|
May 11, 2005
Adoption "Ministry"?
One website has information about a series on "How to Start an Adoption and/or Infertility Ministry". What is an adoption "ministry"? The website mentions the importance of "careful listening". And then it instructs people on how to finance fertility treatments - including mentioning that desperate infertile people sometimes bankrupt themselves trying to make a baby.
"If you determine that you can afford $40,000 in your quest for a child, you might decide to budget $20,000 for one cycle of IVF (in vitro fertilization) and the remaining $20,000 for adoption. Or you may elect to try two or three IVF cycles. Whatever you decide, it’s imperative to be emotionally prepared to walk away from treatment when you’ve reached your financial limits."
I may be slow...but this seems like a lot of money and effort put into helping aging people either 1) become fertile or 2) fake their "fertility" by purchasing a baby (disguised as payments for "adoption services") or creating an unrelated baby from "donated" raw materials. I know lots of people who just have sex and voila! they have babies - most of these "real parents" are young and fertile - it's so much easier that way!
Contrast this infertility business (er, infertility "ministry") with all the information out there about "delaying pregnancy". "Delaying pregnancy" and "increased infertility"....Do you think there could be a connection? Perhaps less emphasis on "delaying pregnancy" would help prevent infertility.
Here's a paragraph that really caught my attention:
"A few months ago, I ran into a woman who had attended that workshop while she and her husband were in the adoption process. She asked me how our sons’ birth parents were doing, calling them each by name. My mouth dropped open."
Posted at 11:25 am by warriorwoman
Permalink
May 10, 2005
Honoring Natural Moms on Mother's Day.
Honoring Natural Moms on Mother's Day.
Mother’s Day is for honoring mothers - grandmothers, step-mothers, working mothers, stay-at-home mothers. I have heard in some churches women who have had abortions have been remembered as the mother of their unborn child on Mother’s Day. But there are some mothers who have been forgotten - these are the mothers who have been used like livestock and had their babies harvested from them to be used for adoption. In the 1950’s, 60’s and early 70’s millions of white single mothers were punished for having a baby. 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.
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 with someone else. Even a dog breeder knows better than to separate puppies from their mother before they are sufficiently mature.
This Mother’s Day, help and honor teenage moms and single moms who are taking responsibility for their children. Acknowledge natural mothers as mothers, not "birth objects" meant to be used as the source of a baby for adoption.
Posted at 10:07 am by warriorwoman
Permalink
May 8, 2005
Faux Finishes - Faux Families and Adoption
Faux Finishes - Faux Families and Adoption
(My humblest apologies to natural families with the surname of “faux”.)
Faux sis, faux bro. What are they? Faux finishes make concrete appear to be the most beautiful stone or make pine wood appear to be marble. Similarly, faux relatives may appear to be related family members but are not the real thing: they are Faux family. Speaking up about the subject of adoption is probably a Faux Pas - and so is the male adopter: Faux Pa. And of course there is Faux Ma.
What! I’ve deviated from “respectful” adoption language. I’ve been disrespectful of the “real” family. We have something called “freedom of speech” here in America, you know. The euphemisms and untruths of “adoption” and “positive adoption language” affects a persons freedom of thought like a sort of mental rape. If my grandmother died, I’ll say she DIED; If people are related only though payment for “adoption services” - services which are designed to get them a baby to adopt - I’ll say they’re NOT RELATED. And no piece of paper, no birth certificate (fraudulently amended for adoption), can change that fact.
Some adopted people have faux family - and they may joke about it but they still love their fauxs. But perhaps the saddest situation in adoption I’ve ever heard is this: an adopted person saying they feel like they have no real family. Their mother - pressured or forced by society to surrender her beloved newborn at birth - became so emotional about the reunion she won’t call any more. Their father is distant. The adopters are - well, they’re OK, but they just aren’t the right people, aren’t family. When they adopted, the male adopter sort of went along with the female adopter, saying something equivalent to: “Well, I guess it’s OK dear if you get a puppy - as long as I can go fishing or golfing with my buddies for a week every summer.” The sterile female adopter really wanted her own baby - and is still trying to have one at age 50.
