The best place for your baby.?

Question

I see a lot of b-mothers who were told that they needed to do "what's best for thier baby"

You know give the baby to better people.

What if everyone having a child had to live to that standard... Angolina Jolie would have all of our children. Although I'm a great mother there's always "better parents" than us.

I know there is a true need for adoption, I've adopted. I would never have done it just 'cause someone wanted a "better home" for their baby. It needs to be because there's NOT EVER a suitable home.

What do you think?

Answer 1

My problem with the idea of doing what's best for the baby or giving the baby to "better people" is that those who say things like that mean is to give the baby up to people who can provide it with material wealth. Many people have the mistaken idea that rich people make better parents than poor people simply because they have more money. What often happens instead is that the child is raised by nannies and given toys instead of attention. Lots of rich people make horrible parents.

Answer 2

The best place for a baby is in a loving, stable home where there is one or two parents who can provide love, support, safety and care for a child. Some parents who give children up for adoption do so because they don't feel that they can offer all these things to a child and so think that their child would be better off with another family. No family is perfect and while there may be rough times in a family, as long as there is still a strong foundation, it doesn't matter what other people think. Remember you only see what these so-called "better parents" want you to see! Behind closed doors they could be just as crazy as the rest of us!!

Answer 3

The best place for a baby is with his Mother's care no else.

Even animals are protective with their youngs so the mothers should be.  And there's no other place for that. Wherever the mother, there should be the baby.

Answer 4

I agree completely FG, and thats why so many of us are here letting women contemplating adoption for their baby know that more often than not, the best home for their baby is their own. Obviously I am not completely anti-adoption as I have 2 adopted children, but I think SO many adoptions happen unnecessarily, especially domestic adoptions. Women need to stop being convinced that other women deserve their children more than they do. Adoptions should happen when children are in danger from their parents, when the parents are deceased or when the parents -truly- do not want to parent their child. Family members and guardianship should also be considered over adoption.

Answer 5

i get you rwhole question but i had to stop you. no need for false information.

Your statement about the poor was false. the poor get free health care but it isn't the BEST health care. Some Dr.s don't feel like these people deserve their treatment so they will treat them with the smallest amount of effort. It's the rich that have the best health care. the middle class that have the good health care but have to pay out the butt. and then the poor that get free health care and outdated meds, and non effective treatment. I work for the state Department of Health. and trust me even though they get free health care they still have to put in alot of work to get it. not to mention letting the whole world know your personal business.

as for your question. there really is never a suitable home but the one you were born into. i think the only time adoption is good is when your family is abusive or they die. otherwise as ling as all of these abortion clinics are open people need to use them. Christian's say don't but then they adopt from other countries because it's cheaper and the kids in the USA are still stuck.

Answer 6

a 14 year old girl with a 16 year old boy friend who is in high school and her mother doesn't want to raise another child.

She has this baby to care for the rest of her life.  She resents having a child so young, the mother resents having another baby to take care of.  Or some crack mother who has 6 kids already and is not expecting to take care of this one either.

They will grow up in foster homes, because both parents don't want the responsibility of a child.

Maybe a women was raped and doesn't want to raise a rapists child.  There is lots of reasons for giving a child up for adoption.  Some women are so poor that to be able to feed the children they have is impossible and they find out they are pregnant.  that is not because this mother could be a better parent but she could feed and clothe this baby, provide medical care and maybe even sent it to college.

Answer 7

I wanted my baby to have two parents and a stay at home mom. I've grown up in a broken home and I wanted my daughter to have 2 parents. I'm also still in high school and don't have a complete education. I don't have the resources or the support. So that's why I placed my child. I knew that my baby wouldn't have that great of a life if she stayed with me, so I chose to give her up. I love her very much. I have an open adoption, so she'll know who I am and I'll get to see her grow. I think it really is a personal decision and birthparents are really trying to do what is best. We can't tell the future, but we do what's best at the time.

Answer 8

I completely agree that this phrase is most applicable to parents with drugs addiction issues/abusive relationship patterns/lack of concern or love for the child etc.

Unfortunately, people tend to abuse that phrase "do what's best for your baby" and say that to any woman who is single, young and pregnant!!!

Answer 9

There are other avenues of adoption than adopting a newborn infant domestically.  I strongly believe  that there are many children in other parts of the world who need loving homes, who are spending their childhood in orphanages, that need homes, and I know their biological parents were not told they should abandon their child to do what is best for them.

You are asking a loaded question.  You need to look at it differently.  No one should say that placing a baby for adoption in a "better" home is better.  Because, how can they really know for sure that it is better?  Adoption ALWAYS involves loss.  Loss of a child for the first mother, loss of a whole first family for the adopted child.  Sometimes, loss of a whole culture.  Keeping babies in their biological families is probably the best, but...

