Regarding pre-birth matching for adoption?

Question

I was under the impression that pre-birth matching put the power in the hands of the pregnant woman, allowing her to choose the adoptive family based upon whatever criteria she decides is best to adopt her child.

I've never liked the idea of adoptive families paying for the expenses of the birthmother. I think it puts a feeling of obligation on the birthmother, who does have the legal option to change her mind until the adoption is finalized. I also think that it leaves the perspective adoptive parents open to being taken advantage of by people with nefarious motives.

So, if we leave out the paying expenses part, is pre-birth matching an empowering thing for the birthmother, or a negative and manipulative thing?

I'd like to hear reasonings for both sides. Thanks.

Answer 1

Ah - got to love that adoption agency brain washing.  Yes, "it is all for the pregnant woman".  Repeat - "it is all for the pregnant woman".  Come on everyone - say it again - "it is all for the pregnant woman".  "The pregnant woman is the one in power".  Look into the light - "the pregnant woman is the one in power".

How nice that the pregnant woman is "allowed" to choose the adoptive family.  You are such good people to "allow" that.  Real nice of you to to give her that choice.  Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back.

Sure - whatever you want to believe.

Answer 2

I do think its okay for the first mother to go thru paperwork and weed thru adoptive families to narrow it down to 2 or 3 couples.  I do believe that no interviewing or matching should be made until after the baby is born.  

Pre-matching is manipulative and may leave the first mother feeling guilty for not giving the baby up.  Anything that makes the prospective first mother feel obligated to place her child thru adoption is wrong.

I can see where the (pfm) might feel better about figuring out who the paps might be and get to know them better.  I feel that should all be done after the birth of the baby.  It may delay the adoption process while the (pfm) gets to know the (paps) but i believe it is time well spent.

Answer 3

I still think it's manipulative.  She can choose the AP's just as well after birth (after she has seen her baby, and had the chance to fall in love) as she can before giving birth.

My two cents, anyway.

Answer 4

It's totally manipulative.  Agencies would LOVE to have mothers think it gives them some sort of power.  Even if the PAP's don't pay a dime for anything, the mother has come to see herself as a "birthmother" before ever giving birth, let alone relinquishing!

There's a question on this board right now from a woman who doesn't want to relinquish, but is having a very, very hard time with the thought of telling the PAP's she has changed her mind, because they've developed a relationship and the "plan" over all these months was that a relinquishment and subsequent adoption would take place.  I doubt she'd be going through all of this mental anguish, worry about people other than her and her baby, if there had been no pre-birth matching.  She could simply not relinquish and there would be no concerns about hurting someone else's feelings, so to speak.

Some of the answers this woman has received are absolutely indicative of the coercive nature of pre-birth matching.  Some of these sickos have actually told her she's selfish for going back on giving the PAP's this "gift!"  Un-friggin-believable!!!!

(The whole thought of one's own flesh and blood child being called a "gift" is another absolutely repulsive, vomit-inducing topic entirely.)

Pre-birth matching is inherently coercive.

Answer 5

Prebirth matching is manipulative no matter how you change it around.  First, there is the feeling of obligation. Second, is the fact that so many adoption agencies lie (not only in this country, but others) insisting that because they signed the form, they MUST give up the baby.  Not true, but then, how many birthmothers have legal representation that is unrelated to the adoption agency?

The only time I can see prebirth matching as a win-win is in cases of moms with drug problems or mental illnesses where they can't care for their infants anyway.  These babies would spend a lot less time in foster care, in those instances.  The a-parents would also have a lot more history and medical information than they currently get when adopting kids in these situations.

Answer 6

Prebirth matching is not at all empowering for the firstmother.  It is still a manipulative thing.  There is still a HUGE feeling for the firstmother to place with this family that she "matched" with.

We may look at profiles to find a family but there is NO empowerment for the firstparent.

How do I know..

