Sunday, December 02, 2007

Anti-adoption

Every now-and-then, I come upon something so odd that it merits a post (regardless of whether the topic is directly related to atheism). This blog would be one of those oddities. In this case, the blogger appears to be an atheist (according to the communities in her profile). I guess this would be one of those cases where we could point out that there's no atheist "profile", "stereotype", or "agenda"...because, I just don't agree with this woman's mission in life.

Her mission is, to put it short and sweet, to have adoptions abolished. Her website is called "Adoption: Legalized Lies" and she appears to have written a book on the subject.

Now...recognize that I didn't say her position was wrong or that she's not entitled to her opinion. But, having read the website FAQs and her blog entries... it seems like her primary beef with adoption is an over-simplified idea that adoptions are all about money and that there is no such thing as a good adoption.

There are myriad reasons to oppose adoption, including the
damage caused to exiled parents and adopted children/adults. In addition, we
believe that adoption is an inherently dishonest act. In other words, children
are given one, true set of parents by nature, and these parents cannot be
replaced or “switched at birth” based on a man-made legal document. Most
importantly, it is unnecessary for anyone to endure the emotional damage and
unnatural lies inflicted by adoption. It is not only possible, but critically
important to assist struggling families without dismantling them.


I *think* I get what she's implying, but it still doesn't sit right. I don't understand how she came to the conclusion that adoption is dishonest in all cases. Sure, there are probably several instances where the PARENTS are dishonest and never tell the child, but...I'm just not buying how adoption, as an option, is dishonest. Furthermore, Andrea Yates was "given" five children "by nature" and she drowned them in a bathtub. I hate to say it, but... I can't imagine those kids would've been worse off if they'd been adopted to someone other than Andrea Yates. Or, what about the teen moms who give birth in a high school bathroom and chuck their infants out with the garbage. Which act would be more dishonest in that scenario: leaving the child at a safe haven facility (which the blogger is against) or pretending you had never been pregnant in the first place and leaving your infant to die?

In response to an FAQ question that hints at my points above, she says the following:
The subject of children who have been removed from their parents because of
abuse or neglect is a tricky one. First of all, it’s important to recognize that
every day, thousands of children are unjustly removed from their parents’ safe
and loving homes. In fact, the United States promotes adoption so strongly that
state governments can and do make money when they get children adopted out of
the foster care system (based on the quotas set in President Clinton’s “Adoption
2002” program). Therefore, vulnerable families become the target of state-run
child “welfare” agencies. Without an ample supply of financial resources to
fight the system, many parents lose their children forever for no valid reason
at all.


Am I missing something or did she not answer the question? How does the potential, and reality, of social services removing a child for the wrong reasons stand as an excuse for why we shouldn't remove truly abused children?

In the tragic event that no extended family members can be found to care for
a truly abused child, legal guardianship is an honest option that already exists
in America. The child in a guardianship arrangement is able to maintain his or
her name and identity, and is not forced to live with a set of falsified birth
records. Without the dishonest and unrealistic expectations created by an
adoption, the child is freed from the heavy psychological burden of pretending
to be someone he isn’t.

Ok. So, she's for guardianship as long as it's not called adoption? Given, there's a psychological burden in knowing that you were adopted - I don't think anyone can argue that it doesn't shape, to some extent, the person the adopted child becomes. But, there's a "heavy psychological burden" on the child who has been forced to constantly and continuously return to a home wherein Mommy plays HandBaby. There's going to be a "heavy psychological burden" on a child who's been forced to live through the hell of social services and foster care while his parent(s) are taking the classes that the blogger stands behind as the solution.

Anyway, it's an interesting position...


22 comments:

jimmy said...

I can't agree with her. But then I am an adoptive parent. My adopted daughter is also my natural born niece. My sister-in-law was not ready to have a child, called us and asked us if we wanted to adopt, claiming she would abort if we said no. Is abortion better than our saying yes to the adoption? I don't think so.

