Adoption-is it really a better option?

[butterfly]

I've often heard at church that a woman pregnant out of wedlock should seriously consider placing her baby for adoption. Recently though, I was reading about how a young child's brain has 2 options when dealing with an abusive mother: 1) the brain can secrete hormones for fear and pain so that the child will protect himself by distancing himself from the mother or 2) the brain will secrete hormones that block the abusive pain and sometimes that block the memory of the abuse as well. This second option is usually what the brain chooses and the reason is because a child's best chance of survival comes by staying attached to its mother-even when that mother is abusive.

Apparently the bond that is formed between mother and child throughout the pregnancy is so unique and so entrenched in mother and baby, that it is rare to find a replacement mother that could supercede that bond.

So my question is: is it really a better option for a single mother to place her baby for adoption? Who does it benefit? The body does everything to keep the baby attached to its mother, which makes me think that adoption could potentially be a poorer choice, as far as the baby is concerned.

Would it not be better to help a young mother raise her child instead of encouraging her to separate herself from the baby who has already created an irreplaceable bond with her?

[Elizabeth]

While I cannot agree with a child staying with an abusive mother, I do consider that in normal circumstances it is best for both the mother and child that the natural mother keeps her child and not opt for adoption.

[eddie]

I agree with the natural Mother keeping her child unless the child is in danger. No one can love a child and have the connection a Mother does.

[brianj]

I don't think there are many blanket rules, and a single mother giving up a child for adoption doesn't fit a blanket rule.
What support does she have?

There is plenty of evidence that children raised by single mothers are more likely to commit crime, use drugs, be promiscuous, and have other self-destructive behaviors. And I believe the rise of social justice warriors is directly related to children being raised in daycare facilities instead of at home because in a daycare you only really get adult attention by acting up so tantrums are rewarded. Furthermore, there is ample evidence that raising children in poverty places them at even higher risk.

Single motherhood during the teenage years also usually prevents the mother from pursuing education or other opportunities to qualify for a decent income instead of living in poverty. Because of what they lose out on, some single mothers become resentful of their child(ren). This is obviously not good for the child.

Some young pregnant women have strong family support. They have money or family willing to help over the long term, they have family and friends willing to fill in when the mother is not available to take care of her child(ren).

With the support needed I don't think keeping a child is necessarily bad. But without that support I think it can be dangerously selfish to keep the child.

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.

Trying to argue against adoption because some adoptive parents are abusive makes about as much sense as saying that George Burns proved that drinking and smoking every day is healthy by doing so and enjoying a 100th birthday.

[butterfly]

While I cannot agree with a child staying with an abusive mother, I do consider that in normal circumstances it is best for both the mother and child that the natural mother keeps her child and not opt for adoption.

Do you think it's still preferable for the natural mother to keep the baby even if poverty and daycare will play a predominant role in the child's life?

[butterfly]

I don't think there are many blanket rules, and a single mother giving up a child for adoption doesn't fit a blanket rule.
What support does she have?

There is plenty of evidence that children raised by single mothers are more likely to commit crime, use drugs, be promiscuous, and have other self-destructive behaviors. And I believe the rise of social justice warriors is directly related to children being raised in daycare facilities instead of at home because in a daycare you only really get adult attention by acting up so tantrums are rewarded. Furthermore, there is ample evidence that raising children in poverty places them at even higher risk.

You make some good points here.

Single motherhood during the teenage years also usually prevents the mother from pursuing education or other opportunities to qualify for a decent income instead of living in poverty. Because of what they lose out on, some single mothers become resentful of their child(ren). This is obviously not good for the child.

Women can become resentful of their children even if they're wealthy; I think becoming resentful is based more on the individual and less on the situation.

The feeling I get from those who encourage adoption is that a single mother in society is "bad" and "selfish" for keeping her baby. On the other hand, a mother who gives away her baby is "responsible", "fixing her mistake", "a good mother." I think most, if not all mothers, want to keep their babies but some believe giving up their child is a form of repentance they must suffer.

Some young pregnant women have strong family support. They have money or family willing to help over the long term, they have family and friends willing to fill in when the mother is not available to take care of her child(ren).

With the support needed I don't think keeping a child is necessarily bad. But without that support I think it can be dangerously selfish to keep the child.

yes, we need more support for single mothers.
There was a pregnant teen in my ward and one sister told me that she wasn't sure if we should have a baby shower for the teen because the teen had done something wrong by getting pregnant and we shouldn't "reward" wrong behavior. I replied that of course we should do the baby shower, the teen mother is going to need much more help than a married mother.

