Razing Ruth's Sister Pregnant out of Wedlock

[kb2]

Man, Safari hated dealing with that page, but I spent so much time hate-writing my comment I had to push through multiple browser crashes to get it on there.

ETA: Now that I've spent a lot of time commenting, it's totally going to turn out to be a Poe. I'm the most gullible person ever.

[Patsy]

On an unrelated note, from the comments section:

Hi ladies, de-lurking to say, briefly, that as a women who will never have children without thousands of dollars of interventions and medical procedures, thank you thank you thank you for considering adoption. Got a little teary just there. Best of luck to you and your family.

:evil: Choosing adoption: it's all about the adoptive mothers.

[valsa]

On an unrelated note, from the comments section: :evil: Choosing adoption: it's all about the adoptive mothers.

That's what you got from that?

[Patsy]

That's what you got from that?

Well, it's the part I wanted to whinge about.

[sassycupcake]

Am I the only one here that thinks this is possibly a Poe? It comes across a bit too precious to me...

I was thinking the same thing. I feel like some of the language is too well-read for someone making these spelling and grammatical errors. He can spell/ would think to use "crucify" and "righteous" correctly, but throws an extra "S" into "exposing?" I'm also skeptical of someone who uses "role model" correctly but does not know the difference between "right" and "write."

And I thought "sucks" was a bad bad defrauding word in fundie land?

[muffynbear]

What is with the underlying hostility towards adoption on this thread? I'm not certain why adoption apparently has such a bad stigma. It's Rachel's choice to give her child up for adoption. No one is forcing her to do this. Put yourselves in her position: She's young, uneducated, unemployed, and has no discernible work skills & very little support. She's understandably overwhelmed with this pregnancy. I think if I were in her position I would consider adoption as well. It's not an easy choice, but she's giving this child a chance at a better life. I don't know why people are criticizing her for this decision.

[CanadianHippie]

I was thinking the same thing. I feel like some of the language is too well-read for someone making these spelling and grammatical errors. He can spell/ would think to use "crucify" and "righteous" correctly, but throws an extra "S" into "exposing?" I'm also skeptical of someone who uses "role model" correctly but does not know the difference between "right" and "write."

And I thought "sucks" was a bad bad defrauding word in fundie land?

I wouldn't be surprised if "righteous", "crucify" and "role model" were on ATI spelling lists but the others weren't.

[CanadianHippie]

What is with the underlying hostility towards adoption on this thread? I'm not certain why adoption apparently has such a bad stigma. It's Rachel's choice to give her child up for adoption. No one is forcing her to do this. Put yourselves in her position: She's young, uneducated, unemployed, and has no discernible work skills & very little support. She's understandably overwhelmed with this pregnancy. I think if I were in her position I would consider adoption as well. It's not an easy choice, but she's giving this child a chance at a better life. I don't know why people are criticizing her for this decision.

The first part in bold is exactly why there has been a problem with the "she should think about adoption, it would be a great option" people. It's Rachel's choice, and other people pushing it like its the best possible choice for her to make is pretty bad form.

The second part in bold is where the rest of us are thinking "really? so because she fits into certain categories it's better for her to adopt than not?" You don't know what kind of future she has. If she keeps the baby, and continues to get support from the family she is staying with, as well as her brother and sister, she does have a good chance of bettering her situation. You don't know what is best for her, and you should be deciding if giving the baby up for adoption is "giving this child a chance at a better life". Unless you are a seer there is no way you can know what the future holds in regards to either choice.

[Alecto]

Here is the thing - as a pro-choice woman, I applaud Ruth's sister for making the choice she thinks is best for her. This is her choice to make, and I think it is a good thing to be supportive of her choice because it's not our choice to make. If someone feels they are not in a position to be a mother, no matter what the reason, then they should have every right to make the choice they need to make be it adoption or abortion.

[muffynbear]

The first part in bold is exactly why there has been a problem with the "she should think about adoption, it would be a great option" people. It's Rachel's choice, and other people pushing it like its the best possible choice for her to make is pretty bad form.

