Tell me about adoption

[Anonymous]

My cousin and her husband (and their bio children) fostered their son on and off for 8 years. The stupid "family reunification" machine kept putting him into the homes of relatives that really did not want him. On his 18th birthday he showed up at my cousin's house (as he said he would) and asked to be adopted by them. 5 months, later, he was.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My cousin and her husband (and their bio children) fostered their son on and off for 8 years. The stupid "family reunification" machine kept putting him into the homes of relatives that really did not want him. On his 18th birthday he showed up at my cousin's house (as he said he would) and asked to be adopted by them. 5 months, later, he was.

This is as happy of an ending as I've ever heard. Congrats to all of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Selfishness is EXACTLY what it is. My child sat as a ward of the state for years more than was necessary because neither birth parent or extended family was willing to relinquish custody and release the child for adoption. Nor did they ever visit or provide support. Women who cannot face the reality that they are unable to meet their child's basic needs and seek a better life for that child are the definition of selfish. There is an interim societal position between the evils of past coercive practices and the emphasis on biological family preservation that exists now.

Based on that criteria the vast majority of women in impoverished nations should just relinquish their children for adoption because they are unable to meet their basic needs and thus are "selfish."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Selfishness is EXACTLY what it is. My child sat as a ward of the state for years more than was necessary because neither birth parent or extended family was willing to relinquish custody and release the child for adoption. Nor did they ever visit or provide support. Women who cannot face the reality that they are unable to meet their child's basic needs and seek a better life for that child are the definition of selfish. There is an interim societal position between the evils of past coercive practices and the emphasis on biological family preservation that exists now.

Based on that criteria the vast majority of women in impoverished nations should just relinquish their children for adoption because they are unable to meet their basic needs and thus are "selfish."

Maybe some PPs would be pleased with that - more kids to adopt!

Some moms in impoverished nations who were unable to meet their kids' basic needs DID seek a better life by trying to enter the United States--and had their kids taken from them. Absolute evil, but plenty of Americans were able to justify it like, "Well, those moms broke the law" or whatever, even though seeking asylum is not a crime. I guess they are accustomed to justifying children being taken from their parents.

You wouldn't think that it would need to be said, that you are not entitled to other people's children. But feeling that entitlement might be consequence to this line of dehumanizing thinking that started with the Baby Scoop. Divide people into groups: WE are good and worthy of being parents; THEY are low-class degenerate sluts, but they have babies and WE deserve them.

Two steps to living in the Handmaid's Tale (whose author based every detail of Gilead on things that have actually happened in our world's history).

[Anonymous]

I'm kind of amazed. In public, people will say things like,

"Giving up a child for adoption is a gift! So selfless!"

But it turns out that they really think:

"Poor and stressed mothers OUGHT to give up their children for adoption, or else they are selfish. And they should relinquish them on my timetable, too, because I wanted a baby YESTERDAY."

[Anonymous]

You really should seek therapy. Bombing this thread really isn't going to help your pain. Whatever it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm kind of amazed. In public, people will say things like,

"Giving up a child for adoption is a gift! So selfless!"

But it turns out that they really think:

"Poor and stressed mothers OUGHT to give up their children for adoption, or else they are selfish. And they should relinquish them on my timetable, too, because I wanted a baby YESTERDAY."

My child's birth mom is dead. You are really obnoxious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm kind of amazed. In public, people will say things like,

"Giving up a child for adoption is a gift! So selfless!"

But it turns out that they really think:

"Poor and stressed mothers OUGHT to give up their children for adoption, or else they are selfish. And they should relinquish them on my timetable, too, because I wanted a baby YESTERDAY."

My child's birth mom is dead. You are really obnoxious.

Are you just not able to see the larger picture in this topic or are you a narcissist with a low IQ that generalizes everything to your experience? Secondly- you've been entrusted with a kid (!) considering your limited world view and lack of empathy-that alone clarifies some of the concerns here. You'd best bolster your arguments by probably just not commenting. You aren't doing the adoptive community any favors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You really should seek therapy. Bombing this thread really isn't going to help your pain. Whatever it is.

Can't speak for everyone here, but I have been participating in a discussion with several other people. That's not called "bombing a thread."

[Anonymous]

We adopted our 3 children and it is the best thing we have ever done. We did a private adoption and 2 agency adoptions. Our kids are now 11. 14, and 16. I'm getting teary thinking of sending them off to college soon.

I think my parents are the most grateful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Selfishness is EXACTLY what it is. My child sat as a ward of the state for years more than was necessary because neither

birth parent or extended family was willing to relinquish custody and release the child for adoption. Nor did they ever visit or provide support. Women who cannot face the reality that they are unable to meet their child's basic needs and seek a better life for that child are the definition of selfish. There is an interim societal position between the evils of past coercive practices and the emphasis on biological family preservation that exists now.

There are plenty of toxic foster situations as well- and adoptions where the child's needs were never meant. So, this is probably not a good argument. How about resources to help families, period?

Precisely. So many of these adoptees feel entitled to other peoples children because they have more money and more stability. Cue Georgia Tan. No. Preying upon vulnerable people and beating them down psychologically so that you can take their babies from them is not benevolent to anyone, including the baby who is forever severed from his kin.

As a PP said, abuse and neglect are totally separate issues. I could link bomb this whole thread with news stories about abusive adopters. I am still so haunted every day about the white couple who considered themselves saviors of their black adoptive children (who had loving, stable kin who wanted to adopt but were denied) who murdered all of the children in a suicide off the cliff. Those women were SO convinced that what they were doing was so benevolent and selfless.

