Should a women's choice to offer her child for adoption upon birth be taken away?

Question

Sparked by an answer in my earlier question: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ap6TxdE044bEs6Uif9z81JNq.Bd.;_ylv=3?qid=20080317071641AAuSyoo

Answer 1

No!  Women should not be pressured or coerced into an adoption but neither should they be pressured or coerced into parenting.

Side note: as far as the pre-birth matching, I've always seen that as a benefit/measure of control for the birthfamily as they can meet and select the family to raise their child.

Answer 2

I am not sure if I really understand your question.  However, I feel that you are asking if a woman should have time before giving the baby up.

As an adoptee, my natural mother told me that she didn't even hold me when I was born (1959) and I am quite sure things have changed since then.  She often says how traumatic it was for her at 19.  I am quite sure a lot of natural moms go through this today and other traumas as well before relinquishing.  What hurts so badly is that I believe that some of these women actually want to keep their babies after they are born but the coercing and the made-to-feel-guilty syndrome is produced by those who always feel "she was soooo unselfish to do this for the baby."  Sometimes it has nothing to do with selfishness; it has to do with being made feel that it's a closed deal and I helped you.  No woman should be made to feel this way.  Where are these darned do-gooders when that woman is hurting  or having nightmares; just like the abortion coercers, no where around.  I saw this head on when I worked for an answering service that answered to some abortion clinics.  When I see nurses and medical assistants who can sit and smile on advertisements I want to puke.  I remember how I answered the phone to girls hurting both physically, spiritually and mentally.  Guess what?  No one was around to answer calls and I had to break the news that "no one was home and can you leave a message?"  

I thank God each and every day that my daughter and I did not go through with what my natural mother went through.  I also feel that if there are adoptions, they should be open and not that closed mess.  Even in some of those, people lie for their own selfish modes until they get "that precious baby."

Everybody is always thinking of their own darned selves and the baby is the one we need to think about.  What would the baby want or in their best interest.  No, it's all about I want a baby to show off sometimes and who has the bigger house.  My adoptive parents ended up with the smaller house but big, big hearts.

Every adoption is not ideal.  There are times when I have gotten fondled by older members of the family because they knew and I didn't that I was adopted.  My adoptive siblings who are much, much older than I am have children older than I am or at my age.  Some of them were not taught that I was their aunt and I was not respected a lot of the time as one by this one particular adoptive brother.  It took us to become grownups for them to realize I actually was their aunt because their father and mother did not present me in that manner.  

This is only minor believe me there are some horror stories.  If it was not for my adoptive parents, except for one adoptive brother although not close, I would not have anything to do with them. Their kids (the majority of them) are jewels but my siblings stink (emotionally)  because they ensure that sometimes I remember that I am adopted.  The jealousy is very notable with lies and slurs added.

Think about how adoptees feel when every one around does not look like you.  I had to sit back and listen to who so and so looks like or my parents talking about how one of their grandkids look like them --- the positive features and I am there looking like no one.  It was when I was 22 that I found my family and saw that there are people that actually look like me--MY natural relatives.  I don't understand how both adoptive and natural parents can not allow the adoptive child to be around both sets of parents unless their is a conflict --- safety.  Doesn't that child have a right to know as early as possible about their life so they can start adapting then?

Excuse me but I am quite angry at the situation and not the parents involved because I love them all.  It's society and the burdens they put on women who have no where to turn  It's like a poor woman has no right to want her baby or its crazy.  If these women were given chances, a lot of adoptees would not be adoptees or fostees as far as that is concerned.  I feel that there should be more programs to support natural families.

Answer 3

No. I believe in all areas of choice. Better education, no coercion, support and encouragement, fine - but it's just as coercive to force one choice as it is another, and one person's beliefs/experience/feelings should not override another person's beliefs/experience/feelings.

Answer 4

No. If you took that choice away, and the mother did not really want the baby to begin with that mother may mistreat the child, neglect it, etc.  Adoption is not a bad thing and I am soooo sick of people on her saying it is.

Answer 5

I feel that parents, not just the mother since it takes two after all, should have the right to choose adoption if they wish. I also feel that there should be a reasonable and standard time period given for the parents to revoke their choice. The lack of unity between states in regards to this is causing many agencies to shuffle mothers around in order to assure an adoption will go as quickly as possible while making it as hard as they can for the parents to go back on their "adoption plan" if they should decide the choice was not the right one for them. The thought of women being moved to a different state to give birth simply due to a shorter revocation period is very disturbing to me.

Answer 6

I guess I would pick domestic adoption. I would like for it to become a part of foster care. I really don't like the idea that women are being talked into giving their babies up and that fact that agencies are making a profit off of this.

This way the mother can try parenting. If she feels like it is something she can not do then she can place the baby in foster care. She can try to make it on her own for a while to see if adoption is really something she can live with. You know like a trial run. If she changes her mind and wants the baby back she can have him/her. If she still chooses adoption the foster parents can adopt the baby.

That's my thought on the issue. Again i'm not the most educated on the subject so i'm anxious to read what other people say.

Answer 7

No that's the stupidest thing I ever heard. Some women don't want kids and aren't cut out for them. You want to force them to be mothers? Ever read the papers, some women throw their babies out with the trash.

Answer 8

Yes.  God provides for each new life that is born.

Answer 9

And thereby, force her to parent the child?  What kind of disaster would that be?

