Anonymous wrote:Adoption is for children who need homes. Not for adults who want a child. Full stop.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my opinion, adoption is trauma, for the mother and the child, at least the way it was practiced in the 1920s-1970s, conservatively. I have a father and husband who were adopted. Maybe the trauma gets balanced out in some cases. But there is trauma.

Some people have this crazy idea of adoption that they "save" a poor infant. There are some stories like that. But mostly, for the majority of recent past, young women were forced into giving up babies they loved to people who were better positioned. Babies as commodity. And now, you barely get a baby unless you hire someone to gestate for you.

Today it's hard to adopt an infant, but easier to adopt an older child who comes with emotional problems, special needs, etc. Those kids are waiting for homes while most prospective adoptive parents want a perfect infant.

I feel bad for people who want to adopt and are waiting. But not sure I could make the same choice. I respect you for it, if you understand the trauma and are not in a fantasy world of creating a family without considering what went on before.

It’s not the adoption that causes the trauma; it’s the circumstances that lead to birth parents placing their children for adoption. Don’t blame adoption.

For the scoop era babies, there was no actual situation was traumatic. An unwed pregnancy is not trauma. An affair isn't traumatic, a young mother isn't traumatic unless the society says it is and removes the child because of misogyny. Now? It's more often than not elitism. Why should a well to do couple have a baby over a poor mother who can't raise a child and continue to educate herself and survive, regardless of what country the mother is from? Why not help the mother? It's still an industry- look at how the GOP fuels it.

Why do you think that all these mothers want and are capable of raising their children? I agree with you about the past, and I. Any speak to international adoptions because I don’t know enough about it. But here, it is possible to raise your kids, no matter how poor you are. It’s not easy, but I know it’s possible because I come from a family that had plenty of young, unwed mothers (not that this is the only demographic choosing adoption). My own mother had 3 kids before she eventually married and had a fourth. I am an adoptive mom and I met my daughter’s birth mother. She was in her late 20’s and She had one child and said that raising her second was not fair to her first child or my daughter. I hope my DD reconnects with her birth parents if she wants to do that. Her mom made the choice that she thought was best for everyone involved. She wasn’t forced into it.

If she couldn't live and support her child which is why it appears "she wasn't forced into it" means that her circumstances forced the decision. Your argument is very surface level comparing unwed mothers of previous decades to women today. Society no longer judges unwed mothers and forces them and underage women and "forces" them to relinquish a child, but now it's financial and life circumstances. As a country, we don't even support families, any kind of family, on any level. .health care, family leave, flexible working schedules, the list goes on.

Women graduate college with unprecedented loans, and before you indicate that they could have gone to community college or a state school ( also not cheap) , perhaps a woman in veterinary or med school or any higher learning-might have to give up a child because she can't take a break due to the loans already incurred. My point is that the rich and unencumbered win children from these situations.

Anonymous wrote:

ou have described parenting, not contact.
Sounds like you want to set up the argument so that you sound right. .

It is about the child having options to meet their needs (and answer their questions). Their needs are likely to change as they grow. They don't NEED two sets of parents, but having two sets of parents might be made easier if one is not a mysterious black box. The child may want to know what they look like, what their health was and why they were unable to raise them themselves.

You, the adoptive parent, know your story. Your child will want to know theirs.

There is a BIG range between "knowing your story" and "open adoption". I am all for adopted kids knowing ---in age appropriate progression---their personal story and I am all in favor of providing birth families periodic updates on the adopted child. As a parent via adoption, I do both of those things and our children are healthier for it. I am not in favor of "open" adoptions where birth family has the right to float in and out of the child's life at will. That creates a destabilizing effect on the child and also on the adoptive family---who are reduced to role of caretakers and funders---not parents. I really dislike the trend-chasing in the social work industry. Family reunification as the dominant end-all, be-all policy in foster care and push for open adoptions as the optimal form of adoption are two trends which I think should be re-evaluated.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my opinion, adoption is trauma, for the mother and the child, at least the way it was practiced in the 1920s-1970s, conservatively. I have a father and husband who were adopted. Maybe the trauma gets balanced out in some cases. But there is trauma.

