Closed Adoption and found the birth mother

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A closed adopted does not assume the birth mother wanted no contact. Stop repeating this ad nauseum. It was designed to protect the ADOPTIVE PARENTS only. Keep in mind also that the birth father had zero rights for many years. It is pretty easy, btw, to find the bio mother without DNA...and much harder for her to find the adoptive family.

This is ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE. Before an adoption takes place, an option for a closed adoption is solely made by the birth mother. She is not opting for a closed adoption to protect the adoptive parents - she is choosing that option to protect herself.
Please stop spewing false information. You are referencing the early days of adoption when there were mandatory closed adoptions. that stopped decades ago. And when a birth mother chooses a closed adoption, it is SOLELY her decision and she makes it for her benefit only.

Until the past 10-15 years the majority of adoptions were close. It was standard practice. Most people are talking about adoptions where the adoptees are adults and open adoptions were very rare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A closed adopted does not assume the birth mother wanted no contact. Stop repeating this ad nauseum. It was designed to protect the ADOPTIVE PARENTS only. Keep in mind also that the birth father had zero rights for many years. It is pretty easy, btw, to find the bio mother without DNA...and much harder for her to find the adoptive family.

This is ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE. Before an adoption takes place, an option for a closed adoption is solely made by the birth mother. She is not opting for a closed adoption to protect the adoptive parents - she is choosing that option to protect herself.
Please stop spewing false information. You are referencing the early days of adoption when there were mandatory closed adoptions. that stopped decades ago. And when a birth mother chooses a closed adoption, it is SOLELY her decision and she makes it for her benefit only.

Until the past 10-15 years the majority of adoptions were close. It was standard practice. Most people are talking about adoptions where the adoptees are adults and open adoptions were very rare.

Yes, not to mention the open adoptions that were later closed by the adoptive parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only people who's opinions should count are the birth family's and the adoptee. No one else. Not the adoptive family and certainly not the random general public who have no idea or experience about adoption and couldn't possibly fathom what it's like to have placed a child or be adopted. Everyone else is talking out of their ass.

Like the woman who chose to give up her child for adoption, closed the adoption, didn’t want to be contacted, but had her family contacted (instead of her), regardless?

Adoptee didn’t find her family using a PI they gave their genetic material to a private corporation who btw didn’t guarantee that they wouldn’t be contacting by ppl they wouldn’t want to hear from. Birth mother should be just as angry with her relatives.

nope
just because you found out your mother doesn't mean you have the right to contact her (much less insist on it) if she explicitly said she didn't want you to

Well when someone opts into being contacted on one of these platforms it does. That’s why you have the option to not do that. Have you ever used 23 and me or Ancestry? You select to allow people to contact you. Also as is obvious from the first post...OP’s sister didn’t contact her relatives through any other means besides the website.

This is being obtuse for the sake of being obtuse.

The adoptee KNEW it was a closed adoption, and that the mother was adamant she should not be contacted. In what world should someone then extrapolate that it’s okay to contact everyone else they can get their hands on and tell them their (and thus, also the birth mother’s) story? And the. Actually feels upset that no one wants to buy in?

NP. Because *other adults who have full agency are involved in this scenario.* If I had a half-sibling out there, I would want to know. And I would figure out a way to make contact and possibly form a connection without involving my mother or father. Yes, the birth mother gets to decide no contact. But the child can choose to pursue contacts with other blood relatives, and those blood relatives can choose to engage or not. Once it is clear that anyone in this scenario is not interested in contact, that right should be respected.

