Razing Ruth's Sister Pregnant out of Wedlock

[apple1]

This thread stopped being about Ruth's sister Rachel quite some time ago.

[sippin0nsunshine]

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?

More like the kids sinned and since Isaiah is a "man", if he denies it then he must be telling the truth. It's all Rachel's fault, she's lying, she tempted him, but oh no, he didn't give in. It's not his baby!!!

It's fucked up.

[jaelh]

Exactly.

And more.

Rachel, sending you many good thoughts and much love. Life *will* get better. People can be loyal, and loving, and trustworthy and sincere. God loves you, no matter what. Whatever decision you make is going to be tough, incredibly tough. But if you want to raise your baby, you do that. If you want adoption, consider all the different options available to you - you can be quite involved in your baby's life, if that's what you desire. Be strong. Your decision will be the right one, whatever it is. You're incredibly brave and I have much admiration for you.

[QAF_Rocks]

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.

Thanks for your perspective! I'm relieved that adopted children aren't tainted with any kind of stigma, but the whole "thank god nobody is forced to make that choice anymore" does sound an awful lot like adoption itself is stigmatized. As if no woman in her right mind would ever choose adoption unless she was being forced to do it because of shame or poverty. That's what I disagree with. I think it's possible that some women's first instinct would be to lean towards adoption, and I worry that Sweden doesn't support that, since it seems to be the "unimaginable" choice. It sounds like abortion or motherhood are the only socially acceptable options, and I don't think every woman could possibly be comfortable with that.

[jaelh]

Thanks for your perspective! I'm relieved that adopted children aren't tainted with any kind of stigma, but the whole "thank god nobody is forced to make that choice anymore" does sound an awful lot like adoption itself is stigmatized. As if no woman in her right mind would ever choose adoption unless she was being forced to do it because of shame or poverty. That's what I disagree with. I think it's possible that some women's first instinct would be to lean towards adoption, and I worry that Sweden doesn't support that, since it seems to be the "unimaginable" choice. It sounds like abortion or motherhood are the only socially acceptable options, and I don't think every woman could possibly be comfortable with that.

It's not just Sweden - I think there were something like 30 infant adoptions in Australia last year. Total. The majority (like 25??? or something) were known child adoptions (family etc..) There is strong encouragement to keep a child, or at most - not to fully waive parental rights and put them into care for a period with a view to returning the child. Private adoptions are illegal in some states, and near to never receive public certification where they are legal. When adoptions take place, they tend to be of older children, or of parents whose rights were waived by the courts. NOT the children of pregnant teens. (Mind you, the US has such a high teen pregnancy rate - most other nations don't have anything to compare to!)

What is considered socially acceptable changes over time - I imagine that the US will catch up to much of the western world with its approach to adoption at some point. That adoption is "unimaginable" isn't so much about a stigma attached to adoption, it's just that it's not "normal".

(note: this isn't about the good or bad of adoption; clearly in many cases removing a child from unstable parents and placing them in an environment where they will be loved and thrive is wonderful thing. But that's very different to someone who might be an excellent parent giving up their child because they can't afford them/don't feel ready. Many adoptive parents only seek "undamaged" children; children with whom they don't run the risk of complex mix-ups with birth family etc.. That bothers me deeply. Anyway.. that is another post for another day. :) )

[QAF_Rocks]

It's not just Sweden - I think there were something like 30 infant adoptions in Australia last year. Total. The majority (like 25??? or something) were known child adoptions (family etc..) There is strong encouragement to keep a child, or at most - not to fully waive parental rights and put them into care for a period with a view to returning the child. Private adoptions are illegal in some states, and near to never receive public certification where they are legal. When adoptions take place, they tend to be of older children, or of parents whose rights were waived by the courts. NOT the children of pregnant teens. (Mind you, the US has such a high teen pregnancy rate - most other nations don't have anything to compare to!)

What is considered socially acceptable changes over time - I imagine that the US will catch up to much of the western world with its approach to adoption at some point. That adoption is "unimaginable" isn't so much about a stigma attached to adoption, it's just that it's not "normal".

