|
May 30, 2005
Adoption? Don't Mess With My Baby
Adoption? Don't Mess With My Baby
Adoption is said to be a "choice" for women with unexpected pregnancies. Are moms really looking for a way to rid themselves of their infant sons and daughters?
There can be no doubt that one of the biggest motivations for adoption is not a concern for women or children but a market for babies.
Consider all these "Dear Birthparent", "Dear Birthmother" adoption letters - if it were moms trying to get rid of their babies, then we'd have letters going the other direction, wouldn't we?
It's ironic how the people hoping to adopt a baby are always described as "loving" - because their first act in becoming "parents" is to deprive a baby of the security of her mother and family. Is this healthy? Is this the act of a "fit parent"? Depriving a child of her parent would be considered "parental alienation syndrome" - child abuse - in a divorce case.
Adoption. The legal paperwork will say the adopting people are "parents" but the newborn baby is still looking for her mom! A loving person would NOT separate babies from their moms.
Some people who were adopted as babies are searching for their families. Some have even changed their names back or gotten themselves adopted back.
Yet today we have infant adoption awareness training and a domestic adoption baby boom, with adoption agencies bragging they have gotten more babies by offering "open adoption". Prospective adopters are being told the child will be "just like" their own.
Pregnant women who are single and vulnerable are called "birthmother birth objects" and they are expected to "be grateful" someone wants to raise their child.
Adoption? Heritage is a Human Right.
Adoption? Don't Mess With My Baby!" is what moms need to say. "I am NOT a "birthmother incubator" making babies for wealthy adopters to buy - I am the mother of my baby."
Posted at 10:00 am by warriorwoman
Permalink
May 29, 2005
Adoption Choice?
Adoption is sometimes referred to as "the right choice" or "the loving choice". But in response to a post about adoption a mother wrote and said "Do you think we would do this if we had a choice?" She was trying to make the best of it in an open adoption. It was easy for me to see her point - surrendering your own newborn son or daughter to adoption is not something every little girl dreams of. Even an open adoption is not at all like raising your own child - and it can be a complete nightmare. If mothers had a choice, surely nearly every one would keep her baby close - that's how mothers are.
Adoption Choice? As I always say, there's not much sport in hunting a caged animal. But when mothers face economical or societal pressures it's a lot like being caged - the mother feels backed into a corner with nowhere to turn for real help. Compound that with the effects of pregnancy and the emotional extremes following childbirth.
Adoption Choice? If you are the adoption "professional" hunting for babies for your customers it helps to tell the mother-to-be that there is an adoption "plan" and make her believe she has already "chosen" adoption even when she has not signed a relinquishment. It helps to ensure there are prospective adopters selected in advance to make the mother feel pressured.
Adoption Choice? Even if she didn't have prospective adopters to consider - making her feel beholden to them - in the days following birth a mother is not the best state to make such a life-altering decision.
Adoption Choice? Adoption has never been much of a choice. Maternity homes are sometimes used to get mothers isolated where they can be more easily manipulated.
If the objective is to get babies, then it's important to tell mothers that their children will be "better off" with someone else. And why not describe that someone else as "loving" even though "desperate" might be a better description?
These are routine methods used to get babies for adoption. Adoption choice? There's not much sport in hunting a caged animal. But the way some of these adoption agencies act when they get a baby, you'd think they had brought down big game out in the wild with a single well-placed shot.
Posted at 08:15 pm by warriorwoman
Permalink
May 28, 2005
Adoption "Dear Birthparent"
Adoption "Dear Birthparent"
In United States, infant adoption promotion and "Dear Birthparent" letters surround us. "Churches urged to preach adoption." "The gift of adoption is the gift of life."
Just look at these ads soliciting babies for adoption:
Dear Birthparent: "You’ve made a brave and loving decision to create an adoption plan for your baby, and I hope that I can walk beside you on your journey." (and get your baby).
Dear Birthparent: "It took courage to give your child the gift of life and unselfish maturity to choose an adoption plan. Your baby is blessed to have a mother who loves him or her so much." (and I want your baby).
