If a women gets pregnant and will not or cannot parent, WHAT ARE HER OPTIONS??

Question

and no i'm not preg.

Answer 1

adoption or abortion

Answer 2

In a galaxy far, far away (the US before 1940) people kept their children, and had FAMILY help raise them.  Imagine that!

Answer 3

1) abortion

2) abortion

3) Magically be suddenly able to parent the child

4) Parent the child even if she doesn't want to

5) Wish really really hard and make her pregnancy go away...

6) Somehow wish into reality a family that will raise her child for her

7) Find a conveniently bouyant basket and let her baby float downstream....  oh wait, nix this one, that comes awfully close to the bad A-word.  

Now...  back to reality.  

There are only three options in a pregnancy really...  parent/adopt out/abort.  Parenting can include family support, but if you're not able to parent (even WITH family support - supposeing there is a family) then you really only have the two options left.  

Lets consider this hypothetical situation...  

Two orphans get married and conceive a child.  They get into a car accident.  The father is instantly killed.  The mother survives, and is not clinically brain dead, but is so brain damaged she cannot speak, dressherself, feed herself, take care of eliminatory needs, nothing....  is basically a vegetable with minimal awareness of the world - will have to be cared for in a hopsital forever.  

Now, she's pregnant.  There is no family to call in.  What are the doctors/states choices for the fetus since parenting is taken out of the picture.  They're now limitted to aborting the fetus or placing it for adoption.  You cannot magic a third option out of nothing.

Answer 4

She has two sets of options.  First she can abort, or carry to term.  If she carries to term and she's sure she can't raise the child, she can then place it with a relative or relinquish it for adoption.

Adoption and abortion are decisions made at two different times under two different sets of circumstances.

Answer 5

keep it and have family or the father raise it. put it up for adoption. abortion.

Answer 6

Well you have plenty of options, like Adoption, abortion or if its earliy enough the RU487 pill. I hope thats the name of the pill i am not sure, but the point is it will stop fertilization if its taken within 72hrs of s*x.

Answer 7

In the culture in the US now, if the mother does not choose abortion, the child is raised by the family.  Stranger adoption is an option but is rare now.

Answer 8

If the father of the child wants to raise it , that is an option.  If not then the only options are abortion or adoption, which  does include placing the baby with a family member if the mother is ok with someone in her family adopting her baby and someone in her family is willing to do so.

Answer 9

*sigh*  this reminds me of a repeated question on the GRE to test for reliability....

ok, i'll bite.  if a woman becomes pregnant, and chooses not to parent, her options are usually abortion, adoption, foster care, guardianship, allow the father/family to care for the child or...sell the kid on ebay...

seriously, no body here is advocating for women who do not wish to parent to keep her child. most would support ethical adoption. but, in these cases, abortion is usually the choice made, since many women who don't wish to parent, aren't really down with being human incubators, either.

however, if there were such an adundance of these women, why would we need rouge adoption marketing and coercion tactics?

what's your point, dear.

ETA: "An unplanned pregnancy doesn't automatically mean an unwanted child. Or a child that's likely to be abused. That's just ridiculous! "-- i couldn't agree more.

ETA: marie- you are referring to "emergency contraception." the EC contains hormones similar to bcp and prevents ovulation/implantation and is taken up to 72 hours after s*x.  RU486 is a chemical abortion used in the first 49 days of pregnancy.  the two are very different, yet often confused, especially by pro-lifers and politicians. the later terminates an existing pregnancy, the former does not.

Answer 10

If i am going to be honest. I say bring back the old days when you fell pregnant and got on with it!! Obvoiusly unless the child comes to any harm that is.

Answer 11

If the woman actually wants to parent but feels she can't, it's in her and her child's best interest to check into any resources that could help her to keep her baby.  This includes talking with the father and other family members who can help raise the child.  This is commonplace in many societies, and was once commonplace in our own when family was more highly valued.

If the woman finds that she herself cannot parent, even with help, or does not wish to parent, then looking into family members who can take custody of the child is the best option.  The father, of course, would be the first choice of family members, since he is a parent.  

If there is no one in the family who can or will raise the baby, then outside adoption can be sought.  

A woman might choose to have an abortion if she doesn't wish to go through with the pregnancy itself.

Answer 12

I would hope that they would carry the child to term, and give it up through infant adoption through a reputable agency.

