Intense sadness

[salinafaerie]

It's also a safe bet to say that each of us are likely coloured by our own personal parental experience.

I'm sure that's true, and I'm curious about our difference in opinions regarding adoption (which I think should be outlawed) Do you know who your birth parents were? Was it an "open" adoption, or has your genealogy, medical history, etc. been concealed from you?

Wow. This thread is intense for so many of us for so many different reasons. I'm sorry for everyone's pain.

I'm just going to add in a few things because I was not adopted but I was one of many who was born to parents that were programmed to believe you got married and you automatically had children, no real thought involved. One of my biggest amazements in life, and not in a good way, is how many people today still feel and operate that way.

What I personally feel is most important to keep in mind whether adopted or not is that the first 36 months of a babies life is the critical time for bonding and if that does not happen with one primary caretaker, the personality can be, and often is, irrevocably damaged. I know I am preaching to the choir, of course, but the attachment issues I have seen as the result are just astounding.

Adoptions can take weeks and months, even years, to go through, even when carefully planned, with babies sitting in overcrowded, underfunded foster care. Besides the first 36 months, the first few days are critical for bonding. After witnessing several well planned, "conscious" births with my mother-in-law as the midwife, I have seen babies at their most vulnerable and I don't care how well meaning a foster parent is, it is not the same as a baby suckling from the natural mother provided the natural mother is a relatively healthy and grounded human herself.

I am not against adoption but bonding issues need to be the number one factor in the process and in our court system, too, imo. Too often I have seen judges playing toss the baby between waring parents. It turns the stomach.

 

[Timótheos]

Or it suggests they wanted an accessory just like the Jones?

After years of medical appointments, fertility tests, background checks, mountains of forms and applications, stress, anxiety and so much effort, all for an "accessory"? Not likely.

 

[Esote]

I can only go by the statements you make on this forum and saying that "gays" taking available steps to have their own children goes against nature is a bigoted and homophobic thing to say, as if just because someone is homosexual, it is unnatural for them to want or to have children. It is not. There is nothing unnatural about homosexuality, nor about wanting or having children in whatever way that is possible.

Everything comes from nature, of course. I could have better said "against natural ways", does it make more sense ?

No, it does not, actually.

I didn't say "that "gays" taking available steps to have their own children goes against nature", but "why not ?"

If "against natural ways" does not make more sense, then let's go for industrial agriculture, chemicals and gmo, cloning etc. Would you please elaborate a little more ?

Well I have now, and "against natural ways" doesn't make any more sense. How can ANYTHING exist in this world, and not be "natural?" Just because "the gays" are not (usually) inserting tab A into slot B that makes them "unnatural?"

Same question as above. Isn't it some sort of confusion you're making ?

Oh no hon, I'm perfectly aware of the fact that I'm stomping all over your sacred bovine. :)

Well, it's not "my" sacred bovine. OK, everything is natural, and it's not wise to take oneself seriously...

 

[Esote]

...I'm not homophobic and I don't know what you mean by bigotry (lol) and that it shows again. It's a very well known manipulation trick to separate what is written or said from the whole context (I'm surprised that you may kinf of use it). I wrote, after the end of your quote from my post, "Why not..." Now, I apologize if anybody might consider this to be insulting. Being ignorant, that's right. I know that I don't know. Do you know otherwise ?

You may not see yourself as homophobic but for what it's worth, your comments came across as bigoted and homophobic. If anart hadn't addressed it, I would have.

Everything comes from nature, of course. I could have better said "against natural ways", does it make more sense ?

Perhaps you can define 'natural/nature' then in order to clarify because quite a few of the statements you make come across as either misunderstanding and/or lacking in some knowledge.

What I shared in this thread has not much to do with making me comfortable, afaik. I just want to go deeply into the subject, looking right and left as much as possible with external considering.

Part of external considering includes how information is shared - to keep in mind who may be reading what you're posting and how that makes them feel.

I'm not centered on myself when sharing this, my thoughts basically meet yours on this subject. But I know it's very tough for young people and this is the place to really think and reflect about it, for the sake of all, osit.

Then perhaps there's a language issue because I'm not really getting that impression. You seem to be playing devil's advocate yet agree with statements posted that run contrary to what you say. It's as if you're 'arguing' for the sake of arguing. It doesn't feel as if you're being genuine and is confusing. So it doesn't really allow for a true conversation to take place because others are trying to be honest and as objective with you but your posts don't have the same feel. At the same time you're trying to not step on anyone's toes by agreeing, much of what you write has the flavor of identification with your 'beliefs'. For what it's worth.

That's exactly what I am into : being honest and as objective as possible, without identification. And not for the sake of arguing, but for the sake of really understanding... I am actually more or less challenging your point of view and mine. Sorry if it is confusing for you...