What is this "adoption PLAN"? Why is a mother-to-be being solicited for her baby and roped into some rediculous "plan" before her baby is even born?
If it is "brave" "loving" "unselfish" and "mature" to "choose an adoption plan" then is it "cowardly" "hateful" "selfish" and "immature" to keep your family members together?
If a baby is so blessed to have a mother that loves him or her so much, then WHY do these sick demented people want to take this wonderful mother away from her own son or daughter?
Adoption promotion and "Dear Birthparent" letters surround us.
Need advice on writing a "Dear Birthmother" letter?
"The goal of the ' Dear Birthmother' letter is to connect with a 'birthmother' (and gain her trust.)
Churches urged to preach adoption." "The gift of adoption is the gift of life."
There is no doubt that a mother can "give life" to a baby without "choosing" adoption! And the prospective adopters won't DIE without a "gift" of a tiny human being even though they might think they will.
Dear Birthmother, Dear Birthparent: You are NOT a Dear Birthmother you are the Mother of your Baby.
Posted at 08:05 pm by warriorwoman
Permalink
Open Adoption
The business of adoption agencies and adoption attorneys is booming these days. Domestic adoptions are said to be increasing - now that parents (degradingly referred to as "birthparents" or "birth objects") can be lured into "donating" their infant sons and daughters though offers of "open adoption". But there is a problem with getting more babies for adoption - someone has to be used as the source of the babies. Siblings, parents and grandparents all are left hurting when their family member is adopted-out. Some commit suicide.
Some people say open adoption is better than closed adoption. But is open adoption better than keeping family members together?
Open adoption? A newborn baby needs her mother - and not just a supervised visit twice a year, or a letter.
See what this adoptee says about adoption.
Adoption aids the infertile - but family heritage is a human right.
From "Is the US Promoting Pain?" by adoptee Julie A. Rist:
Adoption facilitates the transfer of children from the "have-nots" to the "haves." Perhaps they believe they are at the top of the "baby chain," - that money, status, church, and better education make them better human beings and, therefore, better parents.
...
Damage done by separation is irrevocable. The toll on emotional health creates "special needs children." There is no such thing as a "healthy baby" if separated from his or her mother.
Some believe the "system" just needs a little tweaking. I believe we should end these destructive "services" designed to get healthy babies for adoption.
Posted at 08:22 am by warriorwoman
Permalink
May 27, 2005
"Predestined" for Adoption
"Predestined" for Adoption
"Adoption is a cultural thing," I am told by some mothers who have been horrendously used as if they were only the source of babies for adoption. "You can't change that."
Adoption is said to be "predestined" and apparently many people believe in the predestination of adoption.
The Chinese - who were "conditioned" to believe they were destined for defeat - gave in without a fight to the Japanese troops at the Rape of Nanking. Nearly 370,000 Chinese were massacred. Just like the Chinese were "conditioned" to give in, some single mothers have been "conditioned" to give in to adoption.
In the United States, there are few real orphans, especially orphans that are young enough to be desirable for adoption. But there are many people who are infertile. So to get babies for adoption, a "culture of adoption" has been cultivated. Pregnant women are called "birthmothers", rather than "mothers-to-be". There is intense advertising for adoption, solicitation via "Dear Birthparent" letters and "adoption counseling". A special adoption language has been developed that makes people who are completely unrelated to a baby seem more entitled than her own mother, father, grandparents and siblings.
It is known that adoption causes suffering for the natural family.
Some websites try to justify infant adoption, explaining why adoption is a "Christian" thing to do. "Adoption is predestined." "Adoption is from God." "Adoption is God's blessing." "We adopt a child not for our glory, but for God's glory." "In adopting we model for children and others the mercy and the justice of God." One of my "favorite" website titles is "Christian Adoption: WOW".
One website (thankfully) speaks of "God's blessing to unwed mothers" and actually seems to be in favor of keeping family members together.
Another website seeks to comfort the infertile people who are "forced" to adopt, claiming that through adoption a "miracle pregnancy" might occur! (And the adopters might get the added bonus of their own child.)
