Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ Yep, you are clearly a pro-adoption cheerleader and probably work in the industry.

And an industry it is.

You know, if you were angry about vaccines, and I showed you viable data that goes against your belief, you would accuse me of working for Big Pharma. Lol. Not everyone is profiting from facts. Your argument is immature and naive. Come up with a fact, not an ad hominem attack, it's not effective and it sours your premise. If you have a strong premise, you would not have to resort to childish barbs.
So, no, again. I am a history professor, an adoptee who was literally adopted on the black market decades ago, and the "industry" you speak of doesn't really exist now in the way you think- it's not a defined concept the way it was in the 50s and 60s, it's an ad hoc organic opportunistic venture which can be ethical and oftentimes not with NONE of the same variables involved. Sociology has changed everything about sex , reproduction, women's rights, economics, societal norms, and issues surrounding identity. And, sorry, we would all hope that mothers would and could keep their kids if they want, or abort if they choose. However, there are still mothers and fathers ( they were not even considered years ago) who do want to give up their babies, if they haven't aborted. It's not even reasonable to assume otherwise. You can improve the system but it's never going away. There will always be unwanted babies, as sad as it is.

And with regard to all your esoteric examples of coercion, etc., these are outside variables that do somehow intersect the entire adoption paradigm, but they don't define it. There will always be bad actors and bad religion and culture, but it does not apply to everyone, or hardly anyone. Laws and policies have changed what is supposed to happen, and we didn't have those before.

You seem angry about your own experience, whether you are an adoptee or birth parent. Try to climb out of your own circumstance in order to continue to improve the future of babies, because your personal experience doesn't not generalize in this regard. I 've done that, but I suspect I've had much more time to reflect. Best of luck.

Following up months later, I am the PP you so condescendingly referred to in your reply dismissing my concerns about domestic adoption industry coercion as only religious and claiming this is nothing like the Baby Scoop Era. Your rose-colored glasses about adoption are ridiculous.

It is NOT only religious adoption agencies that are coercive and shame based. The entire domestic adoption industry in the U.S. is this way. The only way to create a supply of adoptable, sale-able healthy infants is to convince vulnerable women that they are selfish, immature, and unworthy of motherhood if they even consider parenting their own baby, this is NOT just a practice of religious organizations; it is the standard practice of all recruiters of women who can be persuaded to relinquish their babies either out of desperation, fear, or lack of resources.

As a professor, you are utterly ignorant about the realities facing women and girls in poverty. We have almost no social safety net whatsoever in this country anymore. Single mothers in the 70s and 80s may have had slightly more social stigma but they had a LOT more societal support from WIC to welfare to affordable housing to Medicaid. Those programs have been whittled down to the nub now. Young women with no health insurance, no child care, no maternity leave, no sick leave….they literally have no way to keep their babies with just government help. And so the predators swoop in.

The issue of whether a person’s DNA can stay anonymous forever is irrelevant to the issue of adopters closing adoptions that were supposed to be open. Relinquishing mothers have zero legal recourse when that happens, zero. The fact that her child might - MIGHT - some day choose to find her through commercial DNA services does not in any way ameliorate the loss of family, the loss of connection, the loss of relationship through childhood that was promised during the predatory attempts to convince a vulnerable mother that she should give away her child forever. There are NO laws in any state that protect a relinquishing mother and her child in this circumstance. An entire extended family may have had the expectation and promise of an ongoing relationship when the child was relinquished and then all that connection, heritage, relationship…all that can be taken away forever at the absolute power of the adopter. The baby never signed up to lose her grandparents, cousins, siblings, aunts, uncles, and parents…all of that is taken from her for a minimum of 18 years but potentially forever even when the relinquishing family may have been promised otherwise throughout the entire process.

My mother was a relinquishing mother during the Baby Scoop Era. The shame and stigma felt by women in the vast and growing evangelical “Christian” community in the U.S. is no less powerful and damaging than what she faced 60 years ago.

You clearly have never read the scholarly research that is encompassed in Relinquished by Gretchen Sisson, which focuses solely on the domestic adoption industry in the last 15 years, not 60 years ago. Marketing of adoption is deceptive, coercive, and predatory, now even moreso than when my mother was forced to relinquish because the coercive practice of pre-birth matching plus the fact that many pregnant women turn to adoption while in desperate financial straits means that women are under different kinds of emotionally manipulative pressures…the guilt at disappointing the would-be adopters, the fear of legal action or demands to repay support during pregnancy…the guns to the head of women considering relinquishment are, on a practical level, more intense than the shame that forced women into secrecy back then.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ Yep, you are clearly a pro-adoption cheerleader and probably work in the industry.

And an industry it is.