We don't live in a perfect world, and until we do, adoption will be necessary.

Answer 10

keep ur kid

Answer 11

I think you may be taking that phrase a bit out of context. When someone says "do what's best for your baby" they mean if you have no means of possibly giving that child the life they deserve, with a happy home, food to eat, and parents to love it, then do what is best. It's really meant for people like those on welfare, those who have bad haits they can't break (drugs, s*x addicts, etc) or those who really dont want a child anyway.

Answer 12

I am in full agreement with you. Circumstances can leave a person in a very sad and difficult situation but I stood by my family and am blessed now by my kids and my 3 wonderful grandchildren (16 10 and 9 years), and they have always been surrounded by love and well provided for by their mothers as well as having a loving family around. Their are times when adoption is good, but I have seen a bad adoption and the harm it does to a child on at least 3 occasions, may be that is why I felt the need to love and cherish my own grandchildren. It is usually the paternal families that condone the father's rejection of the single mum, sad then that these girls and their little ones are also short changed by society itself (in USA and in UK at least), People like you, who adopt when there is a need and understand where the poor birth mums are coming from are few and far between and therefore you are a bit of a treasure in your own right. Bless you for it ((((HUG))))

Answer 13

God bless you for pointing this out. It's a point so many of us have tried to make time and time again... people don't seem to understand, or don't want to, when I bring it up.

Really, if giving your child the best home possible was a good enough reason to relinquish a child for adoption, there should be a LOT MORE people relinquishing their children. If people are honest with themselves, I bet ALL parents could think of other parents who are better than themselves.... or at least "as good" parents with more material wealth, opportunities, a better house, and so on.

This idea that it's okay to relinquish a child to give him or her a BETTER life is ridiculous. If a mom truly can't provide the basics for her child--love, a roof, and food--then okay, relinquish for adoption. But relinquishing in order to give a child two parents, or a stay-at-home mom, or house in the suburbs, or a private school education...? No way. Those reasons severely underestimate the power of the mother-child bond.

My parents easily could have relinquished me to give me a "better life." They were in college, barely married, and very poor. I was an unplanned pregnancy. But they didn't. And I am sooooooooo glad they didn't. I don't care how many vacations I missed out on, how many fancy dinners, how many times eating out in a restaurant, how many new clothes (ALL my clothes were hand-me-downs). I wouldn't trade my parents for ANY of that.

But this "give your child the BEST life" line is still used... and often. And it is separating children from mothers who could actually parent and be good moms.

It's very sad, IMO.

EDITED TO ADD: Mommy to Be, I agree that the phrase SHOULD be used in the context of pregnant mothers who really cannot care for their children... active drug addicts, severely mentally ill women who are psychotic more often than not, and so on. But the thing is, the phrase IS used on women who are simply young, unmarried, and don't have a ton of money (yet would be able to provide the basics). It was used on me... and I had a full time job, a fiance, was one year away from finishing my bachelor's degree, and was NEVER in danger of abusing or neglecting or resenting my child--never.

So the problem is, what you said here SHOULD be true, but it is not: "I think you may be taking that phrase a bit out of context. When someone says "do what's best for your baby" they mean if you have no means of possibly giving that child the life they deserve, with a happy home, food to eat, and parents to love it, then do what is best."

Unfortunately, many adoption agencies, some social workers, and some families still tell women who are capable of being mothers to "do what's best for the baby," even to women who would be great moms.

Answer 14

I know of a friend who was adopted and she never hated her parents, for she was raised and loved and nurtured by those who adopted her like their own baby. A better home for a baby could be for those couple who would never be able to have their own children. If a person wants her baby to be adopted find a loving couple who is really dying to have a child of their own but cant.

Answer 15

I am not sure I understand all that you have said; however, I believe that adoption IS the loving option for girls or women who do not believe they are ready or able to provide a stable, safe home for a baby or child.

I don't believe that women give babies to "better people".  I believe they place their babies with people in a better situation.  I also do not think of Angolina Jolie is any better than I am, she just has more money than I do.  She is bound to make many of the same parenting mistakes that the rest of us do.  She would not be human otherwise.  Understand what I am saying here...I am not saying anything against Angolina Jolie.  I don't read tabloids, I don't watch the tabloid TV shows either, so if there is something going on in her life, I am unaware.

The statement that really throws me is:  It needs to be because there's NOT EVER a suitable home.  I don't understand what you are trying to say.  If someone was placing their baby for adoption and they believed there was no suitable home in which to place them how would the adoption improve anything?

I was adopted at the age of six.  I well remember my life prior to the adoption.  The decision was the only unselfish act my birth mother ever made on my behalf.

