For the past couple of days I’ve watched an exchange going on at a popular blog I follow. It started from a post back in August. I subscribed to the comments then, so I’ve been getting the new comments by email. The post was about the horrible things that have been said to first or natural mothers (whichever term you prefer). There were quite a few comments that were posted with some REALLY NASTY comments that had been made to women that have relinquished children to adoption.
Ironic or Intentional?
The post was put up in August, and the comment that re-started the debate was dated November 30th. So, it’s really coming in a little late. The post author replied and stated at the end in all caps “COMMENTS CLOSED”. I have to admit, I thought about replying because the comment was contradictory. (I didn’t because of the direction by the blog author that comments were closed) The commenter complained of the “hate on these posts” then explains her path to becoming an adoptive mom. She told how she respected all mothers who were brave enough to admit that they couldn’t raise their children. This is the sentence that got to me:
“I do not believe in ever speaking ill of his bm and i dont let anyone else do it either.”
It really amazed me that out of all her protestations of admiration for first mother’s, in this comment and others that followed, she continued to refer to them as “bm’s” in a post about the horrible things that have been said about mother’s who have relinquished. Ironic much?
I didn’t want to read any more of what she had to say because she obviously didn’t care enough to learn that the terminology she was using was disrespectful. Then the thought crossed my mind that maybe she did understand, and the entire event was her way of playing some kind of sick joke on all of these women who had poured their hearts out over their pain for their lost children and the way they had been treated over the years. So, I stopped reading her replies, but some of what she said had me thinking about these exchanges between first mothers and adoptive parents, and the way the AP’s always seem to stick on the same methods of arguing their points and the similar points they seem to make.
Devil in the details.
In a lot of the forums where I’ve read conversations between staunch adoption supporters and those that want adoption reform, there is not a lot of critical thinking being done by adoption supporters. They are set in their beliefs, and BY GOD, NO ONE is going to prove differently. They constantly ask for evidence supporting what others are saying, and then refuse to consider the very evidence they requested. It seems like a huge waste of time for anyone to confront them. I’ve tried. Even if I approach the discussion in a logical, respectful way, they pick little points to argue, and the entire exchange gets lost in the tiny little details. It ends up to be wasted effort, so I’ve tried to stop engaging.
The commenter asked why natural mother’s anger was directed at adoptive parents and not the real culprits, I assume she meant the adoption industry itself. This is a common question I see in AP’s arguments and actions. They do not want to take responsibility. Their mentality is, “Maybe mistakes were made, but I didn’t make them!” And they think that justifies their actions. Only, it doesn’t.
Because even after learning that an adoption was coerced or obtained by unethical means, adoptive parents continue to support the adoption industry by patronizing their services and fighting against the natural parent trying to get their child back. They continue the myth that adoption is wonderful even after they’ve proof that corruption exists. They keep the lies going because it benefits them, and they continue to blame the victims of the adoption industry, the parents of their children, for not knowing better.
ANY complaint of unethical behavior or coercion should launch investigations when it comes to the life of a child because ALL research concludes that in the absence of abuse, THE best place for a child is with their NATURAL FAMILY. Any hint of of the first parent wanting their child back, within a reasonable amount of time (the first year, I believe) should result in the return of the child to their natural parents.
If you’ve read or studied Kantian Ethics then you know that these philosophers believe that to use someone to obtain a goal is unethical. You should treat people as an end in themselves and not to get something from them. If you follow Virtue Ethics you strive to be kind and do the right thing because it is the right thing to do. Either philosophy means that you investigate that agency you are using to see if they have been involved in coercion in any way and not solely by the governments definition of coercion. Why go that far? To act ethically and respect the child you are adopting. It’s your duty as their possible future parent.
Christians, by definition, are supposed to act in an ethical manner. Ethics and our government laws are not always in line. If you are adopting because you want a child, well you should re-examine why you are adopting to begin with. If you still feel the need, you research the facilitators of your adoption, and anyone connected with the adoption, and make sure it’s done ethically because you respect the child you are possibly going to parent, and you want the best for them. As I stated previously, it’s your duty as their possible future parent. It’s not about you and your needs, it’s about theirs.
Yes, I coerced my daughter
I have admitted to coercing my daughter in her decision to give her daughter up to adoption by her uncle and aunt. My husband has admitted the same. We were prepared to take any punishment that occurred because of our actions. After her uncle refused to vacate the adoption when we informed him of our actions (even though it had only been a week), we consulted lawyers and told them of our actions. We were told what had happened wasn’t grounds to reverse our daughters “voluntary” termination of her parental rights.
My BIL and his wife have seemingly absolved themselves of all responsibility in any wrong doing in our granddaughter’s adoption. This seems to be a common belief among many adoptive parents and society in general. If THEY didn’t do anything wrong, then they shouldn’t have to pay the price for those that did. Well, I’m sorry to say, but sometimes, you do. You will be bad mouthed and hated until YOU stand up against the wrongs being committed by agencies and families that have coerced mother’s into giving away their children. You are the ones who, after finding out that the adoption was wrongfully or unethically obtained, continue to keep children from their natural parents. YOU are the ones who continue to support the industry of adoption by going back to them for more babies. YOU are the ones who insist on keeping the child wrongfully obtained from their parents.
My BIL has stated he has done “nothing wrong” and is “confident he made the right decisions” while he continues to deny our granddaughter a greater relationship with her natural mother, and he continues to deny a relationship with all but a few people from our granddaughter’s natural family.
Is this in the best interest of our granddaughter? Are we coming together in the best interest of our granddaughter? No, because her adopters refuse to acknowledge her rights to those relationships. THESE are the actions and attitudes of a lot of adopters. THIS is why the anger and hatefulness is directed at you.
So, any “coming together for the best interest of the child” is more the responsibility of the adopters. Because most of the natural families that I know, would jump through hoops to have a better relationship with them. My favorite blogs listed on the right side of this page are FULL of examples.
I understand the spirit of what the adoptive mom was trying to convey. She thinks first parents and adoptive parents should come together in the best interests of the child, but she “sees through the glass darkly.”