Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let's say for a minute that 99 out of 100 women who would abandon a child are mentally deranged.
It may very well be true that a rational solution to this problems such as a "Safe Haven Law" may accomplish nothing for them.
However, it would still accomplish something for the 1 out of 100 that is choosing to abandon her baby because she doesn't want to fool with adoption counselors, lawyers, long consent forms, relatives who are hellbent on talking her out of relinquishing her baby, dealing with an abusive birth father, and the stigma that is often placed on women today who do relinquish children for adoption.
Providing a "safe haven" for this 1 baby out of a 100, seems to me to justify these laws. It may make little difference for the bulk of women who would abandon a child. Yet, if only a few are saved because of such laws than they are worthwhile.
OK, but what if there are 10 more babies abandoned because the law approves of it? Babies that would have gone through normal adoptions had the law not existed? What if the law is actually creating more abandoned children? Why should society condone that? Laws are supposed to be made for the greater good, not the "maybe, possibly" one person.
Quite frankly, with a supportive family, a girl or young woman with an unplanned pregnancy can do just fine. Shocker, I know, but it's true, really. I've seen it with me own two eyes.
It really is hard for me to wrap my head around the belief that safe haven laws create more abandoned babies than had they not existed. We had that, and the result was not more planned adoptions. The result was not even more abortions. The result was more infant deaths. I agree that no law will effectively treat young women who are prone to engage in abandonment in this way, but that isn't why the laws were made. To my understanding, it has always been about preserving the life of the baby. I really don't see it as condoning abandonment or putting a band-aid on the problem. I see it as another alternative for women in a crisis situation - whether real or imaginary.
I guess we also need to look at social services. Infants who are placed through social services often come with the same lack of information or worse, misinformation, as babies who are abandoned. Also, one could argue that mothers who abuse drugs while pregnant may be in denial of their pregnancy too. Or, they may not be aware of it due to their substance abuse. Later, when the child is born, the effects of the drugs are seen/tested and the mother looses her parental rights (well, the process begins). These women are offered treatment, not jail time. Why should we treat the woman who abandons a healthy child, willingly, in a predetermined safe place, any differently? The infants that are found after being discarded or who are dropped off at safe havens are likely to be healthier than those born to addicts. I for one have more sympathy for the woman who used the safe haven than for the mother who used drugs during her pregnancy. Further, I would argue that most babies born to addicts are unplanned.
As far as adoption counseling for unplanned pregnancies, I do believe it should be handled by the state and not private agencies. After the counseling is done, then a private party can come in and assist with the placement. I don't believe making the woman feel bad about the situation will help her make the best decision and I also don't believe forcing the woman to see, hold, or feed the baby after birth should be done to make sure she really wants her child adopted. These are both extremes IMO. Give the woman the facts about relinquishment. That relinquishment means forever and permanently. Make her take a psychological evaluation to determine her mental stability to even make an adoption plan. Is she and/or the father mature enough to understand the situation at hand? Actually, make the birth mother and/or the father go through the same steps as the adoptive parents. This reality check will allow them to view the adoption from more than one side and to experience the screening process.
For the birthmother, is she aware of the pain she will feel afterwards and the time it may take her to accept her decision? And, yes, make the plan before the birth of the child. Because if she changes her mind afterwards, then she really never wanted to plan for an adoption in the first place. This indicates her being uncomfortable with the decision. One's mind about relinquishment should be made prior to the child being born IMO. Because if she felt unfit or unable to care for the baby prior to birth, then how would the birth of the child change this? How have her circumstances changed during the course of the pregnancy to bring about this difference?
There is an emotional side to adoption as well as a practical and legal side. In an adoption plan I believe these should be treated separately and women should be counseled more for the emotional side before they are counseled extensively on the legal fact that they are voluntarily terminating their parental rights, forever.
It's ironic that many birth mothers or birth parents who choose adoption plans would never be approved to be adoptive parents themselves. Yet is is always assumed that because they became pregnant that they are automatically fit to parent. Something to think about.
It's ironic that many birth mothers or birth parents who choose adoption plans would never be approved to be adoptive parents themselves. Yet is is always assumed that because they became pregnant that they are automatically fit to parent. Something to think about.
Let's just be honest -- the majority of the world's parents would never be approved to adopt. Does that mean the majority of children would be better off adopted? No. That's just silly.
No one assumes someone is automatically fit to parent because they became pregnant. We are saying it shouldn't be assumed they are not fit to parent because they are single, young, or poor -- or that adoption is the best option in that scenario vs. being raised by bio-family. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.
But what you are talking about really comes down to is money/resources. Being poor does not automatically make someone unfit to parent -- nor does being approved for adoption automatically make one a good parent.
That is also something to think about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tiffjoy
Quite frankly, with a supportive family, a girl or young woman with an unplanned pregnancy can do just fine. Shocker, I know, but it's true, really. I've seen it with me own two eyes.
This. Two of my childhood best friends would never have been approved to adopt when they had children (both were young & unmarried), yet their children are incredibly happy, well-loved, & do not spend their days wishing they had been adopted instead.