Giving a child life (through birth) and then being able to say to oneself, "This child deserves and mother and father, and stable home; that I can not provide." And then giving that child up for adoption is a gift to yourself, that child, and the adoptive parents!  It is the most unselfish act and an act of love.

Answer 13

Abortion -considering my husband and myself are will to adopt.. you kinda can see that to me its not an option, But to most people it is an option. My person opinion is to see if a family member or friend who would be willing to adopt the child, if this isn't available or wanted by the pregnant mother then adoption by a stranger.

Answer 14

Adoption... let another family member raise the baby... this is one too, but I wouldn't ever do it... Abortion.

Answer 15

Have an adoption killing it with abortion is like murdeer.  Give it to a family who cant have a baby. Its only fair to the baby and u. Also an abortion can hert the mother too.

Answer 16

There are many options ...

She should see if the father of the child would like to raise the baby ... or she could turn to a family member to raise the child, (open adoption) ... if she chooses she can have an abortion and after her decision she should be responsible enough to look into long term birth control.

Answer 17

Based on your question...

If she will not parent (by her own choice)

1. Check to see if the father of the child can raise the child

2. Check to see if she has any family members that can raise the child

3. Have the child & neglect the child (hopefully she doesn't choose this path)

4. Have the child & take responsbility to raise the child properly

5. Abortion

6. Adoption

If she cannot - due to illness or whatever reason (not by choice)

1. Check to see if the father of the child can raise the child

2. Check to see if she has any family members that can raise the child

3. Have the child & get support to raise the child

4. Abortion

5. Adoption

Answer 18

So you've gotten the normal answers:  father raises the child; other family members step in; adoption; abortion, etc....But here's one that no one has mentioned....Neglect/Abuse.  

Is it appropriate?  NO!  (Before I start getting accused for advocating for neglect/abuse let me make it clear that I DO NOT).  But the truth is that there are some women who deny their pregnancy and the birth of the child.  The result?  She may abuse or neglect the child.  Do all bio moms do this?  NO but *some* do.  

I will repeat that not ALL women are this way, however, I have witnessed this "option" on several levels in my life.  My son's bio mom did it not once, not twice, but too many times to even mention.  The state had to come in and remove the child/children from her care.  As a young girl myself, I watched my cousins removed from my Aunt & Uncle due to abuse and placed into foster care - with no contact allowed between the extended bio family & the girls until they turned 18 and came back to find my family.  

Is it a valid "option"?  Most of us would say "no" (at least I hope we would).  But it does occur and deserves to be mentioned when we are talking about this type of thing.

Answer 19

there are only two other options if the woman cannot or will not parent and that is

1- abortion

2- adoption

one takes a life and sacrifices the child, one gives life and sacrifices her own will for the life of her baby.

interesting how the truth gets thumbs down. Give me more, I do not answer to you anyway

Answer 20

Actually Sunny that is not true that in the US prior to 1940 children were kept and raised by biological family.  The US has a long history of 'informal' adoptive placements, meaning children would be raised by others outside their families but no documents were ever signed to establish it as a fact of law.  It was a personal agreement between individuals.  On the "Orphan Trains" alone, which ran from 1854 to 1929, over 250,000 children were placed with families in the American midwest.  That accounts just for homeless children from New York City.  There were orphanages where people could visit and select a child.  Unwed mothers, faced with the being disowned by their families, would leave their newborns in a basket kept outside the orphanage doors.  There were no records to unseal - no records existed.

I'm not condoning the past practices, but if your going to hold something up as a standard to reach for...maybe you should be aware of what the standard you are presenting is....

Answer 21

1. The reasons she "cannot" raise the child should be looked at...are they reasons that can be overcome?  Can she be able to raise her child sometime in the future?  Then perhaps a temporary care arrangement can be made, either within the family (preferably) or if that's not able to be done, then through foster care.  All avenues of assistance should be explored to help her if it is a matter of needing assistance.

2. The father should get the first opportunity to raise his child, if the mother can't or won't.

3. Grandparents and extended family, on either side of the family, should have an opportunity to raise the child if the father can't or won't.

4.  Adoption should be the last resort, after all other options have been explored and exhausted.  The child should ALWAYS have every opportunity to be raised first with his/her own biological family before adoption to strangers is considered.

Answer 22

Do you really want an answer? Or is this just another rhetorical queston? Because seriouslly, everyone knows what her options are...