But the point is that having a child is a completely different situation. The child is a human being and very much an Intercal part of the decision that the mother unilaterally made. It is an unusual thing that one person can make the choice for another not to know his or her blood relations or to have any opportunity to see the people the child is related to. With that kind of extreme right, my view is that there is also a responsibility to behave humanely. These are often children who have no idea why their parents abandoned them. Why they weren’t worth the trouble, worth the sacrifice, worth even the inconvenience of being embarrassed later in life by being available to answer questions. To me, that is an incredibly selfish act for biological parent. It very well may be that placing your child for adoption is fully altruistic and benefits you were a child. But not offering to provide information or any contact when your own child approaches you to me is the upmost and selfish behavior. At core, I believe that we all owe each other common decency and, where we can provide it, information and enclosure. And when discussing a biological parent, in my view that responsibility is heightened extraordinarily. Giving up your child for adoption in my view takes away the responsibility for caring for and raising the child. It does not take away the responsibility of behaving empathetically and with an open heart and kindness to a life that you brought into the world.



So if it says no trespassing on the fence, it’s okay if I break in the side door?

So if you decide you don’t want to be resuscitated can you decide that every adult that is tangentially related to you won’t be resuscitated either?

No, but to follow your bouncing ball, if I write an order that I don’t want to be resuscitated, the; I don’t want to be resuscuitated. I don’t expect the medical team to contact my cousins to see if I really meant it, or for them to doubt my decision because it’s been a while.

The bio mother cannot make decisions and ultimatums for the entire biological family. Again, she doesn't have the proprietary ownership of this person.

No, but she does have proprietary ownership of her experience and what happened to her 20 years ago. This argument throughout this thread is akin to simple gossiping. Seriously. If you know something about someone, it doesn't give you the right to share that information with that person's nieces, nephews, aunts, whatever. Of course you have a right to share your own information, but it is just common decency to not spread the story of your BM with distant relatives (or any relatives for that matter).

So, adoptee could have contact her bio family and just said I'm related to you without sharing any more - but to share the BM's story is simply spreading gossip.

Are you seriously of the view that people have the “right” to not be gossiped about?

Yea there are certain actions that a birth mothers family should or could do to be kind. But having elected to have a closed birth does not mean they are required to do that. That’s the point that PP is making. Nothing about having a closed adoption means you can control the future behavior of your relatives or your biological child or stop people from using technology that did not even exist when you made that decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only people who's opinions should count are the birth family's and the adoptee. No one else. Not the adoptive family and certainly not the random general public who have no idea or experience about adoption and couldn't possibly fathom what it's like to have placed a child or be adopted. Everyone else is talking out of their ass.

Like the woman who chose to give up her child for adoption, closed the adoption, didn’t want to be contacted, but had her family contacted (instead of her), regardless?

Adoptee didn’t find her family using a PI they gave their genetic material to a private corporation who btw didn’t guarantee that they wouldn’t be contacting by ppl they wouldn’t want to hear from. Birth mother should be just as angry with her relatives.

nope
just because you found out your mother doesn't mean you have the right to contact her (much less insist on it) if she explicitly said she didn't want you to

Well when someone opts into being contacted on one of these platforms it does. That’s why you have the option to not do that. Have you ever used 23 and me or Ancestry? You select to allow people to contact you. Also as is obvious from the first post...OP’s sister didn’t contact her relatives through any other means besides the website.

This is being obtuse for the sake of being obtuse.

The adoptee KNEW it was a closed adoption, and that the mother was adamant she should not be contacted. In what world should someone then extrapolate that it’s okay to contact everyone else they can get their hands on and tell them their (and thus, also the birth mother’s) story? And the. Actually feels upset that no one wants to buy in?

NP. Because *other adults who have full agency are involved in this scenario.* If I had a half-sibling out there, I would want to know. And I would figure out a way to make contact and possibly form a connection without involving my mother or father. Yes, the birth mother gets to decide no contact. But the child can choose to pursue contacts with other blood relatives, and those blood relatives can choose to engage or not. Once it is clear that anyone in this scenario is not interested in contact, that right should be respected.

