Adoption Pressure

[David T]

And I'd also try to keep track of the child she gave up, so I could still be involved in raising that child, which would still be her child, and my grandchild

 

Before my wife was unable to biologically have any more children, we were blessed to have a daughter. There are many influences in my side of the family - including from her grandparents on that side - which for many reasons, we do not want to have a major impact on our daughter, especially in her formative years. Being a flesh and blood grandparent does not guarantee or grant any rights. In an ideal situation, there is a good relationship, and such examples and family ties are encouraged and fostered.

 

But from my own experience - and knowing the experiences of others - a grandparent asserting a right to raise or even assist in raising a grandchild whether it is desired or not simply because of a blood connection completely rubs me the wrong way.

[bluebell]

Before my wife was unable to biologically have any more children, we were blessed to have a daughter. There are many influences in my side of the family - including from her grandparents on that side - which for many reasons, we do not want to have a major impact on our daughter, especially in her formative years. Being a flesh and blood grandparent does not guarantee or grant any rights. In an ideal situation, there is a good relationship, and such examples and family ties are encouraged and fostered.

 

But from my own experience - and knowing the experiences of others - a grandparent asserting a right to raise or even assist in raising a grandchild whether it is desired or not simply because of a blood connection completely rubs me the wrong way.

 

Some grandparents, just like parents, care more about their own feelings than they do for the welfare of the child.

[Buzzard]

There's a lot more meaning behind the words "bad parent" than you seem to be realizing.  Like not realizing the value of love, thinking money or status or some other "married" couple can somehow add more meaning to that child's life than the love of their own parent.

 

Sure, we in the Church can do a lot of good for the children their parents have chosen to give up, but it's always, always, always a better choice for that child's own parents to raise that child with the love and devotion and desire each person should have to raise their own child, rather than give that child.

 

Argue on if you wish, though.  If you don't agree with me on this issue I'll still know that I'm on the right side of this issue.

Are you comfortable with being foursquare on the exact opposite of the brethren's side of this issue? One would submit that both the leadership of the church and LDS Social Services has a lot more experience witnessing the aftermath of each of these decisions than each one of us.

I do note that the church counsels that the best option, where practical, is for the expectant parents to wed and thus form a nuclear family for the child to be born into.

[bluebell]

Are you comfortable with being foursquare on the exact opposite of the brethren's side of this issue? One would submit that both the leadership of the church and LDS Social Services has a lot more experience witnessing the aftermath of each of these decisions than each one of us.

I do note that the church counsels that the best option, where practical, is for the expectant parents to wed and thus form a nuclear family for the child to be born into.

 

Not to mention the many examples of women who have made it a matter of prayer and have felt very strongly that they needed to give the baby up for adoption.  In those cases, he's on the opposite of the Lord as well.

[Calm]

My personal view == the issue is what is best for the child.  And every child deserves and needs a mother and a father.

Birth mothers are someone's child too. I think finding the best situation that takes into account the needs of all, including the birth father is important. I do not think a child as an adult would like to learn that their birth mother was forced to give them up even though there was a good chance it could have been a decent situation for them as a family and by being placed in that position, it emotionally destroyed the mother. Every situation is unique, protect the baby, but protect the child that is the mother as well.

[David T]

Are you comfortable with being foursquare on the exact opposite of the brethren's side of this issue? One would submit that both the leadership of the church and LDS Social Services has a lot more experience witnessing the aftermath of each of these decisions than each one of us.

I do note that the church counsels that the best option, where practical, is for the expectant parents to wed and thus form a nuclear family for the child to be born into.

 

The Church has some good resources on this. Check also the Adoption page on Gospel Topics.

 

"When a child is conceived out of wedlock, the best option is for the mother and father of the child to marry and work toward establishing an eternal family relationship. If a successful marriage is unlikely, they should place the child for adoption, preferably through LDS Family Services. Placing the infant for adoption through LDS Family Services helps unwed parents do what is best for the child. It ensures that the child will be sealed to a mother and a father in the temple, and it enhances the prospect for the blessings of the gospel in the lives of all concerned. Adoption is an unselfish, loving decision that blesses the birth parents, the child, and the adoptive family."

[David T]

No, a person should not be pressured to do that which they firmly are not desiring to do. Educating them as to their options, and the possible consequences so an informed decision can be made, however, is important. Nobody should ever place themselves in a position to make the decision FOR the birth mother.

 

Wanting to make that clear.

Edited December 26, 2013 by David T

[pogi]

 

Sure, we in the Church can do a lot of good for the children their parents have chosen to give up, but it's always, always, always a better choice for that child's own parents to raise that child with the love and devotion and desire each person should have to raise their own child, rather than give that child.

 

Some people do not have the resources or family support to raise a child on their own.  Other people simply do not have the "devotion and desire" to raise their own child.  You cannot guilt that devotion and desire into a young mother, and without it, the child and the mother will be much worse off.  It is not ALWAYS a better choice to keep a child. 

