Closed Adoption and found the birth mother

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I guess we'll have to disagree on this. I don't think the birth parent gets to decide on behalf of the adoptee that the adoptee will maintain his/her birth as a secret. The good news is that modern technology being what it is, people should now understand that the person they are placing for adoption might come back later, and add that fact into their decisionmaking.

NP

You are talking about different spheres of information.

And adopted person should not be made to keep their birth a secret. They should not have to keep the fact that they were adopted a secret. But whether a specified, particular woman gave birth to a child is information that belongs to that woman.

I'd argue that similarly, whether a given child was born to a particular family is their information, not the family's. So if it got down to it, for example, if your father was a mass murderer, you should have privacy and control over the fact you -- an identified person -- were born to him. The family shouldn't be able to "out" you if you have chosen not to reveal that information.

Excellent explanation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I guess we'll have to disagree on this. I don't think the birth parent gets to decide on behalf of the adoptee that the adoptee will maintain his/her birth as a secret. The good news is that modern technology being what it is, people should now understand that the person they are placing for adoption might come back later, and add that fact into their decisionmaking.

NP

You are talking about different spheres of information.

And adopted person should not be made to keep their birth a secret. They should not have to keep the fact that they were adopted a secret. But whether a specified, particular woman gave birth to a child is information that belongs to that woman.

I'd argue that similarly, whether a given child was born to a particular family is their information, not the family's. So if it got down to it, for example, if your father was a mass murderer, you should have privacy and control over the fact you -- an identified person -- were born to him. The family shouldn't be able to "out" you if you have chosen not to reveal that information.

Excellent explanation.

Really? I think this is a bizarre perspective. I have an obligation not to publicly acknowledge my child if they don’t acknowledge me? Why? Why is info re: family in the hands of the youngest member thereof? Like, I as the mass murderer have the right to identify my parents against their will, but not my children? That makes no sense. Throwing in the mass murderer angle just scrambles your intuitions because there’s a “good” reason for the privacy sought... But that intuition has nothing to do with it being a parent’s v a child’s privacy right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole idea behind a closed and sealed adoption is just part of the whole 'evil' regime of shaming women and protecting men. Sorry, but the parties won't have privacy. However, the mother and siblings owe her nothing except the information at hand. She should not expect a "family."

Oh, bullshit. It protected the birth mom, too who likely wanted to go on with her life after the adoption. It isn't some evil male plot.

Sorry, men could go on with out a second thought. They held no responsibility or shame. The woman held the entire bag.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I guess we'll have to disagree on this. I don't think the birth parent gets to decide on behalf of the adoptee that the adoptee will maintain his/her birth as a secret. The good news is that modern technology being what it is, people should now understand that the person they are placing for adoption might come back later, and add that fact into their decisionmaking.

NP

You are talking about different spheres of information.

And adopted person should not be made to keep their birth a secret. They should not have to keep the fact that they were adopted a secret. But whether a specified, particular woman gave birth to a child is information that belongs to that woman.

I'd argue that similarly, whether a given child was born to a particular family is their information, not the family's. So if it got down to it, for example, if your father was a mass murderer, you should have privacy and control over the fact you -- an identified person -- were born to him. The family shouldn't be able to "out" you if you have chosen not to reveal that information.

Excellent explanation.

I don't think you understand why analogies are useful in reasoning.

Really? I think this is a bizarre perspective. I have an obligation not to publicly acknowledge my child if they don’t acknowledge me? Why? Why is info re: family in the hands of the youngest member thereof? Like, I as the mass murderer have the right to identify my parents against their will, but not my children? That makes no sense. Throwing in the mass murderer angle just scrambles your intuitions because there’s a “good” reason for the privacy sought... But that intuition has nothing to do with it being a parent’s v a child’s privacy right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I guess we'll have to disagree on this. I don't think the birth parent gets to decide on behalf of the adoptee that the adoptee will maintain his/her birth as a secret. The good news is that modern technology being what it is, people should now understand that the person they are placing for adoption might come back later, and add that fact into their decisionmaking.

NP

You are talking about different spheres of information.

And adopted person should not be made to keep their birth a secret. They should not have to keep the fact that they were adopted a secret. But whether a specified, particular woman gave birth to a child is information that belongs to that woman.

I'd argue that similarly, whether a given child was born to a particular family is their information, not the family's. So if it got down to it, for example, if your father was a mass murderer, you should have privacy and control over the fact you -- an identified person -- were born to him. The family shouldn't be able to "out" you if you have chosen not to reveal that information.

Excellent explanation.

Really? I think this is a bizarre perspective. I have an obligation not to publicly acknowledge my child if they don’t acknowledge me? Why? Why is info re: family in the hands of the youngest member thereof? Like, I as the mass murderer have the right to identify my parents against their will, but not my children? That makes no sense. Throwing in the mass murderer angle just scrambles your intuitions because there’s a “good” reason for the privacy sought... But that intuition has nothing to do with it being a parent’s v a child’s privacy right.

