Why prospective adoptive parents will go to such lengths to find a baby to adopt (meeting, birth)
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.
Honestly, and though I am new here, I am not new to the topic. Quite a veteran, in fact.
I don't think there is such a thing as child-centered adoption, if we are to get real. In fact, I don't think it's healthy to believe prospective adoptive parents adopt or should adopt for purely altruistic reasons.
I never said they should. Before criticizing my words, please read what I've actually written. Thanks.
And I'm not new to the topic, either, being an adoptee myself.
Could you explain please? Are you talking about from a purely evolutionary standpoint? Because I will be honest, very little about parenting feels selfish to me.
Honestly, and though I am new here, I am not new to the topic. Quite a veteran, in fact.
I don't think there is such a thing as child-centered adoption, if we are to get real. In fact, I don't think it's healthy to believe prospective adoptive parents adopt or should adopt for purely altruistic reasons. I think the happiest adoptive families are where both parents and children meet one another's needs. All parenting is intrinsically selfish.
This is probably quite true, but I think it points where some misunderstandings arise. Adoptions as they are lived by adoptive families after they are joined are not child-centered any more or less than any other families. Adoption, the process of achieving that joining, should be.
Can't agree that all parenting[I assume you mean deciding to parent] is intrinsically selfish though. For example; deciding to carry and raise the child of an unplanned pregnancy despite hardships ahead; adopting a relative's orphaned child; instances where parenting involves sacrifice for the benefit of the child.
Honestly, and though I am new here, I am not new to the topic. Quite a veteran, in fact.
I don't think there is such a thing as child-centered adoption, if we are to get real. In fact, I don't think it's healthy to believe prospective adoptive parents adopt or should adopt for purely altruistic reasons. I think the happiest adoptive families are where both parents and children meet one another's needs. All parenting is intrinsically selfish.
I feel you need to separate "adoption as an entity" and "personal reasons for adoption". To me, I believe that Adoption Existence an Entity should only be provided for those children who need families. On the other hand, I believe that those who wish to adopt those "children who need families" should be doing so because they want to raise a child, not for altruistic reasons alone, i.e. out of pity.
However, when one feels it is OK for Adoption to Exist in order to fill a demand by those who wish to raise children, then I feel that is crossing a line. This is because the demand must be met and one needs to be very careful about how one is going to find the EXTRA supply.
What Mark above might not realise is that I believe that the majority of women who relinquish their child do so because they believe it is in the best interest of their child. It sounds like he has that view too. However, where we differ is that, due to the prevalence of certain programs and websites etc over the last 5-10 years, I do have concerns about how they came to their decision.
Of course, I can hear the cries now - "OMG, Susankate is bringing up the "coercion" card again"! Actually, my problem is that I do have concerns about the motives behind the programs that claim to counsel women re making a decision in the "best interest of their child". If the motive behind the creation of such programs is to "increase supply" due to increased demand by "consumers", or because of certain ideologies of those who feel the "supplier" to be less "moral" than the "consumer", then somehow the "child" themselves gets lost. The women can end up making their decision in regards to what is in the best interest of their child but with compromised information.
Also, I believe in general that these programs should not be offered to women at the start of their pregnancies. I believe that if a woman has an unplanned pregnancy, is a functional human being and has mixed feelings, then she should first be brought to a place where she is in a better position to make a decision, eg the counsellor could say "both options are good options but first of all let's concentrate on seeing how we can improve things in general" (not just talking re pregnancy). A decision re her child's future should not be made when she is in a vulnerable state.
Also, I believe that she must not disassociate herself from her child while pregnant as this compromises her decision-making. In fact, even many bmoms who do consider themselves to have made the right decision have said that they did disassociate themselves while pregnant and that they believed that that did affect their decision-making process.
The self selection that takes place when one chooses to post on a board, newsgroup. or forum is quite significant. Presumably, most adoptees who don't have issues with the system probably wouldn't seek out a forum or a board.
I just wanted to visit this again. I have explained above in a different posts the various reasons why adoptees starting posting on forums.
I thought I would give my own reason for posting for the first time. I posted on a very large adoption site which was for all members of the triad. I first posted for advice on how to make contact with biological family - I wasn't sure which relative I should contact.
Did I have any issues with my afamily or the system when first posting? Actually, I had no particular issues re afamily and as for the system, I really hadn't thought much about it at the time, thus how can I have issues with something I'd not thought that much about.
I then did end up making the right decision re relative to contact and then got to know my brelatives as human beings. Even though I would never know my bmom as I had, at the time, known for 4 years that she had passed away many years previously, she did go from being an abstract concept to being something more "real". One thing that many adoptees who do make contact will say is that it is like being on a rollercoaster for many different reasons, and even in my case where I was only making contact with extended family, I thought that description was apt.
Thus, I continued to post on the forum for both support and advice from other adoptees, especially those who had "found a grave" like myself and the support and advice I received was invaluable.
