adoption, but that many birthmothers are simply trying to hide their pregnancies from family members. This may seem hard to believe in 2012, but middle class parents do not want their daughters to have babies out of wedlock. For example, many college girls get pregnant and have aboritons only so that their parents don't know they are having sex. I know one college girl who gave her baby up for adoption without telling her parents she was pregnant. I think this is crazy and tragic.

    There are birthmothers who give baby after baby up for adoption. I think this is very sad, but I believe a birthmother such as this is going to give her baby up no matter what anyone says. In contrast, a birthmother pregnant for the first time who is hiding out, hoping her parents don't find out she's pregnant may very well listen if prospective adopters tell her to give her parents a chance.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Ginger, much as I hate it, I do agree with you--that some people really want to give up their babies and will do it no matter what. Your point about trying to help those girls who give their babies up out of embarrassment is valid. But in this culture we also have the pro-adoption zeitgeist that giving up a baby is a loving thing to do, when in fact, it is not loving at all. It is merely an act of desperation.

    If you are going to have a baby, you should keep him; if you truly do not want a baby or cannot keep a baby at this point in your life, abortion is the better option.

    As I am involved in Unsealed Initiative, the reform group working to change laws and open records in NY State, I recently wrote the other day: As a former Catholic who went to 12 years of Catholic school, you can go to confession after abortion and life goes on; as a mother who gave up a child, surrendering a baby condemns you to life in hell.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Lorraine, thanks for responding to my post. You wrote, "...if you truly do not want a baby or cannot keep a baby at this point in your life, abortion is the better option." Abortion may be easier for the birthmother -- although I know many women who have been haunted by their abortions -- but if a fetus is a human life, we don't have a right to decide that it would be better for that life to die in utero.

    It doesn't make moral sense to demand -- justifiably -- that the world see birthmothers as human beings (as opposed to "vessels" for babies other people will raise), yet declare that what a woman is pregnant with is a baby only when we want it to be a baby.

    P.S. Although I am a practicing Catholic, my anti-abortion belief is not derived from my religion. The write Nat Hentoff is a self-described "atheist, liberal Jew", yet he is opposed to abortion. When asked why an atheist would be pro-life, Hentoff replied, "Because life is all I have."

    ReplyDelete
  17. Another post to Lorraine..

    Lorraine, I forgot to add that I agree with you about this "giving a baby up for adoption is a loving thing" foolishness. When I started the process of adopting a child, I did not believe any woman out there owed me a baby or that anyone should make decisions about motherhood based on what would make me (or any prospective adopter) happy. I happen to be single, but the most obnoxious attitudes seem to be fostered with married couples in mind: "It's so unfair that you're infertile that you deserve a perfect baby to adopt..." So many people I know buy into this and it drives me nuts. I have friends who are going to wacky lengths to hire surrogates and buy sperm and eggs, as if they are assembling a car. When I broach the possibility of adopting a baby or child from foster care -- there ARE such available and they really need parents -- my friends respond, "But we're such good people! Don't you think we deserve a perfect white infant?" The entitlement mentality drives me nuts.

    ReplyDelete
  18. @Lorraine

    You might also want to warn expectant mothers
    in Utah, who may be considering adoption about this...

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16680-porn-in-the-usa-conservatives-are-biggest-consumers.html

    Utah consumes more porn than any other state,
    nation wide! I really do question the marriage
    stability of some of these PAPs in
    Utah.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Dana trying to claim that adoption or IVF has nothing to do with biological imperatives is absurd. They are both responses to the biological imperative to parent.

    The idea that couples prior to the 20th century accepted infertility and lived a child free existence is also nonsense. Abraham apparantly delt with his wife's infertility by using a surrogate. Some men divorced their wives. Henry VIII got rid of his wives in various ways when they failed to produce an heir.

    I also have to agree with Ginger that is is hypocritical to call adoption immoral but not abortion. I don't understand why someone should be expected to adopt from the foster care system just because they are infertile though.

    ReplyDelete
  20. If someone is going to adopt...why not adopt a child who truly needs a home, not encourage more adoption by only wanting a healthy white infant?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Ginger Hayes wrote:"There are birthmothers who give baby after baby up for adoption. I think this is very sad, but I believe a birthmother such as this is going to give her baby up no matter what anyone says."

