What Can a Tiny Baby Know? (first time, cost, stories, children)

[nj185]

Apparently Verrier has an MA in Clinical Psychology and is in private practice. I do understand that psychology is not considered "science" by some, and until such time as perinatal infants can talk, or are hooked up to things which monitor hormone release, eye movement, neurons firing etc., that theories surrounding what they may or may not be experiencing, including attachment, bonding, psychological trauma etc. will be purely observational. And observational can be subjective.

It is impossible to determine how anyone "feels" about something without their input. A person in a coma may be shown to physically experience pain, but as they are unable to communicate, we simply can't know if there is thoughtful awareness or processing of the pain as it is happening. We can observe they are physiologically reacting to pain, but we can't tell if it makes them "sad"!

I'll agree that any theories about the "feelings" or lack of them in human beings who are unable to communicate them cannot be proven beyond measuring physiological functions. But that doesn't stop parents who have fed, bathed, touched, had a Dr check out, their frequently inconsolable 2 month old from considering "feelings", which are not biologically measurable, as a possible source of discomfort. Those too may be subjective, and as something such as "lonely" can be termed projection of adult feelings on an infant, should it be rejected as a possibility?

I am not a fanatic Verrier advocate; but the dismissal of a theory which currently cannot be proven or dis-proven "scientifically" except by subjective observation depends as much on the point of view of the observer as the theory itself does. So we shall have to agree to disagree, as I find the possibility to have some merit. Until scientists can read the perinatal infant's mind, or prove as some believe that perinatal infants have no ability to have feelings, I'll entertain the possibility that separation trauma could exist in them and possibly contribute to their psychological make-up.

[warren zee]

Psychologists do not ascribe to this theory. Common sense does not either.

The OP asked about experiences. I'll give you mine.

My wife has a first cousin who adopted two children from abroad - one with special needs the other with none. They are both excelling in school.

My brother has two sons who are oppositional defiant. One has been hospitalized. Although they both have high IQs, neither do well in school.
It was not stressed by the parents.

My adopted child does well internationally and academically. So does our home grown son.

So to the OP I would say, don't get involved with the Anti-Adoption movement. There are antis in this forum.

Don't be fooled.

[MoonBeam33]

I have a lot I could say about the Primal Wound Theory and this subject, but I'll try to keep it short. I think it is a shame that so many people are willing to discount something because it doesn't jibe with their personal adoption experiences or the experiences of adopted people they know.

And I think it's sad that so many adoptive parents on here are so quick to dismiss the idea that such trauma can be real because "it didn't happen with MY kid." That's a poor attitude to have. I left home at 17 and my adoptive mother said to me: "I refuse to believe that things were that bad at home." That kind of absolute refusal to believe that your child - adopted or otherwise- might be going through issues or feelings that you don't observe firsthand, don't think are "real," or may choose to not see is very damaging to the parent-child relationship.

[no kudzu]

I'm sure it exists for some but it doesn't in my family. That is all most of us are saying.

[susankate]

Originally Posted by nj185

Apparently Verrier has an MA in Clinical Psychology and is in private practice. I do understand that psychology is not considered "science" by some, and until such time as perinatal infants can talk, or are hooked up to things which monitor hormone release, eye movement, neurons firing etc., that theories surrounding what they may or may not be experiencing, including attachment, bonding, psychological trauma etc. will be purely observational. And observational can be subjective.

It is impossible to determine how anyone "feels" about something without their input. A person in a coma may be shown to physically experience pain, but as they are unable to communicate, we simply can't know if there is thoughtful awareness or processing of the pain as it is happening. We can observe they are physiologically reacting to pain, but we can't tell if it makes them "sad"!

I'll agree that any theories about the "feelings" or lack of them in human beings who are unable to communicate them cannot be proven beyond measuring physiological functions. But that doesn't stop parents who have fed, bathed, touched, had a Dr check out, their frequently inconsolable 2 month old from considering "feelings", which are not biologically measurable, as a possible source of discomfort. Those too may be subjective, and as something such as "lonely" can be termed projection of adult feelings on an infant, should it be rejected as a possibility?