Some people have this crazy idea of adoption that they "save" a poor infant. There are some stories like that. But mostly, for the majority of recent past, young women were forced into giving up babies they loved to people who were better positioned. Babies as commodity. And now, you barely get a baby unless you hire someone to gestate for you.

Today it's hard to adopt an infant, but easier to adopt an older child who comes with emotional problems, special needs, etc. Those kids are waiting for homes while most prospective adoptive parents want a perfect infant.

I feel bad for people who want to adopt and are waiting. But not sure I could make the same choice. I respect you for it, if you understand the trauma and are not in a fantasy world of creating a family without considering what went on before.

It’s not the adoption that causes the trauma; it’s the circumstances that lead to birth parents placing their children for adoption. Don’t blame adoption.

For the scoop era babies, there was no actual situation was traumatic. An unwed pregnancy is not trauma. An affair isn't traumatic, a young mother isn't traumatic unless the society says it is and removes the child because of misogyny. Now? It's more often than not elitism. Why should a well to do couple have a baby over a poor mother who can't raise a child and continue to educate herself and survive, regardless of what country the mother is from? Why not help the mother? It's still an industry- look at how the GOP fuels it.

Why do you think that all these mothers want and are capable of raising their children? I agree with you about the past, and I. Any speak to international adoptions because I don’t know enough about it. But here, it is possible to raise your kids, no matter how poor you are. It’s not easy, but I know it’s possible because I come from a family that had plenty of young, unwed mothers (not that this is the only demographic choosing adoption). My own mother had 3 kids before she eventually married and had a fourth. I am an adoptive mom and I met my daughter’s birth mother. She was in her late 20’s and She had one child and said that raising her second was not fair to her first child or my daughter. I hope my DD reconnects with her birth parents if she wants to do that. Her mom made the choice that she thought was best for everyone involved. She wasn’t forced into it.

Anonymous wrote:And on that note...did anyone see footage of the anti-choice march in DC? How about that couple holding the sign advertising they want to adopt someone's baby? Nice marketing strategy there.

ou have described parenting, not contact.
Sounds like you want to set up the argument so that you sound right. .

It is about the child having options to meet their needs (and answer their questions). Their needs are likely to change as they grow. They don't NEED two sets of parents, but having two sets of parents might be made easier if one is not a mysterious black box. The child may want to know what they look like, what their health was and why they were unable to raise them themselves.

You, the adoptive parent, know your story. Your child will want to know theirs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We adopted our kids privately though our attorney. There is no planned contact wit the birth fmaily unless the kids want to on their own when they are 18.

I think this is often the least traumatic. We're seeing problems with our family member's open adoption and the full inclusion of the child's birth family. There are real concerns arising about how this will affect both the adopted child and other children in the family.

It’s more traumatic for kids not to know as well as the birth family.

How do you know this - can you cite a reference? Please show me some longitudinal studies which show that fully integrating the birth family into the child's life is psychologically healthy? I'm not talking about an occasional letter/photos or a visit once or twice per year. I'm talking about full-on involvement - contact at least weekly, birth parents choosing/deciding which clothing child will wear, having their extended family involved and visiting regularly and posting info on SM of "their baby." It's all happy family now while child is young but what happens when conflict arises? Where are the studies which show those impacts on the adopted child and the rest of the families? That information MUST be made available to birth families AND adopters if they want to fully understand the decisions they are making.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my opinion, adoption is trauma, for the mother and the child, at least the way it was practiced in the 1920s-1970s, conservatively. I have a father and husband who were adopted. Maybe the trauma gets balanced out in some cases. But there is trauma.

Some people have this crazy idea of adoption that they "save" a poor infant. There are some stories like that. But mostly, for the majority of recent past, young women were forced into giving up babies they loved to people who were better positioned. Babies as commodity. And now, you barely get a baby unless you hire someone to gestate for you.