Why why why??? Why do AP's & PAP's feel the need to repeatedly ask the same questions? And continue to give the same old tired answers? Does no one here do research, pick up a book, read, google these topics from time to time?  There are some AP's here that I used to have respect for, but lately you'all have been jumpin' on the ban wagon about those 'evil, unfit, abusive, bad birth moms'.  Do you even realize how offensive that is to those of us who've found & are happily in a relationship with our first moms?  

I've learned SO MUCH since I've come to this forum! I'd never heard of the "baby scoop era", of which I was a part (as a scooped baby. Taken from my mom - YES TAKEN - from her @ 15 months old...I have copies of the court docs. I know exactly what she did & most importantly what she DID NOT DO! No abuse or neglect or criminal history).

I was placed with foster parents who ended up adopting me.  The were alcoholics who believed in corporal punishment, including the use of belts & boards to the point of leaving welts & bruises.  In junior high, 2 police detectives showed up asking if my parents hit me.  I lied & said "no", afraid of the trouble I'd get in when my parents found out.  Still, I loved my dad very much.  Never really bonded with my a.mom, who basically "un-adopted" me 2 days after my dad died.    

I thought my story was unique. I've discoverd that sadly, it's not. Some adoptive parents are abusive, some are alcoholics, some get divorced, some are pretty messed up emotionally.  Not all.  Probably not even most.  

Now, there's a big difference between the adoptions that took place between the 40's & the mid 70's & what we're discussing today, especially with kids placed in foster care.



Back then,  young women really were given no options, were threatened by their families (don't come home with that baby!), were lied to or weren't told when help was available.  They didn't willing give up their babies. Their babies weren't "unwanted".  They didn't ask for annonymity & most weren't promised it. Some were told they'd never see their child again. Some were told their children would be given their information when they turned 18 (lie). Read, "The Girls Who Went Away".  I just did.

Though available, abortion wasn't legal, was very expensive & could be life threatening. For the many young women, it really wasn't an option before 1973. So PPL please, get of the "at least your mom didn't abort you".  My mom was happy to be pregnant...married (her husband abandoned her)...& hoping to have a girl.  

There's a vast, WIDE chasm between children who are removed from abusive or neglectful homes & placed in foster care & the adoption industry. One of these things IS NOT LIKE THE OTHER.  Most children are removed because of a parent or parents drug use/addiction. They are usually not unplanned children. While parental rights may eventually be terminated & the children made available for adoption, the courts first provide up to 18 months of family reunification services.  Even in these situations, almost all parents fight to keep their children. Parents are provided with an attorney to represent them.  

That is a very different situation from a woman finding out she's pregnant before she's ready to have a child.  An unplanned pregnancy doesn't automatically mean an unwanted child.  Or a child that's likely to be abused. That's just ridiculous!  

Parents who were abused as kids are much more likely to abuse THEIR children.  Married couples abuse their kids. So do older couples, adoptive parents, & bio parents. It's a tired argument!  No child should have to live with abuse, or neglect!  It doesn't MATTER if the parent is their biological or adopted parent!  GEEZ!  That's just crazy!  

And why all the thumbs down to Sunny's comment that  "before the 1940's in America, unwed moms kept their babies"?  It happens to be a historical fact!

I still believe that in some circumstances, adoption is the best option for the child.  And that's what it should be about...the child!

A mind is like a parachute.  It works best when it's OPEN!!

ETA: Traylee~you're correct that adoption existed before 1940. Thanks for the reminder about the orphan trains, which took homeless children from NY to new families across the country.  Some to become part of the family, others were used as free labor. Women left their children at orphanages because they had no way to support them.

What I & Sunny were referring to was the period prior to the mid-1940's, when many homes for unwed mothers taught moms how to take care of their babies & trained them in a profession (usually domestic) so they could provide for themselves & their children. Women weren't pressured to give their children up for adoption.  That began happening around the mid-1940's.  Read about the "Baby Scoop Era".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_scoop_...

http://www.babyscoopera.com/

ETA: RE: BPD's comment "here's one (option) that no one has mentioned....Neglect/Abuse."  No offense, but seriously, that's NOT an option ANYONE considers when they discover they're pregnant.  "Hmmmm. Maybe I'll keep this child and just abuse or neglect it! Yeah! That's a plan."  

People abuse and/or neglect their children for various, complex reasons that may involve emotional or mental illness, drug or alcohol use or abuse, a family history of domestic violence, etc.