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.
The 'red thread' of legend is about fate. Your original posts asked if people could be destined to be together. No matter what words you use, that's a question about fate.
No one in this thread is saying that some child aren't much better off with adoptive parents than birth parents. But if you're going to say that fate (or red threads, or whatever other name you wish to give it) ties adopted children to their adoptive parents, then you have to expect people to bring up cases of adoption that involve abuse. Not because they think all children are better off with their birth parents, and not because they think abuse never occurs within birth families. The nature of the theory (are some people destined to be together?) will always bring this response (if so, why do some people suffer?).
Just to clarify -- Sheena was the OP, and it was she who brought up the idea of the red thread.
Just to clarify -- Sheena was the OP, and it was she who brought up the idea of the red thread.
Edited...whoops, no, I did mix up two posts. Sorry !
Here's a personal example of this concept...
My cat JJ was a feral stray when I rescued him (I am not comparing children to cats, btw.) He was brought in the veterinary hospital where I worked after being found sitting in the street. He was starved and his eyes were so badly infected they were basically just ulcerated tissue.
The day he was brought in happened to be a day I didn't normally work. A coworker had asked to switch shifts at the last moment. If I hadn't been there that day, he would have been euthanized (because I wouldn't have been there to stop forward and take responsibility for his care.) The previous year I was involved in a car accident. The settlement from that turned out to be just enough to cover his medical care during his initial set of operations...almost to the cent ($13,000 and some change.) If I hadn't been in that car accident, I would have had a much tougher time paying for his care.
It's tempting to think he was meant to be mine (or I meant to be his.) During a time when I am dealing with caring for an elderly parent, he has been a source of constant amusement and affection. There are days I don't smile unless I look at him and then I just can't help myself.
I bring this up because as tempting as it is to believe we were fated, it would mean the various animals I couldn't save during those years (often abused, injured, or neglected) were destined to die. I can't reconcile the two. I've never been able to.
Edited to add...this would also mean that JJ was fated to wandering on the streets and losing both eyes.
Last edited by ParallelJJCat; 01-06-2013 at 03:31 PM..
I love my aparents dearly, but I don't think I was "fated" to be with them. They happened to be the people who were there when the agency called, the people at the top of the list. If they hadn't been, I would have gone to another family. It worked out well that I was placed where I was, but I could just as easily have ended up somewhere else.
Just as easily as my sons could have been girls if different sperm had won the day. I don't believe in an "master plan." Humans make choices based on events and we live with those choices.
I adopted a greyhound puppy who had been rescued from a a hoarder using them for blood donor dogs. Greyhound rescue was overloaded and put them into local shelters. Another local greyhound group had recently flunked my family because we have a rosebush in our back yard (some rescue groups are run by freaks). Anyway, we adopted our beloved puppy, Percy, who then turned out to have terrible hemangiosarcoma and didn't last until his second birthday, due to metastasis. We enjoyed our limited time together, though. When he died, I called the rescue group, who told me that one of Percy's littermates had been returned by a family for whom he wasn't a good match. We adopted Finn, and have had him for almost three years now. I love Finn, but I don't think "fate" made Percy die at 21 months so that we could give Finn another home. It gets too twisted.
Last edited by MirrenC; 01-06-2013 at 03:19 PM..
Reason: clarity
I did not say that Dark ever said such a thing. What I did say was that many of the posters seem to give the impression on this board that children would, mostly be better off with their birth parents and that birth parents are some how superior or more equipped to parent and adoptive parents are not real, are not parents, are adoptive parents or worse adopters.
Additionally, I was not referring to fate and I do not ascribe to predestination. I get the feeling that this whole thread would be better on a different forum.
I believe deeply in personal responsibility. I think that all babies should be planned and wanted by responsible and stable parents. I also believe that there are consequences to our actions.
Ah, so "better off" should be the deciding factor? So what if a korean american family, with more money, and a more stable home life had decided that your daughter would be "better off" with them, should they just have been able to take your daughter away?
The idea of "better off" quickly becomes baby snatching for the well off, because it becomes about quantifying a variety of hard to measure factors. We know a variety of factors predict "better off" including wealth and marital status of parents etc. But we also know from a variety of research that when you do control for those factors, children who live with their biological parents have better outcomes than those who do not. That is as factual as the importance of marital status, and education level. So no, factually you are wrong, being adopted is not completely equivalent in predicting outcomes for children, the same way single parenting is not completely equivalent to a two parent family for predicting the outcome for children.
So yes, fundamentally, it is better for children to be with their biological families but in reality, as with all predictors of outcome, sometimes the other factors outweigh that one and being adopted is the best course of action.
Reality is there is always going to be another family who is measurably "more" than another, and if "better off" is the ONLY thing that matters, than it won't end happily for many PAPs either.
Ah, so "better off" should be the deciding factor? So what if a korean american family, with more money, and a more stable home life had decided that your daughter would be "better off" with them, should they just have been able to take your daughter away?