But the point is that having a child is a completely different situation. The child is a human being and very much an Intercal part of the decision that the mother unilaterally made. It is an unusual thing that one person can make the choice for another not to know his or her blood relations or to have any opportunity to see the people the child is related to. With that kind of extreme right, my view is that there is also a responsibility to behave humanely. These are often children who have no idea why their parents abandoned them. Why they weren’t worth the trouble, worth the sacrifice, worth even the inconvenience of being embarrassed later in life by being available to answer questions. To me, that is an incredibly selfish act for biological parent. It very well may be that placing your child for adoption is fully altruistic and benefits you were a child. But not offering to provide information or any contact when your own child approaches you to me is the upmost and selfish behavior. At core, I believe that we all owe each other common decency and, where we can provide it, information and enclosure. And when discussing a biological parent, in my view that responsibility is heightened extraordinarily. Giving up your child for adoption in my view takes away the responsibility for caring for and raising the child. It does not take away the responsibility of behaving empathetically and with an open heart and kindness to a life that you brought into the world.



So if it says no trespassing on the fence, it’s okay if I break in the side door?

So if you decide you don’t want to be resuscitated can you decide that every adult that is tangentially related to you won’t be resuscitated either?

No, but to follow your bouncing ball, if I write an order that I don’t want to be resuscitated, the; I don’t want to be resuscuitated. I don’t expect the medical team to contact my cousins to see if I really meant it, or for them to doubt my decision because it’s been a while.

The bio mother cannot make decisions and ultimatums for the entire biological family. Again, she doesn't have the proprietary ownership of this person.

No, but she does have proprietary ownership of her experience and what happened to her 20 years ago. This argument throughout this thread is akin to simple gossiping. Seriously. If you know something about someone, it doesn't give you the right to share that information with that person's nieces, nephews, aunts, whatever. Of course you have a right to share your own information, but it is just common decency to not spread the story of your BM with distant relatives (or any relatives for that matter).

So, adoptee could have contact her bio family and just said I'm related to you without sharing any more - but to share the BM's story is simply spreading gossip.

Ok- here is the fallacy. It seems to be all about her and the experience that she can control. Once the child is born, the child carries with it the entire ancestry and decendancy. And no, she has no control over that. That kid has relatives now that are his, not just her. The continual issue that you are bringing forward has to do with what is being characterized as a shameful act- to be gossiped about. It seems to always come back to this- and that she should have control over that. She has no control- even in a closed adoption, she can refuse contact later, but that doesn't control any other relative, the father, the siblings, the grandparents, cousins etc. all of whom have a say here, too. The child's existance and agency is dicatated by no one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A closed adopted does not assume the birth mother wanted no contact. Stop repeating this ad nauseum. It was designed to protect the ADOPTIVE PARENTS only. Keep in mind also that the birth father had zero rights for many years. It is pretty easy, btw, to find the bio mother without DNA...and much harder for her to find the adoptive family.

This is ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE. Before an adoption takes place, an option for a closed adoption is solely made by the birth mother. She is not opting for a closed adoption to protect the adoptive parents - she is choosing that option to protect herself.
Please stop spewing false information. You are referencing the early days of adoption when there were mandatory closed adoptions. that stopped decades ago. And when a birth mother chooses a closed adoption, it is SOLELY her decision and she makes it for her benefit only.

Until the past 10-15 years the majority of adoptions were close. It was standard practice. Most people are talking about adoptions where the adoptees are adults and open adoptions were very rare.

Yes, not to mention the open adoptions that were later closed by the adoptive parents.

This is very common where parents make promises and don't follow them. There are few courts that uphold open adoption agreements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A closed adopted does not assume the birth mother wanted no contact. Stop repeating this ad nauseum. It was designed to protect the ADOPTIVE PARENTS only. Keep in mind also that the birth father had zero rights for many years. It is pretty easy, btw, to find the bio mother without DNA...and much harder for her to find the adoptive family.

This is ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE. Before an adoption takes place, an option for a closed adoption is solely made by the birth mother. She is not opting for a closed adoption to protect the adoptive parents - she is choosing that option to protect herself.
Please stop spewing false information. You are referencing the early days of adoption when there were mandatory closed adoptions. that stopped decades ago. And when a birth mother chooses a closed adoption, it is SOLELY her decision and she makes it for her benefit only.

