Razing Ruth's Sister Pregnant out of Wedlock

[eohiken]

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.

This illustrates quite well how with proper support the issue of unexpected motherhood is a temporary problem.

[MadameX]

Teen Mom and 16 and Pregnant have had some pretty compelling story lines centered on the fraught and difficult situation of being a parent choosing adoption. I'm not saying that MTV is some perfect mirror of society, but those are immensely popular shows and we DO see the sad birth parents and it isn't all wonderful. I'd say that's a pretty good start.

[MadameX]

This illustrates quite well how with proper support the issue of unexpected motherhood is a temporary problem.

It does. But this kind of support is highly unlikely in most potential adoption situations in the United States.

[27randomscribbles]

I'm sorry, what?

Motherhood is a temporary problem? Considering the fact that most people deemed socially "unfit" to mother and who are doing the "right" thing by choosing adoption are generally young, uneducated/unskilled, financially unstable, and without a partner or family support, and considering the fact that few of those conditions are likely to change for the better very much once the responsibility of motherhood is introduced into the mix, I am not sure how it constitutes a "temporary" problem.

Look, I don't disagree with most of what you're saying, and I'm sure you are far more familiar with this than I considering your background and training, but I find it so dangerous and unrealistic to call it a temporary problem. It might seem that way because, once the mother is no longer tasked with raising her baby, she is more able to move herself out of the "unfit" situation she was in at the time of birth, so it appears to have been a temporary situation. But it's likely that she was only able to change things because she had given the baby up rather than parent.

I was going to stay out of this particular post...meh. I think that even though it might be likely that she'd only be able to improve her financial/life situation if she gives up the baby, the answer shouldn't have to be to give up the baby in order to do that. We've heard from a few posters from countries in which women are given the opportunity and support to improve their lives while still being able to keep their babies.

And I agree with Peas n Carrots...if one truly has no feelings for the baby and absolutely does not want to be a mother (regardless of finances), why have the baby? To be honest, I'm in that situation. I do not want a baby for at least ten years. On paper, I'm somewhat more ready to have a baby than, say, a 19 year old with no job. I've been married 5 years, my husband has a decent job, I'm finishing up graduate school, etc. But I simply don't want to. I don't want to give up the cool apartment that my cats barely fit in just to accomodate a kid...although I could do so and stay in a safe neighborhood. I don't like the idea of having that responsibility, although I'm a very responsible person and "could" probably deal with it. I just don't want to. And if I saw a positive pregnancy test in front of my I'd have Planned Parenthood on the phone in five seconds scheduling an abortion...no questions about it. I honestly don't feel an abortion is anything but stopping a pregnancy (which it is...but religious crazy people have made many think "murder").

So why have a baby you don't want? For me that's incomprehensible, and from what the Swedish poster and others have said, in countries where they have a better support system, available and cheap contraceptives, sex-ed, and little abortion stigma...women there simply "don't" have a baby they don't want.

For the record, I realize everything I just said only makes sense in a world where moralistic religious people (and non-religious sometimes) have made things like abortion equal to murder and shame women into feeling it's "not for them". This may sound harsh, but I feel that if I say "I don't want a baby, but abortion is not for me", I'm simply reflecting the shame that the community has placed on abortion.

For me, the availability of abortion rocks. The social stigma doesn't.

[MadameX]

I mean, you answered your own question, didn't you? Women don't make these choices in a vacuum. They make them in the culture that shaped their beliefs and in the society in which they have to live and attempt to thrive. If having an abortion or raising a baby out of wedlock seem impossible given those cultural and social conditions, why have a baby if you don't want one isn't even the question.

[27randomscribbles]

I mean, you answered your own question, didn't you? Women don't make these choices in a vacuum. They make them in the culture that shaped their beliefs and in the society in which they have to live and attempt to thrive. If having an abortion or raising a baby out of wedlock seem impossible given those cultural and social conditions, why have a baby if you don't want one isn't even the question.