That's the thing. If adoption isn't "normal" and people experience "strong encouragement" to keep a baby, doesn't that amount to less choice? If a woman in Australia or Sweden honestly did not feel comfortable having an abortion and did not want to raise a child, then she might feel pressured into one of those options anyway, just because it's not "normal" to do anything else.

Earlier someone likened the prospective adoption of Rachel's baby to that of a "stray kitten," as if adoption is only acceptable for animals and not a fit choice for human beings, or at least that's how I read it. There seems to be a strong feeling that a woman needs a good enough "excuse" to place her baby for adoption. Otherwise, she should keep the baby or abort.

I'm not promoting adoption as the best option. I think it's based entirely on what the woman feels is right for her. But it seems like women who choose adoption face the obstacle of having to justify their choice, whereas they don't (and shouldn't) have to justify their choice if they choose to terminate the pregnancy or keep the baby. It's like someone said earlier about late-term abortion, why should Rachel (or any woman) have to "perform her tragedy" in a socially acceptable way to please those around her?

[jaelh]

That's the thing. If adoption isn't "normal" and people experience "strong encouragement" to keep a baby, doesn't that amount to less choice? If a woman in Australia honestly did not feel comfortable having an abortion and did not want to raise a child, then she might feel pressured into one of those options anyway, just because it's not "normal" to do anything else.

if young women wanted to give their babies up in droves, you betcha they'd be doing so. it's not like infant adoption is unknown, it's just that when there are other options, it's incredibly rare. You're arguing that other people's societies should change to accomodate the hypothetical. To a certain extent, desire is created by context: where it's normal to raise your baby when you're young and pregnant, the shame, lack of support and fear that may well create the desire in young mothers in the US to give up their children isn't necessarily going to exist. With reducing shaming, more support and less stigma maybe far fewer young women would *want* to give up their children.

every choice is curtailed, to some extent, by the society in which the choice can be made. you're not accommodating for the social strictures that increase the number of young women looking to give up their babies.

(again - i'm very pro adoption; but have *enormous* reservations about very young single mother infant adoption. choice is key, but taking about choices for scared teenagers... agh! how do you make an informed choice when you're a scared, broke, lonely 16 year old? it's pretty much impossible IMO.. and the *capacity* (no social pressure, supported socially and finically either way, etc...) to make a decision is the keystone of any argument about choice )

[QAF_Rocks]

Fair enough. Or at least I'm tired of arguing about it! Perhaps it's because I have a hard time imagining myself in that situation that that I feel compelled to stick up for women and girls who go against the flow. I'm sure we're very much in the minority.

[MadameX]

if young women wanted to give their babies up in droves, you betcha they'd be doing so. it's not like infant adoption is unknown, it's just that when there are other options, it's incredibly rare. You're arguing that other people's societies should change to accomodate the hypothetical. To a certain extent, desire is created by context: where it's normal to raise your baby when you're young and pregnant, the shame, lack of support and fear that may well create the desire in young mothers in the US to give up their children isn't necessarily going to exist. With reducing shaming, more support and less stigma maybe far fewer young women would *want* to give up their children.

every choice is curtailed, to some extent, by the society in which the choice can be made. you're not accommodating for the social strictures that increase the number of young women looking to give up their babies.

(again - i'm very pro adoption; but have *enormous* reservations about very young single mother infant adoption. choice is key, but taking about choices for scared teenagers... agh! how do you make an informed choice when you're a scared, broke, lonely 16 year old? it's pretty much impossible IMO.. and the *capacity* (no social pressure, supported socially and finically either way, etc...) to make a decision is the keystone of any argument about choice )

What I don't understand about this lament is, what do you think choice means? You get to choose, no one said any of your choices would be happy or fair or without consequences. I mean, that's pretty much how life works for any person in any situation. I think that short of the situations in which the baby is literally taken at birth and not brought back to the mother against her stated wishes, there is a choice. And yes, you have to make it under duress in less than perfect circumstances but, I don't know, few people get to curate these life moments. You do the best you think you can with what you have to work with at the time, and life is a series of making that kind of choice until you die. Sometimes you have more control over the conditions, sometimes you don't, and sometimes you only think you do.