The second part in bold is where the rest of us are thinking "really? so because she fits into certain categories it's better for her to adopt than not?" You don't know what kind of future she has. If she keeps the baby, and continues to get support from the family she is staying with, as well as her brother and sister, she does have a good chance of bettering her situation. You don't know what is best for her, and you should be deciding if giving the baby up for adoption is "giving this child a chance at a better life". Unless you are a seer there is no way you can know what the future holds in regards to either choice.

I'm not saying "I" know what's best for her and neither do you. I'm saying that I understand her decision, based on her circumstances (no education, no employment etc) and support her if she chooses to give her child up for adoption. I don't know why it's such a bad thing to support someone for their choice. If she chooses to keep her child, then I would support her decision as well.

Here is the thing - as a pro-choice woman, I applaud Ruth's sister for making the choice she thinks is best for her. This is her choice to make, and I think it is a good thing to be supportive of her choice because it's not our choice to make. If someone feels they are not in a position to be a mother, no matter what the reason, then they should have every right to make the choice they need to make be it adoption or abortion.

[CanadianHippie]

I'm not saying "I" know what's best for her and neither do you. I'm saying that I understand her decision, based on her circumstances (no education, no employment etc) and support her if she chooses to give her child up for adoption. I don't know why it's such a bad thing to support someone for their choice. If she chooses to keep her child, then I would support her decision as well.

There is nothing wrong with support... There is plenty wrong with statements like "She's young, uneducated, unemployed, and has no discernible work skills & very little support" along with statements like " but she's giving this child a chance at a better life" when she hasn't yet even made up her mind yet.

[MadameX]

As a society, we have set things up so that young, single, uneducated, unskilled people with children have a difficult time supporting themselves or achieving upward mobility. Statistically, a child in that environment will follow in the parents' footsteps. I feel like what is really at the heart of this argument (I read the adoption critic blog as well) is a critique of the social framework that makes it difficult for these mothers to succeed. The institution of adoption, while incredibly difficult I have no doubt for many mothers, within our social framework has an ostensibly better outcome for both mother and child.

Are there outliers? Yes, of course. Is it fair? Definitely not. But there are two considerations to be made - the micro (this particular person and child) and the macro (the institution within a social framework). I'm not sure it's fair to judge one against the other. A person can both be in favor of this particular person giving up her child in her specific circumstances, AND ALSO be critical of the social framework that forces her to make that choice in order to achieve a higher possibility of a positive outcome for herself and the child. (And for the purposes of this discussion, "a positive outcome" means a financially and emotionally stable, nurturing environment with access to education and upward mobility.)

[Clementine]

As a society, we have set things up so that young, single, uneducated, unskilled people with children have a difficult time supporting themselves or achieving upward mobility. Statistically, a child in that environment will follow in the parents' footsteps. I feel like what is really at the heart of this argument (I read the adoption critic blog as well) is a critique of the social framework that makes it difficult for these mothers to succeed. The institution of adoption, while incredibly difficult I have no doubt for many mothers, within our social framework has an ostensibly better outcome for both mother and child.

This is exactly what I have "against" adoptions. The US is one of the richest countries in the world and yet young mothers are forced to give up their children because they can't afford to keep them and there is so little support to help them build a good life... it's insane.

My mother and grandmother and I talked about this when I was home for Christmas. They both remember the "dark age" as they called it when unmarried women had to give up their babies if they couldn't get the father to marry her. It was not uncommon in the 50's and 60's. They both were horrified thinking about it and my 89-year-old grandmother couldn't praise condoms, birth control pills, free abortions, free childcare and women getting careers enough.

Since there are so many pro-lifers in the US, I really think that they should work hard to make sure that there are good support systems for young, poor or uneducated parents so they can keep the babies. A few years of support is usually enough to help them to be able to live normal lives where they support themselves from then on. But I guess that would be called "communism".

I truly respect Rachel's decision to give up her baby and wish the best for both of them.

[muffynbear]

There is nothing wrong with support... There is plenty wrong with statements like "She's young, uneducated, unemployed, and has no discernible work skills & very little support" along with statements like " but she's giving this child a chance at a better life" when she hasn't yet even made up her mind yet.