    Here is an interesting story (as well as I can recollect it) about Scott Peterson's mother. This is the man who was convicted of murdering his pregnant wife, Laci. Scott's mother had a tragic childhood. When she was only four years old her father was murdered on Christmas Eve. Her mother (Scott's grandmother) then put Scott's mother and her 3 brothers into an orphanage never to be heard from again. Scott's mother ended up getting pregnant out-of-wedlock 3 times and giving each child (2 boys and a girl) up for adoption. The only reason she kept Scott was because her physician chastised her and told her she could not keep having babies just to give them up for adoption. Interesting that Scott's mother also had 3 boys and a girl. It seems she was trying to get rid of them in the same way that her mother (Scott's grandmother) had gotten rid of her and her brothers.

    ReplyDelete
  22. " if you truly do not want a baby or cannot keep a baby at this point in your life, abortion is the better option."

    I hate to say it because I am pro-choice politically but I think this attitude will doom the family preservation movement. Many, many people are opposed to abortion for religious, personal and moral reasons. I think the emphasis really needs to be on how important it is for the mother and her child to stay together, how biology does matter, how many but not all adoptees are damaged by being given up. I think saying, well if you aren't prepared for the child just have an abortion is not going to fly and will lead to adoption being considered the best solution all around.

    I know there is a lot of talk at family preservation forums about how adoption and abortion have no connection to one another. But I have to disagree. I think it makes perfect sense from a pro-life person's point of view to assume that a woman is going to have an abortion because she does not see herself being able to raise a child at this time. So there reasoning is for the pregnant woman to just go through the nine months and the delivery and that by placing the child for adoption she will have no further responsibility. What we need to stress is how profoundly and negatively adoption can affect both the mother (and father) and the child.

    I'm of the post Roe v. Wade generation and grew up in a very liberal environment. I have friends who had abortions many years ago and still regret them. For a lot of women having an abortion is the better option (and I certainly never encouraged anyone to have the baby and give it up for adoption) but it is not always without lasting negative consequences either.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Adopting from the foster system is not without it's problems surrounding termination of parental rights and just because a child is a white infant and not in the foster system, it does not mean the child is not in need of a home.

    Since infertile couples are not primarily motivated by the desire to "save" a child but instead are looking to experience parenthood as close as possible to what they would have experienced if they were not infertile. Adopting from foster care should be left to those just motivated by the desire to give a home to a child in need.

    ReplyDelete
  24. " if you truly do not want a baby or cannot keep a baby at this point in your life, abortion is the better option."

    I very much agree with Robin. As soon as someone claiming to advocate "family preservation" says something like this to an adoptive parent or potential adoptive parent, that P/AP is very likely to ignore anything else they have to say even if the P/APs are pro-choice. If they are not pro choice, the reaction is likely to be even more hostile.

    That position isn't likely to win much support in the US generally. Euthanasia aside, the idea that killing someone is in there best interests is going to sound crazy to most people.

    I am atheist ex-Catholic who spent 9 years at catholic school. The Catholic church considers abortion to be premeditated murder and anyone who procures one is automatically excommunicated. Not much point in going to confession.

    ReplyDelete
  25. It's my opinion that many pro-lifers are not really pro-life just pro-birth.
    If they were truly pro-life they wouldn't be so quick to demonize those on welfare or who are using any social services.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Janet, I couldn't agree more; that's what even the Catholic church has opposed the Ryan budget: It's not pro-LIFE, only as you say, pro-BIRTH.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Yo, you can always get back in the Catholic church...just as murderers can. Just confess, be absolved and say your penance.

    ReplyDelete
  28. The Catholic church makes no distinction between abortion and murder. Its all the same to them.

    I imagine an abortion would require quite a bit of penance and the person would have to be genuinely repentant. Probably better to just skip the whole confession nonsense and just keep showing up and eating your wafer.

    As for the whole pro-life/pro-choice fight. It is possible to be in favor of a women's right to chose without considering abortion to be an ethical choice. There can't be too many people who consider it a more ethical choice than adoption. I am sure most if not all adopters, fertile and infertile, consider themselves morally superior to the women who do have abortions even if they came to adopt under circumstances that some might find questionable (e.g. the Mosers).

