Why does everyone blame the adoptive parents in adoption, why not ever the birth mother?

Question

All the anger I see is towards the AP's, yet adoption would never happen if not for the birth mother. Why is every one angry at the system, and never at the birth mom, it is like she is automatically granted victim-hood Studies show that most birth mothers today are older in their 20's, so they cannot claim to be naive So why so one sided? please explain.

Answer 1

you are narrow minded. in asia the birth mother is always blamed because she is not a "good mother." nothing to explain

Answer 2

hummm It seems that you are being sensative toward one particular part of the triad. every group, adoptee, AP, and first parents gets their fare share of blame both here on y/a and IRL. I was never looked at as a saint. I was never given credit for anything. I was looked down upon and practically spit on for what I did. Not at first, I was golden, but after the ink dried I was spit. I never said anything bad about my daughters parents and never will. I just took all the c**p that was directed towards me and still is in some instances.

Some of the responses here suggest that the first mothers are golden becasue they carried for 9 months. You should try doing that and then coming home empty handed, it would change your opinion. some suggest that paper and ink are the controlling factor. Just because you signed something doesn't change the way your heart feels.

Adoption is hard on all involved.  If your not a direct part of an adoption you can't understand it. You can give your opinion on it all you want but you can't understand it. It's about more than who was the better person, and what should be enough for an adoptee.

I have seen anger toward ungrateful adoptees, AP's and first parents all right here and IRL. Your just not looking.  

Answer 3

I think you need to get over yourself and start taking responsibility for your own actions. Reality hurts but remember it whats in the best interest of children and families not Ap's. You are secondary.  

The media, the christians, the infertile and the adoption industry as a whole have always tried to portray the nmoms as unstable irresponsible women. Now that society is starting to look at the atrocities being committed due to the demand for "babies" by Paps, people like yourself don't want to hear it.  

Answer 4

The only people who say that are the few that are seriously against adoption in almost every instance.  I think it's just silly.  While I do feel sorry for the pain some biological mothers go through, it was really of their own making.  I don't buy the "I was naive" excuse.  MAYBE some back in the 60's or before really didn't know that having s*x could create a babies - but they certainly knew that s*x was against the rules!  Anyone since then knew they were playing with fire when they first spread their legs.  While I respect most of them for chosing adoption over abortion (yes I know that SOME people say that's not the choice - and I don't respect mothers who lost their kids because they abused them) and I feel sorry for anyone in pain, I don't think they should be considered saints!  After all, they put themselves in the pickling kettle.  

Answer 5

I don't know what you've been reading or listening to if you think that mothers who relinquish aren't being blamed.  =o(

Look at the answers you received to this question alone.  Ugly things have been said, including using the BM acronym.  Nice to know we equal bowel movements.

Seriously though, as others have pointed out in answering this question, the mud slinging hits everyone invested into adoption.  The main reason why it appears to so many that adoptive parents are taking the brunt is because for the longest time they were the only one's allowed to participate in the discussion about adoption issues.  Adoptees weren't allowed to talk about their experiences, parents who relinquished weren't allowed to speak about their experiences.  Both are riled up now, speaking so everyone can hear.

Also, some of your prejudices are showing in this question.  Why just natural mother hating?  Where is the blaming of the natural fathers too?

Answer 6

Who is this "everyone" you talk about? If you're referring to some of the people who post and answer regularly on this board, then do some reading and research of your own before you ask such questions.

A lot of the people here are angry with the adoption money machine. Young women are coerced into relinquishing their children by being told that a married couple can offer her baby "a better life." These women are often scared and unsure what to do, so they become convinced that they are doing the right thing for their children when they relinquish. Meanwhile, the baby loses its mother, the woman who gives birth loses her child, and the adoption agency gets richer. The only "winners" are the adoptive parents. First mothers (not "birth" mothers) are treated liked queens until they sign over their rights and then they are forgotten by the adoptive parents and the agency.

Adoption shouldn't be about providing children for families who want them. It should be about the CHILD. What is best for children in MOST cases? To be with their natural parents. Just because someone is unmarried or young or not wealthy does not mean s/he will be a bad parent. It is often said here that "Adoption is a permanent solution to what is often a temporary problem" (e.g., lack of money, etc.). No one here advocates leaving children with abusive or neglectful parents. We object to babies being taken from their natural families when there are other options (help from friends or relatives, etc.) or when coercion is present.

Most people here are pro-adoption from foster care. Children in foster care have usually been removed from their natural parents' care due to abuse, neglect, or some other problem that can't be easily fixed. THESE are the children who need families; not most infants whose mothers contact adoption agencies out of fear.

