Stories of "Successful" Adoption?

Occasionally there are people on the internet, looking for "birthmother stories" , "birthmom stories", "true birthmom stories", "successful birthmom stories" or even "successful adoption stories".

What does this word "successful" mean and what does "successful adoption" imply?

Domestic adoption is the business of finding healthy babies for people. An adoption is considered "successful" if the mother and father do not come to their senses in time to figure out how to keep their own son or daughter. An adoption is "successful" if the adopted person maintains allegiance to the adopters and does not seek out his mother.

An adoption is "successful" if the "birthmom birth object" can be brainwashed into naively repeating "it was my choice" despite the fact that she had no real information about her options, about the consequences of adoption or about the consequences of open adoption. When she had no information upon which to base an informed consent the adoption was not even legal. An adoption is considered successful when the mother says naively "adoption is better than abortion" never questioning why she has only these adoption vs. abortion "options".

An adoption is "successful" if the adopted person says the adopters are the only "family" he has ever known. Adoptees rarely comprehend that  adoptive people purchase (or take advantage of) "services" designed to get healthy babies away from their mothers. "Divide and conquer" is one strategy adoption businesses use, pitting mothers against fathers and grandparents against parents. Moms and families considering adoption for their baby are led to believe that adoption will be "no different" from the standpoint of the child than if they raised their son or daughter themselves. It would be nice if that were true. Unfortunately an adopted person does feel "the difference" whether they are lied to or even if they are told the truth about having been adopted.

Sadly, few adoptees were true orphans that had no family desiring or fit to care for them. Instead, most adoptees were artificially orphaned by society, to punish moms for having babies and to get babies for adoption. Public policy on adoption has little regard for the effect on the person adopted as a baby.

The use of "positive adoption language" which is promoted by the adoption industry has made a realistic discussion of adoption almost impossible. But once people understand that rather than being individual "units", we as human beings are creatures whose identity and psychology are based in our true family, then a real discussion of the merits of adoption and alternative "permanency" solutions may take place.

Infertile adopters really want their "own" child. Language is a powerful tool, making people believe that one can make someone else's child "theirs" by obtaining a falsified birth certificate. Not only do agencies profit from this misperception, but most Americans seem to agree with adopters that after all they've paid for "adoption services" and all their donations to adoption agencies, they deserve a baby.

Adoption is considered "successful" when all of society can be made to believe that the adoptive buyers deserve the title "parent" if not "saint".

To say motherhood is undervalued in America is putting it mildly. When motherhood is de-valued, both women and children - the future of our society - are affected. The Mother-and-Child relationship is like no other. A baby bonds with her mother in the womb. A baby looks to her mother for security and no other caregiver - not even the baby’s father - can replace her. Many hospitals now recognize the importance of keeping newborns with their mothers, rather than separating them. Experts emphasize the benefits to a baby that come from nursing and her own mother’s milk, designed for her.

Yet with all that is known about the importance of a baby’s mother to her well-being, some vulnerable and naïve mothers are still being led to believe that their infant sons and daughters will be better off adopted by someone else. Even a dog breeder knows better than to separate puppies from their mother before they are sufficiently mature.

In the 1950’s, 60’s and early 70’s millions of white single mothers were punished for having babies and exploited as a source of babies for adoption. Interred in maternity homes, many were denied any information about childbirth. When they went into labor they were left alone with no support and no pain relief. But the worst punishment was losing their child. Some were not even told whether they had a son or daughter.

Some people in power would like to repeat this exploitation and make more babies available for adoption.   Adoption is not an heroic 'choice' - the 'choice' is made by those in power.    Maternity homes are being promoted by President Bush. In the news, adoption agencies and attorneys openly brag of how they use “open adoption” to manipulate mothers into surrendering their babies. People who adopt and adoption industry lobbyists clamor for benefits for adopters. Adopters get benefits from the government, the workplace and even get reduced airline tickets. Meanwhile mothers who could benefit from some temporary assistance are being made to feel unworthy.  The only "benefit" that moms seem to get is a place to "safely" abandon their babies.

It cannot be assumed that just because a woman is married, that her husband will be there or do his part in supporting or raising children. It's ironic that many married women actually find themselves with the same workload that a single mother might have. Where marriage is concerned, some woman might be better off living in some other communal situation, with their clan or with other moms. "Two can live as cheap as one" does not apply just to a married situation. Of course, the clan arrangement or communal situation is cheaper and less goods might be consumed - perhaps an important reason why communal situations are rarely depicted in the media.

Even without clan or a communal situation, many single mothers - and single fathers - raise their children. A pregnant woman who has some self-esteem might seek these single parents out and learn some tips from them. A single mother is not a failure as a mother nor is she to be viewed as a "not-mother" or "birth object" destined to be exploited as the source of a baby for adoption. A single mother is her child's mother. Stereotypes threaten motherhood and lower the status of women in society. The status of women in a society may be partially determined by the number of women who have their babies adopted-out.

It would be nice if the so-called "adoption option" was a true choice.

One woman who has now been reunited with her adopted-out son Roger for many years recalled: "When I was about to meet Roger's adopters for the first time (ten years after reunion) Roger said that his "dad" would probably start with how much Roger had cost them. I said "Fine when he does I'll get my check book out and I'll say 'OK how much?' then I'll say "How much do you want to pay ME for his first smile, for seeing him take his first steps and his first words?' Roger laughed and said 'Better just keep to the weather.' and I said 'Yeah, better just say, What about those Cubs?"

While the rest of the United States calls natural mothers by the dehumanizing "birthmom" and "biological" words, moms are starting to define themselves on their own terms. Using words like "mom", "mother" or "natural mother" that respect their motherhood is one thing - but why not go a bit further? Adoptees at Bastard Nation have reclaimed their status as bastards. Why shouldn't moms acknowledge they've been called some pretty mean things as well? Acknowledge that you are merely a Wrong Tummy, mom! And because you were deemed a Wrong Tummy, social workers were obliged to do something fast and correct the situation. They "convinced" you that your beloved child must go to live with someone with a Barren Tummy.

Now we have what is called an adoption triangle, with the Wrong Tummy, the Barren Tummy and the Bastard. The Wrong Tummy, Barren Tummy and Bastard all might work out their differences some day - meanwhile the opposing sides of this triangle are battling it out! The Bastard and the Wrong Tummy, both of whom feel a bit wronged, somehow are supposed to be grateful to the Barren Tummy. Barren Tummies are also suffering - why did they wait until age 30 to try to reproduce? Still, Barren Tummies are considered inherently good, like angels or even gods. Wait, no, it's the social workers who are the real gods! Where do the social workers come in? Where do they fit in this triangle? Ooops! Maybe, just maybe, this isn't a triangle at all. Without the "help" of social workers telling the Barren Tummies that they are Real Moms, and telling the Wrong Tummies that they must surrender or else, there would be no Bastards trying to gain some knowledge of their identities and heritage.

Where Humor is Concerned, consider the following suggestions for posters for an adoption agency:

"Breeders Wanted"

"Be an all-American girl: Spread your legs! Donate your eggs!"

"Uncle Sam wants your unborn descendants."

Babies are a gift from God - moms, your babies were no exception. But God chose to put the babies in the Wrong Tummies.  And that's where the government and the social workers come in - fixing God's mistakes.