Intense sadness

[Guardian]

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".

Yup, that was my understanding too, which is the problem. How could "nature" not be prepared for something that's part of it?

 

[monotonic]

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".

Yup, that was my understanding too, which is the problem. How could "nature" not be prepared for something that's part of it?

What if you grafted an elephant trunk onto a jaguar? That would certainly be unexpected. Not unlike a human eating vegetable oils and wheat.

 

[Esote]

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.

I'd be using my "natural" language, I'd be less vague. At the same time I am in a research, figuring what it's all about, I have no certainty and I beg your pardon if it's not clear enough... To be externally considerate is mandatory and I'm trying my best

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.

You put it in a way I wouldn't have think of in such words, Buddy.
I think it's pretty close to how I'm sharing my contribution in this thread...

 

[anart]

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.

Unfortunately, the word "gays" isn't like the word "girls". "Gays" is used, almost entirely, in a derogatory manner - it is defining an entire group of people by nothing other than their sexual behavior. I'm personally hoping that eoste is coming across the way he is coming across due a language barrier and not an inherent bias against those who are not "like him". There is no way to know for certain at this point since his responses have been less than forthcoming, but I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt at this point since English is not his first language.

 

[monotonic]

Point is, humans are humans. We have genes. Our genes control our body's inner workings. That is the extent of our bodies in 3D. Yes, in the cosmic scheme, all is nature. But we are not all, we are 3D and 3D rules apply to us. And our 3D nature is that genes have not had any time to adapt to these things!

Anart, I realized after I posted it was unlikely anyone would use "gays" in a non-derogatory manner, except perhaps me.

 

[Beau]

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.

So why not focus on changing the laws that create this situation? It sounds like you're mainly upset about that and not the actual act of a person/couple putting their child up for adoption. If that's the case, and tell me if I'm wrong, why jump to the extreme of making it illegal? Wouldn't attempting to change the process of adoption and the rules surrounding it be a more practical choice? Seems like the emotions of being denied your rightful heritage is causing you to reach farther than you need to in order to get what you want.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

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.

So why not focus on changing the laws that create this situation? It sounds like you're mainly upset about that and not the actual act of a person/couple putting their child up for adoption. If that's the case, and tell me if I'm wrong, why jump to the extreme of making it illegal? Wouldn't attempting to change the process of adoption and the rules surrounding it be a more practical choice? Seems like the emotions of being denied your rightful heritage is causing you to reach farther than you need to in order to get what you want.

My impression exactly. My impression of Guardian's first post was "adoption is bad, adoptive parents are evil" in a nutshell. With the last post, it seems the issue is more the specific laws. I don't see anything wrong with adoption or adoptive parents per se. Some people make decent parents, regardless of whether they're biological or adoptive. And probably every parent's motivations for having a child are unconscious and probably not what they would verbally profess: from hormones to accessorizing or social programming. But I don't see how that leads to adoption in particular being inherently evil...

 

[Esote]

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".

Yup, that was my understanding too, which is the problem. How could "nature" not be prepared for something that's part of it?

What if you grafted an elephant trunk onto a jaguar? That would certainly be unexpected. Not unlike a human eating vegetable oils and wheat.

EDIT:

Point is, humans are humans. We have genes. Our genes control our body's inner workings. That is the extent of our bodies in 3D. Yes, in the cosmic scheme, all is nature. But we are not all, we are 3D and 3D rules apply to us. And our 3D nature is that genes have not had any time to adapt to these things!

And what about gmo, chemicals, nuclear etc. It's nature too, but does it really fit humans ? To what extent and for what aim ?...

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.

Unfortunately, the word "gays" isn't like the word "girls". "Gays" is used, almost entirely, in a derogatory manner - it is defining an entire group of people by nothing other than their sexual behavior. I'm personally hoping that eoste is coming across the way he is coming across due a language barrier and not an inherent bias against those who are not "like him". There is no way to know for certain at this point since his responses have been less than forthcoming, but I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt at this point since English is not his first language.

I don't really understand what you are trying to say, anart. I'm sure not clear enough then. I have quite a few friends, since a long time ago, who define themselves as "gays" and there is nothing pejorative for me with this word (and none of them wants to get married or have children).
" inherent bias against those who are not "like him"" ?!..

May be my answers are "less than forthcoming" for you because you had a superficial reading, pardon me but you must read so much I guess ? I am wrong somewhere, may be because of my way of saying things which seems to be going against your knowledge, or something...
I suspect I'm just plain dumb

 

[Hildegarda]

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.

One cart that is often ready to topple in such case is other people's expectations. Those include the prevailing view that if an adoptee is looking for birth records, he/she is searching for a different set of parents and than choosing between the "real" and "not real" parents, whichever pair those may be. It hurts to even contemplate a slight risk of being perceived as ungrateful. In reality, this is not a process of loyalty assessment or switching but a process of self-discovery. Adoptee's family includes both biological and adopted relatives.

 

[Gimpy]

May I ask, Gimpy, why you think your adopted sister is a malignant narcissist?

No, you may not.

How old was she when she was adopted? What is known about her birth parents? Medical and social history?

And that is none of your business.