Answer 7

Sigh.

And where else but in America is adoption a multi-billion dollar industry?

You don't see any other countries rushing over here to scoop up OUR foster kids, do you?

Nope.

Answer 8

well it seems so funny to me that the birthmom didnt know how to take care of a child but she new what was best for the child the birthparents seem like a bunch of liars there just to lazy to rasie there chilrden and no someone esle well help out because people are dumb but you cant blame the birthmom because she has been given all the rights in this mess  

Answer 9

Personally I know I will get a lot of thumbs down here but people are one sided. Birth moms are victims and can't think for themselves ... not. Each and every situation is different. I think adoption gives people choices of what they want and can't do. Some people can't have abortions, some can't keep their child for numerous and very complicated reasons, and some people can keep their child. What I can't do is magically become fertile and have a million babies. Will I go in the corner and feel sorry for myself no I will not I want to find a solution will I do it in an unmoral way on purpose ... heck, no. My son's birthmom either could have the state take her child away like the two others and never see the child never know where he was , what he was like etc. She got to chose and continue to see her child and be a part of his life. How sad it would be if it was another child taken from her. Of course some how around here it is okay to adopt from foster care as you are not being unmoral or horrible and doing a great thing and at the same time being horrible to AP who adopt elsewhere.

Answer 10

Actually I don't see that alot to be honest.  If adopters were not demanding babies, there would be no reason for supply.  You also underestimate how vulnerable a pregnant woman is regardless of her age as it is a physical thing.  If she is alone in her pregnancy and has not been given the time to work through her pregnancy then of course she will become desperate for a solution that is seen to be the 'loving' one.

Most MOTHERS (seriously, the term 'birth' mother is soooo offensive as it is not applicable to one group.  There are mothers and adoptive mothers.  End of story) are not given all the information by their legal council and many are out right lied too.

As for anger directed at ap's, many of them ask for it as they refuse to see the damage and pain adoption causes and keep invalidating the expereinces of many adoptees and mothers.  Maybe if they were not so horrible themselves they wouldn't need to have people angry with them??  Ever wondered what the reason was?  Thought, hmmm, there must be a reason so many ap's are in the bad books?  Its not rocket science you know.

Edited to add:  The mother barely gets any credit, she gets to lose her BABY for crying out loud and live with that for the rest of her life regardless of whether or not she chose it or bub was taken (yes, don't be naive, it happens all the time).  We are not talking about a lost toy, dog etc but a part of a persons family.  This question should be more about why mothers get so much c**p for losing a child????

Answer 11

Depending on the question and the responders, everyone gets the mud thrown at him or her at some point.  Plenty of responders have painted first mothers to be crack-whores, selfish if they consider keeping their children, incapable, abusive and so forth.  I don't blame adoptive parents as a whole.  There are a few who aren't interested in the rights of the other people involved, but most of the ones I know aren't like that.

The system truly does need to be fixed, however.  When attorneys and agencies are getting paid high fees to make sure their clients get a child, I'm not of the belief that the attorneys and agencies are going to be terribly interested in making sure that the mother is fully informed.  After all, a mother who decides to parent rather than relinquish only makes their job harder.

Answer 12

I don't feel it is that way at all...I am best friends with people that have 8 adopted children and my aunt has 2.  It was never that way with them, people always acted like they had done some great deed and how nice of people they are for taking a child that didn't have a home.  However they did have a few bad things to say about the birth mother saying "if she can't take care of the child she doesn't need to do what it takes to get pregnant" and "how they aren't responsible" but also say "at least she cared enough to let someone have the baby that could take care of it and wanted it.  So it isn't always that way...

Answer 13

I think it is because adoption has been stereo typed.  I think all the flashy adoptions that the stars are involved in has made adoption look like a money market.  Too many people forget about the adoptions that are legal, the best situation for all involved and the ones that are very successful.  Not all adoptions are to those with the biggest pocket book.  

Answer 14

i guess they r taking out on there ap's but they really want to on there birth mother

Answer 15

it's because the birth mother always gets the sympathy no matter what.  they are supposedly the one who give life to the child and have spent the 9 months sacrificing in their pregnancy stage. The biological mother(no matter what they did, like giving up their child for someone else) they can always say that they didn't have the choice because they couldn't take care of their children thats why they had to take adoption as the only option. And sooner or later , when the child is growing up, they will soon look for their real biological mother. Mostly when the situation is taken in court, the birth mother always win. They just don't have a choice. DNA is such a tough evidence to break.

