Adoption-is it really a better option?

[Rose Garden]

You make a good point. I've noticed that too, that even if a woman is divorced before the baby is born, it's not generally suggested that she give up her baby. Incidentally, my husband left before my baby was born and I was told by one person that I ought to give up the baby. Just one person, though. Generally, people expected me to keep my baby.

Meili I appreciate your input, I really don't know much about your personal life, and I didn't realize that you'd been so directly affected by decisions like this. I hope I'm not being too callous about things that hit close to home.
If you don't mind sharing, what made you decide to keep your baby after your husband left?

There was no decision. I had a baby and it was my job to take care of her. I found it ironic that unwed mothers were encouraged to give up their babies when they were in virtually the same circumstance as I was (or usually in better circumstances since I was homeless at the time). The person who said I needed to give her up was shortsighted and could not see how I could provide for her. I couldn't see it either but giving her up simply wasn't an option my mind could seriously consider. Fortunately, I discovered that the Lord has provided for us both.

You haven't seemed callous. No one has. But some have seemed shortsighted as my friend was. There is so much more available to us if we would only exercise faith in the Lord. If the LDS community cannot support a young mother to raise her own child if that's what she wants, and help her overcome the inner struggles that led to her predicament, not to mention help the young man involved, and help them become responsible adults, then that is a demonstration of lack of faith in the Lord. It is a demonstration of a lack of charity. It would be better to focus on the lack of faith that is causing us to not support unwed mothers so they don't have to work two jobs to provide for their child and is causing us to suggest she won't be able to find a righteous spouse, than to focus on the errors of the mother.

[passionflower]

I can understand this viewpoint- it's sounds very "male", meaning that you're looking at the situation from a fatherly, "provider" standpoint. "What will give the child the best set up to have its physical needs met and be placed in a situation where he can be successful in life." That makes sense to me.

I don't know why this sounds "male" to you. Go ahead and compare a child who was adopted into a two parent LDS family with a child who was kept by a single mother. Do you really think that a woman who has the child raised by other, using government subsidies to put the child into daycare for nine or ten hours a day then having babysitters watch the kid outside of daycare hours because the unskilled and uneducated young mother needs to work two or three jobs to make ends meet is going to be better off because he or she wasn't given to another couple?

Do you really think that all I am referring to is the child's physical needs? Do you think I am so dense that I don't have a clue as to how damaging it is for a child to be raised in a daycare?

Here's just one example: the so-called social justice warrior. These are coming from generations raised in daycare. Children in daycare, just like children at home, want attention. But when there are five infants to one adult, 10 two year old kids to one adult, or 20 four year old kids to one adult there is no way that every kid is going to get the attention they want and need. So who gets the attention? The kid who acts up. Bad behavior is rewarded with attention, reinforcing tantrums.

When you see a young adult throwing a tantrum worse than any two year old, this is why they are doing so. They learned in the daycare setting where their physical needs were met to throw a giant fit to get what they want. They carry this lesson into adulthood.

I did not focus my initial comment on a child's physical needs. Promiscuity, drug abuse, and crime are not more likely to be seen in children raised by single mothers because their physical needs are not being met; children raised by single mothers have a higher rate of these self destructive behaviors because spiritual needs are not being met. So I ask: do you care to revise your response to me?

Of course, I sincerely apologize for misunderstanding you! Thank you for clarifying. I didn't mean anything negative about your comment sounding "male". I meant that it was a view I hadn't considered because, myself being female, I think about nurturing needs before physical ones. But I certainly don't think you're dense. You make very valid points. Being raised in daycare has all sorts of negative side effects. However, most 2 parent families send their kids to government schools for 8-9 hours a day from kindergarten-12th grade. What is the difference between the negative effects of daycare and the negative effects of public school?

Obviously with daycare we're talking about children being much younger. But then again it's not all single mothers putting their kids in daycare. I know some families have both parents working so they will put the baby in daycare starting at 6wks old. This is not the ideal situation at all, you're completely right.

I whole heartedly agree with you that even though physical needs are being met, a child can fail to thrive if he is not provided with emotional and spiritual nourishment. And that is part of my point: removing a baby from its mother causes there to be a deficit in emotional and spiritual nourishment. While a 2 parent family can often provide better for physical needs and is more likely to to postpone all-day separation from the child until Kindergarten, they cannot replicate the bond between the natural mother and the baby.

