U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting > Adoption
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-21-2012, 11:55 AM
 
Location: East coast-New England
1,638 posts, read 1,695,341 times
Reputation: 3538

Advertisements

I have seen a lot of anti adoption things on other forums myself. I was kinda surprised by that. Some people were just against adoption in general, which confuses me. What do people think should be done with the children of parents who dont want to be parents, or soon to be parents?

I have heard anti adoption people say that more should be done to help the birth mothers so they dont feel that they should have to place their kids for adoption. But see, thats not always the issue. Some people just DO NOT want to have a child at that particular time. They do not want the child. So, why is it wrong for someone who DOES want a child and cannot have their own, to adopt?

There are kids who are beaten and abused and treated horribly by their birth parents, and some of these people lose their kids. As we know, some people are not fit to raise a dog, let along a child. Some of these cases can be saved, some cannot. Anyway, there are always going to be people who get pregnant and dont want their kid, no matter how much 'support' they have. They dont want to deal with the inconvienence or people talking, etc. What are we to do? What is the option? More group homes for unwanteds kids and just dont let them be adopted, but instead live in some orphanage? Hey, for whatever reason, my birth mother let me go. And If I was ripped away from her arms, I sure dont see any indication of her EVER having tried to find me. I actually thought I had found her..the age was right..full name(first..middle..last) was right(i was able to get my original birth certificate), and I myself and a friend I confided in even thought I looked like her. However, she says its not her. Maybe so.



Mod Note: This post was divided and split off from a post in another thread.

Last edited by Green Irish Eyes; 10-21-2012 at 05:44 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-21-2012, 01:11 PM
 
15,744 posts, read 13,171,628 times
Reputation: 19636
Quote:
Originally Posted by SummerFall View Post
I have seen a lot of anti adoption things on other forums myself. I was kinda surprised by that. Some people were just against adoption in general, which confuses me. What do people think should be done with the children of parents who dont want to be parents, or soon to be parents?

I was adopted at 8 months old. Before that I was a child of the state. Dont know really what happened. Kinda heard that my bmom got pregnant by someone other than her husband at the time. Dont know how true that is.

I have anti adoption people say that more should be done to help the birth mothers so they dont feel that they should have to place their kids for adoption. But see, thats not always the issue. Some people just DO NOT want to have a child at that particular time. They do not want the child. So, why is it wrong for someone who DOES want a child and cannot have their own, to adopt?

There are kids who are beaten and abused and treated horribly by their birth parents, and some of these people lose their kids. As we know, some people are not fit to raise a dog, let along a child. Some of these cases can be saved, some cannot. Anyway, there are always going to be people who get pregnant and dont want their kid, no matter how much 'support' they have. They dont want to deal with the inconvienence or people talking, etc. What are we to do? What is the option? More group homes for unwanteds kids and just dont let them be adopted, but instead live in some orphanage? Hey, for whatever reason, my birth mother let me go. And If I was ripped away from her arms, I sure dont see any indication of her EVER having tried to find me. I actually thought I had found her..the age was right..full name(first..middle..last) was right(i was able to get my original birth certificate), and I myself and a friend I confided in even thought I looked like her. However, she says its not her. Maybe so.

Anyway, I was raised by my a-parents. My a-dad died when I was 15, and my a-mom is strill alive, and I help care for her now. I am very devoted to her, and I have never been treated as anything but their child. I had a good live, and a good upbringing. Because of them, I feel I stayed on the right track and did well for myself. So, I suppose I would be considered a 'positive' story.

The only thing I miss is actually knowing if I have other bro/sis, what exact nationality/ethnicity I am (ive been told black/white and I looked mixed). I never questioned my a-parents, and now my mom is elderly and has a touch of alzheimers, so I dont know what good info i'd get now.
There is nothing inherently wrong with adoption, especially when you look at it from the pov you have, that of it benefiting the adoptee. What is wrong is thinking that adoption is a cure for infertility. That is not why the institution of adoption should exist.

