17 May 2009

The Case against Adoption: Part 2 - The dark side aka the truth of adoption

I have been working on this next instalment for a while now. It was supposed to be about the Bible and the way adoption is presented in the Bible vs the way people like to interpret it and twist it around.

But, to be honest, I found the whole thing boring, lost interest and the post was stalled. Indefinitely. Personally, I feel anyone with the ability to read comprehensively can see the blatant fact God does NOT condone adoption practises as they are today... and from what the Bible does say about God, I would even suggest He actually does not approve of adoption at all. Why do I say this?... hmmm, Moses led his own people (i.e. natural family and tribe) with his natural brother Aaron out of Egypt at God's behest... which also meant turning against his adoptive family, also at God's command. God does not recognise Ishmael, Hagar's son, as Abraham's heir and provides Abraham and Sarah with Issac; God decides to choose an UNMARRIED woman to be the Mother of Jesus (being God, Jesus could have suddenly appeared and been taken in as an adoptive child but God doesn't take THAT route) and then there is the biggest one of them all: when God is talking about adopting us as His sons/daughters, it is more along the lines of adopting us BACK.

You see, God is our natural Father already as He created us in His image. Unlike adoptive parents, He actually created us to begin with and then through the act of sinning we turned away. To bring us back into His Kingdom, we are re-adopted again, as adults where we have the CHOICE to do this... not as helpless infants who have no voice.

To be honest, I can't see how adoption as we use it in present day even has any reference in God's adopting us. Our situation is described more aptly by Jesus in the parable of the Prodigal son but seeing as so many church based agencies like to use the reference to adoption in Romans as God ordaining adoption because supposedly we are adopted, I'll go there. Just a pity they are using it all out of context as what they say it means and want it clearly means are entirely different.

Anyway, as this is well known by those who truly know their Bible and don't have the need to warp its message to justify committing a heinous crime, I decided to move onto a more interesting post... the truth of adoption; its dark underbelly which is all too often hidden under wraps.


So where to start? Well, as I pointed out in my previous post on ancient adoptions, adoption hasn't exactly had a rosy start and has only worsened as time progressed.

As I don't have enough time or space on this blog to cover all adoption's nasties since the dawn of time, I will stick to the 20th century as it pertains more to us today.

The Baby Scoop Era/Stolen Generations/60's Scoop
Many have heard these terms and some know what this refers to. For those who don't, the 'Baby Scoop Era' (BSE) is a term used to describe the era of 'mass relinquishment' of newborns in the United States starting in the early 50's and following through to the mid/late 70's. It however was not isolated to the USA. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, England, Ireland and Scotland all had their own 'scoop' eras. In Australia there was the Stolen Generation, the stealing of aboriginal children from their families by the Government which started in 1910 and lasted until the 1970's. Many were then fostered or adopted by white people. In Australia there was also another stolen generation which some call the white stolen generation which refers to the systematic stealing of white babies by the medical profession and social workers for the sole purpose of adoption which occurred at the same time as the BSE.

The stories that have come out of this period of time are truly horrific and show a mass violation of human rights in both the mother and child. Society seems to think and chooses to believe, mothers who place their children for adoption do so because they are poor, uneducated, addicted to alcohol, drugs and prostitution or are criminals. Their babies are seen as being abandoned, unwanted therefore in need of being rescued. Adoption has been made out the saviour.

But what really happened in those decades and why were more infants 'relinquished' in this time of history than any other period? Was it just because there was a lack of resources? Was it due to the fact it was supposedly 'the done thing'?

I have read and heard many theories and explanations. I suggest for an in depth look into this issue all readers pop over to Dian's website and read the truth behind this era. It is truly disturbing and scary.

The method of procuring newborns from mothers who were anything but drug addicted, prostituting criminals and actually came from decent homes either with middle or upper class backgrounds, can only be described as barbaric. Many women were sent packing to 'maternity' home or other such places (In Ireland, many mothers ended up in Institutions known as Magdalene Laundries) to toil and labour in secret whilst they awaited the arrival of their baby. Cut off from their previous world, it was an isolating experience for many; not allowed to know full names and in some cases they had to change their first name to prevent the 'shame' to follow them once they left the home. During labor, mothers were left to their own devices. No pain killers, no comfort, just the searing pain and tremendous fear of what was happening to them. Birth was worse. In the hospital it was common for doctors and nurses to treat them as poorly as possible, to 'punish' them for their 'sins'. During the birth itself, mothers were often restrained; some chained to their beds, others held down by nurses and doctors while pillows were placed on their faces or chests to prevent them from catching glimpse at their own child. Following childbirth, the drugs were administered. These drugs were a potent cocktail of strong barbiturates and sedatives which rendered the mother so sleepy and unaware of the events happening around her it was common for her to lose days and weeks of her life. During this time, under the guise of release papers or other sorts of things, mothers were made to sign papers. Many don't even recall ever having signed courtesy of the drugs going through their system.

Incidentally, thanks to medical records. we do know this actually happened with the drugs. This mass crime of human rights is in black and white on many mothers' hospital records.

