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)
 
Old 09-05-2017, 12:27 PM
 
43 posts, read 21,636 times
Reputation: 194

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Middletwin View Post
There has to be a birth for the possibility of adoption. This can't happen if one aborts though, so in actuality there's no connection.
That's some pretty interesting "logic."

How about this... there has to be a pregnancy for there to be an adoption OR an abortion. Therefore, there is a connection.

Again, adoption and abortion are two choices (among others) a woman can make when faced with a pregnancy. You cannot simply discount either one because you don't want it included.

Quote:
That said, I do understand why people think there's a connection though but for me and many others, it resembles human trafficking by imploring one to remain pregnant then use their family member in a transaction.

This theme keeps coming up in this thread. Yes, _some_ women were/are "implored" to give a child up for adoption. Some implored for good reasons, others for less than good reasons. Still others children were "torn" away.

There are also many children voluntarily surrendered by a woman who did not want the child.

Some in this thread want to imply that the negative "implore" and "torn" situations are the rule while the voluntary or best situation is the rare exception. I strongly disagree with this generalization.

Human trafficking certainly exists. I am also sure that there are some who take advantage of situations to capitalize on and profit from adoptions.

That stated, I find it highly irresponsible to generalize all adoption as resembling "human trafficking."

Adoptees are a minority, in that most of the general public has no direct experience with being a member of that unique "triad." There are MANY misconceptions about adoption and adoptees, with much of it being negative. Generalizations like yours only serve to further the negative misconceptions of the ignorant.

Having been exposed to many situations, I feel it wrong to use the term "majority" for just about anything in the adoption arena. I would be inclined to believe that the "majority" of adoptees have unique situations that aren't adequately summarized by a simple generalization.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-05-2017, 01:42 PM
 
Location: Southeast Michigan
1,129 posts, read 959,907 times
Reputation: 1302
When my adopted child was a toddler, I attempted with the help of friends from her country of birth, to get more information regarding her health history. I figured that the longer I waited, the more difficult it would be. Unfortunately, it didn't work, (we tried a couple of times) and she is an adult now. Also when she was four, she came to me and tearfully asked why her birth mommy gave her away (I think that some little friends may have been asking her this). I took her on my lap and explained the situation as best I could, and told her how very much I love her. We cried together that day, as I hurt for my baby; and it still makes me teary to think of how painful that was for her. My point is that not all adoptive parents deserve to be painted with one broad brushstroke. I love my daughter very much, and have tried hard to advocate on her behalf. I do also have biological children. They are all just my kids, and I love 'em all. I firmly believe that when it comes to adoption or child welfare in general, the needs of the child should always come first.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2017, 03:06 PM
 
817 posts, read 295,167 times
Reputation: 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by joef279 View Post
That's some pretty interesting "logic."

How about this... there has to be a pregnancy for there to be an adoption OR an abortion. Therefore, there is a connection.

Again, adoption and abortion are two choices (among others) a woman can make when faced with a pregnancy. You cannot simply discount either one because you don't want it included.




This theme keeps coming up in this thread. Yes, _some_ women were/are "implored" to give a child up for adoption. Some implored for good reasons, others for less than good reasons. Still others children were "torn" away.

There are also many children voluntarily surrendered by a woman who did not want the child.

Some in this thread want to imply that the negative "implore" and "torn" situations are the rule while the voluntary or best situation is the rare exception. I strongly disagree with this generalization.

Human trafficking certainly exists. I am also sure that there are some who take advantage of situations to capitalize on and profit from adoptions.

That stated, I find it highly irresponsible to generalize all adoption as resembling "human trafficking."

Adoptees are a minority, in that most of the general public has no direct experience with being a member of that unique "triad." There are MANY misconceptions about adoption and adoptees, with much of it being negative. Generalizations like yours only serve to further the negative misconceptions of the ignorant.

Having been exposed to many situations, I feel it wrong to use the term "majority" for just about anything in the adoption arena. I would be inclined to believe that the "majority" of adoptees have unique situations that aren't adequately summarized by a simple generalization.

A pregnant woman only has two choices: remain that way or abort the pregnancy.

A mother has two choices: remain that way or abort her parenting.

If connected, then it's definitely predatory but they're not - although laws do try.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2017, 04:55 PM
 
1,409 posts, read 801,695 times
Reputation: 2331
joef

Why the quotation marks?? Is it because your "knowledgeable"? (See what I mean?)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2017, 10:27 AM
 
10,171 posts, read 7,032,473 times
Reputation: 23927
This is just a thread to argue. I and other posters post insightful comments only to be ignored by people who want to remain inflammatory. Its too bad.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2017, 11:19 AM
 
43 posts, read 21,636 times
Reputation: 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by mondayafternoons View Post
joef

Why the quotation marks?? Is it because your "knowledgeable"? (See what I mean?)
I have tried to respond to your remarks without resorting to veiled personal attacks. Comments such as the above do say much about the person writing them.

While I may or may not be knowledgeable in a given area, I do not have a "knowledgeable." If you are going to get snarky, you may as well learn the difference between "your" and "you're." (Quoting intentional, consult a grammar guide to learn why they have been used). Perhaps our differences are simply a result of your inability to properly communicate your meaning and/or an inability to comprehend what others write.

A quick forum search led me to a very useful link, which I am about to make use of:

How to Use the Ignore Feature

I had delayed use of the feature in hopes you might decide to add something useful to the conversation. It seems you choose not to. The feature can definitely help improve the signal/noise ratio.

