or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Childhood and Beyond › Preteens and Teens › HAPPY update to "Would you let her keep the child"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

HAPPY update to "Would you let her keep the child" - Page 6

post #101 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by moonbeem View Post
Confusing sentiment...an adoptive mother IS raising someone else's child, (and lots of adoptors feel they were the rescuers.) There are other ways to express nurturing, loving, mothering behaviors than gaining someone else's baby
Like what? Mothering is mothering...it's not teaching, or running a daycare or whatever. What other way than mothering is there to be a mother??

Quote:
As for the adoptees that say they don't miss their mothers life is grand blah blah blah...it reminds me of all the men circumcised in infancy who don't miss their foreskins.
An adult adoptee above posted that she finds the same strength of bond between her and her genetic children as between her and her adoptive mother. Since men who had their foreskins taken as babies aren't ever going to have a similar piece of anatomy to compare to, I don't see how you can draw this parallel. I'm not sure why anybody would want to make a case that an adoptee's childhood wasn't as happy or his/her bond with his/her parents not as close, as said adoptee feels it was/is. Surely, a happy adult adoptee has as much right (if not more) as anybody else to comment on how profound the effects of adoption are for the child.

In terms of being a mother, I really don't care about the mom in this story breaking the law or stealing cars. I do, however, think the neglect issue says a lot. She may have wanted to be a mother, but she wasn't being one.
post #102 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Storm Bride View Post
Like what? Mothering is mothering...it's not teaching, or running a daycare or whatever. What other way than mothering is there to be a mother??
You do not have to mother someone else's newborn to be a mother. You can mother older children too.
post #103 of 147
I just wanted to say that this whole thread has been a *very* eye opening read for me.

Also, I had no idea that some people were 'anti-adoption' or that there was an anti-adoption movement.

Apparently I have some reading to do.
post #104 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by choli View Post
You do not have to mother someone else's newborn to be a mother. You can mother older children too.
So...it's better to wait until the mom goes out enough times that CPS comes and takes her child away, and the kid has already lost out on a year or two or three of nurturing, then put the child up for adoption?

I'd never seen this before I came to MDC. Why do adoptive parents take so much heat? When I couldn't conceive for years after ds1, I considered adopting...and yeah, I wanted a baby. It's not because they're "cute" - it's because I wanted the experience of raising a child from infancy again. Why is that so worthy of condemnation, when ttc isn't?
post #105 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoesmummy View Post
I just wanted to say that this whole thread has been a *very* eye opening read for me.
I am so glad to hear this. I think more of us need to open our eyes, take apart the propaganda, and start looking at this issue critically. I foresee some big changes in the adoption industry in the coming years.
post #106 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Storm Bride View Post
So...it's better to wait until the mom goes out enough times that CPS comes and takes her child away, and the kid has already lost out on a year or two or three of nurturing, then put the child up for adoption?
It is not a foregone conclusion that young mothers will do that, any more than it is with other mothers. By that logic we should take everyone's baby away in case they neglect them in the future.

Quote:
I'd never seen this before I came to MDC. Why do adoptive parents take so much heat? When I couldn't conceive for years after ds1, I considered adopting...and yeah, I wanted a baby. It's not because they're "cute" - it's because I wanted the experience of raising a child from infancy again. Why is that so worthy of condemnation, when ttc isn't?
I get what you wanted, and no it's not worthy of condemnation. It's the method by which that dream is fulfilled, yk? And who gets harmed along the way.

I think there are ethical ways to find homes for children who need them, children for would-be parents who want them. I don't think what is currently happening is ethical, and I don't think it's the only way we can do things.
post #107 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by moonbeem View Post
As for the adoptees that say they don't miss their mothers life is grand blah blah blah...it reminds me of all the men circumcised in infancy who don't miss their foreskins.
NOT the same - I don't miss my mother because she lives down the street. The woman who gave birth to me is an individual I have chosen not to have contact with. That might not be your experience - but it's mine.

