Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My bio mom is NOT my mother. My adopted mom is my mother.
Three Wolves, I do not have a problem with you identifying your family that way as it is very personal & no one should tell adoptees how to feel about their personal family/adoption/etc. However, do you see the problem in denying that adoptees in general have two or more families?
Just as there are many adoptees who do not wish to refer to the relinquishing fathers as anything but sperm donors, there are many who find that to be offensive & demeaning. While each individual adoptee should have the freedom to identify their personal family whatever way they wish to, can you see the problem in referring to relinquishing fathers in general as sperm donors?
EDIT: To clarify, I'm not saying that you do this, just asking if you see the problem with it?
thethreefoldme: Maybe I'm missing something and I would like to see some studies cited as well. I've had some harsh things said to me in my years due to me being adopted, (mainly when I was a kid), but I have never had anyone tell me I was selfish for wanting to find my biological family. Just about everyone who knows me in real life and knows my story has been nothing but supportive.
I would love to see the numbers of how many adoptees are getting grief for wanting to find out info about their bio family.
Three Wolves, I do not have a problem with you identifying your family that way as it is very personal & no one should tell adoptees how to feel about their personal family/adoption/etc. However, do you see the problem in denying that adoptees in general have two or more families?
Just as there are many adoptees who do not wish to refer to the relinquishing fathers as anything but sperm donors, there are many who find that to be offensive & demeaning. While each individual adoptee should have the freedom to identify their personal family whatever way they wish to, can you see the problem in referring to relinquishing fathers in general as sperm donors?
Do I see a problem with it? When it comes to claiming them, the bio "parents" as my family, yah, I have an issue with that. They are NOT my parents. They did not raise me, they made that choice to RELINQUISH their rights to be called my parents. They signed papers. Those rights are GONE.
My siblings, extended family: They didn't get those rights. They are still my family even if I don't know them very well but I don't view it as two separate families. I just have a whole lot of relatives.
As for the sperm donor...if you had a clue what that bastard did to me, he almost KILLED me, thethreefoldme...he does NOT get any other name than sperm donor. I don't really care if anyone "gets" that or not. If someone else wants to call theirs a "sperm donor" that is their right.
P.S. I have to go to work now but I'll be back later to continue the discussion.
I'm thinking I'm finally starting to get it. Anyone who disagrees with you is "off topic" and trying to "derail your thread". You don't want anyone to interfere with your one-sided spiel against adoption.
Sometimes, I make replies in a thread that are aimed more at people reading the thread than at the OP. I think some of these people can be convinced. On the other hand, I usually can recognize when trying to talk to someone is the equivalent of talking to a brick wall.
If all this research is out there than quote us some of it. Give sources and tell us where its published. Don't tell me to read an article that someone else has cited when you don't even say exactly what I'll find in the article. You're the one who talked about research that you have done? Do you remember that? If you've done it than cite it. Fill our minds with what you've learned.
I favor open records for all adoptees. I think that's a pretty strong statement that I really do favor adoption reform. What I find exhausting and ridiculous are people who want the entire adoption system changed (or simply abolished) and can't really cite much for than personal experience and a few anecdotes (the newspaper article about the adoptee who committed mass murder) as "reasons" for changing the system.
Incidentally, on another forum, you mentioned about Australian adoptions and I posted quite a few links for you re how adoptions are done in NSW, did you get to read them?
You may note that I also mentioned an adoptee blog that you might find interesting called "the declassified adoptee", she is very encompassing of all in the triad and very much into adoption reform and open records.
Btw I am glad you are into open records. Sadly, the mainstays of the adoption industry, eg the NCFA, fight to keep them closed.
The following is a study that gives an insight into young adoptees, pointing that even though adoption may be a net positive for many adoptees, it isn't without its negatives. I am not posting this study to prove or disprove anything at all, just thought you might find it interesting - especially the discussion on page 6 onwards.
Btw just because I do have concerns about aspects of adoption, doesn't mean I am anti-adoption per se. It is just that to me, the reason for adoption existing is as a resource for children who need parents. "Building a family" is not an actual reason for adoption to exist. I have heard PAPs say "but if adoption didn't exist, how would we build our families" and I wonder if they understand the point of adoption.
Btw, I am happy to post some links re Korean adoptions except that it is very late here.
Yoon's blur is a (no longer active) blog by a Korean adoptee which gives an insight into some of the paradoxes that many transracial adoptees face (though I definitely relate to a lot of it).