Edited December 26, 2013 by pogi

[Calm]

If a single woman is not emotionally, physically, or otherwise prepared or able to give the child a stable upbringing, placing the needs of the child first is a major act of love, and a sign that they actually do care about the child. As Buzzard noted above, statistics are not in favor of the well being of a child being raised in a single parent home.

 

I'm at a point where blood relationship isn't the keystone of loyalty and family. I feel far more an actual part of my wife's family than I do my own flesh and blood parents. Family in the Gospel is one of Covenant, and an active choice to love and to serve. 

 

To prayerfully consider and accept that an individual is not in a position to give a child the essentials that they need to thrive and to give them the best possible start in life. Statistics are beyond clear that a stable 2-parent household gives a child a vastly greater chance at success in life. A birth mother placing a child for adoption has often realized that circumstances - sometimes their own choice, and sometimes, such as in cases of rape - forced upon them - have made it so their body will deliver a child that they are not in a position to be able to care for and to raise.

 

In many of these cases, certainly not all, it can be a matter of pride to decide to raise the child based on a pure need to show that one can do it - and not a consideration of necessarily looking after the child's best interests. It's one of possession. They fight against the odds for a child's upbringing to prove that THEY can beat the odds. 

 

I don't know if you know or have been associated with any birth mothers (LDS or not) who have placed their child for adoption - especially in an open adoption scenario. I'm not sure if you're basing your outrage on experience of what those who have made that decision have gone through, and the process of thought they have made.

 

It's a devastating choice to have to be in a position to make. I feel devastated for everyone who is placed in that position. And for those that prayerfully consider and decide that they want to place the child for adoption because they know their child will have a better chance for success and happiness than they at that point in their lives have the ability to give, and for those who come to a deep peace concerning that decision --- I have nothing but overwhelming feelings of respect and gratitude.

 

It is essential that such circumstances are extremely complicated, and birth parents - whatever the decision they make - are not judged by us as outsiders to their circumstances, and their pain. There are certainly single parents who have beaten the odds, and raised amazing, well-adjusted and successful children. I wouldn't doubt that for a second.

 

But to call a birth mother who choses a path they truly believe will lead to the child's greater success a 'bad parent' completely does not have any grasp of the extremely sensitive topic at hand.

 

Take a look at the LDS Family Services website on adoption: It's About Love. Lots of good FAQs and videos and testimonials there.

 

In fact, here's a page of Real Life Stories of women who chose to place their child for adoption. Please experience some of these before making any judgments.

Very, very well stated.

[Calm]

No, a person should not be pressured to do that which they firmly are not desiring to do. Educating them as to their options, and the possible consequences so an informed decision can be made, however, is important. Nobody should ever place themselves in a position to make the decision FOR the birth mother.

Wanting to make that clear.

I never got the impression from anyone supporting the idea of adoption as a good option that the mother should be forced...my issue is only the idea that one individual's needs are so paramount that one can ignore the needs of another, even if the first is a child.

For one thing, there are very many different opinions on what is best for a child, removing a child from extreme hardship may be seen as paramount by some, ensuring a loving environment no matter what by another, etc.

Edited December 26, 2013 by calmoriah

[Ahab]

Are you comfortable with being foursquare on the exact opposite of the brethren's side of this issue?

IF some of the brethren are saying it's a good thing when a parent chooses to give up their own child, then yes, I'll accept being on the opposite side of this issue than those brethren who are saying that.  I'm sure there are some other brethren that are on the same side of the issue as I am, though, and I prefer it when others agree with me.

 

One would submit that both the leadership of the church and LDS Social Services has a lot more experience witnessing the aftermath of each of these decisions than each one of us.

This is one of those kinds of things that someone doesn't need to experience to know the different between what is right and wrong.  I've never had a parent give me up as their child, and I'd rather have it this way.

 

I do note that the church counsels that the best option, where practical, is for the expectant parents to wed and thus form a nuclear family for the child to be born into.

About the only time it's not practical is when one of the parents is already married to another person, but even then it's still good for both parents to be involved in raising their own children rather than totally give them up.

[Ahab]

Some people do not have the resources or family support to raise a child on their own.  Other people simply do not have the "devotion and desire" to raise their own child.  You cannot guilt that devotion and desire into a young mother, and without it, the child and the mother will be much worse off.  It is not ALWAYS a better choice to keep a child. 

Yes, it is always the best choice, even when parents do not have their own resources and need help from other people, and no, the parents shouldn't be guilted into loving their own children as they should.  It's still the way it should be, though.  All children should be kept and loved and nurtured by their own parents, even if they need help from others to be able to make it through this dark dreary world.

[David T]

Yes, it is always the best choice, even when parents do not have their own resources and need help from other people, and no, the parents shouldn't be guilted into loving their own children as they should.  It's still the way it should be, though.  All children should be kept and loved and nurtured by their own parents, even if they need help from others to be able to make it through this dark dreary world.

