I noticed an "abortion debate" topic on this forum but no "adoption debate" topic. The "abortion debate" lists some risks of an abortion procedure. Few people think about the risks of an adoption "procedure" but there are known risks of separating mothers and their newborn babies.

If an enemy soldier took a mother's newborn baby during a war, people would be horrified - even if the soldier treated the baby well it would not matter.

But when a mother feels pressured into surrendering her newborn baby for adoption, people seem incapable of believing it causes her any pain at all. If they do think about it, perhaps they consider the mother to be such an "enemy" in terms of her possible need for temporary assistance that the extreme, cruel punishment of losing her child seems warranted.

Of course not all mothers feel this pressure. But many naive "christian" mothers - and even fathers - may fall for the idea that unmarried parents and family are not as good as married strangers. In addition, some mothers may need help out of an abusive situation or simply need temporary assistance.

A newborn suffers when separated from her mother. She has bonded to her mother in the womb and looks to her mother for security. Her mother's milk is designed for her. By contrast, a kitten or puppy is protected by law from being separated from their mother too soon - but a separation from mother will be truamatic for human babies just as it is traumatic for puppies.

To make it better for a mother some people suggest "open" adoption so a mother may be allowed to select the adopters or have some pictures, letters or contact. Why do "christian" people not have enough compassion to simply acknowledge the mother as a mother, determine the obstacles to her keeping her child and provide some donated items to help her out? Why do they not help the father into his role as a father?

According to statistics compiled on adoption.Com the mothers who lose babies to adoption "often come from higher socioeconomic backgrounds. These women come from intact families." (stolley, 1993) these mothers and their families are likely to be naïve. Told "everyone benefits" from adoption and in the absence of any real information, they may think it's true.

Adoption agencies may say moms "give up" their babies because they want to finish college and really just don't want to be bothered. They do not mention that when moms are filling out the paperwork, they are prompted by social workers with the answers. How many moms really want to record for all eternity that their baby's father has deserted them, their religious parents won't help them and they feel they have absolutely no choice? How many moms will guess how their responses will be used against them and against women in general?

Where "open" adoption is concerned, in "open adoption: the wall" terri enbourge has provided some excellent insight into how natural family - especially siblings of the adopted-out child - are affected.
Http://www.Originscanada.Org/thewall/index .Html

mothers, fathers (and grandparents - if they are involved) deserve honest information about the risks of separation on natural family members and their adopted-out child.

"adoption provides a divorce-like situation for a child who will feel torn between her adopters and her natural family" - this is the information I was given by an adoption agency 19 years too late. That was for closed adoption. Open adoption can be even messier.

My website designed to help moms and dads is "a mother's song":


teen or "unwed" mother myths:


Did you find this post helpful?

replied March 18th, 2005
Extremely eHealthy
It is particularly a tragedy if she wants the kid but feels forced to give it up either for its benefit, or for getting her live straightened out. Having to give up your kid because of lack of support is a shameful spot on society.
Did you find this post helpful?

replied March 21st, 2005
I revised this post removing some personal details - so if you read it before, I just want you to know it's not new.

Thanks for your compassionate response.

It is not just moms who are being taken advantage of. I have heard of more than one father who returned from serving his country in iraq and discovered his child had been adopted-out. One father I know married the mother. But now he'll never be known as "dad" and probably never get to do much with his child at all. Of course if he complained or took any type of action, he would not get even the little information about him that he he has now. In my opinion, it's horrendous. In a weak moment the mom gave in to the adoption advertising and the notion that a child needs married people raising him.

We have a lot of solicitation for babies going on in the us. "dear birthmother" letters and even business cards people pass out and leave in restaurants and other places hoping to find a healthy newborn. I believe it is illegal to solicit for a living person's kidney, but for some reason soliciting to get a living person's son or daughter is legal. That is, it is legal in the us - many other countries do not allow it.

Many agencies like to get a pregnant woman to select prospective adopters as early on in her pregnancy as possible. Then the mom feels beholden to them. When her child is born and she has gone through the birth process and is holding her beautiful baby in her arms, she may very well want to keep him. But at that point she will have a very hard time saying "no" to the prospective adopters. She will not have planned to have baby clothes or a car seat to get her child home in, either.

Some adoption agencies and attorneys pay pregnant women large sums for "expenses", making them feel obligated to hand over their child. Or worse - they lie to them and tell them they will have to pay the whole thing back or they can't keep their baby. Shouldn't all necessary expenses be covered by the govt anyway? I think it should be illegal for those who profit (in any way) from finding babies to provide expense money or incentives of any kind. One agency is advertising scholarships on their website. Are they looking for babies with good dna for their customers? It's sickening.

You may wonder why I care about this so much. After all, things are not as bad as they were in the 1960's when most middle and lower class white single moms had their children taken at birth, sometimes without even getting to see them or know what sex they were.

There are less domestic adoptions now, but recently there have been articles in the news about agencies expanding their domestic adoption programs. One article claimed they had an increase of 10,000 more babies for adoption last year in the state of california compared to the year before. It's not likely that the moms and dads have changed so much they no longer want their own children. More likely they are being fooled by all the advertising for adoption. "everyone benefits" from adoption? Give me a break!


Did you find this post helpful?

replied March 21st, 2005
Experienced User
Are you adopted??? I am I thank god everyday I am adopted I would not have the oppurtunities and the love and care I have been given! My mother and father are the people that love and adore my and call me there baby girl they adopted me! I am anti-open children grow up in a bad enough society I don't think confusing a young child this is youre mommy but im your "real" mommy I hate that!! You have to think of the child in 10 or more years not just the mom right there in that moment!
Did you find this post helpful?
Must Read
What happens during labor? What do contractions feel like? And how do I know that labor has begun? Read on to learn about birthing basics....
Signs of labor occur after 36 weeks of pregnancy. Learn about the difference between real and false contractions. Plus, we outline signs of delivery complicati...
Almost all women worry about the pain of childbirth. Preparing for childbirth includes thinking about how you'd like to cope with the pain of labor. Read on for...