If a child is raised without a father in their home, there will be most surely a "deficit in emotional and spiritual nourishment". An infant needs to a father as well as a mother to bond to.

[passionflower]

The Netherlands gives no government sponsored welfare or support to women who have children out of wedlock. They get no money, special high schools, counseling, wic programs, or any benefits. The social stigma surrounding unwed pregnancy is also very high. No one pities you, gives you the benefit of the doubt, or refrains from judging you as foolish and irresponsible, parents can get plenty mad at you, too.

So guess what? There are virtually no single mothers in the Netherlands.

Your assertion is verifiable. I found this:
"The United States has one of the highest rates of teen pregnancy in the world, with 53 births per 1,000 women aged nineteen and younger compared to countries at the lower end of the spectrum such as Denmark (nine births per 1,000), Netherlands (six births per 1,000), and Japan (four births per 1,000)."
http://family.jrank.org/pages/1574/Sing ... rends.html

So in the case that an unwed mother does get pregnant, do you think placing the baby for adoption is generally a better option than the natural mother raising the child herself?

Unless the unwed mother has a committed live in father in the picture, absolutely. It is better for the mother, better for the child, and better for society.

[braingrunt]

OK, I'm surprised at your answer. You're right,
I probably am misreading you. You would encourage a divorced mother to put her newborn up for adoption, but not her 2 or 3 month old. What's the difference? I doubt the mother's economic situation will have changed that much in 2-3 months. If the reason for giving the baby up are to provide it with a 2 parent home, financial stability, and opportunities for success, then the baby will still need those things whether it's a newborn or 2-3 months old.

The timing, in my mind, is solely about the ability of the child to re-attach emotionally with as little (unintentional) cruelty as possible. Perhaps reattachment is possible later, but it starts to seem more and more cruel. This is all assuming that the child is in a situation where they HAVE become attached to someone. If not, the hurry is on for a whole other reason. Studies suggest that kids who don't attach within a certain time will find it difficult or impossible to attach their whole lives. They are literally emotionally damaged, probably for life. Attachment and love is something that they needed to learn at a certain phase of physical development.

Foster kids are a common example of people who often have attachment issues. That comes with problems which I think not everyone is strong enough to deal with, however much you want to help.


Having a relationship with birth parents might be a good idea. I don't really know. But in the case of moses etc, it could be argued that the relationship was a means of attaching them to God.

[Robin Hood]

I have long believed the Church's stated position on this issue is wrong.

[Onsdag]

There are plenty of stories from the old days of a mother dying during labor and the child quickly being given to another woman, and modern stories of babies being passed to adoptive mothers very quickly after birth. I am not aware of any evidence that children adopted as infants suffer at all.

Even if a newborn is birthed and then immediately given to their adoptive parents, there is a type of trauma that adopted children (and likely the birth mother) deal with their whole lives. It's called "the primal wound" and it occurs because for 40wks a baby bonds with its mother, depending on her for life, becoming in sync with her on every level possible. When that bond is severed, the child is left with an overriding feeling of abandonment and loss that often affects the rest of their lives. https://www.amazon.com/Primal-Wound-Und ... imal+wound

OK, I'm surprised at your answer. You're right,
I probably am misreading you. You would encourage a divorced mother to put her newborn up for adoption, but not her 2 or 3 month old. What's the difference? I doubt the mother's economic situation will have changed that much in 2-3 months. If the reason for giving the baby up are to provide it with a 2 parent home, financial stability, and opportunities for success, then the baby will still need those things whether it's a newborn or 2-3 months old.

The timing, in my mind, is solely about the ability of the child to re-attach emotionally with as little (unintentional) cruelty as possible. Perhaps reattachment is possible later, but it starts to seem more and more cruel. This is all assuming that the child is in a situation where they HAVE become attached to someone. If not, the hurry is on for a whole other reason. Studies suggest that kids who don't attach within a certain time will find it difficult or impossible to attach their whole lives. They are literally emotionally damaged, probably for life. Attachment and love is something that they needed to learn at a certain phase of physical development.

