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.
Unequivocally yes. And more than one reason for it but in a nutshell it al goes back to two things-- it is traumatic and unnatural for an infant to be torn away from their mother. Additionally adoptive parents are typically even if they mean well, attempting to fill a void they have, a need they have, with a child whose need is quite diametrically opposed to their need
So what's your solution for children who don't have biological parents to care for them? Should they just exist in foster care until age 18? Should parents not be allowed to give a child up for adoption?
Furthermore, what should we do about children whose parents abuse them? Should we just get rid of child services and leave them in abusive homes because apparently being with your biological parents who abuse you is better than being adopted by someone who won't abuse them?
I'm sorry that you don't have a good relationship with your adoptive mother but I think you're putting to much emphasis on having a biological parent above all else.
In nature animal mothers bond upon birth with their offspring and stick with them. Yes it's unnatural. Even under the "ideal" circumstances it can't be denied that an adoptees life begins with a traumatic fundamental loss of their birth mother.
Then the person "going against nature" could have been the birth mother, too, right? If she freely chose to give away her child. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a big fan of adoption. But I think some adoptive parents do their best to make the adopted child feel the same as their other bio children and that can often lead to glossing over the adopted child's origins. Some adoptive parents simply aren't aware that birth mothers can be unfairly coerced into giving up their child. They also aren't aware that international adoption leads to an increase in child trafficking and baby selling in other countries. They want to believe they are doing a good and noble thing by adopting. They also seem to think it's fair game to go into third world countries after a natural catastrophe (earthquake, hurricane, etc) and just scoop up all the random children and bring them to the USA to be adopted - without first trying to reunite them with any living relatives they might have in those countries.
BTW my mother wasn't all warm and fuzzy either. And she frequently told us kids that she wasn't our friend, but our parent. And she took her parenting very seriously. But that is the nature of a tiger mom.
I'm sure that your birth mother would have kept you if she could. However, she wasn't able to. And probably had she kept you, you'd now have harsh memories of a lack of food on the table and other issues dealing with low finances and being a latch key kid due to her having to work long hours to support you. And her attitude at home would be less of joy and happiness because she'd have been tired and stressed out all of the time. And then she'd be resentful too, because single mothers have a very difficult time in finding a decent man to date and marry.
So stop laying all the blame for your imperfect life on your poor adoptive mother.
Sorry but you don't speak for me... I'm not you and your assessment of my feelings is actually pretty far off the target...
Unequivocally yes. And more than one reason for it but in a nutshell it al goes back to two things-- it is traumatic and unnatural for an infant to be torn away from their mother. Additionally adoptive parents are typically even if they mean well, attempting to fill a void they have, a need they have, with a child whose need is quite diametrically opposed to their need
Quote:
Originally Posted by mondayafternoons
Some of your post was a bit unclear.... but I will take a guess at it-- first you say that "most children don't have memories"-- not sure where you drew this conclusion. I have a clear memory of one time sitting in my backyard sandbox and a bee landed on my thumb, I remember thinking it was nice and cute and I tried to pet it and it stung me. It hurt and I cried . I was 2 1/2 yrs old. But okay I guess your making the generalization that very young kids have no memories. There is a trauma that occurs when an infant is torn away from his mother. That is imbedded somatically in his body cells as trauma. It is a primal wound. The earlier the wound the more damaging and imbedded it is.
Then you later seem to acknowledge that of course an adoptive parent will feel differently about any bio kids they have versus the adoptee, but that the adoptee should be thankful they weren't raised in an orphanage. I appreciate your trying to help but it shows most people don't get it...
IMO, you are making some sweeping generalizations. I have no idea what your life is like. Everything you state may be completely applicable to your situation. You are absolutely entitled to feel the way you do. That doesn't mean your situation applies to anyone else, no less a majority of others.
I grew up knowing I was adopted. I grew up with loving parents. For all my early life, I had no idea there were people who had a negative experience with adoption. No idea that any one who was adopted might not have had as wonderful an experience as I. As I became older and wanted to fill in some of the "blanks" I became aware that there were many different situations.
I found there are good situations and bad situations and everything in between. Then again, this also holds true for bio families. Thinking about my (non-adopted) friends growing up, I wouldn't trade places with them for all the tea in China. My family/iife was/is infinitely better. Sharing DNA with a parent provides no greater guarantee for a "happy" situation, and I have never seen any scientific data to prove otherwise.
