|
May 17, 2005
The Barren Womb - Exploiting Infertility
The Barren Womb - Exploiting Infertility
"The barren womb cannot be satisfied." The Bible says so and many people in the business of adoption and reproductive technologies in the United States know it as well. "Professionals" and scientists are exploiting this infertility crisis and profiting off the suffering of the infertile. They are also causing suffering for naive or vulnerable women used as womb-objects and for artificially-created "orphans". The United States may be one of the top nations in the world in allowing unethical practices like payments for human sperm and eggs, payments for womb rentals and more. People are lured in to "donating" by telling them they will be "angels" for aiding the infertile . This "angel" talk deflects attention from the truth - that they will be "donating" their sons and daughters.
Surely a compassionate response to the growing infertility crisis would be to educate people how to have babies while they are still able. The compassionate response of doctors and health professionals in the United States would be to prevent infertility and the suffering of infertility. Yet while there are programs focused on educating people to delay pregnancy, therre is little to educate the public on why not to delay pregnancy, why not to donate your eggs, why not to donate your embryos, and why to keep the unexpected babies born to you.
Medical News - Half those delaying pregnancy leave it too late, UK 01 Oct 2004 "Half of all women who put off trying for a baby until their 30s will fail to have a child, a new survey claims... women tend to overestimate how many childbearing years they have left and experts are now calling for sex education in schools to discuss how to get pregnant in adulthood.
Infertility problems are not fun - and treatments are costly as well. But with all the money to be made from infertility treatments, medical professionals neglect to promote ways to prevent infertility. These professionals are letting people down, not serving the public in the best way possible. There have been reports of "reproductive tourism" to the United States from other countries. There have been reports that a human egg has sold by brokers for as much as $40,000 and a mother to incubate her own child (as a so-called "surrogate") has "sold" for $170,000. The "markup" must be good. According to some websites, the egg donor (natural mother) gets $5,000 for multiple eggs extracted per "donation". Not only may the treatments utilized to obtain multiple eggs affect the "donor's" health but women have a limited supply of eggs. So when multiple eggs are extracted it means the "donor" will experience an earlier onset of infertility themselves. And - even though the "child" may relate to her infertile buyers "need" to buy her - for the child being raised in a situation where she is cut off from all - or half of - her natural family, it is not an ideal situation.
It's a shame people don't know more of the suffering of women who have been used as the source of babies for adoption - and what an adoptee might experience. Now naive women are making babies on purpose for their friends, startled to find afterwards how incredibly painful it is to lose your child to adoption.
It's time the professionals are honest with people and work to prevent an infertility crisis.
The Surgeon General is calling for open records for adoptees - I hope the Surgeon General will also insist on some regulations preventing solicitation for a for a man or woman's child or potential children.
Association with - and knowledge of - your natural family is not only a good idea for medical reasons - it is a human right. It is a human right for parents and siblings too - not just the adopted or artificially-created person.
Read about open adoption to see how things might be for those parents and siblings: Article on open adoption. Read also about closed adoption.
"The barren womb cannot be satisfied." But education about infertility prevention - and stopping the unethical practices to get people unrelated babies to use "as if" they were their own - might prevent much future suffering.
Posted at 10:49 am by warriorwoman
Permalink
May 16, 2005
"Birthmother" Birth Objects
"Birthmother" Birth Objects
In earlier decades, a single mother was derisively referred to as an "unwed" mother - as if she were somehow lacking as a mother. Then her baby was removed from her - forcibly or though cunning methods - for adoption. Almost no mother in the 60's who was single at the time her baby was born got to raise her own child.
"Unwed" is not used as much anymore. Taking it's place is the word "birthmother" and other "birth" words like "birthmoms", "birthmothers", "birthparents", "bmom", "lifemother" and "lifemothers". The word "birthmother" is used to target vulnerable mothers as the source of babies for adoption. When the term "birthmother" is used it makes it seem as though mothers are not mothers, but just some sort of object that gives birth: a "birth servant' or "birth slave" making babies for rich people to buy. Even fathers may be derisively called "birthfathers" ("birth fathers"). While the customers of "adoption services" call themselves "real parents", the true real parents and other family members are demoted to objects.
To get more babies for adoption, the importance of real relatedness is being diminished. A single mother is her child's mother, no less than any other mother. A child's father is her father. Her ancestors are her ancestors.