You know, if you were angry about vaccines, and I showed you viable data that goes against your belief, you would accuse me of working for Big Pharma. Lol. Not everyone is profiting from facts. Your argument is immature and naive. Come up with a fact, not an ad hominem attack, it's not effective and it sours your premise. If you have a strong premise, you would not have to resort to childish barbs.
So, no, again. I am a history professor, an adoptee who was literally adopted on the black market decades ago, and the "industry" you speak of doesn't really exist now in the way you think- it's not a defined concept the way it was in the 50s and 60s, it's an ad hoc organic opportunistic venture which can be ethical and oftentimes not with NONE of the same variables involved. Sociology has changed everything about sex , reproduction, women's rights, economics, societal norms, and issues surrounding identity. And, sorry, we would all hope that mothers would and could keep their kids if they want, or abort if they choose. However, there are still mothers and fathers ( they were not even considered years ago) who do want to give up their babies, if they haven't aborted. It's not even reasonable to assume otherwise. You can improve the system but it's never going away. There will always be unwanted babies, as sad as it is.

And with regard to all your esoteric examples of coercion, etc., these are outside variables that do somehow intersect the entire adoption paradigm, but they don't define it. There will always be bad actors and bad religion and culture, but it does not apply to everyone, or hardly anyone. Laws and policies have changed what is supposed to happen, and we didn't have those before.

You seem angry about your own experience, whether you are an adoptee or birth parent. Try to climb out of your own circumstance in order to continue to improve the future of babies, because your personal experience doesn't not generalize in this regard. I 've done that, but I suspect I've had much more time to reflect. Best of luck.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What about in families where there is a mix? For example in birth order: a bio child, adopted child, another bio child.

Open adoption so the child has known the bio mom, dad AND grandparents who regularly visit the family home. Now the bio mom and dad are in new relationships and one of them are pregnant/expecting a child.

They are excited to introduce the new baby to the adopted child as a "sister/brother." But no mention of how to integrate that baby with the bio children. Or how to address the grandparent issue.

The adoptive parents have expressed they want to have an element of control over what is said to all the kids and there is a subtle hint that if it doesn't go according to their wishes, the "open" adoption may begin to have the door swing shut.

What is the healthiest way for this to be explained to the adopted child and the bio children in the family?

This isn't an answer to this exact question but I will share as an adoptive parent that it is incredibly painful to watch the impact that a fact pattern like this has on adopted children. The message being imparted by the bio parents is that neither of them were willing to step up and parent adopted child, but they are more than willing to parent another child they are having with a different partner. That's what the child is very likely to feel---that they are "less than" this new baby. The bio parent needs to clearly understand that is the potential message that they are sending. The adoptive parents are well within their rights to feel protective and entitled to have a say in how this potentially devastating news is handled. Had I known that my child was going to be sandbagged with a surprise half-sibling when meeting one of their bio parents I would have insisted the meeting be handled differently---especially since it was very obvious from age of half sibling that bio parent had chosen to let DC languish in foster care while entering into new relationship and parenting new child. I personally think open adoption to this extent---where bio family continually "drops in"---is a bad idea. It is confusing and painful for a child and relegates adoptive parents---the people who ARE doing the hard day to day work of childrearing and making a lifelong commitment to that work---into foster caregivers.

Thanks for the insights from your perspective as an adoptive parent.

In the case above, it is going to be very problematic because the adoptive family's biological children are now used to the adoptive child's parents & grandparents being part of their lives for several years now. The bio parent and partner have already been to the home and told ALL the children there is a new baby on the way.

Since the adopted child KNOWS who their biological parents & grandparents are it will be almost impossible to cut them off without damaging psychological implications to everyone, wouldn't it? But the adoptive parents are not the type who want complications if it's too much hard work, and won't think twice about forbidding the adoptee's family to still come around.

I agree that in being this "open" was far too much and now there is going to be life-long fallout, I'm afraid.

Anonymous wrote:

What about in families where there is a mix? For example in birth order: a bio child, adopted child, another bio child.

Open adoption so the child has known the bio mom, dad AND grandparents who regularly visit the family home. Now the bio mom and dad are in new relationships and one of them are pregnant/expecting a child.

They are excited to introduce the new baby to the adopted child as a "sister/brother." But no mention of how to integrate that baby with the bio children. Or how to address the grandparent issue.

The adoptive parents have expressed they want to have an element of control over what is said to all the kids and there is a subtle hint that if it doesn't go according to their wishes, the "open" adoption may begin to have the door swing shut.

What is the healthiest way for this to be explained to the adopted child and the bio children in the family?

This isn't an answer to this exact question but I will share as an adoptive parent that it is incredibly painful to watch the impact that a fact pattern like this has on adopted children. The message being imparted by the bio parents is that neither of them were willing to step up and parent adopted child, but they are more than willing to parent another child they are having with a different partner. That's what the child is very likely to feel---that they are "less than" this new baby. The bio parent needs to clearly understand that is the potential message that they are sending. The adoptive parents are well within their rights to feel protective and entitled to have a say in how this potentially devastating news is handled. Had I known that my child was going to be sandbagged with a surprise half-sibling when meeting one of their bio parents I would have insisted the meeting be handled differently---especially since it was very obvious from age of half sibling that bio parent had chosen to let DC languish in foster care while entering into new relationship and parenting new child. I personally think open adoption to this extent---where bio family continually "drops in"---is a bad idea. It is confusing and painful for a child and relegates adoptive parents---the people who ARE doing the hard day to day work of childrearing and making a lifelong commitment to that work---into foster caregivers.