There is one very important thing to keep in mind... People generally come online to complain. Whether it's a new TV set or a topic like adoption, people who are completely content typically don't post their story. Any online forum tends to give a view skewed towards the negative.
Personally, I see adoption as a miracle of sorts. It doesn't take much of a commitment to get pregnant and give birth. A DNA child/family is basically mother nature's lottery system. On the other hand, adoptive parents need to invest more time and effort in adding a child to their household. I didn't end up in my family by some chance of nature. My parents jumped through hoops, were judged by agencies and social workers and then they _chose_ me. Guess I look at the glass being half full instead of half empty.
I recently met with some out-of-town friends who have three adopted children. Without going into details, I can easily state these children are blessed. The babies were all removed from terrible situations and placed with an incredibly loving couple. Seeing them with the baby literally brought tears of happiness to my eyes.
Just because there are bad situations, doesn't mean that is the norm. What is the basis for your assumption that adoption is fundamentally flawed?
Likewise, I am curious as to your basis for the claims of "trauma." Frankly, I can't even see that most infant adoptees are "torn away" from anyone.
Most current science would state that infants do not form memories. While I don't completely agree with that theory I do see the point you are trying to make. If abused as an infant, I might be open to the idea of that experience having some effect (although I have seen several situations pointing that NOT being the case). I would NOT agree that transferring an infant from the woman who gave birth to a loving mother/family has any negative effects, no less trauma producing ones. It certainly didn't cause any "trauma" for me (or several other adoptees I know). "Embedded in cells?" I would love to see any links you have to back up your theory.
I believe that there are plenty of people - adopted or not - who aren't happy with their family/childhood. While I feel for them, I also know that they can't change the past. Everyone needs to move on. Blaming others (bmom, amom, agency, etc.) serves no useful purpose. Everyone is in control of their own future and has no one but themselves to blame for the choices they make. Getting stuck in the past is a trap.
Again - your situation is yours. How you feel about it is valid. I simply feel that generalizing your situation to adoption as a whole is not justified.
Most current science would state that infants do not form memories. .
There is overwhelming evidence that infants suffer later on, when taken from their birth mothers. Whether you call that memory or not, an infant knows it's birth mother from anyone else. I firmly believe that. Proponents of adoption want to believe that infants are just blank slates and can be made into whatever they want them to be. They want to believe the child suffers no form of loss from being taken away from his/her birth mother.
Also, read up on Reactive Attachment Disorder (RAD) in adopted children.
There is overwhelming evidence that infants suffer later on, when taken from their birth mothers. Whether you call that memory or not, an infant knows it's birth mother from anyone else. I firmly believe that. Proponents of adoption want to believe that infants are just blank slates and can be made into whatever they want them to be. They want to believe the child suffers no form of loss from being taken away from his/her birth mother.
Also, read up on Reactive Attachment Disorder (RAD) in adopted children.
As I noted, I don't necessarily agree with the "no memory" claims. I'm also too tired to get into a scientific debate as we can both provide links to support either side of the topic. This is currently a very fluid area of science/psychology.
That stated I stand by my belief... taking a baby from a non-loving DNA mother (who doesn't want the baby) and place with a non-DNA loving mother (who does want the baby) is, IMO, a far better situation.
DNA doesn't provide any magic to automatically make one mother/family "better" than the other.
Note that my references are to infants. Things like RAD are generally in reference to older children, and more especially to those who have had traumatic experiences during their early (1-3) years, usually from being abandoned or neglected.
This would seem to support my belief that moving a child into a loving family early on is better than leaving them in a bad/unwanted situation for any length of time. I fully agree that a newborn needs to form a healthy and permanent attachment as soon as possible. However, I don't see anything to support that this attachment needs to be to someone with the same DNA.
You know, we went through a huge, lengthy and often heated discussion about the merits and drawbacks of adoption - all kinds of adoption - here at C-D several years ago.
I am not anxious to repeat that experience. There are many who hold extremely strong opinions of all kinds when it comes to this topic.
However, for those criticizing international adoption in particular - take a look at what happens to kids with special needs who live in orphanages and institutions in the developing world.
I know of one young lady who was adopted by an American family at age fourteen.
