I knew when I was being interviewed for an article in the Chicago Tribune the public reaction would serve as a measure of how much of a dent we've made in the public consciousness.
What an irresponsible article. Why is anyone concerned about the birth mother's grief when the only thing that matters is that child's welfare. This is insinuating that girls not ready to be parents should keep their children to prevent them from being sad. How reprehensible. The birth mother's feelings are utterly insignificant compared with the need to give the child the best chance at life possible. If the mother has some grief, so be it. Better her grieve than a child living in poverty and misery.
This wasn't a choice between giving my kid a life of "poverty and misery" or a life of comfort and love and happiness. I had plenty of resources, I was young and creative and energetic. I was also terrified of motherhood and what that would mean for my own goals. Now that I've had my kids and I know the truth about motherhood, I can tell you that most of my terror was unfounded.
Was I "ready" to become a mother? I was more ready than I thought I was. But is anyone ever "ready" for the way your life changes when you become a parent? I was not ready for bithmotherhood, that's certain.
Which gets me to that other point, that my feelings on the subject are irrelevant because the only thing that matters is the kid. The thing is, the jury is stil out of what E feels about being adopted. I did a lot of work during my pregnancy to make sure to minimize her losses as much as possible. It should go without saying that I wish her nothing but happiness and wholeness. But why must that come at my expense?
The jury is also still out on whether the family I placed her in will give her the best chance at life possible. My definition of a successful life may differ wildly from theirs. Her genetic inheritance may clash with their ways of thinking. What if they just don't understand her? What if, even given my culturally-created limitations, I could have understood her better?
Why don't you use condoms or other birth control methods? Condoms with the pill are 99.99% effective, when used correctly. Or here is a new concept, if you are unsure if you are protected, don't have sex. Katie is correct in saying that the focus should be on the child, not on the mother.
Ultimately it is the mother's choice, regardless of pressure from outside sources. If you are adult enough to have sex, you are adult enough to be responsible for the choices you make should you get pregnant, whether it be an abortion or adoption.
This is my all-time favorite. I WAS on the pill, dipshit.
The real problem: people need to not percieve movies as reality. There are TONS of examples of movies that depict a happy ending for a situation which would probably end up with a legal or emtional mess in real life....Movies are not reality, they serve an alternate purpose. By going to a movie like Juno, a moviegoer can enter a happier verison of reality, which can often serve as a much needed break from actual reality. Is this really a bad thing?
the problem is, however, that they *do*. As much as they shouldn't. What they learned from "Juno" is all many people will ever know about adoption. Movies and pop culture influence us more than it should. Entertainment is not benign.
I, for one, am glad Juno is out there because it has stimulated discussion on this subject and illuminated the commonplace ignorance about adoption and its players. Discussion, learning, and knowledge are all good things.
There is a happy ending--for the children who are placed into loving homes with adoptive parents who can provide for them everything thier birth mothers could not.
Any adoptees care to take this one on? Is every adoptive home a loving, healthy one?
As of my last check, there are 12 comments on the article. I'll be back later if there are more doozies.