:) I answered my own question on purpose. I do get it...but it still makes me angry and I think I have the right to be angry that this cultural stigma exists. And I think it shouldn't just be accepted...maybe someday my daughter (if I ever have one) will have an entirely different environment to deal with...maybe more like what I hope for.

[BlueChair]

But what I get tired of is the all happy rainbows everything is perfect and will be happily ever after. I just want a realistic view of adoption to be represented, because often all we ever see is the adoptive parent "we're so lucky and speshul we got a BAYBEE" point of view. We don't see sad birthparents, kids who feel confused and the sense of loss that can happen. Not every adoptive family is all wonderful either, as discussed on the fundie/international adoption forum. I just want a better representation of reality rather than the "it's wonderful" point of view that is so widely represented.

This. Adoption is a triad, with an inordinate amount of focus being placed on the adoptive parent. Adoption is seen in our society as happily ever after because the focus is usually placed on the happy couple and their new blessing. Honestly, that's not a good image to project on adoptive parents either, because it makes it much more difficult for them to seek support when things don't go as planned (attachment disorders, post-adoption depression, etc.) But it's also possible to acknowledge that adoption is messy and adoption is loss without taking away from the joy of the adoptive family, and thus giving all pieces of the triad the support they need.

[eohiken]

I mean, you answered your own question, didn't you? Women don't make these choices in a vacuum. They make them in the culture that shaped their beliefs and in the society in which they have to live and attempt to thrive. If having an abortion or raising a baby out of wedlock seem impossible given those cultural and social conditions, why have a baby if you don't want one isn't even the question.

People say crazy things like this culture is hateful towards women, I dunno why, must just be paranoia.

[MadameX]

People say crazy things like this culture is hateful towards women, I dunno why, must just be paranoia.

It's one thing to critique a culture or an institution, it's another to criticize an individual for doing her best to navigate that cultural framework, however problematic it may be. Maybe this girl would keep and raise her baby in another culture, maybe she'd have an abortion and go about her life. It isn't fair, however, to demand that she consider those viable options when, for her, they are not viable options.

[eohiken]

It's less critique of one young woman's choice and more calling shit on the very non-choice aspect of it all. She doesn't have a good choice to make, she has two equally unfortunate options.

[PokaDot]

Teen Mom and 16 and Pregnant have had some pretty compelling story lines centered on the fraught and difficult situation of being a parent choosing adoption. I'm not saying that MTV is some perfect mirror of society, but those are immensely popular shows and we DO see the sad birth parents and it isn't all wonderful. I'd say that's a pretty good start.

Reality TV is notorious for manipulating situations. TM and 16&P also show how some people just shouldn't be parents (hello Janelle?).

I get the feeling that the vocal people here who hate adoption are taking their feelings out on Rachel, and that's just not fair to her. It's no different than going "OMG you cannot have an abortion because I object!!!!!!!!!!!!" The best thing we can do for her is give her unbiased information, and support her in whatever she decides to do.

If we want to have a debate on adoption, I think it might be best to spin off a thread and do it there (might bring in those who aren't reading this thread).

[MadameX]

Reality TV is notorious for manipulating situations. TM and 16&P also show how some people just shouldn't be parents (hello Janelle?).

I get the feeling that the vocal people here who hate adoption are taking their feelings out on Rachel, and that's just not fair to her. It's no different than going "OMG you cannot have an abortion because I object!!!!!!!!!!!!" The best thing we can do for her is give her unbiased information, and support her in whatever she decides to do.

If we want to have a debate on adoption, I think it might be best to spin off a thread and do it there (might bring in those who aren't reading this thread).

No one is arguing the bolded. I'm just saying that the two instances of adoption I can recall off the top of my head were in no way happy unicorns and rainbows. In one case, the mother kept changing her mind and ultimately, I think, asked for and got her baby back. In the other, the couple who gave up their baby have been generally thriving in that they made some milestones (graduating, attending college, getting jobs, etc) but struggle daily with their loss, which they address regularly with counseling and support groups and the like. Also, they were on the receiving end of some tragic vitriolic backlash from their families because of their decision to adopt. So, in all, pretty messy stuff.

