Despite Progress, Forced-Adoption Practices Persist Throughout the United States


This year has been a good year so far for an international community of mothers seeking redress for millions of forced adoptions that took place in the fifties, sixties, and seventies. In February, Australian legislators announced a plan to apologize for the coercive practices that unnecessarily separated thousands of families during this time. In March, Canada’s forced adoptions began receiving media attention, with many activists calling for a federal inquiry similar to the one that revolutionized adoption in Australia. And just last week, American adoption victims from the aptly named Baby Scoop Era finally received some recognition for their losses when “Dan Rather Reports” featured their stories on national television.

I know these women. A decade and a half ago, I began researching adoption. I was inspired to interact with Dian Wellfare online. An Australian mother who spent her life fighting for a parliamentary inquiry into past adoption practices, Dian passed away in 2008, before the fruits of her labor were fully realized. Several years later, I co-wrote an article on reproductive exploitation with a Canadian mother whose son was taken via forced adoption during the Baby Scoop Era. Over the years, I have worked with dozens of American women – mothers and adoptees – who spent years lobbying for recognition here in the United States. These women are my friends, and I am happy for their successes.

As an activist, however, I am concerned.

I’m concerned that the conversation about forced adoption is being framed in such a way as to imply that adoption coercion is a relic from the past. I’m concerned that mothers who lost children to more recent unethical practices are discouraged from sharing their stories in order to support this conclusion. I’m concerned that women who might consider adoption now or in the future will incorrectly believe that today’s agencies and facilitators are above reproach because reports say that coerced adoption ended in the seventies. While its true that contraception and abortion access have reduced the number of infants being surrendered for adoption in recent years, corruption is ever-present.

In fact, in some ways, things haven’t changed at all. Young, single, and poor, mothers who were pressured into adoption during the Baby Scoop Era say that social workers asked them what they had to offer in comparison to the wealthy, married couples who wanted to adopt their children. If you look at the “Dear Birthmother” letters that agencies like Bethany Christian Services currently promote on their websites, you’ll see that the unfair competition continues to this day. Each letter is a collection of statements that make the prospective adopters sound like ideal candidates for parenthood, what with their stable incomes, expansive back yards, extended families, and empty nurseries. In the fifties, social workers made that comparison and said, “If you love your baby, you will let him go.” Today, adoption workers and crisis pregnancy counselors tell young women that adoption is “the loving option.”

Of course, some things have changed. When social mores no longer said that unmarried mothers were unfit to raise their children (an archaic premise some politicians are trying to reinstate), adoption agencies were forced to experiment with new tactics or risk going out of business.

Now, instead of simply demanding that women hand over their babies, today’s adoption facilitators give expectant mothers a false sense of empowerment. They give them the opportunity to “make an adoption plan.” Today, the adoption industry tells the press not to say that a woman has given up her baby, nor that she has surrendered. They want her to feel like she’s in charge, so they tell her she’s making a plan. The National Council for Adoption, a controversial pro-adoption organization, operates an infant adoption awareness training program for the sole purpose of teaching professionals who interact with pregnant women how to promote adoption to their clients. A large portion of the training emphasizes careful language choices that create a sense of camaraderie while presenting a very specific image of adoption to expectant parents. You don’t have to work in marketing to recognize a sales pitch like that!

Now, instead of the secrecy and shame that surrounded the girls who went away during the Baby Scoop Era, adoption agencies promise expectant mothers unlimited contact with their children. Technically, modern facilitators are being truthful when they say that most of today’s infant adoptions are open, since “open” is a blanket term used to describe any situation in which the mother has some form of contact with the adopters. This can mean anything from a few meetings during pregnancy to exchanging pictures and letters via an intermediary to a coveted lifelong relationship that includes phone calls and visits. However, many agencies promise expectant mothers that they can decide how much contact to have with their children. This is untrue. Legally, once an adoption is finalized, the adoptive parents have all the control and can cut off contact at will. And they frequently do. One mother who complained to her adoption agency that her daughter’s adopters were not following through on the level of contact they promised was told that the adopters close more than 80 percent of the open adoptions that are initiated there.