As for our daughter (who is now 10 and incidentally has a full-blooded sister living with my sister-in-law) we have been entirely open with her except for one thing - that my sister-in-law said she would abort if we did not adopt. It's not something we felt she needs to know - although if she asks us directly we will not lie.

At any rate, I agree that there are many problems with the adoptions in this country (the crap we had to go through to adopt a blood relative was nuts!) but that does not automatically make all adoptions bad.

Adopted said...

The children who NEED to be adopted the most often never get adopted. That's the problem. There are over 100K children in this country who need homes, but people don't want them. They want an infants, preferable ones in lighter shades, hence the industry of adoption.

Instead of finding homes for children who need families, the industry works to coerce (white) young women entirely capable of parenting into giving away their babies, or validates couples in flying overseas to 'rescue' orphans, while completely ignoring and glossing over the needs of a child of a different race being raised by caucasians. And I won't even touch on the angle that many of these people believe their are 'called by god' to do so.

Search around, you'll find she's not the only one who feels that way. There are different positions, from anti-adoption to pro-reform, but they are all based on the same premise: adoption, as it is practiced in this country now, is horribly, horribly wrong.

In final, to make her position more interesting, consider the following two scenarios:

1.) give away the youngest of your children to strangers. Have their identities locked away so they can never find out who they are. Force them to call the strangers mommy and daddy. And make sure the strangers as well as everyone else they know tell them how ungrateful they are whenever they ask about you.

2.) imagine the person given away was YOU.

Katie said...

Words cannot express how offensive and closed-minded "anti-adoption" people are to me. I've read some information about it before (I believe on the national organization for these people), and I was upset for quite awhile afterwards after discovering that there are people who believe this.

I'm adopted (as is my brother) and I couldn't be happier or prouder of it. Because of my mother's lupus she could not have children naturally without putting her health and life at great risk, so my parents decided to adopt children. My biological mother (who I have never met or had any contact with) put me up for adoption because she was raped and was only 16. I have known my entire life that I am adopted--I don't know how my parents told me, but it's just a part of life for me. I know that my life would be very different (and probably much more difficult) if I had not been put up for adoption, and I know that my parents desperately wanted a child. I have never had any doubts about whether I was a wanted child.

I don't suffer any great psychological damage or pain because of being adopted. It does not make my family somehow less of a family because I am not biologically related to my parents. They are my parents, and my family is my real family. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who suggests otherwise doesn't understand what family is.

As I said, being adopted is one of the best things in my life. I know how much I am wanted and loved by my parents. My family is very close--my parents and brother are also good friends who I can talk to about religion, politics, my job...anything. Being adopted does not change any of that.

I will concede that parents who do not tell their adopted children that they are adopted until later will probably do psychological damage to their children as well as damage to their relationship. My parents told my brother and I very early in life, so it's never bothered.

My husband and I plan to adopt (if/when we decide to have kids). I can't imagine doing anything else.

Anti-adoption people make me sick. They cannot possibly understand family or how beneficial adoption can be to the parents and the children.

salient said...

I wonder about her personal experiences with adoption. She is surely taking a ridiculous position that runs counter to all the evidence, and she appears to be putting parents ahead of children.

"First of all, it’s important to recognize that every day, thousands of children are unjustly removed from their parents’ safe and loving homes."

Wrong! I agree with 'adopted' on the first part of what she (he?) says. If social agencies (such as Childrens' Aid in Canada) err in any direction it is to leave children in abusive homes. Thousands of kids are emotionally scarred for life by being raised within abusive or neglectful families.

I should know -- I'm a 'shrink' and I treat the emotionally traumatized survivors of abusive childhoods. If my patients had been removed from their birth families and placed into safe, loving families, then my practice would be a lot less busy.

