monkeykitty83

In current Islamic scholarly opinion, if a married woman is raped and subsequently becomes pregnant - and the time of conception does not clearly indicate whether her husband or the rapist is the biological father - is the child assumed to be that of her husband or is she expected to undergo genetic paternity testing to be sure?

(Assuming the test is not necessary for the prosecution of her attacker.)

Thanks!

I've been reading about the BSE... or Baby Scoop Era, or Era of Mass Surrender... recently and I was shocked (but not shocked to be shocked) by how inequitably women were treated, especially young unmarried mothers. According to what I read, a single mother could not rent housing, get a job, get welfare benefits, open a credit card account, get Medicaid (which didn't even exist till the mid-60's anyway,) have her pregnancy covered by her parents' insurance, or get higher education, and a lot of other really unfair things. Basically just a lot of stigma in every area of life.

My question, though, is about the women who did manage to parent, presumably with the help of their families starting out. (I know a lot of women had their children taken for adoption, but not 100%.) How long would it take before the stigma wore off and she was allowed to do these things? At what point would people just sort of... forget about it, I guess... and let her do what she needed to, to support herself and her child?

I'm aware the BSE ended in the 1970's. What I'm wondering, though, is when an individual woman who bore a child outside of marriage would be allowed to be financially independent after giving birth? At what point would she be able to take the role of supporting her child, rather than the two of them being supported by her own parents?

Just asking because I wasn't born yet, and my reading has not really explained this, so I thought someone with personal experience might be able to fill in the holes. Thanks!

Can people who aren't adopted know what it feels like to be adopted?

Can people who ARE adopted know what it feels like NOT to be adopted? (Assuming here they were adopted in infancy.)

Can people who have never been pregnant know what pregnancy feels like?

Can people who have never been infertile know what infertility feels like?

Can people who have never relinquished a child know what relinquishment feels like?

Can people who have never had biological children know what having a biological child feel like?

Can people who have never adopted a child know what adopting feels like?

...

If your answer wasn't the same to all of these questions, why do you feel they are different?

Thanks!

Can anyone point me in the direction of a blogger or website owner who aged out of an orphanage or foster care (was actually not ever adopted) and participates in or speaks for the anti-adoption movement?

I usually just google stuff like this, but I'm not having any success. I like to read as many perspectives as possible on an issue, and that seems like an important one that I've never actually seen.

Just to increase my personal knowledge base. Thanks in advance.

If the relatives of a child live in another country, and the child does not have in-country relatives who can care for him or her, would you approve of international adoption for that child?

(I know some people prefer guardianship, but formal adoption is generally required for an immigrant visa to be issued to the child by the United States, because guardianship is not set up as a legally solid enough arrangement to meet US immigration requirements. Thus international guardianships are not currently a realistic option. So that's not an idea we can default to.)

The child would still lose a major piece of their culture, language, and heritage not being raised in their country of origin. They would still be issued an amended birth certificate. Do you feel it's worth it to remain with biological family? Or would you prefer some kind of domestic option for the child even if it meant separation from living family members? Which is more important?

Just curious.

We talk a lot about how expectant mothers in crisis need support... and her partner always seems to be assumed to be part of HER potential support system, rather than someone who also might need support. But why is that?

Isn't he also in crisis? Isn't he also about to become a parent in a way he might not have planned? (And if anything, doesn't he have less choice in the matter, since he has no option to abort?) Does he necessarily have more money, more parenting experience, or more resources?

I mean, yeah, there comes a point where a pregnant woman is no longer able to work, and at that point she'll need financial support that her partner not carrying the pregnancy won't. That makes perfect sense. But most women aren't totally incapacitated for nine months. Most women with jobs don't have the option to take nine full months off work. So I'm not seeing how that's the make or break for him being a supporter for the entire pregnancy.

(I realize that in years previous, including the BSE, women didn't have the opportunity to work and seek jobs freely. I'm not intending to debate that. I'm talking entirely about the present, when being a female won't keep a woman entirely out of the workforce.)

