|
Apr 10, 2005
Birthmother's Day
True, it's a few weeks early to think about Birthmothers Day. But still, it's a fascinating concept. What is a birthmother, you ask? What is this thing called "Birthmother's Day"?
Weeeeellll, just to fill you in there are people in our society who have been used as machines to pump out babies for people to adopt. These machines are called "birthmothers". The cool thing is that unlike real mothers, these machines have no feelings and they willingly shoot their babies straight from the womb into the arms of waiting "couples" just like a vending machine or some automated, robotic manufacturing equipment. It's a miracle of human engineering - an advancement in psychology - that makes "birth objects" such as these possible.
Yet, just to allow adopters to appear friendly - and for "one day only" - the "birth things" are honored for their "sacrifice".
Never mind that people who build homes in flood zones or on the coast where hurricanes are expected get federal money to make up for their "errors" in judgement. Never mind that most employers are increasing adopters benefits while decreasing natural families benefits. Never mind that a child can be designated "special needs" because he does not love his adopter - and then the adopter can collect all kinds of government benefits. In spite of all the government waste, a single mother is considered the worst kind of parasite, meant to be squashed like a cruel boy stepping on one end of a caterpillar until her guts spill out yellow-green upon the pavement.
Must we use women in this way? Some naive moms claim the are glad someone "helped" them. Who's kidding whom? If the adopters have hard times, or if one of them dies, will they "do the right thing" and re-allocate the child to someone who has more money or a "stable" environemnt?
A lot of adopters probably DO die - they are getting pretty old before they decide they have missed out on what "really matters" - a family. To make up for this, they simply use a naive mom to get a baby to use as their own.
Well. the turth hurts: These people who are "loving" will not love the mom whose baby they take. Birth Bitch or Birth Nigger or Birth Thing - whatever. A mom's status drops like a rock when she gives up hope of finding real pregnancy help and surrenders her child for adoption. The adopters immediately gain in status: They are such noble people, taking a child whose mother "just didn't want" her.
The adoption industry operates by creating a cultural expectation of adoption for the sons and daughters of non-traditional mothers and then exploits that expectation for personal and financial gain. It's not pretty, it's not loving, it's not kind. It's cruelty.
"Birthmothers" Day? It's time to go back to honoring all mothers on Mother's Day.
Posted at 08:29 pm by warriorwoman
Permalink
Apr 7, 2005
Is adoption a reproductive "choice"?
Is adoption a reproductive "choice"?
Some people say adoption is a reproductive choice a woman must have - that a woman's choice to delay reproduction includes abortion or adoption. In the United States, a baby's father usually gets no say in the matter if he is not married to the child's mother. And that is true even after his child is already born - if he wants to take responsibility for his own son or daughter he may be out of luck. Promoters of adoption will claim he is trying to block an adoption as if he was not his child's father at all.
Is adoption a real "choice"? There is clearly the involvement of United States government in influencing the numbers of mothers who opt to legally surrender their sons and daughters. We now have federal government-funded Infant Adoption Awareness Training aimed at getting more babies away from naive mothers and father for use in adoption. We have Safe Haven laws that provide one option to a frightened, pressured mother - the abandonment of her baby. We have Choose Life license plates from which the proceeds go toward getting moms to surrender their children but never to help those who want to keep their family together. The government has not outlawed solicitation to get babies (eg, Dear Birthmother letters) , nor has it outlawed the profit made by adoption lawyers and adoption agencies who sell babies to adopters under the guise of "adoption services". Adoption agencies are expanding their business by offering "Open adoption" to naive and pressured moms in order to get more babies for their paying customers. The customers are merely unrelated people hoping to get a healthy infant to use, yet those who sell babies call them "parents" well in advance of the sale. We now have gvernment funded Embryo Adoption Awareness Training as well. Meanwhile real families get less and less benefits from the government and from employers as well.
Church groups like to claim that providing women the "option of adoption" (really the option to legally abandon their child) they are lowering the number of abortions. Yet their unwillingness to help single people into their role as moms and dads surely pressures a great many women to opt for abortion. Oddly, on Mother's Day, a sermon may include a mention of many kinds of mothers - step-mothers, grandmothers - even women who have obtained abortions may be referred to as "mothers". Yet those mothers who have been forced to surrender a baby to adoption are not referred to as "mothers" or even mentioned. A woman who has been used in this horrendous way is considered a "birthmother" (aka "birth thing") She is not seen as human being but is considered to be like a placenta, meant to be disposed of when her child is born.
Some mothers have allowed themselves to be "honored" as "birth objects" on "Birthmothers Day". That is sad. A mother is a mother - and even the women who have had abortions are honored on Mother's Day.
Now the United States government promotes the celebration of adoption. What about celebrating families that remain intact - and helping them?
Is adoption a reproductive "choice"? If women really wanted to make such a "choice" they would not have to be solicited to get their babies for adoption.
Posted at 10:03 am by warriorwoman
Permalink
Apr 6, 2005
Adoption vs. Abortion?
A lady in Australia sent me this in my email:
"In 1982 a governement circular was issued to all the Australian hospitals warning them to stop their illicit practice of taking babies at birth from their unmarried mothers. I was lucky wasn't I ...because my daughter was born in that year."
