|
Apr 22, 2005
Adoption Reform
Many people in America are suggesting adoption reform ideas. Adopted persons, people hoping to adopt, adoption businesses and natural family members all have ideas for adoption reform.
Adult adoptees - are usually called "adopted children" well into their 50's - seek adoption reform. "WHO AM I?" is a big question in the mind of many a person who has been used by an unrelated person as a fill-in for the child they could not have.
An adopted person may not say they are suffering from the loss of their natural family. The adopted person may not be suffering - or it may be that they are suffering but do not want to think about it. An adoptee may be unable to experience, express - or fully comprehend - their feelings. Some adopted persons timidly say they want a "birthfamily medical history", fearful of an eruption of emotions and accusations of "ungratefulness" on the part of their adopters. Some may amend their request to say they want this medical history for their descendants (as if it would be rudeness to their adopters to want such a thing for themselves).
Adoption businesses seek adoption reform so they can get more babies for their customers - the prospective adopters. Prospective adopters themselves seek adoption reforms in hopes of more easily getting themselves a healthy infant to adopt. The adopters nearly always intend to deny the adopted person's natural family exists - or is of any importance - pretending the purchased child came out of nowhere to serve the adoptive people's needs. Was the child purchased? No, we are told - the adopting people purchased "adoption services" - and it just happens that the "adoption services" were designed to get a baby away from her own family.
It's no wonder then, that natural families whose infant sons and daughters - or siblings - or grandchildren - were taken to be "sold" to adopters are suggesting adoption reforms. Outlaw all this solicitation to get babies. Get rid of the "Dear Birthmother" letters. Give moms, dads and families plenty of time to consider their options after their babies are born.
Perhaps the most important reform that is needed in adoption is the use of honest language that acknowledges mothers and fathers as mothers and fathers - rather than biased adoption language that makes it seem as if mothers and fathers are merely "birth objects" meant to be used as the source of a baby for adoption.
Another concern with adoption reform: Where can you get help for a so-called "crisis" pregnancy - if you want to keep your baby?
Learn more about the coercion in open adoption as well. Remember, for the adoption lawyers and adoption agencies, adoption is a business - a way to make good money and perhaps attain "angel" status - nothing more.
Posted at 12:43 pm by warriorwoman
Permalink
Apr 21, 2005
Adoption and Family Separation
Adoption and Family Separation
Considering adoption?
You are pregnant. You are scared. You have a great family but your parents have already said they don't want to see you pregnant. Was this statement just a threat? Or will they really throw you out of the house or make you surrender your baby for adoption?
Lots of people want a baby. Lots of adoption businesses make money by getting people babies. "Divide and Conquer" is one effective technique they use: Pit Grandparents-to-be against the pregnant mom. Pit the baby's father against the baby's mother. Rationalize that legalized abandonment (adoption) is better than abortion - even when abortion is not being considered as an option. Tell the mom that she'll be a hero or a saint - for "donating" her child to someone else so they can use "it". Make promises of "open adoption" with pictures, letters, ongoing contact.
Using word choices like "it" or "the baby" (rather than "her own son or daughter" or "their grandchild") dehumanizes this young relative of the natural family. Referring to the mother as a "birthmother" ("birth object") - thus making a child's own mother seem as important as a placenta - is another sleight-of-hand psychological trick. Meanwhile the unrelated people hoping to get themselves a baby are called "loving couples" - or even "parents" when they may not have any experience raising a child at all. "Getting a baby" is euphamistically called "adoption".
Shouldn't the mother who is taking those awful vitamins and exercising and eating as directed by her doctor be called the "loving" one? After all, the unrelated people are just purchasing a child - by purchasing the professional services designed to get them a baby. Their first act of "love" for this baby will be taking her mother - her whole world - away from her.
How many mothers who kept their child vs. how many gave up hope and surrendered their baby for adoption regret their "choice" 10, 20 even 40 or more years later?
