That was a joke. Hence the “!” after it. Sorry I didn’t put a smilie after it so you could pick up the intended humor.
I don’t have any agenda. I have one point of view. Much different. I am not starting any support groups, and I’m not calling my congressman. I’m not printing up flyers and putting them out at adoption agencies or hospitals. I’m nearly stating that the birth child, IMO, gets to decide if and when any reunion takes place between themselves and his/her birth parents. The birth parents feelings should not be taken into consideration, and their feelings should not be know to the adopted child. The adopted child should not be manipulated into meeting his birth parents because he/she has been told the birth mother has been grieving her whole life, or whatever hyperbole you want to drag out. They should not be made to feel guilty by a third party or some author who has his own agenda. They should make their decision on their own, unfettered by busybodies like Rick Reilley’s or us.
That’s my last word on this, as I feel I continue to repeat myself. I have no great thoughts to pontificate here. In fact, I think my opinion is rather straightforward, and at least one birth mother understands me enough to agree with me.
That’s good enough for me.
ETA: I THOUGHT I put an “!” after my statement about my mother, but I can’t find the original post I made that in. So before I lose my edit window, I can clearly see that there is no “!” in the quoted text. There should have been. And a smilie.
I am adopted and so is my brother. We are not blood related and were adopted as infants. Neither he nor I have expressed any interest in seeking our biological parents, and our mothers were both teenagers with drug problems.
Our parents are our parents and that’s that.
Potentially interesting thread seems headed for ruination.
elbows has seen fit to remove my exclamation mark from my statement within the piece of text he/she quoted. Not cool, and clearly tells me and probably others out here who indeed DOES have an agenda. Changing the context of someone’s quote to bolster yoir “point” means you really don’t have much of a point to begin with.
I’m done here. elbows and Tollhouse and whoever else thinks they need to thrash about in this thread feel free to do so. I’m not going to discuss anything with someone who changed my quote to give their comments credibility. That’s just pathetic.
[QUOTE]
[The adopted child should not be manipulated into meeting his birth parents because he/she has been told the birth mother has been grieving her whole life, or whatever hyperbole you want to drag out. They should not be made to feel guilty by a third party or some author who has his own agenda. They should make their decision on their own, unfettered by busybodies like Rick Reilley’s or us./QUOTE]
Here’s the thing, no one has disagreed with you on this, yet you continue to rail away. That sort of indicates an agenda and something you are very invested in, though you continue to insist otherwise.
(Apologies for missing an ‘!’ while quoting you. It was a simple quoting error, I am still learning how to do such things on my new Ipad mini. But I can see you only want to see sleights. This is probably because you never make typos in any of your threads, not even in this thread.:dubious:)
What would you suggest? That I give up quoting altogether? Or keep trying till I get it figured? I ask as you, having attained 100% error free posting, are perfect to offer a lesser creature, such as myself, a road map to reaching such lofty heights.
Anyway I thank you for your understanding, it’s always appreciated!
Now your judging that I answered both? Since my gender has nothing to do with this thread, why would that be “having it both ways”
For all you know I am transgender (if that’s ok with you, and meets your approval…)
Or…perhaps I just like a bit of privacy. (If that’s ok with you, your highness)
“Quote”. And agai****n,
Let me state this one more time… I have no sympathy for the birth mother. My sympathies go to the adopted child. And I will never change my position. The birth mother had a choice… in fact, she had a number of choices, going all the way back to choosing whether or not to have sex (presumably unprotected) with a man who couldn’t or wouldn’t or didn’t want to face the responsibility of raising a child. ****. “End quote”
Considering the fact he knows zero about each adoptive situation, this
does not sound hateful or judgmental or presumptious at all…:dubious: :eek:
Elbows,
Now that we know that stink fish pot is qualified to presume all birth mothers have unprotected sex with men they know ahead of time don’t want kids, we can say with a breath of relief, “he ain’t judgmental at all”.
You are correct, and I apologize for being party to helping to derail this thread.. It wasn’t my intention.
Believe it or not, I have no dog in this fight. I do have an opinion on Rick Reilly, and the rights of birth mothers vs. their adopted children. I’ve expressed those, and I should have stopped there, instead of trying to explain/defend my opinion. That was my mistake, no one else’s.
From what I have read, Colin has e-mailed his birth mother to ask questions about his birth father. He hasn’t been moved as yet to meet either her or his half-brother, but he has had contact with her.
And the assumptions that she suddenly looked him up are patently false. It was an open adoption, and she received pictures and updates on Colin until she asked for the Kaepernicks to stop when Colin was about 7 because it was too painful for her. She also didn’t give Colin up at birth. He was 6 weeks old when she realized she wasn’t going to be able to do it on her own.
I think as Colin gets older and becomes a parent himself, he will change his mind about meeting her. Perhaps when his own child hits the six week old mark and he realizes what a sacrifice she made for his future.
One thing that I do think is important for adopted people is to access their biological medical histories if possible. I need to get on that…meant to do that a long time ago.
The people who adopted Colin are the Kaepernicks. I’m sure that while their own motives are being questioned they’d appreciate being called by their accurate name, much as I doubt you’d appreciate me calling you Trollhouse.
Your right, the oft repeated line here that she suddenly looked him up are patently false, …but sometimes people have a subtle or not so subtle agenda so they hope by repeating lies often enough, some people will start to believe it
That was an obnoxious article. Reilly seems to think his daughter’s reactions and life should apply equally to Kaepernick, and I guess to anyone else who has ever been adopted. Reilly must not realize that there are other people in the world who think differently than he or his family. Kaepernick answered the irrelevant question at the Super Bowl media event. Reilly found it odd that his answer is so far from how his daughter thought. Reilly quotes an anonymous family friend that says he thinks that Kaepernick would find it treasonous. So, he grabs a hold of this and claims that this is unhealthy, and the way his daughter went about things is the best for everyone.
Blah blah blah. If he wants to reach out to his birth mother, good for him. If he doesn’t, good for him. Either reaction is news. But, an editorial telling him what he SHOULD do is, well as I said, obnoxious.
Not derogatory, no - simply not their name. You seem very concerned that things are presented accurately in the accompanying story, so surely you want to get their name right? I’m happy to ignore your defensive behavior toward me as you’re surely feeling so embarrassed by your strong emotional reaction to this story that you’re not previewing your posts in order to ensure your ideas coming through clearly.
Reilly is an ass. The article hinges on this passage:
Kaepernick sounds perfectly reasonable to me: Heidi Russo isn’t his mother, isn’t part of his family, she’s a stranger. Why should he want to get involved with her?
But no, that’s “odd”, because “many” adopted kids are curious about their birth parents. Every adoptee must be like Rick’s daughter. If they aren’t, they aren’t acting out of their genuine feelings, they just want to protect their adopted parents’ feelings. Smug asshole.
Further, even if one believes in a special bond that birth mothers form with their children, even those they give away…so what? Relationships are two-way streets, unless the child feels the same bond, there’s no basis for a relationship. Adoptees don’t owe their birth parents anything.
Reilly’s latest column has some opposing reactions. (Though obviously, there would be some, and obviously, he’d print them, especially SINCE they were apparently in the minority.)