    ReplyDelete
  29. Do you mean that the supply has to stop by telling moms and adopters the truth? read city of one which is a little different in that she had 11 years with her family so at least had a base to start from.... the statistics for taken babies and natural moms is not good. prospective baby takers buys need to know that this baby isn't going to be what ever you raise them to be, they are going to have some heridic likes and dislikes, that taking anothers baby is not going to solve what you are going through and that the natural mom DESPERATELY wanted her child Better life grrrrrrr

    ReplyDelete
  30. Lorraine, you have every right to bash the Catholic Church and pro-life people, but you aren't helping your cause by doing so because your facts are wrong. As a pro-life person, I am not merely "pro-birth". The women on welfare I resent are the ones who are deliberately getting pregnant with baby after baby just to stay on the dole and who continue to sleep with the men who got them pregnant but won't marry these men because they'd lose their welfare benefits. Every taxpayer -- pro-life and pro-choice -- has a right to criticize this behavior. I live in NYC and can tell you there are many women like this. As for the remarks about the Catholic Church...they're just ignorant. Here in NYC, the Sisters of Life work against abortion by providing every imaginable help to pregnant women in distress. I know, because I am on the list of people they email with requests for help getting pregnant women jobs, places to stay, furniture, etc. In addition, you may be interested to learn that the Sisters of Life assume every pregnant woman will want to raise her child if she brings it to term, and they do not raise the option of adoption unless a woman insists she does not want to keep the baby. Last Mother's Day, I volunteered at an event that honored struggling single mothers. As the Sisters of Life who ran the event explained, "Single mothers who are poor don't have anyone who will make a fuss over them and praise them for caring for their children without partners, so we are going to honor them."

    Pregnant women who go to church every week and are considering adoption may read your remarks about the Catholic Church and tune out everything you say because on the subject of Catholicism in 2012, you trot out cliches that make it obvious you've been estranged from the Catholic Church for decades and don't really know what you're talking about.

    ReplyDelete
  31. hummm here is it.. tell them that raising a child is a 24/7 job and to be sure they can handle that amount of work that they should get two puppies (not cats, they take care of themselves, two puppies, if they wouldn't raise puppies, or work in a day care or school, they don't flippin deserve to adopt. if doing those things don't ca;m their need, neither will a baby

    ReplyDelete
  32. I find it odd that personal responsibility (i.e. birth control) is not mentioned here for the most part. If you want to help eliminate all adoptions and abortions, and hence the guilt girls/women who have done either suffer from afterwards, is it not right to raise this important point? I find this blog for the most part is scornful and ridiculing of responsible women who have trouble conceiving, however not much mentioning the prevention of unintended pregnancies by irresponsible women (yes IRRESPONSIBLE).

    Yes please try and encourage women not to adopt, however at the same time women/girls with inadequate financial resources to care for a child should be educated on prevention. yes, I'm sure I'll be labeled a bad person for stating this, but just a thought.

    ReplyDelete
  33. @NYC gal, you are just wasting your breath. There is no room on here for people who call out irresponsibility for what it is. Voices with your viewpoint are ignored for the most part. I for one had trouble conceiving (was finally blessed with a beautiful girl of my own). Even though I never considered adoption, women with infertility trouble and those who promote responsibility over taxpayer charity are either ignored or ridiculed on here. Only B/FM's and supporting views are engaged. They have no tolerance for dissent. At least from the experiences I've read so far until proven otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Anonymous:

    By the time teens and women who have relinquished find our blog it is beyond the time to lecture them on using birth control.

    We appreciate your very valid point of view, but do take your admonitions to your local school district and insist that all young women past puberty be given good education on birth control, easy access to various methods, and understand the disastrous and lifelong effects of giving up a child if they cannot raise their babies themselves.

    We are also pro-choice here at First Mother Forum.

    However, this blog is directed to women who have given up their babies, or are thinking about doing so; the "adoption option" is very damaging not only to the mother, but also to the child. A great many "birth mother" blogs are sponsored by adoption agencies that are trolling for babies for their clients. We aim to tell the truth on what happens after you sign the surrender papers.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Anons,
    We appreciate your taking the time to read our blog and make an effort to see adoption from the point of view of first mothers.

    We emphasize their viewpoint because that's the purpose of the blog as stated in FMF's tag line. For fair and balanced reporting, go to Fox News.

    There's a lot of blogs and web sites run by the adoption industry and adoptive parents that will tell adoptive parents what they want to hear.

    We agree that women should be diligent about birth control and most are. The teen pregnancy rate has dropped considerably in the past 50 rears.

    However, there is still a lot of opposition to making sex education available to students, public financing of birth control, and abortion, much of the opposition coming from the same folks who promote (and profit) from adoption.

    Once women get full control of their bodies, I'm sure we'll see an even greater drop in unplanned pregnancies. Unfortunately, a number of politicians are working overtime to assure that doesn't happen.