Foster kids are a common example of people who often have attachment issues. That comes with problems which I think not everyone is strong enough to deal with, however much you want to help.


Having a relationship with birth parents might be a good idea. I don't really know. But in the case of moses etc, it could be argued that the relationship was a means of attaching them to God.

This is a field that I don't even pretend to have any real knowledge about, but I do have an opinion that tends to agree with brianj and braingrunt in that if someone is going to adopt their child out it should be done quickly so that the newborn can start developing those necessary bonds with the new parents as soon as possible. I don't know anything about this "primal wound", but I suspect it's not nearly as big a deal as is made out, and not nearly as important or relevant as having a stable and loving environment to be raised in.

Case in point - I don't know all the facts of this story, so some parts may be inaccurate, but this is my understanding of how it went: My mother was born into a family with a father and mother and seven other siblings. Her father worked for the military and had to travel a great distance for work and therefore was gone for months at a time, leaving her mother to take care of eight children essentially by herself. Due to the great pressures on her to take care of all these children by herself, and perhaps due to postpartum depression (I don't actually know if she suffered from it or not), my grandmother had a nervous breakdown and gave my mother away to another family in the community to have - essentially adopted her out but without the legal process. When my grandfather came home several months later and found out what she had done he was rightly upset and immediately quick-marched her over to this other family's place and demanded the return of my mother. However, my mother had already started developing familial bonds with this other family and so it was a traumatizing experience for her to be torn away from what she had come to know as her family and be given to these strangers who were her real family.

If this "primal wound" is so important and significant then why was it so hard and traumatizing for my mother to be returned to her real mother as an infant? Whatever the case, it seems that developing these new bonds with this other family was more powerful and important in the first few months of my mother's early life than any inherent bond she may have shared with her mother while in the womb.

I'm not taking a stance for or against adoption. I think there's merit in either scenario under ideal and appropriate circumstances. Whatever the case, seeking God's will for you and the child should be top priority. I think of the example of Joseph and Emma, who lost their twins, but was blessed to adopt another pair of twins into their lives, hearts, and homes.

[passionflower]

The Netherlands gives no government sponsored welfare or support to women who have children out of wedlock. They get no money, special high schools, counseling, wic programs, or any benefits. The social stigma surrounding unwed pregnancy is also very high. No one pities you, gives you the benefit of the doubt, or refrains from judging you as foolish and irresponsible, and your parents can get plenty mad at you, too.

So guess what? There are virtually no single mothers in the Netherlands.

But how does the government of the Netherlands "prevent" teen pregnancy? I have an acquaintance who moved to Amsterdam and recently had a baby. The way she described her early prenatal care, it sounded like abortion was being actively pushed on pregnant women. She's quite liberal and not LDS so she thought it was a good thing that over several visits she was repeatedly asked if she really wanted to have a baby, told how easy an abortion is, and even had these people offering to schedule an abortion appointment for her.
In the Netherlands less than 100 families adopt children per year, and this has been the case for over two decades.

How does the Dutch government "prevent" teen pregnancy? Well, one big discouragement is no government enabling with no government "rewards" coming the way of the unwed mother and fatherless child. One reason for the obscenely high rate of illegitmate children in the US, is all the welfare entitlements, meaning that the more out of wedlock children a woman has, the more money, etc, she gets, which in turn discourages marraige.

In the Netherlands family life is another deterrent to teen age pregnancy. It is still the norm for mom to be at home, and for families to eat dinner together every day. Children are still sent home from school at lunchtime, as it is a given that mom will be home with a hot meal and in turn eat with the children. To gain permission for your children to stay at school to eat lunch is a huge red tape affair, and is usually sought by expats who are more likely to be "working mothers" in the Netherlands.

When the dutch get married, they STAY married.

Even though the dutch are generally irreligious and almost no one believes in God, the stability of home life with a working father and a stay at home mother truly stabilizes the society. Please don't believe that teen agers in the Netherlands are just aborting their pregnancies. That would be incorrect. They just aren't having sex with any body less than a committed guy.

