My unmarried 18 year-old step-daughter recently found herself pregnant. The father is absent and wants nothing to do with the child or its mother. Our family is torn in its views of whether she should give the baby up for adoption or keep the child. My wife and I both feel that she should keep the baby; my father-in-law, an LDS Bishop, and his wife feel that the baby should be placed for adoption. Lessa, my step-daughter, claims to have researched and prayed for guidance, but she is unwilling to discuss her research or to consider any of the counsel her mother and I have offered. From the reports I've received, she has not sought counsel from her grandparents, or from the social workers at LDS Family Services. Her decision, made much earlier than necessary appears to be shallow and not well thought out from both sides.
This post, then will be about my personal search for guidance in this matter. I am posting it rather than keeping it to myself because I believe that others may benefit from what I've concluded. It will be up to the individual reader to follow through with their own search, and seek their own confirmation.
Please feel to comment.
Scripture
Within the standard works of scripture used by the LDS Church (Bible, Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, and the Doctrine & Covenants) there are a total of five references to the word "adoption." All are in the New Testament; in fact all appear in the writings of Paul (Romans 8:15, 8:23, 9:4, Galatians 4:5 and Ephesians 1:5) All of them pertain to followers of Christ becoming "adopted sons of God." In these specific verses there is nothing to guide a decision regarding placing a baby for adoption. There may be some wisdom contained in the overall context of Paul's teaching that can apply here, which I will discuss further on.
There is one incident in the scriptures where a mother willingly gave up her child to be raised by another. Exodus 1:1 through Exodus 2:24 describes the mother of Moses putting the three month old heir to the house of Levi, into the care of Pharaoh's daughter to save him from Pharaoh's decree that all male children of the Hebrews be killed. Then through the agency of Miriam, Moses sister, arranges to become the child's nurse. This incident isn't helpful. Moses's parents were married, the only "temple" that could have existed would have been Eygptian, and the placement was made to save the child's life. Finally, the mother didn't really give the child up, but contrived to remain with her child in the role of nurse.
What about unwed mothers? I can only find two places in scripture where unmarried women became pregnant. The first is in Genesis 19:30-38. Not only are these two daughters unwed mothers, to conceive their chilren, they slept with their own father. This bit of scripture is absolutely fascinating, as it is the tail end of the story of Soddom and Gomorrah. Lot, while entertaining two angels is beset by the young and old men of the city who want to "know" his guests (we are told that the men wanted to have carnal knowledge of the angels, but the scripture isn't that specific.) . Rather than give the angels (who as angels should be able to fend for themselves without difficulty and do when they strike the men blind) Lot offers the men outside his virgin daughters to do with as they please. Lot, his wife and daughters flee the city because God is going to smite it with fire and brimstone, the immorality being so great that even looking back at the city causes Lot's wife to become a pillar of salt. Whataever the men of Soddom wanted must have been really, really bad for them to get nuked for immorality while Lot's pimping his daughters to a crowd of men, and then committing incest to get them pregnant gets a pass? Lot was accorded a "righteous man?" This one, at best, is a head scratcher.
The other story of an unwed mother is in the New Testament. The mother was about 14 years old and her name was Mary. She was "espoused" (engaged) to a fellow named Joseph, but they weren't married yet under Jewish custom. Joesph wasn't the daddy either. (Matthew 1:18-25, Luke 1:26-35) Joseph married her anyway, and took on the physical responsibilities of raising the child.
God doesn't seem to mind children being conceived out of wedlock. His own son was so conceived and born to a different (cuckold) father. Were Joseph and Mary "sealed" in the "temple?" I can imagine the recommend interview with Mary bulging with child.
None of these stories from the scriptures support the idea of giving up a child for adoption. If anything, they argue the exact opposite.
Latter-day revelation, counseling and research
Lets look at the abstracts for the two research papers cited in the most recent article:
First, the results of this study are not overwhelmingly conclusive indicating that adoption is better for the mom than keeping the child. The results appear a bit mixed. Next, we have to consider that LDS Family Services use of this paper is to generalize from this small, limited study to the whole population. This is not intellectually or statistically valid reasoning. Given the extremely small sample size and the number of socio-economic, ethnic, and variables that need to be controlled for, this study's margin of error is massively wide and probably shouldn't even be used to generalize about the adolescents attending similar programs. Finally, this study was specific to "open" adoptions, where the birth mother is not completely cut off from the child.
