To think that women should not be encouraged to be human incubators

[HengshanRoad]

In regard to the new "adoption tsar" Martin Narey's idea that women who have unwanted pregancies should be encouraged to carry the baby to term and give it up for adoption at birth.

I've given this a lot of thought (having been adopted at 6 months old myself) and I can't help feeling uncomfortable and a little angry at the thought of women being used as incubators for babies. Giving up a child for adoption is an enormous trauma - commensurate with, if not greater than, an abortion. It creates a birth mother who has relinquished a baby as well as a child who has been given up. As an adoptee myself, clearly I'm glad that I was carried to term and not aborted, but if I hadn't been, I would never have known, IYSWIM...

It just seems a little "Handmaid's Tale" to me. A so called "adoption tsar" like Martin Narey should understand adoption and it's many issues more than he seems to.

YANBU his comments seem ridiculously naive and lacking in understanding. I can't see how his role is to prescribe the right option for any woman, what ignorance and over reach. The American system has plenty of flaws and doesn't translate well here when we have free health care for pregnant women.

There is research on maternal outcomes after abortion and they show good outcomes, most women do not suffer excessively. Individual experiences will differ but that is true of adoption and abortion too. I don't think women don't consider adoption because 'just because it is mine' but rather because they have an understanding of the massive physical and emotional consequences which are life long. I don't think it is helpful to be so reductive when looking at other women's choices.

I have plenty of vested interest in the subject as am adopted and gave up a baby for adoption too, my good experience of adoption certainly influenced my decision and I am happy with it but the ramifications of the decision continue to influence the lives of those closest to me.

I don't think any healthy society that respects women can do anything other than fully support a woman's right to self determinism over her own body. I don't think any healthy society routinely encourages women to give up their babies.

In all fairness he was chief executive for Banardo's for many years and has vast experience of; child abuse, bad parenting, birth parents and adoptees as well as all the other issues of children and families, so those that are quick to say that he has no experience, he has.

I have friends and family who have worked in all areas of Banardo's and they have a lot of respect for him. As do other professional, families etc.

He hasn't been a birth mother, true, but he has seen and handled, the actions and consequences of all social issues.

Has anyone ever read the book Empty Cradles by Margaret Humphreys? Its about the children sent abroad from Homes and Orphanges abroad, the majority were from places like Barnados.

Britains shame is Child Migrants and the way it used to treat girls like me.

Toadpie: unless someone can supply a further link, he is not talking about pregnancies or the choices women should make then.

His statement (made in the last day) is all about speeding up adoptions for children already in care.

As pointed out by birdsgottafly - he has a lot of relevant experience on that.

I've been a long-time lurker and have never posted before, but I?m interested to see how this thread goes.

I was adopted as a relinquished baby in the early 70s, and I have also been through the process of being approved to adopt a child (although I eventually decided not to continue), so I am interested in this from a couple of the many different perspectives. I have no experience from a birth mother?s point of view as I?ve never made contact with mine.

I think the current system does need to change. There are so many children being damaged by the belief that they are better off being kept with their birth families no matter what. It seems it can take years before a child is finally removed from an unsuitable environment, often with several cycles of spells in care and then being returned to the birth family to ?see if they can make it work this time?. Often the only way that a baby is ?available? for adoption is if older siblings have already been removed, and then this isn?t always the case. Some people seem to ?collect? babies, with little regard as to how, or even if, they are going to be able to support and care for these children as they grow. In my, obviously biased view, giving up your baby for adoption could be the most unselfish thing you could ever do.

It was Martin Narey who called for the government to stop trying to 'fix families that cannot be fixed' and remove babies before the damage is done (or they are killed), in severe abuse cases, he was very balanced and held sensible views then.

'I think we should be helping women to keep their babies and look after them properly if they decide to go through with the pregnancy, rather than encouraging them to give the baby up for "a better life". '

I totally agree with Insomnia11

And so very sorry rubycon :(

The full report is in the times but you have to be registered to access it online. I skimmed it yesterday and it does talk of pregnancy advisory services presenting adoption as a viable option.

