Know why? Because adopters are scared the mother will change her mind and come get the baby. That’s why. Not sure how exactly that would work in their little fantasy world, but… there it is. Maybe the adoption agencies convinced them it was a risk. Dunno.

If mothers’ rights were respected they’d get *help* raising their babies when they hit on hard times instead of always being called names, ostracized, considered a social ill, or whatever the current trendy-trend-trend happens to be. Because NONE of this has gone away, because women lose children every single day who would rather have kept them, and because a few dozen people per blog who all have access to Google and can spell search terms are instead choosing to perpetuate damaging and libelous mythology.

Safe haven laws just make it easier to provide babies to the adoption market and that is all they have ever done.

I vote we end adoption entirely. There are foster arrangements for children genuinely being abused, but being born to a mother who doesn’t feel she’s ready is not an abusive situation–it is NORMAL. NO mother is totally ready when she gives birth. We need to be helping mothers more, and letting adopters help themselves a lot less. As long as there are still kids aging out of the foster care system I will never sympathize with an adopter. It’s not “generous and caring” to engage in human trafficking.

P.S., Whether I raised any children or surrendered them, if I give birth, I am their mother. No one disputes that a “birth sibling” is a sibling or a “birth grandparent” a grandparent. Mother or father (and mother more so than father) are the only disputed terms–why is that? Because the adopters paid good money to make it so? Come on now. If your mother had died at your birth you would still be calling her your mother and there would be no debate. Pretend she’s dead if it makes it easier for you.