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.
Wow. So I guess what your saying is that unless one "wears a hood" than an infant being taken from his mother is not anything significant or traumatic. One needs to don a hood and be "evil" in order for an infant to suffer a trauma in the sudden loss of his mother.
And the consensual part you claim, that is questionable at least in many adoptions. For sure the infant didn't"consent" did he ??? The adoptive parents hell yea they consent to obtain their prize infant. The birth mother no, you can't correctly say all birth mothers even in modern day America are able to give consent ( think 15 yr old birth mother scenario) or do I need to elaborate? Hopefully you can see that's self explanatory. But the person most affected- the infant- no, he didn't give consent
Yes your right about adoption proponents both the industry, but also prospective adoptive parents and even some adoptees try to promote this nonsense that babies don't know s*** and that a baby being torn away from his mother has no effect.
also the bio mom knows her infant apart from others in a nursery. After my baby was born, only a few hours old, she was down the hall in nursery. Many babies crying. At one point my whole body reacted to one babies cry and sure enough seconds later the nurse wheeled her into my room. I had differentiated her cry apart and being distinct to my ears from the other babies crying.
My mother was given the wrong baby, not me! This was back in the days when they actually kept the new mother and child a few days Mother said the nurse just plopped "me" in her arms and took off, I suppose never even bothering to check arm bands, etc. My mother said as soon as she held the baby she knew it wasn't me. She didn't even need to look at the baby, she could just tell from the way the infant felt in her arms. She was on her feet and running down the hall, her stylish hospital gown almost falling off, her hair in disarray, carrying the mistaken baby and screaming "you come back her! You gave me the wrong baby!" She said the nurses tried to cover up their mistake, said something to the effect of well, you're not wearing your glasses, but Mother was insistent this is NOT my baby! They got everything straightened out , but they still tried to "put on a show" for those observing....oh, no, you're not wearing your glasses, and babies often feel lighter depending on when they last ate, etc, all the while re-arranging the baby cart and locating me.
This thread is both puzzling and distressing. So much so that I may have skipped a few (several) posts. I am not adopted. I did NOT have a happy or ideal childhood. There is that. But... ... how does someone even formulate a coherent argument that adoption should not exist? Right now in Current Events (I didn't read it) is a story about a new mother killed in the hospital elevator after giving birth. I don't imagine her infant child is up to seeing to its own rearing. Not for a few years yet. How can this be a matter for 4 pages of argument? I gather someone that is adopted who knows that their birth mother is not dead can feel deprived. I gather also that some of these people have moved heaven and earth and broken laws getting sealed documents unsealed and tracked down their birth mothers and... ... regretted it. Be careful what you wish for seems a highly apropos phrase in this context. Natural mothers can be horrible, adoptive mothers can be horrible. Natural mothers can be amazing, adoptive mothers can be amazing. Most have mothers whether natural or adoptive that fall somewhere on the spectrum. The one thing none of us can do is choose exactly who and what we are going to get for a mother (or father) at birth.
My mother was given the wrong baby, not me! This was back in the days when they actually kept the new mother and child a few days Mother said the nurse just plopped "me" in her arms and took off, I suppose never even bothering to check arm bands, etc. My mother said as soon as she held the baby she knew it wasn't me. She didn't even need to look at the baby, she could just tell from the way the infant felt in her arms. She was on her feet and running down the hall, her stylish hospital gown almost falling off, her hair in disarray, carrying the mistaken baby and screaming "you come back her! You gave me the wrong baby!" She said the nurses tried to cover up their mistake, said something to the effect of well, you're not wearing your glasses, but Mother was insistent this is NOT my baby! They got everything straightened out , but they still tried to "put on a show" for those observing....oh, no, you're not wearing your glasses, and babies often feel lighter depending on when they last ate, etc, all the while re-arranging the baby cart and locating me.
Oh, yes, mothers know their own child!
Yes. And I posted above about this after I had my baby how I could distinguish her cry from the other infants down the hall in the nursery. I heard the other cries that sounded like background noise, "other babies" is how it registered if you will... but then I heard one cry out of the others that caused a physical reaction, a knowing, in my gut, it was just instinctive.
This just in-- research shows that 100% of adoptive parents give full consent for the adoption, and on the other hand we have learned that apparently 0% of adoptees gave consent.
Stay tuned for more on this later. Now back to our regularly scheduled programming.