Until the past 10-15 years the majority of adoptions were close. It was standard practice. Most people are talking about adoptions where the adoptees are adults and open adoptions were very rare.

Yes, not to mention the open adoptions that were later closed by the adoptive parents.

That's not what the pp was talking about and you know that. And open adoptions were available and becoming more common in the 70's and were what most birth mothers were doing when the 90s came around. And I'm sure that's before OP's sister was born so in this case, it was clearly done for the birth mother's protection - not the adoptive parents' protection like the pp says.

[Anonymous]

Your sister is wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only people who's opinions should count are the birth family's and the adoptee. No one else. Not the adoptive family and certainly not the random general public who have no idea or experience about adoption and couldn't possibly fathom what it's like to have placed a child or be adopted. Everyone else is talking out of their ass.

Like the woman who chose to give up her child for adoption, closed the adoption, didn’t want to be contacted, but had her family contacted (instead of her), regardless?

Adoptee didn’t find her family using a PI they gave their genetic material to a private corporation who btw didn’t guarantee that they wouldn’t be contacting by ppl they wouldn’t want to hear from. Birth mother should be just as angry with her relatives.

nope
just because you found out your mother doesn't mean you have the right to contact her (much less insist on it) if she explicitly said she didn't want you to

Well when someone opts into being contacted on one of these platforms it does. That’s why you have the option to not do that. Have you ever used 23 and me or Ancestry? You select to allow people to contact you. Also as is obvious from the first post...OP’s sister didn’t contact her relatives through any other means besides the website.

This is being obtuse for the sake of being obtuse.

The adoptee KNEW it was a closed adoption, and that the mother was adamant she should not be contacted. In what world should someone then extrapolate that it’s okay to contact everyone else they can get their hands on and tell them their (and thus, also the birth mother’s) story? And the. Actually feels upset that no one wants to buy in?

NP. Because *other adults who have full agency are involved in this scenario.* If I had a half-sibling out there, I would want to know. And I would figure out a way to make contact and possibly form a connection without involving my mother or father. Yes, the birth mother gets to decide no contact. But the child can choose to pursue contacts with other blood relatives, and those blood relatives can choose to engage or not. Once it is clear that anyone in this scenario is not interested in contact, that right should be respected.

But the point is that having a child is a completely different situation. The child is a human being and very much an Intercal part of the decision that the mother unilaterally made. It is an unusual thing that one person can make the choice for another not to know his or her blood relations or to have any opportunity to see the people the child is related to. With that kind of extreme right, my view is that there is also a responsibility to behave humanely. These are often children who have no idea why their parents abandoned them. Why they weren’t worth the trouble, worth the sacrifice, worth even the inconvenience of being embarrassed later in life by being available to answer questions. To me, that is an incredibly selfish act for biological parent. It very well may be that placing your child for adoption is fully altruistic and benefits you were a child. But not offering to provide information or any contact when your own child approaches you to me is the upmost and selfish behavior. At core, I believe that we all owe each other common decency and, where we can provide it, information and enclosure. And when discussing a biological parent, in my view that responsibility is heightened extraordinarily. Giving up your child for adoption in my view takes away the responsibility for caring for and raising the child. It does not take away the responsibility of behaving empathetically and with an open heart and kindness to a life that you brought into the world.



So if it says no trespassing on the fence, it’s okay if I break in the side door?

So if you decide you don’t want to be resuscitated can you decide that every adult that is tangentially related to you won’t be resuscitated either?

No, but to follow your bouncing ball, if I write an order that I don’t want to be resuscitated, the; I don’t want to be resuscuitated. I don’t expect the medical team to contact my cousins to see if I really meant it, or for them to doubt my decision because it’s been a while.

The bio mother cannot make decisions and ultimatums for the entire biological family. Again, she doesn't have the proprietary ownership of this person.