Answer 7

She could match before or after. I think the advantage of doing it before is that she gets a lot more time getting to know the family before the birth.   If she finds a family after giving birth, that means she would actually have to take care of the baby while she finds someone. This may mean that she has to go out and buy some necessities for the baby that she can not afford.  Plus the first few days of bonding are priceless. I would think that the best bonding for the baby would be that of the family that is going to be taking care of them for the rest of their lives.

Answer 8

How about empowering the child and allowing him/her to stay with his/her parents? That is what the child wants.

Aside from that, I think it is pretty disgusting for any mother to get rid of her child before he/she is even born. Talk about cold-hearted.

All adoption of minors and fetuses should be illegal.

Answer 9

I don't believe in it. I think pre-birth matching shouldn't happen.

1)it can set up a sense of obligation for the expecting parent to surrender

2)it can allow aparents to be taken advantage of too, financially

In Australia pre-birth matching doesn't exist. A surrendering mother and father have no choice in who her child's adoptive parents will be.

I have heard parents who've lost their children to adoption talk about the unrealistic dream like idea that they're giving their children everything they didn't have by finding a family that is "richer" than them.

This alleviates that. If a woman or man have no idea what people their child will go to if they surrender him/her to adoption, they may reconsider the necessity of the adoption and turn the responsibility to achieving what they want to give their child back onto themselves.

I think this is good. I applaud Australia for doing it this way. There are FAR less surrenders. No pre-birth matching, No choosing the parents for your child. There is a waiting list and the state decides who the child goes to. Once a child is surrendered he/she is surrendered. period. Then the state matches the new family together.

I think that if expecting parents believe in themselves and had the encouragement of society and their support network to parent instead of surrendering we'd find that many parents who surrender are really great parents, they just didn't know how GREAT they'd be.

In short, i don't think pre-birth matching is EVER a good idea. I am totally against it.

There is also the "unexpected" that happens when a child is born. As much as many mothers can try and "detach" from their pregnancy if they want to go through with an adoption, having the child in your arms is so much more real than in your belly. There is such an awakening that comes with birth that if given the opportunity to bond, its amazing what mothers and fathers can do to make it happen for the sake of their little newborn baby.

Pre-birth matching does all kinds of interceptions to work against the mother and father and child staying together. It puts paps into the hospital for the birth, it gets them into the dr's appointments and really sets up an obligation of "adoption" BUT BUT BUT what if the mother / father have a change of heart.

Then they face ridicule like some of the shallow posts to the mother on here in the last 24 hours wanting to get her child back. "shame on you" "theft by deception" its horrible. Yet she's well within her "legal" rights to parent her child.

It creates a mess in my opinion.

Answer 10

Pre-matching can give a bMom the choice of knowing that her child would be raised in an environment like she would like for him/her to be raised in, and can give a sense of knowing her child will be cared for in the way she'd like to do, but cannot.  

We got to know our birthmother of my son pretty well, as she lived with us for 3 months before he was born.  She was very gracious, and didn't ask for hardly anything.  She needed some financial assistance, because she wasn't working (not that carrying a child isn't working, because she had a 24 hour a day job for us there!), and I totally enjoyed buying her maternity clothes, lotions to spoil her, and things I would have done for myself if I'd been able to carry a baby.  It's very relieving to see things like facial expressions she made, to know that our son's is normal (she could do a pout smile for just being fun).  

The pre-birth matching made this adoption so much easier for us and her, and by being around her so much, Jacob (our son) got to hear my voice before he was ever born, and there just wasn't a transition from her to me.  He never smiled at her, but he is a very happy baby with us.  

I can see where the obligation might overwhelm a birth mother, however, she was already in a situation where she was giving up a child because she couldn't take care of it.  I told our birthmother that if she changed her mind, we already loved the baby, and that the crib and nursery items had been bought for him, and to just please let us see him if she changed her mind.  We are so thrilled she didn't!!!!!

Answer 11

yeah, i agree with gaia on this one.  australia doesn't have any pre birth matching.

even if there's no money involved, i think the girl may be swayed and feel obligated to give you her child.