Wow. So I guess what your saying is that unless one "wears a hood" than an infant being taken from his mother is not anything significant or traumatic. One needs to don a hood and be "evil" in order for an infant to suffer a trauma in the sudden loss of his mother.
And the consensual part you claim, that is questionable at least in many adoptions. For sure the infant didn't"consent" did he ??? The adoptive parents hell yea they consent to obtain their prize infant. The birth mother no, you can't correctly say all birth mothers even in modern day America are able to give consent ( think 15 yr old birth mother scenario) or do I need to elaborate? Hopefully you can see that's self explanatory. But the person most affected- the infant- no, he didn't give consent
For most readers, the "hood" comment would be seen for what it was... Painting a picture of a stereotypical, ski mask wearing movie villian. No need to take it literally and create a strawman argument. It merely better describes the picture you seem to want to paint of evil doers stealing babies to sell on the evil adoption market.
Not sure how you move from that to children giving consent. Of course, I didn't have any say in the matter - I was hours/days old. I also didn't have a say in what they put on my amended BC. I didn't have a say when the judged declared my file sealed for all eternity, denying me the right to my original birth certificate... a basic right most others in my state take for granted.
This has absolutely nothing to do with pros and cons of adoption.
At no time did I state "all" of anything. Surely there are those who give consent, just as there are those who reluctantly give consent and those who are coerced or forced into consent.
Neither you or I can definitively claim how many adoptions fall into which category of consent. Even when consent is not fully desired by the woman giving birth, any reasonable person would have to agree that the image of someone "ripping" a baby away from that woman is a bit of a stretch. Of course, that terminology fits your "trauma" narrative.
Despite earlier claims, there is no real science to support "trauma" being a widespread issue or being a function of adoption. Any legitimate source points to the lack of a consistent primary caregiver. Not one specific person connected by DNA - just a caregiver. The "science" referenced in this thread against adoption actually supports the case for adoption.
So let's say that a woman willingly surrenders her child at birth. Let's say she does the right thing and gives it up for adoption... as opposed to dropping it in a dumpster.
Should that child be left to die? Spend their life in an orphanage? Be bounced from foster family to foster family?
How would it NOT be preferable for that child to be adopted into a permanent family? Wouldn't a permanent family help to "heal" any "trauma" rather than create it?
Cases of neglect/abuse aside (which can happen in bio or adopted families) an adopted person blaming their self-proclaimed "problems" on adoption itself is - IMO - a cop out. It is an easy scapegoat used to complain about their own shortcomings. Everyone can find something to complain about... most of us put on our big boy/girl pants and move on. Without adoption, there would be many more children in much worse conditions... and some of us wouldn't be here at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mondayafternoons
This just in-- research shows that 100% of adoptive parents give full consent for the adoption, and on the other hand we have learned that apparently 0% of adoptees gave consent.
Stay tuned for more on this later. Now back to our regularly scheduled programming.
No one in this thread has taken this position. It would be more accurate to claim you have implied the opposite.
You apparently have no desire for reasonable discussion. I'm hoping you never decide to adopt. Your strong negative views and assumptions on the topic don't bode well for a good environment.
I hope you find peace. Please try not to judge adoptees too harshly. Not all of us are riddled with trauma. Many of us are successful, well adjusted and have very happy (dare I claim "normal!") lives.
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
The infants are not thrown away from their birth parents, the birth parents give their children away! And, you are incorrect about adoptive parents. It is unfortunate for your adoptive parents that you have this attitude. So, now have you reunited with your birth parents? Have they welcomed you into their family? I am sure they have since you were "ripped" from them.
How old were you when you were adopted? I thought most children dont retain memories. So a kid adopted before age 4 will most likely never remember his/her bio parents or separation. And a toddler easily can vet attached to his/her caretaker on absent of parents. Foe older kids, I understand the trauma of witnessing life before vs. After.
I di agree its natural for people to treat their own kid different than adopted kid, even if they dont mean it. But most adopted parents dont have kids of their own & this situation where ur adopted mother had her own children is rarely case. It is hard to not have extra love for a person that grew inside you. As a kid I am sure u felt super bad but as an adult u should realize there is a difference btw own kid vs adopted. However, it is still better for kids to get adopted than grow up in orphanage or abusive household
No, as a mother of one son born to me and the other adopted, I often even forget that the adopted one isn't my birth child too. I once told a beautician who asked about his hair color that he probably got it from my grandma, this was without even thinking about it. So many times, I have attributed his behavior to one of my relatives, and then remembered that really would not be the case.