No, but she does have proprietary ownership of her experience and what happened to her 20 years ago. This argument throughout this thread is akin to simple gossiping. Seriously. If you know something about someone, it doesn't give you the right to share that information with that person's nieces, nephews, aunts, whatever. Of course you have a right to share your own information, but it is just common decency to not spread the story of your BM with distant relatives (or any relatives for that matter).

So, adoptee could have contact her bio family and just said I'm related to you without sharing any more - but to share the BM's story is simply spreading gossip.

Are you seriously of the view that people have the “right” to not be gossiped about?

Yea there are certain actions that a birth mothers family should or could do to be kind. But having elected to have a closed birth does not mean they are required to do that. That’s the point that PP is making. Nothing about having a closed adoption means you can control the future behavior of your relatives or your biological child or stop people from using technology that did not even exist when you made that decision.

No, I didn't say she had a right not to be gossiped about (eye roll back at ya) I said it's just common decency. See bolded part.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Ok- here is the fallacy. It seems to be all about her and the experience that she can control. Once the child is born, the child carries with it the entire ancestry and decendancy. And no, she has no control over that. That kid has relatives now that are his, not just her. The continual issue that you are bringing forward has to do with what is being characterized as a shameful act- to be gossiped about. It seems to always come back to this- and that she should have control over that. She has no control- even in a closed adoption, she can refuse contact later, but that doesn't control any other relative, the father, the siblings, the grandparents, cousins etc. all of whom have a say here, too. The child's existance and agency is dicatated by no one.

Surely you understand that the news of a child given up for adoption a long time ago introduces major upheaval into the birth mother's relationship with her family members who were not aware of the child. Possibly ruin them. Possibly change them forever. Your position, then, is that she should simply deal with it. Get over it. The rights of the adopted child make all of this unimportant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only people who's opinions should count are the birth family's and the adoptee. No one else. Not the adoptive family and certainly not the random general public who have no idea or experience about adoption and couldn't possibly fathom what it's like to have placed a child or be adopted. Everyone else is talking out of their ass.

Like the woman who chose to give up her child for adoption, closed the adoption, didn’t want to be contacted, but had her family contacted (instead of her), regardless?

Adoptee didn’t find her family using a PI they gave their genetic material to a private corporation who btw didn’t guarantee that they wouldn’t be contacting by ppl they wouldn’t want to hear from. Birth mother should be just as angry with her relatives.

nope
just because you found out your mother doesn't mean you have the right to contact her (much less insist on it) if she explicitly said she didn't want you to

Well when someone opts into being contacted on one of these platforms it does. That’s why you have the option to not do that. Have you ever used 23 and me or Ancestry? You select to allow people to contact you. Also as is obvious from the first post...OP’s sister didn’t contact her relatives through any other means besides the website.

This is being obtuse for the sake of being obtuse.

The adoptee KNEW it was a closed adoption, and that the mother was adamant she should not be contacted. In what world should someone then extrapolate that it’s okay to contact everyone else they can get their hands on and tell them their (and thus, also the birth mother’s) story? And the. Actually feels upset that no one wants to buy in?

NP. Because *other adults who have full agency are involved in this scenario.* If I had a half-sibling out there, I would want to know. And I would figure out a way to make contact and possibly form a connection without involving my mother or father. Yes, the birth mother gets to decide no contact. But the child can choose to pursue contacts with other blood relatives, and those blood relatives can choose to engage or not. Once it is clear that anyone in this scenario is not interested in contact, that right should be respected.

But the point is that having a child is a completely different situation. The child is a human being and very much an Intercal part of the decision that the mother unilaterally made. It is an unusual thing that one person can make the choice for another not to know his or her blood relations or to have any opportunity to see the people the child is related to. With that kind of extreme right, my view is that there is also a responsibility to behave humanely. These are often children who have no idea why their parents abandoned them. Why they weren’t worth the trouble, worth the sacrifice, worth even the inconvenience of being embarrassed later in life by being available to answer questions. To me, that is an incredibly selfish act for biological parent. It very well may be that placing your child for adoption is fully altruistic and benefits you were a child. But not offering to provide information or any contact when your own child approaches you to me is the upmost and selfish behavior. At core, I believe that we all owe each other common decency and, where we can provide it, information and enclosure. And when discussing a biological parent, in my view that responsibility is heightened extraordinarily. Giving up your child for adoption in my view takes away the responsibility for caring for and raising the child. It does not take away the responsibility of behaving empathetically and with an open heart and kindness to a life that you brought into the world.