Ultimately the biggest problem is that the demand for adoptable children is larger than the number of ethically available children. By ethically available, I mean children available from the types of situation you gave above. Where the birth mother/father are making an informed choice out of knowledge and not out of fear, lack of support, coercion, etc. The fact is that many children are adopted in an unethical situation, and that happens because adoptive parents are willing to pay large sums of money. Without large sums of money, there would be no room for the level of profit necessary to support the adoption INDUSTRY.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2012, 05:11 PM
 
1,879 posts, read 1,782,759 times
Reputation: 1450
Quote:
Originally Posted by SummerFall View Post
I have seen a lot of anti adoption things on other forums myself. I was kinda surprised by that. Some people were just against adoption in general, which confuses me. What do people think should be done with the children of parents who dont want to be parents, or soon to be parents?
Actually, part of the problem is the definition of adoption. Not a single person on here has anything against children being loved and cared for by a non-related family per se. Some of us do have a concern about the form that modern adoption took back in the 50s. It is a very complex issue.

Quote:
I was adopted at 8 months old. Before that I was a child of the state. Dont know really what happened. Kinda heard that my bmom got pregnant by someone other than her husband at the time. Dont know how true that is.
I see on another thread that you are trying to find her. I wish you good luck. Hopefully, if you find her, she will enlighten you as to her reasons.

Quote:
I have anti adoption people say that more should be done to help the birth mothers so they dont feel that they should have to place their kids for adoption. But see, thats not always the issue. Some people just DO NOT want to have a child at that particular time. They do not want the child. So, why is it wrong for someone who DOES want a child and cannot have their own, to adopt?
Part of the problem I have is that I feel the counselling of women with unplanned pregnancies needs to be more responsible. The problem with the most widely used adoption counselling program by the NCFA (I've done the online course) is that it is irrelevant to its creators whether the emom wants to parent her child or not. The program involves making the expectant mother whose pregnancy was unplanned feel that her wanting to parent her own child is a selfish and immature thing for her to want to do, especially when there are millions of women who have been planning to have children who can't. The program also involves presenting parenting in such a way that, quite understandably, it scares the living bejesus of someone who is lacking in resources.
Quote:

There are kids who are beaten and abused and treated horribly by their birth parents, and some of these people lose their kids. As we know, some people are not fit to raise a dog, let along a child. Some of these cases can be saved, some cannot. Anyway, there are always going to be people who get pregnant and dont want their kid, no matter how much 'support' they have. They dont want to deal with the inconvienence or people talking, etc. What are we to do? What is the option? More group homes for unwanteds kids and just dont let them be adopted, but instead live in some orphanage?
Again, note that no-one is saying that all children should always stay with their families. No-one is saying they should live in orphanaages. No-one is saying that they shouldn't live in loving non-related homes. We are just saying that proper procedure should be followed and discussing whether the form of adoption developed in the 50s is the best form of adoption there is.
Quote:

Hey, for whatever reason, my birth mother let me go. And If I was ripped away from her arms, I sure dont see any indication of her EVER having tried to find me. I actually thought I had found her..the age was right..full name(first..middle..last) was right(i was able to get my original birth certificate), and I myself and a friend I confided in even thought I looked like her. However, she says its not her. Maybe so.
I don't know what generation you are though I am assuming you are from the 60s/70s from your other post. Women in those days were told to never look for their child. Also, if you were the result of an affair, the shame would have been extremely great back in the 60s and even if she had wanted to raise you, I suspect everyone would have been against her. Divorcing her husband may not have been an option she felt she could take because there was very little financial support for a woman on her own. She probably would have had any other children taken off her. You probably would have been stigmatised. Her husband might have mistreated you. Even with her having relinquished you for adoption, she may have ended up living a life where he despised her for her affair and mistreated her and she may have had very few resources available to her to do anything but stay with him.

For many of us whose mothers were in untenable positions, some say "well adoption is the answer otherwise they would have struggled so it was the best for everyone", others will say "did the availability of adoption as resource mean that other resources weren't made available so that a woman in a difficult position ended up only having that one "choice""? If you read my story about adoption in NZ on a previous post, you will see that when more babies were being relinquished than available adoptive parents by the end of the 60s, then NZ realised that they needed to make parenting an option for those mothers and thus the mothers homes went back to their original purpose of helping single mothers and the government provided financial support.

Thus, for those of us from the 60s, more options would have helped our mothers. Their relinquishing us was often a result of shame, lack of resources and counselling that exploited those aforementioned points. In regards to today's bmoms, society has provided more resources but judging by the NCFA programs, agency websites and other "feeder" websites, the counselling is not much different to the past.
 

