|
May 22, 2005
Dear Birthmother Letters - Why Not?
Dear Birthmother Letters - Why Not?
Some people are saying "Dear Birthmother letters - why shouldn't we use a Dear Birthmother letter or Dear Birthparent letter - when we are looking for a baby to adopt?
It is harmful to separate a newborn from her mother at birth. This separation traumatizes mother and child - and that is true whether the adoption is an open adoption or closed adoption. If a mother held her baby in her arms and then rejected her newborn (and the father and grandparents did, too) and if it were not simply a temporary post-partum depression that might be one thing. But moms who are being advised by trusted "experts" that "adoption is an option" (as if it were perfectly reasonable - and "loving" - to legally abandon your own son or daughter) are not rejecting their babies. They are simply naive.
Just look at all the websites proclaiming that moms will be "angels" for making the "heroic choice" and handing their babies over to someone else. If the adopters later have a baby will they reciprocate by being "angels" and giving the mom THEIR baby to make up for her loss?
The United States government likes to make babies available for adopters. Infertility is a big problem in America, with people waiting too long to start a family and gay people also hoping to adopt. Infertility treatments, reproductive technologies and adoption are all big businesses, with plenty of lobbyists.
The United States government funds Infant Adoption Awareness Training to try to get more babies for people who are infertile or gay. State governments have Choose Life License Plates with proceeds going only toward "services" designed to get more babies for adoption. And while benefits for adopters are increasing all the time, benefits for natural families are decreasing. It seems as though the government is actually "starving them out" just to get babies for adopters.
"Dear birthmother letters" are letters soliciting moms for their healthy babies. When there are not enough real orphans to be found (that are desirable for adoption) and there is a market for babies, people think they have to get a baby somehow.
Posted at 08:55 am by warriorwoman
Permalink
May 21, 2005
Parental Alienation Syndrome in Reproductive Technologies and Adoption
Parental Alienation Syndrome - in Reproductive Technologies and Adoption
"Parental Alienation Syndrome" is just a fancy name for disrespecting a child's mother or father. Everyone knows "Yo momma!" is a terrible insult. But when one parent is disrespecting the other, denying or limiting contact between parent and child, this is seen as CHILD ABUSE. The offending parent's parental rights may be terminated or custody given to the other parent.
When a woman puts a shirt on her child that says "My daddy's name is Donor" that is abusive. Actually, just intentionally mixing the raw materials to create a child, intending in advance to deprive a child of his father or mother is abusive. And yet, clinics continue to lure naive people into selling or donating their offspring to people who are infertile or gay. And infertile and gay people buy them.
On one message board a woman wrote that she made a baby ON PURPOSE for her friend to adopt - and she was in serious pain after losing her baby. But in spite of her suffering she may still not comprehend that it is because she IS the mother of her child.
Well, how are people supposed to know the truth? The mothers and fathers are called "donors", "surrogates", "genetic objects" or "birth objects" while the buyers are referred to as "real parents". The brokers insist that fake "families" are just as good as real families, if not better.
"Parental Alienation Syndrome" is just a fancy name for disrespecting a child's mother or father.
It's not just egg and sperm donation where parental alienation syndrome comes into play. The man-made institution of "adoption" is inherently disrespectful of a child's own family. You can't respect a mother and father and pretend they are not related to their child at the same time. When you dishonor the child's origins, you dishonor the child.
In Lowis Lowry's book "The Giver", roles are assigned. Lowry makes it plain that women assigned the role of baby-production equipment ("birthmothers") have the lowest status in society.
"Birthmothers" DO have the lowest status in society - as low as child molesters for "giving up" their own children. Some naive "birthmothers" say they want to change the public's perception so people know that "birthmothers" were just ordinary moms who were pressured and had no alternatives. Yet without using the honest terms "mother" or "mom" to describe themselves, they get nowhere.
"Parental Alienation Syndrome" is just a fancy name for disrespecting a child's mother or father. To get babies for adopters, moms and dads are called "birth objects" well in advance, even while they retain their parental rights.
A lot of euphamisms are used to make the transfer of babies from their own families to unrelated people palatable - or even make it seem desirable. But behind all the euphamisms, there is a lot of suffering as human beings are artificially orphaned to supply the baby market.