Again, I do wish you the best and hope you find peace.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2017, 04:57 PM
 
1,409 posts, read 801,695 times
Reputation: 2331
Joelf

Actually the quotation marks you used liberally were not towards me, it was a reply to another poster where you referred to her beliefs as "logic"-- also went on replying to her using the word implore and torn away both in quotations, which is usually done to imply the belief or thought isn't valid .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-07-2017, 09:56 AM
 
817 posts, read 295,167 times
Reputation: 1062
Auto correct changes my texts to the wrong your and you're and even places apostrophes for pluralization....just saying, we have to look at one's entire writing style to discredit them.

What people mean, when torn from a mother is how the infant experiences not hearing her voice which causes distress and then feeling threatened by new voices and smells from the strangers.

Anyway, relative to infant adoption, the majority of them are not necessary based on how laws are weighted against families who regret their decisions later. There are way, way too many examples.

Conversely, there are many good outcomes but that's not the subject of this thread nor does it prove otherwise.

Suffice it to say, we need to be cognizant of ethical infant adopting. It starts with words like not calling a mother a BM, not judging a pregnant high schooler, honoring what one went through as they were being raised.

Mentioning that they are a minority, is an excellent point because it would be my hope, that it compels us not to drink the Kool Aid from a profiting adoption industry.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2017, 06:10 AM
 
43 posts, read 21,636 times
Reputation: 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Middletwin View Post
Auto correct changes my texts to the wrong your and you're and even places apostrophes for pluralization....just saying, we have to look at one's entire writing style to discredit them.
No one is above typos in a medium like this. Auto correct is one problem, virtual keyboards on mobile devices another. Your/you're, to/two/too and similar problems are almost always human induced, but that wasn't my point.

If you are going to attack someone on grammar (Incorrectly and while adding absolutely nothing to the conversation) one should take a minute to proofread one's own sarcasm. Just pointing out the irony. It wasn't the first time that poster made a useless snarky post directed at me.

Quote:
What people mean, when torn from a mother is how the infant experiences not hearing her voice which causes distress and then feeling threatened by new voices and smells from the strangers.
The term "torn," among other hostile terms, has been thrown around in this thread a few times. No doubt some people share your less sinister meaning. Others seem to imply meanings bordering on forced kidnapping. A child may be separated, but not necessarily torn or ripped. I just don't buy into the thought that _every_ child given up for adoption is automatically subjected to some overly traumatic situation that causes permanent psychological damage. Despite claims to the contrary, no one here has offered anything aside from personal anecdotes to definitively prove otherwise.

We will have to agree to disagree on this.

Worse, some have made the connection from this guaranteed birth trauma to adoption. The topic is "speaking against the majority of adoptions." I fail to see how adoption is the cause of this separation, as opposed to a potential solution... Unless people are claiming the majority of adopted children are unlawfully removed from their rightful families. If that's the case, I would like to see something to back up such a claim. Again, "majority" being the operative term.

There are certainly bad adoptions, but that doesn't make adoption bad.

Quote:
Anyway, relative to infant adoption, the majority of them are not necessary based on how laws are weighted against families who regret their decisions later. There are way, way too many examples.

Conversely, there are many good outcomes but that's not the subject of this thread nor does it prove otherwise.
This is exactly where I take issue with some of the comments posted here.

You make a statistical claim that the "majority" of adoptions are not necessary. You justify this statement based on "way, way too many examples."

You then acknowledge the many good outcomes, but somehow that factoid doesn't serve as proof of anything.

So the "many" you prefer is good enough to prove what you want to believe, but the "many" you don't agree with can be dismissed?

This is how negative steotypes, such as the ones presented throughout this thread, get perpetuated.

How do you define "necessary?" One could argue that no adoption is actually necessary. If at least one parent is alive, the child could be forced to stay with them, regardless of circumstances. If neither parent survives, the child could be raised in an orphanage or be fostered. That doesn't mean adoption isn't the best scenario for the child. That's where we head into the realm of opinion. As each situation is unique, I'm not sure there is one right answer.

Quote:
Suffice it to say, we need to be cognizant of ethical infant adopting. It starts with words like not calling a mother a BM, not judging a pregnant high schooler, honoring what one went through as they were being raised.
Agreed. While society has come a long way in that regard, there are still many ignorant people. That why I take exception when some perpetuate concepts such as all (or a majority of) adoptees being damaged goods. You could make the argument that the majority of all adults are damaged goods in some way. By that measure, there is no reason to single out adoptees just so non-adoptees can feel better about their own issues.

There will always be someone trying to take advantage or profit from the system. That needs to be addressed.

It is also somewhat separate from the issue of adoption itself... especially in regards to the title of this thread. It is certainly possible for both parties to the adoption to be doing it ethically and for all the right reasons while the intermediary is doing it for profit or the wrong reasons.

Adoption is a beautiful thing. Many people do it for good, even noble reasons. Maybe it is better to attack the specific excesses in parts of the system instead of painting all involved with the same brush?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2017, 12:22 PM
 
Location: Bella Vista, Ark
71,683 posts, read 83,244,992 times
Reputation: 41524
Quote:
Originally Posted by opus123 View Post
What's the connection?
What's the connection? Obviously you haven't really been following this tread or only see in it what you want to see. A few responders have said or indicated adoption should only be used if a mother can not raise her child. My response is: who makes the decision when and if a mother should keep her baby? the person went on to say, being youg or poor shouldn't be a reason for someone to give up their baby. Who makes that decision? Obviously that is up to the mother herself, no one else.
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. The time now is 01:14 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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