About 15 years ago, I saw a British movie called, if memory serves, "Ladybird, Ladybird". It was supposedly a true story about a woman whose infants were repeatedly taken from her by social services. The movie took the position that she was a good, loving mother and that social service workers were all spiteful fiends out to steal her children. Based on extensive experience with survivors, I did not 'buy' her version at all. In all likelihood, rather like Andrea Yates, she was dissociative and had no recollection of the incidents that necessitated repeated removal of her infants. There certainly were indications that this was the case. People who are suffering mental illness often do not have much insight into their condition. The difference between Andrea Yates and amnesic dissociatives was that Andrea was aware of the uncontrollable urges to harm her children. Post-partum depression, indeed!

I'd guess that this woman may have been adopted into a less than happy situation, or, possibly, that she has had children removed.

Katie, I think that your experience that 'family feeling is all about love and not necessarily about biology.

Gramomster said...

I worked for a while in what was called a 'crisis residential center'. This was a short-term group home for kids who had blown out of foster care, their parents were in the legal system awaiting disposition, or they were runaways. They ranged from 12-17. The reason they were there is because our system is not focused on the rights of kids, but the rights of parents, and on family reunification. I came to feel that if a child is taken out of a home once, the parent/s should have the chance to rectify whatever situation precipitated the removal. However, children should not be removed and returned numerous times when the parent/s is/are clearly not complying with mandated edicts. I had a kid in there, age 15, who had been in 32 foster placements since the age of 2. Thirty two homes in 13 years. How can this possibly be less harmful than being permanently removed, and placed for adoption as maybe a darling 3 year old, which was the age of her THIRD removal!!!? Nobody is going to touch a 15 year old with that kind of instability.
The focus is in the wrong place, the priorities are completely upside down. Rights of the child must outweigh. They are the ones whose future is decided in all the beaurocratic bullshit. Just ridiculous.

Directors said...

I am author who has researched adoption for more than 30 years and also have a personal connection to adoption. I hope I can shed some light for you.

"I'm just not buying how adoption, as an option, is dishonest."

Extra family adoption as it has been practiced in the US for the past 50 years or so is dishonest in that a falsified birth certificate is issued to every person adopted listing their adopter as the parents who gave birth to them. It is all based in myths - mainly that adoption "is the same as if" the child were born to you.

To believe that is far more absurd hast believing in tooth fairies or God!

It is dishonest when it tells expectant mothers that they are doing a loving thing and providing their child a better life through adoption. There are no guarantees: adoptive parents die, divorce, abuse and even kill children in their care ...mothers who relinquish never forget...and adoptees usually feel rejected and abandoned.

No, it is not a "win-win" that needs not be encouraged. Adoption is society's failure to help fmailies remain together. As UNICEF says: Adoption should always be a last resort. And even when all attempts to keep a child with family memebrs has failed, there is no need to terminate the parents rights and act "as if" they never existed. Every human being has an innate right to know his connections to his biology and his culture. And every parent has a constitutional right to raise their child.

Mirah Riben, author, "The Stork Market: America's multi-billion dollar unregulated adoption industry"

Soitgoes said...

Maybe I missed something, but how does she address the issue of orphans? or abandoned children?

Atheist in a mini van. said...

The children who NEED to be adopted the most often never get adopted. That's the problem. There are over 100K children in this country who need homes, but people don't want them. They want an infants, preferable ones in lighter shades, hence the industry of adoption.

I would agree with you on this point, but one has to ask why the child is up for adoption at the age of fifteen. Is it because a system that tried to give the parent multiple chances has finally realized that the parent won't change? I think, like my original objection, that the wording here is far too broad. It's a blanket position that all adoption is bad and, I'm sorry, I disagree.

Instead of finding homes for children who need families, the industry works to coerce (white) young women entirely capable of parenting into giving away their babies, or validates couples in flying overseas to 'rescue' orphans, while completely ignoring and glossing over the needs of a child of a different race being raised by caucasians
I know a bunch of people who've adopted. One set of our friends adopted a five year old from a Romanian orphanage. Obiyesca had been so mistreated that she didn't have the basic, human interaction skills needed to speak. For the first year, she spoke only in grunts and would bang her head against walls. Now, she's sixteen and doing quite well, but... should she have stayed in that horrible orphanage just to preserve her culture (but lose her life)? And, her culture hasn't been forgotten any more than an immigrant comes to America and forgets their culture. Her adoptive parents are Romanian born, American citizens... so... what's the problem?