Now, instead of the punitive, solitary birth experiences that countless mothers of the past endured, many mothers today birth with the prospective adopters in the room or just outside the door, waiting for the baby with outstretched arms. While this intrusive practice is unheard of in Australia, a country that appears to have learned a lot from its shameful adoption history, Americans embrace the idea. Although new mothers have no legal obligation to follow through on an adoption they planned before their child was born, allowing adopters to wait in the wings during birth and receive the baby as if s/he is their own does not give the mother an adequate opportunity to change her mind. Laws vary, but in 16 states, mothers are permitted to sign away their rights immediately. Many other states have waiting periods between 12 to 72 hours. Anyone who has ever borne a child should understand why it’s highly unethical to ask a woman who has just given birth to make such a serious decision mere hours later. At this point, she may not have even had the chance to spend time alone with her baby.

There’s no need to argue whether or not adoption has changed in the past thirty years. It has. The problem can be summed up with the old adage: the more things change, the more they stay the same. Not only are modern adoption practices coercive as were their predecessors, but we have to contend with the War on Women that currently threatens to take women’s rights back to the ’50s. As conservative legislators rush to deny funding to Planned Parenthood, limit access to contraception, and prevent abortion by any possible means, the shadow of a second Baby Scoop Era is looming over America. Will we learn from the past, or will we repeat it?

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

  • janipurr

    Actually, I think the 24 hours right after birth is the worst time to allow a new mother to change her mind.  It is a very emotional time, and I’m guessing alot of women decide to keep the baby.  Yet, it would be cruel to allow her several weeks or months, only to have the new family fall in love with the child and then have it yanked from them.  I know it happened to my brother and his wife–they were set to adopt and then the new mother changed her mind so many times, they finally stopped telling the rest of the family they had a prospective birth mother (my SIL can’t have children).  In fact, we weren’t told they were adopting until after they had thier new baby for the required time. The reason that couples adopt from other countries is because it’s so difficult to adopt a baby here!

     

    While I agree that if a contract is signed allowing the birth mother continued access to the baby, that agreement should be enforced by the adoption agency, I also think the birth mother shouldn’t be allowed to change her mind once that contract is signed.  I also don’t have a problem with the new language being used–aren’t we worried about what’s in the best interest of the baby once it’s born?  How is living in poverty with your birth mother better than living with a family that wanted you so badly they jumped through endless legal loops to adopt them?

  • jdelbalzo13

    Are you truly suggesting that financial circumstances should determine whether or not one has the right to raise her own baby?

     

    I’d say that if a new or expectant mother has changed her mind repeatedly, the most ethical thing the prospective adopters can do is walk away from the situation.  That is obviously a mother who wants to parent and is trying to figure out how to make it work.

  • ann-jones

     I really cannot believe someone made this comment. 

    “Yet, it would be cruel to allow her several weeks or months, only to have the new family fall in love with the child and then have it yanked from them.”


    It is the mothers child, she can decide to change her mind, she should not be forced into making a decision before the birth. She should have time to decide.  


    How sad that the adopters might have to give back a child that the mother wants.  It is her child, no matter how much legal papers there might be the child is only theirs by law, never by nature. It is time adoption was banned and people who cannot have child accept that they can;t and get on with it.  Why is it up to some poor girl or woman to provide them with a child.  

    We also know that open adoption only works when adopting. After the adoption most contact is closed and it is always done by the adopters who then “OWN’ the child. 

    The best interest of the baby is to be with it’s mother – not with strangers. 

    If you want your brother to have a child why not give him one of yours.  That would do the trick.

  • mlaing

    Jessica   Thank you so much for this article. I am one of Dian’s followers.  She saved my life and was such an advocate for women who had lost their babies in Australia.  While she could not be with us in Canberra on the day the Senate handed down its findings, we know she was their in spirit.  Her sister was there with us. 

    Di worked so very hard and Lily and others have continued her work and we now wait for the Govt to agree to accept the Senates findings.

     

    I dearly wish adoption could be banned except where it was the only hope for the child who had no family what so ever.  No young girl should be forced to give up her baby and it is clear that this is still happening.  Allowing adopters to be present at the birth is the most hideous of crimes.  A time when a mother is so vunerable and here are the hawks out to snatch the baby.