[PokaDot]

No one is arguing the bolded. I'm just saying that the two instances of adoption I can recall off the top of my head were in no way happy unicorns and rainbows. In one case, the mother kept changing her mind and ultimately, I think, asked for and got her baby back. In the other, the couple who gave up their baby have been generally thriving in that they made some milestones (graduating, attending college, getting jobs, etc) but struggle daily with their loss, which they address regularly with counseling and support groups and the like. Also, they were on the receiving end of some tragic vitriolic backlash from their families because of their decision to adopt. So, in all, pretty messy stuff.

I'm not trying to say everything is butterflies, rainbows and puppy dogs...But If I were a TV producer, and I wanted to feature adoption....finding someone who would show some drama is infinity more interesting than someone who doesn't. Plus those girls know that if they make themselves "interesting" means a greater chance of being on Teen Mom, which means a sweet paycheck.

[MadameX]

So which is it?

Do we have no representation of the messy, difficult reality of adoption from the perspective of the biological parents, or are the representations we have which DO feature a messy and difficult reality totally fabricated for entertainment value?

[PokaDot]

Are you saying that happy adoptions just never happen? And it's pain and misery for absolutely everyone?

Because if that were the case, why don't we see an anti-adoption camp as strong as we see an pro-life one?

If not, it's best not to speak in absolutes. It gives the wrong impression.

[MadameX]

Are you saying that happy adoptions just never happen? And it's pain and misery for absolutely everyone?

Because if that were the case, why don't we see an anti-adoption camp as strong as we see an pro-life one?

If not, it's best not to speak in absolutes. It gives the wrong impression.

Um, when did I ever say anything of the sort? In fact, four of my immediate family members are adopted, and all of them are pretty happy. None of them feel traumatized or at all interested in finding their birth parents.

But there has been a lot of criticism in this thread of the lack of social representation of biological parents and the often very profound loss they feel in the wake of the adoption. It was suggested that we only ever see the happy outcome of the adoptive parents and their new baby. I simply mean to point out that it is hardly the case, as I think you don't get much more social representation (in terms of visibility) than MTV.

[Angri-la]

I had a post typed.

I think I will just STFU.

[jaelh]

as I think you don't get much more social representation (in terms of visibility) than MTV.

MTV? That's as much social visibility as it gets? Please tell me you're... aware you're making an absurd statement to fit your argument.

[QAF_Rocks]

In general, adoption is just... something that we don't do. It's considered as something from the old ages and I really think that it's unimaginable for most women in my generation.

See, I can't imagine that. There is so much adoption in my family and I'm half adopted myself. If I had gotten pregnant as a teenager, I would have placed my baby for adoption, no question about it.

I wonder how adopted children are seen in Sweden, if it's considered such a strange thing. Is there are lot of stigma, a feeling that adoptive families are fake or illegitimate? It's still like that in the United States to some extent, and our culture is fairly accepting of adoption. I would worry about adopted children growing up in a society where it's "unimaginable" to place a baby for adoption.

I'm not sure why so much hands lapping if someone expresses even some reservations with adoption. Someone above mentioned people should feel it doesn't have to be a natural, first choice to keep thr baby...yikes! If you choose to carry a pregnancy to term, you are choosing to put another human being on this earth that is a part of you. Unless you have some very good reasons like Rachel to go for adoption, why wouldn't you want to care for your own baby?

That was me, and I can certainly think of reasons. I would never have wanted to raise a baby as a teenager. At that age, I was not ready to become a parent. I would have chosen adoption. I'm an atheist, so I have no religious objections to abortion. But I have a hard time imagining myself terminating a healthy pregnancy. Since I'm half adopted, and I have numerous other relatives who are adopted, choosing adoption would have felt like the best choice. I'm not saying it's the same for everyone. I'm probably in the minority, but I don't think I'm alone. All I'm saying is that keeping the baby would not have felt like the first, natural, or best choice, and creating a climate that stigmatizes adoption makes it harder for women and girls to choose it even if they feel it's the right one for them.