There are different positions, from anti-adoption to pro-reform, but they are all based on the same premise: adoption, as it is practiced in this country now, is horribly, horribly wrong.

I would actually agree with you on the last sentence. As it is practiced today, it is horribly wrong - but that STILL doesn't mean that every adoption is bad or that every adoption is dishonest. Religion, in this country, is sometimes practiced in a way that is horribly, horribly wrong. But, you don't even see athesits lining up to say that all spirituality should be abolished because it's abusive and dishonest.

1.) give away the youngest of your children to strangers. Have their identities locked away so they can never find out who they are. Force them to call the strangers mommy and daddy. And make sure the strangers as well as everyone else they know tell them how ungrateful they are whenever they ask about you.
This is a scare tactic approach. Not all adoptions work in the ways you're describing here. And, out of all the adopted people (and adoptive parents) I know, I've not seen one of them who has the scenario you speak of here.
Does it exist somewhere? Oh, probably! And, if you want to go after those people and flog them for being asshats, then by all means... but, don't paint the entire concept of adoption with the same brush.

Extra family adoption as it has been practiced in the US for the past 50 years or so is dishonest in that a falsified birth certificate is issued to every person adopted listing their adopter as the parents who gave birth to them. It is all based in myths - mainly that adoption "is the same as if" the child were born to you.

I don't buy this. The people I know who were adopted or have adopted have two birth certificates that they've been shown - their "real", biological information on one and the adoptive family info on the other. And, at the risk of sounding alarmist, you're sounding a bit xenophobic with the whole "kids need to be with their own culture and race" thing. What child NOT adopted out ends up being raised in the exact same environment as their parents...and is that always a good thing?
When you say things like, "Adoption is all based in myths.", you lose my willingness to pay attention to the points where I might agree with you. How can I trust that your points are solid when you make such broad generalizations?

It is dishonest when it tells expectant mothers that they are doing a loving thing and providing their child a better life through adoption. There are no guarantees: adoptive parents die, divorce, abuse and even kill children in their care
Isn't it equally dishonest to tell a pregnant teenager that, by keeping their baby, nothing bad will ever happen and the baby will grow up in a nurturing environment? You don't have any guarantee that abolishing adoption would result in a better result for the children. It is equally dishonest to woo a girl into keeping her child and then disappear when she needs help, four years down the line. I agree with the premise that, when possible and when desired, no parent should have to give up their child due to age or income or some other basic issues. I agree that babies shouldn't be forcibly removed from parents who want them. But, if a parent is indifferent, abusive, violently unstable, or neglectful, then I can't take the position that the child's rights to stability and a chance at a better life are less important than some dogmatic insistence that all adoptions are dishonest. Between "dishonest" and dead, I'll take dishonest. There are no guarantees that biological parents will treat their children better than an adoptive parent would treat the child.

If the establishment of adoption is flawed, then work to change it and make it better. I'll help you lobby for that. But, I can't support anyone who uses scare tactics and broad generalizations that are false.

Atheist in a mini van. said...

Maybe I missed something, but how does she address the issue of orphans? or abandoned children?
I'm guessing that this is the circumstance wherein she says that the child should have a guardian assigned, but never be adopted.

The Music Won't Stop said...

--Is abortion better than our saying yes to the adoption?--

Actually, I know this woman from a community or two on LJ, and her answer would be YES. She's all for aborting the babies if it keeps them from being adopted.

Bad things are going to happen, but good things come out of it too. While I can sort of see where she is coming from, she is far too one-sided. Even when adopted people point out that they are happy, and secure, and don't give two-shits about the parents that abandoned them, and would never think to call their adoptive parents anything but their PARENTS (something she is very much against), she refuses to acknowledge them.