    Please keep up the good work.

  • barbarathavis

    The US needs legislation to make it illegal to enter into discussion with a pregnant woman regarding adopting her unborn child. Women should be protected until six weeks postpartum from the advances of any persons or entities interested in adopting her unborn child.
    All pregnant women considering adoption should be counseled about the devastating effects adoption has on mother and child.
    Thanks for bringing today’s coercive practices to light!

  • ljean8080

    not always.the woman in my area,killed her kid,6 months after she got him back.

  • mlaing

    I guess there will always be some women who damaged or kill their babies but this can be found in marriage as well.  I guess you are an adopter. 

  • cmarie

    I just wanted to comment to thank Jessica for an excellent article but got sidetracked when I read Janipurr’s frightening logic. 

    “How is living in poverty with your birth mother better than living with a family that wanted you so badly they jumped through endless legal loops to adopt them?”

    How? well, ask anyone who grew up in “poverty”.  Very few people will tell you they wish they had other parents just because they were poor.  Maybe you could ask Bill Clinton or Alice Walker.  Obviously, I don’t know your own mother, but I’m awfully sorry for her when I hear that.. according to your own logic… poverty would have meant you were better off without her.  Also, Janipurr I’m sure compared to Bill and Melinda Gates and what they are able to offer their children, you are living in poverty and your kids are paying the price.  How dare you keep them?

    And finances aside and speaking of “legal loopholes”, what about the endless legal loops involved in stealing a baby right out of the hospital;  any hospital, anywhere in the world.  Do you know how many nurses, doctors and cops would have to be paid off?  There are parts of the world where it happens so frequently that women risk their lives to deliver without going near a hospital or any kind of medical professional.  The economies of entire cities are based on it.   How’s that for determination.  Certainly anyone motivated enough to deal with all that hassle is more entitled to your children and grandchildren than you and your family are. 

    then this:   “Yet, it would be cruel to allow her several weeks or months, only to have the new family fall in love with the child and then have it yanked from them.”

    Jesus, are you for real?  If you don’t want a child “yanked from you” than make sure you are not taking one who has parents and a home that the state will consider safe (ie.. a child NOT already available for adoption through the foster care system).  There is nothing cruel about giving a mother time to find the resources to keep her child.  An honest social worker (and an honest system for child protective services) would allow young and or financially unprepared parents access to QUALITY, TEMPORARY foster care (ideally provided by an RN) while they prepare a home for THEIR child, not try to browbeat them into giving their child up forever because they are not financially independent this second. 

    For every couple wanting to adopt, there are more than thirty children available for adoption through the foster care system.  Granted, most of the healthy children are not infants, but there is no question that there are healthy young children waiting for adoption… ethical adoption.  Please direct your brother and SIL there.  I wish them all the best but I also wish the very best for financially vulnerable families.

  • ljean8080

    i wish people would adopt older kids.my parents are the people who raised me.

  • colleen

    aren’t we worried about what’s in the best interest of the baby once it’s born?  How is living in poverty with your birth mother better than living with a family that wanted you so badly they jumped through endless legal loops to adopt them?

    Right, because gestating and giving birth is easy compared to jumping through “endless legal loops”. Notice how you devalue women and particularly poor women with that set of assumptions. It takes some serious dehumanization to pretend that women should be forced to relinquish their infants to those with more money “for the good of the child”.

    The reason Americans adopt infants from other countries is because, for whatever reason, they reject the idea of adopting one of the 150,000 or so children available for adoption at any given time in our broken foster care system. It isn’t the sort of decision that says to me “these folks would make great parents”.

  • elainev

    First, I think the article requires some clarification. The article describes one type of adoption, a relatively uncommon type of adoption. The adoptions described in the above article are private, domestic, infant adoptions. It does not descibe fostercare adoptions. It does not describe second-parent adoptions. It does not describe embryo adoptions. It does not describe international adoptions. Please do not lump all adoptions into the same category. Be descriptive. Be accurate. Use adjectives.

