"Anti-adoption" sounds ludicrous. Who could oppose placing an unwanted child into a loving home?Not to mention facing a public and media willing to accept simplistic and unhelpful labels like "anti-adoption" for any critique of adoption as it's currently practiced. . . .
An entire movement, it turns out--fighting with a primal passion to expose what activists insist is adoption's darker side: The lifelong trauma of women coerced into surrendering babies. Adoptees denied their heritage. And, they say, a billion-dollar industry that focuses more on money than youngsters' welfare.
Some leave careers to write letters, track legislation, research articles and books. They work in anti-adoption non-profits. They educate "vulnerable mothers" and provide baby supplies and financial resources.
The activists insist a mother should first be helped to keep her child. In cases in which that is impossible (say, the woman is incapacitated), a family member or other caring adult should have guardianship. The child should be aware of that relationship. Money should not be exchanged.
Adoption supporters say that logic is flawed.
* * *
"I've been in children's welfare a long time and I've never seen this level of volatility in other issues. Feelings run very high," said Madelyn Freundlich, attorney and author of the book "The Impact of Adoption on Members of the Triad" (Child Welfare League of America), the triad being mother, baby and adoptive couple.
Anti-adoption groups confront a public puzzled by their cause. Some 94 percent of adults polled either held "very favorable" or "somewhat favorable" opinions of adoption in a 2002 national survey by the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, a non-profit focusing on adoption policy and practices.
Adoption Initiative Conference 2022
2 years ago
9 comments:
Susan Caughman, editor and publisher of Adoptive Families Magazine, in New York City, said anti-adoption activists "represent the extreme manifestation of the belief that blood trumps everything else. And there is something to that, what can you say? It is good to know who your people are."
However, Caughman added, "There are larger social welfare issues at work: medical insurance, minimum wage, education. Mothers are giving up children they can't afford, and that's a dreadful concept.
"In a just world, there'd probably be no adoption."
In more just worlds, there is less adoption because they do something about providing support (and I am not just talking financial) that a woman might need - they don't use adoption as a safety net in order to avoid doing anything about the problem.
I just wanted to comment again on this:
"Susan Caughman, editor and publisher of Adoptive Families Magazine, in New York City, said anti-adoption activists "represent the extreme manifestation of the belief that blood trumps everything else."
Thinking that "biology is important" is not the same as "blood trumps everything else."
This blogger discusses it well:
"Biology is powerful" is not the same as "Biology is more powerful than". "Biology is important" is not the same as "biology is more impotant than." "Biology matters" is not the same as "Biology trumps everything."
Read the rest:
http://silent-bunny.livejournal.com/362476.html
I read this article and I think people misconstrue what anti-adoption people are about.
For example, the quote by Thomas Atwood, NCFA: "The fundamental problem with anti-adoption folks is their lack of recognition that parenting is vastly more than conceiving and giving birth. It takes the full-time, selfless commitment of a mature person. If a woman is not ready to parent, her most loving and responsible decision may be to make an adoption plan."
This is completely wrong. Those of us who are labeled anti adoption are all too aware what parenting is - many of us ARE parents ourselves to other children. That is a simplistic view and entirely unhelpful.
The 'anti-adoption' view is far more complicated than that. We question the fact adoption is primarily based on a pack of lies. We question the way the law is written, the beliefs around it, the way humans treat each other. We know there will always be a need for children to be cared for by people unrelated to them however we do not feel adoption is the way to provide that care. There is so much more to persons who are labeled anti-adoption or indetify with that and so if people are to truly explore what this means, there needs to be a more indepth report than this one in the Tribunal written on the topic.
Well said, Myst.
I am "anti-MODERN adoption" and its surrounding practices. I always think it is funny when people bring up biblical examples of adoption because that form of adoption is so different to modern adoption it is not funny. ALL biblical "adoptees" knew their biological background and in fact most if not all (can't remember all examples off hand to say for certain) related to their biological heritage more than their "adopted heritage".
Also, most family preservationists are more about "Biology is important", not a single one would say it trumps everything. However, it is amazing how many pro-adoption activists will say that "biology is unimportant".
Btw I am happy to be considered to be anti "adoption activists" - i.e. I am anti those who feel that adoption is the "answer" to a woman's unplanned pregnancy rather than providing resources and moral support.
I love that post you linked to, jj.
Legal documents require to adopt a children in India is given below:
Child Adoption.
Simply buy this form and use for children adoption.
Um, I just thought any lurkers should be aware "Iggy" is Mei-Ling.
Blogger likes to sign me in as Iggy. I'm not sure why. XD
Why is this old article from 2004 being featured now? Isn't this very old news? Just curious.
"Why is this old article from 2004 being featured now? Isn't this very old news? Just curious"
I noticed it was old too.
However, it could just as easily been written this year which is sad when you think about it.
Post a Comment