HAPPY update to "Would you let her keep the child" - Page 3

[pumpkinyum]

Originally Posted by ThreeBeans

I agree. The anti-adoption tone on this thread is really upsetting

I agree. : Bizzaro. Sure, she's 13, can't even take care of herself--but give her a kid, cause it's the NATURAL thing to do! :

[kwren23]

Originally Posted by ThreeBeans

I agree. The anti-adoption tone on this thread is really upsetting

i totally agree.

Originally Posted by thismama

Yes, we are. I find the anti-keeping-baby-with-mama tone really upsetting. I believe that babies and mamas have a right to be together, and that the culture and their support systems should work to make that happen wherever possible, instead of working against it.

Have you read The Primal Wound? Fascinating book.

thismama, i am curious. are you adopted? because you sound very very bitter and i cant imagine why this would bother you so much if you werent adopted and speaking from firsthand experience. if you are an adoptee i am very sorry you had such an obviously negative experience.

there are a lot of adoptees who feel very blessed that thier biological parents loved them enough to find them a stable happy home with parents who loved and cared for them in a way thier biological parent was incapable of doing at the time, even with support.

[anubis]

The whole theory of The Primal Wound (as I understand it, I haven't read the book but have read quite a bit about it online) is that if a child is separated from his or her mother at the beginning of life, when still in the primal relationship to her, he or she experiences not only a loss of the mother, but also a loss of self, right?

Didn't mother in this particular case already inflict that wound by not being there for the baby? Is it really more important that the mother be the guardian if she doesn't actually do any mothering? She was given the chance to take care of the baby while in foster care. She left the baby for the foster parents to take care of while she sneaked out joyriding. Does the primal wound actually come from guardianship on paper? Or does it come from not being with mother? Would it really be more beneficial for the child to be in that situation, separated from the mother (by her own choice, no less), yet not having a stable parent-figure to take care of him?

I don't yet know what I think of the primal wound theory. I will have to read the book. But from what I gather, in this particular case, the damage would already be done. Can being a mother in the eyes of the law, yet separating yourself from the baby, really be enough to heal that wound? Or would the damage be minimised if the baby at least got a set of constant caregivers?

To me, the way it was handled sounds like the best it can get. Of course it's not ideal. But I can't think of a better way to handle it, the situation being what it is.

And, FTR, I don't give a toss whether the girl's 13 or 33, if you're neglecting your child, something needs to change. And in this particular instance, I honestly don't know what else could have been done.

[A&A]

Originally Posted by thismama

Yes, we are. I find the anti-keeping-baby-with-mama tone really upsetting. I believe that babies and mamas have a right to be together, and that the culture and their support systems should work to make that happen wherever possible, instead of working against it.

Very well said.

[A&A]

Originally Posted by pumpkinyum

I agree. : Bizzaro. Sure, she's 13, can't even take care of herself--but give her a kid, cause it's the NATURAL thing to do! :

Nobody gave her a kid, silly. She grew the child within her for nine months and gave birth to the baby. How wonderful it would have been if the "concerned teacher" could be more concerned about the 13 yo. than her own desires to "rescue and raise" someone else's child. The teacher could have been a mother figure to them BOTH, and then the young mother could have moved out on her own with the child when she had her full act together (and graduated from school, etc.)

I'm all for adopting orphans. But this baby already had a mother.

This book completely changed the way I look at adoptions:

http://www.amazon.com/Girls-Who-Went...2991729&sr=1-2

[the_lissa]

Originally Posted by A&A

Nobody gave her a kid, silly. She grew the child within her for nine months and gave birth to the baby. How wonderful it would have been if the "concerned teacher" could be more concerned about the 13 yo. than her own desires to "rescue and raise" someone else's child. The teacher could have been a mother figure to them BOTH, and then the young mother could have moved out on her own with the child when she had her full act together (and graduated from school, etc.)

I agree.

[Oriole]

Originally Posted by A&A

Nobody gave her a kid, silly. She grew the child within her for nine months and gave birth to the baby. How wonderful it would have been if the "concerned teacher" could be more concerned about the 13 yo. than her own desires to "rescue and raise" someone else's child. The teacher could have been a mother figure to them BOTH,

Saying that a teacher was looking out for her own benefit is not reasonable. She has taken on a lifelong responsibility to love and raise a child, and should not be reprimanded for not taking on a troubled teenager as well. People take on as much as they can handle. It sure is easy to judge from the sidelines.