Also, I think it's pretty naive and judgmental to assume that something is wrong with a woman who doesn't want to parent something just because it came out of her (how do you feel about surrogacy, btw?) Many women do not bond with their children until long after they're born and that's completely natural. Some never bond to their children for whatever reason.

As others have said, it seems like the very posters here who are accusing others of pressuring women to adopt out are, themselves, pressuring women to keep the child or risk the reputation of something being "wrong" with them.

[sippin0nsunshine]

I don't get why everyone is some people are saying Rachel shouldn't consider adoption? It's her life, her body, her child. We don't have every single detail, and we don't know everything that's going on. I'm sure if Rachel is considering adoption then she's put a lot of thought into it, so why not just say "Good Luck with Whatever You choose. We support your decision in doing what's best for you and your child." and leave it at that?

I understand some people are against adoption and want to point out the pros and cons but to be quite honest that probably has little to no impact on Rachel's decision. I hope she makes the decision that she feels in her heart is best.

[shesinsane]

I don't get why everyone is saying Rachel shouldn't consider adoption? It's her life, her body, her child. We don't have every single detail, and we don't know everything that's going on. I'm sure if Rachel is considering adoption then she's put a lot of thought into it, so why not just say "Good Luck with Whatever You choose. We support your decision in doing what's best for you and your child." and leave it at that?

I understand some people are against adoption and want to point out the pros and cons but to be quite honest that probably has little to no impact on Rachel's decision. I hope she makes the decision that she feels in her heart is best.

It's not everyone here against adoption, otherwise there wouldn't be pages of debate.

On the chance that Ruth or Rachel are reading this thread, I feel I need to state it again: Whatever decision Rachel makes for her and her baby is the right one. We've all got our opinions, but we are not Rachel. What one of us might do if we were in her situation doesn't matter, we're not and she is.

From what I've read on Razing Ruth, making decisions is not something girls are taught to do (tis better to let Daddy and the Bible direct you), and so Rachel's suddenly got a lot of freedom and a huge decision to make that she cannot put off once the baby arrives. I wish her the best and hope she will be eventually be happy with her chosen course of action.

[sippin0nsunshine]

I should have worded it better, I didn't mean everybody! D:

[Clementine]

See, I can't imagine that. There is so much adoption in my family and I'm half adopted myself. If I had gotten pregnant as a teenager, I would have placed my baby for adoption, no question about it.

I wonder how adopted children are seen in Sweden, if it's considered such a strange thing. Is there are lot of stigma, a feeling that adoptive families are fake or illegitimate? It's still like that in the United States to some extent, and our culture is fairly accepting of adoption. I would worry about adopted children growing up in a society where it's "unimaginable" to place a baby for adoption.

Like I have written earlier in this thread, national adoptions were rather common up until the 60's. Then the pill came, abortions became legal, most women had jobs and tax-funded childcare was introduced. The adoption rate dropped after that.

Having an adopted child or a foster child "raised as one of our own" was very common and accepted. Adoptive families were regarded as just... normal families. At least from the 40's - we

There is however a lot embarrassment today that the society couldn't provide better for single mothers so they had to give up their babies.

One of our most famous writer, Astrid Lindgren, became a mother out of wedlock and had to place her firstborn son in foster care in Denmark for five years before she was financally stable enough to bring him home. She often talked about how difficult it was for her and if you read her books, there are a lot of motherless boys in them.

So there is no social stigma surrounding adoption, but more a sense that "thank god nobody is forced to make that choice anymore".

After 1970, international adoptions became more common and ~50 000 international adoptions have taken place since then. In the 70's, it was seen as an act of "solidarity" to take on and "help" children from the third world.

