e-mail
What? Does the title of this post make you scratch your head? Me too. It hails from this article which wears its own title of “Adoption in the Womb.” My mind is spinning.
The story is out of Mexico. Some lawmakers are trying to combat abortion. Unfortunately, instead of starting with the actual problem (lack of sexual education and access to legitimate birth control), they’re working on after-the-fact issues. Their idea, in case you couldn’t guess, is to allow adoption of the child before it is born.
I cannot begin to fathom the problems that could create. Ethics aside, since it is completely unethical without question, can’t you see the amount of problems that could arise once the child is actually born and the biological mother realizes what she has done? How many mothers who have considered abortion before twelve weeks gestation (the amount of time that it is legal in Mexico City) and then gone on to both birth and love their children? Considering the majority of pregnancies in America are unplanned, I would venture to guess more than one or two mothers in the history of birthing.
But let’s just jump back into the ethical debate. Because, this? Is alarming!
An incentive for the biological mother would be that the adopting parents, if necessary, would pay the costs of pre-natal care and delivery, since many women decide to abort simply because they don’t have the economic means to defray those costs.
And, with that, the mother feels absolutely forced to relinquish her child to this couple because they’ve paid her way. Why doesn’t this group, oh, do something like help mothers get on their feet by helping them prepare to parent? Why does this issue automatically defer to adoption? If they are assuming that abortions are a sole result of lacking finances, why do they assume that if presented with financial stability, they would rather place than parent?
Even more alarming is this little statement:
The government would set up a registry of both unborn children available for adoption and couples interested in adoption, in such a way that both parties could have legal certainty.
A registry? For babies that aren’t even born? Doesn’t anyone else feel the “ick” factor there? I also laugh quite heartily at the “legal certainty.” I’m sure that many Americans who thought, for certain, that they would “receive” a baby are also laughing.
Though, I must commend them for this little detail:
In the event that the biological mother, after giving birth, changes her mind and decides she does not want to give up her child for adoption, the government would compensate the adopting parents, and would be prohibited from applying any sanctions against the biological mother.
Of course, any time the government gets involved, corruption is sure to follow. I can’t help but fear that the mothers would then feel pressure from government officials to place. I, personally, have absolutely no desire to be in “trouble” with the government. I’m sure that young mothers could easily feel pressure to go through with the adoption.
The whole ordeal is quite alarming. Only two states allow pre-birth relinquishment (Alabama and Hawaii) though it is not final until after the birth of the child. I really would hate to see this law take place in Mexico out of fear that other countries, including our own, would follow suit. My heart breaks for mothers whose children and wombs are about to be exploited in the name of the pro-life movement. If you want to support mothers and children there are other, more ethical ways of going about it. This is just awful.
//
For more on birth parents around the world, read these posts.