"For adoptive couples, adoption is wonderful. For the natural mothers and families of adoptees, adoptees themselves and their progeny, adoption is profoundly painful. ...
"No matter how much they want and can love a child, most adopters are blind to the child’s pain of separation. This does not make for good parents. Think, for a moment, how you would feel if you were expected to join in the "celebration" as everyone dances on your mother's grave." Julie A. Rist, adoptee - "Is the U.S. Promoting Pain?"
Posted at 09:49 am by warriorwoman
Permalink
Maternity Group Homes - "Safe Havens" for Women or Baby Breeding Farms?
Maternity homes have long been used to get babies for adoption. Get pregnant women separated from society, get them separated from their babies' fathers. And voila! a "miracle" occurs - you can get moms to surrender their own beloved infant sons and daughters.
Maternity "homes"? Today the breeding farms have become pretty fancy - with beautiful swimming pools and expansive lawns. To look at them you might not guess that they were all about punishing women for having babies and getting more healthy babies for adoption.
"Get 'empowered' and choose an adoptive family." "Take control." - These are some of the adoption industry messages to mothers, some of whom were probably unceremoniously dumped at the home by their parents. Feeling low and with nowhere to turn, they begin turning the pages looking at slick advertisements for prospective adopters.
To make them feel even more pressured toward adoption they undoubtedly are told: "There are hundreds of hopeful adoptive couples." (And you owe one of them a baby!)
Maternity homes have long been used to get babies for adoption. Get pregnant women separated from society, get them separated from their babies' fathers. Call the moms by dehumanizing terms like "birthmothers" ("birth objects") And voila! When God's miracle of birth occurs it is quicky obscured by the "miracle" of getting wealthy buyers a baby for adoption.
Karen Wilson Buterbaugh's article "Not By Choice" helps explain how homes for "unwed" mothers were used in earlier decades to get babies for adoption. Today, things have changed is some ways - but the coercive nature of maternity home isolation is still present. Maternity homes with adoption "counseling" mean that more families will be separated so the babies can be sold off for adoption.
Posted at 07:59 am by warriorwoman
Permalink
May 20, 2005
Internet Photolistings of Children for Adoption - Not in a Child's Best Interests
On my computer screen is a picture of a girl, "Pretty and vivacious". Another girl is described as "very glamorous". On another page an African American girl is listed as "currently in therapy" and "developmentally delayed". A boy is described as "on medication to assist him with symptoms of ADHD." and "does not have contact with any of his family members." One girl "is very sensitive, can misread social cues and often believes people are making fun of her". A girl "occasionally exhibits disruptive behavior". A boy of 16 is described as an "attractive little boy".
All of the pictures have the child’s first name included. Is this a fraternity boy’s prank? Who would put pictures of children on the web with their names and such descriptions?
The website is one of many on the internet advertising children. Near the listings of older children are listings of couples, singles and gay people who “look forward to expanding our family and cherishing the addition of a new baby”. None of the prospective adopters’ ads says “occasionally exhibits disruptive behavior” or “can misread social cues”, although surely it happens. Even listing their ads seeking an infant shows great insensitivity toward children who have been advertised as available for years.
“This is such an invasion into these kids lives, exposing to the entire world that they are an orphan or making it out that they haven’t got parents that love them.” emailed one woman who had been in an orphanage as a child. “And with these girls it looks like they are advertising their sexuality. It could cause some pedophile creep to come forward and adopt these young girls.”
“If it gets children adopted, it’s worth it.” I’m told by a woman at one agency. I imagine her picture on the web with a description like this: Helga, age 22 “Sometimes insensitive, slightly challenged, needs help to learn to consider others feelings.”
One more click and I find myself at the Rodent Adoption Listing website which displays a picture of a 12 month old Champagne Hood and a 6 month old Mink. “These two girls are very sweet, friendly, active and extremely outgoing.”
Several websites caution people not to say children are “put up” for adoption because it brings to mind the time when children were literally placed on raised platform at a public meeting like so much meat. Isn’t the adoption photo listing just as humiliating? Even the rodents get a nicer advertisement than the kids.