I am not a fanatic Verrier advocate; but the dismissal of a theory which currently cannot be proven or dis-proven "scientifically" except by subjective observation depends as much on the point of view of the observer as the theory itself does. So we shall have to agree to disagree, as I find the possibility to have some merit. Until scientists can read the perinatal infant's mind, or prove as some believe that perinatal infants have no ability to have feelings, I'll entertain the possibility that separation trauma could exist in them and possibly contribute to their psychological make-up.

Well said, NJ. I personally try to keep an open mind about a lot of things. I've never read the actual book, I've only read articles on her site. I can relate to some things she says, not so much to others. I'll say more later as I have to go off to work.

I thought this article by Marcy Wineman Axeness makes a lot of sense:

In Defense of the "Primal Wound"

[Catdancer]

Originally Posted by sheena12

It's funny that you say this about your thirty year old. My 18 year old has zero tolerance for this also.
She feels no longing for anything.

She just walked in the door and I showed her this thread. She rolled her eyes and tossed her long mane of hair and said with her typical sardonic edge "it could be worse...he could have been NOT adopted and or raised by a 15 year old drop out. Or left in an orphanage...suck it up, dude."

"like mother, like daughter..."

Thanks for the opinions and experiences shared so far. When I posted this subject, I had no idea I was walking into a minefield. I didn't even know that there was such a thing as an "anti-adoption movement". Before commenting on said movement, I should probably look it up and see what it's all about, but I won't. I will say that it doesn't sound like something I'd get behind. Anti -adoption?..........what's the point? Where would the unwanted kids go? How is that fair to the millions of potential parents out there who could give a homeless infant a great home? .........guess I'll have to research it now, 'cause I can't see the how's and why's of this "movement".

So anyway, I decided to make this post after checking the archives and not really finding anything that was less than a year old and nothing that really looked like this so I laid it out there. Sorry (Kudzu) perhaps I would have known were I fixated on the subject, but I'm not. I'm just a forum member who stumbled across an interesting article (by accident) which struck a cord with me and was looking for opinions. I'm not mentally distraught, I don't suffer from any kind of a "longing" (unless you count M&M cookies) and I have no resentments.......oh yes......and I have no "cross to bear" nor do I have an "adoption nail" to hang my meager troubles upon. I'm quite probably, happier and more "well adjusted" than most people you'll meet. So I really don't get the attitude of some responses. I clearly stated what my intent was here, I was looking for information, not asking for advice or anything else for that matter. I'm just curious..........I'm pretty sure I laid all that out in my first post

I found the above quoted post a little disturbing. After I read it, I thought......wow, where the hell did that come from? Perhaps the girl needs to learn not to make snap judgements on people she doesn't have all the facts on.........then again you were suggesting or rather, not suggesting that I join the navy after I stated that I'd grown up in the '70's and urged me to "find a therapist" when I kept using the past tense when talking about the problems I'd had.........so I guess, as you say "like mother, .......like daughter.

Apologies if I offended anyone, such was not my intention. I thought that the article made a lot of sense when it came to myself in particular. I discussed it with my dad who is also adopted and he couldn't relate to any of the stuff in that particular piece but he said that it could explain a lot about me. If I talked to my sister, (whom I consider the "compliant" one) I'm guessing that she might not relate either. Someday I will, and it should be an interesting discussion. One thing I found interesting was that 3 of the respondents said that they had adopted children that were either from overseas or of Asian origins. All well adjusted and very bright. Which has nothing to do with a something I just learned....that I'm part of the "Baby Scoop Era" (how about that!) One of 2 million babies put out for adoption in the 1960's. Since then, there's been a huge drop in American babies given up for adoption here in the US.

"In 1970, approximately 80% of the infants born to single mothers were placed for adoption, whereas by 1983 that figure had dropped to only 4%." and from 1989 to 1995 fewer than 1% of children born to never-married women were surrendered for adoption........That's a HUGE change. It doesn't mean anything to this topic, I just thought it was an interesting fact.