Now the discussion is leaning more towards "is it right to take children from their native countries and bring them here or is this just another way of exploiting poor countries"?

Most parents who choose to adopt seem to be extremely well prepared - there is a lot of interviews and courses through ss they have to do before they are allowed to adopt - and aware of the debate and questions that the children may have later in life.

But no, there's nothing special with adoptive families. It's just another way of having your children. Today it's very common with divorced families, gay families, single mothers who have used sperm donors, egg donations, surrogate mothers from other countries and god knows what. Anything goes and nobody really cares where the kids come from or what the family looks like.

I asked my friends on FB if they knew of any domestic adoptions the last 20 years.

A lot of them did and in most cases the children were given up for adoption because the parents were mentally ill or had severe drug abuse or because the child had a handicap and because of that the parents didn't want to keep them.

Two of my friends actually knew of teenage girls who had become pregnant in the 90's, tried to hide it until it was too late and then decided to not keep the babies. So it does happen here too.

[joe_mulcahy]

I feel deeply for Rachel, and hope that even though any decision she makes will be a very difficult one for her, I wish her the best on it, and hope neither she, nor her baby suffers too much for it long term.

As a fellow from Scotland, I have to say, I can't understand how a rich society can so badly fail young women like Rachel. This so called "freedom of religion" is allowed liberties it should not have over your government, and the individual freedoms of your citizens, particularly women. Why is the shaming of a single parent still allowed at all in this era? Why does it seem that no one (any figure of authority in that cult-like circle) is holding Isaiah accountable? It's almost as though they believe, that the baby in Rachel's belly was conceived entirely of her own volition via parthenogenesis or something?

As a parent myself, I literally cannot bear the very thought of parting with my son, it would thoroughly break my heart. How much worse would it be if I had to feel that baby growing inside of my body from around the fifth month of gestation onward (that I would not have been allowed to abort earlier on if I decided that I could not adequately provide for it), only to be pressured to give it up for adoption due to there being no resources available to me to help me raise it, or if I was shamed into doing it.

Mind, I am not passing judgment on Rachel herself, for I know she is in a very difficult situation, and adoption might seem the only feasible course of action at the moment in the society she lives in. I am in support of her, no matter what, for the road ahead will surely be a difficult one.

But I am beyond disgusted by the father of the child. Is your barmy, dodgy, and questionable religious beliefs so ruddy important to you that you would deny your own flesh and blood? After either using deception, or outright coercion to have sex, you deny all culpability for your "blessing?" What an utter hypocrite you are!

I am also put off by Ruth and Rachel's father. You repulsive, bloody scoundrel! So it is ruddy okay to breed like a cockroach simply because you're married, and hide behind your beliefs that every child is a blessing from God? But this is child is your grandchild, and you see that it is perfectly acceptable to cast your "blessing" out simply because she isn't married to the reprobate that conceived that child? So it is only God's Will when it is convenient to you? You disgust me more than a weaponised strain of virus which can cause haemorrhagic fever and death within 72 hours, and the parties responsible for making such a weapon! Yes, sir, Ruth and Rachel's father, you are that loathsome, if not more so!

Sorry everyone, I felt the need to vent a bit. And for the record, I'm not altogether against adoption. I am against shaming people into it, or making available no resources which would allow people who want to parent their child, to do so even if they can't afford to or are too young, but could benefit from parenting classes.

[browngrl]

It's not everyone here against adoption, otherwise there wouldn't be pages of debate.

On the chance that Ruth or Rachel are reading this thread, I feel I need to state it again: Whatever decision Rachel makes for her and her baby is the right one. We've all got our opinions, but we are not Rachel. What one of us might do if we were in her situation doesn't matter, we're not and she is.

From what I've read on Razing Ruth, making decisions is not something girls are taught to do (tis better to let Daddy and the Bible direct you), and so Rachel's suddenly got a lot of freedom and a huge decision to make that she cannot put off once the baby arrives. I wish her the best and hope she will be eventually be happy with her chosen course of action.

Exactly.