Should an unwed mother's child be taken from her?

It would be a totalitarian fascist government that would do such a thing, truly. A socialist government would provide support, and a democracy in theory provides equality of opportunity.

As to the premise of the first question, absolutely not unless there is proof of negligence or harm to the child. What a horrific thing to imagine; a mother's marital status is irrelevant, and who's to say that the mother can't improve circumstances for herself and her child.

I think there is more to this story than you are sharing or you are not aware of the real story. No one would do what you are claiming was done. There are too many government agencies that would have raced to reach the unwed mother to help her out with housing and whatever she needed for herself and the baby. They do everything possible to keep the biological mother and child together. There are too many children in foster care.

When a mother signs over her child for adoption they also make sure she is aware of her surroundings and is not under sedation or drugs. This is very different in recent years since so many birth mothers come back later to claim their child. The court usually gives them their child back, thus breaking up another family.

SOOOOOOOOOO, What is the real story??!!?

So let me get this straight...

A mom has a kid... no way to support herself, much less a kid... no help from the sperm donor (daddy)... no help from family... and no one should do something to end that situation? Of course, if a mom can't take care of her kid, the government will step in and do what is in the best interests of the CHILD.

If you read ancient literature (including the Bible) you'll see that such actions have been taken by governments since the first civilizations. Such actions have taken place in every kind of government.

And, more to the point, in most societies in most of the world's history, and "unwed mother" would not be tolorated.

How old is the mother? What are the circumstances? Who is making her give up the baby? Who will provide for the child? Will the child live in the street? You don’t give us near enough information to attempt an answer.

There has to be more to this, like the mother is a minnor with no home/support $ . It would be illegal to do for the mere reasons above unless the mother has other children in the foster system now.

considering the child is 68% more likely to be in a gang and be a career car jacking criminal, and then a full time state inmate, the government did a good thing, maybe.. and i say maybe the kid has a chance at a decent life.. if he gets adopted by a 2 parent household.

If she can care for it, and not go on welfare, then no. If she can't take care of the child without becoming a burden on hardworking taxpayers, then the child might be best served in a stable home.

If you can't afford them on your own salary, don't have them and expect working people to support the results of irresponsible sexual behavior.

Children DO NOT get taken away from mothers MERELY because they are unwed and have no friends and family...

our social services and child protective services are far too over-burdened with abuse and neglect cases....so either your friend is not that great of a mom, or you are taking far too much literary license in your explanation therefore skewing the facts in favor of your friend.

Then how in hell do you expect for this child to eat, or be clothed, housed, medicine? No it's not socialist. They are doing what is best for the child which apparently the mother nor the father are doing. What the hell did you expect welfare and a free ride?

If she is unable to support her self and/or can not get help from Family and friends then yes her child should be taken away from her.

Wheres the father in all this? If hes able to support himself..ect then he should have to bear the shame he apparently thinks he has created....