If I can assume that your aquaintance who moved to Amsterdam was had this baby without a committed father, then I can see truly see her prenatal health care providers strongly encouraging her to abort. This doesn't mean abortion is "easy" to get, but rather proves my point. Her OB is not going to see her pregnancy as some personal choice that should be supported without judgement, but rather as stupid, irresponsible, and just plain wrong. I can really believe that on each and every visit they strongly encouraged her to abort. Heck Yeah.

[Thinker]

Children need both a mother and father.
If I were asked in preexistence if I'd rather be raised by a single mom who wasn't ready for me, or a mother & father who were ready for me, I'd choose the latter. And this is research-based. Children do better socially, psychologically & thrive better in other ways when they have a mother AND father.

It seems that some are quick to dismiss the importance of fathers.
Fathers are needed, as are mothers.
Adoption tends to allow for more ideal circumstances for a child, even if in the short run, separation between biological mother & child is difficult. The big picture is important to consider, as well as what is really best for a child.

[JohnnyL]

The Netherlands gives no government sponsored welfare or support to women who have children out of wedlock. They get no money, special high schools, counseling, wic programs, or any benefits. The social stigma surrounding unwed pregnancy is also very high. No one pities you, gives you the benefit of the doubt, or refrains from judging you as foolish and irresponsible, parents can get plenty mad at you, too.

So guess what? There are virtually no single mothers in the Netherlands.

Your assertion is verifiable. I found this:
"The United States has one of the highest rates of teen pregnancy in the world, with 53 births per 1,000 women aged nineteen and younger compared to countries at the lower end of the spectrum such as Denmark (nine births per 1,000), Netherlands (six births per 1,000), and Japan (four births per 1,000)."
http://family.jrank.org/pages/1574/Sing ... rends.html

So in the case that an unwed mother does get pregnant, do you think placing the baby for adoption is generally a better option than the natural mother raising the child herself?

I was roommates with some Japanese girls and they shared with me that whenever one of their good friends became pregnant that girl would take up collection money from friends for an abortion. One of the girls said her biggest life regrets was donating to her friends abortion money. They said this was the norm and you would get a lot of flak for not donating. So, those stats may be skewed by whether or not abortion plays into the equation.

I think adoption is wonderful. So much good can come from it. I also think that we should give the birth mother every opportunity to keep her child. I have a friend who was going to give her child up for adoption because that is what everyone told her was the right choice, but after she saw her baby she couldn't do it. She kept him and has never been sorry. With God and love, we can make Beauty from ashes. He can use all things to work together for our good.

I think where we really miss the mark is when we judge each other, thinking we know what is best for someone - especially if our motive is more gossip than love in passing judgement. Most people are out to do well, not all, but most. I think we should be more open with mothers who want to keep their babies, rather than giving the blanket advice for all mothers to place their children up for adoption.

I agree with butterfly that the bond between a mother and birth baby is unique and birth mothers should at very least be told this.

I was going to mention "teen pregancy" =/= "births", glad you did.

I think it's generally best to adopt, especially when you do a very realistic "plus vs. minus" chart.

[brianj]

If I can assume that your aquaintance who moved to Amsterdam was had this baby without a committed father, then I can see truly see her prenatal health care providers strongly encouraging her to abort. This doesn't mean abortion is "easy" to get, but rather proves my point. Her OB is not going to see her pregnancy as some personal choice that should be supported without judgement, but rather as stupid, irresponsible, and just plain wrong. I can really believe that on each and every visit they strongly encouraged her to abort. Heck Yeah.

Your assumption is incorrect. She has a devoted husband who earns more than enough to comfortably support the family and this was her second pregnancy. Her husband is Dutch and has supportive extended family in the area. Yet even with that support and her stated desire to have the child the health care providers were still encouraging her to get an abortion unless she really, really wanted to have the second child.

[braingrunt]

Giving up for adoption is not a punishment for the mother. In fact, when the mother keeps the baby, I think "Well, that mother is about to learn some hard lessons, maybe it will lead her to repentance; too bad it will come at the expense of that innocent little person."
In other words, it's a potent punishment. I have seen a couple of teen pregnancies where they kept the baby. In both cases, you could soon see the cares piling on and changing them. Too bad however, it doesn't seem to benefit the boy much.
But in spite of their power to alter crazy young teens, the baby's needs are primary. They should be given up for adoption even though it lets the mother off lightly.