So if it says no trespassing on the fence, it’s okay if I break in the side door?

So if you decide you don’t want to be resuscitated can you decide that every adult that is tangentially related to you won’t be resuscitated either?

No, but to follow your bouncing ball, if I write an order that I don’t want to be resuscitated, the; I don’t want to be resuscuitated. I don’t expect the medical team to contact my cousins to see if I really meant it, or for them to doubt my decision because it’s been a while.

The bio mother cannot make decisions and ultimatums for the entire biological family. Again, she doesn't have the proprietary ownership of this person.

No, but she does have proprietary ownership of her experience and what happened to her 20 years ago. This argument throughout this thread is akin to simple gossiping. Seriously. If you know something about someone, it doesn't give you the right to share that information with that person's nieces, nephews, aunts, whatever. Of course you have a right to share your own information, but it is just common decency to not spread the story of your BM with distant relatives (or any relatives for that matter).

So, adoptee could have contact her bio family and just said I'm related to you without sharing any more - but to share the BM's story is simply spreading gossip.

Are you seriously of the view that people have the “right” to not be gossiped about?

Yea there are certain actions that a birth mothers family should or could do to be kind. But having elected to have a closed birth does not mean they are required to do that. That’s the point that PP is making. Nothing about having a closed adoption means you can control the future behavior of your relatives or your biological child or stop people from using technology that did not even exist when you made that decision.

No, I didn't say she had a right not to be gossiped about (eye roll back at ya) I said it's just common decency. See bolded part.

You said that the birth mother had a “proprietary ownership” over her experience. My point is that, and I would think this would be obvious, that is not a thing in this context.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Ok- here is the fallacy. It seems to be all about her and the experience that she can control. Once the child is born, the child carries with it the entire ancestry and decendancy. And no, she has no control over that. That kid has relatives now that are his, not just her. The continual issue that you are bringing forward has to do with what is being characterized as a shameful act- to be gossiped about. It seems to always come back to this- and that she should have control over that. She has no control- even in a closed adoption, she can refuse contact later, but that doesn't control any other relative, the father, the siblings, the grandparents, cousins etc. all of whom have a say here, too. The child's existance and agency is dicatated by no one.

Surely you understand that the news of a child given up for adoption a long time ago introduces major upheaval into the birth mother's relationship with her family members who were not aware of the child. Possibly ruin them. Possibly change them forever. Your position, then, is that she should simply deal with it. Get over it. The rights of the adopted child make all of this unimportant.

DP. PP you need help and have basically ruined this thread by crazily attacking everyone. The person you are responded to only said that the child has agency as well. You don’t accept that not sure why you can’t acknowledge that other people do actually have the ability to make there own choices. Where did they say that the rights of the child make everything else unimportant? They didn’t even use the word rights or even touch on the concept. You just read that into every post and refuse to let anyone else respond to anything without you making the same point over and over again.

[Anonymous]

*their

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Ok- here is the fallacy. It seems to be all about her and the experience that she can control. Once the child is born, the child carries with it the entire ancestry and decendancy. And no, she has no control over that. That kid has relatives now that are his, not just her. The continual issue that you are bringing forward has to do with what is being characterized as a shameful act- to be gossiped about. It seems to always come back to this- and that she should have control over that. She has no control- even in a closed adoption, she can refuse contact later, but that doesn't control any other relative, the father, the siblings, the grandparents, cousins etc. all of whom have a say here, too. The child's existance and agency is dicatated by no one.