Back to the subject - infant memory. It's been documented that children recognize music and voices that they heard in the womb when they are newborns and more and more work is being done in the field of infant memory everyday. A Google search yields pretty interesting stuff, a lot of it cutting edge science. Since infants lack the means to tell researchers what they needed to know we have to wait on new imaging technology to catch up with their speculative research to really know how infant memory works. In the meantime, it goes a long way in explaining the unexplainable troubles some adoptees have and it makes sense to me. I asked folks to read the article I was commenting on and the comments after the article. Did anybody? The comment from the mother whose milk came in 3 days after the baby was born and the fact that he knew the moment that it did was very interesting. Do newborns have acutely tuned senses when it comes to certain things like sustenance? Is that a survival trait? How does a mind that's essentially a clean slate function before it's introduced to outside stimulation? These are things we're not sure of and our opinion (collectively) is changing as technology does. I haven't read the Primal Wound and don't know if I ever will. The part of the article I had a problem with stated that ALL adoptees experience some sort of trauma..........I don't think that's true. It may be that some newborns retain memory and others do not.

I also found it interesting that somebody mentioned that they had to read Primal Wound as part of the adoption process.....somebody out there seems to think that it has some validity. I have mixed feelings about that too. Seems like it paints adoption in a rather negative light.........glad my parents didn't have to read it.......something like that could change minds.

[Jaded]

Actually, OP, you should re-read your post. I'm not sure why you're offended when you are the one who asked for opinions on the subject. Surprise! You got 'em.

Re-read your post please, then you will understand the replies. Also, here is a story about the Primal Wound theory too...maybe it will help you in your journey through life.

http://e-magazine.adoption.com/artic...ption-loss.php

[Jaded]

Originally Posted by nj185

Apparently Verrier has an MA in Clinical Psychology and is in private practice. I do understand that psychology is not considered "science" by some, and until such time as perinatal infants can talk, or are hooked up to things which monitor hormone release, eye movement, neurons firing etc., that theories surrounding what they may or may not be experiencing, including attachment, bonding, psychological trauma etc. will be purely observational. And observational can be subjective.

NJ, the problem I have with Verrier is that her entire book is subjective. I respect Psychology, just not every psychologist who practices.

[no kudzu]

I think there are several reasons for the drop in adoptions in the united states. Legal and safe abortions became available and abortion became more of an option for many women. Abortion was always available to white women with money and contacts and it always will be to those kinds of women. But even then it was not always safe. Now women of every race and income level at least had that option.

Also keeping children out of wedlock was not as frowned on after the high adoption rate of the 60's. Blame Murphy Brown! More and more families accepted these "illegitimate" children into their homes and society was not as judgmental about them or their mothers.

Then there are the single women who make a conscious decision to have children without marriage. These differ from the ones who accidentally got pregnant and decided to keep the babies. I believe these women helped pave the way for accidentally pregnant women to believe they could do it too. But I think they were and are very naive about the money, time and resources needed to raise a child alone.

[sheena12]

Nancy Verrier is no Anna Freud, Jean Piaget or Heinz Kohut.

She calls herself a "clinical psychologist", yet in most states, a PhD is required to use that term. I could not find the name of the institution that conferred her master's degree.

Ms. Verrier is solidly anti adoption. She opposes it as a way to build a family. She only accepts it in cases where the bio-parents are unable to care for the child and no "blood relatives" are prepared or willing to step in.

She believes in such discredited and "New Age" type theories such as "cellular memory, primal therapy, and re-birthing.

Her book has been described by reviewers as "overtly negative" and "dramatic".

The OP states that children respond to music that they hear as infants. So?
I'll go further - late term fetuses respond to music they here in utero.
What does that mean? It's an interesting factoid, but it says nothing about attachment or bonding.

Since the OP is tossing around terms such as "Baby Scoop", it is evident that he is deeply involved in reading propaganda from the Anti Adoption Movement.

I do not believe that there was a "Baby Scoop". I believe that young women from most social classes as late as the 1980s were encouraged, if they became pregnant out of wedlock, to make an adoption plan for their unborn baby.

Today, solidly middle and upper middle (and above) women of all social classes are making that same choice. This is regardless of race or religion.
Parents of young women want more for their daughters than a baby.
The parents of sons feel the same way.

It seems that lower middle and lower class girls are copying the wrong role models, and truncating their educations, their youth and their development; in favor of teenage parenthood.

The OP should think about what life might have been like if he was raised by a mother who was a child himself and was ill prepared and ambivalent about raising him.