Lori A

Lets try this again. My question was deleted about what I misunderstood. so lets take a different route.

If you are surrendering a child it is ASSUMED that this would take place during the child bearing years.

Now if you are within the child bearing years what kinds of medical history can you pass along with a child?

Does that information give a good representation of ALL of a child's medical history?

Is 29 old enough for a medical history to be complete?

Will ALL of your medical malfunctions manifest themselves by the time you're 50?

Can a complete medical history be obtained in a closed adoption?

Lets try this again. My question was deleted about what I misunderstood. so lets take a different route.

If you are surrendering a child it is ASSUMED that this would take place during the child bearing years.

Now if you are within the child bearing years what kinds of medical history can you pass along with a child?

Does that information give a good representation of ALL of a child's medical history?

Is 29 old enough for a medical history to be complete?

Will ALL of your medical malfunctions manifest themselves by the time you're 50?

Can a complete medical history be obtained in a closed adoption?

Please tell me what I am misunderstanding?

I just got an email telling me that I misunderstood something because I posted at least "twice" that having a closed adoption and requesting a medical history will not work. In both my answers I explained that in order to have a medical history that is worth the paper its printed on means up dates. And I didn't think anyone who agreed to a closed adoption would agree to do continuous updates. I don't see "BOTH" parents doing this on a long term basis and not expect any contact.

It was pointed out to me that "THIS PERSON" never stated that the parents were young nor were the grand parents.

I'm confused, Are there 50 year old women surrendering children these days?

If I misunderstood, please explain which part I am wrong about? Several other people answered these same questions with almost exactly the same information. In order to have a medical history you need contact.

What have I misunderstood?

any less my father? I hated him when he was alive, I loath him in his death. My step father was much more of a father figure to me, yet had no ties to me other than marriage to my mother. I am not adopted.

When I look in the mirror, I do not see my step fathers face. I see my fathers features. Like it or not, I have a strong genetic link to my father.

I understand acknowledging a parental figure (whether adopted or not) being honored as a strong influence in a persons life. My step father was a very strong prominent figure in my life, most of my fatherly memories are of him. When I want to know what my care giver would have done in a particular situation, I think of what my step father would have done.

But how can a person just verbally let go of a person who is genetically linked to them and believe that it will change anything? Paper does not change the laws of nature.

If I simply denounce my father as my father does it make him any less my father?

Since there seems to be new or new multiple accounts in the adoption section talking about how surrendering a child should have no affect on you as a mother who signed away your rights, I am wondering if its not time to explain once again how impossible that is?

Just because I signed away my rights to my daughter doesn't mean I didn't care or worry about her. It doesn't mean I didn't love her, it doesn't mean I can forget carrying her for 9 months and all the motherly things that went along with it. I never forgot labor and delivery, I never forgot her face, skin tone, eyes, hair, birth weight, or her father.

I "WAS" told to go home and forget it ever happened by an agency that had no more concern or respect for me other than getting my signature on paper. Yes I signed them, Yes I knew what I was doing, yes I thought it was the best decision at the time, still do. BUT there is no way I could "move on" and forget it ever happened. There is no way I could forget about my daughter.

A piece of paper is just that, a piece of paper. It may show ownership, or guardianship, but it has nothing to do with real life emotions and attachments.

Anyone else care to explain why it isn't feasibly possible to move on and just forget?

Again inspired by an answer to another question I can't help but ask, if you have been to all these different countries and you have seen the deplorable conditions that children are kept in and have had orphans begging at your feet to take them home, are you basing your opinions on what you have seen?

I have not been to any other countries and seen what you have but I have watched lots of videos on how lots of these children are being stolen and placed into these orphanages until they can be adopted out of the country for thousands of dollars a piece.

My question is, has it ever occurred to you that maybe these children whom I have no doubt live under disgusting conditions, and do in fact need homes, have been strategically placed here directly in your path in an attempt to play on your sympathies and tug on your heart strings to coerce you into adopting one of them, from the very same people who stole them and want to profit off their flesh?

I am in no way making light of the conditions these children are forced to live under, I no doubt would feel the same need to help, but I am asking if you at the very least second guessed where all these children come from before you take them into your homes, or try to find homes for them? Do you not think that if they were stolen, the home they need most is the one they were stolen from?

If you have been keeping up with any of the gossip about the Rowe-Jackson case, can you please explain to me how a woman who willingly terminated her rights to her children got it reversed in court because he wasn't paying her as he had promised. And to reach a decision out of court that involved money a second time is just befuddling to me. How is this different from other TPR's, and why is money allowed in this case? Is ti because they were once married?

I'm putting my disclaimer right in the first line so as not to cause any commotion. I ADMIT I have not given much thought to this. I would like to throw it out there to see what other people think. I DO NOT have a preconceived answer in my head.

If a man were to say, I don't want to parent this child I created, we have laws in place to deal with them. Although not fool proof, the laws exist to send the message loud and clear that if you father a child you will support that child.

Now some one asked why in today's society are women allowed to make almost the exact same decision with no recourse. Here is the part of the post i am talking about.