Did I have any issues at the time? What I did do was start to actually think more about adoption-related things. I also read other posts by other members of the triad - the majority of the regulars being adoptive parents with a few bparents and adoptees. I found it very interesting and learnt a lot about adoption in the US. I will acknowledge that I did start to have issues about certain aspects of adoption in the US due to things said by both adoptive parentes/bmoms themselves. I did also play the devil's advocate and look at the "positive" blogs by APs and bmoms and, in fact, these positive blogs actually inadvertantly confirmed what the online APs/bmoms were saying.
However, there were some members, sadly mainly adoptive parents, who felt that any adoptee wanting to search must be doing so because they had issues. They felt that curiosity re one's origins was a reflection on an adoptee's parents' parenting - unfortunately, there were fellow APs on the board who were made to feel that they were lesser parents because of this.
Something the adoptees ended up having to deal with on a regular basis was being "othered", i.e. the constant remarks by quite a few adoptive parents that "not every adoptee is like the ones who come on these boards, I know lots of adoptees that have no interest in their biological families". In fact, one could guarantee that at least one or twice a week you would get those comments - they weren't necessarily directed at the adoptees but at the same time, they were designed to make the adoptees on the forum feel as if their wanting to search was due to the adoptees own shortcomings. It also seemed that these APs would say these things to reassure themselves, i.e. by implying that searching adoptees only did so because of their own shortcomings, anything they said or felt could be disregarded because they were then "adoptees with issues" and thus their experiences didn't count. Other times, the comments were made by those who genuinely believed that we needed to know how other adoptees feel, not realising that, in fact, many of us may have "been there and done that", i.e. they weren't telling us something we didn't already know and in fact many of us may have well expressed those views in the past.
Now, I am not going to say the adoptees on forums are representative of ALL adoptees, of course they aren't, but at the same time they are not anomalies either.
I will admit that I did end up having an issue with those members who had an issue with adoptees who searched and those members who somehow ended up twisting things around all the time - I think some of the adoptees/bmoms and other APs were getting a complex because they would say something and other people would then accuse us of meaning something else. I do feel there were some members on that forum who deliberately misquoted us, not because they didn't get what they were saying but because they wanted to poison newer members against us.
So, yes, in the end, I did end up with issues in regards to treatment of adoptees on forums.
Last edited by Green Irish Eyes; 01-11-2013 at 07:36 AM..
Reason: Just fixed the quote code
What an intense thread. I actually agree with Sheena. As a prospective adoptive parent, I believe that there is nothing wrong with how parents go about obtaining a family as long as no laws are broken and all parties are in agreement. This is putting the child' s interest first, believe it or not. Two parties agreeing on the future care of an unborn child is the most child-centered decision they can make. certainly the unborn child can't make any decisions. And, coercion is very subjective and can only be defined by those involved.
As far as age, socio-economic status and educational levels of the parents are concerned, yes, mounds of evidence support the fact that kids from families on the higher end of the spectrum tend to fare better in life than their lower end counterparts....even though there are always exceptions to this rule.
I respect the feelings of the adoptees here, but agree that they appear to be heavily weighted on personal experiences and unresolved emotions rather than practical solutions and realistic views.
Adoption is not a social cause, it is a way to build a family for those who both need (child) and want (parents) one.
What an intense thread. I actually agree with Sheena. As a prospective adoptive parent, I believe that there is nothing wrong with how parents go about obtaining a family as long as no laws are broken and all parties are in agreement. This is putting the child' s interest first, believe it or not. Two parties agreeing on the future care of an unborn child is the most child-centered decision they can make. certainly the unborn child can't make any decisions. And, coercion is very subjective and can only be defined by those involved.
Have not seen anyone say otherwise although some parts have room for quibbling - only after birth can the actual decision be made - plans can be made prior, but not guaranteed. I would also quibble that subjective being the only way to define coercion...some acts of coercion are blatant...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaded
As far as age, socio-economic status and educational levels of the parents are concerned, yes, mounds of evidence support the fact that kids from families on the higher end of the spectrum tend to fare better in life than their lower end counterparts....even though there are always exceptions to this rule.
Sigh...here go the assumptions...you assume every adoptee comes from a less well off family, or to put it bluntly a lower class family...
There are no hard and fast absolutes when it comes to "who" is surrendered for adoption.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaded
I respect the feelings of the adoptees here, but agree that they appear to be heavily weighted on personal experiences and unresolved emotions rather than practical solutions and realistic views.
Really? You respect us but we have "issues" so no worries about taking anything we say seriously. We have no practical solutions, or realistic views, but you respect us anyway right?
Heavily weighted on personal experience is another fine line to walk - does it apply to families dealing with infertility when they speak about the derth of adoptable infants, and why does it have to be so hard to adopt? What about concer survivors who advocate for better care? What about people subjected to racism, who want to see more acceptance and education? Really the list is endless because anyone who is active within a community has an invested stake in it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaded
Adoption is not a social cause, it is a way to build a family for those who both need (child) and want (parents) one.