[Silver Pie]

I'm a single mom. It's really hard sometimes but fortunately I have a lot of supportive friends. Sadly, it is far easier on my own than it was when my husband was in the picture. I've come to the conclusion that having no man is better than having a bad man, even if you have a child. Some day maybe I'll be able to tell you the comparison between having no man and having a good man.

I can second this. No man is infinitely better than a bad man.

[butterfly]

I appreciate everyone's thoughts. Here is a list of articles that explain in detail the trauma experienced by birth mothers and babies as a result of adoption.

http://list.ly/list/QzV-is-adoption-trauma#item_830648?

In short, most babies grow up to deal with lifelong abandonment and security issues and struggle to have healthy relationships. The overall feeling is that if their own mother could abandon them, then anyone else certainly would. Feelings of worthlessness, depression, etc are higher than in the unadopted population and there is a higher percentage of adoptees in mental health institutions.

For birth mothers, the effects of grief are more intense and long-lasting than what is experienced by mothers whose baby dies. This is in part because the mother has no closure - she doesn't know if the baby is safe, being taken care of, etc. It's similar to what a family feels for a soldier who is missing in action. Up to 40% of birth mothers experience infertility following the adoption. Professionals believe this is psychosomatic, due to the trauma the mother goes through with the loss of her baby.

A lot of this is new information because not too long ago it was believed that babies were blank slates and if you get them away from the mother as soon as they're born, then they'll never even notice the difference with the adoptive mother.
But now we understand that baby has been bonding with mom for 40wks and knows exactly who is the mother. Some of us would think twice about taking a 9month old baby away from its mother, especially immediately following the intensity of birth, when a baby MOST needs its mom.
Some professionals are recommending that if the baby is to be placed for adoption, she should at least spend the first few days with the natural mother, in order to happily transition to life outside the womb. The baby is already attached, so the concern that staying with the mother will begin the bonding process is null.

These few days also give the birth mother time to understand her new feelings about motherhood. A lot of hormones change during birth. For mothers who have already signed adoption papers, there's no getting the baby back in many states. The mother needs a few days to see how birth changes her feelings about her baby. The intensity of these hormones which cause a mother to protect and love her child are very new and if that baby is immediately taken away following birth, then the mother is left with a grief that can be worse than if the baby had died.

As Meili said, a lot of adoptions are due to shortsightedness. The young mother likely won't always be single and money may not always be an issue. Similarly, a couple looking to adopt may not stay married and they may have financial instability down the road.

So there's no guarantees that adoption is truly giving your baby a better life. But it is highly probable that mother and/or baby will deal with the trauma of adoption for their entire lives.

[butterfly]

OK, I'm surprised at your answer. You're right,
I probably am misreading you. You would encourage a divorced mother to put her newborn up for adoption, but not her 2 or 3 month old. What's the difference? I doubt the mother's economic situation will have changed that much in 2-3 months. If the reason for giving the baby up are to provide it with a 2 parent home, financial stability, and opportunities for success, then the baby will still need those things whether it's a newborn or 2-3 months old.

The timing, in my mind, is solely about the ability of the child to re-attach emotionally with as little (unintentional) cruelty as possible. Perhaps reattachment is possible later, but it starts to seem more and more cruel. This is all assuming that the child is in a situation where they HAVE become attached to someone. If not, the hurry is on for a whole other reason. Studies suggest that kids who don't attach within a certain time will find it difficult or impossible to attach their whole lives. They are literally emotionally damaged, probably for life. Attachment and love is something that they needed to learn at a certain phase of physical development.

Foster kids are a common example of people who often have attachment issues. That comes with problems which I think not everyone is strong enough to deal with, however much you want to help.

I completely agree. What they're finding though is that baby is already attached to mom before birth even occurs. So just the act of denying the baby its mother, especially immediately following the intensity of birth, is causing all the attachment issues that are trying to be circumvented.

If a mother dies during birth, then the child grows up grieving the loss, society is generally supportive of this need to grieve, and the child can know that its mother still loved him.

