The pregnant brain and what it as to do with adoption.?

http://www.apa.org/monitor/2008/09/pregnancy.html

In a nut shell, this article states that a woman becomes less cognitive and has a shorter memory, basically less coherent during pregnancy. They say the pregnant brain shrinks up to 4%.
It then states that after giving birth, the brain returns to normal size and that the now mother, becomes MORE cognitive and has a better memory, and becomes more fearless to defend her children.

This article states that the changes to the brain are permanent.
a.)What role do you think these mental and hormonal changes play in a Woman making a pre-birth adoption plan?

b.)Do you think the after birth hormones, give some women the strength to overcome the pressure, or choice to place?

c.) Do you think that the “Permanent change” gives some women, who experienced pregnancy loss or the loss of a child, the strong urge to provide for, love and nurture a baby on a higher level, than before experiencing pregnancy, therefore leading them to adoption? Rather than it being a second choice?

d.)Do you think that simulating the hormone changes prior to adoption for those who have not experienced pregnancy, might give then an extra boost of motherly instinct?
What else do you take from this article?

tish

after birth, it was just enough to remember my name.

i *heart* psychological research

sunny

After I gave birth to my children I could barely make the decision on what I wanted for lunch.

Those hormones are crazymaking.

I think it takes about 3 mos. to return to normal.

Sly

What it tells me is that NO mother is ready to sign any papers that impact herself or the child she bears so severely for at least a couple of months following delivery and certainly not before. The PreBirth Surrender, that is enforceable in some states now if not rescinded within a matter of hours following delivery, is an abomination!

Our brains are not rubber bands, and don't snap back like one. All physical and emotional changes take time, as recognized by the fact that a woman can be diagnosed with PPD for up to 6 months following birth. A woman who could still be suffering undiagnosed PPD, a mental condition, should not be signing life-altering paperwork, either.

The Mother/Child Dyad should be honored and protected, not made the meat of predators!!

Felicita1

This is exactly the reason why adoption agencies, adoption counselors and people wanting to adopt should be kept away from expectant and birthing mothers. They can affect her decision far far too easily as she's cognitively and emotionally affected hugely.

This is why ANY pre-birth contact with people wanting her baby is inherently coercive. It cannot help but be. There is no way she cannot help but bond with them due to oxytocin causing her to trust them and "fall in love" with them, and this is emotional coercion of the highest level.

A mother has to recover from birth first before making any "adoption decision" or it is NOT a decision at all -- it is coercion.

That is why "at-birth surrenders" as to promoted: because agencies and lawyers know they can exploit the mother as she's more vulnerable at this time.

Austrailia has it right: ensure that no mom has to surrender due to poverty, and ensure that she has time to recover post-birth and that consents have been signed and the revokation period (4 wks?) is over before she interviews people who want to adopt. So that her decision is made without emotional or financial coercion.

Even in the 1940s, a scholar named Pendleton stated unequivocally that mothers needed time post-birth to recover first, and that too many "rushed surrenders" were happening because the "needs" of others were being put first.

Melanie J

A) I don't believe these changes make much of a difference. if a woman is going to place her child for adoption, it's based on her inability to properly care for a child and her desire to give that child a life that she cannot provide.

B) Yes, I do think the hormones play a role in women changing their minds. The problem is that I also think that these women later realize the child would have been better off adopted to a caring family who had the means to provide for it, but because of these hormones and bonding, they keep the child in less than good conditions.

C) Yes, I could see these changes making a woman who lost a child more likely to feel a strong urge to mother.

D) Not a fan of messing with hormones and simulating them with shots or pills. I just don't think science has advanced far enough yet to duplicate mother nature properly. I also don't think that hormone simulation is necessary as the mothering instincts usually kick in on their own very shortly after an adoptive parent begins to cree for their child.

I understand that placing a child for adoption is difficult for the mother and that just before or just after birth is a rough time for them. I remember it well from having my kids and I couldn't imagine how difficult it would have been for my to try to place one of mine up for adoption. Thats why I am a HUGE advocate for open adoptions. The mother chooses the family who will raise her child and has regular contact with the child based on her desires and the desires of the adoptive parents. No unanswered questions on either side. the child knows who the birth parents are and can ask any questions. The adoptive parents know the mother from pregnancy on and can be there for the doctor appointments etc right up to being there for the birth. The birth parents can check in on their child and never have to wonder how the child is doing, growing, being treated, because they know.

Too bad open adoption isn't legal in every state.

sizesmith

I bet men did this study.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: