WHAT CAN YOU RELATE TO ABOUT SOME OF THE OPPOSITIONS' ARGUMENTS?

I understand the deep desire for a child, and the tendency to explain why that desire for a child means that adopting is GOOD for the child (because they will be loved). I don't agree with this any more, but I understand it, and I remember when I believed this same thing. It seems to make sense before you delve any deeper.

I understand the assumption that adoption is the best option for a child who's natural parents can't take care of them (or won't). Again, I disagree now, but I remember when I felt that way, and I remember why I felt that way.

I believe that most people honestly, truly do believe that they are doing this for the CHILDREN, and don't realize that all their arguments for adoption about their own wants and desires, and don't honestly benefit the child.

I understand how difficult it is to "hear" that adoption isn't always the best option. It was hard for me to hear that, too. I get it now, and I understand it's not about me (or any other PAP or AP), but when I first heard all these negative things about adoption, it sure did feel like an attack on me. If you are defensive, you're not going to hear the truth in what others are saying, and I had to let down my defenses and trust that these strangers couldn't possibly be talking about me - since they don't even know me. I learned a lot. But I remember that fear that everyone here was judging me harshly because they felt that what I was doing was so bad.

I think that most of us, at least on this site, are on the same page as far as closed records and sealed birth certificates being wrong.

I think most of us are also on the same page as far as all forms of adoption needing some serious reform. I hope so, anyway.

I understand the fear that your child will grow up and not like you because they found thier first family. It's an irrational fear, and also a pointless one since it's not going to happen if you're supportive, but I remember having that fear fed to me by others. My bff was really afraid of that. She'd always say, "yeah, but you don't want to have to share your child. S/he won't love you as much."

All that being said (and I'm sure there's a ton more, because I WAS on that side once, so I do get it), I think there are things that everyone here has said that I disagree with, but I can almost always understand where they're coming from. I don't think there are truly any "sides", because everyone has their own opinions based on their own experiences, and no two people are going to have the exact same beliefs to a "T". But I think that if we're diligent, and if people stop being defensive, we can eventually all be on the same side, as we should be. If we are all truly here to help children, then why aren't we all on the CHILDREN'S side? Why can't we all set aside our own beliefs for a few minutes, and truly listen and absorb the stories of adoptees and their experiences - without defensiveness - so that we can learn about those we supposedly want to help? THAT is the "side" we should all be on.

ETA: It appears I may have misread the question. I thought you wanted us to discuss those aspects of "the opposition's" arguments that we can understand or relate with. It appears I'm the only one who talked about the opposition, instead of reiterating my own position. Oh well. It won't be the first time I've had a massive blond moment. I am blond, after all. But if I misunderstood, let me know. I feel like this is a good question, and I'd like to at least mull it over, even if I don't get in a new answer on time. I appreciate any question that gets me thinking, even if I don't answer it (or if I get the answer wrong).

AH,

I think it depends on the generation your talking to. I find more bitterness from the 60-70's generation of adoptee's and birth mothers than later ones.

I know a birth mother from the 70's (family friend) who was mistreated. I had an Aunty that was a pregnant and alone, neglected by doctors because she wasn't married. My grandmother found her just hours the baby was born in another city, unfortunately my cousin was born disabled due to the neglect during labour. (The year 1970) She not once said has not once told me it was a bad thing to adopt a child, (Even though the nurses had the papers for her to sign in the labour ward) she sent her a present and welcomed her into our family. I feel for both of them, social attitudes damaged them emotionally. But I can't live their life and walk in her shoes and carry her pain for her, or fix what happened in a time when I was only a small child myself. (The family friend knows I've adopted a child in recent years, but how she feels about it, I don't know.)

I feel the "other side" (If thats what we like to call it,) forgets that most adoptive parents have been through loss. Losses that people didn't want to know about or understand. We know emptiness and years of heartache. (I lost a child at 20 weeks, you don't think I grieved for that child? Then to be told we couldn't never have a child due to complex issues.) I didn't adopt to replace that baby. If that was the real reason the assessors would have seen through it. Our reasons are our own. We thought long and hard about those reasons for years before we decided to proceed with adoption.

That's why you hear so many adoptive parents say they are thankful/grateful for being chosen to raise a child that another woman couldn't raise. Its not hollow, but someone hurting inside their heart will read it that way.

For the next generations of adoptee's sake try and bring some positive light into being adopted. Help them and us as parents to make it better. Saying "ban adoption" isn't going to help those kids that are babies being born now feel its OK to be different in years to come.

