Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Abortions cost money. Not everyone has easy access to abortions. You clearly don't understand all the aspects to this kind of thing. Your posts are really offensive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1 I think the PP must be in denial about the extreme trauma of giving up one's child, EVEN IF the choice was made freely. Birth mothers describe having to basically cut off an entire part of themselves in order to move on. I personally cannot even imagine.

Then there is the "primal wound" of the child, who carries with her the trauma of being separated from the mother she knew for 9 months in the womb. And the subsequent difficulties of potentially feeling different from her adoptive family and knowing there's a mom out there who gave you up for some reason. Adoptees do not have it easy, even when placed with rich, nice families. Some adoptees say they are totally fine, but many of the same report having been in a "fog," only able to deal with the losses of their adoption when they get to mid-life.

The more I think about it, the more I feel that adoption should be incredibly rare.

Start your own thread. Enough with the non-sense and stick to the topic. The discussion is about a couple trying to adopt.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1 I think the PP must be in denial about the extreme trauma of giving up one's child, EVEN IF the choice was made freely. Birth mothers describe having to basically cut off an entire part of themselves in order to move on. I personally cannot even imagine.

Then there is the "primal wound" of the child, who carries with her the trauma of being separated from the mother she knew for 9 months in the womb. And the subsequent difficulties of potentially feeling different from her adoptive family and knowing there's a mom out there who gave you up for some reason. Adoptees do not have it easy, even when placed with rich, nice families. Some adoptees say they are totally fine, but many of the same report having been in a "fog," only able to deal with the losses of their adoption when they get to mid-life.

The more I think about it, the more I feel that adoption should be incredibly rare.

Anonymous wrote:

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.