An adoptee may think to herself: “It must be wonderful to know you belong, to really fit in.” Maybe nobody really fits in, she thinks to herself. Then one day she become pregnant. Suddenly the miracle of life means something. Did her mom really go through this - and STILL "give" her up? Did her mother pass on bad genes and will this new baby be defective? It’s scary. The adopted person may have fears that she will be a “bad parent” too and should get an abortion or give her baby away. That fear is irrational - it can’t be right. But what is right? It’s so confusing. What is a non-Faux relative? Will the adopted person get along with her baby or only be jealous, thinking how her daughter gets her real mom, not a substitute like she got? The adopted person got a faux family crest and history, faux genealogy, a faux family tree - and her daughter - or son - will inherit these “fauxs”.
Some days an adopted persons feeling are faux feelings, too - adoptees are “faux masters”. “We’re great on stage - adoptees can play any role” an adoptee friend tells me. I stare incredulously as the other adopted woman in the room nods enthusiastically.
Millions of adoptable babies were harvested from their white mothers in the 1950’s, 1960’s and 1970’s. Adoption agencies and adoption attorneys still managed to get more babies after that - although not as many. And now, the United States government is funding programs designed to get more healthy babies harvested from naïve moms so they can create more faux families. “Built” families they are called. Families built on the suffering of other families who are forced, pressured or tricked into surrendering their babies for adoption.
Creating faux families is an opportunity to shift children from single parent homes and clans (which are derogatorily referred to as “unstable”) to unrelated sterile married people. Gays can adopt now, too - anyone “merits” the word “family”, assuming they can afford to pay for a child - euphamistically known as "adoption".
So to get more babies, we now have Infant Adoption Awareness Training and a domestic adoption baby boom. We have Open Adoption and it’s associated lies.
Exploitation of single mothers is fun - why shouldn’t everyone call single moms “unwed”, “birthmoms” and then take their babies for adoption? Some adoption agencies and baby buyers (adopters) actually refer to the sacrificial objects as “our birthmothers”, as if they own them.
Some moms call themselves “lifemothers”. Hmm. Well - it is true that these moms did get a “life sentence” without their child. But why not just use the honest respectful term “moms” or “mothers”? “Lifemother” is just another word for breeder - a woman who is meant to be used as the source of a baby for the fauxs (foes) of the natural family.
(Note: it is not just infant adoption that is a problem in United States. Adoption from foster care is also an issue. Are families which are less affluent being torn apart to get young "adoptable" kids for adults to use "as if" they were their own? Read how the Adoption and Safe Families Act and Adoption Bonuses Tear Families Apart.)
Posted at 08:21 am by warriorwoman
Permalink
May 6, 2005
"Birthmothers" and Ritual Sacrifice
Ritual Sacrifice of "Birthmothers" and Ritual Sacrifice of Virgins
In the historical fiction book "The Sacrifice" by Diane Matcheck, a 15-year-old Apsaalooka (Crow) Indian girl wanders into a "trap" set by another tribe. The story is set in the 18th century. According to the notes at the end of the book, "At the time of the story, the Skidi, or "Wolf" band of Pawnee had been performing the Morning Star sacrifice for so many years that no one knows when it began, and the details of why it was performed are no longer clear."
Her father's death has left her an orphan and the girl is an outcast among her people. She leaves her tribe and travels, overcoming many challenges and then wanders into the domain of the Wolf and lives among them. Although unaware of it, she is being "counseled" and groomed for the sacrifice. In a conversation with the boy who is her "counselor" the girl makes some interesting observations. The boy, Wolfstar, tells her "Our lives are not really our own." and also "We must follow the path given to us." He believes he must follow many dictates of his culture - that he cannot travel or marry outside his culture. He says, "...if I refuse to do what is asked of me, my people will perish." The girl is stunned by this.