There is where we part ways - adoption is a social cause because a minor who is unable to live in their family of birth relies on society to protect them. Adoption is finding a home for a child who needs a home - not finding a child for a family who wants one. The two do work hand in hand, but the priority must always stay on the child's needs being met first and foremost - not the families desire, they don't need societies protection.
Could you explain please? Are you talking about from a purely evolutionary standpoint? Because I will be honest, very little about parenting feels selfish to me.
I hear you. It's tough work, and often a very selfless job.
Here's what I meant though.
The decision to become a parent occurs because it fulfills a need in ourselves, so from that vantage point biological parenting is just as selfish as adoptive parenting. (perhaps self-serving would be a better word to employ than selfish). My intent is not to insult anyone who is a parent. Heck, I'm a parent.
I feel you need to separate "adoption as an entity" and "personal reasons for adoption". To me, I believe that Adoption Existence an Entity should only be provided for those children who need families. On the other hand, I believe that those who wish to adopt those "children who need families" should be doing so because they want to raise a child, not for altruistic reasons alone, i.e. out of pity.
Ok, we're on the same page. To go even further, perhaps elaborating on that point, the industry should be geared to finding homes for kids who are in need. Alas, I wish we lived in a perfect world where this were so. Adding, if we take the profit out of it, perhaps we'd move closer to the goalpost.
Quote:
However, when one feels it is OK for Adoption to Exist in order to fill a demand by those who wish to raise children, then I feel that is crossing a line. This is because the demand must be met and one needs to be very careful about how one is going to find the EXTRA supply.
Agree!
Quote:
What Mark above might not realise is that I believe that the majority of women who relinquish their child do so because they believe it is in the best interest of their child. It sounds like he has that view too. However, where we differ is that, due to the prevalence of certain programs and websites etc over the last 5-10 years, I do have concerns about how they came to their decision.
Personally, I believe anyone who has been involved in adoption in any capacity has the obligation to point out potential coercion/problems, etc. That means all of us, even those who already have made their families through adoption.
Quote:
Of course, I can hear the cries now - "OMG, Susankate is bringing up the "coercion" card again"! Actually, my problem is that I do have concerns about the motives behind the programs that claim to counsel women re making a decision in the "best interest of their child". If the motive behind the creation of such programs is to "increase supply" due to increased demand by "consumers", or because of certain ideologies of those who feel the "supplier" to be less "moral" than the "consumer", then somehow the "child" themselves gets lost. The women can end up making their decision in regards to what is in the best interest of their child but with compromised information.
Like I was saying above.... again, I agree.
I've taken a long break from contributing to adoption boards primarily because I have moved on, but that doesn't mean I don't or won't have input to what I perceive is necessary change. As I said, we have an obligation to speak-up. Especially those of us who are experience-based on the issues. We need to be less defensive when discussion like these arise, and ask ourselves why we don't want to hear other's honest input. I find too often that many sit back and judge other's experiences when in effect they are projecting their fears onto others. Some adoptive parents really tick me off in this regard. I also wonder if they parent the same way. Squash the dialogue with their kids whose experiences are in the making under their roof.
Quote:
Also, I believe in general that these programs should not be offered to women at the start of their pregnancies. I believe that if a woman has an unplanned pregnancy, is a functional human being and has mixed feelings, then she should first be brought to a place where she is in a better position to make a decision, eg the counsellor could say "both options are good options but first of all let's concentrate on seeing how we can improve things in general" (not just talking re pregnancy). A decision re her child's future should not be made when she is in a vulnerable state.
Agree again!
Quote:
Also, I believe that she must not disassociate herself from her child while pregnant as this compromises her decision-making. In fact, even many bmoms who do consider themselves to have made the right decision have said that they did disassociate themselves while pregnant and that they believed that that did affect their decision-making process.
Last edited by Avery_Harper; 01-11-2013 at 12:59 PM..
There is where we part ways - adoption is a social cause because a minor who is unable to live in their family of birth relies on society to protect them. Adoption is finding a home for a child who needs a home - not finding a child for a family who wants one. The two do work hand in hand, but the priority must always stay on the child's needs being met first and foremost - not the families desire, they don't need societies protection.
Someone who says it is not a social cause isn't looking at it from an historical context. They're looking at it as a means to the end; a way to get a child.
Agree with your input and concur with whoever said this thread was intense. I stumbled upon this forum by accident because I was posting on another forum where the news was about Russia's adoption bans. The discussion focused more on politics and less on adoption, but I digress. After reading that thread, this was the next in line. Don't know if I will stick around long. Like I said,... I have moved on to other areas of importance. Eventurally, even the die-hards do.
Last edited by Avery_Harper; 01-11-2013 at 01:23 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.