Michelle
post #108 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by miche28 View Post
NOT the same - I don't miss my mother because she lives down the street. The woman who gave birth to me is an individual I have chosen not to have contact with. That might not be your experience - but it's mine.

Michelle
And that is fine. Your experience is worthy of respect. But it does not negate the views of those who feel they *were* harmed by adoption. Just because it doesn't harm everybody does not make it okay.
post #109 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by choli View Post
You do not have to mother someone else's newborn to be a mother. You can mother older children too.
Yes - and my hats off to those parents who have the fortitude to heal the damage of neglect and abuse in older children who have to be removed. There are many more families who can't do that. Sometimes, it's clear what the outcome is going to be and that damage doesn't need to be done.
post #110 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by miche28 View Post
Sometimes, it's clear what the outcome is going to be and that damage doesn't need to be done.
Are you suggesting that CAS/CPS should be more aggressive about removing children from their homes? :
post #111 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by thismama View Post
And that is fine. Your experience is worthy of respect. But it does not negate the views of those who feel they *were* harmed by adoption. Just because it doesn't harm everybody does not make it okay.
The problem is that it doesn't get respect - all the language is really hiding an underlying belief that my mother is not really my mother.

I know there are differences in people's experience - my sister is actually interested in meeting her birth family and that's her choice which I support (as do my parents).

But over the years, I've met a lot of adoptees - the notion that I'm an extreme minority in this group doesn't get born out. The reality is that those of us who aren't troubled by this don't speak up b/c it's not an issue for us - let's just not forget that we exist.
post #112 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Storm Bride View Post
So...it's better to wait until the mom goes out enough times that CPS comes and takes her child away, and the kid has already lost out on a year or two or three of nurturing, then put the child up for adoption?

I'd never seen this before I came to MDC. Why do adoptive parents take so much heat? When I couldn't conceive for years after ds1, I considered adopting...and yeah, I wanted a baby. It's not because they're "cute" - it's because I wanted the experience of raising a child from infancy again. Why is that so worthy of condemnation, when ttc isn't?
I don't think that it is a good idea to remove a child from her mother on the chance that she might not be a good mother due to age, to provide another woman with a baby and the "experience" of raising one from infancy, that all. I DO believe that younger mothers are pressured to give up their babies, especially if they are in the foster care system.

My sister became a mother for the first time at 16, but she was already more than capable of being an excellent mother at 13. She was SERIOUSLY pressured to give up her child, and in fact allowed her DS to be fostered for 3 months while she got a place to live and a support system. She then got him back from foster care despite being called all sorts of names by the foster mother and the social worker, raised him and had another as well. He is now 25, very happy, has a great job - and is VERY happy his mother fought to keep him.

These things are not black and white. I guess for me, I don't see that it is someone else's duty to give up their child so you can have an experience.
post #113 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by miche28 View Post
Yes - and my hats off to those parents who have the fortitude to heal the damage of neglect and abuse in older children who have to be removed. There are many more families who can't do that. Sometimes, it's clear what the outcome is going to be and that damage doesn't need to be done.
The attitude that eventual abuse may occuar is completly dismissive of the primal wound which is caused by disrupting the continium of the birth/infancy stage. That is an emotional wound which forever effects ones relationships and developement. (like circ is a physical wound that forever effects the penis function) A mother's pregnancy prepares her baby to be attuned to her movements, smell, taste, her voice. Newborns recognize their mothers. Only her body is primed to provide the perfect breastmilk for that baby. An infant is capable of bonding only with his mother. After that attachment is secure trusting others will be the next progression. Some are better able to bond to substitutes than others, but it is a loss when mother/baby separation occuars. No matter how good the substitutes are, it is not the same.
post #114 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by moonbeem View Post
No matter how good the substitutes are, it is not the same.
Right, sometimes it is better. It is better not to be cared for by a drug addict who leaves you unsupervised, It is better not to be cared for by a child who isn't ready to be a parent. It is better not to go hungry or be neglected.
post #115 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roar View Post
Right, sometimes it is better. It is better not to be cared for by a drug addict who leaves you unsupervised, It is better not to be cared for by a child who isn't ready to be a parent. It is better not to go hungry or be neglected.
It is a social construct that people who can bleed, become pregnant and give birth are considered 'children.' And if we constructed it, we can deconstruct it.