It is common for siblings to be jealous of one another, especially of the younger child. This may well be what is more at play than anything else with the OP. How many of us thought mom or dad liked a sibling better than us, and if we said it out loud, how many moms or dads were deeply hurt by that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by miu
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.
I agree. Glad I am not the adoptive mother in this scenario. I have friend that has adopted several children and this attitude was never seen among them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PriscillaVanilla
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.
No infant is a blank slate. Everyone kind of knows that. Keep in mind that the child is not taken from the birth mother unless their is abuse, neglect and/or exploitation. If not, the mother/father gave up their child for adoption. They made a choice that they could not or did not want to parent the child.
Shouldn't the concern here come from the birth parents in the choice they made? They made a choice which put their child in limbo and the adoptive parents simply accepted their child as they own and took the responsibility for that child.
I think most kids that are adopted want to put the blame on the adoptive parents somehow thinking that if there were no adoptive parents, their birth parents would have kept them. Not true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighFlyingBird
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.
Those that relinquished their children made a decision, and those that abused, neglected and/or exploited their children did not make the decision, but thankfully they were removed from those situations. Gosh, I was looking at the upcoming court cases in our small county and there were several parental terminations being processed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mondayafternoons
Yes your right about adoption proponents both the industry, but also prospective adoptive parents and even some adoptees try to promote this nonsense that babies don't know s*** and that a baby being torn away from his mother has no effect.
also the bio mom knows her infant apart from others in a nursery. After my baby was born, only a few hours old, she was down the hall in nursery. Many babies crying. At one point my whole body reacted to one babies cry and sure enough seconds later the nurse wheeled her into my room. I had differentiated her cry apart and being distinct to my ears from the other babies crying.
So, does it come down to since you had a baby, you can't imagine how anyone could give their baby away and are in general just angry with everyone involved, or are you only targeting the adoptive parents?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mondayafternoons
Both me and my sister were adopted, our adoptive mother later in menopause. (!) got pregnant with our youngest sib. Is it a coincidence that both me and my sister were never interested in adopting children while our sibling who was not adopted felt it would be an act of humanity to adopt his kids. Just interesting to note the two of us who were adopted didn't like nor ever considered adopting ourselves, we wanted to have our own children but the sibling who wasn't adopted did want to.
I don't get the message here. Many children wait for adoptive homes. Many of us don't need to have a biological connection in order to parent a child, which is a good thing, because otherwise the children we have adopted would end up growing up in foster care.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mondayafternoons
Clara C,
In answer to some of your questions, yes I was adopted. My birth parents were in high school at the time of my birth. It was a closed adoption, complete with a fake (amended ) birth certificate. I have never met my birth parents but I know who they are. I now know why I am wired the way I am, which didn't mesh or fit in with my adoptive family (think sensitive intuitive artist type in family of colder, more aloof practical engineer types). My sisters birth mom was forced into a maternity home "for unwed mothers" at age 21, after she gave birth and gifted the agency with a healthy white newborn she was sent back home empty handed. The social
Workers who conducted the evaluation per my mother, pretty much focused not so much on personality traits, psychological makeup and parenting abilities as they did on home ownership, nice neighborhood and school district-- my adoptive mother told me how she was nervous about the house being spotless since the social
Workers were so concerned with all that.
Adoptive homestudies are very comprehensive now anyway. Most states, if not all, require classes be taken. Follow-up takes place after the adoption. It is not based on home ownership, nice neighborhood and school district unless maybe your family worked with some snobby private agency.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mondayafternoons
Joef279,
Wow. So I guess what your saying is that unless one "wears a hood" than an infant being taken from his mother is not anything significant or traumatic. One needs to don a hood and be "evil" in order for an infant to suffer a trauma in the sudden loss of his mother.
And the consensual part you claim, that is questionable at least in many adoptions. For sure the infant didn't"consent" did he ??? The adoptive parents hell yea they consent to obtain their prize infant. The birth mother no, you can't correctly say all birth mothers even in modern day America are able to give consent ( think 15 yr old birth mother scenario) or do I need to elaborate? Hopefully you can see that's self explanatory. But the person most affected- the infant- no, he didn't give consent
Again, the infant is not taken from the birth mother, she signs papers after deciding not to parent the baby. I know you want to believe that some thief in the night came, ripped you from the arms of a screaming "NO NO NO" birthmother, but that doesn't happen in our country anyway.