 

[Gimpy]

I am not against adopting but yes I do want children that are biologically mine.

Maybe it would help you get clarity on this to explain exactly why it's so important to you that you have children that are biologically yours?

As an adoptee I can tell you that we are never as good as having "real" children. We're the booby prize for people who can't have "their own" children for whatever reason.

I'll never be against adoption because I do know people who care, very much, for any and all of their children, adopted or not. (My older sister is adopted, btw. She's also a malignant narcissist, but that's just how she is. She's been offered her birth records, and refused them. Go figure.)

I'm sure that's true, and I'm curious about our difference in opinions regarding adoption (which I think should be outlawed)

Outlawing adoptions would do what kind of good? I don't understand this kind of reasoning.

 

[salinafaerie]

I'll never be against adoption because I do know people who care, very much, for any and all of their children, adopted or not. (My older sister is adopted, btw. She's also a malignant narcissist, but that's just how she is. She's been offered her birth records, and refused them. Go figure.)

May I ask, Gimpy, why you think your adopted sister is a malignant narcissist? How old was she when she was adopted? What is known about her birth parents? Medical and social history?

Outlawing adoptions would do what kind of good? I don't understand this kind of reasoning.

I don't understand this either, even though I empathize with the pain of some adoptees.

 

[Timótheos]

I'm sure that's true, and I'm curious about our difference in opinions regarding adoption (which I think should be outlawed) Do you know who your birth parents were? Was it an "open" adoption, or has your genealogy, medical history, etc. been concealed from you?

I have some minimal information regarding my birthparents, not much about genealogy or medical history unfortunately, which would have been nice to have.

However, this discussion does bring to mind other possibilities... who or where would I be be if adoption were "outlawed" as you say? Obviously, my birth mother was no position, either emotionally, financially or otherwise to properly raise and care for a child. I can only imagine how difficult it must have been for her to have to make that decision. Would my early years have been composed of being shuffled around between various foster homes or orphanages? Would I even be here today, writing on this forum, if it weren't for the education and support of my adoptive parents?

All speculation really, but interesting to consider.

I get the impression Guardian, that your adoptive experience was less than ideal, which may explain why you hold your present views. Do you think your life would have been better off if your mother had decided to keep you after all? Is it really possible to accurately judge the enormity of the consequences of such a decision, and decide after the fact that one way is preferable to another? Hindsight may not always be 20/20, especially if it is coloured by wishful thinking.

We are all born into this world with the hand we are dealt, and it is up to each of us to find our way towards the truth within the specific context of the lives we are given.

Some people just make horrible parents, whether their children are adopted or not. Some people with horrible parents, manage against all the odds to find places like this forum, whether they are adopted or not.

To say that any such thing should be universally outlawed, without taking into consideration the innumerable factors that contribute to an individual's unique experience, seems rather extreme if you ask me.

 

[Guardian]

After years of medical appointments, fertility tests, background checks, mountains of forms and applications, stress, anxiety and so much effort, all for an "accessory"? Not likely.

Actually most adoptions in the US are easier than buying a house....all it takes is MONEY. Whoever has the most money gets the blondest, blue eyed baby, all they have to do is sign where their lawyer marked a big "X"

Now "in family" and "open" adoptions are usually completely different...and actually more difficult.

 

[salinafaerie]

(My older sister is adopted, btw. She's also a malignant narcissist, but that's just how she is. She's been offered her birth records, and refused them. Go figure.)

One of my dearest friends, also adopted, has refused her birth records. She is, overall, happy with her birth mother, even though it was not a perfect relationship, and she feels no pull to search further. I, too, find that very odd but we know some people just don't want to upset the cart.

 

[monotonic]

This does seem to be a charged subject. It was clear to me from the start that eoste meant "natural" as in... Paleo, perhaps? In this case "natural" is slang. The strange diversion to attempting to correct the "natural" fallacy does seem pretty wacky to me, but understandable. It could be "arguing for the sake of arguing", which also reminds of of "the abuse of sex". FWIW

It may be pertinent when birthing to try to do things the way our genes are familiar with, after all we know what the results of the vegetable fat revolution have been. Apparently good results CAN happen this way, but that isn't very reassuring.

As I understand what eoste said originally was simply that surrogate birthing and artificial insemination and whatnot could not possibly have been taken into account or prepared for by "nature". Eoste used very vague language, so makes it easy to read things into it. And I think the use of the word "gays" is a BIG trigger. The word doesn't have to be derogatory, it's sort of like saying "girls". But language like this is one reason one should be externally considerate.

 

[Buddy]

That was my understanding of eoste's meaning also, though I haven't read the posting history. Also, I confess I'm still interested in whether eoste might be projecting a human-like persona on Evolutionary processes as if to imply a special interest in what humans do in a reproductive context.

