Yup, I have a couple of second cousins that were born in South Korea and adopted by my mom’s cousin. They are on the family tree of course.
I also learned, many years ago, about a child from a blood relative that was given up for adoption. That child, wherever it is, is NOT on the family tree.
Parent, child, all those relationships in a family are not based on blood, but on love. I’m assuming most people here have heard that sentimental little poem that ends “Never forget, for a single minute/ You grew not under my heart, but in it.”
Why the OP finds calling adoptive parents Mom and Dad to be puzzling is strange, and I wonder if they are completely serious. I’d also like to know what “a lot” means when it comes to calling adoptive parents godparents.
Oh, so very wrong. I have no children, and don’t want any of my own. Of my friends who have children (which are most of them), some of them have adopted, others have given birth.
Nice, however, how in your tidy little illogical world, anything with which you disagree must by definition come from one of those evil adopters who loiter around the edges of your clan just waiting to swoop in and kidnap children.
They are, in actual fact, adoptive parents. Regardless of your repugnance regarding the matter.
As has been asked repeatedly, what difference does that make? You have failed, repeatedly, to clarify what your problem is with parents who love their children, and children who love their parents, using terminology that the rest of the sane world recognizes as valid.
That, my dear, is the key to your problem here. Logic IN YOUR EYES. You have refused, repeatedly, adamantly, to consider any possibility that does not fit into your tidy little world of child kidnapping and slavery. You have refused to consider the possibility that anything OTHER than child kidnapping exists. You have refused, repeated, to actually “debate” your supposed question.
Part of the problem is that for many of us mother is a title of respect. Mom implies someone we inherently love and adore.
Frankly if you’re going to distinguish between biological mother and adoptive parent then I think you should distinguish between bad mom and good mom. A woman who has a baby while shooting up meth with a fellow druggy and then drops off said child to a foster home for the next eighteen years while never supporting said child hardly seems worthy of the term mother.
How about we call said person a breeder rather than a mother? Since she’s not actually raising the child.
That is exactly what I plan to tell my daughter should need ever arise.
I shoved you out of my uterus, kiddo. Granted it was a four hour labor with almost no pain and literally one of the most amazing experiences I’ve had been through and I felt fabulous afterwards . . . but damn it I risked my life for you and you owe me a body part little girl!
Good luck, Strinka. I’ve asked her that over & over, and I have gotten no answer whatsoever. If you can get her to tell you, you’re a better Doper than I!
Good luck! And you are absolutely right that there are abuses in the adoption “system,” which the global community really has to try to eradicate. I think at this point, the onus is on the potential adoptive parents to try to avoid situations where baby selling might be involved, to the extent that they are able to know.
That’s kind of funny. I’m not an adoptive parent myself, but considering what you’ve accused them all of, this is the least hostile and defensive crowd I think I’ve ever seen. I’m guessing that they see you as the rest of us do…as bordering so far on the absurd that it’s not worth taking your outlandish statements personally.
You know, orphans actually have it better than children with parents because they owe their kidneys to no one. So there’s really no reason to want to adopt one; you’ll never get one of their kidneys anyways.
The anti-adoption movement. He’s got to be one of these.
"As you can see, adoption is not a benevolent institution at all. Rather, it is a capitalistic industry that employs the use of coercion, false promises, and secrecy to thrive. However, even many who acknowledge these problems believe that the system itself is necessary for some children, in some situations. I disagree…
As an alternative, the anti-adoption movement endorses permanent legal guardianship for children who cannot be raised by their natural parents. Legal guardians can be extended family members like grandparents, older siblings, aunts, and uncles…
While guardianship provides children with stable, loving homes (just as adoption is intended to do), it is much more respectful of the child involved. For example, guardians are able to make important decisions for the children in their care, but they are not the recipients of an ammended birth certificate or parental status under the law. This alleviates the familial expectations placed on the child and his caregivers, allowing their relationship to develop as the unique and worthwhile entity it is. Naturally, potential caregivers who are looking to obtain parental titles would be unwilling to act as guardians for a child in need. This is an additional benefit of guardianship; that the caregivers involved are motivated by the desire to help a child rather than secure some sort of status for themselves."
Hmmmm… instead of adoption the children should be raised by a relative to avoid people who just want the title of mom or dad.
That site probably gives more context. The critique seems to be of the adoption ‘industry’ and I think theres some truth to that. The consistency of using a young child to hold up a poster saying ‘adoption hurts babies’ bemuses me though.
On the next page after that quote theres the statement that Australia has almost eradicated domestic adoption and thats true. The few that are left are situations like overseas students who couldnt safely return home with children.
Permanent care occurs after repeated efforts to make the situation work or where there is a clear danger and we’re talking pretty big stuff. Where possible family placements are made rather than strangers. Also ‘Open adoption’ is the norm where the biological parent has the opportunity to keep ongoing contact with the child, whether the adoption is voluntary or involuntary.
The ‘not being called mom’ thing though would probably be considered batty even here though. It would generally be viewed as something that takes choice away from the child and being done for ideological reasons rather than any clear clinical need and likely to damage attachment rather than helping overall.