"If you care about this child, you need to let it go." Do you agree?

Laura's father tells her, "If you care about this child, you need to let it go." Do you agree? Do you believe giving up her baby was the right decision under the circumstances?

I don't agree with this statement. I feel that everyone's situation is different. Each young woman should make this decision for herself, hopefully with loving guidance from family. We know that is not always the case however and some young woman are still shamed. So sad.

I don't agree. The parents were more concerned with possible scorn on their family than on concern for the child. they didn't want the child acknowledged at all. If I look at the context of the times, I know why they were pushing adoption and secrecy. A woman giving birth outside of marriage was considered a bad person, to put it mildly. The child would have been teased and also frowned upon. I don't agree with those concepts, but I was a teenager at the same time the author was forced to give up her child. That was the way it was! Glad it's changed.

OMG those words haunted me. I’ll never forget having to sign the release paperwork for my birth son to a new family. My Mom repeated this phrase over and over, I think as much to convince herself as to convince me. I sought out any possible way to keep my son but found none. The resources women have today are wonderful and would have definitely been used by me had they been available at my time of need.

I actually do think that given the era, he likely did have a better life with his adopted parents. He grew up loved and supported. While Laura would have loved her baby, her mother likely would always have been resentful, and I can't believe the baby would have done as well under those circumstances. And, had Laura tried to raise him on her own, she likely wouldn't have been able to provide for him the way his adopted parents could.

That said, I don't have children, so I don't know what part the emotional mother-child bond plays. Perhaps growing up with a birth mother's love would outweigh the benefits provided by his adoptive parents. But I still think, had he gone home with Laura, his grandmother would have been ashamed of his existence and that would have been a tough atmosphere to grow up in. I doubt the circumstances of his birth would have remained a secret, and he likely would have been ostracised because of it.

Given the society’s norms I believe she made the best decision for herself and her baby. I remember the fear of “what the neighbors
Would say”.

At the time this occurred, it was probably the correct choice as single mothers had little available to them at that time. Laura would have had even more difficulty because of her hateful mother. You can just imagine how she would have treated Laura and her son.

At that time, this was what young unmarried women were told. There was so much "what everyone would think" about the mother and baby. It's sad, but that's how it was then.
Think of the couple who adopted the child. Perhaps they couldn't have a child, so adoption was their only option. It does sound like Richard had a good life.
Laura was in no position to raise a child and her parents weren't going to help in any way,

I agree with Laura's Dad in this specific case and at this time period in the 1960s.
I think her Dad was trying to warn her that attempting to raise this child with her
emotionally unstable Mother would be huge mistake and would not end well for her or her baby. Today there are so many resources for young mothers.

That mantra was repeated countless times to soothe the pain of unwed mothers who either chose or were forced to give up a child. But it made no sense, because it assumed that (1) an unmarried young woman couldn’t provide the emotional or financial stability, and (2) that the stigma of illegitimacy overrode and possibility of even the best parenting.

This was a terrible time for an unmarried girl to be pregnant. Everyone involved suffered in innumerable ways. Most of the time the adoptive parents were good and loving parents. Most of the adoptees I’ve personally met were happy with their parents, but just as some parents are lacking, so are some adoptive parents.

The statement was simply a lie.

In that time period, the best thing was to let the child go. Public opinion would have hurt Jaime's growth every step of the way. People would judge him on his birth and not his personality, skills or achievements.

Unfortunately her pregnancy was a sign of the times.
It was morally wrong to be an unwed teenager and the poor child would have been shunned his entire life.

Though I agree with all the points made about society/public opinion dictated during the late 1960’s, I couldn’t help but wonder whether Laura’s dad felt that it was best for the baby to be adopted because he did not want this little baby to experience the erratic behavior and vitriolic rants that Laura’s mom often yelled at Laura. Perhaps the dad felt Laura’s baby had the chance of adoption into a stable home without anyone yelling at him. Perhaps the dad’s statement was more altruistic than we realize.

At that time Laura did not have many options and giving it up was the best one. Today, I would not do it. We have more choices now. We have also found out that is something you do not forget.

She really didn’t have many option’s during that time. Fortunately, today women have more options and opportunities. It still would be a difficult life to raise a child on your own as a teenager without a lot of family support and support from the dad.

I don't agree. I think that Laura would have made every effort to take care of her son. And she never really did let him go. It caused a lot of heartache for everyone that could have been avoided. Yes, her son did end up having a good life with parents who cared about him. But it isn't always about things, and Laura really loved her son.

I'm guessing that her father actually believed those words. He was thinking about how difficult it would have been for Laura and a child born out of wedlock to live in their small, southern town. It would have also been difficult for everyone in the family! Reputation was so important and anything that tarnished the family name was just not forgivable. I grew up in the South, was a teen during the 60s; I know of what I speak. Add to all of this the harsh realities of hardcore, evangelical protestant religion and there's no hope for anyone who strays beyond what they consider acceptable behavior.

I was fortunate to never stray beyond the bounds given to us children. But, I had friends who went through the same situation as Laura. Those who had their babies and were trying to raise them soon found the town very unforgiving. The children were never treated very well, either. Those who gave their babies over to a Mom or a Grandparent, still carried the stigma of their "sin" as did their child. Most left town as soon as they could, just like Laura, for a new life where they were unknown.

Do I agree? Certainly not; my family put a lot of story in family. When one of my younger sisters found herself facing this situation, my parents were sad and disappointed in her, but they loved that baby and raised him for her while she left for college and a career in the big city where she was an unknown and could move ahead with her life. Later she came back for the child but he didn't want to go with her. They visited one another regularly, he would go spend summers with his Mom but home for him was with his grandparents. It all worked out without secrets, I might add!!

Skagitgrits shared an inspirational experience in her family and I'm so glad it worked out for them. Her parents were true gems. But I just don't see that happening for many young women back then, especially with how her parents were. Societal pressure, stigma and lack of resources are hard taskmasters. Experiencing poverty can leave emotional scars. I have to say that it probably was the best choice for Laura and her son.