Well, it didn’t take long! Hardly had Bristol Palin announced her break-up with Levi Johnson when somebody asked: Should Bristol Palin’s Baby Have Been Put Up for Adoption?
Stephen Waldman, editor-in-chief of BeliefNet posed the question in yesterday’s Huffington Post
The whole political debate has assumed that there were only two choices — keeping the baby and having an abortion. Given the long waiting lists of people trying to adopt, wouldn’t offering the baby for adoption have been just as compassionate as raising the child alone?
And boy, is he getting dumped on! Some of the biggest dumpers, in fact, are adoptive parents. Janice Taylor, another HuffPo blogger responded:
My daughter is adopted,and I think I’m going to surprise you with what I am about to say. I believe that – whenever possible, teenager or not – the child should stay with their mother. The teen mother will need support, for sure – but she doesn’t have to get married. Bristol is a good example of a young mother who has plenty of support, with or without Levi.
I’m happily surprised that so many responders stuck a fork in Waldman and his offensive presumption that Bristol Palin should have been a “compassionate” incubator for the childless and desperate.
Bristol’s decision to be a single mom is nobody’s business but hers. I wish her the best.
Heads up to Mirah Riben for this story. Mirah posted her own incisive comments. I’m heading back over there now to post my own.
March 13, 2009 10:99 AM:
Addenda: After I put up this entry something else occurred to me. The title of Waldman’s piece Should Bristol Palin’s Baby Have Been Put Up for Adoption?”
Waldman wrote Bristol out of the narrative, making her the passive “birthmother” who has or should have no say in the disposition of her son. Bristol doesn’t exist for Waldman. Waldman, in fact, de–babys her. I generally don’t like this term, which I think was coined by Di Welfare, but in this case it fits. Bristol–and her baby–are the attainment of someone else’s desire, possessing no humanity or rights of their own. And this is ugly.
Waldman’s stupid commentary will raise a lot of hackles on line but most people will see that hey, it’s not that simple to give a baby away! And why should she?
This is one issue that is not worth wasting time on, but then, here I am doing just that. Instead, lets blanket the legislators over in SD with letters…see firstmotherforum.com
thanks, ya’all.
Yup.. I threw a slight fit over ther.. They are lucky that a comment cn only be 250 words long.. oh I hate to edit. Now, I am waiting to see if they dare to post it. SOmehow I bet not.
I expected better from the Huffington Post…oh wait..it’s adoption!
The term, “de-baby” was NOT coined by Di.
This Waldman character is just one more example of the attitude in this nation that de-values the mother-child bond and makes a walking uterus out of any woman, teen or otherwise, who dares to reproduce without the brand of a man on her ring finger.
I read Waldman’s article. And yes, he made Bristol the Mother..a non-entity. I was though, pleasantly surprised with many of the ‘comments’ that did not agree with him and his adoption slop. I may not have any use for Bristol’s mommy…but I don’t believe this particular family is going to lose one of it’s own to adoption. Like many of the commenters on the Huffington Post said…this jerk should just ‘MYOB’!
BTW…Robin is correct it wasn’t Di who coined the term ‘de-baby’.
I’m not sure that the point hasn’t been missed. I don’t think anyone would be making assertions that Bristol Palin ought to put her child up for adoption, but for the hypocritical agenda of social conservatives like Sarah Palin.
If people dare suggest such a thing about Bristol its only because such thinking is right in line with what social conservatives have been saying for years. They constantly trumpet adoption as a solution to unwed pregnancy and to the “abortion problem”. Context is what is important here. Now that the shoe is on Sarah Palin’s foot, I bet it hurts to hear people suggest that HER daughter relinquish for adoption. Welcome to the club, honey. I admit on some level I enjoy this.
Agreeing with Anon, Sending the bad girl away to a Home to surrender is the dream that Palin’s pals want to bring back. It isn’t good enough not to have an abortion, those sluts must be shamed!
Oh yeah, and abstinence education works, ban birth control. Bristol Palin is in no danger of giving up her kid no matter what anyone says. And her mother will keep pushing the same bad policies that will leave other young mothers not so lucky.
It is kind of amusing in a dark way to see a right-wing politician’s family on the hot seat.
I agree with Anon and MaryAnne.
And since the whole matter is already plastered all over the public arena in icky sticky bitskies, there is no reason to be demure about discussing it.
So….where did the term “de-baby” come from? It really is a dreadful term, why would anyone use it?
As I said, I don’t like the term “de-baby” myself, but that’s the exact term that came to mind when I read Waldman’s essay. I think it’s a term that should be used sparingly.
Perhaps you are thinking of the term “disembabyment,” which (in general) refers to the mother having no choice in general, and (in specific) refers to the practice where babies were whisked away permanently from the mother right at birth. In Canada, this was a standard procedure in many hospitals if staff felt that “adopted was indicated,” from about 1955 to 1985. Mothers were often forbidden from seeing or holding their babies.
But I agree with you that Waldman dehumanizes Bristol with his language, dismissing her as being nothing other than a tool to fill the needs of “the long waiting lists of people trying to adopt…”
But of course, that’s what the indsutry wants … mothers to be reduced to the sum total of their reproductive function: “mothers” for birthing purposes only and not one second longer than is needed in order to sign the papers. 🙁
BTW, Dian Wellfare didn’t invent the term “disembabyment” either. But, for those reading this who are unfamiliar with her, she did speak out against the practice of coercing surrenders.
http://www.dianwellfare.com/
I also have to admit to also enjoying the blatant hypocrisy exhibited by the darling ditz-head of the far right. I KNEW that the so-called “engagement” was a red herring. The boy had already made his feelings known on the matter. He reminds me of some of the penis pappies from my era. That “why buy the cow” mind-set is so patriarchial.