When harvest-time comes, the people prepare for the sacrifice. The girl has learned the language quickly, which works in her favor. She overhears a conversation she is not supposed to hear. Wolfstar's father tells him "The girl must be at the ceremony tonight...The Morning Star must have the blood of that girl's heart, no matter what feelings you have for her." The boy she had trusted and thought of as her friend says "I have only done what you taught me: be kind to her, keep her happy and ignorant of her fate so that she may be led through the ceremony willingly when the time comes."
Later, during the ceremony the girl - still partly under the "spell" - submits to being "prepared" and to having her hands tied by the priest. She becomes panicky, as everyone begins to chant as part of the ritual. The suddenly it dawns on her that no one has touched her body directly. Guessing they must be forbidden to touch her, she decides to try it - she gets up and simply walks away. They cannot touch her. She has no horse, no weapon to help her survive. Her hands are still bound. But, she is alive and she manages to overcome the remaining obstacles.
This story of ritual sacrifice of a virgin closely matches a ritual sacrifice practiced in the United States and in some other countries - that is the ritual sacrifice of a family that is not of the "family-unit" type. In a patriarchal culture where people believes it is inevitable, a pregnant mother is lured into the trap. She is "counseled" and groomed for the sacrifice. She is called a "not-mother" or "birthmother" (sacrificial "offering" ) well in advance. The people she trusts believe they must go through with it or their "people", their culture, will perish. If they do not sacrifice this mother-and-child, there will be more instances of family that are not "family-units" - there may be grandparents helping to raise their grandchildren, there may be single fathers taking responsibility for their children. The mother who does not comprehend the real truth behind the biased "adoption language" - and who does not have the opportunity to overhear the true motives of the "adoption counselor" - may not extricate herself from the situation in time. The "birthmothers sacrifice" will please the gods and the people will profit from a great harvest - the harvest of a human baby for adoption.
But what about the sacrificial offering - the so-called "birthmother" (and adopted person)? The mental health impacts of adoption are serious. The psychological impacts of adoption are horrifying and also fascinating. "It" is still alive, although "it" may have become numb just to cope with the loss. Many such "sacrificial offerings" later describe themselves as "sleepwalking" for years, with no one even to talk to. Upon awakening to reality the mothers may go through a traumatized re-living of events and/or obsessive thinking about their child.
Some "birthmothers" ("sacrificial offerings") are so thoroughly traumatized by the shameful treatment they received, by the loss of their child and by the complete lack of recognition of that loss, that they are completely unable to face it or mention it to anyone.
But some moms do come "out of the closet" and eventually a few even regain a little sense of humor about their family dismemberment.
....Perhaps some day they'll put together a country or rock band called the Wrong Tummy Momsters with songs like "Bitter Momma", "Living in Hell", and "Don't Mess With My Baby". They'll start out concerts with jokes about adoption lawyers at the bottom of the ocean and social workers begging St. Peter to be let into heaven. The last song of the night will be a rousing rendition of "Don't ^%ck With Me, Infertile B*tch!" And perhaps they will publish a newsletter called the "Stolen Children, Angry Mammas News".
(Note: If you are experiencing an unexpected "Unplanned Pregnancy", check out the Mother's Song website for unplanned pregnancy help and ideas on how to keep your baby.)
Posted at 10:38 am by warriorwoman
Permalink
May 5, 2005
Stories of "Successful" Adoption?
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".
Posted at 01:34 pm by warriorwoman
Permalink
Adoption - Heroic "Choice"?
Adoption - Heroic "Choice"?
There are many websites and articles proclaiming that adoption is an heroic "choice".
It's an ironic use of language - "heroic 'choice' ". As one mom wrote to me, angry that I mentioned some of the negatives of adoption: "Do you think we would do this if we had a choice?"
Does a mother have a real "choice"?
A woman who is single and pregnant is subjected to sterotyping which is designed to get her healthy baby for adoption.