     

    Second, it is unfair to imply that nothing has changed. Although there are still unethical practices within private, domestic, infant adoptions there have been some major and beneficial reforms as well. Those ought to be acknowledged. For example, the trend is for open adoptions and even if many do not remain as open as the biological/natural/birth/first mother desires they’re still more open than they were 50 years ago. And the adoptees have far more access to their birth records now than they did back in the 50s-70s, which means they can reconnect with their first family as adults far more easily.

     

    Third, if criticisms are to be made then suggested reforms would be welcome. For example, perhaps there ought to be more restrictions on adoption fees so that the “baby business” is less lucrative and thus lower to profit motive to decieve both first mothers and adoptive parents. Another example, perhaps we ought to reform fostercare so that adopting from fostercare is less emotionally and legally risky, on par with current private domestic adoptions.

     

    Fourth, provide resources so that pregnant women and prospective adoptive parents can make ethical decisions. For example, http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/twenty.cfm

     

    Blanket statements like Ann Jones’ above “The best interest of the baby is to be with it’s mother – not with strangers” are unrealistic and unhelpful. Adoption has existed throughout all of history and it will continue to exist. There are all kinds of reasons that a woman might choose to relinquish her rights to her child and all kinds of reasons that nonbiological parents will step in to do the job for her. Adoption can be a very good, beautiful, wonderful thing that IS in the best interests of some children. Whenever we talk about adoption, we must recognize that it involves both losses and gains. A black and white viewpoint on adoption will not help any children.

  • elainev

    As someone currently adopting from fostercare, I agree the system is broken. But I don’t think that prospective adoptive parents who choose different routes are bad parents. They’re just unwilling to pay the emotional, legal, and sometimes financial price to adopt from fostercare. Yes, good foster parents may find themselves paying out of pocket for legal fees, therapy, or other needs of their children that the system will not pay for. This is the most challenging thing I’ve ever done in my life and I’m not sure I’m willing to do it again. It’s incredibly stressful to interact with the fostercare system on any level and I can’t empahsize how much reform is needed – for the benefit of everyone involved. I still strongly feel that a fostercare adoption is the most ethical choice available, but to be perfectly honest the process is so emotionally difficult (not for everyone, depends on the circumstance) that it’s not even truly comparable to other routes to parenthood.

    Furthermore, it is no longer possible to adopt infants internationally. Even if the adoption is possible and legal in the sending country, the child will most likely not be an infant by the time the process is completed and the adoptive parents are allowed to bring the child to the US. In general, international adoptions take quite a bit of time (more than private domestic adoptions). You can learn more here: http://adoption.state.gov/

  • colleen

    But I don’t think that prospective adoptive parents who choose different routes are bad parents. They’re just unwilling to pay the emotional, legal, and sometimes financial price to adopt from fostercare.

    No one has a right to expect or demand that low income women should give them an infant because it’s cheaper and easier than for prospective parents than adopting out of foster care. Or because they want a baby that “looks like them”.

  • ljean8080

    my bd disappeared and my bm did not want to be a mom.

  • mlaing

    I think you must be looking at this from an adopters point of view and I agree with what Ann Jones has said because I am a mother that lost her child – I never gave up my child, very few did in Australia because the adoption industry was like a production line.  Single girl – take the baby and give it to the people who were demanding a baby because they were infertile for some reason.  

    Adoption is only a beautiful thing to the people who adopt.  It is not beautiful to a child that forever wonders where they came from.  It is not beautiful to the mother who lost her child to adoption for whatever reason.  

    Tell me who gains from adoption , not the child nor the mother  – only the adopters. 

     

    I also agree that nothing has changed when you know very well that adopters are allowed to be in the labour ward with the mother.   Take a well known movie star who admitted that he asked the mother if he could go down the business end when the baby was being born.  How do you think this makes the mother feel – invaded and raped. 

    Tell me how many open adoptions are still open after 12 months.  How many children know their mother.  

     

     

     

     

  • ljean8080

    my parents did not want to be parents.

  • jennifer-starr

    We’re talking about coerced adoptions here. Not to be mean, but you keep trying to chime in and make this all about you when it really isn’t. 

