Choosing Not to Keep the Baby (ugh!)

New York Times ^ | June 16, 2009 | Lisa Belkin

[MKEgal]

"Isn’t it convenient how thoughtfully this woman seemed to consider every option, then wrote about her decision to 'terminate' in a way that addressed almost every possible objection?"

Most women do. There are a few who don't, but for most women it's not a decision made lightly.


"All the promises the adopting couple made to my daughter flew right out the window. They told every lie in the book to get a baby..."

That's the way it usually is. I'd love to see promises from potential adopters written into the contract, and that contract be between the pregnant woman & the potential adopters, rather than the adoption agency & potential adopters. Give the women some legal standing.

Adoption agencies, also, tell all the lies they want and get away with it. While you're pregnant they love you and promise you the moon. After you sign away your rights it's like night & day; they don't even want you in their office to discuss anything... sneak you out the back door.

And almost everyone seems to think that 'adoption' = 'giving a baby away' & 'never seeing it again'

Open adoption is always an option, and lets the child know s/he was loved.


"Doesn't a woman actually have to give birth to be a mother?"

Most RTLers don't think so. Pregnant women are constantly referred to as mothers, and the zygote / fetus is constantly referred to as a baby.

If she's still pregnant, she's not a mother & it's not a baby.



-