But if a mother places baby for adoption, then the child still needs to grieve but society sees this as inappropriate. The child should be grateful that someone else chose to raise them and so natural grieving gets suppressed. Also, the mother didn't die- she chose to give away her baby which makes the child feel there is something inherently wrong with them, they are unlovable.

(I wasn't aware of all this until the past few days, but the research I'm finding is really making me change my view entirely about adoption. )

[braingrunt]

OK, I'm surprised at your answer. You're right,
I probably am misreading you. You would encourage a divorced mother to put her newborn up for adoption, but not her 2 or 3 month old. What's the difference? I doubt the mother's economic situation will have changed that much in 2-3 months. If the reason for giving the baby up are to provide it with a 2 parent home, financial stability, and opportunities for success, then the baby will still need those things whether it's a newborn or 2-3 months old.

The timing, in my mind, is solely about the ability of the child to re-attach emotionally with as little (unintentional) cruelty as possible. Perhaps reattachment is possible later, but it starts to seem more and more cruel. This is all assuming that the child is in a situation where they HAVE become attached to someone. If not, the hurry is on for a whole other reason. Studies suggest that kids who don't attach within a certain time will find it difficult or impossible to attach their whole lives. They are literally emotionally damaged, probably for life. Attachment and love is something that they needed to learn at a certain phase of physical development.

Foster kids are a common example of people who often have attachment issues. That comes with problems which I think not everyone is strong enough to deal with, however much you want to help.

I completely agree. What they're finding though is that baby is already attached to mom before birth even occurs. So just the act of denying the baby its mother, especially immediately following the intensity of birth, is causing all the attachment issues that are trying to be circumvented.

If a mother dies during birth, then the child grows up grieving the loss, society is generally supportive of this need to grieve, and the child can know that its mother still loved him.

But if a mother places baby for adoption, then the child still needs to grieve but society sees this as inappropriate. The child should be grateful that someone else chose to raise them and so natural grieving gets suppressed. Also, the mother didn't die- she chose to give away her baby which makes the child feel there is something inherently wrong with them, they are unlovable.

(I wasn't aware of all this until the past few days, but the research I'm finding is really making me change my view entirely about adoption. )

I guess I need to look more closely at your data, but the little research I have done suggests that outcomes for two-parent homes are similar for biological and adoptive parents; while single parent children suffer double the amount of problems.

[butterfly]

If this "primal wound" is so important and significant then why was it so hard and traumatizing for my mother to be returned to her real mother as an infant? Whatever the case, it seems that developing these new bonds with this other family was more powerful and important in the first few months of my mother's early life than any inherent bond she may have shared with her mother while in the womb.

Wow, thank you for sharing this. A lot of this is new to me, too, but based on what I've been learning I'd say the reason why your mother was too traumatized to go back to her birth mother is because the damage of separation had already been done. Her birth mother, from a baby's viewpoint, had rejected her, found her unlovable and not worth her time. This is the biggest rejection a person can experience.
You can be rejected by your spouse, by your kids, your friends, etc. It's hard, but these people in our lives are attracted to love us because of the good qualities they see in us. When we change or our friends and spouses change, so can their feelings for us. It's sad, but it happens.

A mother's love, however, is singular. It is not based on whether you get along well or if she admires your positive qualities- it is based 100% on the fact that you are her child. Nature wires a mother to love a newborn unconditionally. The newborn doesn't have to have any great qualities or do anything special; they just have to exist.

So when a baby realizes that its mother has completely rejected her, that trauma is not something the baby can just recover from, like an "on/off" switch and think "oh mom was just kidding, she actually does love me unconditionally."

It's likely that your mother, as a baby, had already accepted the fact that her best chance for survival would be with the adoptive mother who could possibly still be won over as long as the baby is "good enough" to merit her love. It won't take away the rejection that's been experienced, but it would at least get her basic needs met and give her a safe and happy home.

[butterfly]

I guess I need to look more closely at your data, but the little research I have done suggests that outcomes for two-parent homes are similar for biological and adoptive parents; while single parent children suffer double the amount of problems.

Your research is probably accurate. The difference is the problems that are being reported and compared. Outcomes for biological and adoptive children are about the same, and are much worse in single-parent homes when looking at incidence of violence, drugs, failure to do well in school, etc.

