Do you see Surrender a Woman's Rights issue or a Reproductive Rights Issue or both? ?

Question

No, Gaia, I don't see it as that simple, but it seems that others do and I am trying to understand their logic. If it is a simple reproductive right thing, then the adoption/abortion thing is legit. I don't think it is , and the Women's Rights folks have turned their backs on mothers right to do anything other than to work and NOT have children, often delaying to the point of infertility. It is very complex, it seems to me.

Answer 1

anything that is a reproductive issue is also a woman's rights issue.  

Answer 2

OH me teacher me teacher Please!!!!!

Surrender is a choice. It wasn't always a choice. I am not sure if it is one today. Solving the issues around surrender is probably what you are getting at.  Now those issues should concern women's rights groups and even the reproductive rights groups.  I agree with you wholeheartedly that the women's groups have forgotten the women who have chosen to be pregnant.  They harp on women's rights when it comes to abortion and worker's rights and wages.  They have ignored other women completely.  I am one of those women just as you are.  They have ignored me as an adoptee and as a mother.  

I once read on a NOW site about the decision process of a woman and s*x.

1. She must decide to have s*x.

2. If she gets pregnant, she must decide whether or not she wants to be pregnant.  This is where she would chose abortion and this is where we lose the so called women's movement.

3.  If she chooses to stay pregnant, she must then decide whether or not to parent.  If she decides to place, this is where the pro-life rejoices.  If she decides to parent, this is where they are disappointed.  I don't understand this as long as the child is still alive.  Go figure.  

Adoption is not just an industry unto itself.  It also has the churches involved, the right to life movement, the crisis pregnancy centers involved and even Planned Parenthood has gotten into the mix.  Adoption is very very complex.  

Answer 3

Goodness sakes!!! Next you'll want to be able to vote!

Answer 4

both.

Answer 5

I see surrendering not as a right, but as a choice that should be made to make sure the child has a better life than the person is able to provide mentally, physically, and then financially (because there is financial help available, if one applies themselves to get it).  Sometimes, the choice is made as a reproductive issue for the ones who don't believe or choose not to abort (good for them!  I hate abortion!).  By the time a woman or a man gets down to the surrendering issue, they've had 9 months to decide about their decision, and also 9 months to prepare to get ready to take care of their child.  

I also don't see surrendering as a woman's issue.  I see it as a man and woman's issue.  I believe that it should be decided together, discussed way before the birth of the child, and soon after the birth to make sure.  I also believe that if they are against surrendering the child, that they need to take the steps to prepare for the child's upcoming arrival, with things like WIC, buying anything they can, even if it's used for the baby, to try to ensure their jobs, to make sure their home is safe for the baby, and to have a plan for it.  

I also wish a lot more people would use abstinence and better birth control, rather than s******g up the lives of people around them, their own lives, and most of all, the lives of these babies who are born from a heat of the moment, rather than from responsible planning.  While 99% effective birth control sounds good, that's 1 time out of 100 of having s*x that one can get pregnant.  Abstinence is the only way to prevent the need to surrender, other than sterilization, which isn't 100% effective.

Answer 6

Dear Sly,

I see surrender as both - as well as a human rights issue, a father's rights issue, since I FIRMLY believe that father's should have every right and opportunity to parent or have a say in what happens to their child when abuse is not present; and a children's rights issue, since too many people and the system see children as "product" or chattel or feel that they should not have acess to their families (when possible) or records. It is most certainly a FAMILY RIGHTS ISSUE!

I agree with several other poster's statements here about society's role in protecting and supporting families. I do feel that we have a responsibility to other human beings to help them. Adoption should be for cases of true orphans or abuse and neglect which prevent a family from being whole. Adoption should never be the cause or result in the violation of a human's rights.

I also wanted to add: I am disgusted that there are people who feel that they should determine who is or isn't a good parent based on such arbitrary factors such as  financial, marital or educational status or even age. It is appaling to me that someone would say, "I wish more women would plan adoptions" based on the afore mentioned reasons! This to me sounds classist and prolongs the idea that there are some women who are only worthy of producing children for others. What a deadful way to look at other human beings! If a parent can provide the basic necessities and shows regular and consistant care and concern for their offspring then they ARE fit parents as defined by law.

I feel there is often too much value placed on "material goods" or wealth when considering the merits of someone as a parent. Children do not need tons of toys (most would prefer to play with the box) or brand name clothing. They do not need their own pony or pool. Kids need love, support, education, TIME etc. ("the intangibles" as I like to call them). Many of the world's greatest leaders, celebrities, writers, etc. started from humble beginnings. Character is built through "the intangibles" not finances. People need to understand that poverty alone does not constitute an "unfit" parent.

