I know the baby won’t be on welfare, but it’s likely the boy will be permanently angry/upset at his father for flaking out, or at the Palins, if he decides that they pushed his father away. Obviously, kids need emotional health and stability in addition to diapers & food.
It’s sad that the culture often champions the view that it’s cruel, or “abandonment,” or unnatural to give the baby up for adoption, when in fact it gives the baby a better life. Often, the single mothers keeping these babies are doing it for self-focused reasons: to hold onto a connection with the father; to obtain what they believe will be unconditional love from the baby, because that is missing in their own lives; and, in some circles, for status. None of this is good for the baby.
My cousin is adopted & has always been grateful & relieved that things turned out that way - even though her biological father was wealthy & could have provided for her.
Friends of mine adopted a baby who was, I believe, the third illegitimate child of a young single mother. The grandparents were in the picture, so there was an extended family presence. The mother and grandfather thought they should keep the baby in the family, since they’d gone down that path before. Fortunately, the grandmother realized that wasn’t turning out well for the 2 older kids, so she stepped in and successfully lobbied for the adoption, knowing the baby would have a better life with my more mature, stable, responsible, married friends. Now, he is the focus of his adoptive parents’ lives. He definitely seems to thrive on the balance of having both parents readily available. He has attention & opportunity that he would not have had in the single parent home. As a result, he is precocious, well-mannered and very self-confident. It seems cruel to think of stifling his potential in the name of leaving him where he landed at birth.
I will reply to this tomorrow. Tis late and I have to get up early.
Not against adoption but have some arguements as to why I would not.
Have a great evening.