Jesus is even referred to as an "adoptee" - supposedly Jesus was "adopted" by Joseph. Was Joseph an adopter? If he was, then surely when Jesus claimed God as his Father, Joseph would have become angry and insisted that he (not God) was Jesus' "real father".
Adoption is said to be "predestined" and apparently many people believe in adoption predestination. But natural families will be "predestined" for adoption separation only as long as naive and vulnerable families can be found and used.
Not everyone benefits from adoption - and it's time people knew it.
Posted at 09:44 am by warriorwoman
Permalink
May 26, 2005
"Snowflakes" and Embryo Donors
"Snowflakes" and Embryo Donors
It is the year 2005. The word "life" is a euphamism for creating, buying or acquiring an unrelated child to use "as if" she was your own. The word "life" is a great disguise, making people think of things like human dignity, even as human dignity is being stripped away and denied.
Are you considering donating an embryo or two to people who are infertile or gay? Are you looking for information on "how to" donate unused frozen embryos - your own offspring-to-be? Think how the term "sperm donor" is used to insult a father who does not take responsibility for his child. Being a sperm or egg donor - or embryo donor - is SHAMEFUL, not heroic. The mother or father is not there for their child, they have abandoned or even sold her. Her own siblings and ancestors are withheld from her. It is in no way guaranteed that a child who is unrelated to her buyers, will "attach" or feel connected in the same way a child does in her natural family. It is known that adoptees have life-long issues - even extending to the next generations. Embryo donation and embryo adoption is child abuse.
With ordinary adoption, single mothers may feel forced to "donate" their offspring, by economic circumstances and societal pressures. But with sperm and egg "donation" and embryo adoption, people who are not at all pressured are having their children removed from them. It is sad when people are so naive.
With ordinary adoption, a mother's child is referred to by baby brokers as "the baby" (not "your baby"). "It" is dehumanized and stripped of any acknowledgement of family relatedness to help encourage the mother to make "it" available for adoption. With embryo adoption, "it" is referred to as a "snowflake", dehumanizing language that denies family relatedness. The embryo donor may not later know "the difference" losing their child - yet the adopted person will have the same life-long issues that any adoptee has.
If you believe this embryo is a human life, then consider that human beings are not "snowflakes". If you don't believe this embryo is a human life, then consider that the very real human beings that may be obtained through adopting an embryo are not "snowflakes".
Are you considering donating embryos for adoption by people who are infertile or gay? Clinics will surely profit from selling embryo adoption "services" for all those "spare" embryos they created on purpose. But your offspring are not like some old beat-up couch to be donated.
Posted at 07:54 am by warriorwoman
Permalink
May 25, 2005
Angel Giver of Life
I have written a lot about how the dehumanizing terms "birthmother" "birthmom" "birthparent" "birthfather" "lifemother" are used to target a mother or father as the source of a baby to be used for adoption. These ugly terms deflect attention from the fact that these people are a child's own parents - the use of these terms turns parents into mere "birth objects". The parents are viewed as being similar to a placenta - their "function" will end when their infant son or daughter is born. Then "the baby" goes to "it's" "real parents" - the people who are adopting. Sometimes the adoptive people try to "be nice" and let the mom see her baby once in a while - as long as she knows "her place".
Now I find moms who are targeted as the source of a baby for adoption are being called "Angel Giver of Life" in addition to the other horrendously misleading terms. Valued only for their reproductive capability, the very real motherhood of these women is trashed, dragged in the gutter when they are called "Angel Giver of Life" instead of being called "mother" or "mom" - instead of being acknowledged as the the "parent" of their own child.
"Angel Giver of Life"? Perhaps the religious leaders, social workers and adoption attorneys could be called "Angel of Death" for their role in symbolically killing off a mother's motherhood so someone else could get a baby to adopt?
"Angel Giver of Life" and "Angel of Death" - Adoption is like a horror movie, isn't it? Actually, phrases like "Angel Giver of Life" and all the weird adoption rituals sort of remind me of some science fiction, like Margaret Atwood's "The Handmaid's Tale".
"Angel Giver of Life"? - give me a BREAK! Start helping the real moms and dads instead of taking their babies for adoption .