The idea of "better off" quickly becomes baby snatching for the well off, because it becomes about quantifying a variety of hard to measure factors. We know a variety of factors predict "better off" including wealth and marital status of parents etc. But we also know from a variety of research that when you do control for those factors, children who live with their biological parents have better outcomes than those who do not. That is as factual as the importance of marital status, and education level. So no, factually you are wrong, being adopted is not completely equivalent in predicting outcomes for children, the same way single parenting is not completely equivalent to a two parent family for predicting the outcome for children.
So yes, fundamentally, it is better for children to be with their biological families but in reality, as with all predictors of outcome, sometimes the other factors outweigh that one and being adopted is the best course of action.
Reality is there is always going to be another family who is measurably "more" than another, and if "better off" is the ONLY thing that matters, than it won't end happily for many PAPs either.
I tend to doubt that statement that all children with biological families have better outcomes than those in adoptive families.
Andrea Yates' children did not fare better certainly. Nor did a young woman I know very well whose earliest memory is being placed into a clothes dryer by her parent -- her life with her adoptive parents was far better than that.
You cannot possibly say that ever adopted child would have had a better outcome with his/her biological parent(s) -- a great number of children born to single mothers live on welfare programs and welfare is largely generational. These children never have a father, they may have one biological parent who remains in their life but the father disappeared or no one knew who the father was. The number of abuse cases of children by single mothers' boyfriends is far too high to think that being raised by a bio familiy always has better outcomes.
I tend to doubt that statement that all children with biological families have better outcomes than those in adoptive families.
Andrea Yates' children did not fare better certainly. Nor did a young woman I know very well whose earliest memory is being placed into a clothes dryer by her parent -- her life with her adoptive parents was far better than that.
You cannot possibly say that ever adopted child would have had a better outcome with his/her biological parent(s) -- a great number of children born to single mothers live on welfare programs and welfare is largely generational. These children never have a father, they may have one biological parent who remains in their life but the father disappeared or no one knew who the father was. The number of abuse cases of children by single mothers' boyfriends is far too high to think that being raised by a bio familiy always has better outcomes.
Did you actually read what lkb said?
So yes, fundamentally, it is better for children to be with their biological families but in reality, as with all predictors of outcome, sometimes the other factors outweigh that one and being adopted is the best course of action.
How can you interpret that as "every adopted child would have had a better outcome with his/her biological parents"? She is clearly stating that there are times when adoption or rather separation from bparents may be the best course of action.
And I'll give you this - not all adoptive families or birth families are like mine. My teenagers friends have such problematic families. It's really sad. I do not think that adoptive parents or kids are better than biological ones - or vice versa.
I also don't think people are evil, - well some might be, (Hitler, Stalin, etc) but there is absolutely evidence of evil on this earth.
And I too am troubled with the flipside of the good part of what I believe. I had a friend about five years ago who was really pushing me to read "The Secret". And I think that there were some good things about it.
But there was a part that I could not swallow. Actually, it made me gag. The idea that People who lost friends or family member or their own lives, in disasters such as Katrina or 9/11 were some how responsible for it. Or if a 3 year old dies of cancer, some how the child brought it. I find that repugnant.
I think I may not have it all worked out. What a news flash.
And I believe people who tell me that they come from dysfunctional or abusive family - I BELIEVE THEM. But what about non adoptive families who are dysfunctional?
You can't tell me that they don't exist because I come from one. My sisters are toxic and selfish and they LOVE my family. In fact, I think we grew up in a whole other house. My brother is a brat and a user. And he's 39, has borrowed thousands of dollars from me and wrecked two cars. He's the one I get along with best.
I just think that perhaps we could agree that there are many kinds of unhappy families. And not all have adoption as the source of their issues.
"Happy families are all alike. Every unhappy family is unhappy in it's own way" Tolstoy
Sheena, (re highlighted bit), I've seen that too, where and had the same reaction as you do. I think also that that line of thinking can put people under emotional pressure because a dreadful tragedy happens in their life, they can end up thinking they are somehow to blame when, in reality, it is something that is a result of something that is the result of another person's actions.
As I said previously, when you have over 6 billion people living on a planet where we all interact to some degree with other people, and with all of us having some form of free will, there are times when a stranger's actions will affect people who are not in his immediate circle. This can happen in both negative and positive ways.
In regards to adoption, as I said earlier, I have had online APs say they very much dislike the idea that a woman got pregnant to provide them with a baby but do believe that the lives of their child and themselves were meant to cross paths "after the fact" and that is something that might make more sense.
I do not want to argue with anyone or make this into a heated debate about adoption - but instead discuss the spiritual and mystical components of the adoption experience - on ALL SIDES.
My first post on this thread (about possible mystical components) was as a result of the above statement. I hope people read it in the above spirit of your statement - it is not intended as a "biological" vs "adoption" comparison.
You can't tell me that they don't exist because I come from one.
Sigh. Who the heck is saying they don't exist? I know that I'm sick and tired of you and others saying that we adoptees on here are saying that ALL biofamilies are better than ALL adoptive families. You seem to be misinterpreting the following FACT: The ideal situation for ALL children would be to be born into and raised in a FUNCTIONAL AND LOVING family.
Somehow you are interpreting that meaning "ALL CHILDREN should remain in THEIR biological families even if the family is dysfunctional".
