Anonymous wrote:PP here who uses the term first mom, and on further thought I am wondering why you feel the term implies better at all. I use first to describe all sorts of things without implying they are better. My first house was tiny, my second house is definitely better. My first dog was very cute, but frankly the second dog we got after he died is more loyal and well behaved. I love my first born child, but not more than his subsequent siblings.

So, why do you feel that acknowledging that the other mother came first lessens your role?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bio does not equal better.

It is not a question of a young woman being "unworthy" or motherhood. SOME women are unprepared for motherhood when it arrives in their life.

Talk about the trauma of growing up with an addicted parent or a parent who will not leave an abusive partner. Yes, such parents need support...BUT that does not mean that the babies in question should have to be the canary in the coal mine while that parent is TRYING to work through their issues. They have ONE childhood. They are worthy of a healthy, safe, secure place to grow up.

There's that.

It depends on the situation and biological family and adoptive family. There is a huge range of adoptive families. Some do it to give the child a good life, some do it to fill their checkbox to be parents, some do it because they want the large families and often the adopted kids are treated differently and some do it for money, especially foster to adopt when they get the stipend. I know some kids who would be better off in their biological families and others who are not.

However, this poster sounds like a birth mom who regrets or was forced to place for adoption and isn't looking at the entire picture. There are tons of shady adoptions - private, agency, international and foster. And, there are tons of ethical ones. Adoption is an industry and has become a business. It is a bit sick but that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

We had a very difficult experience adoption and something traumatic happen post adoption. You are lucky if you had a simple/clean adoption. We did not.


There is no such thing as a first mom. That term is absurd. Adoptive moms are not second moms, back up moms, the moms of last resort.

NP here with an older adopted child.

My kid’s story contains a huge amount of trauma, trauma that shaped who he is, and that has made integrating him into our family hard work for both him and us. But, in our case, attributing the trauma to adoption would be unfair.

Having said that, my kid absolutely had a “first mom”. She was his mom before I was, so that makes me his second mom (or maybe his third, depends how you count). And I am absolutely the back up. My kid is loved and well cared for in our home, but there is no doubt that the best choice for him would have been to stay with his biological parents. Unfortunately, a drunk driver took that option away. I am so glad that he is with us, but I’m not going to pretend that we are the first choice.

Anonymous wrote:Is there a for profit adoption industry? Yes of course there is, but there are also plenty of women out there that simply aren't ready to parent the children they give birth to. It's very arrogant to assume that parenting and reunification is best for all women. Some women will never be good parents no matter how many resources you provide them. Assuming that providing financial resources to people will solve all of their issues is ridiculous.

I adopted my son through a semi-family member (his birth mother is the mother of my cousin's child). His BM was a teenager on her 3rd child. The 1st was/is being raised by another relative, she had the 2nd in her custody (later removed due to neglect and parental misconduct) and her 3rd child was my son.

Shortly after my son's birth she went on to commit a crime that caused her to be incarcerated. Now, she has been released and has yet another child that she is apparently parenting well. But, if she had kept a hold of all 3 of the previous children, what situation would they have found themselves in?

Adoption is a blessing. My son knows his biological siblings, has met his biological mother, grandfather and great-grandmother. Good luck OP, I hope you find a solution that works for you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bio does not equal better.

It is not a question of a young woman being "unworthy" or motherhood. SOME women are unprepared for motherhood when it arrives in their life.

Talk about the trauma of growing up with an addicted parent or a parent who will not leave an abusive partner. Yes, such parents need support...BUT that does not mean that the babies in question should have to be the canary in the coal mine while that parent is TRYING to work through their issues. They have ONE childhood. They are worthy of a healthy, safe, secure place to grow up.

There's that.

It depends on the situation and biological family and adoptive family. There is a huge range of adoptive families. Some do it to give the child a good life, some do it to fill their checkbox to be parents, some do it because they want the large families and often the adopted kids are treated differently and some do it for money, especially foster to adopt when they get the stipend. I know some kids who would be better off in their biological families and others who are not.

However, this poster sounds like a birth mom who regrets or was forced to place for adoption and isn't looking at the entire picture. There are tons of shady adoptions - private, agency, international and foster. And, there are tons of ethical ones. Adoption is an industry and has become a business. It is a bit sick but that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

We had a very difficult experience adoption and something traumatic happen post adoption. You are lucky if you had a simple/clean adoption. We did not.