The woman also has hormonal stuff going on. But is her crisis entirely hormonal? And aren't pregnant women generally considered mentally competent in other areas of life? I don't really see that as sufficient argument either.

I'm thinking less about money, than about emotional support and encouragement-- though he might also need financial support if they're in the same financial boat. But I mean mainly being encouraged to parent. Being told he could be a good father. Being told that it's important to be active in his child's life, not that he's the disposable parent or just a vending machine for child support payments. Being told that his actions matter too, and not just in regards to the mother but for his baby.

It seems like in most talk of family preservation, if a father walks away, he's considered a deadbeat, but if a mother walks away, it's assumed that lack of support meant she didn't have the opportunity to parent her child. Why the double standard?

If both parents bear equal responsibility for the child, why is one parent the supported and one the supporter?

If men received more support (still thinking more emotional than financial,) and had their parenting role taken more seriously, do you think more of them might step up?

Many people in this section are very opposed to adoptive breastfeeding, and have described it as bothersome, upsetting, emotionally confusing to the child, or even abusive.

(Please note that this is not a direct response to the other question. The subject gets asked about a lot, and I wonder about this every time.)

In many parts of the world, particularly developing countries, it is totally culturally acceptable for women to nurse the babies of other mothers. Sometimes because the mothers have died, but sometimes just while babysitting. Without the Western taboos of the sexualized breast, it is seen as normal and natural.

So... are you bothered by that too? Do you consider it abusive? Or only in the West? Or only if the child is adopted (as opposed to short term care or guardianship)?

Does it matter if that the woman breastfeeding another woman's child in the developing world does so without chemicals to induce lactation? Does it matter if an adoptive mother in the United States does so with or without chemical induction?

Does it matter if the goal is nutrition instead of bonding? Does that matter in poorer countries? Does it matter in wealthy countries?

Should it only happen when formula is not available? If so, does that mean that practices in richer countries and/or Western culture are superior, and are what poorer countries should strive and wish for? (Since the reason it would be acceptable is that they are a "have not.")

If you see the practice of breastfeeding a child you didn't birth as emotionally abusive, do you believe children would be better off in a culture where they would receive formula, since abuse is one reason most of us agree that children need to be removed from their homes?

I'm just interested in how far the condemnation extends, for those who adamantly oppose the practice.

This is a strange question, and it really has no relevance other than my own curiosity:

Do you find that a significant number of the people you socialize with offline for reasons other than discussing adoption have a connection to adoption anyway?

I ask because I belatedly realized the other day that about 50% of the friends I socialize with regularly (as opposed to just acquaintances) are adoptees. By this I mean offline, real world, not "issue based" friends. Friends I met when we worked at the same place, or lived in the same building, or were the friend of another friend, etc., and happened to hit it off with. NOT friends I met through anything adoption-related, or people I spend time with because of their adoption status or talk more about adoption with than any other relevant topic. About half of mine are adoptees regardless, even though I am not an adoptee myself.

I suspect this is just a coincidence, and doesn't have any deeper meaning, but it made me curious if anyone else had the same experience.

Do you find that a sizable number of your friends you met and socialize with offline for reasons NOT related to adoption are from a particular group in the adoption "triad"? Is it the same group as your own, or is it a different group? Do you think there's any particular reason if so, or just the luck of the draw?

The word "entitlement" gets thrown around a lot on this board, from more than one side. (Sometimes at adoptive parents, but also recently whenever the suggestion is made that we should support parents in crisis keeping their babies.) And it often seems like when people say it, just the word itself is considered sufficient accusation, without any real attempt made to clarify what is being said.

So when you say "entitlement" or that someone "feels entitled," what do you mean by it? Is it by definition a bad thing, or in some cases are people actually claiming something they have a right to? (For example, is a woman entitled to parent her own baby? And in that case is the entitlement really a criticism?) How do you feel a sense of entitlement can be avoided, when it's a negative thing?

Basically, I feel like "entitlement" is often used as an accusation/insult as though just invoking the word is enough to condemn someone. So my question is... what does it actually MEAN, from a practical and emotional standpoint?