There is not a single one of on here that disputes the fact that there are times that remaining in one's biological family is not in the child's best interest and in that case, removal and adoption/non-related care may be the best option.
In fact, the modern form of adoption was designed to be a deliberate recreation of the "ideal", i.e. "as if" born into and raised in a functional loving family - the inconvenient progenitrix and progenitor to be ignored as if they never existed.
In regards to adoption, as I said earlier, I have had online APs say they very much dislike the idea that a woman got pregnant to provide them with a baby but do believe that the lives of their child and themselves were meant to cross paths "after the fact" and that is something that might make more sense.
This would better describe how I and my husband feel regarding our adoption of our daughter.
I would be lying if I didn't say my own faith plays a pretty big role in how I view things. I always wanted to adopt, from the time I was quite young. As I got older, I felt that someday, I would connect with a child who belonged with us even though I wouldn't give birth to him or her. It feels a little more than slightly naive to say that now, but I am simply being honest in how I felt before.
Meeting our daughter's other parents certainly felt purposeful and not coincidental. And I believe it was. They were not able to keep their baby. Could I have somehow changed the multiple circumstances surrounding them, I would have, but it was not in my power. Their loss and the fact that I think they would have been wonderful parents to their child is one reason I am so passionate about increasing the amount of support provided to expectant mothers to allow them to keep their babies if the desire is there. (I will not get into specifics regarding their reasons, and I am also not completely saying more support would have changed their decision. Only that it has had an impact on how I view adoption and emom support.)
I do believe that God intended for us to meet because I think He can make something beautiful out of something messy. I do believe I am the best possible second mother my daughter could have. In the absence of her first family, I believe we were meant to come together and create a new family out of the brokenness and be given the opportunity to love her. Her mother did not give birth to “my daughter.” Our daughter was not destined to lose her mother at only one day old. That is a result of the brokenness and imperfection of this world. In a perfect world, she would be with her first parents (I am speaking of my daughter here, not all adopted children, such as those from abusive bio families) and not with us, and I recognize that fully. In my heart, if I had the power to save her from that separation, I would have because l love her. Since I could not, I am intensely grateful we all met because I truly believe we are the best second choice for our daughter. And while I fully acknowledge being God’s second choice as mother for her, she will always be first choice for me- she fills a part of my heart that was meant to be filled only by her. Now that I am actually a mother, I don’t really view my children as belonging to me, necessarily, as i might have before I had children. Now, I see it the opposite way- I definitely view myself as belonging to them while they are gifts that have been entrusted to me for a short while to care for, but not to keep.
On the topic of children who are adopted into abusive homes- this is a very difficult one that I wish I had all the answers to, but I don’t. All I know is that some people muck up great blessings. People who abuse children are awful people who do bad things that hurt innocent people. I do not believe any child, biological or adopted, deserves a fate less than a loving home and caring parents. These children are victims, and no victim is fated to a painful destiny; someone else has decided to cruelly take their life in their hands and hurt them. Blaming the victim is cruel and untruthful, and I can’t imagine any adoptive parent means to imply this is any way. Being entrusted with the life of a child is a humbling and awesome responsibility, and those who abuse such a privilege are not people with whom I would never trade places in terms of karma and end of the world judgment. Because I do not believe God ever, ever wants any child to suffer, especially at the hands of their caregiver. That was not meant to be their fate; it was the crimes of another who forced that upon them.
What I did say was that many of the posters seem to give the impression on this board that children would, mostly be better off with their birth parents and that birth parents are some how superior or more equipped to parent and adoptive parents are not real, are not parents, are adoptive parents or worse adopters.
Not quite sure how to read that. In part, it appears that "adoptive parents are not real, are not parents, are adoptive parents....". Adoptive parents are... adoptive parents?
IN THEIR OWN WORDS:
Adoption UK is a national charity run by and for adopters, providing self-help information, advice, support and training on all aspects of adoption and adoptive parenting.
I have cut and pasted directly from their site. They have no problem identifying themselves as adopters. Please visit for yourself, it is a very comprehensive site.
It's tempting to think he was meant to be mine (or I meant to be his.) ....
I bring this up because as tempting as it is to believe we were fated, it would mean the various animals I couldn't save during those years (often abused, injured, or neglected) were destined to die. I can't reconcile the two. I've never been able to.
Edited to add...this would also mean that JJ was fated to wandering on the streets and losing both eyes.
This is a wonderful, simple, clear cut example of how I feel, as well.
When someone says that everything happens for a reason, or that something was "meant to be," each and every time my mind flies to abused children, to women who were raped to death, to the millions that have died because they were born on one side of a line in the dirt and not the other. If there is some force that means for these things to happen, I want no part of it.
I do not believe that my kids were meant to be with me. I know that when I chose my biological son's parents, I was applying an "algorithm" of sorts, that included physical characteristics, intellectual vigor, and overall approach to life. If his parents were that sort of people, they might find it appealing to believe that he was "meant" for them, since he likely has similarities to them, via my own. But my even meeting his birth father was random, as was where I was living at the time... the things that could have been different and weren't meaningful in themselves are so numerous. It screams RANDOM to me.
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.
What a news flash. 