Adoption an heroic choice? "You know we can't keep our babies" is a shocking statement one might hear. It's horrendous to think of a parent feeling forced to surrender their own son or daughter for adoption. Single mothers are sometimes called "unwed", "unmarried" or "birthmoms" (aka "birth objects") in order to make them appear to be inferior as mothers. This stereotyping has nothing to do with competence or skill. Myths have been generated by those in power in our patriarchal system. Sweeping generalizations are made that make it appear as if a family is some sort of "failure" or even "unstable" if it is not of the "family-unit" type. "A child needs a father" is a statement often made. But in reality every child has a father. Even if he is not married to the child's mother a father can take responsibility and contribute to his child's upbringing. One must conclude that "a child needs a father" means only "a woman needs a male 'owner' if she wants to keep her child."
Women are designed to have children while they are young. And yet, women are being encouraged to wait to have children until they are at an age when they may not be able to. Many women who wait until their 30's find themselves unable to reproduce. This is a desirable situation for those who profit from adoption or reproductive technologies, but it is painful for the infertile woman who wants a baby, painful for the woman forced to give up her baby, painful for "orphans" created artificially for this market.
Is adoption an heroic choice? Women are made to feel they must take sole responsibility for pregnancy prevention and also for children born when they are single. Affected by rumors of inferiority and by outright prejudice against single mothers, some single women who would far prefer to keep their child feel forced into abortion or adoption. No doubt it is the goal of those in power in our patriarchal society to avoid male responsibility and keep women under control. There is a big difference between a choice whether to reproduce and being forced into options of only abortion or adoption for untimely pregnancy. Women who have babies are mothers. Lack of experience does not disqualify a person as a parent - every parent starts out inexperienced. Taking responsibility for your child and raising her is a contribution to society - compare it with those parents who abandon their child.
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.
Posted at 10:35 am by warriorwoman
Permalink
May 4, 2005
Adoption Humor - "Wrong Tummies" Speaking Out about Adoption
Adoption Humor - "Wrong Tummies" Speaking Out about Adoption
Humor is known as a great coping mechanism for those with health problems or in a crisis. Most people are familiar with hospital humor, parenting humor, student humor. But did you know that there are even websites devoted to the "holocaust humor" - the humor that helped people to cope during the holocaust? There is also adoptee humor on the web - mostly having to do with adoptees not quite fitting into their adoptive situation like children fit in a true family. And with adopted people being denied the most basic information about themselves, including in some cases their true date and place of birth, not to mention their own last name at birth. "Bastard Moments" - those times when adoptees are reminded of their second class status - frequently require a sense of humor. Some adoptees are reclaiming their Bastard Status, referring to themselves as "Bastards".
Having made the supreme "sacrifice" of their firstborn child as required of them by their culture, church, or some well-meaning social worker, many natural mothers have difficulty finding humor in the situation. Most became numb just to cope and later may describe themselves as "sleepwalking" for years, then upon awakening to reality they generally go through a traumatized re-living of events and/or obsessive thinking about their child for many years following. Eventually, some regain a little sense of humor, though.
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.
Posted at 09:27 pm by warriorwoman
Permalink
May 3, 2005
Adoption Awareness Propaganda
Adoption Awareness or Adoption Propaganda?
November is National Adoption Awareness Month. There is adoption propaganda on it's way!
Granted, it's way too soon to talk about adoption awareness, but then again, if just might be way too late to talk about adoption awareness. Because the United States government has already taken many a fit parent's child - for use in adoption.
"Everybody deserves a baby," is the message we get today. Everybody. Infertile people. Gay people. Single people. Everybody deserves a child it seems except for the child's own mother, father, grandparents, or siblings.
Is a child some sort of "reward" for being "good" or for being is a position of power? Do we really need adoption awareness or "positive adoption language" ? One website says the language of adoption is crafted of bias and misinformation. No kidding. But, perhaps that website missed the fact that transferring children from one group to another is genocide. That's right - genocide. The really cool thing about transferring the kids (instead of killing them) is this: You remove a child from the "enemy's camp" and place the child in your "camp". If you simply killed the child, you would not get the acquisition of a child (whom you can convert to your views). Get it? Transfer is better than death - when you really want to support your agenda. For example, an agenda to wipe out families that are not of the "family-unit" type. Or to convert "pagans" to Christianity.