I have heard others say that it's selfish for a mother to keep her baby but I don't understand this. Being a single mother is probably one of the toughest jobs out there- I don't think that choosing to sacrifice all your material wants for your child is selfish.

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

[butterfly]

I agree with the natural Mother keeping her child unless the child is in danger. No one can love a child and have the connection a Mother does.

I agree. It is interesting to me how Moses was given up by his mother in order to spare his life. However, even after being raised in Pharaoh's household, having all the material goods he could want, saved from a life of poverty and slavery, Jehovah places a huge importance on Moses finding out that he's actually a Hebrew.
Why couldn't Jehovah call Moses to be a prophet while Moses still believed he was Egyptian? Couldn't Moses potentially have done more for the Hebrews when he had political power in Egypt? Apparently it mattered very much that Moses learn who his natural family was.

Why does the Lord care so much about what tribe everyone is from and if you're the seed of Abraham? Finding out about our ancestors, family history temple work, getting your patriarchal blessing, etc- so many things relate to your family of birth. All the prophecies about the Savior's lineage are throughout the scriptures-why? Why does it matter who one's birth family is?

With so much emphasis placed on lineage, heritage, and genealogy, the scriptures seem to convey more reasons for children to stay with their natural mothers.

[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.

[kittycat51]

All I can say is I'm grateful for the 3 girls who gave up their boys so my brother and sister in law could have a family. The 3 have THRIVED and are all teens now. I have also seen 2 nieces in my family have children out of wedlock and there has been nothing but heartache and trouble for those children who stayed with their mothers. I don't buy into it about a child staying with his birth-mother; if that works out, swell. Plenty of adopted children have thrived. As long as the adoptive parents are loving what does it really matter?

[butterfly]

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?

[butterfly]

All I can say is I'm grateful for the 3 girls who gave up their boys so my brother and sister in law could have a family. The 3 have THRIVED and are all teens now. I have also seen 2 nieces in my family have children out of wedlock and there has been nothing but heartache and trouble for those children who stayed with their mothers. I don't buy into it about a child staying with his birth-mother; if that works out, swell. Plenty of adopted children have thrived. As long as the adoptive parents are loving what does it really matter?

I'm glad things have worked out well for your brother and sister-in-law. While infertility is a type of heartache that I wouldn't wish on anyone, it does make me wonder if we sometimes forget that adoption is supposed to be for the good of the baby and birth mother; I think amidst the pain of infertility, sometimes people (not you, but people in general), encourage adoption in order to help couples with no children of their own, and in the process they start to disregard whether adoption is actually beneficial to mother and baby.

[Rose Garden]

Maybe infertile couples could adopt unwed teen mothers instead? Then babies could stay with their birth mothers and infertile couples could have two children to raise.

[Kitkat]

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.

[braingrunt]

I cannot comprehend single motherhood being a good choice for child or mother. Science agrees and so does the church.
Dual parenting is hard enough. Single seems like it would be agonizing.
My sister is divorced and has primary custody of the kids. She moved back in with my parents and so has an extreme degree of support. Still, her kids struggle sometimes.

[Rose Garden]

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.

That was beautiful.

[Rose Garden]

I cannot comprehend single motherhood being a good choice for child or mother. Science agrees and so does the church.
Dual parenting is hard enough. Single seems like it would be agonizing.
My sister is divorced and has primary custody of the kids. She moved back in with my parents and so has an extreme degree of support. Still, her kids struggle sometimes.

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.

[brianj]

I have heard others say that it's selfish for a mother to keep her baby but I don't understand this. Being a single mother is probably one of the toughest jobs out there- I don't think that choosing to sacrifice all your material wants for your child is selfish.

Children raised by single mothers are more likely to spend their childhood in poverty, less likely to escape that poverty in adulthood, more likely to have self destructive behaviors, more likely to drop of of high school, more likely to become teen parents, more likely to divorce after growing up and marrying, and so on.

One big reason why people feel it's selfish for a single mother to keep her baby is because she is setting that child up for failure later in life. As a parent I know that I can be the cool and fun parent or I can insist my children do their chores, complete their schoolwork, and do other things to instill a work ethic in them. I think it's selfish to not push children because we want to be their buddy or friend instead of raising them to be productive members of society able to support themselves comfortably. And I think anything else a parent does that has a strong probability of sabotaging their child's future is selfish.

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

Thank you. I will look into research on this subject.

[brianj]

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.

