"By not placing their babies for adoption, they keep themselves from
experiencing the profound grief process involved"Am I the only one
who thinks this among the dumbest lines ever printed by the Dnews?But I think I fail to understand what is going on. So a teen mother is
"selfish" if she has an abortion and she is selfish if she keeps it...what a
messed up world. Anyone that advocates mothers NOT keep their children if they
are in any way capable of takin care of it, is a bitter ugly person.
I was adopted at birth. My birth mother was unwed and about 20 years old. She
did the best thing for me. I would never say that every unwed mother should
place her baby for adoption, but I believe strongly that the majority would be
far better off. Because I was adopted, I had a father and a stay at home mother
from birth. I had a stable home and siblings. My parents loved their birth
children and myself equally. Yes, biology matters - but it's not the most
important part of parenthood. Adopted children are usually more stable and
successful in life than the children of single mothers. I went to college, am
happily married, and have children. How stable would I be if the first several
years of my life were a mess?My birth mother finished college, had a
career, married a good man years later and had more children of her own. Most
unwed teen mothers who keep their babies don't get to do most of that. A far
higher percentage of those who place their babies do. It's the mature,
responsible, unselfish thing to do - even if it's the hardest thing she'll ever
In my circle of friends and family we have homegrown as well as 'imported'
children of all ages and races -black, polynesian, Asian, etc.etc. etc. and as
an adoptive parent myself, I resent the insinuation adoptive parents only want
white children or that we are taking advantage of unwed mothers. There is plenty
of state help for a mother who wants to keep her child, but bless the
unselfishness of those precious single mothers to be who feel their baby would
be better off with both a mother and father in a more stable situation. Biology
is no enough to make a good parent and these moms realize that!
We need to stop taking advantage of these young teenage mothers.Every
program that I have found, is programmed, and designed, to encourage, and/or
coherse them, into vouluntarily relinqiishing their parental rights. We tell
them its that right thing to do, and the only option. That their children will
not have a happy life otherwise.How many of our grandmothers, had their
children at a young age.Couples talk about wanting to adopt. But what
they really mean is they want to adopt a white or asian child under the age of
one.The demand exceeds the supply, so we put a guilt trip on young
mothers, to give up their babies.There are right now, hundreds of legally
free children waiting to be adopted in this state.Maybe if we help the
young mothers keep their babies, the truly loving couples, will start to adopt
some of these other children.
Whoa, sure, in a lot of cases it is best for the young mother to put the child
up for adoption. But saying it is "selfish" when you don't know each individual
case is not right!It is up to the Mother of the child to really decide
what is best for the child. It depends on the support she has. I would suggest
adoption, but will not look down on her for keeping the child.
To adopt a child is an act of love and unselfishness. I disagree with people
who say that biology means nothing though. If I had ever given a child up for
adoption and found the child was being abused. I wouldn't stand for it. I know
that all over the world children are being abused every day. But a biological
link would make it closer to my heart. There is a link that biology provides
that can be substituted for but not entirely replaced.If a girl
keeps the child, and can take care of it, this is a good thing. She may even
marry a guy who will accept her and her child as his own.
When I was young I dated a girl with a young child. She chose to keep the baby.
Eventually she married another guy. For her this was a good decision. The
girl should make the decision. It isn't selfish to keep the baby unless one is
unable to take care of it.
I think if I was a pregnant teenager, with any support whatsoever, that I would
keep my baby. I just think there is something innate about a mother's love that
can't be completely replicated. I have no doubt in my own mind that I would be
what is best for my child. My child would have my DNA, my characteristics, as
well as characteristics of my parents and other relatives. I would be in a
unique position to recognize and respond to these traits as my child grew. I
would be certain that my child was exposed to good role models and caring people
besides myself. If anyone at all was willing to help me, I actually think that
I would be what's BEST for MY baby. Money isn't everything. I also wouldn't
want to deny my parents the right to experience THEIR grandchild. Now that,
would be selfish!
I wish society could work out a better system. I have an adopted son, and it
wasn't until he was nearly grown that we learned about the "grieving" that
baby's go through when they are separated from their mothers. They are more
prone to feeding problems and colic. When they are older adopted children have
other unique struggles--too many to list here. It isn't "just the same" as some
people claim. We were able to give our adopted son a secure life,
but there were intangible things that he missed from his birth mother. When we
met her, he was so excited. "My other mother LIKES to play video games; my
other mother LIKES horror movies, etc."I'm happy that we could be
there for him, but there is so much that he missed from her. I wonder if "open"
adoptions are more successful, or more confusing. I think this is an area that
deserves a lot more research into what is truly "best" instead of simply
claiming that all teens should give up their baby or else they are being
"selfish" and not doing what is best for the child.
I believe there are certain cases where it may be justified, even preferable,
for a teenage mother to keep the baby.However, being familiar with a
case that is happening within my extended family right now, it is very clear
that many teenage mothers keep the child out of selfishness.They, of
course, do not feel it is selfishness, but by keeping the child from a stable
home, with two parents, and instead forcing the child to grow up without a
father, in an unstable home, with an irresponsible mother it is obviously not a
choice in the child's favor.In the long run it can even be a poor
choice for the mother, as children severely limit personal freedom and
opportunities. As a father I am glad to make those sacrifices for my children,
but a teenage mother possibly not even out of high school may not be.I do not attempt to understand how hard it must be to give up one's child.
However, if a teenage mother truly loves and cares for the child more than
herself she will give the baby a better life.
Near the root of this issue is the inability to teach real contraception at
schools. Abstinence, although the best policy, works for few of your teen. For
something so important/life altering as teen pregnancy it is prudent to have a
plan B, plan C, D... and one of these plans should not be stoning.
You are wrong. Not all do what you are saying. I was 17 when I got pregnant
with my child. I was married and he left. My child made the better person in
me. We met and married a wonderful man who was a wonderful father. I did not
rely on anyone but myself to raise and support my child. My child now has a
wonderful marriage and a beautiful child. So You need to rethink what you say
it does not apply to everyone.