Some adopters here are attacking those of us who are showing OP the coercive and immoral aspects of the adoption industry because they cannot for a minute allow themselves to face the truth that they might have actually stolen someone else’s baby. Someone who desperately wanted her baby. They can’t even handle the term “first mother.” They have to see the woman as a temporary uterus; only they are allowed to be called “mother”. It’s truly Handmaid’s Tale stuff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm kind of amazed. In public, people will say things like,

"Giving up a child for adoption is a gift! So selfless!"

But it turns out that they really think:

"Poor and stressed mothers OUGHT to give up their children for adoption, or else they are selfish. And they should relinquish them on my timetable, too, because I wanted a baby YESTERDAY."

My child's birth mom is dead. You are really obnoxious.

Are you just not able to see the larger picture in this topic or are you a narcissist with a low IQ that generalizes everything to your experience? Secondly- you've been entrusted with a kid (!) considering your limited world view and lack of empathy-that alone clarifies some of the concerns here. You'd best bolster your arguments by probably just not commenting. You aren't doing the adoptive community any favors.

I am being very serious that my child's birth mom is dead. Sorry you have no empathy and would rather push your agenda. This rant shows you have zero empathy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Selfishness is EXACTLY what it is. My child sat as a ward of the state for years more than was necessary because neither

birth parent or extended family was willing to relinquish custody and release the child for adoption. Nor did they ever visit or provide support. Women who cannot face the reality that they are unable to meet their child's basic needs and seek a better life for that child are the definition of selfish. There is an interim societal position between the evils of past coercive practices and the emphasis on biological family preservation that exists now.

There are plenty of toxic foster situations as well- and adoptions where the child's needs were never meant. So, this is probably not a good argument. How about resources to help families, period?

Precisely. So many of these adoptees feel entitled to other peoples children because they have more money and more stability. Cue Georgia Tan. No. Preying upon vulnerable people and beating them down psychologically so that you can take their babies from them is not benevolent to anyone, including the baby who is forever severed from his kin.

As a PP said, abuse and neglect are totally separate issues. I could link bomb this whole thread with news stories about abusive adopters. I am still so haunted every day about the white couple who considered themselves saviors of their black adoptive children (who had loving, stable kin who wanted to adopt but were denied) who murdered all of the children in a suicide off the cliff. Those women were SO convinced that what they were doing was so benevolent and selfless.

Some adopters here are attacking those of us who are showing OP the coercive and immoral aspects of the adoption industry because they cannot for a minute allow themselves to face the truth that they might have actually stolen someone else’s baby. Someone who desperately wanted her baby. They can’t even handle the term “first mother.” They have to see the woman as a temporary uterus; only they are allowed to be called “mother”. It’s truly Handmaid’s Tale stuff.

Your comments have nothing to do with adoption. There are also women who choose to place their children and have zero interest in parenting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You really should seek therapy. Bombing this thread really isn't going to help your pain. Whatever it is.

Can't speak for everyone here, but I have been participating in a discussion with several other people. That's not called "bombing a thread."

That is a very appropriate term for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Selfishness is EXACTLY what it is. My child sat as a ward of the state for years more than was necessary because neither

birth parent or extended family was willing to relinquish custody and release the child for adoption. Nor did they ever visit or provide support. Women who cannot face the reality that they are unable to meet their child's basic needs and seek a better life for that child are the definition of selfish. There is an interim societal position between the evils of past coercive practices and the emphasis on biological family preservation that exists now.

There are plenty of toxic foster situations as well- and adoptions where the child's needs were never meant. So, this is probably not a good argument. How about resources to help families, period?

Precisely. So many of these adoptees feel entitled to other peoples children because they have more money and more stability. Cue Georgia Tan. No. Preying upon vulnerable people and beating them down psychologically so that you can take their babies from them is not benevolent to anyone, including the baby who is forever severed from his kin.

As a PP said, abuse and neglect are totally separate issues. I could link bomb this whole thread with news stories about abusive adopters. I am still so haunted every day about the white couple who considered themselves saviors of their black adoptive children (who had loving, stable kin who wanted to adopt but were denied) who murdered all of the children in a suicide off the cliff. Those women were SO convinced that what they were doing was so benevolent and selfless.

Some adopters here are attacking those of us who are showing OP the coercive and immoral aspects of the adoption industry because they cannot for a minute allow themselves to face the truth that they might have actually stolen someone else’s baby. Someone who desperately wanted her baby. They can’t even handle the term “first mother.” They have to see the woman as a temporary uterus; only they are allowed to be called “mother”. It’s truly Handmaid’s Tale stuff.

Your comments have nothing to do with adoption. There are also women who choose to place their children and have zero interest in parenting.

What are you talking about? Those comments have everything to do with adoption. An infinitesimal number of women in this country carry pregnancies to term “with no interest in parenting.” Most women in that situation will terminate this pregnancies. The fact that many anti-abortion people reference adoption as an alternative to abortion just shows thei complete lack of understanding of the connection between a mother and a born infant, and also shows their callous disregard for the life and health of women who are then forced to be pregnant in order to provide someone else with a baby. And even if a woman truly does not wish to parent, she is and always will he her child’s first mother. Even your term of “place” is so callous, like she’s an unfeeling person setting a table. “Relinquished” or “surrendered” are used more often by those of in who acknowledge the emotional costs of relinquishment.