We could make it easier as a society for underprivileged teen moms to keep their babies and then maybe young mothers would feel like they're making the choice to keep their babies in circumstances that pressure them toward that decision, when really they don't want to be mothers and feel abortion isn't right for them. I don't know. Unplanned pregnancy is never going to happen in ideal circumstances.

[jaelh]

madamex - read those comments in the context of the thread: QAF was talking about making a meaningful choice; my point was that you can't argue that about a the right to give up children at birth without deconstructing what that means. What you say is completely correct, but it undermines any argument that something is about choice - there is both a decision and an absence of decision when there are no choices. It all depends on how someone frames the conclusion they come to.

QAF- i'm not sure you're so far from the mainstream :) If you were, there would be virtually no infant adoptions in the wealthiest country in the world. Instead, there are tens of thousands a year. You are part of the flow, my friend. At least, for your time and location anyway.

[jaelh]

This thread stopped being about Ruth's sister Rachel quite some time ago.

Yeah. I'm sorry, Rachel. Sending you good thoughts and prayers.

[Clementine]

Thanks for your perspective! I'm relieved that adopted children aren't tainted with any kind of stigma, but the whole "thank god nobody is forced to make that choice anymore" does sound an awful lot like adoption itself is stigmatized. As if no woman in her right mind would ever choose adoption unless she was being forced to do it because of shame or poverty. That's what I disagree with. I think it's possible that some women's first instinct would be to lean towards adoption, and I worry that Sweden doesn't support that, since it seems to be the "unimaginable" choice. It sounds like abortion or motherhood are the only socially acceptable options, and I don't think every woman could possibly be comfortable with that.

Adoption is a choice that is legal. Yet, very few parents choose it. If they don't want to take care of the baby, I think that a foster home would be the first choice so they still can have some contact and have the option to get the baby back if they change their mind.

With all our options, I have never heard a woman who would be comfortable carrying a baby for nine months, only to give it away at the hospital.

[Cran]

And yet it happens. Surrogate mothering, for example. And the surrogate mothers do it by choice.

[Lillybee]

My daughter happens to be an ebil adoptive mother. She is a conservative Christian , anti-abortion, and all that jazz. She and her husband decided to walk the walk and decided to become foster parents. The child they got was a newborn. She was born to a developmentally delayed young woman. The father wanted nothing to do with the mother or the baby. The woman was given opportunities to learn how to parent, classes and support, etc. She decided that she wanted my daughter and her family to adopt her baby. It is an open adoption but the mother has not expressed much interest in the baby these days.

[Clementine]

And yet it happens. Surrogate mothering, for example. And the surrogate mothers do it by choice.

Or because the $$$. Would they do it without being paid and how many rich women choose to surrogate to couples outside the family?

[Cran]

I am not sure, but isn't it forbidden in the UK to receive payment for donating eggs or surrogate mothering? So the $$$ wouldn't be the question.

And I agree with others here: Because you have given birth to a child doesn't mean you'll bond automatically, and supposing so or hinting it is "unnatural" for women not to feel this way is unfair to women, another "demand" pushed onto them.

[muffynbear]

I am not sure, but isn't it forbidden in the UK to receive payment for donating eggs or surrogate mothering? So the $$$ wouldn't be the question.

And I agree with others here: Because you have given birth to a child doesn't mean you'll bond automatically, and supposing so or hinting it is "unnatural" for women not to feel this way is unfair to women, another "demand" pushed onto them.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

[Clementine]

I am not sure, but isn't it forbidden in the UK to receive payment for donating eggs or surrogate mothering? So the $$$ wouldn't be the question.

Don't know about the UK. Surrogate mothering is not allowed in Sweden, so couples go to the US or India for that, and egg donors get about $400.