I don't think you understand why analogies are useful in reasoning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
OP here. My parents are 100% on whatever side my sister is on, so they're saying the same thing my sister is saying. My sister thinks there's no right to privacy in this new age with DNA tests. It was a closed adoption but my parents always told my sister she was adopted and were open with her.

I don't blame my sister for wanting a second family. We have awesome parents and family, but who wouldn't want to see what their genetic mom and siblings are like? My sister wants to know everything- medical questions, what they look like, their family stories.

I sort of don't see this story ending well for anyone involved.

I can understand where your sister is coming from but she's not going to get what she wants. She won't be able to hound these people into a relationship with her and pushing the issue is just as likely to seal that door shut forever.

Another adult adoptee here. Sure, we are all curious about this, but the price in this case sounds way too high. She is being told to cease and desist, so she should take the hint. If she doesn't, she is in for nothing but hurt.

It's sad that our culture has led so many adopted people to believe that they are somehow not complete (or "real") until they find their DNA trail.

This to the bolded part. There is nothing magical about DNA and emotional connection. She should be thankful her birth mother decided not to abort her and place her for adoption if she didn't want to raise her. Leave the poor woman alone.

Well there's nothing they can do since they don't want anything to do with them. I suspect she's probably unhappy and thought this was going to fix it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I guess we'll have to disagree on this. I don't think the birth parent gets to decide on behalf of the adoptee that the adoptee will maintain his/her birth as a secret. The good news is that modern technology being what it is, people should now understand that the person they are placing for adoption might come back later, and add that fact into their decisionmaking.

NP

You are talking about different spheres of information.

And adopted person should not be made to keep their birth a secret. They should not have to keep the fact that they were adopted a secret. But whether a specified, particular woman gave birth to a child is information that belongs to that woman.

I'd argue that similarly, whether a given child was born to a particular family is their information, not the family's. So if it got down to it, for example, if your father was a mass murderer, you should have privacy and control over the fact you -- an identified person -- were born to him. The family shouldn't be able to "out" you if you have chosen not to reveal that information.

Excellent explanation.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I guess we'll have to disagree on this. I don't think the birth parent gets to decide on behalf of the adoptee that the adoptee will maintain his/her birth as a secret. The good news is that modern technology being what it is, people should now understand that the person they are placing for adoption might come back later, and add that fact into their decisionmaking.

NP

You are talking about different spheres of information.

And adopted person should not be made to keep their birth a secret. They should not have to keep the fact that they were adopted a secret. But whether a specified, particular woman gave birth to a child is information that belongs to that woman.

I'd argue that similarly, whether a given child was born to a particular family is their information, not the family's. So if it got down to it, for example, if your father was a mass murderer, you should have privacy and control over the fact you -- an identified person -- were born to him. The family shouldn't be able to "out" you if you have chosen not to reveal that information.

Excellent explanation.

Really? I think this is a bizarre perspective. I have an obligation not to publicly acknowledge my child if they don’t acknowledge me? Why? Why is info re: family in the hands of the youngest member thereof? Like, I as the mass murderer have the right to identify my parents against their will, but not my children? That makes no sense. Throwing in the mass murderer angle just scrambles your intuitions because there’s a “good” reason for the privacy sought... But that intuition has nothing to do with it being a parent’s v a child’s privacy right.

I don't think you understand why analogies are useful in reasoning.

So, first off, the mass murder example isn’t used as an analogy here. And, second, PP explains why it’s not a useful hypothetical. Do you think a mass murderer has the right to expose their parents but not their kids? Because that’s where that “analogy” leads Andrew I think PP is correct that that doesn’t make a lot of sense.

[Anonymous]

What if the adoptees father is one of many gang rapusts? One friend I know carried the baby from her gang rape (very pro life) and had a sealed adoption decades ago. It was sealed for a reason, she has no idea who the dad is and he is a rapist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why would you think I would want you now if I gave you up then?

What? Because most adoptions were not a result of the mother's choice. It was a societal mandate. What a stupid remark. But, when you find out the mother was an actual horrid person, then be glad you got out.

I think this is changing and stories/media/expectations are slow to catch up. There were lots of birth Mother’s in the early 1980s and before who were forced to give up theirs babies and didn’t really want to. But with a 35-40 year old birth mom - that’s the 1990s. I’m sure there were still some teenagers forced into it, but the ratio is not as high. Add to that birth mom had the option to allow disclosure at 18 and chose not to, you have a much lower likelihood of a good result of contacting this person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What if the adoptees father is one of many gang rapusts? One friend I know carried the baby from her gang rape (very pro life) and had a sealed adoption decades ago. It was sealed for a reason, she has no idea who the dad is and he is a rapist.

Rape, molestation.... there are reasons a woman may want to stay anonymous. Nobody has the right to "out" anyone. You have no clue what you might be dredging up.