In one thread on one of the blogs, I received this response:
"Separation of a child from her mother is not and should not be a solution to teen pregnancy, a punishment or corrective for sexually active teens or women and should not be promoted as anything of the sort by the church!"
This is my response:
We agree regarding punishment. I don't understand where you're coming from with your first statement, unless you are against adoption entirely?
Separation of a child from her mother *IS* a solution to teen pregnancy. It is an improper solutioin when it is forced or coerced, for certain, but adoption is most certainly a worthy solution in my view.
And, I don't believe I am oversimplifying. What we are talking about are unethical adoptions... coerced adoptions... and the most likely victims are children (e.g., teenagers) who are dependent upon others for their own livelihoods and, thus, are the most susceptible to decision making being done by others (which we both agree is wrong).
Teenage pregnancy is, indeed, down. But, I read a statistic somewhere that said that 1,000,000 teens in the U.S. will get pregnant this year.
Half of those are 17 or younger.
Reduce this number... and reduce the likelihood of unethical adoption practices.
The church should be leading the way in this regard. If legislation is necessary to force them to use efforts to maintain the family first, then so be it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
"Separation of a child from her mother *IS* a solution to teen pregnancy."
What? How is relinquishment/adoption a solution to pregnancy? How does it undo the pregnancy? How does it undo the sexual act that created the pregnancy?
Relinquishment/adoption is SOMETIMES a solution to a woman being unable to parent. (Sometimes it's just coercion, too.) But a solution to PREGNANCY? Not seeing it.
Also not buying the line that coercion is most likely to happen to teenagers. Do you have some study to back this up? It may be true, I've just never seen any data on it. Demographically, most women who relinquish these days are in their twenties--not teens. And yet unethical practices continue.
Hi ParaGraphe. Thanks for your comments.
When I refer to solution, I am using the standard dictionary definition "The method or process of solving a problem."
Teenage pregnancy is a problem.
Adoption is one of the various solutions. It doesn't "undo" anything. In fact, contrary to an abortion, it (and first and foremost the choice NOT to relinquish) are the only options that honor the gift of procreation that we have been given by God.
Abortion does UNDO the pregnancy. I'm not a big fan.
A study to back up a claim that children are more susceptible to coercion than adults? Isn't this like asking for a study to back up a claim that children are more dependent on their parents when they live with their parents?
Just using basic logic here that I am certain (well, let me qualify and say that I HOPE) nobody has decided to do a study on.
Perhaps you can show me differently, but from what I have seen, "coerced, unethical adoptions" rarely involve an adult relinquishing her child.
I can recall one case of a thirty-something woman last year who changed her mind after signing relinquishment papers. This might have included a situation of mental impairment, too, I am not sure. But, that is the only newsworthy case that I remember involving someone over the age of 19.
How does it undo the pregnancy? How does it undo the sexual act that created the pregnancy?
Thank you, N, for asking my question so directly.
As I said on the blog on which I commented (and from which my quote here was pulled) adoption can be ONE alternative to teen parenting (and in my limited experience as a hopeful aparents, the expectant women we were told of were far from children) which you seem to agree with here (but disagreed with me there?). I would add one _option_ among others including parenting and kinship care.
But adoption is NOT a solution to "teen pregnancy" either individual or systemic. As they say (crassly) you can't unring that bell. That _woman's_ life will change forever, whether or not she chooses to parent.
. . . "coerced, unethical adoptions" rarely involve an adult relinquishing her child." I am quite certain you will receive much objection to this statement.
After reading the end of your post here, I notice something I was missing in my concern for adoption reform -- You are suggesting that the church should work to prevent teen pregnancy through abstinence based teaching which necessarily involves the denouncement of sex outside of marriage, and that it seems that the adoption reform movement(s) want(s) to make sex outside of marriage more acceptable so that expectant women are not vilified (and coerced by such vilification into relinquishment), and it is this to which you object. Is that correct?
Post a Comment