Forgive my ignorance, but I just don't see why it would be desirable, and I'm hoping someone can enlighten me. Why is pre-birth matching popular/desirable for those hoping to adopt relinquished newborns?

I think it's fairly obvious why it's potentially coercive to expectant parents, so I'm not really getting into that here.

My question is-- why do prospective adoptive parents want to do it, either? Having a "failed match" seems very hard on people, and when you match before the birth, the chances that the mother will go on to parent seem pretty high, anecdotally from the situations I've seen. Why go through it? What do you feel you would gain by matching before the baby is born or the mom is TPRed?

Is it just because it's the "done thing" for agencies, and people don't really question it?

Are the few weeks you might gain with the baby worth the risks that you won't end up being the baby's parent?

Why do so many prospective adoptive parents of newborns seem to want this?

I'm not trying to make a point; it's a genuine question, because I truly don't get it, and I'd love to have it explained to me from another perspective.

Can anyone recommend for me a blog written from an adoptee perspective by someone who was adopted at an older age than infant or toddler, domestically in either the United States or Canada? (I'm presuming this would mean from foster care in most situations, but if it didn't that's also fine.)

Doesn't matter whether it takes a pro-, anti-, or neutral position on adoption. My focus is the older age and that it's within the same country. Good style and readability are a plus.

Thanks!

Does the state think birth certificates belong to the parents, rather than the person they actually pertain to? And does that pose any part of the problem for adoptees in getting legal access to their birth certificates?

I was looking at my official birth certificate copy because I was curious if it said what time I was born. (It doesn't.) The thing that stood out to me was the phrase, "Your child's original birth certificate is on file at..." so I read the rest of the information. I'm referred to as "your child" four times on my own birth certificate.

It really seems like the state of New York thinks this document belongs to my parents, not me.

I'm not an adoptee, but that made me wonder if this may be one of the reasons that states aren't always receptive to change. Who do birth certificates belong to in the eyes of the law? The person they refer to, or the person's parents? Is this issue at all being addressed in regards to open records for adoptees?

This initially started as a response to Lori A's question, but it sort of mushroomed, so I decided to ask it separately-- but obviously it's still related. Basically, rather than me just spouting off speculation, I wanted to see what others thought.

To what extent can people who were not adopted understand the experiences of an adopted person that aren't the direct fact of being adopted? Are there any points of commonality where we can relate just as people, or should experiences always be viewed through the adoption lens?

To give a specific example, Lori mentioned a woman who struggled all her life with her weight because she wanted to be perfect so her adoptive mother wouldn't want to give her back. My gut reaction is to empathize, because I also spent years of my life struggling with an eating disorder I managed to work myself into-- also trying to please my mother. But the thing is, I'm not adopted. And while I know my experience isn't identical (for example, my mother couldn't give me back to anywhere,) I found myself wondering if it was presumptuous to relate to it on any level? Is something like this solely an adoption issue, which even a non-adoptee with what appears to be a similar experience couldn't possibly understand?

On the other hand, are any two people's experiences ever identical, even without adoption thrown in the mix? Isn't there always some kind of circumstance the other person can't really get without being there? Is relating to the extent we can the best we can ever do, really?

I struggle with this, because I don't want to treat adopted people like they're aliens. But I also don't want to make anyone feel marginalized or dismissed if they feel my own experiences can't relate to theirs. I feel like there has to be some kind of balance.

So... what balance do YOU feel is appropriate? How much can non-adoptees relate to adoptees with apparently similar experiences?

Was your primary reason for wanting access to your original birth certificate that your records contained information you didn't know and couldn't otherwise obtain, or an equality issue based on the principle that it's wrong for your own records to be denied to you when non-adoptees have access to theirs? (Or an equal combination, or some other factor entirely?)

Just curious.

Awhile ago a question was asked about Wendy's restaurant chain, and several people said they boycotted it because The Dave Thomas Foundation promotes adoption. I found that confusing, because the Foundation clearly ONLY supports foster care adoption, and some of the people who said they boycott also frequently recommend people adopt from foster care because "those children need homes."