Well you can continue to think my statements are "wrong" and that adoption is "wrong", but I stand my opinion. If a woman is not prepared to have a child, she has the CHOICE to abort, adopt or seek additional resources to help raise her child. Let me guess, you're also against abortion because it's "wrong"?

[CanadianHippie]

Well you can continue to think my statements are "wrong" and that adoption is "wrong", but I stand my opinion. If a woman is not prepared to have a child, she has the CHOICE to abort, adopt or seek additional resources to help raise her child. Let me guess, you're also against abortion because it's "wrong"?

I never said adoption is wrong. Putting excess pressure on a woman to give her baby up for adoption by implying it's the best choice is what is wrong.

I am pro-choice... Pro-her uncoerced choice. You, on the other hand, seem to have no problem telling a pregnant woman who is trying to make her choice what the best choice for her to make would be.

[SunnyAndrsn]

Hey Ruth, I was going to congratulate you for "arriving" in the blog world by having your very own without pity hate site. I just can't do it though because I checked out the site and it's hysterical.

Whoever is doing it is a complete moron and will be gone very shortly.

[muffynbear]

I never said adoption is wrong. Putting excess pressure on a woman to give her baby up for adoption by implying it's the best choice is what is wrong.

I am pro-choice... Pro-her uncoerced choice. You, on the other hand, seem to have no problem telling a pregnant woman who is trying to make her choice what the best choice for her to make would be.

I would never tell a woman that she MUST give up a child for adoption because she's poor, etc. I'm simply saying if I were in Rachel's shoes I would personally consider adoption for those reasons. You're making it seem like I'm somehow forcing her to choose adoption which is absurd or that I think ALL poor, uneducated women must choose adoption, which is not true. Please get off your high horse.

Signed,

The child of a "poor, uneducated woman" :roll:

[CanadianHippie]

I would never tell a woman that she MUST give up a child for adoption because she's poor, etc. I'm simply saying if I were in Rachel's shoes I would personally consider adoption for those reasons. You're making it seem like I'm somehow forcing her to choose adoption which is absurd or that I think ALL poor, uneducated women must choose adoption, which is not true. Please get off your high horse.

Signed,

The child of a "poor, uneducated woman" :roll:

When you are saying "if I were in your shoes I would give the baby up for adoption" what you are telling the woman is "I think it's best to give the baby up for adoption". What the hell ever happened to "Whatever you chose, you have my support. If you need any help finding information just ask"? Why the fuck do you have to dump what you personally would do into the situation? It's not about you or your choice, it's about her and her choice. Nobody asked what you would do.

[muffynbear]

When you are saying "if I were in your shoes I would give the baby up for adoption" what you are telling the woman is "I think it's best to give the baby up for adoption". What the hell ever happened to "Whatever you chose, you have my support. If you need any help finding information just ask"? Why the fuck do you have to dump what you personally would do into the situation? It's not about you or your choice, it's about her and her choice. Nobody asked what you would do.

Rachel does have my support in whatever she chooses. Why are you ignoring this part of my post? If she chooses to raise her child, that's great. If she chooses adoption, fine and I would understand her reasons for doing so. It's called empathy, maybe you should try it sometime.

[CanadianHippie]

Rachel does have my support in whatever she chooses. Why are you ignoring this part of my post? If she chooses to raise her child, that's great. If she chooses adoption, fine and I would understand her reasons for doing so. It's called empathy, maybe you should try it sometime.

I have plenty of empathy. Enough to know that the last thing someone in a difficult situation needs to hear is "if I were in your situation" type of bullshit.

[muffynbear]

I have plenty of empathy. Enough to know that the last thing someone in a difficult situation needs to hear is "if I were in your situation" type of bullshit.

:roll:

[CanadianHippie]

:roll:

:roll: :roll:

[QAF_Rocks]

This is exactly what I have "against" adoptions. The US is one of the richest countries in the world and yet young mothers are forced to give up their children because they can't afford to keep them and there is so little support to help them build a good life... it's insane.