It used to be that when a mother's child was born, he was her son or she was her daughter. But now some people believe there is such a thing as a "birthson" or "birthdaughter" - and even "birth grandparents". When raised together, siblings are "siblings" but if raised apart they suddenly become unrelated "birth siblings"? This makes no sense.
Some people say that a "birthmother" is a mother. If that's true, why not just write "Dear Mother" Letters requesting a mother's child? Instead we have "Dear Birthmother", "Dear Birthmom", "Dear Birthparent" - and even "Dear Genetic Parent". ("Dear Genetic Parent" Letters are used to solicit frozen human embryos for adoption. Parents are asked to "donate" their potential offspring as if their sons and daughters were only some old clothes.)
Some people talk about "respect for a birthmother". Hello! You don't "respect" someone by calling them a "birthmother" birth object. It would be respectful to acknowledge a mother as the mother of her child. Some people want to honor women as birth objects on "Birthmothers Day". If the real point is to help people understand the horror of using a mother for adoption, then why not have a Cindy Jordan Day of Remembrance?
Posted at 09:20 am by warriorwoman
Permalink
May 15, 2005
Adoption Statistics
Adoption Statistics are surprisingly hard to find. And I don't mean just the number of people who were adopted per year or the numbers of moms whose infant sons and daughters were adopted-out.
Where statistics on the effects of adoption are concerned, there are lots of myths and rumors and misquoted studies. But honestly-reported statistics on the effects of adoption on natural families and the adopted-out person are hard to find.
A comparison of outcomes for moms who kept their babies compared to moms whose babies were adopted-out would be interesting - including telling factors like number of suicides. Should the government be encouraging single parents to surrender their babies?
Most mothers whose babies get adopted-out are not young teenagers. According to information provided by the National Adoption Information Clearinghouse these moms are between 17 and 24. Most are from a higher socioeconomic background from intact families. (Families who are naive about adoption?)
Despite all the effort put into getting babies for adoption, about 97% of single mothers keep their babies.
Motherhood Lessens Teen Delinquency?
A recent study on unplanned pregnancy outcomes performed by Esther I. Wilder, Ph.D., of Lehman College and the Graduate Center of the City University of New York and her colleagues Trina Hope, Ph.D., of the University of Oklahoma and Toni Terling Watt, Ph.D., of Texas State University provides interesting insights.
The study drew information from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, a nationwide survey of 19,000 teenagers in grades seven through 12. According to a Health Behavior News Service report by Aaron Levin, the findings were that of the 6,877 girls who got pregnant, the highest rates of juvenile delinquency were found among girls who had abortions or gave babies up for adoption. Girls who kept their babies were no more likely to be delinquent that those who had never gotten pregnant. Although before pregnancy, they smoked or used marijuana more than the girls who never got pregnant, girls who kept their babies were especially likely to quit smoking and to stop using marijuana.
Thats just one study. But it does make sense that moms would be likely to experience some growth in maturity when they keep their babies.
Sometimes rather than statistics, it's interesting to see what moms have to say after their babies have been taken from them (if ever so cunningly) to be used for adoption. Maybe it's because they are called "birthmother birthmom birth objects" that few people bother to ask the mothers' opinions on adoption.
Adoption Statistics are surprisingly hard to find. Perhaps honest adoption statistics would be too revealing...after all there is a large market for babies for adoption.
Posted at 01:02 pm by warriorwoman
Permalink
May 14, 2005
Adoption Miracles, Adoption Magic
Adoption Miracles, Adoption Magic
"Was it luck? Maybe. Was it fate? Possibly. Was it a miracle?"
Whether you view adoption as "un petit miracle" or "a modern-day miracle" or "our little miracle sent straight from heaven" there is one thing you should know: Adoption is not magic. Adoption agencies and adoption lawyers are not wizards. It takes measures like federally-funded Infant Adoption Awareness Training, Choose Life License Plates, limiting a woman's "choices" to ONLY adoption or abortion - and more - to get those babies for adoption. "Adoption professionals" get those babies from real families, convert them to "orphans" (on paper) and then sell them (via payments disguised as "adoption services") to unrelated people. Before the bill is paid in full, the buyers magically become "real parents".
When people want babies badly enough, thinking of God's blessing to a baby's family as God's gift TO THEM seems perfectly reasonable. Social workers assure people: "God makes mistakes choosing parents" -- and social workers are happy to fix God's errors.
Wizard: Wise and friendly users of magic, applying their powers to help those who deserve it, and punish those who don't.