I think that no matter what your position is you have to admit that adoption has pain in it for at least one person. I think that this would be the most common point.

Adoption has loss intertwined in it for all parties involved.

And loss causes pain.

The Mother/Father loses their child, whether relinquished, manipulated, or taken.

The child loses their family of origin, right to their information in many cases, a sense of natural identity.

The Adoptive Parents lose the chance to parent a child free of pain, must help the child deal with grief, "share" their child with the memory of another mother, and sometimes loses the child they raised when they become an adult.

All of this is pain. The only pain that is more important than anyone elses is the pain of the child and that should be top priority.

I do think that whatever peoples opinions are, no matter what their ideology of adoption is, no matter how misinformed, they think that they are doing the best for a child. Sad as it is.

Parents should not be coerced into giving up their children.

Programs to help people parent should be better organized, better funded, better publicized.

Adoptees should have the same rights as anyone else to their own information

Once a child is placed for adoption, there should be a reasonable amount of time for the first parents to change their minds before the adoption becomes final.

Adoptive parents should be prepared to do the right thing should the first parent revoke consent before finalization.

Children who are legally relinquished by their family (or a tpr is done) and are either in foster care or an orphanage for enough time that it's certain their family will not change their mind do need permanent homes.

There needs to be more education on the effects of adoption for first parents before they relinquish and for paps before they adopt.

Open adoptions should be enforceable or else they shouldn't be held out as bait.

eta: Gaia, I read the question as you did. I wrote what I as an adoptive parent think some of us might believe in common. However, I don't really think of first parents or adoptees as "the opposition".

Great question.

Obviously, where it is possible and there is no real/valid reason where they shouldn't then all children are best off in their own families (i.e ones to which they were born)

In cases of child abuse and neglect, this needs to be treated very carefully. If mother is also being abused and not part of the abusing, then BOTH mother and child need to be removed from the situation and placed into some sort of care such as a shelter and this should be made a legal requirement.

Where mother is also abusive/taking drugs and is not looking favourable to rehabilitate then yes, sadly children will need to be removed and placed in another family.

I do not see how adoption needs to ever be in the picture though? Permanent care, guardianship, long term foster care with the same family, these are all very viable options and alternatives to adoption. There is no need for a child to lose name, identity etc...

At the end of the day, the most important thing is that a child is raised in a loving and nurturing environment where they can be themselves.

No coercing of women. PERIOD. There ARE pregnant women who do not have any desire to parent, and that's fine. But stop talking women who are poor or single into relinquishing.

Legal policies pertaining to open adoption. It must be enforceable ON BOTH SIDES. I've heard numerous stories of AP's changing their minds a year or two into it and no longer following the agreement. I've ALSO heard numerous stories of the adoptee getting attached to their f-mother, the AP's having stuck to the open adoption agreement, and then the f-parents dip out. Think of how that mus feel to the child!!!

Either way, we need laws and consequences in place for everyone who ignores or ditches an open agreement. Both are very harmful to the child.

Open records without harassment or payment. Unaltered birth certificates with our original name and parents.

There's a ton more, but it's early and I'm still waking up.

ETA: Autumn mentioned a BIG one. Children who are abused, neglected, etc should NOT stay with their parents.

where possible it is good to keep the child with the family and try to rehabilitate the family environment so thay the whole household benefits

Keep the child with his/her family IF possible and only arrange for an adoption when all efforts and possibilities are completely scratched out, leaving NO room no doubt whatsoever.

In which case, trying to keep a child with a relative, and if that's not a possibility either... THEN and only THEN look into adoption alternatives.

See, the impression I get is that a lot of people in general (not necessarily even at Y!A) don't want to say, "OK, let's see what IS possible about family preservation." They want to say "Mom can't take care of her child - what's next? Oh, I know! Adoption is the perfect solution!"

Well, in reality I know the decision and discussion is more complicated than that, but the overall impression I still receive is that people don't want to entertain the possibility of family preservation.

Based on my observations at other adoption forums, I often see dialogue like: "My friend had a baby but she doesn't think she can take care of it so why not put it up for adoption? Then another couple who can't have THEIR OWN can adopt! I just don't get why she hasn't placed her baby yet!"

I mean, sheesh. Why are we all racing towards the "adoption is best!" option so quickly?

ETA: Wow. 10 thumbs up and 10 thumbs down. O.o

If the industry would not put emotion into the adopting families, there would be much less of an industry.

I think you were only talking to one side about personal situations. Let's get real.

That children who are abused, neglected, or both should NOT stay with their parents