For a better review please click the link
to this post; click here

I agree wholeheartedly about the need to reduce the unwanted pregnancies to being with. And will cite what others have been saying now for some time: education, affordable and accessible birth control would do us all a long way to avoid any unpleasantries such as adoption or abortion. And yes, there mare other nations that do this MUCH better than we do and should serve as working models.

Just a quick bit: You state “single mother must choose between killing her baby, giving it up, or facing economic ruin for the rest of her life.” I cannot, of course, tell you how to think nor speak, but the “facing economic ruin for the rest of her life” is actually pretty far off the mark. It is a very real fear that is often used by the adoption industry to promote infarct adoption relinquishment and many mothers DO believe it, but it doesn’t seem to be the case for the population of mothers who have relinquished.

Of course, I am aware that there are studies that show that single mothers do far worse than their married counterparts, and I will admit that it is harder, but it is not a life sentence of destitution. I have a study in my files that looked into how teen mothers who relinquished fared against their counterparts who did not. I don’t believe that i have it online, but it is most interesting. I will see if I can dig it up.

It was not my intention to paint the picture as “neat and tidy”. From the tone of the comments received so far, I have not expressed myself properly and should probably do a re-write.

I should have started by saying that ANY unwanted pregnancy is a highly negative outcome and that, from that point, we are trying to find the least bad option. One that balances the interests and rights of both mothers and unborn children. From Ms. Corrigan’s comment, it is clear that there is research showing the negative impacts of relinquishment on birth mothers: more comparative research is needed on the effects of relinquishment vs. abortion on birth mother well-being.

You bring up another good point, which is the impact of adoption on the children themselves. That should not be dismissed either, of course; but given the alternatives of “possibly traumatic childhood” versus “death”, from the child’s perspective at least, the former is clearly the superior option. Also, I am suggesting that American adoption demand is large enough to absorb a high percentage of yearly abortions by Americans, so the loss of country, language and culture – which you very rightly point to – would not apply in these cases.

By no means am I suggesting that women choose to abort without thought or consequences. My intention was to offer a practical mitigation to what is already a bad situation, one that balances the legitimate interests and rights of the mother with the equally legitimate ones of the child.

Thank you for educated and well-mannered response to the post. I hope to hear from you again soon.

Kind regards,

Fernando Betancor

I don’t mean to be dismissive of the traumatic experience of ANY unwanted pregnancy, regardless of the outcome. Another reader (see Ms. Corrigan’s comment) has correctly pointed out that there is research in Australia which I missed, that looks at the long-term effects of relinquishment stress on mothers. Clearly more comparative research is needed on the impacts of adoption vs. abortion on maternal health. I would be very much surprised if it turned out that abortion was psychologically “easier” than relinquishment on maternal mental health.

The obvious and most desirable solution is to reduce unwanted pregnancies to zero. I explore this more fully in my reply to Ms. Corrigan’s comment, but essentially the conclusion is that it’s not possible to achieve that goal. I fully support all non-coercive measures that would tend to make recreational sex safe and risk free, with all the attendant benefits on public health and public expenditures. Regardless of what we do, there will always be some number of unwanted pregnancies: how we deal with those becomes a question of the least bad option. There are a number of social service options that I support that would at least mitigate the economic impacts of keeping and raising the child as a single parent.

Given also that there are at least two people with fundamental interests at stake – the mother and the child – I am attempting to suggest a pragmatic approach to balancing the needs of both. If my article appeared to you to be dismissive of the suffering and interests of the birth mother, I apologize: that was not my intent.

Thank you for your interest in my post, and for keeping the discussion civil. I appreciated all educated responses! I hope to hear from you again in the future.

Kind regards,

Fernando Betancor

Thank you firstly for your polite response to my article on a difficult and delicate subject. Secondly, thank you for the link to the research you cite; I shall read it with great interest.

The most obvious solution to the abortion debate is to strike at the root and eliminate unwanted pregnancies. How that might be accomplished, given the human penchant for recreational sex, is a question that has defied greater minds than mine. Notwithstanding, I fully support all measures that would tend to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies: greater efforts towards and funding for sexual education of young adults; greater availability and subsidization of contraceptives; research into improved methods of male and female contraception; anything that doesn’t violate fundamental rights (e.g. forced sterilization).

Having not yet read the research on relinquishment-related stress, I’m not prepared to comment further on it. I do think that it is lamentable that we live in a society where a single mother must choose between killing her baby, giving it up, or facing economic ruin for the rest of her life. The Scandinavian model provides a far more humane and effective alternative to our own cut-throat fiscal-economic order. Support for much longer paid maternity leave; greater support for adequate infant and youth nutrition; free daycare – all are needed public measures that would at least mitigate the economic consequences for a single mother facing a difficult decision. I think child support legislation ought to be strengthened and more uniformly applied across states, with expedited DNA testing in cases of disputed paternity and automatic wage garnishment applied in the case of non-payment of dues, which would operate like the 1986 Bradley Amendment (which establishes a non-expiring lien, rather than garnishing wages).

Finally, coming to the ultimate question, I am not prepared to judge whether the trauma of giving up a child is greater than that of ending its life. The website you cite implies that the stress is likely to be similar: “they would need to mourn their babies just as though they had lost them by death.” I should note that “death” does not necessarily equate to “abortion” – the fetus could be still born, or die in infancy, without the attachment of guilt that abortion is known to cause. I would agree with the conclusion of the adoption article: more research on the long-term effects of adoption is needed. Furthermore, comparative and cross-country analysis of the effects of adoption versus abortion on maternal well-being should be carried out.

That being said, I don’t think that the positive impacts on the well being of adoptive parents, but most especially on the unborn child – which gets to live – should be arbitrarily dismissed.

Thank you again for your contribution to the discussion and your excellent manners, Ms. Corrigan. I look forward to hearing from you again in the future!

Kind regards,

Fernando Betancor

Quite the quandary, a great majority mothers who have relinquished children to adoption on a whole have NOT benefited. There is significant research that supports this. Mothers who have relinquished suffer PTSD, unresolved and complicated grief, later issues with parenting subsequent children, trust issues in relationships, anxiety, depression,increased risk of suicide, increased secondary infertility much higher than the general population. Here’s one study: http://www.adoptionbirthmothers.com/known-consequences-of-separating-mother-and-child-at-birth-implications-for-further-study/ but there are more.

Hence the “spared the psychological trauma” is really not avoided at all, but rather often increased. As the child does still live, the losses upon the relinquishing mother increases over time and is often not resolved due to the shame, secrecy and lack of support and understanding of society . I do implore you to do some more research on this issue.