Many, many young mamas are fabulous mamas. Some are not. This is true of mothers of ALL ages. I'm seeing some serious age discrimination here.

I think if we want to improve the odds of children having good childhoods, we have to as a society provide supports to their families. Constant messages that young mothers suck and should give up their children do NOT help with that.
post #116 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roar View Post
Right, sometimes it is better. It is better not to be cared for by a drug addict who leaves you unsupervised, It is better not to be cared for by a child who isn't ready to be a parent. It is better not to go hungry or be neglected.
Thank you - in case anyone is worried, my primal wound has healed up just fine with a lifetime caring and compassionate parenting that I have been able to use as a model to build my own family with my loving husband.
post #117 of 147
thismama: Have you ever been involved with the foster care system? Not read about it, not commented about it, but experienced it? If so, you would know that most often the primary goal is re-unification. That a child will be returned to its bio home over and over again in the hope that the parent/parents will do better the next time. (This does not occur as often now as in the past) Many times this is to the detriment of the child.

I am not saying that the system does not have flaws; but as many flaws as it has it is also the only thing like it at this time. The public system itself is still young having only been around since the 1960's. Up until that time child abuse was legal and in severe cases the parents were tried under animal cruelty laws. That being said the public adoption system has come a long way and is still learning, changing, and evolving. To wholly condemn it based on its past instead of realizing the strides that have been made and the lives that have been saved, well.....

Here is a link that provides some information on the public system, it takes a look at both sides of the issue that has been discussed on this thread.

http://www.futureofchildren.org/info...m?doc_id=75337

To play devils advocate to some of the posts here. What does the public system have to gain by unjustly removing the baby from this child? Did they score points with the adoptive family? No, there is nothing gained here except for by the baby. If the family that adopted that baby were looking for the "perfect infant" they would not have gone through the public system they would have sought a surrogate or private adoption where they could ensure proper prenatal nutrition, no drug use, no neglect, etc, etc. Note: this is not to see that children who go through the public system are "damaged", however, there is an increased likely hood for issues to arise due to abuse or drug use.

I have been very pleasantly suprised at the passion that people have exhibited on both sides of this issue. It really shows that whatever side of the fence you are on you truly want what is best for everyone in the situation.


Here is a link that provides the latest stats available on the public sytem, it includes: # of children in system, median age, race, sex, length of stay, % w/ goal of reunification

http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/foster.cfm
post #118 of 147
My stepmom gave up a son for adoption when she was 15. She knew and chose the family, they didn't live far away. She was happy and GRATEFUL that there were people out there who could give her son the life she was unable to provide for him. I think this is a happy situation and I hope the young woman turns her life around. There is no way this girl would have been able to properly care for her child, I think we can all agree on that.
post #119 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by thismama View Post

Many, many young mamas are fabulous mamas. Some are not. This is true of mothers of ALL ages. I'm seeing some serious age discrimination here.
So, do you see any age at which someone won't be a good parent? You have no feelings of age discrimination whatsoever? Nine year olds can give birth so okay they are ready to parent?
post #120 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roar View Post
As the book title says IN THE DECADES before Roe v. Wade and that was in the early 70s. You can base your view of adoption on what happened fifty years ago when adoptions were closed, girls were sent away in shame and shunned, but that has very little to do with adoption today.
Read it before you judge it.

The setting may be decades old, but the themes are timeless.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Preteens and Teens
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Childhood and Beyond › Preteens and Teens › HAPPY update to "Would you let her keep the child"