Title : "The father plays absolutely no part in this. That is part of her rehabilitation. When she renounces her child for its own good, the unwed mother has learned a lot."
link : "The father plays absolutely no part in this. That is part of her rehabilitation. When she renounces her child for its own good, the unwed mother has learned a lot."
"The father plays absolutely no part in this. That is part of her rehabilitation. When she renounces her child for its own good, the unwed mother has learned a lot."
"She has learned an important human value. She has learned to pay the price of her misdemeanor, and this alone, if punishment is needed, is punishment enough.... We must go back to a primary set of values and the discipline that starts with the very small child."Because of the social pressures that shaped notions of “appropriate” pregnancy and “respectable” motherhood, the decades between World War II and Roe were dubbed the “baby scoop era.”...
I didn't remember ever seeing that term before and couldn't even understand it. What was "scooped"?
The shame associated with “illegitimacy” was so intense, and the efforts of institutions like Catholic Church-run maternity homes to pressure young women into giving up their parental rights were so concerted, that nearly 1.5 million American infants were relinquished for adoption during this time. Conservative advocates promoted adoption as not only for the good of the child but for the redemption of the mother: Through adoption, young women could easily move past the presumed sin of premarital sex, forget their child and go on to have another family under more appropriate circumstances.
In reality, these adoptions — often coercive and highly secretive — led to trauma and a sense of ambiguous loss for a generation. “The grief doesn’t really subside,” one mother told me, 40 years after she relinquished her child in 1968. “There’s no peace.”
The adoption rate dropped precipitously soon after Roe and continued to decline gradually in the following years; in recent decades, it’s remained at a stable, low level. It is easy, then, to think that abortion replaced adoption as a pregnancy outcome — and to surmise that women facing unintended pregnancies choose between abortion and adoption.
I'm still not sure of what "scoop" refers to. Is it that people who wanted to adopt babies were able to "scoop" them up from women who were more or less forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term? I say "or less" because, as Sisson notes, there were always plenty of abortions, and even when abortions were illegal, they outnumbered adoptions.
[M]ost women making pregnancy decisions are not choosing between abortion and adoption....
Then what was the "Baby Scoop Era"? According to Sisson, who did a study, 91% of women who didn't want to get pregnant end up keeping their baby. Only 9% give up their baby, and it was only 9% pre-Roe, according to Sisson.
Most pregnant women are not weighing abortion and adoption as if they are equally likely or substitutes for each other.
Yes, I see that point, but I think Barrett is suggesting that the law shouldn't take into account the burden the woman chose to take on, that the liberty interest of the woman is only in avoiding the burdens of continued pregnancy and childbirth.
I'll add that one might say that there's a burden in having to choose whether to keep your child and in having to live with that choice. I can see that there's also a burden in choosing whether or not to have an abortion. That choice is similar to the choice whether to keep a baby that you've give birth to, that you can see and hear and hold. But when abortion is legal, you have the choice about when to make this choice whether to keep it or give it up, and if you proceed to childbirth when you don't want to keep your child, you are choosing a very different experience — for yourself (and for the child!).
Because of the social pressures that shaped notions of “appropriate” pregnancy and “respectable” motherhood, the decades between World War II and Roe were dubbed the “baby scoop era.”...
I didn't remember ever seeing that term before and couldn't even understand it. What was "scooped"?
The shame associated with “illegitimacy” was so intense, and the efforts of institutions like Catholic Church-run maternity homes to pressure young women into giving up their parental rights were so concerted, that nearly 1.5 million American infants were relinquished for adoption during this time. Conservative advocates promoted adoption as not only for the good of the child but for the redemption of the mother: Through adoption, young women could easily move past the presumed sin of premarital sex, forget their child and go on to have another family under more appropriate circumstances.
In reality, these adoptions — often coercive and highly secretive — led to trauma and a sense of ambiguous loss for a generation. “The grief doesn’t really subside,” one mother told me, 40 years after she relinquished her child in 1968. “There’s no peace.”
The adoption rate dropped precipitously soon after Roe and continued to decline gradually in the following years; in recent decades, it’s remained at a stable, low level. It is easy, then, to think that abortion replaced adoption as a pregnancy outcome — and to surmise that women facing unintended pregnancies choose between abortion and adoption.
I'm still not sure of what "scoop" refers to. Is it that people who wanted to adopt babies were able to "scoop" them up from women who were more or less forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term? I say "or less" because, as Sisson notes, there were always plenty of abortions, and even when abortions were illegal, they outnumbered adoptions.
[M]ost women making pregnancy decisions are not choosing between abortion and adoption....
Then what was the "Baby Scoop Era"? According to Sisson, who did a study, 91% of women who didn't want to get pregnant end up keeping their baby. Only 9% give up their baby, and it was only 9% pre-Roe, according to Sisson.
Most pregnant women are not weighing abortion and adoption as if they are equally likely or substitutes for each other.
Yes, I see that point, but I think Barrett is suggesting that the law shouldn't take into account the burden the woman chose to take on, that the liberty interest of the woman is only in avoiding the burdens of continued pregnancy and childbirth.
I'll add that one might say that there's a burden in having to choose whether to keep your child and in having to live with that choice. I can see that there's also a burden in choosing whether or not to have an abortion. That choice is similar to the choice whether to keep a baby that you've give birth to, that you can see and hear and hold. But when abortion is legal, you have the choice about when to make this choice whether to keep it or give it up, and if you proceed to childbirth when you don't want to keep your child, you are choosing a very different experience — for yourself (and for the child!).
Thus articles "The father plays absolutely no part in this. That is part of her rehabilitation. When she renounces her child for its own good, the unwed mother has learned a lot."
You now read the article "The father plays absolutely no part in this. That is part of her rehabilitation. When she renounces her child for its own good, the unwed mother has learned a lot." with the link address https://welcometoamerican.blogspot.com/2021/12/the-father-plays-absolutely-no-part-in.html
0 Response to ""The father plays absolutely no part in this. That is part of her rehabilitation. When she renounces her child for its own good, the unwed mother has learned a lot.""
Post a Comment