Surely you understand that the news of a child given up for adoption a long time ago introduces major upheaval into the birth mother's relationship with her family members who were not aware of the child. Possibly ruin them. Possibly change them forever. Your position, then, is that she should simply deal with it. Get over it. The rights of the adopted child make all of this unimportant.

DP. PP you need help and have basically ruined this thread by crazily attacking everyone. The person you are responded to only said that the child has agency as well. You don’t accept that not sure why you can’t acknowledge that other people do actually have the ability to make there own choices. Where did they say that the rights of the child make everything else unimportant? They didn’t even use the word rights or even touch on the concept. You just read that into every post and refuse to let anyone else respond to anything without you making the same point over and over again.

What? This is my second or MAYBE third response on this 22-page thread. You have me confused with someone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Ok- here is the fallacy. It seems to be all about her and the experience that she can control. Once the child is born, the child carries with it the entire ancestry and decendancy. And no, she has no control over that. That kid has relatives now that are his, not just her. The continual issue that you are bringing forward has to do with what is being characterized as a shameful act- to be gossiped about. It seems to always come back to this- and that she should have control over that. She has no control- even in a closed adoption, she can refuse contact later, but that doesn't control any other relative, the father, the siblings, the grandparents, cousins etc. all of whom have a say here, too. The child's existance and agency is dicatated by no one.

Surely you understand that the news of a child given up for adoption a long time ago introduces major upheaval into the birth mother's relationship with her family members who were not aware of the child. Possibly ruin them. Possibly change them forever. Your position, then, is that she should simply deal with it. Get over it. The rights of the adopted child make all of this unimportant.

DP. PP you need help and have basically ruined this thread by crazily attacking everyone. The person you are responded to only said that the child has agency as well. You don’t accept that not sure why you can’t acknowledge that other people do actually have the ability to make there own choices. Where did they say that the rights of the child make everything else unimportant? They didn’t even use the word rights or even touch on the concept. You just read that into every post and refuse to let anyone else respond to anything without you making the same point over and over again.

What? This is my second or MAYBE third response on this 22-page thread. You have me confused with someone else.

PP would like to posit that anyone who disagrees with her “has issues”, is “crazy”, “needs help” or is ruining the thread, without understanding that other people see the world differently than they do. They’ve even dragged this attitude into the other adoption thread. No sense even trying to post anymore, as she is clearly the only person allowed an opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Ok- here is the fallacy. It seems to be all about her and the experience that she can control. Once the child is born, the child carries with it the entire ancestry and decendancy. And no, she has no control over that. That kid has relatives now that are his, not just her. The continual issue that you are bringing forward has to do with what is being characterized as a shameful act- to be gossiped about. It seems to always come back to this- and that she should have control over that. She has no control- even in a closed adoption, she can refuse contact later, but that doesn't control any other relative, the father, the siblings, the grandparents, cousins etc. all of whom have a say here, too. The child's existance and agency is dicatated by no one.

Surely you understand that the news of a child given up for adoption a long time ago introduces major upheaval into the birth mother's relationship with her family members who were not aware of the child. Possibly ruin them. Possibly change them forever. Your position, then, is that she should simply deal with it. Get over it. The rights of the adopted child make all of this unimportant.

DP. PP you need help and have basically ruined this thread by crazily attacking everyone. The person you are responded to only said that the child has agency as well. You don’t accept that not sure why you can’t acknowledge that other people do actually have the ability to make there own choices. Where did they say that the rights of the child make everything else unimportant? They didn’t even use the word rights or even touch on the concept. You just read that into every post and refuse to let anyone else respond to anything without you making the same point over and over again.

What? This is my second or MAYBE third response on this 22-page thread. You have me confused with someone else.

PP would like to posit that anyone who disagrees with her “has issues”, is “crazy”, “needs help” or is ruining the thread, without understanding that other people see the world differently than they do. They’ve even dragged this attitude into the other adoption thread. No sense even trying to post anymore, as she is clearly the only person allowed an opinion.

There you are!