Last edited by Green Irish Eyes; 10-21-2012 at 05:57 PM.. Reason: Deleted off-topic comments
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2012, 09:22 AM
 
203 posts, read 194,562 times
Reputation: 304
There is a difference between how people consider adoption as a concept and adoption as the industry that exists today. I am not against adoption as a concept (and therefore should not be labeled as "anti adoption") but I am against certain practices currently undertaken by the industry as it exists right now. The current adoption industry encourages and promotes the falsifying of birth certificates, for example. This practice is absolutely not required to provide a home to child. It is entirely possible for people to raise a child not born of them without denying the child access to, or knowledge of, their biological origins through the falsifying of a birth certificate.

Other countries use a guardianship model to handle the legalities of an adoption. The adoptive parents assume legal guardianship of the child and receive the paperwork to show this. The child's birth certificate remains accurate and intact. This model allows the child (who will eventually become an independent adult) to be considered as an actual party to his or her own adoption. The adoptee would legally have access to his or her own information without having to rely on others.

Just because someone takes issue with certain aspects of the adoption industry as it operates right now this very moment does not mean that they are against adoption as a concept. I've just provided an example of how the adoption industry could operate without falsifying an adoptee's birth certificate. This would allow for someone who does not wish to parent to not parent their own child while also respecting the right of the child to know who created and birthed him or her. Still adoption. Just done differently and in a way that is much more respectful of the adoptee as an individual.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2012, 05:14 PM
 
Location: Kansas
19,189 posts, read 14,062,995 times
Reputation: 18141
Our experience is different because we adopted an infant with DS when he was 4 weeks old. It does say that we are his parents on the birth certificate. Should it say something else? That is a document that has to be produced several times and I can guarantee you that some school officials believe that kids that are adopted are trouble and it could lead to questions that would make the person who was adopted uncomfortable. I can certainly understand wanting to know who one's birthparents were. We know the names of our son's birthparents. The birth mother said that she might some day want to meet the child and the birth father said he was not sure he would ever want to meet the child (yeah, that impressed the heck out of me, not). The birth mother has had no contact with the agency in over 20 years showing any interest in the child that had been her son. I have heard of couples that adopt believing that it will be the "cure" for their infertility and I don't even have words to describe how horrible I think that is. Some people have a conscious and some don't.

When we adopted over 25 years ago, I could not believe the comments that I got. My own mother said that she could never feel the way about this child as she did about my birth child. Well, mom was the Wicked Witch of The East anyway and she was almost wrote out of my life before the adoption so her opinion amounted to nothing anyway. At work, they just sort of cringed although one of the guys told me about his adopting a child years before and it was a wonderful story filled with love. It is not easy for an adoptive parent, not easy at all over all these years and it was the attitude of others, not the child that made it that way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2012, 03:28 PM
 
8,306 posts, read 8,580,329 times
Reputation: 25929
Quote:
There is a difference between how people consider adoption as a concept and adoption as the industry that exists today. I am not against adoption as a concept (and therefore should not be labeled as "anti adoption") but I am against certain practices currently undertaken by the industry as it exists right now. The current adoption industry encourages and promotes the falsifying of birth certificates, for example. This practice is absolutely not required to provide a home to child. It is entirely possible for people to raise a child not born of them without denying the child access to, or knowledge of, their biological origins through the falsifying of a birth certificate.

Other countries use a guardianship model to handle the legalities of an adoption. The adoptive parents assume legal guardianship of the child and receive the paperwork to show this. The child's birth certificate remains accurate and intact. This model allows the child (who will eventually become an independent adult) to be considered as an actual party to his or her own adoption. The adoptee would legally have access to his or her own information without having to rely on others.

Just because someone takes issue with certain aspects of the adoption industry as it operates right now this very moment does not mean that they are against adoption as a concept. I've just provided an example of how the adoption industry could operate without falsifying an adoptee's birth certificate. This would allow for someone who does not wish to parent to not parent their own child while also respecting the right of the child to know who created and birthed him or her. Still adoption. Just done differently and in a way that is much more respectful of the adoptee as an individual.
As you are well aware, I've been saying that people who claim they are not "anti-adoption", but than act in every possible way as though they truly are "anti-adoption" are anti-adoption. As far as I'm concerned, you can deny until the cows come home it doesn't change a thing.

