If you are pro-reform are you anti-adoption?

Question

Okay, i just answered a question were the asker thinks that people on this site are anti-adoption, because some people would like to give the mother a chance to parent. I think in some cases a person can clean up their act and become a better person. Anyway on to my point...I see where most people write about adoption reforms and then they are quickly accused of being anti-adoption. How can someone be anti-adoption of the reforms wanted could benefit all involved in the adoption process.

I mean just because someone says lets help the mother first before the decision to adopt, doesn't make them anti-adoption. It just means they are trying to give some one a second chance. Now, if the parent can't or won't clean up their lives then of course another family should step in and care for the child.

I just don't understand why people who want reforms are called anti-adoption. Just like ones on here who say those who look at the negative should also look at the postive.

Answer 1

I am definitely pro-adoption and I am definitely pro-reform.  So my answer to your question is definitely NO.  I agree that reform will help and protect all parties involved, including the adoptive parents.  I think the difficult thing for any adult interested in adopting is watching as very young children are bounced back and forth and back and forth and all they can think about is the harm inflicted on that tiny psyche.  They just want to see the child safe and in a stable environment.  It never occurs to them that the child would prefer that instability and hurt if it means they may be able to stay with their birth parents.  There is no one to blame.  Everyone is attempting to do what is best for the child, who is too young to determine that for themselves.  Thank you for your question.

Answer 2

Frankly, I cannot figure out some of the exclusionary rhetoric.  But that is what it is:  exclusionary rhetoric.  

I am simply and unequivocally PRO-CHILD.

Answer 3

I am an adoptive mom for needed adoptions, and for Adoption Reform. Especially to take money out of decision to place.

Answer 4

Just because you are pro-reform doesn't

necessarily mean you are anti-adoption.

However, not all women who place need to "clean up their life."

Some really do just not want to parent. I think if a woman is aware of all her options and still chooses to place, she isn't the bad guy.

Answer 5

I am pro-reform, not anti-adoption.

I just want to clarify, that as a first mom, I didn't  need to "clean up my act". I didn't do anything wrong. I wasn't on drugs (was on medication for a sleep disorder), I wasn't sleeping around... I was a few months away from going to great college on a special grant, which was going to pay for all my tuition and books...

I know you didn't mean to make it sound like we ALL needed to "clean up our act". Everytime someone says that, it perpetuates the myth that we are trying to dispel. Most women who relinquish their children, are well-educated. That's the unfortunate part about it. They / we tend to think with our heads and not our hearts. My head was saying one thing, but my heart was a thousand miles away. I also got sucked into the cr@p about how children should have 2 parents (my daughters AP's divorced shortly after the adoption went thru). The baby  needs financial security... the AP's have fallen on very hard times. I am fine. I just thought that "me" wasn't good enough. And, I really heard alot about what a sinner I was for having a child out of wedlock (rape????).

Aside from that, thanks, you've made some great points.

Edit:

THanks for your additional post.

People need to realize that the adoption industry promotes "open" adoption and that is a big lie. The AP's close the adoption in most cases and there is no legal recourse for the first / natural mom. That is absolutely wrong. We have already seen the damage secrets about adoption cause here.

You never hear about first moms interrupting a child's life. We do see PAP's on the news disraught after a mother chooses to keep what is rightfully hers. The spin is that their rights have been violated. That is so wrong, for the PAP's and the mother. That is why they need to reform the law. The mother needs to have a waiting period before she relinqishes. No PAP should be sitting on the sidelines thinking they are about to receive a mothers child. It's cruel to both. It's cruelest to the child. I just can't believe that in this day and age that people think it's healthier to close the out the first family doors. Our hearts need to be bigger and more psycologically sound. A child can have more than 2 sets of grandparents, aunts, uncles, siblings, yet we erase the original heritage of a child? Who exactly is benefitting from that? There are many cultures that don't do that. Actually, there are more cultures that DON"T do that. They would consider our adoption process BARBARIC, which it is.

AP's NEVER become the "natural" parents. They do become the parents, just because someone wishes they had been the ones giving birth, doesn't make it true. Very damaging to a child to do that. Not all AP's / PAP's are psychologically sound when it comes to adoption. If you can't respect the terminology and understand it, well... I am just at a loss for that one.

Answer 6

That doesn't even make sense.  