- by Laurie Frisch
Interested in learning more about older child adoption and adoptions from CPS?
Read "How Poverty Separates Parents and Children: A Challenge to Human Rights". This study by ATD Fourth World - with forewards by United Nations and UNICEF, includes a description of how United States child protection system (CPS) separates family members. Discusses 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) and it's contribution to the "unfair dissolution of many families"...States that "A child in the United States blames her parents for not protecting her from the child protection system."
Interested in reading a personal story about older child adoption and adoptions from CPS and the effect it can have on a family?
Be sure to read how the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) contributed to tearing one family apart: Adoption and Safe Families Act Tears Family Apart. Denying a non-cusdodial parent's constitutional rights to the care, custody and control of their child is just one method used to obtain "adoptable" babies and children and meet the state quotas of children adopted from foster care.
The United States government itself is listing children for adoption - putting pictures of children for adoption - on the internet at adoptuskids website. These adoption photolisitngs seem almost like criminal activity. The government should not be advertising children - human beings - like some product for sale via adoption photolistings.
But adoption photolistings are not the only issue. The majority of children in United States are removed from their homes not due to not drug use, sexual abuse or physical abuse but on the basis of "denying critical care". According to Federal Report:Iowa Fails Abused Children a federal report showed 70% of kids in Iowa under this category.
"Denying critical care" might mean anything. If a social worker showed up at the stable when Jesus was born, she might say that the environment was unsanitary, there was no food in the refrigerator, Mary and Joseph were cohabitating and they planned so poorly they didn't even arrive at their destination in time to get a hotel room. If Mary was not already proficient at nursing her son, you can just image the social worker looking down on her saying "babies having babies" in digust and then taking Jesus away and giving him to fost-adopts.
Unlike the old-style foster care providers, a fost-adopt is a person who is hoping to get a child. A fost-adopt is not someone who wants to adopt a child already in the system. Instead, a fost-adopt is looking for a fresh little one who is not already abused by repeated placements and possibly other abuse while in the system.
Would Mary ever get her son back? Not unless she had $50,000 and a good lawyer.
The U.S. government would do better to stop spending effort on adoption bonuses and the humiliating photo picture listings of children for adoption and instead find ways to help more children remain in their homes.
Posted at 09:17 am by warriorwoman
Permalink
May 19, 2005
Infant Adoption Awareness Training
Infant Adoption Awareness Training
Infant Adoption Awareness, Older Child Adoption Awareness, International Adoption Awareness, Embryo Adoption Awareness - it's hard to know what to focus on.
It's shocking at first when a person discovers, for example, the Transracial Abductees website which reveals how moms in Korea are locked up in maternity "homes" and their babies taken from them for adoption. Or this article: Korean Babies for Adoption Korea must stop overseas adoption Tobias Hubinette, Korea Herald, Feb 28, 2005.
But that's just an example of how shocking the reality is - "adoption" in any form seems to be simply a way of getting unrelated babies and small children for infertile people - and now for gay people as well. Anyone who is wealthy and doesn't want to be bothered with morning sickness or stretch marks can just buy a baby to adopt.
Infant Adoption Awareness Training? It's such a tragedy.
"We don't FORCE anyone to surrender their nice healthy infant son or daughter," they rationalize. "We don't lock moms up in maternity prisons like we used to - we just give them 'an option'. If the moms are stupid enough - or don't have resources - of course we'd be glad to use their baby for adoption."
It's like they are saying: "We're trying to obtain a better product. We don't house the breeder sows the same way we used to because we found it stressed the piglets. So now we try to ensure the breeders have a more relaxed environment by getting them to think it was THEIR choice. When in fact we know the "breeders" and their families are really naive and we are taking advantage of them."
Posted at 08:21 am by warriorwoman
Permalink
May 18, 2005
Adoption - Single Fathers "Choice"?
Dear Birthmother letters, Dear Birthmom, Dear Birthparent, Dear Birth mother, Dear Birthfather - without these ugly demeaning "birth" words or words like "unwed" mother or "unwed" father used on a website no naive pregnant mother, father or grandparent-to-be will even find the page. And what self-respecting person wants to use such language as " Dear Birthmother" when everyone knows it is wrong to disrespect the parents of a child? By contrast, would you call a pregnant woman who is married a " birthmother birth object"? Now, I'll get to the point:
Adoption - Single Father's "Choice"?
