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.Origi
nscanada.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":
www.Motherhelp.Info
teen or "unwed" mother myths:
www.Motherhelp.Info/myths.
Htm
laurie
