Reply to Questions for any Adult adoptees on here

Forum Index » Parenting -- Special Concerns

Reply to "Questions for any Adult adoptees on here "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Adoption is whole  different narrative today than  from years ago. There is no such thing as a closed adoption. All parties will be known, including  bio parents, grandparents,  siblings, etc. Adoption was always adoptive parent centered  ( saviors, rescuers) and never  child centered (each child comes with their own identity, no one is being "saved"- women make adoption choices for various reasons, not because of shame or morals), but now it's child  centered.

Yes, they need to be told. No, they do become the adoptive family's culture and  ethnicity  because they look like it or pass, yes they  should know everything when  age appropriate,  and  adoptive parents should encourage  ancestry  and bio family connection if child wants to. The child's identity,  birthdate,  everything is their own.

DNA has replaced all the cloaked secrets. There's no wondering or guessing anymore. No secrets. [/quote]

I don’t know where you get any of this information from.  Yes, there are still MANY closed domestic infant adoptions.  And even when an open adoption is promised to a mother considering relinquishment, there is literally NO legal recourse to that mother if the adopters take her child and then immediately cut off contact, or cut off contact at a later date for whatever reason they want.  And some studies show more than half of options that were promised to be open are actually closed by the adopters.

Yes, it is true that commercial DNA can reveal secrets and rcinnvtvfikyes separated by adoption loss, but that doesn’t in any way ameliorate the loss or the betrayal to both parent and child if an open adoption is later closed by the adopters.

You are also VERY wrong that relinquishing mothers no longer make these choices out of shame.  Christian maternity homes are more popular than ever in the U.S. and they are almost entirely run by evangelical sects that do indeed very purposefully inflict great shame upon the pregnant girl or woman, with the entire premise of adoption being that the act of such “selfless” love is redeeming, and that by giving away their baby to more worthy parents, they are redeeming their their terrible sins of sex outside of marriage.

The podcast Liberty Lost goes into this kind of pervasive shame based messaging in great detail.  The first episode opens with a scene where a relinquishing teen mom is forced into participating in this creepy ceremony where she and the father of the baby have to walk him down the aisle in a public ceremony and place him in the adopters’ arms up at the altar, to great praise from the gathering of their families and others.  The entire ritual is framed as redemptive and cleansing.  But everything about it is shame based [/quote]
I am talking about the current general societal paradigm  of adoption now vs. the Baby Scoop Era. 
Yes, there are legally closed adoptions, but that is no longer something that has to be done. Closed adoptions now  are much rarer because  adoption  is no longer just in the adoptive parents control. Or a court.

The example you gave above is extremely esoteric  and culture bound, it's  certainly not the norm for today compared  to the 50s and 60s. There are religious sects who do creepy things, and what  you describe is definitely  not common at all, but  keeping girls in maternity homes, out of school is actually illegal  unless a family can prove she's homeschooled and there is oversight. Young mothers also have rights if they  choose to buck this antiquated system,  whereas years ago they had no rights.  What you are talking about only exists in extreme rarity. Depending on the state, too,  as marriage at 16 is still legal in some states, but that doesn't mean it's  the norm.

Society has entirely changed sinced earlier generations.  No mandated maternity homes, no need to marry, no need to give the child up- and that is societal, not religious. The mother has more rights when she does give the child up, too. 
With regard to DNA, there is literally no more issue with biological identity at all. There is actually  zero way to keep any part of the members involvement a secret. Yes, I'm  sure there are open adoptions that didn't comply,  but the main thing is that these children  will always know who their biological  family is,  at some time or another. [/quote]
The adoption industry is corrupt and while abuses like you mention are not as common as they used to be, there are still abuses.
Birth mothers are a necessary evil to adoption agencies. They are offered the carrot and the stick.
Just look up savings our sisters and you will see [/quote]
I don't  need to see. I am an adoptee and am very involved in many adoptee organizations. The issue now are religious organizations  that prey on women. [b]The big difference  is that women can always choose,  there's  no social stigma  anymore.  If people are coerced into something  that's  an issue in itself,  [/b]but the adoption process  and paradigm has changed dramatically  over 60 years. There's no secrets  anymore. [/quote]

Well, yes! WOMEN can always choose but when the "woman" is an 18 year old without any financial resources from a low-income family and they are psychologically coerced by adoptive organizations and shady adoption lawyers to give up their children with promises of a "wonderful life with a wonderful family" then, yes then that is a coercive issue.  Dangle money along with that (despite it being illegal - it is done) and you have a child-for-sale situation.

To make it worse, couch it under the "private" adoption and there is virtually no oversight. [/quote]
Yep, but again [b]you are referring to religious organizations[/b] not societal.  The problem for all women young, or not, is the resource angle. This is a whole different story,  but it  still  vastly differs from even 40 years ago where even having and keeping the baby  was impossible.  There's   ways  to seek assistance,  the woman just needs to know what and how. The baby daddy is now held to account, regardless of age -child support,everything. If he cannot, he will go through the law. 
Regarding private adoptions, which  still  are happening, there are definitive laws around those. It's  not gray market or black  market as a general  rule, although  I'm  sure it happens,  especially  with  overseas adoption. My birth certificate is not even real, and I will never know my actual birthday. I was literally sold to the highest bidder. Laws have  tightened  up. 
But, exploitation happens in all arenas regarding family building- fertility clinics, sperm and egg donation,  surrogacy  for sure, and adoption. The difference  is  woman can still  choose,  they can abort  ( depending where they live  now) they can be unwed, they can still work, and if they do choose adoption,  there's no more anonymity.  
[/quote]

You obviously have a pro-adoption narrative you are pushing because nowhere in that post is there a mention of religious organizations.

I am referring to the fact that targeting low-income teens and young women to give up their children to those with more income and money to pay to acquire those children, should be a crime that is prosecuted along the same lines as human/sex trafficking. Period.

Forty years ago it was not impossible for women to keep their babies so I don't know where you are getting that nonsense from. I have several friends who chose to keep their babies and had social and family support. It was tough but there wasn't much stigma and family/friends all rallied to help out. Those kids are now in their 40s and seem to have been fine raised by single mothers and are living life well.

I also know one girl from school who went to a "maternity home" and gave her child up for adoption. She had a much more difficult time and to this day has an emptiness in her life and IMO has never psychologically recovered from that.

Yes, there is "no more anonymity" in adoption which is even worse. Now those girls/women are being told they can have open adoptions but are RARELY told that the adoptive family can rescind that at any time, for no reason. So a mother spends a year or two maybe getting to know her child via the open process and then on a whim and perhaps with no reason, the adoptive family decides she can't see the child any more.

I know of a case of that, too. The rather arrogant adoptive couple didn't like a couple of minor comments made by the bio mom so they decided it was best to cut her out. They were looking for an excuse. I hope they can explain that to their kid when they get old enough to ask.    [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics