Intense sadness

[Guardian]

My impression exactly. My impression of Guardian's first post was "adoption is bad,

Yes, I think it is very, VERY bad,

adoptive parents are evil

I think you have as much chance of getting evil adoptive parents as you do getting evil birth parents....that is the point. Adoption is NOT a good thing, and treating the adoptee like s/he is "lucky" to have been adopted is wrong.

in a nutshell. With the last post, it seems the issue is more the specific laws.

It is ALL the laws which allow people to "put their children up" for adoption. We are people, not a commodity.

But I don't see how that leads to adoption in particular being inherently evil...

Adoption is evil because it replaces your history with lies. It is specifically designed to hide the TRUTH of a person's origins from them.

 

[Guardian]

What if you grafted an elephant trunk onto a jaguar? That would certainly be unexpected.

Well I'm sure the jaguar would be surprised, but it's still a part of nature.

 

[Guardian]

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.

Oh you said that so good! I wish I could write half as well.

 

[salinafaerie]

What if you grafted an elephant trunk onto a jaguar? That would certainly be unexpected.

Well I'm sure the jaguar would be surprised, but it's still a part of nature.

I really have to take exception here. Just because we can do it and it is part of nature as explained earlier by anart, doesn't make it ethical!!!

Of all the things we discuss here about our health, the health of our food supply, the earth, the universe and beyond, why would you be supporting a do what thou will approach when manipulating nature?

 

[Buddy]

Thanks for distinguishing the inheritance issues, Hildegarda. This whole thread has helped clarify the reasons why I always felt that, at least, the "sealed records" part of 'adoption' was just wrong, but was never able to explain why.

 

[anart]

What if you grafted an elephant trunk onto a jaguar? That would certainly be unexpected.

Well I'm sure the jaguar would be surprised, but it's still a part of nature.

I really have to take exception here. Just because we can do it and it is part of nature as explained earlier by anart, doesn't make it ethical!!!

No one said it was ethical. Is there a reason you're having such an emotional reaction?

Of all the things we discuss here about our health, the health of our food supply, the earth, the universe and beyond, why would you be supporting a do what thou will approach when manipulating nature?

I don't see anyone supporting a "do what thou will" approach, but I do see you jumping to quite a few conclusions.

 

[Guardian]

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.

Nooooo, I don't care if people want to bop like bunnies, but if you bring a child into the word, you should NOT be allowed to refuse to take responsibility for it....man OR woman.

 

[Guardian]

I really have to take exception here. Just because we can do it and it is part of nature as explained earlier by anart, doesn't make it ethical!!!

Where did I indicate that this would be ethical? What does being a part of nature have to do with being ethical? Politicians and Corporate CEOs are all part of nature.....hello?

 

[Approaching Infinity]

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.

Yep, that really helped! Thanks from me, too.

 

[salinafaerie]

I really have to take exception here. Just because we can do it and it is part of nature as explained earlier by anart, doesn't make it ethical!!!

Where did I indicate that this would be ethical? What does being a part of nature have to do with being ethical? Politicians and Corporate CEOs are all part of nature.....hello?

Alright, alright. I get it. Sorry everyone!

 

[monotonic]

What if you grafted an elephant trunk onto a jaguar? That would certainly be unexpected.

Well I'm sure the jaguar would be surprised, but it's still a part of nature.

You misattributed this quote somehow. And, you may have missed my later reply:

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!

Thus problems. It seems to me you just don't WANT to understand.

There is also the possibility eoste didn't mean nature in an evolutionary sense, and instead meant nature as in the mainstream religious spin on nature, where anything "unholy" is unnatural, and that is up to eoste for clarification.

Why do I feel everyone's in a hurry to misunderstand each other? I think different dictionaries is only part of it.

 

[salinafaerie]

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.

Nooooo, I don't care if people want to bop like bunnies, but if you bring a child into the word, you should NOT be allowed to refuse to take responsibility for it....man OR woman.

So what is your ideal world on this issue? It's not just financial responsibility, we all probably agree. What should be done? How do you stop people who shouldn't be having children from having them?

 

[Guardian]

Guardian, as I understand, is speaking from a position of a more, for lack of a better word, "militant" faction of adult adoptees.

That's an excellent word. Ok, who's surprised I'm part of the militant faction?

 

[salinafaerie]

Guardian, as I understand, is speaking from a position of a more, for lack of a better word, "militant" faction of adult adoptees.

That's an excellent word. Ok, who's surprised I'm part of the militant faction?

This is a great thread. Thanks everyone.

Off topic-- I'm having some server issues. I just got a time out and a few times, I think I posted but when I go back to look for it, it's not there and it's not in my count either, but when I hit the back button and try to repost it, I get a message telling me it's a duplicate. Anyone?

 

[truth seeker]

Off topic-- I'm having some server issues. I just got a time out and a few times, I think I posted but when I go back to look for it, it's not there and it's not in my count either, but when I hit the back button and try to repost it, I get a message telling me it's a duplicate. Anyone?

It would be great if you could post your question(s) regarding tech support in this thread to prevent derailing. Thanks.