Вход на сайт

Просмотр новости

Найдите то, что Вас интересует

Adoption gives many children a good chance | Letters

Дата публикации: 01-07-2026 16:12:15

Anne Rogers writes that adoption can be the best outcome for some children, even when it goes against the wishes of birth parents. Plus letters from Cat Bracey and Graham WhitakerChristine Hayes (Letters, 22 June) is right to remind us all that the reason so many babies were adopted in the 1960s (and earlier, before birth control was available to women) was because society condemned single mothers, even though sex outside of marriage was nothing remotely new.But I will not accept the implication that forced adoptions were shameful to everyone. I feel no shame to have been adopted as a baby in 1948. It allowed me to grow up without those societal prejudices, in a loving family who made no secret about my adoption. I am sure I am not alone in this experience. Continue reading...

Основное содержимое страницы с новостью.

Christine Hayes (Letters, 22 June) is right to remind us all that the reason so many babies were adopted in the 1960s (and earlier, before birth control was available to women) was because society condemned single mothers, even though sex outside of marriage was nothing remotely new.

But I will not accept the implication that forced adoptions were shameful to everyone. I feel no shame to have been adopted as a baby in 1948. It allowed me to grow up without those societal prejudices, in a loving family who made no secret about my adoption. I am sure I am not alone in this experience.

Adoption remains the best outcome for many children today, even though you might say it continues to be forced, being against the wishes of the birth parents. And the state continues to carry responsibility for its lack of support. But let us not condemn this method of giving children from troubled starts a chance of a happy upbringing.
Anne Rogers
Tunbridge Wells, Kent

The reason most single mothers gave up their babies for adoption in the 1960 and 70s was simply because they couldn’t see how they could support them. There were hardly any nurseries for children under three years old, so you couldn’t work without family help. Neither my social worker nor anyone connected with my mother-and-baby home so much as suggested that National Assistance, as it was then, could provide support for single parents after the end of the Maternity Allowance period (of six weeks after birth, by which time you were supposed to have relinquished your baby to a decent home).

I was lucky to run into someone who had worked in a National Assistance office before her own pregnancy, who enlightened me so that I could complete my education and keep my baby – now sitting opposite me and contemplating her 60th birthday, I’m delighted to say.
Cat Bracey
Bristol

I wholeheartedly agree with Christine Hayes’ sentiments, but I would add to her list of those culpable the Anglican and Catholic churches, which created the moral climate that enabled parents of teenage mothers to give away their grandchildren rather than face the hypocrisy of their local church.
Graham Whitaker
Brighton

Схожие новости

#Наименование новостиТональностьИнформативностьДата публикации
1No partner, no problem: The women hoping to stay single forever3601-07-2026
2America's crazed new obsession is nothing more than a tall tale-5628-02-2026
3Should public services be run by private equity firms? | Letters-2701-07-2026
4 Readers respond to our call for the current asylum system to be scrapped 0521-07-2025
5Escaping the tide on Horsey Island | Brief letters0501-07-2026
6 How can Britain compete in artificial intelligence? 0525-09-2025
7 Nigel Farage’s proposal to abolish the right of “indefinite leave to remain” for immigrants 0529-09-2025
8Анна Кузнецова призвала избавляться от образа "однодетной семьи"0008-06-2019
9Более 20% детей в России рождаются вне брака0016-08-2019
10Без «народных советов»: Сати Казанова завершила грудное вскармливание дочери0226-06-2026

Классификация: . Схожих патентов: 0. Схожих новостей: 10. Тональность: 0. Информативность: 5. Источник: www.theguardian.com.