Posted at 01:44 pm by warriorwoman
Permalink
Apr 20, 2005
Adoption - Let's Not Talk About It
Adoption - Let's Not Talk About It
I was raised by my natural Mom and Dad who had a traditional "family". So I never realized there was anything besides a natural family with natural family-relatedness. I never knew what it might be like to be an orphan raised by unrelated people. When someone is raised by unrelated people, it may be because their parents died and had appointed guardians in their will. There is a loss felt by the child, for sure. But her parents are still known as her parents, even though they are deceased. The child still knows about her ancestors. She can mention her loss and get sympathy.
But with adoption, there is a tendency to pretend the natural parents and ancestors simply do not exist or do not matter. The child cannot mention her loss or get sympathy. If she does, people see this as an expression of disloyalty to her adopters - and to adopters in general. Some adopted people may not think about things much. But for those that do, it can be very difficult living in a society that does not recognize your loss. And then you as an adopted person may not know for sure - was your mother forced to surrender you, with all of society ganging up on her and demanding she "give you up"? Or did she simply walk off without caring? It hurts, thinking she did not care. How could any mother let her child go? Didn't she know how badly it would hurt you?
Was your mother a worthless irresponisble slut, like people tell you? Or was she just scared, lacking the support system she knew she needed?
Perhaps the hardest thing for an adopted person or a natural mom, sibling or other natural relatives, is that no one wants to talk about the realities of adoption. Everyone should just be happy. I guess when there is a funeral, a divorce or other family loss we should all tak about how happy we are? It's the same idea, isn't it?
Adoption - Let's Not Talk About IT.
Single and facing unplanned pregnancy? Learn more about adoption alternatives.
Open adoption? Learn the truth about open adoption. Single mother, teenage mother myths.
Lots of press releases about adoption and public policy.
Embryo Adoption and Embryo Adoption Issues. Adoption - Let's Not Talk About It
Posted at 09:38 am by warriorwoman
Permalink
Apr 17, 2005
"Honor Killing" in America
"Honor Killing" in America
Honor killing is the practice of males killing their female relatives or spouses when the female relative or spouse is considered to have damaged the family honor through unwarranted sexual activity. The males involved in the sexual activity, which might have been a rape, are not adversely affected, in general. The execution is considered to be a private matter within the affected family; rarely do non-family members or the courts become involved. Honor killings are now viewed as murder by most people.
The United Nations Population Fund estimates as many as 5000 females are anually killed worldwide as a result of honor killing.
In United States there is also a punishment of female relatives that is very similar to "honor killing" - that punishment is removal of a mother's newborn son or daughter for adoption. One difference is that instead of physically murdering the "moral offender", there is an "attempted murder" of the offender's motherhood through psychological and economic coercion. Adoption may be touted as the punishment for sex without benefit of marriage, however adoption is actually punishment for carrying a pregnancy to term. Woman who have abortions are not punished (unless they consider the abortion the punishment - and some do) and women who have sex but do not become pregnant are usually not punished in a severe way, if at all.
Limiting pregnant women's "choices" to only adoption or abortion benefits males significantly. With these "options" of abortion or adoption the males need not concern themselves with either pregnancy prevention or with taking responsibility for their child.
With honor killing, it is often male relatives that carry out the sentence. In America, often the pregnant woman's mother is very involved in carrying out the "sentencing". "You will NOT return to this house with a baby," was the phrase heard by pregnant woman in the 1960s. This threat may even be made today. Along with the threat, a pregnant woman may be taken to an "adoption professional" - a person who is trained in the art of getting babies away from their own mothers - and selling the babies to clients who pay for this "service". An "adoption professional" may make the mom believe she "chose" adoption when in reality no other options were mentioned. Every avenue of support may be cut off by "professionals" through cleverly worded advice to parents and others. Indeed, almost our entire society now believes that a baby is "better off" with unrelated people than she is with her own family if her mother is single when she is born. And this is despite the objections raised by adoptees, the ones who "professionals" claim benefit from this strange transaction.
