Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think he says it like it is because I am his real mother. Like you said to SusanKate, it is his business. Can you answer my question now, please?
Ask him if he tells the mother who raised him that you are his "real" mother. Then I'll answer your question. I actually find the qualifier "real" very disrespecful to his adoptive mother. And since he sounds like a very respectful man, I doubt he tells her she's not his "real" mother.
Quote:
Originally Posted by susankate
So, so let's ask everyone on this thread, if they feel that there are times when non-related families can be a great resource for children who need a home. If anyone disagrees with this, just let us know. I think you will find that not a single one of us has a problem with non-related people providing homes for children who need them.
If we all agreed then this thread would not have turned to other topics and would not still be going on. Some people on this thread disagree that adoption saves children and builds families. They instead believe that adoption is a loss of family that almost guarantees a lifetime of grief and pain.
Some people on this thread disagree that adoption saves children and builds families. They instead believe that adoption is a loss of family that almost guarantees a lifetime of grief and pain.
I'm just sayin'
Oh for pity's sake. That is not what people are saying at all. That is, however, what some people insist on reading into it.
What you are describing has nothing to do with successful adoptions. Divorce does not mean there is no longer a family. People divorce everyday. This thread is about the successful adoptions that DO save children and build families. Feel free to start a new thread about unsuccessful adoptions and abuse in adoptive families.
Jaded, you seem to need or want validation. I am more than happy to provide this to you. Some adoptions are successful and could be viewed as saving a child from an abusive situation. Nobody here is debating this fact. But if me stating it plainly as I've done here helps you feel validated, I'm glad to do so.
As you have chosen to focus on situations and statistics involving biological parents, children and abuse, I have assumed that this thread is in reference to the specific subset of adoptions involving children in foster care. More specifically, children who were placed in foster care specifically because they had been abused by their biological parents. Your take on it is that these children can be "saved" through adoption and those "saving" them can build their families this way. While I, personally, am not one to use the word "saved" in conjunction with adoption, I understand your point and have already agreed with you that in such limited circumstances, adoption can be a successful option for some children and for some adoptive parents.
Am I correct in assuming that you would personally prefer to have the discussion end here? With everyone focused solely on the simplicity of the abused child in foster care + adoptive parents = success equation without any further discussion or critical thought on the matter? If so, I am not sure why in your original post, you requested that people "share your thoughts..." As this is a completely public and open discussion board, there are diverse thoughts to be shared here. If you only desire people to validate whatever it is you believe or only provide specific thoughts, why not just say so instead of inviting people to simply share their thoughts? Obviously you do not want people to share their thoughts unless it is in a way that validates your personal thoughts on the matter. This is fine. But perhaps you should refrain from inviting people to share their personal thoughts then if you are really not open to what others have to say.
All that said, I have validated what you presented in the original post. It is my hope that this is helpful. I am not the only adoptee in my adoptive family. While I joined our family through domestic infant closed adoption, My two cousins joined our family from foster care when they were older. They had both been removed from their biological homes due to abuse. My aunt and uncle adopted them. And I suppose that we could consider the adoption successful in that they received the love, safety and security provided by my aunt and uncle. Based on your reactions to myself and others on this thread, I also suppose that you might simply stop right there, call it a successful adoption, and use my cousins as an example of why adoption exactly as it is practiced now "saves" some children. That's cool. I'll give you that one. Because on paper, it was a success.
Here is where you and I differ however. It is not in my nature to stop there and proclaim "success!". I'm a deep thinker and analyzer. This is just the way I am. I'm also a bit of an idealist. When I consider the experience of my cousins, I can't help but wonder how their adoptions could have been even MORE successful. Of course, my preference would be that they had never been abused by their biological family in the first place because this is something from which neither has ever fully recovered. I'm sure that you would agree with me there. But it happened. As you pointed out and had nobody disagree with you, abuse happens in biological families. So in my cousins' case, adoption was the right move (agreeing with you again there!). I simply feel that their adoptions could have been even more successful if they didn't have their birth certificates altered. Because it is my personal feeling that a truly successful adoption in this specific subset is one in which the adoptee's needs are met and that legally treats the adoptee as an individual and in a manner that is equal to non-adoptees. This particular subset of adoptions can be successful in other ways too. For example, the adoptee ends up with truly amazing adoptive parents. But it is my personal feeling that this subset of adoptions could be REALLY successful with some reform measures taken on the behalf of the adoptee. Why does my stating these as being my own personal thoughts upset you so much?