The first three things you'll find on the Foundation's website:

"Finding Forever Families for Children in Foster Care"

"If not now, when? Children are waiting. With your help we can find a family for every child in foster care."

"Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption is a nonprofit 501(c)3 public charity dedicated to dramatically increasing the adoptions of the more than 150,000 children waiting in North America's foster care systems."

So... what gives with the boycott? The organization is pretty clear on their goals-- what I quoted is literally the first things on their website-- and most people here allegedly don't oppose foster care adoption. In fact, we (including me) recommend foster care adoption all the time.

So... why are some people on this site boycotting a foundation that AGREES with you? Can someone explain the logic?

I've heard from a number of people that they couldn't be foster parents or adopt from foster care because they'd get too attached to the child, and fear letting them go. (Children legally free for adoption aren't usually mentioned, and the people who say this may not be aware there's a difference.)

Yet these same people turn to domestic infant adoption, and match with an expectant mother either before birth or before the revocation period for her termination of parental rights expires... meaning they're taking the baby at legal risk, and the mother still has every right to decide to parent.

Why does taking an infant being adopted privately at legal risk feel different from being a foster parent? Aren't the essentially the same thing, when you get right down to it? Even if you hope to adopt in both cases, how is it different in terms of attachment/risk?

Is it just an excuse not to research foster care or foster care adoption? I realize that's very possible, but the less cynical part of me hopes there's actually a good reason that I'm just failing to understand.

Why do people who don't think they could be foster-adopt parents because of the risk of attaching to a child and then losing them, but feel they can take a legal risk placement in domestic infant adoption, or match pre-birth? What feels so different about it?

I don't entirely understand how that happened... why people often automatically think a mother should consider placing her baby for adoption because of her age?

Both of my grandmothers had babies before they turned 20. They were both married, and I understand why unwed pregnancy became stigmatized, but no one blinked at these women's age. They were from totally different cultures, but no one in either culture questioned their "teen pregnancies." For most of history, this was the case.

So what exactly changed? When did the teen years become "too young"?

Is it because age of marriage has gotten later, and teens are now assumed to be unwed-- so it's really an unmarried thing? Is it because college/university education has become a basic requirement for more and more jobs, and it's assumed a mother can't get an education? Is it because people are more and more considering adolescence a unique stage of life, whereas for much of history the world was pretty much considered to be divided into children and adults?

Why are teens considered too young to parent? Why are they often pressured/expected to give their children up for adoption? When did the distinction start to be drawn between single mothers based on age, and why is that the cutoff point?

Thoughts?

In a number of responses, when people have discussed whether children need to be removed from their biological families, they've talked about "severe abuse," specifying the word "severe" as necessary for removal to be justified.

So I'm wondering... what does that mean, exactly? What type of abuse is "severe"? What is the definition of it? Who decides what constitutes it?

Personally, I take a very "no tolerance" view of any kind of abuse at all, but I'm specifically looking for answers here from people who can clarify the opposing viewpoint for me.

If you are of the opinion that a gradation needs to be drawn in whether abuse warrants removal, what qualifies as "severe" abuse?

What differences do you feel there would be in how someone would perceive their adoption and their life circumstances if they were adopted as a newborn, versus being adopted as a small child but non-infant, versus being adopted at the age of, say, ten? What similarities would there be? Basically, how closely would the experiences relate?

I welcome responses from everyone, particularly because I realize that the only way to answer this is conjecture... since it would be a rare circumstance in which someone experienced more than one variation.

I'm just curious if you feel there would be any appreciable differences, or what you feel is common to the experience of being adopted regardless of the circumstances?

What TV shows, movies, fictional books, etc. are you aware of that have plotlines involving adoption from foster care? (For the purposes of this question, I'm asking about foster care adoption specifically, not domestic infant or international.)

Do you feel these are a fair and/or realistic portrayal of adoption from foster care?

Thanks!