If there was trauma you experienced being given up by your birth mother, than that is on the birth mother, and it is with her that you need to resolve your anger. Really, you consider yourself a prize?
A 15 year old would have signed the consent forms. Exactly what did you want a 15 year old, a high school student, to do in order to keep you? What would that plan look like?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mondayafternoons
Yes. And I posted above about this after I had my baby how I could distinguish her cry from the other infants down the hall in the nursery. I heard the other cries that sounded like background noise, "other babies" is how it registered if you will... but then I heard one cry out of the others that caused a physical reaction, a knowing, in my gut, it was just instinctive.
Still sounds like since you had the baby, you are angry and don't understand how your birth mother could give you up so are striking out at others whose fault it really isn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mondayafternoons
This just in-- research shows that 100% of adoptive parents give full consent for the adoption, and on the other hand we have learned that apparently 0% of adoptees gave consent.
Stay tuned for more on this later. Now back to our regularly scheduled programming.
I think you meant "100% of birth parents give full consent for the adoption", as adoptive parents don't give consent for the adoption. So, you wanted to be raised by a 15 year old mother and are bitter that she gave you up.
As someone suggested, you may want to seek therapy to iron this issue out. Your anger over this will cast a shadow on your life and you have a child or children to think of.
Still don't understand why you want to attack the adoptive parents, as I think your true anger is with your mother who gave you up, that is very common especially when having children of your own. A therapist can help you work through this.
As an adoptive parent, I am offended by your stance based solely on your situation which I am sure is reflected in my post.
I think birth parents want the children they gave up to feel like the children were "ripped from them", seriously what would you say when confronted by an angry child wanting to know how you could give them up.
OP, everyone knows that an infant cannot consent to an adoption, so not sure why you keep bringing that up. Who would choose to stay with a mother/father that could not or did not want to parent them?
We should be giving birth mothers resources they need, to keep their baby. Food, counseling, shelter on a temporary basis, at least, so the birth mother can care for her infant. Or if she can't take care of her infant, help her locate family members or relatives who might be willing to take the child in for a while. Adoption should be a last resort only.
The reason there are so many rampant abuses in the adoption system is that lots of people are desperate to adopt a baby.
Who would choose to stay with a mother/father that could not or did not want to parent them?
This is not true. Many, many birth mothers badly want to keep their babies!! Also, many birth fathers would like to know about the existence of their child, but it's often kept hidden from them. They often have no say in the adoption.
It's wrong to paint birth mothers as people who reject their baby. Sure, a small percentage do, and truly don't want to be a parent, but that's just a small percentage. Birth mothers are not animals who breed children for others. They are human beings like you or me, they have feelings, they bond with their infant during pregnancy, they experience misgivings and regrets and grief over losing their child.
I find it unusual that some people are so anti adoption they cant see that it is a viable and healthy, safe option for so many kids. That isn't to say there still isn't loss on all sides of the equation. But it isn't the devil...and I don't see why it should be the last resort either. If bio parents don't want to parent, or are unable to but there is a safe and healthy family available to raise them...how is that a problem?
And the person who stated 0 % of adoptees chose adoption. That is untrue. Most states have an age where the child has to consent to the adoption before it can go forward. This just shows a pathological bias you have towards adoption as a whole. BUt in your logic...0% of babies choose to be born. So.....
I am sorry your life sucked...I doubt it was because of adoption though.
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.
Mother said the nurse just plopped "me" in her arms and took off, I suppose never even bothering to check arm bands, etc. My mother said as soon as she held the baby she knew it wasn't me. She didn't even need to look at the baby, she could just tell from the way the infant felt in her arms. She was on her feet and running down the hall, her stylish hospital gown almost falling off, her hair in disarray, carrying the mistaken baby and screaming "you come back her! You gave me the wrong baby!" She said the nurses tried to cover up their mistake, said something to the effect of well, you're not wearing your glasses, but Mother was insistent this is NOT my baby! They got everything straightened out , but they still tried to "put on a show" for those observing....oh, no, you're not wearing your glasses, and babies often feel lighter depending on when they last ate, etc, all the while re-arranging the baby cart and locating me. 