In the United States, adoption is still practiced, with children having their mothers removed from them at birth so other people can adopt.
It is said that adoption is better than abortion ... but the babies who are adopted are already born and in no danger of being aborted. The only danger most of them are in is the danger of being taken home and loved by their own family.
See Adoption vs. Abortion Myths Debunked. So the real question is, are unrelated caregivers better than a child's real family that loves her?
Of course, it is harder to get babies now that families are more willing to pitch in and help a mom, even if she is not married. This is a problem for people whose business is adoption. Their most sought-after product - healthy human infants - has become scarce. To fix this problem of scarcity, new means of getting babies are being developed all the time. Perhaps the most cruel is the promise of open adoption - continuing contact with their child - used to rope moms and dads (and grandparents and siblings) into surrendering parental rights so some stranger can have a baby.
Mothers are called "birthmothers" (aka "birth things") making it seem like they are incubators, not human beings.
Adoption vs. Abortion? What about barren and childfree vs. taking some naive or vulnerable family's healthy baby?
Posted at 02:40 pm by warriorwoman
Permalink
Apr 4, 2005
Infertility Cures - that don't hurt other people.
In the news today is a new infertility cure. The "cure" is not to take some vulnerable mother's baby for adoption or to "use" a woman as a surrogate-incubator or to purchase the raw materials (human sperm and eggs obtained from naive college students) to create an unrelated child.
Happily, the infertility cure is one that results in people having their own children, the way God intended.
GAINESVILLE, Fla., April 4 /PRNewswire/ -- More than 75 women, once infertile, will be celebrating this Mother's Day with their very own miracle babies after receiving a new "fertility massage" that helped them become pregnant.
Three friends, Sarah, Nicole, and Stephanie * attribute their children to a patent-protected massage therapy called the Wurn Technique(R). The therapy, which uses no drugs or surgery, appears to decrease the adhesions and scar tissue that cause half of all female infertility, according to Dr. Richard King, Research Director at Florida Medical and Research Institute and co-
author of several studies on this therapy.
"We use our hands to find adhered areas in and around a woman's reproductive organs," said Belinda Wurn, PT, co-developer of the technique (see http://www.clearpassage.com ). "We then apply a sophisticated 'massage' to free the reproductive tissues from adhesions that can cause infertility."
Sarah was the first of the three friends to discover the therapy's success. With one blocked fallopian tube, and the other tube scarred and adhered from a C-section, her physician told her it was unlikely she would
ever conceive again. She has had three children since therapy. "This was such a blessing for us that I recommended the therapy to my friend Nicole who had
also been struggling with infertility for years," Sarah said.
Nicole was infertile for five years, with a history of endometriosis, miscarriages and seven failed intrauterine inseminations (IUI). After receiving this therapy, Nicole also conceived naturally, and gave birth to a beautiful baby girl. "I know that this therapy is what my body needed to be successful," Nicole said.
Nicole's friend Stephanie had never had a single pregnancy. Stephanie's tubes were scarred and her fimbriae were clubbed with adhesions. After five
years of infertility, and four IVF attempts, she was crushed. "Nicole bugged me to try the therapy so I finally went. A few months after therapy, to my
utter amazement, I was pregnant," Stephanie said. She also gave birth to a little girl.
"We are very excited about the results we have seen with our therapy and look forward to helping more couples reach their goals of parenthood," said Larry Wurn, LMT, co-developer of the Wurn Technique(R) and Director of Clinical Studies at Clear Passage Therapies, Inc.
Studies on the therapy's effectiveness were recently published in Medscape General Medicine. One study in the peer-reviewed journal indicated that 71% of
infertile women conceived within one year of treatment without any further medical or surgical intervention. A second study reported that women who received therapy prior to IVF transfer increased their pregnancy rates by 63% over IVF without therapy.
This therapy gives women another reason to smile. According to a third study published by Medscape, 56% of the women who participated in the study reported an increase in orgasm intensity and duration and 96% reported a reduction in intercourse pain.
Clear Passage currently has locations in Florida, the metropolitan DC area, and Ohio. Additional clinics are planned for New York City, California, Chicago, Iowa, and Arizona.
* Pseudonyms used for privacy
Regarding infertility cures, when will our government in the United States work to educate people not to wait too long to have children? When will they issue warnings on laptops that males may become infertile if they hold the laptop on their lap, because it will increase scrotal temperature?
Well, it's unlikely they will prevent the suffering of infertility when so many entities profit from finding babies for adoption and reproductive technologies.
How many people in United States today are searching for family members lost to adoption?
How rare is it for anyone to warn families of the adoption industry lies and provide pregnant women ideas for real help?
The honorable term "Mother" has been replaced by the job title "birthmother" - thus a mother's humanity is denied completely when her child is desirable for adoption.
Posted at 09:23 am by warriorwoman
Permalink
Apr 2, 2005
Did Joseph adopt Jesus?
Here's an interesting topic...
I mentioned to friends that the Virgin Mary was very young and single when she agreed to a pregnancy. God chose her to be the mother of Jesus and she accepted.