 

[Hildegarda]

So why not focus on changing the laws that create this situation? It sounds like you're mainly upset about that and not the actual act of a person/couple putting their child up for adoption. If that's the case, and tell me if I'm wrong, why jump to the extreme of making it illegal? Wouldn't attempting to change the process of adoption and the rules surrounding it be a more practical choice? Seems like the emotions of being denied your rightful heritage is causing you to reach farther than you need to in order to get what you want.

Your questions and some other replies underlies a disconnect that is due to verbiage being used. Guardian, as I understand, is speaking from a position of a more, for lack of a better word, "militant" faction of adult adoptees. They have a strong, articulate presence and a specific lingo that is familiar to those versed in the subject but can be missed by others.

Over the years starting from about 1980s, they brought a rise of awareness of issues in parenting, attachment/bonding, social and family practices, and human rights. And positive changes in all those areas as well.

To ask them why they are so maximalist is the same as, e.g., asking the unions why they are so maximalists in protecting their members from being fired, after all, we have options for at-will employment, part-time employment and 9-5 work day, they could just take another job. The very reason why we have those last three things is because unions have worked for it for many years. Similarly, adult adoptees have bee working on getting birth records opened, and on making open adoption preferable. More generally, the very reason why we can even have the discussion of adoption - what it does to the family, what it does to the birth mother, what it does to the child - now, is because adult adoptees have got the ball rolling tens of years ago.

Filial bonds and being raised in a family other than biological origin had always existed. They cannot be and should not be made illegal. But they are not "adoption" as is understood today. "Adoption" is a permanent change of status and legal rights and responsibility. It was originally used to settle inheritance issues, but currently the same legal mechanisms are used for family creation. The resulting process often violates human rights. This is what some adult adoptees are trying to change.

 

[Guardian]

So why not focus on changing the laws that create this situation?

I do.

It sounds like you're mainly upset about that and not the actual act of a person/couple putting their child up for adoption.

"Putting a child up for" think about those words for a minute. What else do you "put up for" auction, sale, etc? The phrase is mostly used for OBJECTS, whereas people are usually "nominated" "chosen" etc.

If that's the case, and tell me if I'm wrong, why jump to the extreme of making it illegal?

To remove the "profit" part of the equation.

Wouldn't attempting to change the process of adoption and the rules surrounding it be a more practical choice?

Sure, that would work too. When I said "I think adoption should be outlawed" I meant adoption as it currently exists. COMPLETELY redefining the word would work too.

Seems like the emotions of being denied your rightful heritage is causing you to reach farther than you need to in order to get what you want.

No, I just know we've had better luck banning adoption (especially cross cultural) than changing it's definition.

I don't care what they call it, just stop doing it.

 

[salinafaerie]

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.

You points are well taken Guardian.

I should have stated that I only support open adoptions unless under the most dire of circumstances and I'm not even sure what those might be.

I do think, however, that your statement about a woman "spreading her legs" is quite harsh. Are you suggesting that humans should not have sex merely for pleasure? Birth control does sometimes fail even when used as directed.

Every single day men get away without paying a dime for their offspring all over the world, as you surely know. I have single mom friends who are paid a measly $200 per month for a child, some who receive nothing. Since when does it cost $200 to care for a child properly in America?

I really do empathize with you on this issue and it's all the more reason to continue contributing to the consciousness of zero population growth.

 

[anart]

I don't really understand what you are trying to say, anart.

No, I don't think that you do understand the point I'm trying to make. What I'm saying is that I hope that what you have written here and how it comes across (as offensive) is due to a lack of understanding or finesse with the english language on your part and not bigotry. It's really a very simple point that I'm a bit surprised is so difficult for you to understand.

 

[anart]

So why not focus on changing the laws that create this situation? It sounds like you're mainly upset about that and not the actual act of a person/couple putting their child up for adoption. If that's the case, and tell me if I'm wrong, why jump to the extreme of making it illegal? Wouldn't attempting to change the process of adoption and the rules surrounding it be a more practical choice? Seems like the emotions of being denied your rightful heritage is causing you to reach farther than you need to in order to get what you want.

Your questions and some other replies underlies a disconnect that is due to verbiage being used. Guardian, as I understand, is speaking from a position of a more, for lack of a better word, "militant" faction of adult adoptees. They have a strong, articulate presence and a specific lingo that is familiar to those versed in the subject but can be missed by others.

Over the years starting from about 1980s, they brought a rise of awareness of issues in parenting, attachment/bonding, social and family practices, and human rights. And positive changes in all those areas as well.

To ask them why they are so maximalist is the same as, e.g., asking the unions why they are so maximalists in protecting their members from being fired, after all, we have options for at-will employment, part-time employment and 9-5 work day, they could just take another job. The very reason why we have those last three things is because unions have worked for it for many years. Similarly, adult adoptees have bee working on getting birth records opened, and on making open adoption preferable. More generally, the very reason why we can even have the discussion of adoption, what it does to the family, what it does to the birth mother, what it does to the child, discussion now is because adult adoptees have got the boll rolling tens of years ago.

Filial bonds and being raised in a family other than biological origin has always existed. They cannot be and should not be made illegal. But they are not "adoption" as is understood today. "Adoption" is a permanent change of status and legal rights and responsibility. It was originally used to settle inheritance issues, but currently the same legal mechanisms are used for family creation. The resulting process often violates human rights. This is what some adult adoptees are trying to change.

This is a very helpful explanation, since I do think part of the communication issues in this thread are directly related to using different dictionaries. Thanks Hildegarda.