This is how adoption is viewed - helping those who "deserve" babies and punishing those who "don't". Punishing moms for having babies, punishing the "little bastards" for being born. "What!" you say - "We may punish the moms but we're not punishing the 'little bastards' - we love the 'little bastards." But if people love the "little bastards" so much then why do they take their families away from them? Aaaaahhhh ... the "little bastards" MUST have a family-ectomey prior to the "miracle" of adoption.
Adoption - isn't that where a child magically turns into the "descendant" of people who have purchased services designed to get them a baby?
"Was it luck? Maybe. Was it fate? Possibly. Was it a miracle?"
Posted at 09:01 pm by warriorwoman
Permalink
Open Adoption vs. Closed Adoption
Open Adoption vs. Closed Adoption (vs. keeping natural families intact)
Offering a vulnerable naive parent only two "options" - open adoption or closed adoption - may get more babies for adopters, but is it really right to limit parents' choices?
"I read part of your unplanned pregnancy website and I agree that open adoption is bad," a woman wrote to me from a Pro-Life organization.
I found her comment interesting. Yes open adoption can mean intense suffering and the way that "open adoption" is used to lure pregnant moms into surrendering their babies is horrendous. But, presumably the woman who wrote to me still intends to separate families and collect donations and payments for "adoption services" (profitting off babies). But she wants to do it in a way that the people who adopt won't have to know of the suffering of the moms (and sometimes dads, siblings and grandparents) they have used as baby-making machines. Perhaps she missed the part about the effects of adoption on mothers and the effects of adoption on babies in closed adoptions? Perhaps she missed this not-so-very-happy "adoption story" - just one of many closed adoption stories.
Surely there are adopters who were also naive - people hoping to find a baby to adopt, but not thinking about how babies have mothers, grandparents, siblings who will miss them. The baby brokers (adoption agencies, adoption lawyers, adoption "counselors") surely aren't going to mention the techniques they use to get babies. Instead they say the moms just aren't "ready to parent". "Ready to parent"? What is THAT phrase all about? The moms ARE their child's parent - and so are the dads.
What are the techniques used to get babies for adoption?
First, advertise the "adoption option" until people truly believe that unrelated caregivers are preferable to a child's own family.
Second, develop a lexicon to support this rediculous idea and call it "respectful adoption language". ("Respectful"? Their objective is to get babies, so of course they don't mention that the "adoption language" DISRESPECTS natural families.)
Third, Infant Adoption Awareness Training (IAATP) to get a pregnant mom surrounded by people who will "think adoption".
Fourth, Limit a woman's "choices" to adoption or abortion. Get churches involved in separating families and call this activity "pro-life". Get people chattering mindlessly about "human dignity" while they separate moms and babies and make grandmothers regret that they did not stop it in time.
Fifth, Choose Life License Plates - with proceeds going ONLY toward "adoption services" - services which are designed to get more babies for people to use "as if" they were born to them.
Sixth, Baby Safe Havens - again offering a scared mom no "option" other than baby abandonment .
Seventh, get moms to believe they have already "choosen adoption" and encourage them to select prospective adopters long before they have a chance to think, before they have any way of knowing what they are choosing. Ensure moms will feel beholden to the seemingly friendly prospective adopters and not want to disappoint them by keeping their own sons and daughters.
Eighth, ...
Obviously I could go on with this thought process for a long time...adding things like denying parents the information they would need to make an informed choice, denying fathers rights, denying a child's right to her own family. Spreading rumors and generating myths that young mothers and single mothers are bad mothers. Playing a game of "divide and conquer" pitting mothers and fathers against each other and grandparents against their pregnant daughter or son. "Which is better - open adoption or closed adoption?" is a question that deflects from the real questions: Considering the effects of adoption on natural families, why are parents' options being limited to only legalized baby abandonment? Offering a vulnerable naive parent only two options - open adoption or closed adoption - may get more babies for adopters, but separating families to get babies for adoption is a tragedy.
Posted at 12:37 pm by warriorwoman
Permalink
May 13, 2005
Pro-Life Views, Assisted Suicide and Adoption
Pro-Life Views - Comparing Assisted Suicide and Adoption
Pro-life proponents are generally opposed to assisted suicide. One argument made is that suicide assistance is usually requested by a patient out of desperation and is unlikely to be desired by a patient who receives adequate services, counseling and pain management. The pro-life view is that compassion for the dying demands that we provide services, rather than provide opportunities for ending life. Instead of assisted suicide, pro-lifers are in favor of providing humane services for all people - neither the morality of these people nor whether they have planned and are financially prepared for an expensive elongated illness is a consideration.
