"Shotgun Adoption" - The Christian Adoption Racket

Well, these Christian organizations claim to be concerned about life.

So, obviously stopping an abortion is viewed as a good thing.
If a young person is thinking about aborting a child, because they aren't ready, then presenting the alternative of adoption sounds like a good alternative.

As for keeping the child vs adoption - one would hope that these agencies would be looking out for the best interest of the child, and perhaps a 16 year old raising the child without a father, isn't the best option for the child if a loving couple can be found to raise the child as their own.

As for making the adoption permanent, that's pretty standard. If you are looking at adopting, it's pretty heartbreaking to think that you have a child, only to have it ripped away from you six months later. Sure, it must be hard giving a child up, but no amount of coercion by these agencies is going to make a mother part with her child if she doesn't want to.

No kidding.

It's tiring, on a progressive board, to have to explain the obvious to people and go back to basics every time.  So, no, I don't care to give specifics at this point.  Maybe someone with more energy to teach feminism 101, or adoption issues 101, can get into it with you.

Why would we michelle, said questions and statements of keystone's should be ignored and shunned, especially in this forum.

"Balancing the rights of a 16-year-old pregnant girl vs. the rights of the foetus (which you call a "CHILD")? Yeah, that comes close to my definition of evil, whether it's the church or the atheists who are making the argument."

The article posted accused these organizations of encouraging young women to give up their children rather than keep it. (Yes, once it is born, it can be referred to as a child) This even applies to future tense, which can be demonstrated by the absurdity of the following sentence.

~The young woman planned to put her fetus up for adoption.~

So, the topic being discussed isn't whether or not the girl should abort, but whether or not the organization should encourage her to give it away rather than keep it.

"However, as others have said, we don't debate those settled issues here. Go see ethical contortionists like Margaret Somerville if you're looking for a sympathetic ear."

I hadn't realized that you and the other intelligentsia had already determined that it was wrong for a mother to give away her child or for anyone to counsel her to do so.

I wish there was some investigating of similar Canadian practices. I know of a Public Health nurse, a fundamentalist Christian, who has been involved in pregnancy councelling for many years - to my horror - and is currently involved in successful, Christian family adoptions of little girls' babies. Last success I heard about, the pregnant girl was 13 years old. This, in small town Southern Ontario.

Anyone else have any knowledge of this? Probably not. It is my misfortune to be related to the above person. Not personally in contact, but close enough to get the picture through the family network. The abstinence movement, as mentioned in "The Nation" article and religiously promoted by said relative/nurse would very likely create more adoptable babies for "good" Christian families. They don't exactly hand out condoms.

I guess nobody is allowed to ask applicants for Public Health Nurse jobs what their religion is? And I'm not sure she remains in that position while assisting in the Christian adoptions. I suspect so. I know she's still councelling young offenders in jail. Bit of a conflict, isn't it?

You're right to raise that aspect of the baby scoop, makwa. For reasons that are clearly racist, African American children weren't targetted in the same way as white babies but that has changed and African American families are now being permanently separated through adoption, too. Canadian families have adopted numerous African American children.

For Keystone above, a visit to the website of the Canadian Council of Natural Mothers might familiarize you with the experiences of women who have lost their children to adoption. This is a far cry from the win-win solution that many adoption counsellors present and, in fact, often leads to life-long trauma and pain for mothers and their separated children. It is preying upon the very vulnerable and does not, despite its claims, have their interests at heart. But rather than go on about it here, I suggest you read the information there -- it will educate you and challenge your views, which have no doubt been influenced by the prevailing mythology surrounding adoption .

The CCNM and its members are fully aware of the manipulative nature of those who present adoption in a seemingly "unbiased" fashion while having an agenda of their own. The adoption industry in the USA is a huge money-maker so, aside from an ideological bent, these organizations generate huge revenues as well.

Loretta wrote:

But rather than go on about it here, I suggest you read the information there -- it will educate you and challenge your views, which have no doubt been influenced by the prevailing mythology surrounding adoption .

Thank you so much Loretta, I shall peruse that resource shortly.  However, I don't believe that I am a particular believer in the 'prevailing mythology surrounding adoption' given that I am personally a so-callled '60s scoop' surviver, as it were. Tee hee.

I would be gratified if we could explore this historical phenomenon further, perhaps in another thread?

PS: When I have a little more time to reflect, I would like to comment on the issues raised by the 'freakonomics' pop culture economics treatise, involving race, abortion and crime.  Perhaps in a new thread.