Why are you so obsessed with the genetic model of "mother" and "father"? Sheena and her husband are the parents of the girl (now woman) they raised together, from the social model. "Mother" and "father" have many meanings in our culture, ranging from genetic bearers to the people who raised us to an influential adult figure ("She's like a mother to me") to a priest ("Father Brian") and can even be used in metaphorical senses, like "Mother Nature" and "our Heavenly Father". Obviously in those cases, "mother" and "father" do not refer to "the man whose semen contributed to my existence" and "the woman who carried me in her uterus for several months". It is totally valid to list two adoptive parents as the "mother" and "father" if that is what they are in every sense but the genetic sense. It's already understood that when a child is adopted to another country and that country makes a birth certificate in that country's language, that the terms "mother" and "father" are in the frame of the adoption and the child's naturalization process. It's no different than in-laws or step-parents, where the family relation is through marriage. They become sisters and brothers, or parents, through a legal contract, but more importantly through love and family reunions. The genetic usage of "mother" and "father" is valid and shouldn't be completely left out, but at the same time, it's not the only way those two words can be used. Not to mention, do you honestly think that Sheena's daughter doesn't understand the concept of pregnancy and childbirth? She might not have lived through it, but I'm sure she's been exposed to enough pregnant women and newborns to understand the concept. It's not like all adoptees live in this fantasy world where we think all children come into their families the same way we did.
I am not obsessed with the "genetic model" of motgher and father. There is no such thing as "model" in this context. This is not some kind of devlepmental "model" of say, therapy, or, scientific hypothesis. These are facts I am dealing with. It is you who are making this out to be more complicated than it is.
I understand perfectly your description of other uses of the terms "mother" and "father", as terms of endearment. Perfectly fine to do so. What I am pointing out is that in adoption, fromwhat I see here, and in real life discussions with adoptive parents, there is the sense that the adoptee's other set of parents do not exist because the adoptive parents don't want them to exist. I know how relationshikps are built by adoption and I cherish the childhood memories with the cousins I was raised with -- and so do they. We have tears inour eyes now because our parents have passed on and we have each other in adulthood with shared childhood experiences. While I faced harassment form any relatives, there were some relatives who did not treat me poorly, and these are aunts, uncles cousins both from adoptive family and natural family. One cousin is divorced and has a girlfriend for over 16 years. He said to me recently, "You know Ma died, right?" He then explained that the mother of his children was killed in a car crash and I didn't know when it happened. Here, a divorced man still lovingly referred to his deceased ex-wife as "Ma". He was crying as he told me this. So, yes, I understand terms of endearment.
When I say that Sheena's daughter may feel diferently when she is pregnant herself I am speaking about the very real developmental changes that occur in adoptees when they have children. They wake up to see life differently and begin to see the advancement of life through the wonders of pregnancy and birth. To see a child look like you when the family you were raised with does not look like you can be a very emotional experience for an adoptee. Even male adoptees are moved emotionally when they have children.
Again, please read books by David Brodzinsky on the life development of adoptees: The Psycholgy of Adoption, and, Being Adopted: The Lifelong Search for Self.
Please read Nancy Verrier's books: The Primal Wound, and, The Adopted Chid Grows Up: Coming Home to Self.
Here are more books that will help you and other adoptive parents and their adoptees:
Adoption and the family System, by Miriam Reitz and Kenneth W Watson.
Journey of the Adopted Self, by Betty Jean Lifton.
I'm Still Me by Betty Jean Lifton.
Lost and Found by Betty Jean Lifton.
Twice Born by Betty Jean Lifton.
Adoptees Come of Age, by Ron Nydam.
Shared Fate. Adoptive Kinship. Exploring Adoptive Family Life. All three by H. David Kirk.
Adoption and Recovery. Adoption and Loss. Both by Evelyn Burns Robinson.
Death by Adoption by Joss Shawyer.
Handbook of Adoption: Implications for Researchers, Practioners, and Families, by Rafael A. Javier, Amanda L Baden, Frank A Biafora, and Alina Camacho-Gingerich.
The Adoption Life Cycle by Elinor B Rosenberg.
Family Matters: Secrecy and Disclosure in the History of Adoption, by E. Wayne Carp.
Clinical Practice in Adoption, by Robin C. Winkler, Dirck W. Brown, Margaret van Keppel, Amy Blanchard.
Birthmark by Lorraine Dusky. (firstmotherforum website mentioned earlier in this thread)
Shedding Light on The Dark Side of Adoption, by Mirah Riben.
The Stork Market: America's Multi-Billion Dollar Unregulated Adoption Industry by Mirah Riben, Jena M. Gaines and Evelyn Robinson.