Last edited by thethreefoldme; 03-30-2013 at 09:02 AM..
One unintended consequence of Safe Haven Laws that should be considered is that vulnerable girls/women have been forced to drop their babies off in such a way. If Safe Haven Laws did not exist, most likely they would have made adoption plans instead.
For the birthmother, is she aware of the pain she will feel afterwards and the time it may take her to accept her decision? And, yes, make the plan before the birth of the child. Because if she changes her mind afterwards, then she really never wanted to plan for an adoption in the first place.
Sorry, but that's not a valid argument, Jaded. IMO.
First of all a plan is not a concrete, tangible living child. There is a world of difference between an adoption plan and a real life infant who from the moment they are born changes everything. Have you ever looked into the eyes of a plan, felt their little breath upon your breast, counted an adoption plan's little toes and fingers?
Quote:
This indicates her being uncomfortable with the decision.
She has a right to be uncomfortable and change her mind from an adoption plan into a parenting plan. Her child, her mind, her choice demands that she be comfortable with her decision.
Quote:
One's mind about relinquishment should be made prior to the child being born IMO.
If that's how you feel, how about she simply sign her rights away prior to birthing?
Quote:
Because if she felt unfit or unable to care for the baby prior to birth, then how would the birth of the child change this? How have her circumstances changed during the course of the pregnancy to bring about this difference?
There are a hundred different ways her circumstances could change. Unless you have walked in the shoes of a mother who has been in this situation, let's not assume that her situation could not have improved.
Quote:
There is an emotional side to adoption as well as a practical and legal side. In an adoption plan I believe these should be treated separately and women should be counseled more for the emotional side before they are counseled extensively on the legal fact that they are voluntarily terminating their parental rights, forever.
Any unbiased neutral counsel would tell her not to be pressured to stick to a "plan" she is uncomfortable with.
Quote:
It's ironic that many birth mothers or birth parents who choose adoption plans would never be approved to be adoptive parents themselves.
It's ironic that many mothers who choose adoption plans would decide to parent and don't need to be approved by anyone to change their minds. Tossing in a red herring really doesn't support your point, Jaded.
Quote:
Yet is is always assumed that because they became pregnant that they are automatically fit to parent. Something to think about.
I don't assume anything of the sort. Here's what I know though. Until ANY woman is proven unfit/unqualified to parent by the courts or say a home study, let's not cast stones.
Originally Posted by Jaded
For the birthmother, is she aware of the pain she will feel afterwards and the time it may take her to accept her decision? And, yes, make the plan before the birth of the child. Because if she changes her mind afterwards, then she really never wanted to plan for an adoption in the first place.
Jaded, I understand that you are still learning about adoption.
I went to the most pro-adoption website possible the NCFA to find a position statement on a mother changing her mind after birth.
You don't need to take anyone on this sites word for it now.
Thanks for posting that. It highlights how adoption is posited as the best option for some mothers, no matter how fit to parent they or their family might be.
This is wrong.
Parents should not be counseled to believe adoption is best for their child unless they/their entire family is both unfit & unwilling to parent.
The right to make an independent decision. Adoption can be a positive option for many, but it is important to recognize that an expectant parent knows better than anyone what the best decision is for herself and her child. Counselors, healthcare workers, and adoption professionals can help inform the decision-making process, but should never be permitted to be coercive, present a bias for or against an adoption or parenting decision, or rush any parent to make a choice before she has fully explored and weighed all of the options. Even if an existing adoption plan is in place, a mother has the right to change her mind or revoke her consent according to the laws in her state, and if she does choose to parent rather than place her child, her decision must be honored.
The idea that we should have expectant mothers sign their rights way before giving birth is...appalling and pretty much the very definition if unethical behavior.
Being pregnant with a child is amazing. You feel very connected to the life growing inside of you, and I cannot imagine the angst mothers planning for adoption must feel.
But actually looking at your newborn baby, holding him or her, touching them, feeling them snuggle into you and fit like a perfect puzzle piece... nothing prepares a woman for this feeling unless she has given birth before. It is all encompassing. It makes everything suddenly real. Of course some women change their minds. Others want to and later regret not following that urge. Taking that away or saying women shouldn't feel that way is just wrong.
This is why I proposed the 30 day period and a set number if days even after signing in which birth moms can change their minds.
This isn't a house or a car. It's a baby. Their baby. Their flesh and creation and a piece of their bodies and hearts.
Taken directly from that site:This is why I proposed the 30 day period and a set number if days even after signing in which birth moms can change their minds.
This isn't a house or a car. It's a baby. Their baby. Their flesh and creation and a piece of their bodies and hearts.
I agree, Tiff. 30 days is really not much considering what you are deciding upon. That is the least mothers should be given to consider their options while their hormones settle &/or they are made aware of other options available to them.
That you would consider the importance of that over your own personal desire for a baby means so much.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Shocker, I know, but it's true, really. I've seen it with me own two eyes. 