There are men who complain that if their wife or girfriend gets an abortion, they did not get a "choice" about what was to happen to their potential offspring. But what about when their offspring - their own precious son or daughter - is actually born? A father MUST have rights and responsiblities as the parent of his born child. If a mother keeps her baby, then the baby's father is expected to take responsibility - and the father is liable for child support. A father cannot "choose" adoption without the mother's consent.
But what if their baby's mother surrenders her parental rights? If the father is not married to his child's mother then he often gets no choice whatsoever. Yet, if he is married to his child's mother and she surrenders her parental rights, he still retains his.
In United States, we are supposed to have "equal protection" under the law - with no discrimination based on race, sex, creed - or marital state. Is there "equal protection" under the law where adoption is concerned?
Adoption makes a mockery of single parents - both mothers and fathers - making them out to be a big nothing. The United States Constitution provides for "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". But with adoption, a single parent's constitutional liberty rights to the care, custody and control of his own child are all ignored. These rights are supposed to be "inalienable" rights - like the right to your own vital body parts, rights that cannot be surrendered.
Getting fathers "out of the way" - ignoring their parental rights - is necessary element in getting babies for adoption. How many "Dear Birthfather" letters do you see out there? While single mothers are viewed as birth-incubator-things - meant to be used as the source of a baby for adopters - it is assumed a father does not even exist. Sometimes the fathers are "permitted" ("encouraged" is a better word for it) to sign away any rights they might have had before their baby is even born. But how can a father know what it is he is signing away when he has not even held his baby in his arms? With adoption, there is a horrendous denial of a father's Constitutional rights.
Adoption is a human rights violation as well. Association with family is a human right. A father's child IS his family member - one of the closest family members he will ever have, as close to him as his own mother and father.
There are fathers who have been serving their country in Iraq - and return home to find their own infant son or daughter has been taken for adoption. The freedoms of American citizens - freedoms they thought they were protecting - have been cruelly denied these men. And while the mother at least got to hold her baby (we hope) - pressured though she was she had the opportunity to have some small clue of was she was "giving up". It is surely unethical - and illegal - to pressure or influence a mother to sign away her parental rights. Yet not only do adoption agencies and adoption attorneys like to tell the mother she will be "disappointing" adopters if she keeps her own baby, but often the adopters themselves are there in the hospital, putting even more pressure on the mother, reminding her they have already got a room all set up - and she does not. Does the hospital - or anyone - have a car seat and a baby outfit they could loan her until she gets to the store? If so, she will not be advised of it. Sometimes the greatest pressure is exerted by a mother's own parents - and the "professionals" whose business is to get babies for adopters - merely take advantage of the situation. Some "professionals" encourage parents to pressure their daughters into surrendering parental rights. Later these "professionals" will claim they were only giving the mother an "option" and did not "force" her to sign anything.
Still a father might easily argue that at LEAST the mother had this one small opportunity to hold her child, to come to her senses and just take her son or daughter home. Yet, even when the father did not get this one moment, still his infant son or daughter - a valuable commodity - was taken for adoption.
A father can contest the adoption - and what do you suppose the outcome will be? The adopters will claim the child would be horribly traumatized by his own father. If a married father returns from the war after a period away - or never having met his child - then will his son or daughter be horribly traumatized if he pushes him on a swing at the park or calls himself "daddy"? Would an uncle or neighbor who has been with the child all along have the "right" to tell the child's own father he is not wanted?
Surely that would be a nasty thing to do - not a loving thing at all. But then adoption is not about love. Adoption is about obtaining babies for people - people who have the money to pay for "adoption services" - services designed to get babies for adopters.
Dear Birthmother letters, Dear Birthmom, Dear Birth parent, Dear Birth mother, Dear Birthfather - without these ugly demeaning "birth" words used on a website no naive mother, father or grandparent will even find the page. And what self-respecting person wants to use such language as " Dear Birthmother" when everyone knows it is wrong to disrespect the parents of a child?
Posted at 08:16 am by warriorwoman
Permalink
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
|
|