I Would Have Searched Forever. What Kind of Love is This?. To Prisoon With Love: The True Story of an Indecent Indictment and America's Adoption Travesty. All three books by Sandy Musser.
The Adoption Triangle: Sealed or Opened Records: How They Affected Adoptees, Birthparents, and Adoptive Parents, by Arthur D. Sorosky, Annette Baran, Reuben Pannor.
Lethal Secrets: The Shocking Consequences and Unsolved Problems of Artificial Insemination: parents, children, donors, and experts speak out, by Annette Baran and Reuban Pannor.
Musings of a Ghost Mother, by Lynn Reyman, Ph.D.
In Search of Origins: The Experince odf Adopted People by John Triseliotis.
Outer Search Inner Journey: An Orphan and Adoptee's Quest by Peter F Dodds.
The Adoption Mystique: A hard-Hitting Expose of the Powerful Negative Social Stigma the Permiates Child Adoption in the United States by Joanne Wolf Small, MSW.
The Baby Thief: The Untold Story of Georgia Tann, the baby Seller Who Corrupted Adoption, by Barbara Bisantz Raymond.
Growing in the Dark: Adoption Secrecy and its Consequences by Janine M Baer.
"The Idea of Adoption: An Inquiry into the History of Adult Adoptee Acccess to Birth Records" by Elizabeth J Samuels, published by Rutgers Law Review, Vol 53, Winter 2001, Number 2.
Twenty Life Transforming Choices Adoptees Need to Make, by Sherrie Eldridge.
Faint Trails: AGuide to Adult Adoptee-Birth Parent Reunification Searches, by Hal Aigner.
Adoption Healing...A Path to Recovery by Joe Soll, LCSW.
Adoptee Trauma. Birth Mother Trauma. both books by Heather Carlini, certified clinical hypnotherapist.
The Family of Adoption, by Joyce Maguire Pavao.
Confessions of a Lost Mother by Elisa Barton.
The Search For Anna Fisher by Florence Fisher.
Orphan Voyage by Ruthena Hill Kitson.
The Adopted Break Silence by Jean Paton.
The Adoption Reunion Survival Guide: Preparing Yourself for the Serach, Reunion, and Beyond, by Julie Jarrell Bailey and Lynn N Giddens, MA.
Helping Children Cope With Separation and Loss by Claudia L Jewett.
Adopting the Older Child by Claudia L Jewett.
Second Choice: Growing Up Adopted by Robert Andersen, M.D.
Adoption Nation: How the Adoption Revolution is Transforming America by Adam Pertman.
The Other Mother by Carol Schaefer.
Wake Up Little Suzie: Single Pregnancy and Race Before Roe Vs Wade, by Rickie Solinger.
Babies Without Borders: Adoption and Migration Across the Americas, by Karen Dubinsky.
Soul Connection: A Memoir of a Birthmother's Healing Journey,, by Ann H Hughes.
Do I see a problem with it? When it comes to claiming them, the bio "parents" as my family, yah, I have an issue with that. They are NOT my parents. They did not raise me, they made that choice to RELINQUISH their rights to be called my parents. They signed papers. Those rights are GONE.
My siblings, extended family: They didn't get those rights. They are still my family even if I don't know them very well but I don't view it as two separate families. I just have a whole lot of relatives.
As for the sperm donor...if you had a clue what that bastard did to me, he almost KILLED me, thethreefoldme...he does NOT get any other name than sperm donor. I don't really care if anyone "gets" that or not. If someone else wants to call theirs a "sperm donor" that is their right.
P.S. I have to go to work now but I'll be back later to continue the discussion.
I'm so sorry for whatever he did to you & your experience, but you misunderstood what I was asking... I was not saying that you should refer to your personal family any which way other than how you wish to. If you don't consider someone genetically related to you as family, that is 100% up to you.
We agree on this, yes?
I am not asking if you have a problem claiming your biological family as family at all, but if you see the problem with referring to OTHER adoptee's family (in general) as non-family, or donors, etc. Do you understand what I am asking now, or am I not clarifying this well enough?
Sorry for the confusion if it is getting lost in translation...
