So if a teen girl is married, her baby is better off being adopted? What kind of logic is that?

Its not even necessarily true if she is unmarried.

Giving a child up for adoption can be one of the most selfless acts a mother can do. I don't know the circumstances under which my birth mother gave me up for adoption. But if I could say just one thing to her it would be, "Thank you. You did the right thing." Not all adoptees feel this way, but if my birth mother recognized that there was a loving couple who could provide a stable home for me when she couldn't, I applaud her courage.

I don't think so. For some of these poor kids the worst influence and challenge they have in their lives will be their natural parent(s). That the ability to reproduce is given to almost everyone is the cruellest hoax of nature.

This letter is so full of flawed logic. I don't even know where to begin. The 200 word limit won't even let me scratch the surface.

Suffice it to say, each case is different. There is no one right answer or every situation. Anyone who tells you any different is trying to sell you something.

Adoption is not always the best choice but it should be an option to consider for unwed mothers especially teenage mothers. Children are a PRIVILEDGE not a RIGHT!

It has been in my experience that most teenage mothers are not the ones who want to keep the baby and will most likely choose adoption if it truely their choice. Unfortunately the girls get a lot of pressure from their own mothers who do not want to lose a grandchild.

I gave my child up for adoption and I could not say that I am happier with my choice. I was 19 and unwed at the time. Had I kept the child they would now be 12 and a handful. I am now a 31 year old engaged woman to a wonderful man. My Child from what I know is happy and healthy and in a stable family.

I am sorry but I agree Children are NOT a Right. and I made the grave mistake of having one too early in life. I am glad I made the right choice and I am glad I am not a single mother.

David, you're a good kid and I understand where you are coming from here - but you really need more experience in life if you think all birth mothers are fit to be parents, let alone better parents than adoptive couples. And since the baby is usually placed with the adoptive couple within a day or so, you can hardly call them complete strangers.

to another ignorant letter writer - studies show that most birth mothers who place their babies have more successful lives than those who keep their babies, and most adoptees wind up with better lives than those children whose birth mothers kept them.

I went to college, married, and have children. I have a good life. I had a stable foundation laid by my married adoptive parents, who gave me a good home. They love me just the same as they love their birth children, my siblings. My birth mother finished college, had a career, later married a good man, and had children. Most single moms don't manage to achieve all that.

Biology isn't everything - nor is it the most important thing. Adoption is the mature, responsible, loving thing to do in many situations.

I know more than one birth mom who later regretted keeping their baby, when they finally realized the consequences in their child's life years later. A missing or part-time father, the lack of stability, the emotional and financial strain on the mom, all contributed to the child's lack of security and resulting problems, in spite of the best efforts of the mom and her family.

this guy's set of ethics is so bizarrely skewed, I don't even know where to begin. There is not a study to be found that shows that young and/or single parents are best for a child. Why on EARTH would you assert that it's best for a child to purposely put them into an extra set of challenges that it's not necessary for them to face?
If the child stays with a young and unprepared and possibly single birthmom, the child often still ends up with a complete set of strangers--many sets of them, in fact--foster parents! I personally think a set of complete stranger loving parents who are aching to properly care for and give a true family environment to a child is much better. The selfish, horrid instability that this writer wrongly asserts is best for children is horrifying. Shame on you.

By Mr. Feil's logic, there's really no need to educate children. Education will just present a different set of "stumbling blocks" for a kid to overcome, so we might as well save the money we'd spend sending them to school.

Nice syllogism. Positively air-tight.

You folks are strange, if someone gives birth and they want to raise the baby, who are you to tell them otherwise, unless there are obvious issues (drug abuse etc) why take someone's baby away? It is your God given right to raise your own children.

I am myself adopted, and my "new" parents have been wonderful to me beyond words for most of my life. I recently had a chance to meet my biological father. He's a nice enough guy now (a little flaky) but from his own statements he was an abusive, unfaithful drunk when I was born to my birth-mom. Conversely, the man I've called "dad" for most of my life is a saint and I can't imagine having a better father.