 

How can you say that? What, with others personal experience, evidence, and everything pointing to the contrary, drives your conviction that this assertion is true?

 

And by the way, adoptive parents become, in a very real way, the actual parents of their adopted children. It's not metaphorical. They are emotionally, legally, and, in LDS circumstances, covenantally the true parents of the child. They are the child's 'own parents'. The birth mother gave the child his physical body, and we are ever grateful for her, and for that gift, and also for the gift of providing parenthood to a willing and able family who otherwise may have had a physical inability to bear their own children.

 

All you need to do is spend some time with adoptive families to recognize this. 

Edited December 26, 2013 by David T

[Calm]

So my extended family relative who was the child of a sailor and a transient woman should have been raised by the parents as long as there was love in the home....right.

 

A child born to two HIV positive drug addicts should be placed with the parents as long as they love him.

 

There is a reason why there are out of wedlock babies, often more so than just immaturity....those reasons should be taken into account before assuming that the babies are best with their parents.

 

When my relative was teased about being adopted as a child (she was of darker skin tone than the rest of her siblings), she always retorted "I was chosen by my parents, your parents had to take pot luck".

[Calm]

if they need help from others to be able to make it through this dark dreary world.

And if the reality that help is not enough?  What if rehab for the alcoholic doesn't work?  What if the parent, though loving, is also know to be abusive?  What if the parent isn't capable of love, no matter how much she wants to be?

Edited December 26, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Ieven then it's still good for both parents to be involved in raising their own children rather than totally give them up.

You think it is healthy for a young child to know that they are the product of an affair in all cases?

[Ahab]

You think it is healthy for a young child to know that they are the product of an affair in all cases?

Yes.   Each person should know who their own parents are and as much about their own parents as they can possibly learn.

 

We've all done things we're not particularly proud of, and some of us have had other people do some things to us that we're not proud of either, but we should never want to get rid of a child of our own, for any reason, regardless of who the other parent is or what they have done.

[strappinglad]

Some people need to get out more. There are crack-moms and meth-head dads that would just destroy a child. There was a woman on my mission that offered me her baby because it was interfering with her life, as a prostitute. These are admittedly extreme examples but to pontificate that it is ALWAYS better to be raised by the birth parents is at best naïve and likely the arrogance of ignorance.

I apologize for my harshness. Some topics can produce a bee in my bonnet, a burr in my blanket, a knot in my knickers....

Edited December 26, 2013 by strappinglad

[pogi]

Yes, it is always the best choice.

 

Don't you think the child's opinion matters?  Have you ever met adopted children who know their messed-up birth mothers?  I know some adopted children that would strongly disagree with you.

[Ahab]

And if the reality that help is not enough?  What if rehab for the alcoholic doesn't work?  What if the parent, though loving, is also know to be abusive?  What if the parent isn't capable of love, no matter how much she wants to be?

I refuse to believe you can't come up with the right answers to all of those issues, cal... and without resorting to the idea that a person should get rid of their own child.

 

There is enough help available to anybody for any reason, and every person is capable of loving someone else if they want to.

[Ahab]

Don't you think the child's opinion matters?  Have you ever met adopted children who know their messed-up birth mothers?  I know some adopted children that would strongly disagree with you.

Children are often wrong, too.  What we need more of is people willing to do the right thing and other people helping them do it.

[Deborah]

...but to pontificate that it is ALWAYS better to be raised by the birth parents is at best naïve and likely the arrogance of ignorance.

 

I agree, and I have had experience in my own family of a baby being given up for adoption and it was the best thing that could happen. He is grown up now and has a baby of his own and was blessed to have a father in the home which he would otherwise not have had. It was an open adoption so the natural mother can keep track of him and his family on FB.

 

Ahab seems to have a "I would never...." attitude. If you have never been in that situation I wouldn't be too hasty in judging.

[pogi]

Yes.   Each person should know who their own parents are and as much about their own parents as they can possibly learn.

 

There is such a thing as open adoptions you know.  LDS family services strongly promotes it.  I know because my wife and I just turned in our papers to adopt.  We cannot have children.  Apparently you would rather have a child remain where he/she is unwanted rather than with my wife and I.  I don't understand that.

[Ahab]

Some people need to get out more. There are crack-moms and meth-head dads that would just destroy a child. There was a woman on my mission that offered me her baby because it was interfering with her life, as a prostitute. These are admittedly extreme examples but to pontificate that it is ALWAYS better to be raised by the birth parents is at best naïve and likely the arrogance of ignorance.

I apologize for my harshness. Some topics can produce a bee in my bonnet, a burr in my blanket, a knot in my knickers....

Someone accepting or promoting the idea that getting rid of their own child is the best thing they can do, either for themself or their child, something that sticks under my craw.  It never is a good thing.

[Deborah]

Someone accepting or promoting the idea that getting rid of their own child is the best thing they can do, either for themself or their child, something that sticks under my craw.  It never is a good thing.

 

And that is wrong. There have been many successful adoptions with happy children who are loved and love their adoptive parents.