Why are you so obsessed with the genetic model of "mother" and "father"? Sheena and her husband are the parents of the girl (now woman) they raised together, from the social model. "Mother" and "father" have many meanings in our culture, ranging from genetic bearers to the people who raised us to an influential adult figure ("She's like a mother to me") to a priest ("Father Brian") and can even be used in metaphorical senses, like "Mother Nature" and "our Heavenly Father". Obviously in those cases, "mother" and "father" do not refer to "the man whose semen contributed to my existence" and "the woman who carried me in her uterus for several months". It is totally valid to list two adoptive parents as the "mother" and "father" if that is what they are in every sense but the genetic sense. It's already understood that when a child is adopted to another country and that country makes a birth certificate in that country's language, that the terms "mother" and "father" are in the frame of the adoption and the child's naturalization process. It's no different than in-laws or step-parents, where the family relation is through marriage. They become sisters and brothers, or parents, through a legal contract, but more importantly through love and family reunions. The genetic usage of "mother" and "father" is valid and shouldn't be completely left out, but at the same time, it's not the only way those two words can be used. Not to mention, do you honestly think that Sheena's daughter doesn't understand the concept of pregnancy and childbirth? She might not have lived through it, but I'm sure she's been exposed to enough pregnant women and newborns to understand the concept. It's not like all adoptees live in this fantasy world where we think all children come into their families the same way we did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thethreefoldme
No one ever said that Sheena is not her mother & is not her parent... why is anyone obsessed with denying the fact that adoptees have two sets of parents?
(With the exception of those adopted by single parents, of course).
If a mother dies giving birth to her child & the father remarries a wonderful woman who then raises that child & was equally considered her mother. No one would ever deny that child had two mothers, or question that the one who died is meaningful even though she did not raise the child -- how is that any different for adoptees?
It is the stigma and assumptions, passed down through thousands of years, that adoptees are different. We are not like these other examples you cite. We are forbidden to know. Forbidden to ask. We are labeled "obsessed". We are labeled "disloyal". We are labeled "not adjusted". We are labeled "angery and bitter". We are told "you just had a bad experience".
Yet with the divorce rate so high and re-marriages common, and blended families built in this way, none of these children, or in the example you cite of a mother dying and the father re-marrying and the child thus has two mothers, no claims that the child is disloyal, or not adjusted, or obsessed, or angry and bitter.
Divorce is never easy on anyone. It is painful. I know of no one who has "a good experience" in divorce.
I know of no one who has "a good experince" when a parent dies at any stage in the child's childhood. Or adulthood.
Adults are angry that their parents died. Adults are hurt by death. So are children.
I am divorced, but still love my former mother in law. Am I disloyal to my mother (adoptive) because I love my mother in law? No.
Only in adoption do we adoptees face these horrible labels and judgements.
Sheena never denied that her daughter has biological parents. Not wanting to contact biological parents is not denying reality. Your parents lied to you about your adoption, kaykee, and that is not accepting reality. But nowhere did Sheena claim that she is the one that actually gave birth to her daughter. She has been open about the fact she adopted her daughter on these forums, so I honestly don't see where she is denying anything. Just because she does not have the same perspective as you do on adoption does not mean she is in denial. She acknowledges all the facts but has just made different decisions than you have.
Again, you are acknowledging only the genetic model of the words "parents". There are other senses of the word, such as the legal sense (which adoptive parents are--they are the legal guardians to their children), and the social sense (the person who raised you, which again adoptive parents fit the definition of).
Did Sheena ever claim that her daughter doesn't have a biological set of parents? I don't think anyone is denying that adopted people have a set of biological parents. The real disagreement here is how big a role the biological parents play in an adoptee's life. Obviously you consider your biological parents to have a bigger role in your life than Sheena's daughter does hers, or than I do mine.
How is she living a lie? It's not like Sheena raised her daughter telling her daughter she's biological. That would be pretty hard, considering her daughter is of Korean ancestry and Sheena is white. My parents could have probably convinced me I was biological if they told me so for long enough cause we're all the same race and have the same eye color/hair color, but they didn't either. I would have been confused about my orphanage memories but my parents could have said I was hospitalized for something and those memories are from a hospital and my young mind would have probably figured out a way to fit the memories into that explanation. If they had done that (which to be clear, they didn't ), that would have been a lie. Again, not wanting to have a long-lasting relationship with a biological family is not living a lie. It's simply making a choice, based on the same facts.
Translation: "I am right and everyone else is wrong. My way of seeing things is more valid than anyone else's." Why can't you accept that other people have another way of seeing it? Why can't you accept that just like you have the right to get to know your biological parents, another adoptee has the right not to?
Why can't you accept that someone else might genuinely, honestly, truly feel differently from you?
Typical discussion with adoptive parent. Nothing has changed. I've heard this same attitude since 1974 from adoptive parents.
No, it is not "I am right and every one else is wrong." that is thrown at adoptees as well.