And because of that, I have no respect for her or her cause, or anyone who supports her. She's like an anti-adoption fundy.

Gramomster said...

Hi there. Yeah, sorry... the 15 year old was the child of a parent who was given multiple chances... parenting classes, time in jail, guardian ad litem for the child... after 13 years, the legal system finally came to the conclusion that nothing would change the parent, and terminated her parental rights, making her child a ward of the state, still going from placement to placement, with all her belongings in a Hefty bag. Not to mention, she'd never been in one placement long enough to go to the same school for even one whole marking period, had never learned to do laundry, cook, shop, anything else, but on her 18th birthday, all services would terminate, leaving her with no transitional guidance to try to prevent her from landing on the streets with no skills. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Zero. All done, of course, in the name of protecting her, and in the name of 'preserving the family'. Unfortunately, her experience is far from unusual.
I went and read the woman's whole blog, and all the comments. She definitely does not respond to many comments, and usually not to those that share stories of their own adoptions. I have some issue with the idea of guardianship as well. If this preserves the right of the biological parents, then it opens the door for the kind of thing that has been in the news from time to time where a biological parent decides they want a child back, or they change their mind about an adoption, and then there is a child caught in the middle who is torn from the only home he/she has ever knownto go live with strangers who are 'Mommy/Daddy'. Even abused kids love their parents and find it hard to leave them, but if a child has been loved, and there is no reason for them to be taken other than their 'real' parents want them now, that is just wrong. Adoption provides the security that both the adoptive parents and the adoptee need... nobody can just show up and reclaim an adopted kid.

Mark said...

"The people I know who were adopted or have adopted have two birth certificates that they've been shown - their "real", biological information on one and the adoptive family info on the other."

You may be living in a state with open records? Many adoptees are still fighting for open records... that is the ability to open their own original birth certificate. Eight states now offer open records. Most don't..

I hear what you are saying... that the broad statement of the blogger that all adoption is dishonest, etc. is more than you can believe. As an adoptee I've been surprised at the deceptions I came to live with and expect... and in mid-life am starting to come to grips with.

Adoption is certainly something to question and examine. And I'm glad to see that you are apparently beginning to.

Berlzebub said...

If you think about it, everything that she claims to be wrong with the adoption system is also wrong with everyone raising children. How many children actually call their parents by their real names?
So, by her reasoning, all children should just have appointed guardians.

Princess and I looked into adoption, not to long ago. Munchkin was conceived on a fertility drug. Now, we're having problems with conceiving a sibling. Looking into adoption, we found out that it would cost around $15K. Plus, there would be a six month investigation to find out if we were "fit" parents. What this investigation would actually look for, I'm not sure. Once we found out about the 15K price tag, we decided to go the next step and try in vitro.

aimee said...

Directors, I beg to differ with you on this: "there is no need to terminate the parents rights and act "as if" they never existed".

Right now my husband and I are awaiting a court date on Dec 18 to do just that with my ex husband. We have fought this off and on for 4 years. He has been and still is abusive. He has been to jail numerous times for forgery, theft, child abuse...he doesn't pay child support nor does he feel like he should. I'm sorry, but this is not someone my kids need in their lives. Once this is all said and done, my two boys will have the same last name as their little sister. My oldest, 10, wants to take on my husbands middle name also (which would replace ex's middle name). And this will all be reflected on a new birth certificate, we can't be more excited to erase him from our lives for good. My kids are very aware of what is going on and why, and they want it. My ex helped in creating my boys and that is it. My husband has been their dad for the past 7 years.

If something were to happen to me and we don't have this taken care of, my ex would get those kids, not my husband, and that scares me to death.

Allyson said...