The reason for this (from what I've found so far) is that an adopted child's survival depends on them getting their new parents to love them. The child has already been rejected and wants to avoid that happening again at all costs. So they become extremely adaptable, adjusting to whatever situation they're in to give themselves the best chance of keeping their adoptive parents happy. This coping mechanism ensures that the adoptive parents won't reject them the way the birth parents did. If your own mother won't keep you, then how good are your chances with a replacement mother? You're going to have to be extra good, say the right things, be happy and grateful, and fit in with the family in order to not get rejected again.

So no, you wouldn't see a high incidence of crime and violence with this situation. You'd see an inward suffering that has to be kept hidden and leads to inner problems- depression, lack of identity, inability to maintain a normal relationship because they're constantly trying to prevent abandonment.

Some kids can only keep the act up for so long. So then they go to the opposite extreme. They reject anyone who tries to love them, esp. the adoptive mother because they are so scared of being abandoned again. These kids refuse to attach to anyone at all.

[braingrunt]

I guess I need to look more closely at your data, but the little research I have done suggests that outcomes for two-parent homes are similar for biological and adoptive parents; while single parent children suffer double the amount of problems.

Your research is probably accurate. The difference is the problems that are being reported and compared. Outcomes for biological and adoptive children are about the same, and are much worse in single-parent homes when looking at incidence of violence, drugs, failure to do well in school, etc.

The reason for this (from what I've found so far) is that an adopted child's survival depends on them getting their new parents to love them. The child has already been rejected and wants to avoid that happening again at all costs. So they become extremely adaptable, adjusting to whatever situation they're in to give themselves the best chance of keeping their adoptive parents happy. This coping mechanism ensures that the adoptive parents won't reject them the way the birth parents did. If your own mother won't keep you, then how good are your chances with a replacement mother? You're going to have to be extra good, say the right things, be happy and grateful, and fit in with the family in order to not get rejected again.

So no, you wouldn't see a high incidence of crime and violence with this situation. You'd see an inward suffering that has to be kept hidden and leads to inner problems- depression, lack of identity, inability to maintain a normal relationship because they're constantly trying to prevent abandonment.

Some kids can only keep the act up for so long. So then they go to the opposite extreme. They reject anyone who tries to love them, esp. the adoptive mother because they are so scared of being abandoned again. These kids refuse to attach to anyone at all.

It doesn't make much sense to me... you've given reasons for adoptive kids' good outcomes, but why do normal two-parent kids have similar outcomes? Do none of those same reasons apply to adoptive children? That seems unlikely.

Also, relationship stability (divorce, marriage, cohabitation) is one of the measured outcomes... This implies that when they have relationships they show similar stability as non-adoptive kids. This seems to be an exact contradiction to the attachment problems you've heard of. I simply don't know how to reconcile them right now.

And finally, if what you say is true, might those be reasons to not inform the child about their adoption, rather than reasons to not do adoption?

[butterfly]

It doesn't make much sense to me... you've given reasons for adoptive kids' good outcomes, but why do normal two-parent kids have similar outcomes? Do none of those same reasons apply to adoptive children? That seems unlikely.

I'm not sure if I understand your question correctly. But let's say you have 10 biological kids and then 10 adopted kids. 70% are successful from both groups. The 70% from the biological kids are successful because they were raised in 2 parent homes where they felt loved and secure.
The 70% adopted kids are successful because they fear being kicked out of their adoptive parents' homes.
Both groups are "successful" by measurable data, but the biological kids are successful because they feel loved and the adopted ones because they fear rejection.

Also, relationship stability (divorce, marriage, cohabitation) is one of the measured outcomes... This implies that when they have relationships they show similar stability as non-adoptive kids. This seems to be an exact contradiction to the attachment problems you've heard of. I simply don't know how to reconcile them right now.

I tried to find a study that shows the type of data you're referencing but no luck so far. What I have been finding is more recent studies showing that adopted kids are measuring the same as or worse than kids raised in single-parent homes. For example:
https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-paradox-of-adoption/

And finally, if what you say is true, might those be reasons to not inform the child about their adoption, rather than reasons to not do adoption?