She weighed fourteen pounds at the time. No, that is not a typo. No, she does not have dwarfism, other than stunted growth due to profound, abusive neglect and near-starvation for fourteen years. She was skeletal.
Yes, she did grow considerably after being adopted, and weighs close to fifty pounds now. She is still tiny and looks much younger than her actual eighteen years.
No, she will never be what most term "normal" - she is blind and has CP and mental delays. She cannot walk or communicate verbally. But her face is round and rosy, her hair is shiny and long, she smiles, she reaches out, she responds, she laughs...she loves and is loved.
I could tell you any number of similar stories about children left to wither away in similar places, throughout the former Soviet Union and Russia. I have met numerous children rescued from such hellholes, and the families who wanted them and rescued them by adoption. I have seen the difference love and care and time make with these children, and how they thrive and blossom, once given such love, care, and time. Often that time accomplishes its magic far more quickly than anyone expected.
Governments claim these places no longer exist, that attitudes are changing - but they do exist and old attitudes are still pervasive, and children with special needs are routinely sent to such places, which are poorly funded by those same governments who claim they are no longer around and that things have changed.
There is plenty of blame to go around - but adoptive parents, be they citizens of the countries in which such places are found or citizens of other lands, should not be blamed for rescuing these children and advocating for them and those children left behind. They should be blessed instead.
They save lives.
And adoption is life-saving, have no doubt. Children die in such places. Every winter sees more little graves in the overgrown graveyards just beyond the grounds of such institutions...
I don't think any child coming from such a place yearns for their homeland or feels deprived by being adopted into a loving family not theirs by birth or nationality.
But now, she is healthy, happy, and loved beyond all measure.
None of that would have happened had she remained in her eastern European native country, where her birth parents had given her up at birth. None of that would have happened with any of the children I know who came from similar backgrounds...had they remained in their homelands.
Even those who were blessed to be in the "good" children's homes and baby houses, and the not-quite-so-horrible institutions which all too often follow those "good" children's homes and baby houses are still deprived and needy. They may not be starved physically - but they are starved for love and attention and affection, and the best of the orphanage directors and nannies and aunties and caregivers and volunteers cannot fill the voids left by the absence of a loving parent.
I saw it in my own family. Fortunately, my young relatives were in one of the less-awful places and did have a caring director. The signs of neglect were not so obvious with them - but they were there. Now, they are flourishing and on track in every way. Had they remained in their birth country - their fates would have been bleak at best.
So before you claim that children are somehow damaged by being removed from untenable biological families or by being adopted from bleak, negligent, sometimes adequate/sometimes horrendous places - do a little research.
Look at websites and Facebook pages like those of Bible Orphan Ministry, Reece's Rainbow, etc. Talk with families who've adopted kids like these. Talk to the kids themselves. Talk to those who volunteer and advocate tirelessly for these children. Talk to the good orphanage directors, the ones who have tears of happiness running down their cheeks when one of their kids is adopted.
As an adoptee, my own views on adoption are mostly negative-- of course there are the exceptions- birth parents who truly couldn't parent and a happy ending. However it goes against nature. This along with the manner in which many adoptive parents view the adoptee add up to not a good idea imo
I'm sorry to hear you don't have a positive view of adoption. I don't think your personal opinion is shared by all...or even most.
There is overwhelming evidence that infants suffer later on, when taken from their birth mothers. Whether you call that memory or not, an infant knows it's birth mother from anyone else. I firmly believe that. Proponents of adoption want to believe that infants are just blank slates and can be made into whatever they want them to be. They want to believe the child suffers no form of loss from being taken away from his/her birth mother.
Also, read up on Reactive Attachment Disorder (RAD) in adopted children.
This is not at all true. In the past, this was the understanding of the mental health community, which is what was then taught to adoptive parents. But things are very, very different now.
RAD happens when the child was not given a secure attachment in early infancy. From being abused, to drug dependent, to very ill, to having a parent who cant tend to them. It is not caused by adoption. That is absurd to suggest that. That is a disservice to all adopted people to suggest that.
I actually feel offended on behalf of my children's birth mothers reading some of these. They made a difficult and nearly impossibly painful choice. They are heroes, not abused waifs. Are adoptions were international and we have contact with one birth family but know clearly why the other birth mother chose adoption.
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.