Today we would say a pregnant unmarried teenager "made poor choices" and many people would pressure her to surrender her baby for adoption. After all, there are so many people who can really use a baby - and THEY would be more mature, have established careers, plan better and never subject a baby to the unsanitary conditions of a stable.
My friends claimed that Joseph adopted Jesus. Well DID Joseph adopt Jesus? Really? Because there is no Biblical account that says Joseph was offended when Jesus claimed God as his Father. An adopter would expect Jesus to call God his "birth-thing-father" and say God is NOT his real Father.
Joseph was a step-father, and he cared for and provided for Jesus just like he would provide for his own child. Yet, Joseph did not feel the need to pretend Jesus really was his own child. And Jesus was not intimidated so that he refused to acknowledge his Father.
There is a lot of money to be made in the adoption business, finding babies for people to adopt.
Dear Birthmother letters and "Open Adoption" are being promoted to get even more babies.
Can you imagine Mary, the mother of Jesus being honored as a "birthmother" (aka "birth thing") rather than as the Mother of Jesus?
It's time to be honest with mothers and fathers and grandparents - if it's possible to find real help to keep your baby, then do it. Pregnant? You do not owe your child to people who really want a baby and have the money to buy her.
Posted at 12:08 pm by warriorwoman
Permalink
Apr 1, 2005
Book Review: The Giver by Lois Lowry
Book Review: The Giver by Lois Lowry
"The Giver" is a children's fiction book - science fiction. I first heard of this book from a friend who is an adoptee. She was horrified by the description of the moms ("birthmothers") having the job of producing a baby each year for three years as a job and then being "retired" to other duties. "Birthmother" was a job title, just like "Assistant Director of Recreation".
The newborn babies were kept apart from society for a while to determine whether they were "acceptable". If they were, then they were allocated to "parents" - one male and one female child was allocated to each set of "parents". If a child died, then they would be allocated a "replacement" child WITH THE SAME NAME.
There were no feelings - even the "parents" did not choose each other and neither did they have sex. When the kids were grown, they no longer had need of a "family unit" and so it would be completely dissolved. Thus there were no Grandparents and nothing called "love".
Sadly, this is not far from the state of things in America today. Thursday March 31st, 2005 NewsChannel5 reported: "Grandparents who care for their grandchildren soon may need a license."
How long until parents themselves need to be licensed foster care providers - and then how long after that will all babies simply be removed at birth?
We already have solicitation for babies for adoption and government-funded infant adoption awareness training designed to separate moms and their newborns.
Some adopted persons say heritage is a human right. Yet, we allow production of human beings from "donated" human eggs and sperm. Who will protect children and protect families? Will children of the future know what a "Grandparent" is?
Posted at 08:49 pm by warriorwoman
Permalink
Mar 31, 2005
Magdalene Laundries
The Magdalene Sisters movie shows how women were locked up in the Magdalene Laundries - sometimes for life - to attone for their sexual sins. If they were pregnant, their babies were taken for adoption.
Look at the Magdalene Laundries website - they are seeking justice for these women who were so ill-treated. They have set up memorials.
Just imagine if we set up similar memorials in the United States for the women who were interred in maternity homes and had their infant sons and daughters taken for adoption.
Perhaps the saddest thing is that it is the year 2005 and we have a President (George W. Bush) who is promoting maternity homes so they can get more babies. We have adoption agencies and adoption attorneys who use "open" adoption and promises of pictures, letters and sometimes continuing contact to lure women into surrendering their own children so others may adopt.
Many groups - infertile Christians, the mentally ill, singles and gays - claim a "right to adopt".
We have people soliciting to get other people's children to use as if the kids were their own. How diseased is that? If a mother and father "just don't want" their child, it would not require so much advertising and effort to get their children away from them.
Posted at 10:56 am by warriorwoman
Permalink
Mar 29, 2005
Pregnancy and Adoption Issues
Pregnancy Issues and Adoption Issues
When a child has no parent or adult relative who is able and willing to care for her, then finding a good person to care for her makes sense. The best person to care for the child should be found, not the most moneyed, infertile or deceptively friendly person.
Sadly, today in United States, "adoption" too often means finding a healthy baby for adults to "purchase" for their own. Some people enact legislation to get more people to abandon babies. Or else adoption agencies and adoption attorneys advertise to "find" a naive or vulnerable mother. Then they tell the mother she will be a hero or a saint if she will only provide "the baby" to some infertile or gay person. "The baby" is her own beloved son or daughter.
According to statistics reported by the National Adoption Information Clearinghouse, moms whose children are adopted-out often come from intact families of higher socioeconomic status. (Stolley, 1993) Moms are usually between 17 and 24 years old, in college or college-bound. These are not women who would require public assistance long, if at all. Many are simply naive and do not know much about adoption and how the loss of their child will affect them - or how a baby might be affected being separated from her mother at birth.
Moms (and Dads) you are not "birth things". You are the mother and father of your own child and you do not owe your child to anyone.
Birthmother's Day Commentary
Why Some People are not Celebrating Adoption
Posted at 01:29 pm by warriorwoman
Permalink
|
|