[Roar]

Originally Posted by Pynki

Wow. You realize there are mothers ON THESE BOARDS who post here almost daily who HAVE had their children at damn close to 13. I know a couple of them had them at 14 and 15. Are you saying they aren't or weren't "decent" parents then? Or that they are now, but only because they are close to , in their, 30's now?

I'm saying exactly what I said. I have not met a 13 year old who would be a good parent. Kids deserve a lot in this world and one of the many things they deserve is to be raised by someone who has the emotional, physical and financial resources to do a good job taking care of them. Clearly this girl isn't ready for that.

If the 13 year old moms want to speak up for themselves I'm eager to hear to hear all about their experiences especially if they had no support system. I'd also love to hear from parents who have adopted.

Originally Posted by Pynki

What is with the idea that age somehow makes or breaks a parent? I know plenty of crappy 30-40 year old parents. Should they all be "suggested" to give their baby up for adoption? Or would that be rude since they are married, and educated? Is it only the married and educated people with great support systems that should be allowed to keep their children?

There are plenty of 30 and 40 year olds who have no business having kids too and yes their kids lives probably would be better if they considered adoption. Merely getting pregnant and carrying a baby does not make a person capable of being a parent. And, I'll mention one group that gives kids up for adoption are women who are older who kept a baby or babies young. Many realize better what is involved and realize their limitations.

[Roar]

Originally Posted by A&A

http://www.amazon.com/Girls-Who-Went...2991729&sr=1-2

As the book title says IN THE DECADES before Roe v. Wade and that was in the early 70s. You can base your view of adoption on what happened fifty years ago when adoptions were closed, girls were sent away in shame and shunned, but that has very little to do with adoption today.

[Roar]

So those of you who don't believe age matters. I had my period at the age of 9. Is it appropriate in your view for nine year olds to become mothers? You see them as capable of being a parent when they are not even preteens yet?

[gracesmommy]

I believe that babies and mamas have a right to be together, and that the culture and their support systems should work to make that happen wherever possible, instead of working against it.

Yes, and it would also be great if fairies came and built the girl and her child a gingerbread house to live in, with a graham cracker paddock out back for the flying ponies. But that hasn't happened, the baby is here now and his mother isn't interested in parenting him.

[thismama]

Originally Posted by Roar

As the book title says IN THE DECADES before Roe v. Wade and that was in the early 70s. You can base your view of adoption on what happened fifty years ago when adoptions were closed, girls were sent away in shame and shunned, but that has very little to do with adoption today.

Talk to some birthmamas about "adoption today." Or some adult adoptees about adoption in recent generations.

To the PP who asked, no I am not an adoptee. However I see this issue as a feminist and children's rights issue, and one that we need to examine much more critically than we currently do. Many of us seem to have swallowed whole the adoption industry propaganda.

[thismama]

Originally Posted by Roar

So those of you who don't believe age matters. I had my period at the age of 9. Is it appropriate in your view for nine year olds to become mothers? You see them as capable of being a parent when they are not even preteens yet?

Well, biologically they are capable, no? If a young woman births a child, she is a parent. The difference is whether she is a parent of a baby with her, or a parent of a baby removed.

Socioculturally we do a LOT to prevent young women from parenting their own children. We would do well to take down these barriers and put some supports in their place.

[Jessy1019]

Originally Posted by thismama

Yes, we are. I find the anti-keeping-baby-with-mama tone really upsetting. I believe that babies and mamas have a right to be together, and that the culture and their support systems should work to make that happen wherever possible, instead of working against it.

Absolutely!! This girl needed to be taken in by someone who would have cared enough about her AND her baby to help them stay together. I keep getting the notices in my inbox from this thread and every freaking time, I wish I had known her before she lost her child. They could have moved in with me.

[Jessy1019]

Originally Posted by thismama

Well, biologically they are capable, no? If a young woman births a child, she is a parent. The difference is whether she is a parent of a baby with her, or a parent of a baby removed.

Socioculturally we do a LOT to prevent young women from parenting their own children. We would do well to take down these barriers and put some supports in their place.

Yes, again.

[MillingNome]

Originally Posted by Jessy1019

Absolutely!! This girl needed to be taken in by someone who would have cared enough about her AND her baby to help them stay together.

Actually she was placed with the baby. Not once. Not twice. Three times. She was with her grandma. Then she went to her great-grandma. From there, she was placed in a foster home with the baby.

[BelovedK]

First of all, I am adopted, it was a closed adoption due to the year it happened in...I do have some lasting effects from that fact (ex/ like the 'Primal Wound') Without going into my own story, I will say that I took what was the reality of my life and realized that it may have happened for a reason beyond my knowing. I have been working through the 'issues' and have come through alright.