I don't for a minute think they currently have the expertise to do this, I doubt he does either. That isn't to say that I don't agree with many of his recommendations but it is up to pregnant women to make their own decisions.
A society that seeks to promote women giving up their babies is wrong, it only works in the USA because of the overwhelming power of the pro life lobby, the financial and social consequences of pregnancy for young women and the influence of the church. There was more adoption here when we had similar social factors and it wasn't a good thing for most of the birth parents and many of the adoptees.

I know very little about this subject, but do have an acquaintence in the USA who had a baby who she put up for Open Adoption. Afaik she sees the child on a regular basis, although the main parental roles are undertaken by the adoptive parents.

Does this system exist at all in the UK? I'm sure it has its problems but it seems very sensible, rather than giving a stark choice to a vulnerable woman who is perhaps unable to care for a baby at that point in her life - abortion or giving up her child forever. We can see from Rubycon's sad post that the pain can last a lifetime.

I think what really annoyed me about his remarks was the glibness - the way adoption is used flippantly by pro-lifers without thinking of the implications.

Rubycon, your post brought tears to my eyes.

Rubycon .... Sorry you have suffered this.

It may well be the reporting style, i have been to lectures given by him and he is never glib.

He's a former head of Barnados, and makes no comment whatsoever on unwanted pregnancies.

article here

I know it is the Daily Mail but Narey is directly quoted suggesting adoption should be offered as a third option. I don't disagree with that, but no woman should be pushed into choosing it.

Even for a daily mail story what he is saying is spot on imo. The key word is OPTION and there is nothing wrong with giving people that third option that is often forgotten.

It is an option already but we know that when it was used more most people whose 'chose' that 'option' did not do so out of free will and suffered enormously as a consequence.

Strong pro life agenda by any chance Sirzy? Your choice, of course, if so but women choose abortion or pregnancy usually and there are good reasons why.
Abortion has overwhelmingly positive outcomes for women and giving up children has overwhelmingly negative ones. I have done it, am happy with it but I would never recommend it.

I take it you havent read any of my posts toadpie? I have made it quite clear that women should be given the choice in my opinion but only after ALL options have been discussed with the woman (and where applicable partner). What is said in the article about adoption though is spot on in my opinion.

I think this very much intends on your interpretation. Having read his comments presented in the Children and Young People link, the Daily Mail and The Independent, I could almost be convinced that three different interviews have been given. I think a lot will depend on where you read it first.

I took his comments to be primarily about removing the barriers that prevent and slow down adoption in this country for children already in the system. I think what he's saying about that is spot on.

I am very much pro-choice and don't believe any woman should be forced to go through with an unwanted pregnancy (during which time she may bond with the baby). But I don't think Nary is talking about adoption from a pro-life stance. I think he's saying that where every help and encouragement has been given to mothers who have had an unplanned pregnancy but they are still struggling instead of guilting them into keeping a baby they don't want adoption should be discussed as an alternative option. I don't interpret that as snatching babies from mothers who love their children and want to keep them. That would be horrific.

BTW rubycon I'm so sorry for your loss.

all options - keeping, adoption, and termination should be considered, but by the woman only. No one else is entitled to voice an opinion. They can have an opinion of course, but don't have the right to give it in this instance.

Actually I did but on closer inspection I see I misread you too, apologies. I read your earlier post to say that adoption should be seen as normal in replacement of the way abortion is seen as normal currently.

You meant, I think, that both should be seen as normal options. Whilst I can't grumble at the impact that change would mean for me I suppose I still can't see them as equal choices. I think it would be incorrect to make them out to be so. And actually I don't think women should have to talk or consider all options, they only have to explore the ones they are interested in.

I think it would very much depend on the reason for termination. E.g. if I were a mother of 3 and got pregnant accidentally but knew I couldn?t afford to have another, possibly had a traumatic birth previously etc I think that the termination would make more sense than adoption ? with other children involved who would see me pregnant expecting another sibling, maybe worrying they?d be adopted too? I think in that sort of case the termination is a lot easier to hide from the outside world. Or if it?s the actual giving birth that?s an issue for a woman who already has a family (traumatic birth experience, severe tearing etc) then ?incubating a child? isn?t the best option. For a rape victim who doesn?t want to keep a child conceived in those circumstances I?d imagine the feeling that your body is out of your control for 9 months as the result of a very negative experience would be very difficult. I?m not saying that termination isn?t difficult or challenging or upsetting just that there are many different reasons for it and each person should be treated as an individual.

