Wouldn't banning pre-birth adoption selections...?

Question

and creating a mandatory length of time for mothers to parent before legally being able to place the child for adoption, possibly create a volitile and even deadly environment for the baby? (Especially if the mother really doesn't want to be a Mom or is in a bad circumstance?)

Answer 1

Surely you acknowledge that pre-birth adoption plans put undue psychological pressure on the mother.  

So if it's bad to do it.  And it's bad not to do it.  What would you suggest?  Or do you deny the coercive pressure of pre-birth adoption plans?  If so, then there's no shared assumptions upon which we can have a conversation.

Answer 2

No.

Australia has done this, again i say AUSTRALIA HAS DONE AND IS DOING THIS, how many cases can anyone find in Australia that a mother has abused her child because she was encouraged to try parenting first.

Its not so black and white, its not like "mandatory parenting" means a mother is going to birth her child, and beat it and the state still leaves the child with her. Its an encouraged amount of parenting and assistance to do so, before a decision to surrender is made. This helps someone make an informed decision in surrendering. How do you know you can't parent and can't make it, if you DON'T EVEN TRY.

Do you think that mothers who surrender immediately at birth are preventing abuse from happening to their children? Are surrendering mothers potential abusers?The answer to that is NO. I'm very comfortable saying that on average and far above average abuse isn't being prevented by the typical surrendering mothers who are surrendering their children after making a pre-birth adoption plan. Expecting mothers making adoption plans these days on average are in college, and in their 20's.

The abusers are usually the ones who have their rights involuntarily terminated by the courts.Those are the kids nobody wants remember, over 100,000 languishing in foster care. Too few are making adoption "plans" for THESE children.

Pre-birth adoption plans are doing nothing to help these children and encouraging mothers to try parenting isn't "creating" more abused children either.

Answer 3

Most of the women that make pre-adoption plans - are NOT the women that would be a harm to the child.

Most.

So no - I disagree with your question.

The house-holds that are volatile and deadly to infants - are usually households that women would not give a second thought about the child - let alone whether they would want to find that child a good home through adoption.

Those households usually have drugs and alcohol included in the mix.

A mix - which inhibits the adults from making sensible decisions about themselves or their children.

Most mother's that make adoption plans are thinking about what's best for their child - and it's usually monetary and support problems that they feel they face.

Sure - there are always going to be some that put children up for adoption - because there is no other safe solution.

But these are few and far between.

Answer 4

Possibly.

But presumably if a woman is considering adoption, the infant could be placed with a foster family while the length of time expires.

ETA: I think pre birth matching may or may not have a coercive effect on the birthmother.  That depends on the birthmother and adoptive family in question, but there are plenty of cases where it's worked out just fine.  I would much rather see all options laid out on the table, in an open and honest fashion, enabling an informed decision, rather than restricting choices because the state knows best.  Let the woman make up her own mind if she wants to pre-birth match or not.

Answer 5

I'm confused.  Don't most women who are choosing adoption do so because their circumstances are such that this is a much better option for the child?  I know far too many women who selfishly kept their child(ren) when it meant that this child would be raised by a single woman on welfare, watch a parade of "daddies" or "uncles" through their houses and be ultimately neglected.  

I gave my oldest son up for adoption.  I did so because I found myself single and pregnant at 19 years old.  I could barely be responsible for myself at this point, let alone a little one who would depend completely on me for everything!  I had adoptive parents picked out months in advance of my son's birth which relieved my stress as to what the future would hold and gave me peace of mind for both of us.  This is the hardest, most selfless thing I have ever done.  My son turns 17 this year and has had the benefit of two parents in the home, people who couldn't have babies of their own, and all the advantages I could never have given him as a single mother who would have had to begin her parenting career on welfare.  

This law would seem to assume that adoption is a last-ditch option, only for the desperate, rather than one that far more women should have chosen.

Answer 6

Making an infant pay the price for an adult who can't make a decision that's in their best interest in 9 months is not wise.   Sending the baby home with someone whose conflicted about parenting, or parenting this child?  Someone who may have no appropriate place to live or no way to support the child?  Then we have put the child at risk for abuse, or neglect. And if you say we should have a place for mothers to stay until they make up their mind, who is going to pay for all of this?   People have the wrong idea about adoption.  Mother's are not conflicted about how they feel.  Most dearly love their children.  But most also have a lifestyle which will not adequately support caring for a child, physically, emotionally, mentally at that time, or anytime in the near future.  That is why they are making the decision.  And to require a child to remain, or be put into that environment, is faulty thinking at best.  That is not the answer.  The answer has to come lonnngggg before the baby is born, and lonnngggg before the baby is conceived.

Answer 7

Absolutely!

Answer 8

YES!

I also believe since so many people feel that there is bonding during pregnancy that there can also be a negative effect on the child if he/she can feel that he/she isn't wanted while in utero.   I believe this actually happened with my child.

Answer 9

Yes. I think forcing these mothers who never wanted a child to begin with to take care of the babies would be horrible. I don't think the child would get the best care, plus I don't think they have the money to do it.  Babies are expensive.  Food, diapers, wipes, clothes, formula, bottles etc.  Not to mention they would be out of work etc.  I think it is putting too much pressure on the birth mothers and you never know what they could end up doing to those little babies.