Answer 16

blame the AP's for what?. being involved in situation no one was to blame . BM just didnt have the resources to take care of the baby at that time and someone was able to.  

Answer 17

Most infant adoptions would not happen these days except for the market demand for babies, beginning in the mid-1950s when the "blank slate theory" of child development hit the social work profession. Suddenly the child of a "fallen woman" wasn't considered to be "damaged goods" any longer. Then white unwed mothers were no longer supported in keeping their babies but encouraged to surrender. Same nowadays.

Also, many natural mothers are in their 20s today, yes, but that doesn't mean they are supported in keeping their children.   Studies show that most natural mothers these days surrender due to poverty or fear of not being able to provide for their child.   Whether you are forced by poverty (systemic financial coercion, preventable if governments actually chose to help struggling families to keep them out of poverty), or forced by some other form of coercion, a woman is still being forced to surrender her baby.  She still feels powerless to prevent it if she feels she cannot provide for her baby.  No-one wants their child to starve and those who can't afford food/shelter/etc. for their child lose their children anyway on charges of "neglect" (which in 80% of cases is another word for "poverty" as parents do not do it intentionally but because they don't have a choice)

“Most infants placed for adoption come from poor families.  Check with any of the adoption agencies and their adoption lawyers to verify that the number one reason for relinquishment today is the inability to afford to raise the child. This is a sad commentary on the richest and most powerful country in the world” (social worker and adoption expert Reuben Pannor in the PACER magazine, 1998).  

“Almost everyone believes that on some level, [mothers] made a choice to give their babies away. Here, I argue that adoption is rarely about mothers’ choices; it is, instead, about the abject choicelessness of some resourceless women.” (historian Rickie Solinger, 2001)

The trauma from losing a baby to adoption can still be as severe as the trauma from being raped, whether you consider it "voluntary" or not. Plus there is the high risk of ongoing severe depression, unresolved grief and loss, anxiety disorders, etc.  She never justs "gets on with her life."   But, yeah, a lot of people like some of the answers here feel:  "She deserved it!"

And do you really expect every single or poor woman today to be nuns?  Birth control is outside the reach of many medical plans, condoms can fail, and abortions are often inaccessible or morally offensive to some women. And men certainly aren't expected to remain celibate -- so why only the women?   How about free birth control for all women of childbearing age in the U.S., just like in the U.K.?  Nope, wouldn't fly here as we want a large proportion of adults to stay "celibate" as society here still believes that "s*x is immoral" unless you have a good paycheck and/or a wedding ring.  What about a graduated guaranteed income for families such that no children need be raised in poverty.  Other nations can do it -- why not here?

Victimhood?  I do not think so.  "Victim" is a stigmatized word in our culture and denotes someone who blames everyone by themselves and you are using it as this.  How about "survivor"?

Answer 18

You said, "Why is every one angry at the system, and never at the birth mom"

I say, Why do you want to blame the birth mom?

Adoption is a PERMANENT solution to what is often a temporary crisis.  In a society where women are not given any support to get through crisis, then yes - we should be outraged at that system.

In the best interests of the adoptive parents, all haste is practiced to swoop in and capitalize on these crisis.  It is not necessarily blaming the adoptive parents for wanting to adopt - it is condemning some people so focused on acquisition that they are willing to disregard ethics or morality or legality or the EMOTIONAL best interests of all parties - to fill their nest.  

Such single-minded pursuit from adoptive parents is reprehensible and a big red flag regarding what kind of parents they will be.  These kind of parents are not acting in the best interests of the child.  Not all adoptive parents are like this - but it is difficult to broach this subject without defenses being raised because of the polarized political climate surrounding adoption, which puts everyone in a pro or against camp, eliminating rational discourse about the many gray areas in between.

The system warrants criticism.  From all concerned. EVERYONE who is supposedly interested in the "best interests" of the child should be happy to participate in revamping it.  

Answer 19

I am sick of hearing that if we supported the birth mother she wouldn't have to give up her baby to a family that can support it.  We already give free birth control (pills, condoms, diaphragms) to the poor.  This should be stopping all unwanted pregnancies and adoptions.  But it's not.  Why should I have to support someone else's child that they chose to make by not preventing it? (I know no BC is 100% but many don't use any form of BC). I say let a family that wants, and can support a child have the child.  I'm tired of my tax money supporting people that make bad choices and want others to pay for them.  If you can't afford a child don't make one.  

I also find it hard to believe that thousands of pregnant women are coerced, tricked or just plain fooled into giving up their babies.  That there isn't 1 mother who willing gives up their child for their child and their own future?

