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.
"Just because one hasn't heard something personally, does not mean that it does exist."
I know that. Thus the reason for my question. I was simply curious as to how you had experienced this notion being expressed and whether or not you experienced this with adoptive families who had biological children. Or had you only observed it in infertile couples.
The subtle expressions of that sense of entitlement is simply something I have missed. I'm relieved to read that you consider your choice of wording could have been better. Thanks for replying.
Last edited by winterbird; 09-23-2012 at 12:35 PM..
Reason: correcting a thought.
It should be noted that adults face infertility and have the ability to process and work through the difficult emotions with an adult mind. Adults have decisions available in how they choose to face the challenges of infertility. Adoptees face being separated from their original family and being adopted by another in infancy and childhood. We did not have any choices. We did not possess the emotional maturity to process and make sense of our feelings. For many of us, we couldn't even begin to process our feelings regarding our adoptions until we were adults and on our own. A child should not be expected to understand, or provide the salve for, the infertility issues of adults. Adoption should not be viewed as a solution to infertility or simply as a way to build a family after facing infertility. Adoption should be about securing safe homes for children who are truly in need.
As an adult, I can most definitely be sensitive to other adults who are facing the challenges of infertility. If those adults decide to consider adoption, however, it would be my hope that they would take a step back from their infertility issues to take a wider view of the adoption industry and how it operates. As an adult adoptee, I would also hope that they would be open to listening and learning more about the long-term effects adoption can have on the adoptee. Sensitivity, understanding and respect work best when shared mutually.
I'd like to bring up another angle as well. On several occasions I have met adoptive parents who framed their adoption or desire to adopt to be purely and exclusively out of the love in their hearts for children in need, only to find out later that the couple was also struggling with fertility issues. Now I'm not saying that all couples who struggle with fertility issues who then adopt aren't doing it out of love as well, after all they could decide to just not have children, or to use a surrogate mother/donor etc. I definitely give parents who adopted post-infertility credit for their selflessness. But I do wonder why a lot of the adoptive parents I have specifically met sort of downplay the fertility solution component and play up the idea that they considered adoption from the get-go, without trying natural birth first. Even my own parents are full of endearing stories about how my sister wanted a sister and they wanted to give love to another child at dinner parties, but often leave out the part about my adoptive mother being too old to have another biological baby. I know that life is complex and that someone can do something for multiple reasons and that all those reasons can be equally valid, but a part of me does wonder why some of the adoptive parents I've talked to who adopted in response to infertility do not share that part of the story as openly as the part where they chose to adopt. Again, just to emphasize, I am not claiming that adoptive parents aren't loving and didn't have good intentions, but just wonder why it is that they are often less forthcoming about the fact that adoption was their Plan B or C or D or E. I know that, for example, as far as I know, I am capable of conceiving of a child, but if I want to have a child one day, I want to do so through adoption as my Plan A, but have rarely met adoptive parents where adoption was their Plan A.
When we were in licensing classes, about 1/2 of the couples specifically stated that they were struggling with infertility and were pursuing adoption for that reason. The rest, had biological children (a few had multiple children) and were choosing to provide a home to a waiting child.
"Just because one hasn't heard something personally, does not mean that it does exist."
I know that. Thus the reason for my question. I was simply curious as to how you had experienced this notion being expressed and whether or not you experienced this with adoptive families who had biological children. Or had you only observed it in infertile couples.
The subtle expressions of that sense of entitlement is simply something I have missed. I'm relieved to read that you consider your choice of wording could have been better. Thanks for replying.
I've seen it happen with prebirth matching when the emom decides to parent and it isn't always just with those who are infertile.
One can understand the prospective adoptive parent being upset but sometimes, the PAP will condemn and abuse the emom and accuse her of being selfish and breaking a promise and occasionally accuse the emom of stealing THEIR baby by deciding to parent. Sometimes also, they will make the fact that they are unable to have children as part of the reason why she should have let them have her baby.
If they have adopted through an agency, it does make me wonder if why the agency hasn't counselled them properly re expectations. The same agencies can also often encourage the emom to disassociate herself from her child while pregnant (i.e. encourage her to think of the child as belonging to the PAPs) and this can also make things harder. If it is private, this can also happen.