  • stef40

    This is a very serious topic concerning the safety of families, ending the baby-selling industry (which is very much legal in the US when labeled “adoption”)and just all around basic human rights. It is very important that the general public (society) understand the truth, so I’m just going to go ahead and cover everything in one post then be on my way. Let me start by saying this is STILL happening TODAY in record numbers. It is not rare. Also, yes, this includes egg “donations” and sperm “donations”. That egg and those sperm will one day be a human being. It’s disgusting to use someone else’s egg/sperm, paying ungodly amounts of money to grow SOMEONE ELSE’S BABY inside you (or your “gestational carrier” ick). That’s nothing less than human trafficking as is any adoption not done through foster care, especially infant adoption.

    No human being on this planet should have ANY of their basic human rights ripped from them. It doesn’t matter if you are a teenager, unmarried or poor. All people deserve every chance to raise their children and all children deserve every chance to grow up in a happy, healthy home with their own flesh and blood. All people need is honesty and a chance. All they need is support and guidance. Ripping babies away from their mothers is not in any way humane or ethical or moral. No one owes some richer married couple their child just because said couple is infertile. No one deserves to lose their baby just because they are poor.

    It was and still is society and a lack of regulation in human rights/human protection (ie: baby napping and baby selling) that causes such atrocities as coerced adoption. This is about the TRUTH finally being told. This is about justice. This about change to a better world where families stay together and citizens have a chance to prosper happily, thereby creating a happier,healthier, more productive, more humane and civilized world for everyone.

    Have you ever had sex? Ever been in love? Ever gotten pregnant? Have you ever had sex with no protection but got “lucky” in not getting pregnant? Have you ever been separated from your parents, your family, your history, your roots? Have you ever had your baby taken from your arms while you cry and beg to keep him/her? While your heart shatters in the despair that you didn’t have the support or help to be the mother you longed to be? (while simultaneously being beaten down with coercion & emotional blackmail for the sole purpose of taking your child) Have you ever had to go through your whole life not knowing who you are and having those basic human rights (and primal human needs) marginalized and dismissed? Have you ever had to spend 20, 30, 50 years aching for your child, worrying about your child, suffering depression day in and day out for the LOSS of that child?

    The majority of mothers who lost (and lose) their infants to adoption were forced in one way or the other (usually many more than one way).This is also true today, which I cannot stress enough. It is the very rare minority that actually want to “give up” their baby to strangers and who have done so with fully informed consent. THAT is illegal and a major human rights violation on so many levels.

    The “burden” on the welfare system is simply not a valid argument. Any burden on the system is due to the way the system is designed and the lack of support/resources that can make a lasting difference for families for generations to come and in that, less burden on the system as time goes on. It’s really rather simple. However, I will not detour much into that since the most glaring issue with this argument is the underhanded assertion that poor people (or young or unmarried) are not entitled to raise their own children; as if by being poor one is somehow subhuman or unworthy to parent his/her offspring. This is not a new view, especially in the adoption industry,however repugnant.

    There are far too many lies, deceit and secrets in the adoption industry. And it is all surrounded by big business (then and now).The PAPs haven’t dealt with their infertility so they want to live in denial of it. They want to live in rainbow-farting unicorn land where they pretend the adoptee is born to them (breeds need for INFANTS=coercive tactics to make that sale!) If the adoption agency can’t promise them they are 100%legally the parents (including altering the OBC &sealing files from the rightful owners of said files) and the natural family can’t/won’t “interfere”then those PAPs won’t pay upwards of $30,000 (FACT & nothing short of baby-selling on the backs of poor/frightened/beaten down young mothers) for their pretend offspring.

    Please note: Sealing these records does not now and NEVER HAS had anything to do with promising mothers confidentiality of any kind. The idea that natural parents have ever been promised confidentiality is a FALSEHOOD. It’s just another smokescreen to get the ignorant masses into a political frenzy about something they know nothing about though it is high time people start paying attention because you are all perpetuating  (and I dare say complicit in) the abuse of power, human rights violations out the wazoo, and a blight on our country as ugly as slavery and (yes I said it) even genocide.