Today it's hard to adopt an infant, but easier to adopt an older child who comes with emotional problems, special needs, etc. Those kids are waiting for homes while most prospective adoptive parents want a perfect infant.

I feel bad for people who want to adopt and are waiting. But not sure I could make the same choice. I respect you for it, if you understand the trauma and are not in a fantasy world of creating a family without considering what went on before.

It’s not the adoption that causes the trauma; it’s the circumstances that lead to birth parents placing their children for adoption. Don’t blame adoption.

For the scoop era babies, there was no actual situation was traumatic. An unwed pregnancy is not trauma. An affair isn't traumatic, a young mother isn't traumatic unless the society says it is and removes the child because of misogyny. Now? It's more often than not elitism. Why should a well to do couple have a baby over a poor mother who can't raise a child and continue to educate herself and survive, regardless of what country the mother is from? Why not help the mother? It's still an industry- look at how the GOP fuels it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We adopted our kids privately though our attorney. There is no planned contact wit the birth fmaily unless the kids want to on their own when they are 18.

I think this is often the least traumatic. We're seeing problems with our family member's open adoption and the full inclusion of the child's birth family. There are real concerns arising about how this will affect both the adopted child and other children in the family.

It’s more traumatic for kids not to know as well as the birth family.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my opinion, adoption is trauma, for the mother and the child, at least the way it was practiced in the 1920s-1970s, conservatively. I have a father and husband who were adopted. Maybe the trauma gets balanced out in some cases. But there is trauma.

Some people have this crazy idea of adoption that they "save" a poor infant. There are some stories like that. But mostly, for the majority of recent past, young women were forced into giving up babies they loved to people who were better positioned. Babies as commodity. And now, you barely get a baby unless you hire someone to gestate for you.

Today it's hard to adopt an infant, but easier to adopt an older child who comes with emotional problems, special needs, etc. Those kids are waiting for homes while most prospective adoptive parents want a perfect infant.

I feel bad for people who want to adopt and are waiting. But not sure I could make the same choice. I respect you for it, if you understand the trauma and are not in a fantasy world of creating a family without considering what went on before.

It’s not the adoption that causes the trauma; it’s the circumstances that lead to birth parents placing their children for adoption. Don’t blame adoption.

For the scoop era babies, there was no actual situation was traumatic. An unwed pregnancy is not trauma. An affair isn't traumatic, a young mother isn't traumatic unless the society says it is and removes the child because of misogyny. Now? It's more often than not elitism. Why should a well to do couple have a baby over a poor mother who can't raise a child and continue to educate herself and survive, regardless of what country the mother is from? Why not help the mother? It's still an industry- look at how the GOP fuels it.

What is your point? Some women don't want to parent. Ever consider that?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my opinion, adoption is trauma, for the mother and the child, at least the way it was practiced in the 1920s-1970s, conservatively. I have a father and husband who were adopted. Maybe the trauma gets balanced out in some cases. But there is trauma.

Some people have this crazy idea of adoption that they "save" a poor infant. There are some stories like that. But mostly, for the majority of recent past, young women were forced into giving up babies they loved to people who were better positioned. Babies as commodity. And now, you barely get a baby unless you hire someone to gestate for you.

Today it's hard to adopt an infant, but easier to adopt an older child who comes with emotional problems, special needs, etc. Those kids are waiting for homes while most prospective adoptive parents want a perfect infant.

I feel bad for people who want to adopt and are waiting. But not sure I could make the same choice. I respect you for it, if you understand the trauma and are not in a fantasy world of creating a family without considering what went on before.

It’s not the adoption that causes the trauma; it’s the circumstances that lead to birth parents placing their children for adoption. Don’t blame adoption.

For the scoop era babies, there was no actual situation was traumatic. An unwed pregnancy is not trauma. An affair isn't traumatic, a young mother isn't traumatic unless the society says it is and removes the child because of misogyny. Now? It's more often than not elitism. Why should a well to do couple have a baby over a poor mother who can't raise a child and continue to educate herself and survive, regardless of what country the mother is from? Why not help the mother? It's still an industry- look at how the GOP fuels it.