I'm pro-reform, but not anti-adoption.  If I were anti-adoption, why would I even bother with reform?  I'd want to abolish adoption, not reform it.

Answer 7

Not necessarily, I think some reforms need to be made and am adopting so I am not anti-adoption.

Answer 8

Sometimes a woman should just be allowed to give her baby up without all the pressure to find a place within her family for the baby to stay.  That's her right, and what the people mean when they say people suggesting keeping the baby in the family are anti-adoption.  They are saying people are against "this" adoption or "that" one, because they keep suggesting other things, when sometimes, the mother just needs to be able to make that decision on her own.  That's how people here can sometimes be "anti-adoption".  It doesn't have anything to do with their interest in adoption reform, it's their attitude about people wanting to place their babies for adoption without considering placing within the family.  People often aren't understanding that sometimes, choosing an adoptive family that isn't part of their own family is what's best.

elodie and cruzgirl3 (as usual) have said this in a similar way, just more eloquently:  not all women who are pregnant need to 'clean' anything up at all.  Placing a baby for adoption is every woman's right, for whatever reason, including because she just plain wants to.

I was pregnant, and had lots of pressure both to abort and to keep the baby.  Neither pressure was easier to take, and I would have appreciated some respect from people on both sides trying to make that decision for me.

Answer 9

No, there are those who favor reform from pretty much every perspective.  In fact,  one of the few things agreed upon seems to be that this is an instition that can be greatly improved to protect the rights of all involved.  There is no question that the system could be better.

There are, however, those who feel and have stated that they are "anti-adoption."   That is, that adoption is a "bad" thing. They are more vocal in saying that adoption is a "loss"  and the main goal should be keeping a family together.  Then there are those  who feel that adoption can be a"good" thing and that adoption is a strong option.  It is really two sides of the same coin.  The conflict comes when people are completely dismissive of others views.

The difference in perspective also comes in how the natural mother is viewed.  Some see her as a person making a difficult choice while others as a person coerced into  a choice,,,which is not a choice at all.

The problem I have is that "some"  not all mothers have very real concrete issues that cannot just be fixed quickly.  And should a child have to "wait" while this help is sought?

I know I am biased as I see mothers in very dis functional situations....waiting for them to "clean up their acts" means placing their children in foster care,  I'm talking about infants because that is what I work with.  

There also seems to be a lack of acknowledgment that birth mothers make a "choice."  Some do not want to be rehabilitated or "fixed"   Some truly do want to move on.  Shouldn't we respect those mothers just as much?  I think that insisting that "all babies should stay with their mothers"  at all costs is to disrespect those women who made a conscious choice which they felt was in the best interest of their child.

Again, wanting reform is something I think most can agree on.  I am very pro-reform but I am also in many cases pro-adoption as I see that it can work.

Answer 10

There HAS to be adoption available, especially for the safety of the children involved.  A biological mother doesn't have to be "messed up", on drugs, alcohol...anything, to be able to know herself well enough to understand that she would not be able to provide a safe, comfortable, loving environment for their child and that the best thing she could do would be to let someone raise that child as their own.

I agree that there needs to be reforms, but realistically, how is it possible to change the law?  Sometimes, in fact, most of the time, the privacy and sealed records are implemented to protect the child, especially if the rights of the mother were taken away from her by the court.  

My circumstance--for example:  My biological parents dropped us off at a family members house and would have nothing to do with us for months/years, then pop back into our lives for a small moment, then abandon us again.  The last place we were abandoned was at daycare, my bio father never came to pick us up.  That's when the state intervened and took his rights away--a process that took about SIX years.  

A lot of peoples' rights are messed up from the actions of a bio parent.  Extended family members...aunts, uncles, grandparents, cousins...they're all wondering what happened to us and they had absolutely no way of knowing.  Can you blame the state?  How?  Any one of those family member could have told my bio parents where I was and that cycle would have started all over again.

Yes...maybe the law does protect one more than the other, but I wouldn't even begin to know where to start with reform issues, especially because of each and every different circumstance that arises where adoption is decided...whether by parent, or court.

Answer 11

I Know that all birth mothers arent crackwhores, drugies etc, But they did adopt their child out for a reason........I dont think they should have the right to come into the childs life without the consent of the adoptive parents. Adoption is a child going to anouther family. The child is NO longer part of the birth family anymore. Why should birth mothers be allowed any kind of reconciliation just because they gave birth to the child?