There is more than one type of "honor" crime... for a mother, having her son or daughter removed for adoption and then being allowed to live prolongs her suffering. It may be worse than honor killing because of this prolonged grieving and unacknowledged loss. Regardless, many moms whose baby has been adopted-out later commit suicide.
Approximately 10 million moms in the US have been used as the source of a baby for use in adoption.
The solution? At the very least, outlaw adoption solicitation. We don't allow solicitation for a living person's organs and we should not allow solicitation to get a living person's son or daughter, either.
A little temporary help may get a mom past this situation - sometimes a little moral support is needed, sometimes a little help getting her baby's father motivated to do his part. We need no more "honor killings" in America.
Posted at 07:36 pm by warriorwoman
Permalink
Apr 16, 2005
Adoption Denies Citizens' "Inalienable" Rights
Adoption Denies Citizens' "Inalienable" Rights
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Declaration of Independence as originally written by Thomas Jefferson, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:315
The Declaration of Independence speaks if equality for all people. But "liberty" interests must not interfere with another person's liberty.
In infant adoption the inalienable rights of both natural parents and of adopted persons are being denied.
First consider what is meant by an "inalienable right". From Merriam Webster's Dictionary:
Main Entry: in·alien·able 
Pronunciation: (")i-'nAl-y&-n&-b&l, -'nA-lE-&-n&-
Function: adjective
Etymology: probably from French inaliénable, from in- + aliénable alienable
: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred <inalienable rights>
The definition of "inalienable" is very interesting - It appears that some rights are incapable of being surrendered or transferred. If there was a right that was endowed by the Creator and was an inalienable right, what might that right be? The right to breathe? The right of a person to his/her own kidneys and other body parts? The right to bear and raise his/her own offspring?
Yes, the right to parenthood (right to raise one's own offspring) is an inalienable right, a right that may be denied only when the parent is proven to be abusive or seriously neglectful - thereby infringing on the child's rights.
In infant adoption, a parent who has not been proven abusive or neglectful is solicited and pressured to "give up" or "surrender" their inalienable parental rights. Some naive parents may be led to believe they will be "heros" or "saints" for surrendering this "inalienable" right to raise their own child. There are persons who claim a "right to adopt" and it seems that the "right to adopt" has somehow superceeded the right of a United States citizen to bear and raise their own offspring.
Just imagine for a moment that there is a person who has no arms. But you have two arms. So the person with no arms claim an "equal right" to your arm. Then the population of persons with no arms increases - and they hire professional lobbyists. The two-armed people are less influential and so they become quite vulnerable. The "arm adoption professionals" say the arms will be "better utilized" on the prospective adopters. The "professionals" begin to call the two armed people dehumanizing names that make two-armed persons appear to be nothing more than mechanical producers of arms for use by arm "adopters". The prospective adopters are promoted as "real humans" while the two-armed person is demoted to the status of an "ex-body - even before her arm is removed.
This is how language biased toward adopters works, making people who are strangers to a child appear to be entitled as "real parents" while the status of a child's own family drops to being the status of a baby-producing machine.
Of course, it is not just a parent's inalienable right to raise his/her child that is denied - the child's inalienable right to be raised by OR EVEN TO KNOW THE IDENITY OF her own family is being denied and a fraudulent birth certificate used. The original birth certificate has been amended not so that errors to the original birth certificate may be corrected but rather to make errors purposefully.
It's sad but true Adoption Denies Citizens' "Inalienable" Rights
Posted at 04:10 pm by warriorwoman
Permalink
Apr 15, 2005
"I am a volcano of lust."
That's a stupid line from the movie - "Mr Deeds" - a really stupid show about a naive multi-billionaire, Emilio Lopez. Emilio Lopez turns out to be the largest stockholder - millions of jobs are saved. WHO THE HELL CARES ABOUT THE LITTLE GUY? That's my question. Who cares? Power is power. The powerful should conduct the minions like an orchestra.