The guardianship model you describe is not adoption. Its guardianship. Presumably, the child would still be known by the last name of the birthparents. Perhaps, the biggest difficulty with this arrangment is that most children who are in it would quickly realize how different it is than simply being a child of the adoptive parents. School enrollment would require all kinds of special designations. I wonder how the passport process would work? There might be issues with respect to health insurance and in other areas regulated by the law. I would think this would make a child feel like he/she is "different".

I question the motives of someone seeking this arrangment. There are adoptive parents, like myself, who are perfectly willing to agree open adoption records. I'm fine with that. The fact that I am not a biological parent to either my son or daughter has never cost me even five minutes of sleep during the night. What I suspect is that people who want to replace adoption with guardianship are really after is simply the slow destruction of the adoption process. Its a subtle attempt to "delegitimize" adoption.

Finally, a few words about the current system that makes birth records confidential. At the time those laws were enacted, they had a valid purpose. It was stigmatic during the 1950's and 1960's to give birth to a child out-of-wedlock. One can argue over whether there is ever a legitimate reason for the state to issue a fraudulent document all you want. However, there was a benign purpose to it at the time and that purpose was to try to protect children. Now, things have changed. Being born out-of-wedlock is no longer stigmatic in any place I can think of so it is time to change these laws. Fine. What I don't care for is an attitude that makes little attempt to understand the cultural differences at the time and seems unable to perceive that reasons existed for the system that was enacted. So, by all means, seek to change these laws. However, get off your high horse and stop preaching to us. You aren't the only source of wisdom when it comes to adoption.

Finally, I hope you don't spend a lot of time thinking about ideas like replacing adoption with guardianship. It is going to be enacted into law anywhere in this country during your lifetime and probably that of the next generation. JMHO, of course, but I know more about the legislative process than you probably imagine I do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2012, 04:27 PM
 
509 posts, read 468,726 times
Reputation: 747
I would like to speak about the idea of adoptees who are anti-adoption as an adoptive parent.

I have come across people on the internet who are adamantly against adoption. When I read more on those people's blogs, I can really see why they feel that way. I don't agree, but at the same time, I get why they feel that way. I also respect their voices because I think adoptee's voices matter. Just like I really listen to the opinion of gay people when considering gay marriage or women when discussing feminism. Listening to the people who are the most impacted by a decision is always in the best interests of making a sound decision. It doesn't mean you have to agree with every word they say, but to minimize their words by seeking a hidden agenda or saying they are just angry isn't listening. It's dismissing.

It's easy to dismiss adoptees as angry or to question their motives. It's much harder, as an adoptive parent, to set aside any of my own feelings reading terms like "adoptoraptors" and or unethical adoptions and such, and just dispassionately listen to what the adoptee is really saying. But I believe it is so very critical.

Someday, my adopted daughter will grow into an adult. If she is even remotely like her first parents (and I think she will be, based on her personality so far ), she will be articulate, intelligent, and passionate. I imagine she might have a lot to say about adoption. Maybe not just her own adoption, but adoption in general. As her parent, it will be my responsibility to respect what she has to say, even if it differs vastly from my own opinion. I can begin preparing myself for some of her possible feelings by reading the voices of other adoptees, even those who are adamantly against adoption.

It makes me really angry to think of others calling my daughter ungrateful, angry, or question her motives if she chooses to speak out negatively about adoption when she is older. She has every right to her beliefs and opinions and to express those without having people be patronizing and dismissive or call her names. As an adoptive parent, I don't understand why other APs are okay with dismissing ideas, statements, and beliefs of people who are adoptees themselves... and perhaps the future voices of your own children?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2012, 07:18 PM
 
15,744 posts, read 13,171,628 times
Reputation: 19636
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
As you are well aware, I've been saying that people who claim they are not "anti-adoption", but than act in every possible way as though they truly are "anti-adoption" are anti-adoption. As far as I'm concerned, you can deny until the cows come home it doesn't change a thing.

The guardianship model you describe is not adoption. Its guardianship.
And works as ADOPTION in multiple nations. Including the one that that poster was ADOPTED in.

And fyi, mr "I know more law than you think", most states and even many nations recognize that parents are the natural legal guardians of their children. This means that guardianship, is just a legal term for the parental relationship. Therefore adoptive parents, just like all parents, are already legal guardians.

Quote:
Presumably, the child would still be known by the last name of the birthparents.
Not always. And if we are creating a new, BETTER system in this nation, we can allow people to change the name of their adoptive chidlren.