Answer 10

No, I think a woman should be able to make the choice, but I would like to add an "informed" choice. Where she has been given all of the options, aware of what can happen and given the precautions to making any of the choices.

When women get abortions they get told all of the warnings and the precautions.

When women parent, options for classes are available to inform you of everything surrounding it. Pre-birthing classes, mother/infant classes, child growth and development etc.

Adoption on the other hand turns out to be more along the lines of those anti-cigarette commercials where all of the owners of the large name cigarette companies are testifying under oath that their cigarettes aren't "addictive."

This of course is only my opinion.

Informed choices and decisions YES.

taking away her choice NO.

Answer 11

Yes, unless the child is in danger or the parents are deceased. I feel very strongly that adoption should not be an option . If after the parent has tried maybe some kind of alternate plan should be advised. I wish adoption had not been an option for me.

Just my opinion and I will probably get the thumbs down, but it doesn't bother me anymore.

Answer 12

Pre-birth matching is what needs to be eliminated in my book.  I think this is very much related to what you are asking, as people have come to equate adoption at birth with pre-birth matching.  I'm going to write what I wrote about it in a previous answer to explain what I mean.

Pre-birth matching, which often includes the opportunity for the PAP's to pay for the medical (and other) bills for the mother, is a real setup for helping to ensure that the mom won't change her mind about relinquishing.

If the mother was able to give birth and then make a decision about whether or not she can/wants to parent WITHOUT having received financial assistance from the PAP's and WITHOUT having had a relationship with the PAP's that has been based on the her giving her baby to them when it's born, then it would be better.

The decision to relinquish one's own flesh and blood is huge. A mother needs to be able to go through pregnancy and birth without all of this "adoption plan" hoopla and pressure guiding her. She can make a decision after the birth and without feeling like she's obligated.

There are plenty of PAP's who would like to adopt an infant. The child is certainly not going to "rot" in foster care because the mom doesn't make a pre-birth match adoption plan. Until these came into vogue, infants weren't getting stuck in foster care.

Australia doesn't allow pre-birth matching. They don't have tons of babies stuck in foster care because of it.

Answer 13

No because it is better for the child not to have to know many people before being assured there is one person that is not going to leave them.

Bond with the mother and then giving up the childis traumatic for the child and its not just about the mothers feelings. It should be the childs feelings first.

Answer 14

Interesting question when there are so many pro-lifers out there- why would you want to take the choice away from a women that offers her child for adoption- because she knows it would be better for her child, but you want to allow the woman to continue to have choice, if she wants an abortion. Doesn't make sense to me.

Answer 15

no. a woman should not be pressured into adoption. i know this happens all the time to women who really want their babies. but the woman should have the option to give the baby up for adoption.

Answer 16

I still think some parents are making informed choices and in fact we cannot take that choice away.  Coersion, well of course we need to work on eliminating that (like eliminating for profit adoption agencies), but we can't assume that every birth parents wants to be a parent.

Answer 17

I think different states have different laws. I live in the state of Louisiana but in this state the biological father has the right to keep the baby with DNA proof and even if it is given up for adoption, the biological father, mother, and both sets of grandparents have visitation rights. A child needs all the love they can get. Unfortunately, most people are remarried or busy raising other kids and or working. But, there are different adoption rules according to the various states.

Answer 18

No!   Why should a woman not be able to make this choice, or ANY choice?   If a woman sincerely feels that she does not have the capability to parent a child, but at the same time wants to choose LIFE for that child, why should she not have the option of making an adoption plan?

Adoptees, none of us got to choose our lives as babies.   Some of you wish that your birth parents had kept you;  yes,in the best of all possible worlds, that would have happened.  But some people who grew up in their birth families were abused, molested, neglected, grew up in abject poverty......which is worse?  

Lots of people wish that their past had been different.  Unfortunately, we can't change the past.  But all of us....ALL of us....can change the future.  There's nothing to stop us from having a good, happy, fulfilling life if we choose to do so.   Instead of agonizing about the choices others made for you in the past, over which you had no control, maybe you should seek to change the things you CAN control!   And please try to remember that family is about more than blood.

Answer 19

Aw, c**p that was me.........

I will try to be more clear.  I would do away with pre birth matches.  If a woman wants to place her baby for adoption immediately after birth, i would choose a plan like Wisconsin's.

The baby is placed with a foster mom.  During the four weeks the first mother and the pap's can visit the child at anytime.  At the end of 4 weeks the first mom goes to court and signs her parental rights away and the baby goes home with the pap's.

For the mother's who need more time to decide if adoption is for them or not, i would go back to my previous answer.

I hope i clarified things.  As i mentioned before i am not the most informed person here.  It was just an idea i had, maybe i've even heard it tossed around here, who knows with 5 kids i'm lucky if i know my own name.  lol

ETA  Hey Elizabeth......

you just cut paste my answer from the other question!  Be orginial and get your own ideas!  Geeesh.

Answer 20

only if the father does not want the child

Answer 21

Depends, if the dad of the baby wants the baby then she shouldn't be allowed to give that baby into adoption.  Regardless if they are not together or what not.

Answer 22

i dont agree with it because as being one who gave a child up i would not and did not let my child go to a foster care home or anything like that i wanted to her to go straight with the family after we all were able to leave the hospital. i just dont think there is a reason why the child would have to go into state care  or have to stay with mom who cant take care of him/her if the family who wants to adopt is ready and willin to take him/her on