Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Can you tell me what you would consider to be coercion

as compared to suggestion (in the context of adoption)? Webster's defines it as "using force or intimidation to obtain compliance". I am really trying to understand what some posters are trying to say. Can we please have this conversation without it turning into an argument? This is an opportunity help some of us understand what you are saying. Thanks!


Asked by Iamgr8teful at 1:01 PM on Apr. 19, 2009 in Adoption

Level 25 (23,279 Credits)
This question is closed.
Answers (29)
  • Coercion can be an excuse that allows one to blame others for her feelings of intense guilt and regret about her own decision.

    I'm sure there are some corrupt agencies out there, but this is a free country. If a woman has enough common sense to raise a baby, she should be able to identify being lead toward a decision she doesn't want to make, and just walk away.


    Answer by Anonymous at 10:53 AM on Apr. 20, 2009

  • I think coercion is just convincing someone to do something they wouldnt do otherwise.

    Answer by kellycali at 1:11 PM on Apr. 19, 2009

  • I believe its trying to sway someone in the other direction of where they are going. Not giving options, but just the one option you are trying to convince them to. People can also use intimidation to coerce. My friend (mother of our son) was actually being coerced into KEEPING her baby. "Friends" where telling her "I'm not gonna talk to you anymore if you give away your baby" or some would say "If you give this one away then something will happen where you can't have anymore"..But she said at the end of the day it was a decision her and the father would feel content with , not what everyone else wanted.
    So I guess alot of people think coercion goes one way but it doesn't.

    Answer by babycakes254 at 2:39 PM on Apr. 19, 2009

  • synonyms are to browbeat or bully.

    Answer by Anonymous at 4:36 PM on Apr. 19, 2009

  • Webster's defines intimidation as: 1. to make timid; fill with fear. 2. to overawe or cow, as through the force of personality or by superior display of wealth, talent, etc. 3. to force into or deter from some action by inducing fear: to intimidate a voter into staying away from the polls.

    I believe what some are saying, in the context of infant adoption, is that expectant mothers are vulnerable, and sometimes feeling a sense of helplessness about being able to raise a child for whatever reasons (are their own) and they feel the only hope for their child (ruling out abortion) is adoption.


    Answer by doodlebopfan at 6:00 PM on Apr. 19, 2009

  • However, when an adoption agency or pregnancy home only helps them with education, work skills, medical bills, housing, references, perhaps money, etc. in exchange for the promise of their baby, then the outcome is exchanging the child for resources. Would those same efforts to given to her in the context of counseling/preparing/enabling her to parent her child? I can only imagine the sense of obligation the expectant mother would feel to go ahead and place the child as though she OWES the agency, or home, or PAP's something for helping her through this time. After all, did she have something to bring to the table in exchange for the living expenses, place to live, the support while she is jobless, where she only needs to take care of herself and the growing baby and they will take care of the rest? So, at the end of the pregnancy when the baby arrives, how can she even think of keeping the "payment" that is due?

    Answer by doodlebopfan at 6:02 PM on Apr. 19, 2009

  • I think this may be the "coercion" that they speak of, IMHO.

    Answer by doodlebopfan at 6:02 PM on Apr. 19, 2009

  • Coersion is hard to prove. In my child's case I can say without a doubt there was no coersion. In fact, the extended relatives beggedd and pleaded offering her what they could to raise this child. She had her mind set on placing this child for adoption. I have experienced situations where the family has tried and in many cases successfully coersed an expectant mother into not placing a child and then later she regrets that. That is equally wrong. So you can tout all you want about how agencies/lawyers coerse an expectant mother....funny no one mentions the black mail, threats, and harassment biological family members do to expectant moms either. It only seems on here there is only room for one sided discussions making agencies and adoptive parents out to be evil people.

    Answer by Anonymous at 7:56 PM on Apr. 19, 2009

  • Relinquishing a child to adoption is not an act that comes naturally to most women, and it is not something that most women would willingly do. I think some of the confusion that exists about what coercion is because many forms of it may be subtle and not easily recognized by all. If a woman says that she wants to raise her baby, and is repeatedly told over and over that she cannot or should not, that is one form of coercion. Many agencies over the years have practiced coercive techniques. It is very similar to brainwashing. When a woman tries to change her mind and is told that she cannot, that is coercion as well. Intimidation, isolation and trying to guilt someone into a decision are all part of coercive techiques. In pre-birth matching, telling a woman about the number of miscarriages a pap has had can be a guilt techinque that might be part of coercive efforts to convince a woman to stick to her adoption plan.

    Answer by Southernroots at 7:57 PM on Apr. 19, 2009

  • Oh, and on several occassions the mothers we were matched with gladly walked away with both finacial support and their baby....with smiles on their faces and money in their wallet.

    Answer by Anonymous at 7:58 PM on Apr. 19, 2009