Neither does age. There ARE young parents who have suceeded at being very good parents. I totally agree with you that it is sad that women are pressured to try to accomplish a "life plan" or "be ready" before starting a family and end up literally waiting too long to reproduce. It is a problem in the US and in some other Western countries. Women's bodies were not made to have kids on our time schedules. We have a limited amount of time where our bodies are able to bear a healthy child and properly deliver and recover from pregnancy, labor and delivery. I feel sorry for people who do not understand that women's bodies don't wait for the perfect man/job/house/etc. to come along. Life is far too unpredictable to rely on a "plan" for some things. TO BE CLEAR, I am NOT advocating that women breed as early as possible or saying that being ready is a bad thing, but simply that women should be made aware of how our bodies work and that considerations for biology should be made.

Please, do not think for one second that I am not sympathetic towards people with infertility! (I am aware that there are many causes for infertility and I would not dare to invalidate or judge another person's pain. I can only imagine how terrible a feeling it must be for some people and I am truly sorry that there are people who suffer greatly beause of it. (However,  I do not think that it "entitles" anyone to anything. Everyone's life contains suffering in some form or another - my job, as a human being is to comfort and help as much as I can.)

Again, all of this comes down to education. I firmly believe that HONEST and COMPLETE public reproductive education and free/low cost, easily obtainable birthcontrol would quickly reduce the number of women who find themselves in unplanned or "crisis" pregnancies and in turn reduce the number of women who feel they have no other option but surrender.

In short, I see adoption/surrender as a human issue and IMHO, it is a huge issue that we are all party to. Until we finally learn that ALL people (inluding children, the poor, the uneduated, the fathers, the unmarried, etc.) are PEOPLE and treat them with EQUAL rights and support, we will continue to see problems like the ones we are urrently facing in adoption. Evernyone is different but I believe, everyone has a right to live their lives as they see fit, as long as they do not harm others. When people stop judging and start helping (or at least accepting) others we will see a happier and healthier society, which in turn will produce stronger families, stronger, happier, healthier and more produtive citizens and all in all, a stronger human society. (Yes, I think the lack of support for and seperation of families has a great deal to do with the state of civilization. I believe in OHANAS!)

Thanks, Sly, for so many wonderful Qs! I just hope I make sense - trying to type out so many thoughts sometimes gets them a little tangled!

Answer 7

Both

Answer 8

This is a hard question to answer.  I can't say I really believe that adoption is a "Women's Issue" because it affects both men and women.  Fathers have to, or should be, asked to relinquish as well.  Thus, it would be wrong to classify it as an issue that deals with womens rights as opposed to the rights of all individuals.  

It is only partially a reproductive rights issue.  Unfortunately, the way our country is run, it is virtually impossible to deny someone the right to produce.  Even if a mother has murdered her children, she has the "right" to bear more - assuming she can get someone to sleep with her.  I suppose it might be hard in prison, but there have been cases of guards sleeping with prisoners, and there is alway parole.  My brother biological mother had born six chilren with Fetal Alcohol syndrome and either placed them for adoption or had them removed.  The state STILL could not take away her "right" to reproduce, but did luckily convince her to get sterilized after her seventh pregnancy.  Thus, adoption doesn't really come into play in terms of reproduction.  ANYONE has the right to reproduce, even if they don't have the right to raise the offspring.  

Rather, I think adoption should be looked at as either a "Children's Rights" issue, or a "Family Rights".  No one, biological, foster, or adoptive parents whave the right to do something that is against the child's best interests.  The trouble comes in the fact that different parties can believe different things are in the best interest of the child.  Adoption is only one tool that society uses to govern who gets to make those decisions and make sure that every child has, at least, an acceptable upbringing.  Society, obviously, falls short of this in many cases.  There are children adopted by bad families.  There are children allowed to stay with bad biological families.  There are children in good families that still don't have enough physical resources to have a safe and healthy childhood.  There are siblings seperated because different laws are in conflict.  There are many MANY changes and reforms that need to happen within what I like to term "Family Rights" (because families take more than just kids), but for every change we make there is a drawback.  Ever decision and law is a see-saw and we are constantly working to get it in better balance.  

Answer 9

I see it as an economic issue and a social issue and sometimes a racial issue.

Yes, women are the ones making the decision but making an adoption plan is about education, options and expectations. I would like to see far more women with unplanned or poorly timed pregnancies make adoption plans in this country but that is a very difficult decision in this day and age. Women are celebrated for keeping their babies when they're in no position to care for them well and women are denigrated for having the courage and insight to choose adoption.

It seems that the more the woman has going for her, the more likely she is to find someone who supports or encourages adoption but even the most accomplished women often are surrounded by people who would be horrified by that choice.  

Answer 10

Both.  Plus being a human rights issue.

