Where is the "choice" in the birth home?

I do see your point. No one knows what the future will bring. No one knows how their child bio or adopted will turn out. And no child knows or gets to pick the parents they will have.

Being a parent does consist of more than just conceiving a child.

Personally I think it's kind of a crap shoot all the way around. There are abusive parents on both sides of track, and good ones. Just as there are bio and adopted children who grow up and have good morals and happy productive lives. And there are both bio and adopted children who grow up not having them.

There are no guarantees with anything in life.

"Isn't being born also a gamble? Where is the child's "choice?" Just because a couple of people laid down, does not make them "parents"."

Do you really know how offensive that sounds?

No a child doesn't choose to be born or adopted but on the other hand just because I wasn't married to my son's father when I fell pregnant or that we split shortly afterwards doesn't equate to me not becoming a parent. I wanted to parent yet was never given a chance to prove I could be a parent as I was bullied and lied into surrendering. Or are you the type of person who thinks a single mother can't possible be a good mother?

I would be a rich woman if I had a dime for everytime I've heard an amom try and diminish the importance of carrying and giving birth to your child by claiming it's not all that important and doesn't actually make you a parent.

I laid down with my husband many times and nine months (give or take a week or two) later after four of those experiences I gave birth and EVERY SINGLE ONE of those births made me a parent, even the first one with my oldest son who I gave up for adoption.

Going by your logic and that of the nonsense "adoption is better than statistics" than not one of my children had any guarantees in their life so it really doesn't matter that my oldest was adopted and my youngest three remained with their biological family.

Except my younger three did have guarantees in their life. They were guaranteed that mother child bond that is such an inherent part of us and begins to grow from the moment of conception. They were guaranteed parents who knew and understood their traits, talents, habits, etc . . . because we saw them in ourselves. They were guaranteed knowing their heritage, their Irish, Italian and German roots. And, last but not least, they were guaranteed that nobody could ever restrict them from their own information or personal records.

My oldest son on the other hand had different guarantees. He was guaranteed no genetic mirroring. No knowledge of where he inherited his love of writing, passion with the water and boating, quick temper and fierce stubborn streak. He knew nothing of his ancestors, of his heritage and he still, to this day, is not allowed access to his own records and personal information, even though we have adopted him back.

And add that to the fact that out of all my children, my oldest son is the only one who grew up in a childhood where his amom struggled with an alcohol addiction. Where he was both physical and mentally abused by her and his step-dad.

All of my children had a guarantee about their life with my husband and I. Unfortunately my oldest son had to live the first twenty years of his life without being a part of those guarantees and having to face and live with the other guarantees instead.

I know that there are no guarantees in adoption and that biological children don't get to pick their home.

You see, being taken away from the "only family we knew" takes away everything about who we are. It's like saying "you can join Cheerleading even if you'd rather play Lacrosse" it's a poor substitute.

We did not ASK to be adopted. We did not CHOOSE our adoptive families. The fact that the choice on something so active in our lives isn't fair. I'd rather be with my bio parents because then I would be stuck with people who look like me and I wouldn't have people at Wal-Mart say "It's so sweet of you to go shopping with your grandmother"

There is no choice in the birth home, but in the adoption home it's a choice not asked for. I feel as if my rights have been violated; I didn't ask for a new home. I especially didn't ask for a home with an alcoholic father.

Happie, there is a double standard for me, because in adoption, an adoptees original identity is sealed, and they don't have a say in the process.

They are held to a contract that they did not sign regarding their own identity.

They often have to endure demeaning policies and procedures, and very often need to pay outrageous amounts of money to find the basic facts of their origin that the nonadopted take for granted.

Sounds like you have an issue with Nature and Fertility.

"People just lay down?"

Why are you reducing a natural event like conception to a simple act of sex?.

"How can anyone say that being born into a particular family gives the child more choice in parents?"

I've never heard or read that.....children don't have a choice and then again unlike an Ap neither does a natural mother. I couldn't choose them nor could they choose me(nature put us together not an agency ran by some people making money off of me)....but my Aps got to pick which one they wanted out of the candy store.

Giving birth is a natural right......Adoption isn't(adoption is all based on conditions)

Adoptive families are called "Strangers" and "stealers".

Initially the Aps are strangers.....I wasn't conceived by my Aps...I ended up living with them after they paid the agency money (still trying to find out the how's & why's).

Some Aps are baby stealers........for various unethical reasons including turning an blind eye to or participating in a natural mother being victimized (taken advantage of).

No child has a say in being born.