This happens every day with the most common adoptions in this nation, step parent adoptions. The child typically has their name changed, the step parent assumes the same legal responsibilities as both parent and legal guardian AND THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE REMAINS INTACT.

Quote:
Perhaps, the biggest difficulty with this arrangment is that most children who are in it would quickly realize how different it is than simply being a child of the adoptive parents. School enrollment would require all kinds of special designations. I wonder how the passport process would work? There might be issues with respect to health insurance and in other areas regulated by the law. I would think this would make a child feel like he/she is "different".
I was the legal guardian of three of my siblings. There were no "special designations". The same way there is no special designations for step parents who adopt, while keeping the birth certificate intact.

My siblings also had no problems with their passports, even my sister who was little more than a toddler and frequently traveled internationally. Federal mandates cover all legal dependent in fact, health insurance and the mandates requiring employers to cover dependents of legal guardians is why I bothered with legal guardian ship with my oldest sibling who was within a year or so of being a legal adult.

And adoption, and not having access to their REAL birth certificate, wouldn't make someone feel different? The vast majority of adoptees in this country deal with this when adopted by a step parent.

Again, you ignore the actual adoptees posting here in favor of your wishes as an AP.

Quote:
I question the motives of someone seeking this arrangment. There are adoptive parents, like myself, who are perfectly willing to agree open adoption records. I'm fine with that. The fact that I am not a biological parent to either my son or daughter has never cost me even five minutes of sleep during the night. What I suspect is that people who want to replace adoption with guardianship are really after is simply the slow destruction of the adoption process. Its a subtle attempt to "delegitimize" adoption.
How is protecting the rights of the adoptee over EVERYONE ELSE anything but supporting adoption. Oh, wait, it inhibits what you feel is the purpose of adoption, to provide children to the infertile. And legal guardianship has existed as an institution

And open adoptions are not legally enforceable and can always be challenged by the adoptive parents. So if you change your mind at some point, your child has no recourse to find out even the names of their birth parents.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2012, 07:21 PM
 
15,744 posts, read 13,171,628 times
Reputation: 19636
Quote:
Originally Posted by tiffjoy View Post
I would like to speak about the idea of adoptees who are anti-adoption as an adoptive parent.

I have come across people on the internet who are adamantly against adoption. When I read more on those people's blogs, I can really see why they feel that way. I don't agree, but at the same time, I get why they feel that way. I also respect their voices because I think adoptee's voices matter. Just like I really listen to the opinion of gay people when considering gay marriage or women when discussing feminism. Listening to the people who are the most impacted by a decision is always in the best interests of making a sound decision. It doesn't mean you have to agree with every word they say, but to minimize their words by seeking a hidden agenda or saying they are just angry isn't listening. It's dismissing.

It's easy to dismiss adoptees as angry or to question their motives. It's much harder, as an adoptive parent, to set aside any of my own feelings reading terms like "adoptoraptors" and or unethical adoptions and such, and just dispassionately listen to what the adoptee is really saying. But I believe it is so very critical.

Someday, my adopted daughter will grow into an adult. If she is even remotely like her first parents (and I think she will be, based on her personality so far ), she will be articulate, intelligent, and passionate. I imagine she might have a lot to say about adoption. Maybe not just her own adoption, but adoption in general. As her parent, it will be my responsibility to respect what she has to say, even if it differs vastly from my own opinion. I can begin preparing myself for some of her possible feelings by reading the voices of other adoptees, even those who are adamantly against adoption.

It makes me really angry to think of others calling my daughter ungrateful, angry, or question her motives if she chooses to speak out negatively about adoption when she is older. She has every right to her beliefs and opinions and to express those without having people be patronizing and dismissive or call her names. As an adoptive parent, I don't understand why other APs are okay with dismissing ideas, statements, and beliefs of people who are adoptees themselves... and perhaps the future voices of your own children?
Wow. Amazing post. Thanks for sharing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-24-2012, 04:38 PM
 
11,151 posts, read 13,792,939 times
Reputation: 18791
Quote:
Originally Posted by SummerFall View Post
Some people were just against adoption in general, which confuses me. What do people think should be done with the children of parents who dont want to be parents, or soon to be parents?

I'd like to remind everyone that ^^ this ^^ is the thread topic. Because a number of comments have veered off into a discussion of birth certificates, I've moved them to a new thread.

Please limit your responses here to ones that directly address the OP's question.

Thanks!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting > Adoption
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top