What about in families where there is a mix? For example in birth order: a bio child, adopted child, another bio child.

Open adoption so the child has known the bio mom, dad AND grandparents who regularly visit the family home. Now the bio mom and dad are in new relationships and one of them are pregnant/expecting a child.

They are excited to introduce the new baby to the adopted child as a "sister/brother." But no mention of how to integrate that baby with the bio children. Or how to address the grandparent issue.

The adoptive parents have expressed they want to have an element of control over what is said to all the kids and there is a subtle hint that if it doesn't go according to their wishes, the "open" adoption may begin to have the door swing shut.

What is the healthiest way for this to be explained to the adopted child and the bio children in the family?

Anonymous wrote:I'm adopted with a very positive experience. Absolutely recommend it being something that is always known. It seems hiding it would cause a lot of problems.

Personally, I'm not a fan of "gotcha" days. The point is that adopted kids are just your kids. It feels weird to me to celebrate them differently.

I don't have much of an opinion on this. I think there's been research out there on it though.

I don't like changing kids names if they are old enough to know their name. I was 3 months old so changing my name was no big deal. And my middle name was derived from my foster moms name and I have always loved that.

My parents never hid my story from me. They answered any questions they could.

Anonymous wrote:1. Would you recommend telling your child that they were adopted when they are young? Older? Does it depend on the age when they do get adopted?
Children should always know the truth as early as possible, in an age-appropriate way.

Do you hate the idea of “gotcha” days or celebrations honoring the day you were adopted?
My parents used to celebrate my adoption day with a gift (this stopped when there got to be too many of us). I never viewed it as anything but positive, perhaps because (and I say this as someone with a somewhat cynical outlook) it was framed not as loss or abandonment on the part of my birth family but in terms of my having been wanted and loved by my adoptive parents, as a choice they had enthusiastically made.

How do you feel about integrating the culture of the family you were adopted into? (I.E. You are for all intensive purposes Italian if the family is Italian - they then verbally express this to others and you do as well)
I'm racially and ethnically of a different background from my adoptive parents, but for all intents and purposes, I mostly identify culturally with the traditions with which I was raised. I visited the city of my birth last year, and while I enjoyed the experience, I didn't really feel any greater connection to it than to any place else I've been as a tourist. Additionally, while adult me can appreciate my parents' efforts to introduce me to my birth culture, I resented their foisting it upon me when I was a child because, both then and now, there is nothing that makes me of that culture beyond my physical appearance. That said, some adoptees do resent their adoptive families' dismissal of/failure to acknowledge their birth cultures. So I think it's up to the adoptee to decide what connection, if any, to have with it and therefore, that the best approach is for adoptive parents to acknowledge it, frame it in positive terms and ask if the child would like to learn more about it. But it shouldn't be presented as "let's introduce you to your culture."

Names - How do you feel about name change or incorporating the birth name?
If the child is too young to remember his/her/their name, parents can do whatever they want in this regard. If the child knows his/her/their name, that's their name and it shouldn't be changed unless they want it to be changed.

[/b]What other details did your family overlook or miss that you wish you had experienced?[/b] None that have to do specifically with adoption.

Other tips for adoptive parents? Make sure that your child has a chance to meet other adoptees, and be open to the complexity of feelings that they may have, especially in regards to curiosity about the birth family/desire to meet them (I personally have had little interest). If your child does want to meet birth relatives, be supportive but grounding, if necessary. Also, while adoptive parents should be aware of the scandals and corruption that have affected adoption processes, the bottom line is that a kid raised in a loving, stable home no matter what its biological diversity will, on average, be much more likely to become a stable, functionally independent person than someone abused and/or neglected by relatives/guardians of the same race/ethnicity. Finally, remember that your goal, like that of biological parents, is to give *all* of your kid(s) the love, stability and opportunities that, barring some unforeseen catastrophe, will enable them to become functional adults. Some would-be adoptive parents have martyr complexes/ego issues that motivate them to adopt kids with serious issues that, sadly, cannot be fixed no matter what resources are thrown at them. It is morally and ethically wrong to rupture the stability of the healthy, stable children you already have by adopting kids who at the end of the day add nothing of value to family life despite having received the lion's share of attention and resources. If you already have healthy, stable kids, it's your moral duty to maintain this status quo by not throwing the equivalent of a Molotov bomb into their lives (e.g. a kid with RAD, FAS, serious chronic illness, etc.).

Anonymous wrote:^ Yep, you are clearly a pro-adoption cheerleader and probably work in the industry.

And an industry it is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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

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.

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

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. 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, but the adoption process and paradigm has changed dramatically over 60 years. There's no secrets anymore.

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.

Yep, but again you are referring to religious organizations 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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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

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.

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

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. 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, but the adoption process and paradigm has changed dramatically over 60 years. There's no secrets anymore.

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.

Yep, but again you are referring to religious organizations 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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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

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.

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

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. 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, but the adoption process and paradigm has changed dramatically over 60 years. There's no secrets anymore.

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.