Explaining adoption to "your" child? Good luck. How do you explain that you took her mother away, that a family was decimated to get you a baby? That a "culture of adoption" was developed that would enable you to adopt? Adoption is big business in America. We have a domestic adoption baby boom - exploiting American women.
You say "adoption options" - I say "adoption scams", scamming moms, dads, and siblings. Do you REALLY THINK moms "just don't want" their babies and that the number of moms who "just don't want" their babies is GROWING every year? Is adoption solicitation for babies necessary or unethical? What about "Dear Birthmother" letters - aargh!
Wow, you tell me - you sure are snotty and disrespectful of adoption. You are downright rude.
WHO is rude and disrespectful? R-E-S-P-E-C-T ? The "loving option of adoption" is devoid of respect for natural families.
November is National Adoption Awareness Month. But I think you should be aware of the nuisance of adoption today.
Embryo Adoption Awareness?
Infant Adoption Awareness?
Why not take a brief overview of the Infant Adoption Human Rights Abuses ?
Is adoption saving babies from abortions? Or just causing heartache for moms who love their kids?
Posted at 05:25 pm by warriorwoman
Permalink
Apr 30, 2005
Pro-Life - Valuing Human Dignity?
Posted at 04:11 pm by warriorwoman
Permalink
Apr 29, 2005
Adoption - A "Rich" Tradition
Adoption - A "Rich" Tradition
Adoption has become rich with tradition. Mother's Day is approaching and the day before it has been designated "Birthmothers Day".
"Birthmothers Day"? That seems odd - aren't all mothers honored on Mother's Day?
What is a "birthmother" anyway? What is the definition of "birthmother"?
"Birthmother" is a dehumanizing term, promoted by the adoption industry, that makes it seem as if a mother is nothing but the packaging a baby comes in, meant to be tossed aside. When she is called a "birthmother" or "birthmom" a mother's role is demoted to that of a "birth object" - similar to a placenta.
There are so many people hoping to adopt a healthy infant - and many businesses that profit in some way by getting babies for adoption. A mother who is vulnerable - single, young or temporarily without resources - is often targeted as the source of a baby to be used for adoption.
She may be led to believe she must be like Abraham, who showed his loyalty to God through his willingness to trust in the Lord and sacrifice his own son. Lucky for Abraham, God only tested his willingness and did not force him to follow through - the test was horrendous enough.
A mother may be led to believe she must be like God, who "so loved the world that He gave his only son so others might be saved." The ultimate sacrifice.
While other parents sacrifice FOR their children, a "birthmother" sacrifices her child so someone else can have the experience of raising him. That's not exactly true, you say. And you are right. Because it is not the intention of the mother to sacrifice her child. A mother who is naive is led to believe she is sacrificing FOR her child by giving him up - indeed, it is a painful thing for a mother to lose her child to adoption. But she and her family have been exposed to constant advertising, promoting adopters as "loving" people - veritable angels or saints. Many people believe that no one can love a child like people hoping to adopt, that adopters deserve someone else's child. So to make the adopting people's dreams to adopt come true, a mother is denied any acknowledgement of her motherhood. Instead, she is led to believe she should be honored as a "birth object".
After being severely chastised for being so irresponsible as to "get herself pregnant" (presumably the male is not accountable), a mother is made to feel lucky for the smallest kindness. And in return for some small kindness, she must agree to hand over her child. Later, they will say she "just didn't want" her child.
"Birthmothers Day" honors a woman's "Birth Objecthood" and dishonors her motherhood. It may become another marketing opportunity, with adopters buying women gifts of jewelry, cards and other trinkets to honor their "birth objecthood". The more rituals that build up around adoption, the more normal it will all seem.
The wealthy are purchasing the children of poor or naive families. Domestic Infant Adoption - it's become a "rich" tradition.
Posted at 05:54 pm by warriorwoman
Permalink
|
|