It's not all about money. There are emotional considerations. From what Ruth has said, Rachel is considering adoption primarily because she does not feel like this is the right time for her to become a mother. Not just because of financial hardship, but also because she's emotionally unprepared to parent a child at this point in her life.

Also, even though this is not Rachel's situation, there are many women who do not want to raise children, and that doesn't change just because they might find themselves unexpectedly pregnant. Just like consenting to sex does not mean consenting to pregnancy, consenting to pregnancy does not mean consenting to motherhood. There are women who are not comfortable terminating a pregnancy, yet do not want keep the child. Surely adoption is the best option for them?

[Clementine]

It's not all about money. There are emotional considerations. From what Ruth has said, Rachel is considering adoption primarily because she does not feel like this is the right time for her to become a mother. Not just because of financial hardship, but also because she's emotionally unprepared to parent a child at this point in her life.

Also, even though this is not Rachel's situation, there are many women who do not want to raise children, and that doesn't change just because they might find themselves unexpectedly pregnant. Just like consenting to sex does not mean consenting to pregnancy, consenting to pregnancy does not mean consenting to motherhood. There are women who are not comfortable terminating a pregnancy, yet do not want keep the child. Surely adoption is the best option for them?

Absolutely. But there are still, today, women who feel forced to give up their children because they are poor. Or young. Or have no education.

And just from reading this thread, a lot of people seem to think that it is "better" to give the baby up for adoption if the mother is poor, young or undeducated.

It's mindblowing. I can't believe we are talking about a rich country here... it sounds more like Somalia or Uganda to me.

When Sweden started to support single mothers instead of shaming them, the adoption rate dropped to 0%.

I have never ever heard of a mother who has considered giving up their babies to adoption because they are too "emotionally unprepared". If they are, they will be offered a lot of help (for free) from the pregnancy centre, health care system and social services.

They won't have a bunch of adults telling them that it's "probably better" to give up their children "to give them a chance to a better life".

I think 5-6 children per year are given up for adoption here, but that's usually after they have been placed in foster homes for years and where there is no chance that the parents will ever be fit to take care of the children. Usually because they suffer from severe mental illness or substance abuse.

[Artemis]

Pity she's not in France - my French friend, Colette (not her real name), who came to be au pair for my very much younger (adopted) brother for a year when she was 16, got pregnant when she went back to France. The father was from the Seychelles, over on a temporary stay, and didn't want to know. Her parents were strict Catholics and threw her out. The French government supported her through her pregnancy, with somewhere to stay and enough money for living on, paid her hospital expenses for the birth and supported her for six months afterwards staying at home with the baby. During that time she was counselled and helped to improve her education and make a career choice. She chose nursing. When Maurice (not his real name either) was six month old, he went into government funded daycare while she trained, and later government funded preschool while she worked.

She didn't have it easy - she still had a hard time bringing up a baby on her own, although her parents fell for the baby once he was born, and there was a reconciliation, so she had some help there. But at least she wasn't left high and dry having to choose between termination of the pregnancy, adoption, or a life in poverty and hardship, giving her baby little chance.

It really does surprise me that there is so much anger in America at the thought of helping the vulnerable. OK, you can argue that she shouldn't have got pregnant, but she did. So why penalise an innocent child, or allow moral issues to prevent a young girl who's 'made a mistake' from being a productive tax-paying member of society? Colette has worked as a nurse for more than 30 years now - giving back to society far more than they ever gave her. Maurice went on to get a decent education and to work as well, also as an integrated member of society, not isolated and marginalised because of something - an accident of birth - over which he had no control and no choice.

I just don't understand why America, the most influential country in the world, cannot see the advantage to its own citizens in reducing poverty and disaffection, and holding out a helping hand to people in need. (Without putting religious conditions on the help, but simply because that is what societies do.)

No, the UK isn't perfect either. We have an underclass too - and you know what? It stinks that we don't help children like Maurice, or like Rachel's child, enough. And OK, so any society that offers good benefits is vulnerable to freeloaders. Colette, however, wasn't given the opportunity to freeload - she was helped rationally, as well as sympathetically.