Anonymous wrote:This is an honest question. How can parents be coerced into placing their child for adoption?

They are all coerced "in hindsight"

This is an honest question. How can parents be coerced into placing their child for adoption?

Having more available contraception would benefit those who may not be ready to be parents. Look at TC Williams.

I agree with the PP who said adoption is a social good. It is far from perfect, but as the Russian poster brings up what should happen to the kids whose parents don't want them? Russian orphanages and for that matter the American foster care system hinder kids more than help them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it would be wonderful if (a) sex education were mandated from a very young age so that young women don't find themselves in the awful situation of giving up a child for adoption .

one of the great liberal mythologies is that it is lack of sex education that leads to crisis pregnancies. I do not think there is any recent research to back this up-- we have had comprehensive sex education for at least 30 years. The reason why women become pregnant in situations where they cannot care for children are complex, but I do not think lack of awareness is one of them.

You are kidding yourself. I had knowledge of sexuality and reproduction growing up ONLY because my parents educated me. I was publicly educated and never received anything resembling "comprehensive" sex education, and certainly nothing regarding sexuality and reproduction prior to middle school.

My opinion stands.

Anonymous wrote:I think it would be wonderful if (a) sex education were mandated from a very young age so that young women don't find themselves in the awful situation of giving up a child for adoption .

one of the great liberal mythologies is that it is lack of sex education that leads to crisis pregnancies. I do not think there is any recent research to back this up-- we have had comprehensive sex education for at least 30 years. The reason why women become pregnant in situations where they cannot care for children are complex, but I do not think lack of awareness is one of them.

I think it would be wonderful if (a) sex education were mandated from a very young age so that young women don't find themselves in the awful situation of giving up a child for adoption and (b) governments and societies did everything possible to enable the women who have children to care for their children adequately.

I have neither adopted nor am I adopted myself, but I think adoption is a great social good. Not just because it provides an additional choice to the biological mother, other than abortion or keeping the child, but because it gives a number of children homes who would not have one otherwise.

I come from a country, Russia, where adoptions are both looked down on as second best AND uncommon. Guess what happens to all these children? They neither magically disappear nor does this somehow convince their both families to take care of them. They end up in horrific orphanages, living lives of emotional and material deprivation that are hard for spoiled DCUM posters to imagine. Every single one of these children would be better off to have a chance at adoption. Posters like the antiadoption PPs would deny them this chance, if the Russian government hasn't already done it for them.

We adopted and I do not support adoption the way it is currently set up. Our birth mom was taken advantage of by another family with another child and we have spent a fortune trying to help her and the courts have failed the child, birth mom and many of us. Its a horrific situation that should never have been allowed. We wanted to adopt a second child but we will not go through the process again.

My sister was adopted. Her mom was 16, very low income, had no parents and was being raised by grandparents. Pretty sure no one would have said that the baby was best with its birth mother. I don't think babies need a lot of money, but if you can't survive without welfare/food stamps, you don't make enough to support a baby.

My sister had to live in a foster home at night for 6 months until the adoption was finalized. She slept in a room of 5 infants screaming in cribs all night long in a low income area. My mom's car was broken into one time when we were visiting. As a kid I couldn't understand why she couldn't sleep in our nursery where she had her own room.

My parents have treated my sister as their own, but even still my sister wonders about her parents.

Anonymous wrote:Adoptive parents are THE parents. All this pc pro birth mama Mumbo jumbo is wrong and discourages good folks from adopting. This, the child is the victim.

This is seriously deterring us from adoption, which is sad because its something my DH and I have always talked about doing.

Anonymous wrote:Kids are better off with bio parents, and everyone knows this . . .

These sorts of generalizations short change all the arguments and stake holders in an adoption. For a much more nuanced understanding, watch "Closure", a recent documentary made by a transracial adoptee named Angela Tucker. Also, I found this series by the NYT very interesting: http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/invisible-child/#/?chapt=1 Although not about adoption per se, it is a profile of a dysfunctional family and highlights the bleak options that some of the kids in foster care in the US face. Yes, most babies bond with their birth parents and vice versa; adoption involves an abrogation of that bond and therefore, a loss for the birth parents and the child. However, sometimes kids who are raised by birth parents who aren't prepared to be good parents also face losses and emotional damage.

Adoptive parents are THE parents. All this pc pro birth mama Mumbo jumbo is wrong and discourages good folks from adopting. This, the child is the victim.

Not a great article. This woman waits 10 years to regret her decision? Who raised the child in the 10 years t? In open adoption why would the bio mother have rights to jut drop in and see how things are going? Some children need homes, not to be in a tug of war between absent bio parents and their homes.

*sigh*

Yet another example of a debate where one side brings an argument that states "There are cases where X is preferable, but Y has its place, too." The other side, unable to admit to a nuanced discussion, responds with "NO!!! La-la-la-la, I can't hear you! If you don't support X then you're a horrible person, and you probably kick puppies, too!"

Anonymous wrote:Kids are better off with bio parents, and everyone knows this including the pro-adoption crowd. That is why adoptive parents always live in fear that their "child" will want to find their real parents and will love their real parents better, because they know in their hearts that bio families have a profound bond. As a woman who has carried and given birth to a child the whole idea of adoption fills me with a cold dread. I honestly think any woman who's done the same would be against adoption bc it is just so unthinkable to me.

you honestly think that every woman who has given birth is against adoption? There are posters in this thread who have done both. You have no idea what you are talking about and I feel sorry for all these women who think that you have to give birth to love and bond with a child.