I am pointing out attitudes that are negative and detrimental to self and adoptee from the adoptive parents.
It is Sheena's possessive attitude that is disturbing.
And I never said that another adoptee or adoptees may feel differently than I do. Feelings are different from facts. I point out facts and then people misunderstand and say that I feel this way or that way.
This has been the problem all along the 38 years I've been exposed to adoption reform. Adoptees who do not want to search don't have to. I am not telling them that they have to.
Adoptees who do not want to obtain their true birth certificate do not have to do it. Adoptees who do want to obtain their true birth certificate should have the right to do so. Currently, we do not have this right.
Adoptive parents who do not want to have the natural parents in their lives while the adoptee is growing up are making a life style choice. It may not be the healthiest choice. When the adoptee grows up and decides on their own, the adoptive parents have no right to tell them what to do. Or how to feel.
Sheena never denied that her daughter has biological parents. Not wanting to contact biological parents is not denying reality. Your parents lied to you about your adoption, kaykee, and that is not accepting reality. But nowhere did Sheena claim that she is the one that actually gave birth to her daughter. She has been open about the fact she adopted her daughter on these forums, so I honestly don't see where she is denying anything. Just because she does not have the same perspective as you do on adoption does not mean she is in denial. She acknowledges all the facts but has just made different decisions than you have.
Again, you are acknowledging only the genetic model of the words "parents". There are other senses of the word, such as the legal sense (which adoptive parents are--they are the legal guardians to their children), and the social sense (the person who raised you, which again adoptive parents fit the definition of).
Did Sheena ever claim that her daughter doesn't have a biological set of parents? I don't think anyone is denying that adopted people have a set of biological parents. The real disagreement here is how big a role the biological parents play in an adoptee's life. Obviously you consider your biological parents to have a bigger role in your life than Sheena's daughter does hers, or than I do mine.
How is she living a lie? It's not like Sheena raised her daughter telling her daughter she's biological. That would be pretty hard, considering her daughter is of Korean ancestry and Sheena is white. My parents could have probably convinced me I was biological if they told me so for long enough cause we're all the same race and have the same eye color/hair color, but they didn't either. I would have been confused about my orphanage memories but my parents could have said I was hospitalized for something and those memories are from a hospital and my young mind would have probably figured out a way to fit the memories into that explanation. If they had done that (which to be clear, they didn't ), that would have been a lie. Again, not wanting to have a long-lasting relationship with a biological family is not living a lie. It's simply making a choice, based on the same facts.
Translation: "I am right and everyone else is wrong. My way of seeing things is more valid than anyone else's." Why can't you accept that other people have another way of seeing it? Why can't you accept that just like you have the right to get to know your biological parents, another adoptee has the right not to?
Why can't you accept that someone else might genuinely, honestly, truly feel differently from you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nimchimpsky
There's no "might" or "may" in her statements about how adoptive families who choose not to contact the biological family are "living a lie".
On the other hand, I feel like your posts are much more balanced and sensitive in their phrasing.
I am not unbalanced. If you take a look at how and what Sheena has said, it is her tone and her emphasis of certain words that I responded to. Pointing out that she said she has a birth certificate with her name on it and her husband's name on it and the date and place of birth, and Sheena's emphasis that this document makes them parents, is that I am pointing out that the document is inaccurate and false. It is a birth certificate and Sheena and her husband had nothing to do with the conception and birth of their adoptee. therefore, they should be named on an adoption certificate that tells thae date and time and place of finalization of adoption. The adoptee's birth certificate should have accurate information about her actual birth.
To say that this birth certificate says they are parents is "living a lie". The document states false facts.
I am not denying adoptive parents as parents. I am pointing out that the documentation is wrong. this should be corrected by laws. Domestically as well as Intercountry adoptions.
False birth certificates force adoptees to live a lie. We were not born to our parents, so why is the govenment insisting that we have identity papers that tell false facts.
I am not talking about feelings here. I am talking about facts.
I don't think biology is THAT important and I don't feel like I've ended up all messed up because of it.
Well, that is your opinion.
However, biology is very important. It is our health. It is how we think, how our brains are wired, how we develope and how our bodies function.
How you feel about your biology dismisses the point that biology is very important in life itself.
What a person eats or drinks, or smokes, or breaths, affects them. A smoker is not taking care of his body. A child may develop medical problems from drinking water with toxins.
What a person looks like is their biology. Future children and grandchildren of adoptees who have no connection with their natural family may want a connection with that biology you don't find important.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