Pondering the quality of this "research data" in support of the church's policy raises more questions than it answers. Couldn't LDS Famly Services find better data to support their assertion that adoption is a good thing? Why didn't the editorial staff of The Ensign check the validity of the claims published in the article? Most importantly, was this the same quality of data that President Hinckley refered to when he said "experience has shown..."? (I believe President Hinckley was an honest man, so I won't suggest that he made it up, but I've seen other examples where President Hinckley and his counselors didn't do their homework.) Can we trust any data or claims made by LDS Family Services? (Lets face it, LDS Family Services is funded by its adoption business; they have a bit of a conflict of interest here.)
According to the Center for Disease Control, there were 1,527,034 non-marital births in 2005. This rate reflects an increase in non-marital births in women 18 and older, while the birth rate for younger teens declined. There were a total of 4,138,349 births registered in the United States. My calculator says that's about 36.9% of births were to unwed mothers. The pregnancy rate for white teens (15-19) was 25.9 per thousand, while the rates of all other racial groups except Asian/Pacific Islander, with Hispanics being the higest at 81.7/thousand, followed by black women at60.9/thousand.
According to Child Welfare Information Gateway in 2005, quoting the National Survey of Family Growth, less than 1 percent of children born to never married women were placed for adoption from 1989 to 1995 (latest year data available). "The percentage is higher for White never-married women (1.7 percent) than for Black never-married women (near 0 percent). Relinquishment by married and formerly married women is rarer still, and percentages are not available." and finally, "One study at a residential facility for pregnant teens found that a disproportionate number of those who relinquished were from upper-middle-class families, living in the suburbs or small cities, and from intact families with highly educated parents (Moore & Davidson, 2002). The 178 teens studied were heavily influenced in their decisions to relinquish by peers and siblings and by having personal experience with adoption (knowing someone who was adopted or being adopted themselves)." They note two trends in adoption placements: a decrease in the percentage of children relinquished by never married women (In 1973 nearly 20% (19.3%) of Whites and about 1.5% of Blacks relinquished.)
There are several conclusions that can be drawn from this data. First is the presence of an extreme selection bias in mothers choosing to relinquish that would skew the data in the McLaughlin study cited by LDS Family Services. The women who relinquish are already more likely to go on to higher education or careers than those that do not, whether or not they relinquish, further invalidating LDS Family Services use of that study. Placing the child for adoption cannot be seen as the determining factor here.
The Child Welfare Information Gateway survey concludes with this observation about future research:
stay tuned for part 2.
This post, then will be about my personal search for guidance in this matter. I am posting it rather than keeping it to myself because I believe that others may benefit from what I've concluded. It will be up to the individual reader to follow through with their own search, and seek their own confirmation.
Please feel to comment.
Scripture
Within the standard works of scripture used by the LDS Church (Bible, Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, and the Doctrine & Covenants) there are a total of five references to the word "adoption." All are in the New Testament; in fact all appear in the writings of Paul (Romans 8:15, 8:23, 9:4, Galatians 4:5 and Ephesians 1:5) All of them pertain to followers of Christ becoming "adopted sons of God." In these specific verses there is nothing to guide a decision regarding placing a baby for adoption. There may be some wisdom contained in the overall context of Paul's teaching that can apply here, which I will discuss further on.
There is one incident in the scriptures where a mother willingly gave up her child to be raised by another. Exodus 1:1 through Exodus 2:24 describes the mother of Moses putting the three month old heir to the house of Levi, into the care of Pharaoh's daughter to save him from Pharaoh's decree that all male children of the Hebrews be killed. Then through the agency of Miriam, Moses sister, arranges to become the child's nurse. This incident isn't helpful. Moses's parents were married, the only "temple" that could have existed would have been Eygptian, and the placement was made to save the child's life. Finally, the mother didn't really give the child up, but contrived to remain with her child in the role of nurse.
What about unwed mothers? I can only find two places in scripture where unmarried women became pregnant. The first is in Genesis 19:30-38. Not only are these two daughters unwed mothers, to conceive their chilren, they slept with their own father. This bit of scripture is absolutely fascinating, as it is the tail end of the story of Soddom and Gomorrah. Lot, while entertaining two angels is beset by the young and old men of the city who want to "know" his guests (we are told that the men wanted to have carnal knowledge of the angels, but the scripture isn't that specific.) . Rather than give the angels (who as angels should be able to fend for themselves without difficulty and do when they strike the men blind) Lot offers the men outside his virgin daughters to do with as they please. Lot, his wife and daughters flee the city because God is going to smite it with fire and brimstone, the immorality being so great that even looking back at the city causes Lot's wife to become a pillar of salt. Whataever the men of Soddom wanted must have been really, really bad for them to get nuked for immorality while Lot's pimping his daughters to a crowd of men, and then committing incest to get them pregnant gets a pass? Lot was accorded a "righteous man?" This one, at best, is a head scratcher.