There is no such thing as a first mom. That term is absurd. Adoptive moms are not second moms, back up moms, the moms of last resort.

Anonymous wrote:Bio does not equal better.

It is not a question of a young woman being "unworthy" or motherhood. SOME women are unprepared for motherhood when it arrives in their life.

Talk about the trauma of growing up with an addicted parent or a parent who will not leave an abusive partner. Yes, such parents need support...BUT that does not mean that the babies in question should have to be the canary in the coal mine while that parent is TRYING to work through their issues. They have ONE childhood. They are worthy of a healthy, safe, secure place to grow up.

There's that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Adoption is not trauma.

Trauma (e.g., death of, or neglect or abuse by, a parent) usually precedes adoption.

Adoption--when it works well--is the child getting a second chance to grow into adulthood within a loving family headed up by healthy parents.

I am not saying it is not traumatic for a developing human to have to start over with a new family, but the adoptive family did not cause the trauma. They are part of the solution.

These statements are contradictory. Pick a side.

So...are you anti-adoption? Would you prefer these children grow up in a home where they are unwanted or abused, or spend years being bounced around from one foster home to another...all in the hope that, eventually, the birth parents will be able to successfully parent the child? I agree with the other PP here, that the situation resulting in the child's adoption may often be traumatic, but I would hope that adoption could at least be seen as the start of some sort of healing process for the child.

I don't have a dog in this fight. We are infertile, and we looked into adoption briefly, but it was far too cost prohibitive for us, considering IVF was covered by insurance. I guess I struggle to understand the clearly anti-adoption PPs on this post who seem to imply that it is a bad thing. And, no, adoption is in NO way a "fix" for infertility. But, if an infertile couple desires to provide a home and love for a child, why is that negative?

Because it is infertile couples that CREATE the market for adoptable babies. They are not (typically) the solution for orphaned children. They create the highly profitable adoption industry that profits off of coercing vulnerable, poor mothers that they are not worthy of motherhood and that the ultimate love for their child would be handing him or her to another more worthy couple to raise. Thus CREATING trauma that wouldn’t exist if these mothers had more financial and societal support.

It is an inaccurate stereotype that most adopted children are unwanted by their first mothers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Adoption is not trauma.

Trauma (e.g., death of, or neglect or abuse by, a parent) usually precedes adoption.

Adoption--when it works well--is the child getting a second chance to grow into adulthood within a loving family headed up by healthy parents.

I am not saying it is not traumatic for a developing human to have to start over with a new family, but the adoptive family did not cause the trauma. They are part of the solution.

These statements are contradictory. Pick a side.

So...are you anti-adoption? Would you prefer these children grow up in a home where they are unwanted or abused, or spend years being bounced around from one foster home to another...all in the hope that, eventually, the birth parents will be able to successfully parent the child? I agree with the other PP here, that the situation resulting in the child's adoption may often be traumatic, but I would hope that adoption could at least be seen as the start of some sort of healing process for the child.

I don't have a dog in this fight. We are infertile, and we looked into adoption briefly, but it was far too cost prohibitive for us, considering IVF was covered by insurance. I guess I struggle to understand the clearly anti-adoption PPs on this post who seem to imply that it is a bad thing. And, no, adoption is in NO way a "fix" for infertility. But, if an infertile couple desires to provide a home and love for a child, why is that negative?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Adoption is not trauma.

Trauma (e.g., death of, or neglect or abuse by, a parent) usually precedes adoption.

Adoption--when it works well--is the child getting a second chance to grow into adulthood within a loving family headed up by healthy parents.

I am not saying it is not traumatic for a developing human to have to start over with a new family, but the adoptive family did not cause the trauma. They are part of the solution.

These statements are contradictory. Pick a side.

Anonymous wrote:Adoption is not trauma.

Trauma (e.g., death of, or neglect or abuse by, a parent) usually precedes adoption.

Adoption--when it works well--is the child getting a second chance to grow into adulthood within a loving family headed up by healthy parents.

I am not saying it is not traumatic for a developing human to have to start over with a new family, but the adoptive family did not cause the trauma. They are part of the solution.