The subtle expressions of that sense of entitlement is simply something I have missed..
Just look at the name of this thread:
"Adoption builds families for people who could other wise not have children. What about infertile parents?"
Adoption should be about children, not about infertile couples. (Note: that is not saying infertile couples can not be some of the best parents for adoptees),
But if you believe the primary purpose of adoption is providing children for infertile couples, there is some sense of entitlement.
Why do I read views that oppose mine? So that I can better understand people & their motivations. I read about all things adoption to learn everything I can because that is one area of interest to me. I would not go to a hunting forum either because it is not interesting to me. Believe it or not, I am not commenting here to antagonise you or any other members here; I comment because no-one ever told my adoptive mum about how I might feel as I grew up, for example, that I might one day want to find my natural family. I remember thinking that I would adopt one day too, and that if I got pregnant young, that I would give the baby up. That all changed in my 20's & now I feel completely different about adoption.
No, I never did either Kev. Noe a post saying that the only valid reason for adoption is to help a child.
That is one reason, but there is another, and as you know, it is just as important and valid.
Thank you for posting! I never knew about this movement until now. I am so hurt and surprised. Shocked really.
I never thought I'd here from people who want to tell me what my motivation should be to adopt, and in essence how many children I a permitted to have in my family.
I think the thing here is that you are talking about a person's OWN reasons for adoption and I certainly agree that those are valid reasons why people personally wish to adopt.
What I was trying to say was that there should only one SOCIETAL reason for adoption existing as an ENTITY and that is to provide a home for a child that needs one. Personal reasons are a different matter.
I actually don't give a stuff about people's private reasons for wanting to adopt, as you say it isn't my business. However, I am allowed to express an opinion on SOCIETAL reasons for adoption existing as an entity.
When society deems adoption to be anything other than what it is (a resource) and gets used by society as a solution or an answer to its ills, then that is when things can start to go awry.
Last edited by susankate; 09-23-2012 at 05:24 PM..
"Adoption builds families for people who could other wise not have children. What about infertile parents?"
Adoption should be about children, not about infertile couples. (Note: that is not saying infertile couples can not be some of the best parents for adoptees),
But if you believe the primary purpose of adoption is providing children for infertile couples, there is some sense of entitlement.
Exactly. My infertile adoptive parents told me on several occasions during my childhood that they "tried and tried to have kids" and then ended up having to get me. I was well aware of the fact that adopting me was Plan B. If they had been able to have their own children, they never would have called Catholic Charities. How many infertile couples would not have even considered spending $25k+ to "help a child in need" or "save an orphan" if they had been able to create their own children? Adoption should not be about infertile adults and what the infertile adults want. It should be about children and what the children need. And believe me. A lot of us know that the parents who raised us didn't want to adopt--they had to. This doesn't make all infertile couples who adopt bad parents. Far from it. But a little honesty would be nice. At least my adoptive parents fully admit that adoption was a way for them to get what they want. They never had some sort of notion that they "saved" me from anything. They wanted a kid, couldn't have one the regular way and then hit up the adoption agency. Adopting was about them. Hence the sense of entitlement. And I am fairly certain that theirs is not a unique story.
When I look at the adoption scene in the US, all I see is a situation where relinquishment/adoption isn't being treated by the powers-that-be with the seriousness it deserves. Lives are being played with and no-one in the industry really cares (and APs, I am also including you amongst the "lives being played with" so this most certainly isn't an attack on APs).
That is not to totally let APs off the hook as a combined group. When demand outweighs supply, the supply needs to be met and APs must have their eyes open as to how the supply is met. They are the ones that can help make the most difference when it comes to ethics in adoption.
I don't know if anyone read my link in a previous post re adoption in NZ but it wasn't until demand dried up that anyone did anything for the unwed mothers.
The secretary of the mothers' home in the article said this when demand dried up:
The new secretary, Mrs Bailey, pointed out that 'many girls would prefer to, and are capable of, caring for their babies if they had sufficient moral and practical support'.
The truth is that that had been the case all along but as long as there was the demand for babies, no-one really cared about what the girls wanted or were capable of.
Last edited by susankate; 09-23-2012 at 05:53 PM..
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.