I know of a family where their children are adopted siblings and their birth mother was violent and alcoholic. They are loved, have many friends, a close family, lots of hobbies etc. I have a friend with health issues which mean pregnancy is risky so she and her husband are looking into adoption ? gone are the days of the babies up for adoption.

Someone mentioned something about women who get pregnant should be encouraged to stay pregnant and keep their babies. My husband has a daughter from a relationship he had in University which could easily have been one of those ?this will ruin my life, what about my career? type of abortions but the mother stayed pregnant and now has a fabulous daughter who we see very regularly ? she does well at school, has lots of friends, does ballet, gym, has a half brother and I don?t think anyone could imagine life without her. And her mum?s life? Well, since having the ?unwanted pregnancy? she?s managed to work part time in schools, get an MA, run after school clubs and is about to start a teaching course. This is the sort of situation where the reason for abortion or adoption is maybe just too selfish and not strong enough.

But what do I know? I?ve never been in a situation of having an unwanted pregnancy and am a big advocate of using contraception because as far as I?m aware ? if you don?t use it you are trying for a baby?. That?s where they come from.

YANBU

Hmmmm. Read the Narey report yesterday.

I am sure trying to end delays to adoption of children in abusive situations is a good thing. And adoption is a good thing for children in care. I hope Narey, with all his experience at Barnardos, is well intentioned. I am not an expert however. It's not that which worries me.

What concerns me more is adoption coming into the equation at the unwanted pregnancy stage. As has been said, the evidence points to abortion being the less traumatic of the two choices. It is not wrong to mention it, but I don't like to thing of vulnerable pregnant women being coerced.

Coupled with the story a couple of months ago about the British Pregnancy Advisory Service being excluded from the body advising schools on sex education, and being replaced by Life, who are anti-abortion, I think these things need watching.

As I have said before on MN in threads like these, women have fought long and hard to have control over their bodies and fertility, we should not let any Government attempt to turn the clock back.

And before anyone calls me paranoid, they are not going to be overt about it, so we all need to be aware. Only connect, people.

I'm finding talk of good outcomes for women after abortion quite sickening. What about the outcome for the life that the woman has created?

It seems some people are so strongly pro choice that they forget all about the fact that a life has been lost.

I wouldn't say that I'm strongly pro life at all, because there are too many circumstances where abortion is the best option for mother and child, but to not even consider adoption as a valid option is very very selfish, and imo, completely irresponsible.

toadpie, you say you don't even think that women should have to consider an option if they're not interested in it, and I couldn't disagree with that more. A pregnant woman, except in cases of rape, has a responsibility to te life that she helped create, and she should consider adoption. The life is already there, whether a woman likes it or not, they should have to consider that life once it exists. After all, in the majority of cases, there was a choice to be made when the creation of that life happened. If you don't want to be in a position to have to consider adoption - don't have sex! Or use one of the many types of contraception that are freely available.

Adoption needs to become a more normal thing to do in this country. If handled correctly and if the people involved are given the right support, there is no reason why it should be anything but positive. It might also encourage older children to be adopted, because prospective adoptive parents would beging to look into the subject more if there is a chance they would get a baby, as opposed to not evenn considering it because they worry that they would not be able to cope with an older child with issues.

Oh, and not all women faced with an unwanted pregnancy are vulnerable. They do, and should have choices, but can we not make out that they are all completely powerless and blameless inn the situation that they have created. They are not.

The situation they have created?
What about the father bubbles in coffee?
But you would rather demonise women with your pro life stuff.
Of course they are not vulnerable, they are evil sluts killing babies, aren't they?
Not strongly pro life? Yeah right.

As I have said before, women have fought very hard to control their bodies and fertility and that is quite right. Anything which threatens that will set us back to Vera Drake land. Good luck with that, bubbles in coffee.

Remember why I hate anonymous internet forum debates, I'd rather have the person I'm arguing with in front of me.

Leaves.

"A pregnant woman, except in cases of rape, has a responsibility to te life that she helped create"

Why do you make an exception for rape bubbles?

Why is a "life" as you call it, any less important simply because it is the product of rape?