The adoptive parents become the childs parents the day they bring the child home. They become just as natural parents.

I do agree that more support and help should go to the birth mothers before adoption, but unfortunatly, some people WONT help themselves, and Its not the best thing for the child for the birth mother to be pressured into keeping a child she may just not want.

Answer 12

I am anti- unnecessary- adoptions.  Does that make sense?

I believe that adoption should only be used as a last resort, if the child cannot stay with his or her own family for whatever reason.

I feel that major reforms need to take place.  I don't think adoption should ever be about finding a child for somebody who wants to be a parent; it should ALWAYS be about finding a home for a child who needs one.  There's a big difference between the two if you really think about it.

I'm always concerned for the rights and the needs of the children, the adoptees.  Adoptees' rights should be upheld and honored, but as it is today, our rights are sorely lacking in the US.  Hopefully we'll catch up with our friends across the pond and Down Under soon, where adoptee rights are concerned.

So no, I am not anti-adoption, just anti- unnecessary adoptions.  I'd rather see soceity take an attitude of valuing familial bonds and preserving the family unit if at all possible, and using adoption only when absolutely necessary.

Answer 13

Nope. They are two different things.

Pro-reform does not mean anti-adoption.

I don’t think it’s possible to want to fix something and be against it at the same time.

I just want to add that for me, the line becomes blurred when people use the broad term “adoption” when what they really mean to say is “infant adoption within the corrupt industry.”

My understanding of the term “adoption” includes adoption by a grandparent, foster-to-adopt, and a lot of other situations that people don’t actually mean to include when they say “adoption.”

You’ll see places where people will write something like “adoption destroys families, but I don’t mean when it’s within the foster care system for a child who has no family.” But that’s exactly what "adoption" means - all of it.

Answer 14

I don't consider myself anti-adoption although I do hang with that crowd.  I do see a need for it in our society.  We as society should be promoting family preservation.  I see their point of view.  I see so many cases of father's mother's and adoptees rights being violated just so an agency can make a dollar or two.  How many adoptive parents have to be ripped off?  How many natural parents have to be conned out of their children?  How many adoptees get ripped by adoption agencies? Adoption as it stands now needs serious investigation by the Department of Justice.  We have to get a new president in order for that to happen.

Answer 15

No!   that's just a term people throw around when what you have to say makes them feel uncomfortable.

Answer 16

I wish there was no need for adoption.  I wish there was a flat-tax.

Neither will ever exist.

Kids should be kept within their own families unless abuse, neglect, or addiction,makes this impossible, and they must be separated, and raised by strangers.

Is that 'anti adoption' as the NICU nurse says?  Fine, I'd rather have that label than, 'pro-adoption', which to me reads, 'I believe in breaking up families so more deserving, infertile couples can have babies.'

Answer 17

Pro-reform.  Not anti-adoption.

I was really love the intent of your question but I am a bit confused by part of the explanation.

You stated that "I think in some cases a person can clean up their act and become a better person."  I am not sure what message you are trying to send here.  This seems likes a sweeping condemnation of all fertile women.

Are you saying that every woman who gets pregnant is under the suspicion of being a crack-w***e loser whose ability to parent should be questioned?

When I got pregnant with my first child, my husband and I had a stable marriage, a healthy bank account, solid careers, and a gorgeous home.  So, we needed a second chance to "clean up our act" before our son would be taken from us to be given to infertile people?

It is prejudicial thinking like this about people who are able to get pregnant that makes reform nearly impossible.

Answer 18

I am a bio mom and very much in favor of adoption, but I have learned here that there is much needed reform to the system.

So you can be both.

The whole positive negative thing, your never going to fix that. Some people see the glass half empty, some see it half full. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and this is supposed to be the place to voice it. Some times it just gets a little heated that's all.

Answer 19

I agree being pro-reform does not make a person anti-adoption.  As an adoptive mom, I am pro-reform in some respects.  I think reform is needed on all levels of adoption but most specifically with regards to OBCs and Medical Records for adoptees.  I hate the term "anti-adoption" because I don't think anyone is truly against adoption if it is done for the right reasons and done in a manner that does not take advantage of any party involved.  

I agree with your comment that to see the negative you also must see the positive, and vice versa - to see the positive, you also must see the negative.  Everyone's story is different.