    We sympathize with women who, through no fault of their own, are unable to conceive. Many women are infertile, however, because they contracted STDs (making them as irresponsible as the pregnant teens) or they waited too long to try and have a baby. Regardless of the reason, infertile women are not entitled to another woman's child. The purpose of adoption is to find a family for a child who needs one, not to find a child for a family who wants one.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Did I ever say infertile couples or women are entitled to someone else's child?? No. Far from it. Also as an atheist I find Fox news far from fair and balanced. I know the religious right's argument of "don't have sex until you're married" and leaving it at that is inadequate. But there is nowadays a flood of information and influences, teens now would not be without that knowledge. Many single moms get pregnant yet again and again for a bigger check.

    I fully agree with the statement that adoption is for finding a needy child a home instead of the other way around.

    However I get the impression you consider all adoptive parents and all infertile women as greedy monsters. There are so many scornful comments of women (those who did not wait till they were too old - I didn't, those who did NOT contribute to their infertility - I didn't) on here.

    ".. disastrous and lifelong effects of giving up a child if they cannot raise their babies themselves." --What about disastrous economic effects of paying for kids to stay with parents who can't care for them?

    Thanks for your time.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Anon,
    No, we don't think of adoptive parents as greedy monsters. We do believe that many are unaware of the effect of adoption on their child's original mother and their child. I have many friends who are adoptive parents, fine people all. A few have come to understand the effects of adoption and how the adoption industry manipulates vulnerable women, both here and broad, to meet the demand for healthy infants.

    Even though teenage girls have more facts about reproduction than many did in the 1950's and 60's, many don't have the refusal skills to resist the entreaties of young men. These skills are taught in good sex ed classes, which these girls have not had the opportunity to attend in many cases. Further, birth control can fail.

    It's a myth that women have kids in order to increase their welfare checks--and if they did, they would not be placing their children for adoption. Welfare benefits are pathetically low in the US, particularly at this time of high unemployment. Sadly today many women give up their children because they cannot afford to care for them. The adoption industry uses the promise of material benefits for their children to induce mothers to give them up.

    Western European nations have very low rates of domestic adoption compared to the US because they provide more help to the poor and because the governments handle adoption, taking the profit out of it. In spite of the fear mongering of some politicians, most of these western Europe nations are not in worse shape than the US.

    ReplyDelete
  38. I have to respectfully disagree on a few fronts - many people already on welfare have kid, after kid, after kid. I work in the health system, see it everyday. Some start at 13, 14, 15. It's ridiculous. Many kids aren't given up, they're taken by CPS for having drugs in their system or being abused. I'm not saying all teens are like this though, I just see the consequences of irresponsibility day in and day out.

    Jane thanks for your respectful reply.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Anon,
    I agree there are women who have children they cannot care for and adoption would be a blessing for these children. I disagree on the reason these women have these children.

    I do not believe it is to get more welfare benefits. Rather it is due to lack of a sense of their own value, a belief that the only way to improve their lot in life is through a man although men repeatedly let them down; these women live in a subculture where women are disrespected and abuse is common.

    When we look beyond the US, we see that in societies where women are encouraged to obtain education and have opportunities for good jobs, they have fewer children. Women who live is patriarchal societies have more children.

    ReplyDelete

We welcome comments from all, and appreciate letting us know how you relate to adoption when you leave your first comment.

COMMENTS ARE MODERATED. Our blog, our decision whether to publish or not. We are trying to find a way to end the endless anonymous comments, which drive many of us crazy. Pick a name! Any name. Choose the NAME/URL selection. You do not need a URL. Your name does not have to be your name IRL though we appreciate those who do, and we understand due to the sensitive nature of our subject, many will prefer to use a nom de plume. Okay with us, but the endless Anons are tiresome for everyone. If you post as "anonymous" you run the risk of not being posted.

We try to be timely but we do have other lives.

For those coming here from Networked Blogs on Facebook, if it does not allow you to make a comment, click the "x" on the gray "Networked Blogs" tool bar to exit out of that frame and it should then let you comment.

THOSE WHO WISH TO LEAVE LINKS PLEASE WRITE MORE ABOUT IT THAN SIMPLY LEAVE THE LINK--TELL US WHY WE SHOULD GO THERE--AND ALSO KNOW THAT YOU CANNOT COPY AND PASTE FROM LINKS. We are unlikely to post comments that consist of nothing more than a link and the admonition to go there.