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