 

[Guardian]

However, this discussion does bring to mind other possibilities... who or where would I be be if adoption were "outlawed" as you say? Obviously, my birth mother was no position, either emotionally, financially or otherwise to properly raise and care for a child.

We call this "the Grateful Programming" We are programed to believe that we could have, or most likely would have been, much worse off if our identities hadn't been completely stripped from us at birth.

We are programmed to sympathize with, and excuse, someone who most likely just slept around then didn't want to take responsibility for the resulting offspring.

Whether or not a woman should have custody of her child is a COMPLETELY different issue than whether or not a woman should be allowed to completely abdicate ALL responsibility for her child.

Only women are allowed to get away with this, NOT men who are pursued to the ends of the earth to force them to at least financially support their children.

We could "what if" all day, but the biggest "what if" is "What if the woman was forced, by law, to notify all members of her family AND the birth father's family before selling the baby to total strangers?"

Why do our laws protect a woman's "dirty little secret" to the direct detriment of the child who IS "the dirty little secret?"

I can only imagine how difficult it must have been for her to have to make that decision.

Yes, that is part of "The Grateful Programming" too.

The reality is that unless she was raped, which is a very small percentage of adoptions, she made the decision when she spread legs, and so did the guy. However, she's the only one allowed by law, to pretend it never happened. These are OLD Victorian rules designed to protect the woman's "reputation"

Would my early years have been composed of being shuffled around between various foster homes or orphanages?

Or would you have been raised by your loving Grandparents, who to this day, don't know you exist?

Would I even be here today, writing on this forum, if it weren't for the education and support of my adoptive parents?

Probably not, but would it have been any different if they had permanent custody of you and your birth parents were required to pay support, provide you with a medical history and basic knowledge of your origins?

All speculation really, but interesting to consider.

Yes it is.

Do you think your life would have been better off if your mother had decided to keep you after all? Is it really possible to accurately judge the enormity of the consequences of such a decision, and decide after the fact that one way is preferable to another?

Again, you are confusing CUSTODY with legal identity theft to protect someone's "reputation"

I happen to ADORE my adoptive parents, but this has absolutely nothing to do with my RIGHT to know my origins! My RIGHT to know my lineage. My RIGHT to see my original Birth Certificate instead of a document that was altered to protect a woman's "reputation"

We are all born into this world with the hand we are dealt, and it is up to each of us to find our way towards the truth within the specific context of the lives we are given.

I'd think "acquire the documents the government sealed to prevent you from knowing your origins" would fall in the "Truth" category?

Some people just make horrible parents, whether their children are adopted or not. Some people with horrible parents, manage against all the odds to find places like this forum, whether they are adopted or not.

Exactly! So why do we need to have our identities hidden from us? I'm sure there are people here raised by a wide variety of extended family members? Our blood relationship to who raised is NOT the issue....it is the distraction.

To say that any such thing should be universally outlawed, without taking into consideration the innumerable factors that contribute to an individual's unique experience, seems rather extreme if you ask me.

Again...please look at your "Grateful Programming" We ALL get it, and it's one of the most difficult to get past.

"Adoption" in its current form STEALS our identities from us, for life...and this is completely unnecessary. We need TRUTH, not vague fluffy stories.

 

[Guardian]

Outlawing adoptions would do what kind of good? I don't understand this kind of reasoning.

I don't understand this either, even though I empathize with the pain of some adoptees.

"Adoption" is a legal process which automatically results in the Adoptee's birth records being "Sealed" by the courts.

There are MANY ways the transfer of filiation can be achieved without denying us our birth records.

 

[anart]

Although, this is very scary, too, because don't we then have to accept genetically modified foods as within nature and every other franken creation--- for example, other animals (Jurrasic park anyone?) that humans can recreate as within nature, so therefore acceptable? Or are we back to just because we can doesn't mean we do?

"salina" you often tend to ask questions that are basically just asked to play the devil's advocate. I'm not sure if you're aware of that or not, but it's interesting to observe and comes across as a bit insincere - as in you're trying to debate rather than discuss. Can you remind me how you found this forum?

Regarding your question, most in vitro isn't genetically modifying the resultant fetus, so I think you're making a bit of a stretch and a "straw man argument". Yes, a lot of what humanity does is, well, for lack of a better word "evil" but it is what humanity does...

 

[Guardian]

One of my dearest friends, also adopted, has refused her birth records. She is, overall, happy with her birth mother, even though it was not a perfect relationship, and she feels no pull to search further. I, too, find that very odd but we know some people just don't want to upset the cart.

Yet another example of Society's "Grateful Programing" of adoptees.

What does whether or not you're "happy with your birth mother" have to do with knowing your ancestry?