An orchestra makes beautiful music...but when it is a human orchestra - orchestrated by the powerful - it is often like a horror film. The suffering of the little people - their cries for mercy - are a cause for humor.
No woman - or man - is perfect, unblemished, without flaws. Yet some people - often the most naive, manipulated by religious rhetoric - are oppressed. Using these people as workers in the fast-food industry is one thing. Using them and selling them unnecessary medications is another thing. Perhaps the saddest, most tragic thing is when naive people are used as a source of babies. Babies may be used for various purposes. A "cure" for infertility, or a source of children for child molesters. Either way, they are human beings that are being used.
Changing a person's birth certificate - to indicate false information - is birth certificate fraud. An "amended birth certificate" is allowable by law - but to fix errors on the original, not to change the original birth certificate to falsify it.
Why falsify a birth certificate? A birth certificate is falsified for adoption - when a person or couple purchases a child "as her own" "as if born to her". So, what's the problem with that? Well, would you - if you were the purchased person - appreciate having your family hidden from you? Would you appreciate having your mother used as if she was a cow or sheep, to make babies for sale (adoption) ?
Perhaps, if you have an ocean view, you would be happy to be known as a "lucky bastard" and trade your family for wealth. Yet, your mother may have missed you terribly - or your mother may have even committed suicide. Is it fair to use a person as the source of a baby? It is cruel. Very cruel. What's GREAT is that there are social workers and others to assure the "buyer" of their "services" that the mom "just didn't want her child". The baby buyers are "saviors". It's pretty cool how it all works. People get healthy babies to use. The mothers are easily silenced.
Adoption ROCKS - Just like slavery used to rock for those who benefitted from it.
The message? Stop the solicitation for babies in United States. Abolish falsified birth certificates and payments for "adoption services".
Just for once, stand up for the little guy and do not separate family members to get babies for adoption.
Posted at 09:30 pm by warriorwoman
Permalink
Apr 14, 2005
Jesus was not Owned
It's sad, in a way - sad that it did not occur to me sooner that Jesus was not owned by a male - Jesus' mother was not married - Jesus was a bastard. In our modern society, "unowned" bastards are no longer called bastards but they are still removed from naive moms for adoption.
I was reading the book "Leaving Mother Lake - A Girlhood at the Edge of the World" by Yang Erche Namu and Christine Mathieu. ( Yes, it's REALLY a good book. ) And then I was watching the news about gay marriage (or partnership) and thinking - hey - the world could be any way you want it. In the book, "Leaving Mother Lake" women had homes, lovers and lives without any marriage and there was a very peaceful existence.
Kids did know who their Dads were - and enjoyed their company when they visited. But Dads had work as yak herders and chores to do at their maternal residences were not often around. I know fathers are important to a child. So many women from the 70's are saying they should have included their child's father in his life - even if the father resisted it - because the kids when grown still express the desire to be known as (and loved as) the child of their father. It easy to learn from this. People should know.
Yet in the United States we have solicitation to get sperm to make babies. The fathers are excluded - the kids lose out. Polite to their mothers, the kids often say "it's OK" - but I say "it's NOT OK". Creating an orphan on purpose is cruel. Of course now we have people soliciting to get eggs, soliciting for human incubators or moms willing to be inseminated and called a ''surrogate" even though they are the source of the egg, the source of the child, the actual mother of the child.
The desire to buy a child is great. The market for babies is ever-expanding as people wait too long to reproduce and gays also hope to get a child. And the baby-sellers say the child won't know the difference. But many adopted people and others who are denied their family are saying "Yes, it does make a difference".
Please listen!
By now you're asking - Where does Jesus come into this argument? Well, many of the babies used for adoption are taken from mothers who are single (mothers disparagingly referred to as "unwed") or young. Mary was very young and she was very single when she agreed to pregnancy. Today people would say she "made poor choices".
