They wouldn't DARE treat women the way we did in the 50s and 60s. If they tried, they'd land in court and on the front page. Of course there has never been any official recognition or apology for the abuse of women back then.
No, you're right. We don't drug women and then have them sign consents. We don't lock them up in the loony bin against their will and give them shock treatments because they won't sign consents. We don't snatch the baby out of their arms and run away with him, as happened with one young woman. We don't lock them up in maternity homes , take away their personal clothing and money so they can't flee, deny them access to the baby's father, to attorneys, to friends, to any counsel of any sort except their own.
NOW what we do is start preaching surrender to them when they are eleven and twelve. Did you know the Gladney Center has produced a tape that is shown to sixth and seventh graders talking about child surrender that is shown in health and home ec classes in DF/W? We don't show them any tapes telling the other side of the story, although such tapes exist. We pair them with adoptors well before they ever deliver, and tell them about the wonderful "gift" they are going to give these infertile people. We don't tell them that they are under no obligation to solve the reproductive problems of complete strangers. We tell them how much these wonderful people deserve, how entitled they are to someone else's baby. We don't tell them about extended family and parenting options, nor do we tell them that their difficulties are temporary. We tell them about happily ever after, but we don't tell them about conflicts of interest and how the agency doesn't get paid if she doesn't place. We promise her there will be openness, pictures, perhaps phone calls, update letters and the like. We don't tell her that open adoption agreements are unenforceable legally, nor do we give her figures on how frequently open adoptions are closd after the first year or two. We paint rettty pictures of a halcyon life, and we make the period in which she can change her mind only 72 hours after she signs. We tell this sweet young thing that she is in control, in charge, but we allow complete strangers into the delivery room to witness her giving birth, so they can bind with "their" baby immediately. That's not even enough time to recover from the birth, to think with a clear head. Worst, most damning of all, we don't tell her what the sequelae of surrender are. We don't tell her that she will have a lifetime of pain after surrender. We don't tell her that she stands a 30% or greater chance of developing severe recurrent depression. We don't tell her that she stands 40% or greater chance of never having another child. We don't tell her that she runs an 80% or greater chance of being diagnosed with same degree of PTSD later in life from surrendering a baby. We don't tell her this, and yet you insist these surrenders are voluntary. How can a surrender be voluntary when the mother of the child is not fully informed? If a surgeonn in the hospital operated on a patient without telling him/her the probability of complications and what those complications are, that would be malpractice. That would be coercion, and that's exactly what I think the way these "voluntary" surrenders are. I think they are malpractice and coercion. In countries where women considering surrender ARE given this information, the adoption rate plummets. Australia is one such country.
Do you have anything to say that you can support, or are you just going to continue to attack and make assertions without presenting any supporting data?