However, if you look into child developmental psychology and the hormones (and wiring) of a mother during birth, I believe most mothers are geared to instinctively nurture and love their own.

What about those who are being abused, you say? Where the $(%^ is the mothering instinct there?

Mothers who abuse their children don't do it because they necessarily like abusing. They don't see their children as human beings - they see them as objectified ways to target their anger and insecurities which is usually fueled by drugs and/or alcohol. They are so buried in their own psychological problems that the child isn't "there" in their mind. So it's a moot point because the alcoholism and "blind rage" blankets out everything else.

But I think many people will agree that it's not SUPPOSED to be that way. No mother is SUPPOSED to abuse her child.

A human is geared naturally to procreate, and then her body develops the primal instinct (or does, in most cases) to care for her own offspring.

For a mother to simply not care at all is a form of dissociation from what her body is supposed to develop.

P.S. I don't agree that adoption is always wrong. I think it's necessary in cases where the "unofficial" laws of anonymity guarantee death (eg. mainland China's rural areas). I will say that yes, an adoptive mother can love an adopted child as much as if she'd conceived it.

But I don't really think your question (bio mother & bio child loving each other being a crapshoot!) has much of a moral point to stand on, either, given the amount of research into child & mother development in the womb and after birth. I really think the general context of saying "Well there's no guarantee of a bio mother loving her bio child!" is actually dismissive. There are probably a lot of mothers out there who can prove you wrong on this one...

Let me try and put it out there like this:

Some families are good, others are crappy. Some of them are not involved, don't communicate, are overbearing, whatever. But at least they are YOURS and you have the sense of knowing where you really came from.

Also, there is the idea that relinqushing your kids for adoption is to provide the with a "better" life. If you were going to give your child to someone "better" because you feel ill equipped, it would kind of suck to find out that the people who raised them were the same as you or worse off. It would kind of refute a huge reason for relinquishment right there.

PS...I know I have to add the disclaimer "not in situations of abuse or neglect". No one deserves that.

People who conceive a child are parents. That is the original meaning of the word "parent", "one who brings forth offspring" from Webster's dictionary.

Adopted people don't choose to have their parents taken away from them, and that is the issue.

"Birth home"?

Good Lord! That sort of psychobabble sounds logical to you? How about natural or biological family? Cripes.

"Isn't being born also a gamble?"

You make it sound as if I was spinning a roulette wheel in Vegas. No, I do not consider my natural parents making love a "gamble". I think the gamble element came in when the agency "matched" me up to the prospective adopters next in line. People my natural parents never met, i.e. "strangers".

"Just because a couple of people laid down, does not make them "parents"."

And just because APs bathe and feed kids does not make them parents either. What about all the kids in the U.S. who spend more time at daycare or with nannies? Oh, and thanks for reducing my conception down to a hook up--do you tell your kids that, too?

"There are NO GUARANTEES in adoption, but there are also none in just being born to a particular set of people. Why is there such a double standard?"

Who said anything about a guarantee? WHERE have you seen this? The "double standard"? Do you mean to say mere mortals, such as social workers know better than nature/God on who to assign kids to? OMG, I'd better put my kids up for adoption! According to Miss Arkansas here, they'd be better off in Little Rock than with me and their father!

Here's the scoop. Most of us here are NOT (nor are our mothers) like the children whom are in your care. So our adoptions were, for the most part UNNECESSARY. It doesn't sound like your charges are in the same place. I've never seen ANYONE here say that children who are abused or living with addicts are better off with their biological parents. So, please stop putting words in our mouths or cite your sources.

ETA: Yes, Happie, please cite the links where people in this area of answers say it's better for kids who have abusive, mentally ill or addictive parents to remain with them. Have never seen them. "LOL"

you know what i hate? when people, who have never HAD abusive parents, make excuses for abusive parents.

there is no excuse, alcohol, drugs, a lifetime of pain...NOTHING to beat/molest/rape/torture/neglect your kid. none. i had a worse life than my parents and i would never lay a hand on my daughter. so save it unless youve been in this situation. some people are not wired to be parents even though they give birth.

oh, and by the way, people also dont abuse their kids because theyre too poor. thats also bull$hit. but its a great excuse to "reunite" (how nice) abused kids with their abusive families. its cheaper to keep those kids in their homes, so gee what's a little abuse compared to saving the government thousands of dollars every year?

i had no choice in my home. i also had no choice when social services kept SENDING ME BACK in the name of "family preservation".

no, there NO CHOICES for any kid. some just get lucky.