Posted at 10:05 am by warriorwoman
Permalink
May 24, 2005
Domestic Adoption
Domestic infant adoption in the United States appears to be increasing - if you believe the newspaper accounts where adoption attorneys and adoption agencies are bragging about getting more babies for adoption. Adoption agencies are expanding and charging their customers more for babies (disguised as "adoption services"). They are advertising and using federally-funded Infant Adoption Awareness Training" to produce a "culture of adoption". Then - using the lure of "open adoption" - they are able to get babies whose mothers would have kept them. Open Adoption is not so "pretty" a picture when you look at it closely. Sometimes the adopted child may consider herself to be lucky she at least knows who her natural family is. But for the natural family, open adoption is far less than ideal, with children, parents, grandparents and siblings having contact with their family member controlled by the adopters. And after all, even most single moms and dads could have kept their own kids if they had not been lured into the "adoption option".
"A domestic adoption 'baby boom' should not be a source of pride, but of shame on the part of agencies, medical experts, the government and others for having exploited citizens of our own country, the United States, to obtain babies. "
Posted at 07:51 am by warriorwoman
Permalink
May 23, 2005
"Donating" Your Own Child through Reproductive Technologies - or Adoption
"Donating" Your Own Child through Reproductive Technologies - or through Adoption
"Donating" your own child to the infertile is popular in America: Selling human sperm or eggs, donating embryos, making babies on purpose for your friends (or to make money) - and the old stand-by of infant adoption. Whatever the means of donation, the donors are called "angels" and "heros" for making infertile - or gay - people's dreams come true. Accepting "donations" of little human beings is popular as well. In fact, if not for the market for babies, there would be little adoption - or other donation of family members - going on. When an adoption occurs, the people who adopt are thought of as being "generous" for "taking in an orphan". They are considered "saviors" of supposedly "unwanted" babies.
What could possibly be wrong with donating your children or accepting a donated child? How can it be immoral? After all, Christian churches have been encouraging single parents and their families to donate their infant children to fulfill the "hopes and dreams" of the infertile for many decades now. Because of the cavalier attitude that churches have about legally abandoning one's own son or daughter for adoption, people are completely unaware of how moms, dads, siblings and the adopted person might suffer from this operation.
Try this website for some insights into the adoptee experience, infant adoption, embryo adoption and the means used to get more babies for adoption.
Read this website for many interesting quotes from adoption professionals: Known Effects of Separating Mothers and Babies at Birth. And here is another account of what it might be like to be a mom or brother or sister of the baby used for "open adoption".
Many people who are "donating" babies for adoption today may be unaware of the sordid history of adoption. Often parents were - and are - coerced or tricked into surrendering their babies for adoption. Sometimes the "encouragement" of the so-called "adoption option" has been enacted with a certain brutality, to ensure the parents knew they were being punished. Other times, the "encouragement" has been more covert, making parents think adoption was "their" choice. As they suffer from the loss of their infant sons and daughters, moms whose infants have been adopted-out are told to "think only of the happiness of the adopting couple" and "what a miracle this is for them". People are advised that a baby "won't know the difference" and as a result of this statement many moms are unaware that their babies suffered from the separation as well.
Christian churches like to make people think that all of the babies who are adopted would have been aborted anyway. They heartlessly encourage the adopted person to believe that he or she was unwanted by her mother and would have been aborted. This is very cruel, but how else can they explain that they would not help single parents and their babies stay together? No baby is adopted until she is born. A baby who is born is not in danger of abortion - the only "danger" she is in is that of being taken home and loved by her own family.
"Donating" your own child to the infertile is popular in America - including the old stand-by of infant adoption. The donors are called "birthparents", "birthmoms", "birthfathers", "birthmothers" ("birth objects") for making infertile - or gay - people's dreams come true. It's sad when these naive or pressured parents learn the truth - they never were "birth objects" - they were parents and have been used.
For people naively considering egg or sperm donation or embryo donation, get some insights into the adoptee experience, infant adoption, embryo adoption and the means used to get more babies for adoption.
Posted at 09:36 am by warriorwoman
Permalink
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
|
|