I'm also now the husband of a woman who has a child by adoption (from her first marriage), making me some kind of step-dad-adoptive-dad. I've met the child's birth mother. Drug problems and mental health problems galore. It's a nightmare environment for a child.

My personal experience is that adoptive parents are fabulous.

Twenty-four years ago my daughter gave birth out of wedlock. At the time she was completely irresponsible, self-serving and in a self-destructive mode. With appropriate counsel from her parents and ecclesiatical leaders, she willingly agreed to give her baby son up for adoption. I absolutely do not agree that the unwed birth mother, under every circumstance, has the right to raise her baby. This is not a cat or dog we're referring to. This is a live human being with God-given rights to be raised by responsible parents who want a child. My daughter has never regretted to this day her decision to place her son up for adoption. Now she is a loving, caring, deeply devoted mother and wife with 2 children she wanted and treasures. We should always do what's best for the baby. The selfishness and immaturity of teenage girls who conceive and give birth out of wedlock should never, ever be a consideration in keeping the baby, just because the teen is the birth mother. That is a recipe for disaster for the child. The Child deserves the absolute best opportunities for growth and survival.

What a sexist statement, "Child best off with birth MOM". What about the birth DAD?

This mindset that Mothers have an inaliable right to their children and Fathers don't just bugs me.

Nobody is trying to take anybody's baby away. We're trying to educate people that the best decision is the one that's in the best interest of the child - and often turns out to be in the best interest of the birth mom too. There are tons of studies that show that children do best in married, two parent homes. There are NO studies showing that the children of single mothers fare as well. This is not about individuals - there are always exceptions. But people should be making the best decision possible for everyone concerned, especially the baby. Using their brain and the facts, not their emotions.

From Another adoptee at 10:38am

hatuletoh,

you don't understand my logic. in no way did i suggest children shouldn't be educated, so don't pin your pedantic syllogism on me.

whoa,

my opinion was severely edited by the newspaper. i was replying to what another opinionist said regarding this recent "pregnancy pact" in massachusetts. according to her opinion, she felt that these teenage girls should give up their children, and the only reason they weren't is because they couldn't cope with the grief. my opinion is that it's the mother's choice (i also think it should be the father's choice). if the mother feels it's best to give the child up, then give it up. but if the mother wants to raise the child, she has every right to do so. each situation has its pros and cons. the opinion i read seemed to say that in no case is the child better off being raised by the single mother. i disagree. each case will vary, and the decision is up to the mother. i'm sure there are adults that were born to teenage mothers, that would tell you that they've become wonderful people because their mom decided to keep them.

Adoption is a permanent solution to a temporary problem.

The "problem" isn't so temporary.

Early childhood experiences affect a person for life. I've been around a lot of kids from different backgrounds - and there is a big difference between kids raised in stable, married, two parent homes and anything else. It's even bigger if mom was able to stay home in the early years especially.

As for the birth moms, there are big benefits too. There's a window for education that closes for most in their teens and early 20s. It's really hard to go back to school later in life, when making the rent, paying for day care and everything else is interfering. Most young girls aren't up to raising a baby and finishing their education at the same time. Most men aren't looking to marry someone who already has a child and maybe a mess of child support/visitation with a birth father. The stress is hard on everybody, with or without family support. And the baby will be the one stuck with the biggest consequences of it all.

I disagree with Mr. Feil and his statement that children are "not entitled to a 'full life'" and that they would be better off with the birth mother--even in cases where she is an unwed teen mother.

The First Presidency of the LDS church has stated that "children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity." They are also entitled to be raised by parents who will provide for their emotional, physical, and spiritual needs.

Some may choose not to believe this because it comes from the leaders of the LDS Church. While you can choose to disregard the above statements, children have things they are entitled to whether you choos to acknowledge it or not.