My older cousins both adopted sons. They came to our family at 9 and 11, after years in and out of foster care, some of which was not much better than the lives they had had with abusive birth families. The kids were not doing well as a result from the lack of stability. They have both come really far in the five years we've had them, and I shudder to think of what their lives would have been had they continued to have been bounced around in the foster care system all their lives. These kids have also brought so much happiness into our lives, just as much as biological children would have. Now, I can't imagine our family without them. I know that if I decide I want kids, I'll be adopting. Yes, it's hard and expensive, but I'd rather give a home to a kid who needs; I don't feel the need to birth a biological child (not saying I judge anybody who does! I never mean to sound judgmental, because I know reproductive issues are different for everyone).

Katie said...

I agree that there are problems with the process of adoption as it currently stands. Still, my own experience (and those of other adoptees I know) have all been good. I do NOT mean to say that there aren't bad experiences, but I know that there are bad experiences for children raised by their biological parents as well! I'd be interested to see information about rates of abuse, etc. for adopted children vs. children raised by their biological parents.

I work at a school for kids that public schools don't know how to deal with. Most of the younger kids are there because of autism, MR, or other severe cognitive and/or health issues. Most of them go to my school because we can handle the aggressive behaviors. The older kids are almost all there because they've been kicked out of every other school available to them. Many of them are in foster care or residential/group homes, and most have been bounced around to so many placements they can't find any stability. Most have been removed from their biological parents many times and then returned when the system thinks the parents have reformed. It's very rare that they actually have. Several of the kids I work with (elementary age, severe to profound cognitive impairment/autism) are in horrible home situations. Child protective services have been called multiple times and continue to assert that the kids are find in their homes--even though one of them is homeless (the school is currently paying for his family to stay in a hotel).

Would those kids be better with their biological families? NO. Honestly, I don't think that their biological families would add anything to their lives (although I can't know that for sure). I agree that the system errs on the side of keeping the child with their biological family at the cost of the child's well-being.

I agree with gramomster completely--the child does need to come first, PERIOD. Keeping a child in a very harmful/abusive/unstable/drug addicted home is doing a lot of damage to their future. In a ideal world we could just tell the parents to shape up and the family could stay together, but that often can't/doesn't happen.

Outside of adoption, I think the foster care system desperately needs reform. Kids could be removed from negative situations with better hope for their future if the foster care system provided more stability and focused entirely on the kids' well-being.

Wow...can you tell I feel passionately about this?

Dave Salyers said...

As someone who works in this profession I had to comment on this one. I agree with some of the other posters who stated that there are far too many barriers to timely adoptions out there. That being said...

"Unjust detentions of children" - I'm not sure where this person got this info. It sounds like a birth parent who had his or her children removed and still not not accept personal responsibility for his or her actions that led to that course of action. In California, children can only be removed from the care of a parent or guardian if the County can prove abuse or neglect as defined by the State Welfare and Institutions Code, Section 300, in a court of law and upheld by a judge in Dependency Court (I think it would be helpful to move it to Criminal Court and the higher burden of proof in order to reduce the number of kids in the system as we cannot meet all of their needs). No child welfare agency has that authority without the authorization of the justice system. Two, Family Reunification services are mandated not only by the court but by State law. If a parent who has had his or her child removed shows even partial compliance with the court-ordered case plan and regular visitation which is also ordered by the Court, then the recommendation MUST be to the return the children to Home of Parent unless a clear and present danger can be clearly demonstrated to the Court. Home of Parent can also be ordered over the child welfare system objections if the Court feels that the "clear and present danger" is not substantial enough.

Termination of parental rights generally only occurs in cases where the parents refused to cooperate with the Court's orders over an extended period of time, or the degree of abuse was SO egregious (i.e. torture, ongoing traumatic sexual abuse, etc.) that it justifies TPR. Due to the requirements of WIC Section 300 and Section 366.26, the judicial system bends over backwards to try to return children to their parents.