The other story of an unwed mother is in the New Testament. The mother was about 14 years old and her name was Mary. She was "espoused" (engaged) to a fellow named Joseph, but they weren't married yet under Jewish custom. Joesph wasn't the daddy either. (Matthew 1:18-25, Luke 1:26-35) Joseph married her anyway, and took on the physical responsibilities of raising the child.
God doesn't seem to mind children being conceived out of wedlock. His own son was so conceived and born to a different (cuckold) father. Were Joseph and Mary "sealed" in the "temple?" I can imagine the recommend interview with Mary bulging with child.
None of these stories from the scriptures support the idea of giving up a child for adoption. If anything, they argue the exact opposite.
Latter-day revelation, counseling and research
The counsel to place children of unwed parents for adoption has been a part of LDS thought since the 1920's, with the latest iteration coming from a letter dated 15 June 1998, the First Presidency reiterated instruction regarding unwed pregnancy given in earlier letters to bishops and stake presidents. This most recent letter states:
Prior to that, President Gordon B. Hinkley had this to say:“Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by parents who provide love, support, and all the blessings of the gospel.
“Every effort should be made in helping those who conceive out of wedlock to establish an eternal family relationship. When the probability of a successful marriage is unlikely, unwed parents should be encouraged to place the child for adoption, preferably through LDS [Family] Services” (“Policies and Announcements,” Ensign, Apr. 1999, 80).
“Marriage is the more honorable thing. This means facing up to responsibility. It means giving the child a name, with parents who together can nurture, protect, and love.
“When marriage is not possible, experience has shown that adoption, difficult though this may be for the young mother, may afford a greater opportunity for the child to live a life of happiness. Wise and experienced professional counselors and prayerful bishops can assist in these circumstances.”
President Gordon B. Hinckley, “Save the Children,” Ensign, Nov. 1994, 53.
This is where I go massively sideways. Is the Church's policy based on "experience" and "research" and President Hinkley's comments and the LDS Family Services article imply, or is it based on the revealed will of the Lord? If it is based on experience and research, are the church's leaders being informed by the social workers at LDS Family Services, who are presumably the source for the First Presidency, with less than reliable information?
When the decision is made to place an infant for adoption, the infant is not the only one who benefits. Young women who choose adoption are more likely to complete high school and go on to higher education. They are more likely to be employed and less likely to live in poverty or receive public assistance. They are also less likely to repeat out-of-wedlock pregnancy (see Kristin A. Moore and others, Adolescent Sex, Contraception, and Childbearing: A Review of Recent Research [1995]; see also Steven D. McLaughlin and others, “Do Adolescents Who Relinquish Their Children Fare Better or Worse Than Those Who Raise Them?” Family Planning Perspectives, Jan.–Feb. 1988, 25–32).
Lets look at the abstracts for the two research papers cited in the most recent article:
For the past several decades, the teenage birth rate in the United States has exceeded that of other industrialized nations. To explore the factors behind this high birth rate, this volume summarizes recent research conducted in the United States on the perceived causes of teenage childbearing. This review is organized around the events leading to teenage childbirth, including the transition into having sexual intercourse; use of contraception at first intercourse and use at current or recent intercourse; and, if pregnancy occurs, decisions about abortion, adoption, and marriage. Although most teens do not want to become parents, those most at risk of becoming parents during their teen years are those least well-situated to raise a healthy, well-adjusted, and high-achieving child. Factors that affect sexual and pregnancy risk-taking among disadvantaged youth are not well understood and require better data and new research; researchers would need to focus on the correlates of pregnancy prevention among low-income adolescents. The effects of varied forms of mass media, including television, music, and videos, also require better data and carefully designed empirical research. Likewise, research on the effects of policy variables, such as welfare and family planning services, remains inadequate. Results are presented in 31 tables, charts, and graphs. Contains a bibliography of over 400 items. (RJM) (Kristin A. Moore and others, Adolescent Sex, Contraception, and Childbearing: A Review of Recent Research [1995] emphasis mine)A survey of 400 research papers on this subject, and the authors of this study conclude that the research is inadequate. For LDS Family Services to cite this paper as basis for "encouraging" unwed mothers to give their children up for adoption is not only not supportive of their position, but is disingenous to the point of being a bald faced lie.