Does it bother you that I expanded on what you consider to be successful by providing some thoughts regarding how I personally feel the institution of adoption could provide an even more successful experience for the children involved in this particular subset of adoptions? If so, I'm not really sure what I can do there. I've shared my thoughts as you requested. I've agreed with you and offered some additional thoughts on the matter. Not sure how else you want me or anyone else to respond.
What would have happened to your daughter if you and your husband did not adopt her and her birthparents could not keep her?
Given the topic of abuse in biological family homes, and the definition of the word "Save" from dictionary.com:
When children are in danger and adoption is available, it is an act of "saving." All adoptions are not about saving children, but a child who is not wanted or cared for is in danger of being hurt and not safe. If "loss" occurs because of adoption, I say it isn't the act of adoption but that the placement was unsuccessful.
You do not know my adoption story or my daughters first parents. I have already indicated I do not personally care for the word "saved" when used with adoption. That's my belief and opinion. I qualified it by saying if others disagree, that's ok for them. But no, I did not save my daughter from a life of guaranteed abuse at the hands if her bio parents by adopting her. I became her mother because her first parents were not able to parent her, a heartrending decision for them made based in several factors.
Ask him if he tells the mother who raised him that you are his "real" mother. Then I'll answer your question. I actually find the qualifier "real" very disrespecful to his adoptive mother. And since he sounds like a very respectful man, I doubt he tells her she's not his "real" mother.
If we all agreed then this thread would not have turned to other topics and would not still be going on. Some people on this thread disagree that adoption saves children and builds families. They instead believe that adoption is a loss of family that almost guarantees a lifetime of grief and pain.
I'm just sayin'
I specifically said I disagree with the use of the word save, and that's it. I have yet to see where anyone says it guarantees a lifetime of pain. Quotes please?
Agree with everything here! Sometimes the act of adopting also places a child in a better situation. The two are not mutually exclusive. I'm confused as to how this is a bad thing for some people? Is it wrong to want to build a family through adoption and at the same time you are also "saving" that child. Where would some of these children be? Who would take care of them? Everyone needs a loving home. Everyone does not need that home to be with their biological parents - especially if these parents don't want them or cannot raise them. I don't see how this is debatable.
And sometimes the situation is merely different.
Adopting an older child from an Eastern European country is very different than a domestic infant adoption. I'm
Simply very aware of that difference.
It is also completely my prerogative to not tell my daughter that I saved her and instead simply tell her that her first parents were unable to care for her, so we became her family.
As a first mother from the baby scoop years, the term "saved" is very offensive to me. My child was not relinquished because he needed to be saved by anyone. He was given up because I had NO other options than to trust the system who would provide a home for him. In that process, someone adopted him because they wanted to be parents, NOT saviors. It's disheartening to hear this sort of rhetoric being employed in the year 2013. My goodness, haven't we evolved from the days where adoptive parents were thought of as saviors instead of parents? The entire word "save" connotes that adoptees should have to be eternally grateful for having been rescued from the dregs of the earth. I really resent the implication. I'm sure my son would too.
Last edited by Avery_Harper; 01-30-2013 at 10:44 AM..
On the same "saved" note, there is an adoptee who posts in this forum who was adopted because their parents died. Telling this person they were "saved" or that their parents who died were not "real" is incredibly offensive.
Semantics matter, so maybe adoption CAN "save" some children but the blanket statement made in the OP is both untrue and offensive.
On the same "saved" note, there is an adoptee who posts in this forum who was adopted because their parents died. Telling this person they were "saved" or that their parents who died were not "real" is incredibly offensive.
Semantics matter, so maybe adoption CAN "save" some children but the blanket statement made in the OP is both untrue and offensive.
It's offensive to me but that said, I understand why some feel a need to marginalize.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