    In the event that an adoption absolutely HAS to take place (that is a child in the foster care system who is TRULY an orphan) the child’s name should not be changed, nor should the child’sbirth certificate be altered & most certainly no files should be sealed from the child once he/she is an adult. Government MUST get involved in this-conduct a thorough inquiry & make serious changes to protect its citizens/families. $$$ should be taken out of the equation. No one should be able to run a business where they profit from the sale of human beings! Hello? Is this thing on? Adoption should be outlawed completely & a kind of guardianship or permanent custody used in the cases that are absolutely 100%unavoidable. There is zero reason for secrecy when all is on the up and up, as they say.

    And in closing, 3 other points I’d like to note:

    1) no one wants to have a child just to hand it over to someone else. it is devastating. any woman who has given birth knows this.Abortion and adoption have NOTHING to do with each other so let’s nip that one too while I’m at it. *This is NOT about the abortion debate.

    2) another issue with all this baby selling secrecy is the need to know if you are about to marry and procreate with your sibling!

     3)Losing your mother is devastating…losing your child is devastating. This is a life-long trauma that is rarely healed,ESPECIALLY when it comes to forced adoptions. How anyone can be blind to this is beyond my comprehension. No legal hoops jumped through or loss of a “potential” adoption comes anywhere near to the damage and trauma caused to mothers and children who are unnecessarily separated. An adopter should take that “heartache & disappointment” and multiply it by infinity and will STILL not come close to experiencing the destruction caused by such myopic selfishness.

    Demeters lament at blogspot dotcom

    There’s plenty of information and facts there in the form of links in the sidebar. Better yet, don’t trust me, do some research on your own. We all must educate ourselves before we go judging others and participating in atrocious injustices we’d never want to experience ourselves.

  • stef40

    Yes. I am angry. And I have every right to be angry. I will not apologize for that and anyone who lets my righteous rage blind them further to the facts I am laying out for you…well, that’s on you.

  • ljean8080

    why are so many kids abused,abandon,in foster care.most children who are killed die At the hands of their parents.Look at Diane Downs she shot her kids.If a parent repetely beats their kid,should they keep that kid?

  • elainev

    Prospective adoptive parents are not, as a rule, expecting or demanding anything from low income women. They are usually simply asking an adoption agency or adoption lawyer to match them with a woman who is willing to relinquish parental rights. That’s all. They truly want a woman who freely chooses adoption. The coercive practices highlighted in the article above are generally the result of the adoption industry – the people who profit from adoption – not generally the result of the adoptive parents.

    And as I said before, fostercare adoptions (although they are the MOST COMMON TYPE OF ADOPTION in the US) are uniquely challenging. The fostercare system is really very screwed up. I can’t fault anyone for rejecting a fostercare adoption as an option.

    And remember, if you’re going to blame adoptive parents who rejected fostercare adoption as an option, then you should also blame everyone whose family plan rejected fostercare adoption. That means you should blame the families who were created “the old fashioned way”, families created through international adoption, families created through donor sperm or donor eggs, families created through surrogacy, and even childless/childfree couples. They could all choose fostercare adoption yet chose not to.

    Stop blaming adoptive parents. It doesn’t help anything. The people most at fault are the people working in and profiting from the system.

  • ljean8080

    if you outlaw adoption what do you with kids like Diane Down’s??What about the kids in my area whose mother is in jail because she killed her 18 month old step-son by repeately slamming his head into a door frame.she is going to be in prison for the next 20 years.

  • j-rae

    **They’re just unwilling to pay the emotional, legal, and sometimes financial price to adopt from fostercare.**

     

    As the parent of a disabled child (now an adult) I can tell you that getting a freshly minted newborn does not mean that there will be no emotional, legal or financial problems.

    If the reason that people are not adopting from foster care is that they can’t handle the stress then maybe they should rethink adoption all together.

    Children don’t come with a 30 day return policy.

  • j-rae

    A hospital nursery is not an auction house with the babies going to the highest bidder.

    Babies don’t know how to balance checkbooks so as long as they are clean, dry, fed and loved they are happy.

    Babies don’t need alot of crap. They need food, clean clothes, and love. When they need toys a pot and a wooden spoon are favorites.

    The language used to gaslight women into giving up their children is abusive and damaging.

    I raised 2 children. We were so poor at times that I told the kids I would eat dinner later, after they were in bed.

    They are responsible adults with children of their own now.