When background and other characteristics are controlled for, older adolescents who rear their children are as likely as those who place them for adoption to complete high school. However, relinquishers are more likely to complete vocational training and have higher educational aspirations. Further, relinquishers are more likely to delay marriage, to be employed six and 12 months after the birth and to live in higher income households than are child rearers. Child rearers are more likely to become pregnant again sooner and to resolve subsequent pregnancies by abortion. Adolescents who relinquish their children do not suffer more negative psychological consequences than do those who raise their children. Overall, both groups indicated very high levels of satisfaction with their decision to relinquish or to rear, although relinquishers were slightly less satisfied with their decision than were child rearers. The study sample consisted of 123 child rearers and 146 relinquishers who had attended a pregnancy-counseling program affiliated with a large adoption agency that practices open adoption. Hence, the findings are limited to a select sample and should not be generalized beyond adolescents who participate in a similar program. (Steven D. McLaughlin and others, “Do Adolescents Who Relinquish Their Children Fare Better or Worse Than Those Who Raise Them?” Family Planning Perspectives, Jan.–Feb. 1988, 25–32 emphasis mine)
First, the results of this study are not overwhelmingly conclusive indicating that adoption is better for the mom than keeping the child. The results appear a bit mixed. Next, we have to consider that LDS Family Services use of this paper is to generalize from this small, limited study to the whole population. This is not intellectually or statistically valid reasoning. Given the extremely small sample size and the number of socio-economic, ethnic, and variables that need to be controlled for, this study's margin of error is massively wide and probably shouldn't even be used to generalize about the adolescents attending similar programs. Finally, this study was specific to "open" adoptions, where the birth mother is not completely cut off from the child.
Pondering the quality of this "research data" in support of the church's policy raises more questions than it answers. Couldn't LDS Famly Services find better data to support their assertion that adoption is a good thing? Why didn't the editorial staff of The Ensign check the validity of the claims published in the article? Most importantly, was this the same quality of data that President Hinckley refered to when he said "experience has shown..."? (I believe President Hinckley was an honest man, so I won't suggest that he made it up, but I've seen other examples where President Hinckley and his counselors didn't do their homework.) Can we trust any data or claims made by LDS Family Services? (Lets face it, LDS Family Services is funded by its adoption business; they have a bit of a conflict of interest here.)
According to the Center for Disease Control, there were 1,527,034 non-marital births in 2005. This rate reflects an increase in non-marital births in women 18 and older, while the birth rate for younger teens declined. There were a total of 4,138,349 births registered in the United States. My calculator says that's about 36.9% of births were to unwed mothers. The pregnancy rate for white teens (15-19) was 25.9 per thousand, while the rates of all other racial groups except Asian/Pacific Islander, with Hispanics being the higest at 81.7/thousand, followed by black women at60.9/thousand.
According to Child Welfare Information Gateway in 2005, quoting the National Survey of Family Growth, less than 1 percent of children born to never married women were placed for adoption from 1989 to 1995 (latest year data available). "The percentage is higher for White never-married women (1.7 percent) than for Black never-married women (near 0 percent). Relinquishment by married and formerly married women is rarer still, and percentages are not available." and finally, "One study at a residential facility for pregnant teens found that a disproportionate number of those who relinquished were from upper-middle-class families, living in the suburbs or small cities, and from intact families with highly educated parents (Moore & Davidson, 2002). The 178 teens studied were heavily influenced in their decisions to relinquish by peers and siblings and by having personal experience with adoption (knowing someone who was adopted or being adopted themselves)." They note two trends in adoption placements: a decrease in the percentage of children relinquished by never married women (In 1973 nearly 20% (19.3%) of Whites and about 1.5% of Blacks relinquished.)
There are several conclusions that can be drawn from this data. First is the presence of an extreme selection bias in mothers choosing to relinquish that would skew the data in the McLaughlin study cited by LDS Family Services. The women who relinquish are already more likely to go on to higher education or careers than those that do not, whether or not they relinquish, further invalidating LDS Family Services use of that study. Placing the child for adoption cannot be seen as the determining factor here.
The Child Welfare Information Gateway survey concludes with this observation about future research:
The study of relinquishment is hampered by a number of limitations. Fisher (2003) notes several of these:
- The relatively small number who relinquish makes generalizations based on samples difficult.
- Many studies use biased samples of women who have self-selected by volunteering to report.
- Very little of the literature addresses the behavior and rights of fathers.
As the percentage of women who place their children has dropped, the opportunity to study this population has decreased, and it is increasingly difficult to generalize from the small numbers of individuals studied. Future research may concentrate on the characteristics of this group and the factors that influence their decision to place their children for adoption.
The research just doesn't support the LDS Family Services position or the church's policy of "encouraging" adoption placement. The disingenouity of LDS Family Services is claiming that the two studies they cite supports their position raises all sorts of questions about the integrity of LDS Family Services, and, unfortunately, the church leaders who have promulgated the policy.stay tuned for part 2.
Comments