Women who are unprepared to put their children first, that have given birth to babies addicted to drugs - sometimes several babies like this - have no business being responsible for the day-to-day care and well-being of these children.  I believe that they should be encouraged to do "what's best for their baby".

Answer 16

I think I see where you are going.  We constructed a system that assumes the best solution is often helping a woman surrender her child.  But perhaps there is an alternative.  Maybe, we, as a society, should try to find ways to help a woman raise her child.

This makes sense, and I agree.  It is respectful of women, children, and families.

Answer 17

I went to highschool with someone who was raised by his mother who had him at fifteen.  He is a successful person.  She is a successful person.  No one's life was ruined.  Did her parents help her do it? Sure they did.  Did she do most of the raising herself.  Yep.  Was she perfect?  Nope.  Did she do her best?  Yep.

My adoptive mom was conceived out of wedlock (shocking!).  Her parents married before she was born.  Her dad went off to war and her mom went off to work.  She was raised by her grandparents for the most part until she was four or five.  My mom is well educated and successful  Her life wasn't ruined and neither were her parents.

I have two aunts in my adoptive family who had their first children in their teens unmarried.  One hid her pregnancy until the day she delivered.  No kidding.  Both kept their children.  Both of my cousins grew to be happy, successful adults with meaningful careers.  One of them has a PhD.  Everyone is successful and for the most part happy (whatever that means).

I don't see exactly what the criteria should be to relinquish either.  I don't get it.

Is it youth?

Is it illegitimacy?

And what exactly is a better life?

By some people's standards, every one of these people should have relinquished their children to strangers.  But they didn't.

So who should?  Who is and isn't worthy of parenting their own child and who are we to decide when it is a loving, sacrifice vs. abandonment?

I don't have an answer to your question.

But it is a good one.

Answer 18

Great question - thanks for asking.

There are always "better" parents - of course, that depends on the yardstick that one uses to measure standards.  Sure, Angelina Jolie has money and can buy all of the babies that she wants.  But given her history of unstable relationships and drug use, I would not let my children go trick-or-treating at her house, alone let her raise them.  So, no, Angie is not a better person and there are three children who she would not have - my two and my grandson.

So - that said - I have enormous respect for parents who do their best to protect their children from abuse and poverty.  Sadly, given the war on poor families that our current government is waging, often their only choice is adoption.  However, I have no respect for parents who give their children away because they want them to have a life-long shopping spree.

Did you know that Bill Clinton was raised by his grandparents for the first 4 years of his life because his father died 3 months before he was born?  His mother needed to find a way to provide for him so went to nursing school while Bill was a baby.  Today, she would be jumped on in the hospital or at social services and urged to "do what's best for baby" and give Bill to someone with more money.

Well, that was a bit of a rant.  I also know that there are some people who just are not qualified to be parents and I think that adoption is the only chance that that their children may have at a happy life.

It seems that often the wrong people choose adoption.

Answer 19

I am confused but i am sure you have a great/better home for your babies then they did! good job:)

Answer 20

I totally get what you're saying.  I think mothers are put in a position where they compare themselves unfavorably with the propective adoptive parents and thus 'feel' those people are somehow better than her (it starts with those totally phony 'dear birthmother' letters designed to let her know how much more paps have to offer.

I truly believe that this is rarely a true deduction.  Many many mothers who relinquish are perfectly capable of parenting a child well, given the right support.  It's the support that is sadly lacking.  It's so sad.

My own mother was capable of raising me.  She lost me because she had no support.  I had a great upbringing with a family I am very much a part of; but blood is thicker than water and there is no replacement for one's real mother.  My own adoptive mother knows this and is not threatened in the slightest by my search for my real mother - she positively encourages it and wants to meet the wonderful woman who wanted to give me a better life.   We both very much doubt that my life would have been any worse, had I been able to stay with my Mom and we look forward to welcoming her into our family should the day ever come when the State 'allows' us to know the truth of my own identity (blech)

Answer 21

As long as the mother wants to be a mother, and can care for the baby that's all that's important. I'm not talking about having money in the bank or being able to buy designer clothing for the baby but able to love and shelter, feed, clothed the baby that's all that matters. and one should never give their baby up so their baby can have a huge house or a fancy car. Love isn't about money. Babies deserve to be surround by people who love and can care for the baby.

Answer 22

how could a normal functioning mother be told what is best for her baby, '  mother knows best  'in a ideal world but unfortunately we don't live in a ideal world so there are cases when for the sake of the childs life or quality of life they are better off without their birthmother , that is sad for both mother and child ,but i could never imagine a easy one for the mother that cares ..

Answer 23

ok so whts ur question?