[braingrunt]

I cannot comprehend single motherhood being a good choice for child or mother. Science agrees and so does the church.
Dual parenting is hard enough. Single seems like it would be agonizing.
My sister is divorced and has primary custody of the kids. She moved back in with my parents and so has an extreme degree of support. Still, her kids struggle sometimes.

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.

To be clear, I'm not saying for sure my sister made a mistake in getting this divorce. Just that she and her children are more evidence that, if possible, single motherhood should be avoided.

While they were dating, some of us felt (discerned by the spirit perhaps) that their relationship was not right. It's sad that she couldn't see. I think she is more righteous than I, but sometimes we are just blind.

Similar story with one of my cousins. She was married twice. Got motherly warning round one. Round two played out the same. We could all see it and think: "Oh no not again". The spirit somehow wasn't talking to her or at least wasn't planning for her immediate happiness.

[butterfly]

I think adoption is wonderful. So much good can come from it. I also think 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.

This ^^^^ pretty much sums up the realization I came to. It's not that adoption is right and keeping your baby is selfish. Each circumstance is unique and I'm going to do my best to be supportive of single mothers and their personal decisions instead of trying to throw some religious spin on it and try to convince them that adoption is what God would want.
Thanks, KitKat!

[butterfly]

I cannot comprehend single motherhood being a good choice for child or mother. Science agrees and so does the church.
Dual parenting is hard enough. Single seems like it would be agonizing.
My sister is divorced and has primary custody of the kids. She moved back in with my parents and so has an extreme degree of support. Still, her kids struggle sometimes.

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 only imagine how hard single parenting must be. But I'm pretty sure that when when a couple gets divorced, they aren't encouraged to consider placing their kids for adoption, right? No one says "your kids will be better off with a family that has 2 parents in the home, that can keep them out of poverty; you as a young mother have your whole life ahead of you- you should go to school, earn your degree, get a career where you could actually provide for your children. If you keep your kids, you're doing it for selfish reasons."

We would never say that to a young divorced mother but many say it to young unwed mothers-why? I think at the root of it is some aspect of feeling that the unwed mother should "suffer the consequences."

You know how if a child steals a cookie, parents will say "if you would've just asked permission, I would've given you the cookie. But since you stole it, now you have to give it back."

So let's say you have 2 young pregnant mothers- one got pregnant out of wedlock and the other while married but just got divorced. Even if they both have the same lack of family support, education, and job opportunity, they will likely receive completely different advice.

The unwed mother will be encouraged to consider adoption because, I think subconsciously people think "she stole the cookie and so now she's not allowed to keep it;" they don't want to somehow be rewarding the bad behavior of premarital sex.

But what would people think if the divorced mother decided to place her baby for adoption? I know I'd be shocked to find out that just because you got divorced from your husband, you're going to "divorce" your baby, too???

[braingrunt]

...
I can only imagine how hard single parenting must be. But I'm pretty sure that when when a couple gets divorced, they aren't encouraged to consider placing their kids for adoption, right? No one says "your kids will be better off with a family that has 2 parents in the home, that can keep them out of poverty; you as a young mother have your whole life ahead of you- you should go to school, earn your degree, get a career where you could actually provide for your children. If you keep your kids, you're doing it for selfish reasons."

We would never say that to a young divorced mother but many say it to young unwed mothers-why? I think at the root of it is some aspect of feeling that the unwed mother should "suffer the consequences."

You know how if a child steals a cookie, parents will say "if you would've just asked permission, I would've given you the cookie. But since you stole it, now you have to give it back."

So let's say you have 2 young pregnant mothers- one got pregnant out of wedlock and the other while married but just got divorced. Even if they both have the same lack of family support, education, and job opportunity, they will likely receive completely different advice.

The unwed mother will be encouraged to consider adoption because, I think subconsciously people think "she stole the cookie and so now she's not allowed to keep it;" they don't want to somehow be rewarding the bad behavior of premarital sex.

But what would people think if the divorced mother decided to place her baby for adoption? I know I'd be shocked to find out that just because you got divorced from your husband, you're going to "divorce" your baby, too???

I think you are completely misreading the situation. If the divorced mother had never raised the child I think she should seriously consider adoption for the benefit of the baby. But, for me, whether a mother is single or divorced, if the baby has been with her for more than a couple of months, I think the answer is pretty firmly: no, don't put that baby up for adoption, that would be messed up. (Barring other factors)

However emotional the issue, facts are in play here, those facts clearly point out that two-parent homes are good for kids and so if possible they have a right to one.

Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.