I wonder why a woman (whether it's you or your pregnant friend), would think that refusing to provide care for their offspring was a woman's right. How is walking out on the family you have created a gender equality issue? Have women won the right to create children for whom they intend to bear no responsibility? I really don't like the implications of this.

I have to admit it gives cause for thought. Is this a double standard?

What do you think?

Being from the pre roe vs wade era, where most adoptions were closed, I gave as much medical information as I possibly could when I surrendered my daughter. Which meant almost nothing as my parents were young and healthy at the time. Most normal medical conditions happen over time, with age, so how is a complete medical history supposed to be given when no medical conditions exist?

When adoptions are closed either from the onset or later on, how is medical information supposed to be updated when some were told to go home and forget about ever having a baby? and others were promised an opened adoption only to have it closed on them?

History has proven that agencies do not always pass along obtained information, which could be helpful to the adoptee. How do you get important information when so many feel it isn't important enough to keep the lines of communication opened or important enough to pass along?

Almost exhausting at this point but same question with disturbing answers suggests that if a child never asks about why they look different that it is okay to never tell them they were adopted.

I ask LDA's, could you explain how yo felt when yo found out yo were adopted? And was that okay with you or would you have rather known earlier on? And why?

Same question with disturbing answers suggests that adoptee's should not be told who their parents are because if this promise (I assume) of anonymity were not in place, we surrendering parents would abort instead.

Would you have aborted, if you knew your child would one day look you up?

Same question that produced answers that obviously don't sit well with me, has suggested that having access to ones first relatives may be too emotionally scaring and should be avoided.

Who do you believe should be in charge of an adoptee's emotional scaring?

Again in reference to some of the answers to a recent question, do you feel that it is a parents "right" to hide from the children they produce? Why or Why not?

I noticed in answers to another question that the argument of who the real parents are is surfacing again. Probably because we have new members here. So I am asking for some others who understand my question to please once again explain who your parents are and why you feel they are real to you.

I am my daughters mother, she was raised by her mom, we are BOTH very real to her. I don't know how her mom feels, but I feel that each of us has a unique and different relationship with "our" daughter. Yes she raised her, stayed up with her, slapped band aids on her, but without me and her father there would have been no special little rachael to slap band aids on.

So can we have yet one more discussion on who the real parents are for the sake of the newcomers?

I usually don't go in the direction of God when it comes to adoption, but I have to ask.

If it is God's work to take in all the less fortunate children of the world and care for them and sing the praises of adoption, why isn't it God's work also to expose the underlying problems with adoption?

If some adoptions are obtained through trickery, deceit, and wrong doings, why is it bad to expose this?

If some children are actually being hurt by their adoptive parents, why is it frowned upon to expose these things?

Isn't it also God's work to expose the things that can and do go wrong, so that they can be dealt with and eliminated and more children, hopefully one day ALL children have what adoption spouts, a good loving home, with humane parents?

Couldn't informing others about what happens to children and surrendering mothers be considered God's work too in the grand scheme of adoption?

Couldn't it be considered God's work to expose those who peddle human flesh, who abuse children behind closed doors and a satin robe?

I am not anti adoption, anyone who know me knows that. My questions deal with those who are not in it for the right reasons. If adoption has taken a wrong turn somewhere, is it not God's work to set it back on track?

Would it be a reasonable argument to suggest closing ALL birth records? Let me explain

If the fight to keep adoptee's from obtaining their information is because it could scar another person, and they feel that this non law is acceptable. In order to equal every ones civil rights would it be preposterous to suggest that no one have these rights? That ALL birth records be sealed and no one be able to access them?

Inspired by another question, I'd like to know what is discussed when an adoption speaker goes to a schools?

Is it strictly adoption, or is ther family preservation included?

Any and all details would be appriciated.

Thank you y/a for reinstating this question and ALL of it's answers.

I feel this is an important question and I appriciate all the participants for taking the time to post their responses.

Did you get to read it before it was deleted? Do you have any questions or comments on it?

I posted a question about a particular term used in adoption language. I don't want to repeat the term because the questioin was deleted.

If any adoptive parents read the answers was there anything in those answers that struck a chord with you in regard to your own child?

Did it help to know that one woman felt her whole life that she needed to control her weight to stay in favor with her adoptive parents and not be returned, which in the end became a life long struggle for her?

That children prefer straight language to industry language?

And by the same token did anyone find it helpful or useful that some children were actually chosen? That some parents did in fact have the opportunity to select between more than one child?

Last but not least. if you were offended by my question can you tell me what offended you so as not to repeat the same mistake?

perspective adoptive parents and recently adoptive parents about the industry language that they are told to use?

My original question was deleted.

The point of that question (and this one) was to see why parents use this language, (that is not meant offensively) and to see what affects it has had over the years from those who it was used on.

Some answered that their children were in fact chosen. That works for me. Others talked about their preference to real language, (truth), and yet others pointed out that those very words helped mold them into people who went out of their way to remain pleasing to their parents in fear that if they were not perfect and still favored as chosen that they would be sent back. One even stated that she maintain her weight so as not to fall out of favor.

So is there anything that we can get out there that would be constructive, well meaning, and educational that does not defy TOS?