Many people, especially in a society like that of the United States where profit often trumps humanity, may come to the conclusion that those who cannot care for themselves should be neglected or made to feel like a tremendous burden so they will “choose” suicide. A person who "chooses" suicide may even be lured by the incentive that they can help others through planned organ donation. Others may have their paperwork forged or a signature obtained through misrepresentation and fraud to get them out of the way.
Like the elderly or the infirm, young people who are just starting out or people who have experienced a layoff or some other setback may also benefit from compassionate assistance at times. An unexpected pregnancy may be a source of distress for those who want their child but wonder how they will be able to care for her. As with assisted suicide, there is a tendency for people to want to provide a quick “solution”that ignores the humanity of the mother, family and child.
In promoting the “option” of legal abandonment, the euphemism “adoption” is used. A form of “assisted suicide” - the killing off of their motherhood or fatherhood through the removal of their child - is often held out to parents as the only help available. Parents may be further lured by the promise of making someone else’s life better by donating their offspring. Some parents may have the paperwork fraudulently handled to get them out of the way. Based on state laws, fathers frequently have their rights terminated for them before they even have a chance to establish paternity.
In reality, a mother is much more than someone who “just gives birth”. A father is more than a "conception object". A child is a part of his family the way a person’s arm or leg is a part of her body. Just like it would be unconscionable to remove a living person’s arm, leg or vital organ to provide it to someone else, it is wrong to remove a baby from her family for use by someone else. Whether the recipient treats the baby well is of no consequence.
End-of-life arguments made by Pro-Lifers should also apply to unplanned pregnancy. As with assisted suicide, the argument about the need for compassion should be used when an unexpected pregnancy occurs.
Adequate services, counseling and assistance are lacking. Males need to take responsibility for pregnancy prevention as well as for all of their children - even those born when they are not married to their child's mother.
Limiting a woman's options may get more babies for adoption, but it is not healthy for moms and babies to be separated at birth. (See effects of adoption and effects of open adoption.)
With proceeds from Choose Life Tags going ONLY for adoption "services", women have ONLY the "options" of abortion or adoption.
With Baby Safe Haven or Baby Moses Laws, a scared mom is given ONLY the "option" of baby abandonment.
With Infant Adoption Awareness Training (IAAT), a mother's support system is being removed so she will feel she has no real options but to surrender her precious baby.
A special "adoption language" is being promoted that will help to get more babies for the adoption market. Mothers and fathers have been demoted to "birthmom objects" and "birthfather objects", while unrelated people are called "parents" long before they have even found a vulnerable mother to use as the source of a baby.
Families are solicited for their healthy infant sons and daughters by means of "Dear Birthparent", "Dear Birthmom", "Dear Birthmother" letters, adoption business cards and by hiring "adoption professionals" to "counsel" moms in a way that will make it easier to get their babies. With the intense promotion of open adoption and it's associated lies, we now have a shameful Domestic Adoption Baby Boom.
Where pro-life views are concerned, respecting the dignity of life means respecting family relatedness. Families should not be torn apart to get babies for adoption.
Posted at 09:31 am by warriorwoman
Permalink
May 12, 2005
Doll Adoption - Exploitation of Women?
Many people say, "We have to adopt - what would happen to all those "unwanted babies" if we did not? The number of supposedly "unwanted babies" seems to fluctuate based on the market demand, and on the adoptive buyers preferences. In the 1960's, for example, Americans were told that millions of white babies were "unwanted" - yet black babies were almost always "wanted".
The truth is that an unplanned pregnancy does not mean an unwanted baby. By the time a baby is born, nearly every baby is wanted by her mother - if not by her father, siblings, grandparents and other family members. It may be true however, that certain families are unwanted by those who would maintain a patriarchal system - that is, families that are not of the "family-unit" type. Killing two birds with one stone, those in power seek to decimate unwanted family types and supply the customers of "adoption services" with babies. Babies are sold for adoption - just like adoption dolls.
Regarding doll adoption - and adoption in general - adoption must be a good thing or why would it be promoted so much? Perhaps it is simply because no one speaks out against it.
Posted at 10:35 am by warriorwoman
Permalink
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
|
|