Somehow, in spite of it's begininnings, "Christianity" evolved to subjugate women. A woman was nothing if not married (owned by a man) and her offspring was considered "illegitimate' if she was not "owned. I admit, this all seems bizarre to me. But when you look at how "illegitimate" children have been treated it is obvious that they - and their mothers - were not counted as human beings.
Women's babies were taken for use by "real humans" - people who were infertile but married. And today, people who are gay claim the same rights as married people - thus the "right" to get some single mother's "unowned" child.
Women's status is declining - as the market for babies grows, they are more often used as livestock breeders, a source of babies for adopters. But since many women seek to use another woman as the source of a baby - and "adoption" is sanitized by the media - few people care. And even though they don't care about the moms who are used (and may find the loss of their child so painful that they commit suicide) you might think SOMEONE would care about the child.
Jesus was not owned - and they let him stay with his mother.
Posted at 06:55 pm by warriorwoman
Permalink
Apr 13, 2005
Well the shark bites
with his teeth dear
and he shows them
Pearly white
"Mack the Knife" attacked women with a knife...but there are more devious ways to attack.
Women have been controlled by men - and by other women - in a big way in the United States. Perhaps the saddest, most cruel use of women has been the use of human beings to make human babies for someone else to use. Yes, I do mean the women who were raped until pregnant to make more slave babies. But I also mean those women who were pregnant and had their babies taken for adoption, for no reason other than their marital status.
It's almost humorous how people say adoption is a "choice". Lets face it the rich and powerful want babies badly. There is money to be made by finding them babies and lots of people jumping on this opportunity for profit. Just like a televangelist, the adoption industry lulls it's audience into trusting them. The adoption businesses use "God" and "religious faith" as a tool to achieve their own objectives. Unlike the televangelist, the adoption businesses (which often call themselves "charities") have obtained almost complete trust. And when you have such complete trust, you have POWER.
"Open adoption" is especially promoted now. The adoption businesses sometimes gloat over how they are getting more babies and expanding domestic adoption services. These services are
Posted at 10:21 am by warriorwoman
Permalink
Apr 11, 2005
Living in a Material World (Buying Children)
Living in a Material World (Buying Children)
Well, well, well.
I've had the stupid, stupid Madonna song in my head and can't quite get rid of it. But, it underscores a problem in our society - that problem is all the people who are bound and determined to get themselves a baby - and feel entitled because they can afford to buy a baby (disguised as "adoption services" of course) .
Some have waited too long to reproduce, others (males) held their laptop computer in their lap too long and killed off their sperm from the heat. Some are sterile after having STDs or abortions. Some just don't want to ruin their figures or take time out of their career for a pregnancy.
So the solution is to buy a baby. Find a naive Christian mom or poor family and use them as a source of a baby. Ensure the mom is screened for drugs, eats right, and rejects alcohol during pregancy so you can have a Grade A infant.
YES! This can work! Promise the mom all kinds of things - pictures, letters and if necessary even on-going contact with her child. Don't worry - you won't have to follow through on these promises. It's known as "open adoption" - you won't be the only one using these devious tactics. If you are lucky, the mom will be so stupid she'll never think to use the shotgun on you later - she'll be crying too much - or the "stupid birth bitch" will commit suicide - hey! What a great way to get rid of her.
Ha, ha , HA! YOU are better than she is, you have money, you DESERVE to have her son or daughter to use as your own. Dear Birthmother, Birth thing, birth bitch, birth material, birth genetic material, birth"mother". Ha, we'll show HER what a "real mother" is - we'll steal her baby and get away with it!
Later she'll honor herself on "Birthmothers Day". So pathetic! The minions. Meanwhile, us rich and powerful people will be celebrating adoption.
Living in a Material World - Buying Children.
Posted at 07:15 pm by warriorwoman
Permalink
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
|
|