Make every effort to give it to them or you're robbing them of heavenly Father's intended gift.

[butterfly]

I have heard others say that it's selfish for a mother to keep her baby but I don't understand this. Being a single mother is probably one of the toughest jobs out there- I don't think that choosing to sacrifice all your material wants for your child is selfish.

Children raised by single mothers are more likely to spend their childhood in poverty, less likely to escape that poverty in adulthood, more likely to have self destructive behaviors, more likely to drop of of high school, more likely to become teen parents, more likely to divorce after growing up and marrying, and so on.

One big reason why people feel it's selfish for a single mother to keep her baby is because she is setting that child up for failure later in life. As a parent I know that I can be the cool and fun parent or I can insist my children do their chores, complete their schoolwork, and do other things to instill a work ethic in them. I think it's selfish to not push children because we want to be their buddy or friend instead of raising them to be productive members of society able to support themselves comfortably. And I think anything else a parent does that has a strong probability of sabotaging their child's future is selfish.

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.

Likewise I'm looking at it from a "female" nurturing aspect. "How
much is a baby impacted emotionally, psychologically, etc, when its mother chooses to sever that bond with it? For anyone who has endured a loving mother passing away, you grieve deeply. It's because nothing else can fill that void - it's a unique and intense bond that begins with 40 wks of pregnancy. You can try to substitute it with love from a spouse or close friend, but it's not the same.
Now consider that you have this innate love and bond with your mother but, even though she's alive and well, you've never met her. You're connected to her on so many levels and yet she chooses to not be with you. Research shows that even if adoptive parents are wonderful and unconditionally love their adopted kids, these same kids will still seek out their birth mother when legally able to do so.
Why? The bond created between mother and baby during pregnancy is specially designed to ensure the survival of the species. The body, brain, hormones, feeding schedule, everything is done to keep the baby with its natural mother. This bond does not disappear when a baby is adopted.

So both options have drawbacks- hence the importance of the law of chastity. Thanks for explaining your perspective.

[Rose Garden]

I cannot comprehend single motherhood being a good choice for child or mother. Science agrees and so does the church.
Dual parenting is hard enough. Single seems like it would be agonizing.
My sister is divorced and has primary custody of the kids. She moved back in with my parents and so has an extreme degree of support. Still, her kids struggle sometimes.

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 only imagine how hard single parenting must be. But I'm pretty sure that when when a couple gets divorced, they aren't encouraged to consider placing their kids for adoption, right? No one says "your kids will be better off with a family that has 2 parents in the home, that can keep them out of poverty; you as a young mother have your whole life ahead of you- you should go to school, earn your degree, get a career where you could actually provide for your children. If you keep your kids, you're doing it for selfish reasons."

We would never say that to a young divorced mother but many say it to young unwed mothers-why? I think at the root of it is some aspect of feeling that the unwed mother should "suffer the consequences."

You know how if a child steals a cookie, parents will say "if you would've just asked permission, I would've given you the cookie. But since you stole it, now you have to give it back."

So let's say you have 2 young pregnant mothers- one got pregnant out of wedlock and the other while married but just got divorced. Even if they both have the same lack of family support, education, and job opportunity, they will likely receive completely different advice.

The unwed mother will be encouraged to consider adoption because, I think subconsciously people think "she stole the cookie and so now she's not allowed to keep it;" they don't want to somehow be rewarding the bad behavior of premarital sex.

But what would people think if the divorced mother decided to place her baby for adoption? I know I'd be shocked to find out that just because you got divorced from your husband, you're going to "divorce" your baby, too???

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.

[butterfly]

I think you are completely misreading the situation. If the divorced mother had never raised the child I think she should seriously consider adoption for the benefit of the baby. But, for me, whether a mother is single or divorced, if the baby has been with her for more than a couple of months, I think the answer is pretty firmly: no, don't put that baby up for adoption, that would be messed up. (Barring other factors)

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.

Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.

Make every effort to give it to them or you're robbing them of heavenly Father's intended gift.

What is your opinion about why Jehovah made sure Moses learned the truth about who his birth family was before calling him as a prophet? Why do you think Isaac had to miraculously be born through Sarah instead of just letting him come as Ishmael did, through Hagar, and essentially being adopted by Sarah?
These are sincere questions I have, idk the answers. But it makes me think that God sends babies to specific mothers and He designed babies to remain with their natural mothers; even when they are not raised by them, these babies will grow up and still seek out their mothers.

I think we are messing with something very primal, innate and serious when we urge mothers to give up their babies.