     

  • j-rae

    Diane Downs was a sociopath. There are plenty of them and we could sit and name them all but what would be the point. There are abusive natural parents and abusive adoptive parents and abusive foster parents. 

    But the discussion is about gaslighting women into giving up newborn infants and not about abusive parents (n,a,f).

  • yourinfertilityshouldntbemyproblem

    Janipurr, I think you should know alot of your comment was totally irrational from an adoptee’s point of view. You said:

    ” How is living in poverty with your birth mother better than living with a family that wanted you so badly they jumped through endless legal loops to adopt them?”

    Why do you people think money is more important than being loved and getting to know our real parents as we grow up? (And yes I mean by being kept by them or one of them). It amazes me how shallow PAP’s are, it just blows my mind. Having a full sense of self that one can only get from living in their real family from birth is nothing that ever can be replaced. By ANYTHING. Do you understand that? ANYTHING in the world. I think it is also wrong for anyone to assume a single woman who gives birth who may not happen to have alot of money at the time will always be in that situation. She could get back with her baby’s father, or marry someone else. Or hell, even win a lottery ticket. But most single moms work their behind’s off to be with their child for life which will always mean more to any child than being given to strangers and feeling unwanted by our real parents and family, Material things can never be compared to our real parents love. There are so many programs today to to help single mothers and NO woman should ever give her own flesh and blood away. None of you are any better. This country started off with plenty of poor people who raised their children just fine. What you PAP’s do when you stay in birthing rooms or outside of them is nothing less than stealing. How would you feel if you did get pregnant and someone did that to you? And put intense pressure on you to give them your newborn? If you can’t see that is just pure evil then there is something really wrong with you. Adoption the way it stands whould be illegal. It will make me livid until the day I die. I wish I had grown up with my real parents and never been adopted and I wish that all of you infertiles would just get the therapy you need to ACCEPT you can’t have kids and keep your noses out of other people’s family’s and buisness. Neither adoptees or fertile women owe any of you anything.

  • yourinfertilityshouldntbemyproblem

    But they wouldn’t make any profits if infertile couples never went to them would they? PAP’s and adoptive parents know damn well what is going on. So yes, they are to blame.

  • goatini

    There are just so many disgusting, entitled, selfish, and venal things said in the message above, that the response I was going to write couldn’t fully express what needs to be said to such an individual.  

  • goatini

    THE ONLY OPTION.  

  • yourinfertilityshouldntbemyproblem

    Janipurr, I think you should know alot of your comment was totally irrational from an adoptee’s point of view. You said:

    ” How is living in poverty with your birth mother better than living with a family that wanted you so badly they jumped through endless legal loops to adopt them?”

    Why do you people think money is more important than being loved and getting to know our real parents as we grow up? (And yes I mean by being kept by them or one of them). It amazes me how shallow PAP’s are, it just blows my mind. Having a full sense of self that one can only get from living in their real family from birth is nothing that ever can be replaced. By ANYTHING. Do you understand that? ANYTHING in the world. I think it is also wrong for anyone to assume a single woman who gives birth who may not happen to have alot of money at the time will always be in that situation. She could get back with her baby’s father, or marry someone else. Or hell, even win a lottery ticket. But most single moms work their behind’s off to be with their child for life which will always mean more to any child than being given to strangers and feeling unwanted by our real parents and family, Material things can never be compared to our real parents love. There are so many programs today to to help single mothers and NO woman should ever give her own flesh and blood away. None of you are any better. This country started off with plenty of poor people who raised their children just fine. What you PAP’s do when you stay in birthing rooms or outside of them is nothing less than stealing. How would you feel if you did get pregnant and someone did that to you? And put intense pressure on you to give them your newborn? If you can’t see that is just pure evil then there is something really wrong with you. Adoption the way it stands whould be illegal. It will make me livid until the day I die. I wish I had grown up with my real parents and never been adopted and I wish that all of you infertiles would just get the therapy you need to ACCEPT you can’t have kids and keep your noses out of other people’s family’s and buisness. Neither adoptees or fertile women owe any of you anything.

  • yourinfertilityshouldntbemyproblem

    Joan Crawford and Georgia Tann were sociopaths too.

  • stef40

    foster care and then, when 100% necessary, permanent custody/guardianship.