It is a women's issue because of the economics of male vs. female power in our society. A woman who gets pregnant and gives birth without a "man" to support her is left in the lurch.  Men don't give birth and thus are not affected.   Being "unmanned" makes her baby "illegitimate" and she is often left dealing with stigma, insufficient income to support herself and her baby, and the lack of resources.

- If daycare is not available she cannot work.

- Lack of government financial support may force her to work while her child is still a baby, thus potentially damaging her child and their relationship (what about solid universal support such as in Australia such that NO mother must work before her child is in school?)

- Being pregnant and having a baby may force her to quit work.  

- Pregnancy can be physically incapacitating.  Sometimes not, but i had to quit work during month 4 of a pregnancy to avoid a miscarriage.

Lack of financial/social support forces mothers to surrender their babies.  This does not happen to men as men do not have another being as part of their bodies for nine months and are rarely left responsible for the baby by default.

These are all womens' rights issues, as women cannot live on the same "timetable" as men can -- pregnancy, birth, and childcare as their responsibility and this conflicts with jobs/career. And women who live according to "a man's schedule" may find that once they are financially-secure they can no longer have children due to age-related infertility (which can start at age 27).

It is a reproductive issue in that it involves reproductive exploitation:  the exploiting of a woman's childbearing capacity by those in a position of greater social/financial/political power.  This happens to women who are rendered vulnerable to this exploitation due to youth, poverty, or lacking the "Mrs." designation.

Reproductive exploitation has parallels to sexual exploitation.  In fact, the only difference is who is doing the exploiting and who is being exploited:  economic and age differences are approximately the same, as is the tendency of the victim to blame herself and "fall in love with" the exploiter.  

It is a human rights issue because for most mothers, the circumstances forcing them to surrender are the result of government-led human rights abuses.  If you doubt this, check Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which gov'ts promised their citizenry in 1948.  If a mother's rights under this article were enforced and upheld, particularly in rich nations, there would be far fewer surrenders.  Adoption is a huge industry in the U.S. primarily because we deny mothers the support they receive in other Western nations.

Answer 11

No. If you surrender your rights, then that means that your are giving up your rights. YOU DONT HAVE ANY RIGHTS.

If you want your rights, then dont give them up. This is common sense  

Answer 12

Oh goodness.  I'm not in a position to "know" the answer to this (as I presume only a woman who has been in this position CAN "know", in that she lives it, breathes it, feels it, and is unable to escape it).  But I'll take a stab at it from a purely outsider's point of view, taking full responsibility if I'm talking out my a$$.

I think it's a HUMAN rights issue.  There is a woman involved, AND a child.  I believe it should be a right, just by being human, that you should be able to care for your own offspring, and that you should be able to BE cared for by those who created you - except in cases of abuse and neglect, in which case family or others close to the person should step in.

I also believe it's a cultural issue.  We've created this system where women are made to feel incomplete without having children to call their own, where children are viewed as a "thing" one must have, and where "less fortunate" women are looked down upon for having children under the "wrong" circumstances.

Sorry, gotta run...I'll try to edit later.  My apologies if I'm totally on the wrong track...

ETA:  Why oh why do I get on here at work?  I know I'm going to have to run half way through my answers.  Anyway...

I don't see this as a reproductive rights issue because the surrendering couple has already reproduced.  Surrendering does not make the child cease to exist.  I don't see it as *solely* a women's issue, because again, there are children involved.  But there are also men involved.  This affects all members of the immediate family - mother, father, and baby, along with the whole of society, and by extension, the whole of the world.

I've said before I think we need to go back to that village mindset.  We are too cut off from one another, and it's not possible to break down something as destructive as the rending of families into a simple one-topic issue.  (Or two.)  (I mean no offense to you by saying this...if I may be so presumtious as to guess your thinking, I'd say that you don't believe it's as simple as that, either...?)

Answer 13

I'm going to side with Laurie on this one. Since there has to be a live birth before there can be a surrender it can't really be a reproductive rights issue. I do feel that if any coercion takes place prior to the birth does then it does become a reproductive rights issue. Any time someone tries to control the outcome of a pregnancy they are taking away the mother's right to her own reproductive choices

Once the child is born it becomes a woman's rights issue for the most part, though it is becoming more of a human rights issue every day. Too many fathers are wanting to parent and having that choice stripped from them by agency workers, PAPs and mothers alike.  

Answer 14

Because the child is already born, I do not see it as a reproductive rights issue.  The child is already a human being in his or her own right, under the law, due to birth.  

However, it is certainly a woman's issue.  A woman should certainly not feel pressured by family, societal beliefs about unmarried and/or young mothers or because of temporary financial circumstances to give away her flesh and blood.  It is a choice that she should be able to make free from pressure.

Surrender has also come into play as a man's issue, as well.  If a woman chooses to surrender, a man should not automatically lose his parental rights to his already born child based on her choice to surrender hers.