[Cerysbell]

It's true that you don't get paid for surrogacy or egg donation in the UK, or for blood donation either. You can get reasonable expenses for the first two, I think, but nothing for blood (not that blood is comparable to the other two, of course).

[valsa]

Or because the $$$. Would they do it without being paid and how many rich women choose to surrogate to couples outside the family?

Maybe not rich, but there are a lot of comfortably upper middle class women who do it. Most of them say they just want to help a couple who can't have children. In some circles there's a serious aversion to using poor women as surrogates (not so much because of fears of exploiting said women, but because there's an air of "you can't trust poor women to take care of your baby properly")

How sad a place is Sweden that you find it unimaginable that people can do selfless things for strangers?

[Clementine]

Maybe not rich, but there are a lot of comfortably upper middle class women who do it. Most of them say they just want to help a couple who can't have children. In some circles there's a serious aversion to using poor women as surrogates (not so much because of fears of exploiting said women, but because there's an air of "you can't trust poor women to take care of your baby properly")

How sad a place is Sweden that you find it unimaginable that people can do selfless things for strangers?

If a woman wants to have a baby to give away, she is free to do so. We have free health care and paid for maternity leave so it will not cost her anything.

There are a lot of selfless things people do for strangers that doesn't involve being pregnant for nine months.

[jaelh]

How sad a place is Sweden that you find it unimaginable that people can do selfless things for strangers?

*nothing* is entirely selfless. Any woman bearing a child for strangers wants to be pregnant, at the very least.

[valsa]

*nothing* is entirely selfless. Any woman bearing a child for strangers wants to be pregnant, at the very least.

I donated a kidney to a stranger. But I suppose that means I wanted to be laid up for 8 weeks, recovering from serious abdominal surgery, right?

If a woman wants to have a baby to give away, she is free to do so. We have free health care and paid for maternity leave so it will not cost her anything.

There are a lot of selfless things people do for strangers that doesn't involve being pregnant for nine months.

You're the one who said surrogacy wasn't allowed in Sweden.

[jaelh]

I donated a kidney to a stranger. But I suppose that means I wanted to be laid up for 8 weeks, recovering from serious abdominal surgery, right?

I'm sure you didn't do it for the recovery time.

Maybe you wanted to be able to tell others you donated a kidney.

That's the thing about the good things we do. We *always, always* get something out of it. Even if it's simply the knowledge we're the kind of person that we'd like to think we are; the kind of person that donates kidneys, that bears other peoples children, that goes to live in a conflict zone etc... I AM the good guy, the self sacrificing, noble type.

What you did was magnificent. Bearing another persons child is a gift to another person no question.

None of that is diminished by saying the giver likely got something out of making their gift, and had to have personal motivations, even if subliminal. We don't have to be entirely altruistic to do good.

Mods - is there anyway we can split these very interesting discussions off from the posts about Rachel?

[valsa]

Maybe you wanted to be able to tell others you donated a kidney.

Yeah, because that's worth the hassle, pain, and life-long health considerations :roll:

That's the thing about the good things we do. We *always, always* get something out of it. Even if it's simply the knowledge we're the kind of person that we'd like to think we are; the kind of person that donates kidneys, that bears other peoples children, that goes to live in a conflict zone etc... I AM the good guy, the self sacrificing, noble type.

I disagree. I don't give a damn about being a noble person and I'm barely on the "good" side of being a good or bad person (and my therapist might argue that point too) I also don't think what I did was all that unusual (I think most people, given the knowledge and opportunity I had, would have done it) The reason I did it was because I had the opportunity (no job, no kids (or anyone who relied on me if something should do wrong and I died), and I was on break from school over the summer) and the realization that, if it were me or someone I cared for who needed a kidney, I would hope that they could get one (so how could I not give myself?) In short, I did it because it was the right thing to do and I could.

Sometimes people do good things without getting anything out of it. Again, the fact you can't even wrap your head around that concept makes me very sad for you.