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.

Having read the report in full, I think adoption was being put forward as an alternative to keeping the baby rather than as an alternative to abortion. I think this was a possible solution to be explored where a woman did not want an abortion or was too late to have one, but was not capable of bringing up a child properly. At present the system often encourages her to 'have a go' and then the child ends up in & out of care only to be taken away at a later date when they are much less likely to be adopted. I don't think it's a pro-life stance he has at all.

LD- i understand your points but some women who are addicted to drugs and have very low body weight do not have periods. Their lifestyle is chaotic and they fail to use birth control, or it doesn't work because of health issues, so often it is late before they find out that they are pregnant, when it comes to 'sex workers' there are other factors involved. Unfortunatly not all women turn their lives around when they become mothers.

I've read Narey's report and he's definitely not advocating adoption over abortion. He's suggesting that women who are not capable of good enough parenting should consider the option of adoption instead of keeping the baby, to reduce the incidence of children later being taken into care.

I think there is a significant ethical argument for helping women think through the option of adoption when considering how to resolve an unplanned pregnancy. However, I think Narey is naive in thinking this would reduce the number of children in care. I think it would increase the number of children in care. Why? Because IME (in pregnancy advisory services) the women who will choose adoption are more likely to be young, overly influenced by anti-abortion sentiments among their peers, less likely to be able to think through consequences and benefits over the longer term. Very very often, young women who choose adoption then decide to keep the baby. For them to choose this option in preference to abortion means that more babies will be born to mothers who can't really cope with them, and therefore more will be taken into care.

All respect and sympathy to Rubycon, but adoption has changed a lot since then. It used to be that women relinquished their babies because of social stigma - they were healthy young women, their babies were healthy, all permissions were given (even if under family pressure) and everything went through quickly. These days very, very few women relinquish their babies voluntarily (because it is such a painful and traumatic thing to do - way more traumatic than abortion, and yes there is research to back that up). Babies are taken into care, nearly always, because they have been horrendously neglected or abused. It is no longer the case that birth mothers are women who are just struggling a bit, and with some practical support could cope just fine. it is VITALLY important that we tackle the root causes of failed parenting, but there are no quick and easy solutions.

Bubblesincoffee, sorry missed your question. Are women capable or vulnerable? You'd like me to clarify? So women are capable yet specific individuals or groups may be vulnerable. It is probably easier to see us all as capable then judge those you deem 'selfish' but as approaches go it lacks insight. Then again you seem to think only rape victims should be entitled to abortions and only after reporting their rapes. Such simple answers to such complex issues.

Back to the OP though the reason I said he seemed naive and lacking in understanding was roughly because of what the above poster says. He does write that he wants adoption considered for unwanted pregnancies really this just makes me impatient when the bigger issue has to be the children in care who aren't being placed quickly to safe homes. I see the damage from this professionally and would like to see children adopted quicker and birth families better supported where appropriate. I also think it will increase the number of children in care.

He seems to see women with unwanted pregnancies having adoption presented as an option, potentially by the voluntary groups he refers to and might this be done like it can be in the US where a pro life/ church org provides the pregnancy counselling so the especially vulnerable get to see birth mom testimonies, read letters from prospective parents, be given a badge of tiny fully formed feet whilst being told how much they will be helped financially and emotionally? So these women/children go ahead with the pregnancies but rarely finally give the children up just like most women who used the LIFE/SPUC network of temporary homes. Even these women whose pregnancies were often hidden this way often took their babies home and to no further support from the host organisation other than some clothes and a cot. The women most affected here will be the young and the chaotic and the ones least likely to be able to withstand the lifelong process of giving a child up for adoption r parenting successfully.

toadpie - he mentions adoption being offered as an alternative to abortion, but it's a small part of a much bigger report into why adoption should be speeded up to get children out of care - so I think he is seeing the bigger picture.

The bit where he mentions adoption as a resolution to unwanted pregnancies is where he reports that the voluntary agencies (Marie Stopes, BPAS, etc.) don't currently offer any information about it - their advice is primarily about abortion. He contrasts this with Planned Parenthood in the States (emphatically not a religious pro-life organisation - they also offer advice on abortion) and says that British charities could offer more advice on adoption, but present the information in a neutral, non-judgemental way - not the sort of adoption advice you're referring to.

Not contradicting any of your views, btw - just clarifying what the report said.

This is just another step towards vilifying women who choose to terminate. Where will it end?

It honestly isn't, Bacchus - however the report has been reported, it is clear that Narey's intention is to divert women from keeping their babies (in unsuitable circumstances) to giving them up for adoption. He doesn't want to divert women from abortion to adoption. I expect he would be happy to see those women whose children end up in care choosing abortion rather than keeping their pregnancies.

I don't think he has handled this complex and sensitive issue well, though.

As per my quote from the report yesterday, Narey said he was "emphatically pro-choice" and that he hesitated to make the point about adoption as an alternative to abortion because he knew how it might be interpreted. i don't think anyone could accuse him of vilifying women who choose to terminate.

Bubblesincoffee - when you say that abortions should only be available to rape victims, how exactly is this going to work?

Do we have a system where if a woman says she is raped then we accept that? All that would achieve is to create a system where all women who want an abortion have to say that they were raped in order to be eligible, regardless of whether they were actually raped or not (which, apart from being a daft system in practice, would have a serious effect on rape convictions: defence barristers could point to a really good reason why a woman might have lied about having being raped).

You mentioned pressing charges as suitable evidence that a rape had occurred. So what happens if a woman is raped in a dark alley, can't identify her attacker, police have nothing to go on and can't catch anyone - you can't press charges if there is no suspect. Is the 13yo raped by her uncle going to be denied an abortion because she was too scared of him and his threats to tell anyone what really happened? What happens when it's his word against hers - a date rape case - and the CPS think it better not to prosecute? Do rape victims only get an abortion if they can satisfy the criminal standard of proof? Oddly enough, this is a suggestion that I am deeply uncomfortable with.

There are so many reasons why a rape exception is a very bad idea. So you have a choice - make abortion illegal with no exception for rape victims (which is IMO inhumane) or make it legal within sensible limits (i.e. within certain time limits, for example our current system).

Agree ZombiePlan.

And there is still the issue of why a life should be deemed less worthy of protection simply because it was created by rape. Even if that rape is clearly proven.

I don't think bubbles has answered this one.

Agreed treats, I did read the report and because I was interested in changes to the current system for looked after children. This is a small part but the bit the op and others will pick up on.

I sit in on care reviews and am horrified at the catastrophic care many of the children have had and can see how much better their lives would be with parents. This seems like the really important stuff to me.

His trepidation at getting involved with adoption as an option for unwanted pregnancies was warranted. He might be pro choice and be thinking of unbiased info but this sits badly alongside the league tables idea, a bad idea anyway especially when either give ammunition to those who see the changes as part of an agenda that seeks to disempower parents and collect babies. Whilst he may have pp as his template organisation his comments inevitably are read in the context of the current government and their choice of LIFE as an advisor and their traditional opposition to abortion on demand. This and other pro life organisations will be looking at lobbying to gain these positioned, roles they have long wanted rather as some posters on this thread have moved quickly to see adoption prioritised as an ethical response to unwanted pregnancy. They are also over shadowed by our ignonimous recent history which has exploited birth mothers and their children. It is not a history that can be ignored. Looking to other countries for models is appropriate but seeking to apply them to countries with different traditions and social and cultural backgrounds often inappropriate.