Why do people assume that middle class parents don't place children for adoption?

Question

Why do people assume that middle class parents don't place children for adoption?

Answer 1

My parents were middle class.

It was the shame of being unwed and the shame of the church - that were the major influence over my being adopted.

Even though my father had offered marriage - it was too late my grandmother said.

Coercion doesn't only happen to those without money.

The power that parents and society have over people - can be an amazingly strong thing.

My grandmother hounded - verbally - my mother - until she gave in.

Those that don't want to believe it - that's up to them.

I know many first mothers that if they'd just been told - yes - you will be a good mother - and I'm there for you if you need any support......they would have parented.

With hormones and money stresses etc - many women feel they are backed into a corner - and see no other way out.

It happens this century - not just back in the dark ages.

But again - if people don't want to believe it - then fool them.

Perhaps they missed out on the compassion parts when they were being made!

Answer 2

I don't know.  My mother was not only NOT destitute...she was upper-class (at least her family was).  She would have been disowned had she chosen to parent me -- at least by her father.

She lived in a very posh (it still is, even today) New England area and her father and mother BOTH worked in one of the best known and most renowned medical facilities in the country.

Stereotypes, in my opinion, are generally for the comfort of the stereotype-holder (the person who believes the stereotypes).  People who are not sure their adopted children would have been 'destitute' with their own mothers/parents comfort themselves by assuming they would.  In the case of an adoption where the parents are certain of the child's natural family (i.e. well-informed) and are certain of the NEED for the adoption (the CHILD'S need), then stereotypes are unnecessary.  Those adoptions are 'all good'.

As an 'homage' to the other question (that I think prompted this one) my mother would NEVER have qualified for government assistance medical.  My pre-natal care (once her pregnancy could not be 'thwarted' by her father) -- me being the pre-nate -- was among the best that could be hoped for.  Her medical care options were endless -- unless she 'kept' me -- and money was not an issue for her.  I think a lot of people assume that assistance programs (limited and insufficient as they are in the U.S.) have always been available and well-advertised.  They have not and they were not in the 70s, when I was born.  I'm answering about what the circumstances WERE then -- not what the ARE now.  If my mother had *magically* been making this decision in 2008 instead of the early 70s, she would parent me, without a doubt.  She would have -- as she has told me -- gladly given up her father for her daughter.

Take care!

OMG, Possum...our stories are so similar in many ways

My father offered marriage, too.  In my case, it was "too late" for my granfather (and, btw, my father was the 'wrong' religion).

The influence of parents, church, and society (the 'shame' of unwed pregnancy) was a huge factor in my relinquishment, too.  fwiw, I believe you.  :-)

Answer 3

People tend to assume stereotypes and not think in a broader state of mind and a majority of children placed for adoption are from the typical stereos most likely.

Answer 4

I don't know.  Adoption agencies are equal opportunity exploiters.  They will go after any baby they can get.  Read their marketing strategies - most involve recruiting "birthmothers" on college campuses.  They usually cannot entice this demographic with money so they try to convince them that a baby will be an encumbrance to their future success in life.

In fact, a brave young woman at Vanderbilt University was disgusted that the University only offered help with two options when she went for help to stay in school after finding out that she was pregnant - you guessed it - abortion or adoption.  Parenting was considered on non-option.  She started a program to help young women stay in school to complete their degrees while (gasp) parenting their children.

Answer 5

Well, its a difficult question, but middle class parents, by definition, want to have children.

Its the middle class who don't want children and accidentally got pregnant that give up children

But yes, there is a stereotype that only poor people get pregnant accidentally, and only poor people put up kids for adoption.  I suspect that labels like "welfare mothers" and whole neighborhoods with no fathers lend to this stereotype.  

Answer 6

I don't know.  It's not true.  People of every income level and education level place thier children for adoption.  

People seem to think that parents "get rid" of the child because they can't afford to raise it.  Again, that is usually not true.  It's much more an emotional decision than a financial one.

Answer 7

You would have to define middle class for me Lara and what country are you referring to.

Answer 8

Only anti adoption people believe it has to be a poor girl who was coerced into parting with her baby by the cruel and awfull agencies and fueled by AP's.

Answer 9

Who knows?  I know a few moms that were pressured by their higher class families to place illegitimate children up for adoption.  It is not even a fair assumption that all children brought into foster care are from lower class families.

On a side note, I didn't recognize you without the crazy pic!

Answer 10

adoption from middle (and upper class) pregnant women pisses on the facade that the child is being "saved" and given a "better life."

Answer 11

It's easier to assume that the child would have grown up destitute if not placed for adoption.  It makes the relinquishment appear easier to swallow, and even more acceptable and desirable to some.

Plenty of adopted persons came from middle class parents.  I did.

Answer 12

I don't make this assumption.

When I lived in an orphanage, there was a India boy called Nicholas,there who had rich parents, they'd roll up every now and then in their Rolls Royce, no kidding. They did not want their child though. I don't know the facts, maybe they weren't married or something. An unusual situation but all classes of parents can place their children for adoptions, it's just more likely to be the poor, due to their situation in life. The poor have less choices.

The very rich can afford to take care of the 'problem' in a variety of ways.

Many in society probably feel better, thinking the child has been given a better life by adoption and this includes monitory considerations. It is also true for a huge numbers of children born into poverty, but it's not the whole picture.