I'm not going to take a firm stance, pro or anti adoption, basically because I can see both sides. Both sides are true. It IS tragic, and it IS sometimes the best thing, and it CAN be at the root of psychological problems later in life (that doesn't mean it has to)

I see this thread threatening to degrade into an unfriendly debate and I'd like to ask PLEASE that we all work hard at keeping things diplomatic, non defensive/reactive and above all, kind.

There is room in life for many different realities to coexist and let's just try and keep it peaceful

[kwren23]

Originally Posted by thismama

Talk to some birthmamas about "adoption today." Or some adult adoptees about adoption in recent generations.

To the PP who asked, no I am not an adoptee. However I see this issue as a feminist and children's rights issue, and one that we need to examine much more critically than we currently do. Many of us seem to have swallowed whole the adoption industry propaganda.

i am the one who asked, and i am looking at this from the perspective of someone who is both an adult adoptee (with a birth mother who was 16) and a teen mother herself (i was 17 when i got pregnant with my son, 18 when he was born) i certainly havent swallowed any propaganda, i have my own firsthand knowledge.

nothing is perfect, you do what is best at the time for all parties involved. you have to look at each situation individually.

adoption can be a great good thing for all parties involved. i think this is one of those times.

[moonbeem]

Originally Posted by A&A

Nobody gave her a kid, silly. She grew the child within her for nine months and gave birth to the baby. How wonderful it would have been if the "concerned teacher" could be more concerned about the 13 yo. than her own desires to "rescue and raise" someone else's child. The teacher could have been a mother figure to them BOTH, and then the young mother could have moved out on her own with the child when she had her full act together (and graduated from school, etc.)

I'm all for adopting orphans. But this baby already had a mother.

This book completely changed the way I look at adoptions:

http://www.amazon.com/Girls-Who-Went...2991729&sr=1-2

amen!

And to the poster who said giving birth doesnt make you a mother... dam that's a load of adoption propaganda. If we check with any biologist i'm pretty sure giving birth is the very defination of what a mother does. Maybe you meant not everyone is capable of "parenting"

About the dismissivness of the Girls Who Went Away granted the book is about pre-Roe v Wade in the closed adoption era; however it still has relevance today in that some women are deemed unworthy of being mothers and others are deemed more deserving and worthy of parenting so adoption becomes the way for those more priviledged to grow their families. The coersion methods have changed somewhat; no more maternity homes and being sent away; but still there is coersion going on.

That seems to be what this thread has become; one side believeing this separation is "happy" the baby somehow lucky to be taken from his mother and tossing around accusations of anti-adoption and bitter adoptees to those who wish the mother and baby would have been able to stay together. The poor mother has had so much judgement and condenation regarding how she's screwed up and had 3 chance to stay with and mother her baby...(it wasn't the right help for her, obviously) the only praise she's really recieved in this thread is that for making the "loving and mature" choice to allow more worthy people to raise her baby and that is BUNK

[eightyferrettoes]

Originally Posted by thismama

Well, biologically they are capable, no? If a young woman births a child, she is a parent. The difference is whether she is a parent of a baby with her, or a parent of a baby removed.

Socioculturally we do a LOT to prevent young women from parenting their own children. We would do well to take down these barriers and put some supports in their place.

I am really not unsympathetic to the notion that teens are prevented, by lack of resources, low social expectations, and general apathy toward mothering in general, from adequately caring for their biological offspring.

And I understand that it is this all-round lack that forces a lot of young moms to go with adoption when they would rather not. That the "choice" is largely economically driven, not a true free choice. Kind of like abortion is often a matter of a woman's hand being forced in a rather cruel way.

Still. WTH could anyone in this situation really do? The kid herself is pretty deeply wounded, and the baby can't just mark time till some altruistic person decides to tackle this difficult dyad-- an emotionally damaged 13-year-old and her infant.

I know I don't have the time, energy or resources for such a mammoth project. Have you? Who is this "we" we're talkin' about here, anyway?

If it were me considering taking this pair into my home, I know I would be deeply concerned that I would wind up becoming the child's de facto parent, but not ever a legal parent.

Would I be willing to risk spending the next five years bonding with this baby over 3 AM feedings while simultaneously trying to help the teen hang on by a thread? Would she one day unexpectedly flee into the night?

That doesn't sound like something I could handle. That doesn't sound like something that many people at all could handle.