I think this would not be in the best interests of the child, to not tell them that they are adopted. Nancy Verrier, who specializes in counseling adopted persons, wrote about how even if a child is never told they were adopted until they're an adult, the child still deals with the same issues of abandonment, rejection, loss of identity, etc. The reason is because the trauma of separation cannot be taken away. The biggest rejection a person can have is being abandoned by their mother. That pain is real for the child and they deal with the effects of that pain. It can even be harder for the child who isn't told that they're adopted because they can't put into words why they feel the way they do. The adoptive parents deny that there's any problem and so the child can never work to resolving a problem that no one will admit exists.

Plus, the child is going to find out eventually, whether from the parents or someone else who knows. For an adopted child to already have trust issues, and then to add to the fact that their adoptive parents have been "lying" to them their whole lives, is going to result in an intense estrangement from the adoptive parents. Adopted kids need to know that they can trust their adoptive parents in order to maintain a healthy relationship with them.

[Rose Garden]

Quote from link cited above:

The data presented in this research brief show that adopted children in kindergarten and first grade display above-average levels of problem behavior, exhibit below-average levels of positive learning attitudes, and score below average on reading and math assessments, despite their advantaged family background. Why don’t the plentiful resources and strenuous nurturing efforts of adoptive parents lead to better classroom conduct and higher achievement by their adopted children? Possible reasons why family resources do not always produce great outcomes may be found in attachment theory, traumatic stress theory, and behavior genetics.

Attachment theory holds that a warm, intimate, and continuous relationship with at least one adult, usually the mother, is essential for the mental health of infants and young children. Children who do not develop a stable and secure bond during early childhood, or have the bond disrupted, are subject to both short-term distress reactions and longer-term abnormalities in their feelings and behavior toward other people. Not having a stable maternal bond is apt to produce long-lasting deficits in the child’s social development, deficiencies that are not easily remedied by a new home environment, no matter how favorable.

Some adopted children experienced neglect, abuse, or other stressful events prior to their adoption. According to traumatic stress theory, the likelihood of long-term emotional scars depends on the intensity and duration of the stress. Severe or prolonged early stress can have long-lasting effects on a child’s development, effects that a supportive adoptive family may only partly ameliorate.

[butterfly]

This study shows that adopted adolescents are 4xs as likely to attempt suicide than non adopted kids.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3784288/

[butterfly]

This blog discusses why adopted kids tend to be overachievers and successful on the outside, but on the inside they are dangerously depressed.

The comments section at the bottom, following the article, were really surprising. Post after post are from adult adoptees explaining how they had to appear "grateful" that someone loved them enough to take them in. They couldn't express while growing up how they just wanted to die; they couldn't figure out their identity, they were terrified of showing the adoptive parents their real feelings for fear of being abandoned again.

Many of the comments are from older adults who say they still welcome death. They've tried their whole lives to feel loved and yet, because they were abandoned by their mothers, feeling love for themselves or from others has eluded them their entire lives.

http://www.adopteerestoration.com/2013/ ... o-die.html

[braingrunt]

Well, if research is no longer on my side, I have more to learn and less to say.

That doesn't imply I'm entirely convinced, just that I don't know. Is it possible that divorce has turned the data on it's head, or have they already controlled that out?

[Rose Garden]

Well, if research is no longer on my side, I have more to learn and less to say.

That doesn't imply I'm entirely convinced, just that I don't know. Is it possible that divorce has turned the data on it's head, or have they already controlled that out?

I believe that the article I quoted above said that they controlled that out. I don't really understand how "controlling out" works, so I might be wrong. I think it would be informative to you to read it. It was certainly the most informative and objective article I found on the subject.

[brianj]

So what are we to conclude?
Adopted children are at high risk of depression and suicide.
Children raised by single mothers are at high risk of poverty and self-destructive behaviors.
Therefore children should not be given up for adoption, they should not be raised by single mothers, and they should not be raised in two parent households where one or both adults don't plan to be dedicated parents. So what's left for a pregnant single woman? Abortion?

The most productive course of research would be to determine which option is less damaging: adopting children into families with two devoted parents or leaving them with a single parent. A discussion that focuses on how bad either option may be for a child will provide support for the beliefs of those who support the murder of unborn children.