Answer 20

Because the birth mother isn't the mother anymore.

Answer 21

Because the Birth mother Isnt Around for them to blame.....

Somehow the birth mom still gets all the credit & it the best person on earth... Go figure?  

Answer 22

Because some people think that poor little natural mothers are so easily tricked (by adoption agencies and adoptive parents) into giving up their children through adoption- that who else would be to blame for an adoption going through.  Often times, and you will see this alot in here some natural mothers regret their decisions and blame everyone but themselves for the decisions they made.  Then it turns into arguments of the adoptive parents who "have stolen" the children through unethical adoptions.  Like someone else in here said, come on, you're signing over your parental rights, not a loan for a car.

I for one have respect for the natural parents.  They are smart people who only want what they think is best for their children.  

Answer 23

Myself, I have never been angry at either party involved, well until four years ago I met my biological mother and father, along with my three siblings and it turned out to be a disaster. (I posted my experience as a question to seek out advice if you want to read it).

My biological mother blames myself, my family and the ministry for taking me away from her. Well, she claimed she had the Chicken Pox when she was pregnant with me later on in the pregnancy, demanded an ultrasound and wanted an abortion. It was too late at that point and I was born at 30 weeks.

Well none of my medical problems are linked to expsoure to Chicken Pox while I was a fetus however, as my parents are foster parents I had many similarities to many of my foster siblings who have forms of FAS (Fetal Alcohol Syndrome).

A couple of family members in my biological family told me that my biological mother and father were both partiers, users and drank. Bingo! At the age of eighteen I find out I have Fetal Alcohol Effects and still to this day my biological mother blames me for her actions.

She claims the minstry took me away, well they did as she was in no position to raise a severely ill infant (I was suppose to died many times). She signed over her rights as did my biological father, but still claims they took me away from her.

Then she refused to give any medical history at all, none whatsoever still to  this day. Everyone knows and tells me she is not mentally put together (unstable etc.).

She uses my biological siblings against me saying negative comments about me blaming me and now my siblings think I am at fault and that I abandoned them when their biological mother is the one who wrote me off countless times.

I have never been angry by my adoptive parents, rather grateful. My biological mother plays a victim and blames everything on me,  do I feel for her, not at all, from a woman who thinks I am a mistake and told me to go to h**l, I am the victim not her.

Answer 24

Dear Meerkat,

I agree wholeheartedly with Gershom.  DD's other mother and I are the same age.  We both believed we were doing what was best for DD.  We were both hoodwinked into believing in rainbows and butterflies.

As an ap i accept my role of baring the brunt of the blame.  We do get the win/win after all.  I cannot in clear conscious blame a mother who has already lost her child.  I guess you would have to lose a child to understand, that losing a child---well there is nothing worse.  First parents are in enough pain, i won't add to it.  

I'll own up and take the blame, responsibility, and mudslinging.  I've got my big girl panties on, I can handle it:P

Answer 25

I'm not mad at my adoptive parents. My amom watched my children last night for me while I had sushi.

Adoption would "rarely" happen if it weren't for the industry. This isn't about blaming any set of parents, I personally feel that parents here ( adoptive and natural ) are all getting manipulated by the industry.

I feel that you too are being one sided to put all of the blame on the surrendering parents.

Marketing, coercion, govt. policies, poverty and social stigma lead people to make choices they otherwise wouldn't regarding surrender. Some of it is forced, some of it is coercion. Certainly there are the mothers who shouldn't and wouldn't parent, but their numbers dwindle in comparison to the number of mothers who could and should have parented if it weren't for the reasons I listed above.

Just as the AP's are getting manipulated by the industry. Told and sold a story about a poor orphan who needs their help and will die without them adopting him, no other options given to help these children when really, thats a lie. There are many other ways to help these children. They are pushed into adoption if they are infertile by the coercion and stigma of our society and pressured to have a family.  They are sold ideas of surrender which they know nothing about, by the same people who are selling the "adoption plans" to the potential "birth" parents.

Both parties are getting doofed by the industry to make money off of.

And no little jane, i'm about as anti-adoption as it gets, and I don't think its "just" aparents fault, i think they're being manipulated too. If you look at the bigger picture, you can see that the industry is throwing all parties ( adoptees included ) against eachother to redirect the intention off of themselves.

Answer 26

I think that you are stereotyping things. I am adopted and I know that the decision was from my biological Mom. And what do you mean by blaming the adoptive Moms? Blaming them for what?

Answer 27

In most cases, the birth mother is not in the picture. She gives birth and then vanishes into obscurity. You can't blame here when she's not there to blame.