The article is squarely on the side of the BMs. This is not an impartial article.

While there may have been some issues with the agency Corrigan D’Arcy used, her issues extend far beyond that.

"By having her move to a new state while pregnant, she felt the agency was purposely isolating her from friends and family who might have helped her. "

She wasn't kidnapped, she decided to move, and further where were those family and friends that might have helped her when she was deciding to move out of state for adoption. If she had such a strong support system where were they in her time of need and why did it take her 10 years to realize this?

The article paints birth mothers as innocent unwitting victims of scams and adoptive parents as only concerned with their own needs.

Anonymous wrote:What makes a good home though? Should middle class children be adopted by millionaires bc they can give the kids a better life?

There is a difference between being unable to feed your child. Your comment is extreme.

Anonymous wrote:But that's just the thing. Adoption is presented as the only option to these women and they are supposed to act in the child's "best interests". I guess I believe a child is best off with it's own parents.

Just because a person can procreate it doesn't make them a good parent. I was raised by my biological parents. They were abusive to me throughout my childhood. Really, you think I was better off being with them rather than being with some other couple who wouldn't have abused me?

Anonymous wrote:I guess for me the key takeaway was how birthmother's are often coerced into giving up their babies. It makes me pretty anti adoption but I do understand the pain of not having a child and desire to adopt and become parents.

There are also MANY birth moms WANT loving homes for their child. Many adoptive homes provide that. My story fits this scenario. Adoption can be a blessing for ALL involved; birth mom, child, adoptive parent(s)

---Adoptive Mom

I am an adoptive parent twice over, the first time a domestic private adoption, the second time through foster care. The BM is the same for both children. Our experience, sadly, is that the BM (and BGM) revised history to suit their purposes. Its a better narrative for them, one that would play well if shared with the author of this article, but its not the whole truth.

Anonymous wrote:What makes a good home though? Should middle class children be adopted by millionaires bc they can give the kids a better life?

A good home is one where your parents want you and are committed to taking care of you.

No one is saying poor people can't have kids. No matter your income, if you don't want kids, or you can't or won't make the child's well being a priority it is not a good home.

Plenty of kids are raised in good homes with parents who are not rich, but who put their kids first and given them the best life they can.

What makes a good home though? Should middle class children be adopted by millionaires bc they can give the kids a better life?

Anonymous wrote:But that's just the thing. Adoption is presented as the only option to these women and they are supposed to act in the child's "best interests". I guess I believe a child is best off with it's own parents.

You don't think these women have gotten pregnant yet don't know that some people a) keep the baby; or b) have an abortion?

This is 2015, not 1950.

But that's just the thing. Adoption is presented as the only option to these women and they are supposed to act in the child's "best interests". I guess I believe a child is best off with it's own parents.

Anonymous wrote:I guess for me the key takeaway was how birthmother's are often coerced into giving up their babies. It makes me pretty anti adoption but I do understand the pain of not having a child and desire to adopt and become parents.

Adoption is not a one-sided issue. It is not just about parents looking for children, it is able finding a good home for children who would not have one otherwise. It is a matching process.
The way you have characterized it makes it seem like a selfish act rather than an act of love.

Please remember many people adopt not b/c they can't not have kids but b/c they want to give a home and a good life to a child who already exists.

Terrible article. Completely one sided. Seems like these moms are advocating for the best interests of the birth (or first, as you prefer) parents and not the best interests of the child. Take the poster woman, Corrigan. She started off denying the pregnancy and then it took 10 years for her to rethink what happened. Had adoption not been available, what would have happened to that child during those 10 years? That said, her agency was obviously corrupt because apparently the birth father's consent was not obtained, although he is known. I would want to change that sort of corruption. I also think that it's unfair in some states the agency gets to profit but not the birth mom, because that would be selling a baby. I think that children who were adopted should get full access to birth parents names and information. However, I think these anti-adopters want to take away women's choices and it's infantilizing and condescending and ultimately would be bad for the kids who were borne to women who cannot or will not parent them properly.

I read it. I found it to be pretty one-sided. I think changing the waiting period for adoption revocation is a terrible idea, and ignores the needs of the child. A baby needs to immediately bond with its parent- whether that is the birth parent or an adoptive parent- not be ping-ponged back and forth.
The article did not make any attempt to get alternate perspectives- it only looked at those who regretted adoption.

I guess for me the key takeaway was how birthmother's are often coerced into giving up their babies. It makes me pretty anti adoption but I do understand the pain of not having a child and desire to adopt and become parents.

Good article, I hope people take the time to read it.

I think it is ALWAYS wise to ask who is profiting from an transaction and what their motivations are. While I believe the majority of the people who work at adoption agencies and in the adoption industry (it is an industry) are amazing, kind-hearted people with the best interests at heart, the reality is that there is profit involved and over time, the grind of the business can wear down even the most idealistic people.

Adoption is a beautiful thing. And, adoption is also at high-risk of corruption because it is so emotional on both sides.

I think we'll see some of these issues get worse for a variety of reasons: as less babies become available for adoption as choosing to parent is a more common option today; many people are delaying parenthood and may not be able to conceive even with help; people's access to social media to tell their story becomes easier; international adoption options ebb and flow.

What do people here feel about the ethics around adoption? This article does a good job of capturing the debate and I don't know what to think:

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114505/anti-adoption-movement-next-reproductive-justice-frontier