"Financial incentives" - due to the COST of keeping children in the Child Welfare system, adoptive parents of our children do not have to pay for the adoptive home study and they also receive a financial stipend (AAP) and Medi-Cal generally until the child is 18. This is because it is cheaper to pay the stipend to an adoptive parent to encourage adoptions of children trapped in foster care than it is to pay the foster care payments, attorneys, judges, social workers, etc. which would be required to keep a child in foster care. Any payment the County receives from Federal/State funds as a result of completing and adoptive home study is used to pay for the cost of the home study and care of the children thus reducing the amount of money that would have to come from the County coffers.

I hope this is helpful.

Dave Salyers said...

I forgot to add...

"Guardianship better than adoption" - reputable social science research as well as my own personal professional experience demonstrates that guardianship is not "permanent". There are an increasing number of legal guardians who are dumping these kids back in foster care when they become teenagers (and act like teenagers) as it is easy to un-do a guardianship.

And the kids in our system do such activities as life books with birth family information, life maps, eco maps... so they do know their own heritage and culture and background. Adoption only severs the legal rights of the birth parents.

Natasha Yar-Routh said...

Well being adopted I think she is totally wrong. My significant other, Lyne, is also adopted and neither of us has ever had the least interest in finding our birth parents. My parents are the ones who raised me end of story. I could not have asked for more loving caring parents and yes I always knew I was adopted.

Is adoption a perfect institution? No but then no institution is. Is it often better then the alternative? Yes it is, I know that Lyne and I are both better off for having been adopted.

Martin Wagner said...

This website may only really be said to have a valid point if all adoptive parents spent their entire lives lying to their child about its having been adopted. I was adopted at birth, and from the moment I could talk and think beyond "me want toy," they were entirely open and honest with me about adopting me. Thus, I had no reason to grow up thinking adoption was anything freakish or unnatural. Which it isn't. When I reached adulthood, my parents (yes, my adoptive parents are, as far as I'm concerned, the only parents I've got, because I've lived all my life with them and haven't felt like I got a raw deal yet) broached the subject of whether I had any inclination to go on the Big Quest to find my birth parents. I shrugged and said, no, I really didn't give a shit who they were, and I think I ended up pretty well off as it is (my dad retired a multimillionaire).

But essentially, the website (as well as the ravings of the anti-adoption folks I'm reading in these comments) is just fucked up and wrong, because it isn't adoption that hurts babies/families/kids. It's dishonesty. And it's bogus to think all adoptive families are seeped in dishonesty, just as it's bogus to generalize about any other kind of family (gay parents, etc.).

eyeslikesugar said...

Just about everyone up there ^ I agree with. But, is this lady talking about US adoptions only? My sister is adopted from Columbia, and we all KNOW this was the best situation for her. She was so unhealthy as an infant, and her mom so poor, that she would not have survived with her mother. When she came to the US to a family who had good health care and could afford all of the doctor visits, did she thrive.

Because of this, I want to adopt kids. Once I am done with school (and my boyfriend) then I will start thinking about a family. I know I have a lot of love to give, and a lot of knowledge to share, but I don't want to bring a child into this overpopulated world. I don't think it's fair when there are children who need loving, warm homes. My grandpa, sister, and best friend are all adopted. They have never felt deceived or lied to. If you're a good parent, you won't hide such a big thing. As 'adopted' said, it is a shame that more people just want "infants, preferable ones in lighter shades".

Carlie said...

There are lots of problems, of course. Everyone knows horror stories on all sides. My cousin had her baby taken away because the babysitter dropped him, and still hasn't gotten him back even though she's passed every single evaluation with flying colors and the state psychiatrist says her only problem is that she's sad because her child isn't with her. Another friend of mine is here on a semi-permanent work visa, and would love to adopt, but can't because here the problem is OMG she's from another country and what if she wants to take the baby somewhere else someday? and can't adopt in her home country because OMG she's living somewhere else right now and wouldn't keep the baby there.

The laws and enforcement thereof are pretty screwed up, but that's partly because there are so many situations and contingencies out there. That doesn't mean that adoption is bad, just that it's an imperfect system.