Once the papers were signed, mothers were shipped back to the home for a short recovery time before being expelled to the world to carry on with their lives as if all was normal. Most mothers I know of and have met, didn't get to even glimpse their babies before they were adopted. In some homes, mothers not only got to see their babies but were made to care for them, breastfeed them before they were taken away and adopted out.

Really, there was and is nothing good about any of this and adoption, in its supposed 'hey day' was nothing but a cruel misuse of power, a gross abuse of human rights and in many cases unnecessary.

Abductions for Adoption
Whilst this is not a much researched or discussed issue, it does occur. One abduction of a little boy is suspected to be for this reason and with the amount of missing children world wide where family members are not involved and there is no sign of foul play, this is a very likely scenario... besides the sick world of child trafficking. I strongly suspect there are many cases out there where children were targeted for the purpose of adoption and then abducted. While there is little evidence to support this theory readily available, it is a topic that has been the subject of novels and movies for many years... some with tag lines that say they are inspired by true events. Either way, I feel it occurs and needs to be researched further.

Open Adoption
Ahhhh... the more recent adoption scam. The fraudulent practise of 'open' adoption. In this scam, a vulnerable mother is inundated by agencies telling her how wonderful she is for choosing adoption. While she is still pregnant and in the eyes of normal, rational society as an expectant mother, in the adoption world, she is swiftly demoted to birthmother, a title she has to wear for the rest of her pregnancy, drumming it into her head she is not a mother and this baby is not hers. Pre-birth matching is common with agencies giving an expectant mother profiles of hopeful couples and she gets to choose, all the while being promised the world of contact and the fact she won't be really losing her child.

Throughout her pregnancy a mother will be coddled, adored, told how fabulous she is for doing the 'right' thing... too bad at this stage she has no idea she will be dumped cruelly once her baby is removed from her. The 'counselling' is provided in a way to make the mother believe it is in fact her own choice. She is told it is a big decision and therefore she must choose wisely; of course she is also told the wise choice is to place... and thus the manipulation, brainwashing and in more sinsiter cases, coercion begins. These same counsellors do not tell her the truth, her rights, do not inform her of the damage adoption is known to cause both mother and child, this is all conveniently left out. And they never tell her 'open' adoption is actually non-existent.

Where did open adoption come from? Once mothers started arming themselves with information and protecting themselves from adoption predators, help was readily available etc, adoption advocates were faced with a sharp decline in the 'supply' whilst the 'demand' was still high. 'Open' adoption was coined to ensure the future of adoption; suggesting a mother will not lose her child with the promise of ongoing contact, visits etc.

Why do I call it 'Fraudulent'? The Oxford dictionary defines 'Fraudulent' as being done by or involving fraud; deceitful or dishonest. This is exactly what 'Open' Adoption is. Many websites I have viewed about open adoption conveniently leave out the cold, hard fact that open adoption is NOT enforceable; meaning there is no such thing as an open adoption recognised by the law. It is merely a term and relies on the good will of the prospective adoptive couple keeping their promise. And in most cases, not only the agencies are in on this scam, so are the adopters. They are told to promise the world of contact without the need to honour that promise. It is all part and parcel of obtaining a mother's consent to an adoption with little regard for her OR her unborn child. Little does the mother suspect or know until the ink is dry on the finalisation that it was a scam and she is cut off from her child and the adoption is in fact closed. To my knowledge, the only country in the world where any form of open adoption is in fact a legal arrangement is Australia. Interestingly, the rates for local adoption here are also very low.


Okay, so this is getting way long now. I have touched on a few of adoptions horrors, however there are more. For example: The Magdalene Laundries in Ireland; the Black Market adoption scams i.e. the Cole, Seymour Kurtz, Butterbox, Hope, Georgia and Tann babies; the 'rapid' adoptions whereby a mother would be told her very much alive baby was dead and then it would be placed for adoption or swapped for an actual dead baby born to a married woman so the married mother would still get to take a baby home from the hospital. There are the 'Orphan Train' adoptions where children were illegally transported from the UK to Australia and New Zealand and then there is the atrocious story of the Argentinian 'Orphan' adoptions where often the adopters were responsible for the murder of their adopted child's natural family. On top of this, there are the International adoption scams, several which have been in the current news headlines.

The more one delves into adoption's sordid past, the more one can find. It is not pretty and is far removed from the front presented to society as being a loving way to form a family. This is just a glossy exterior... like being told you have won a holiday to a paradise location only to arrive and find 'paradise' is infested with roaches, falling apart and one big fat scam.

One of the biggest issues I have with adoption today is the blind, narrow-mindedness to see adoption as anything but 'beautiful' and 'loving'. Despite the truth about the damage caused solely by adoption coming to light, this is blindly dismissed in order to advocate it.

My question then, is if adoption was so good, so fabulous as the advocates would have us think it is, why then is there so much pain involved? Why so much controversy? Why, if it is so loving, does more anguish, more destruction result from it? Personally, I believe people have so much invested in adoption for their own needs they haven't stopped to look at the real truth, the hard facts about what it actually does.

I cannot comprehend the desire to erase a child's history, heritage, cultural identity to fulfil one's own lustful desire. I cannot comprehend how a guillotine effect to separate a mother and child cannot be seen as anything but cruel and unnecessary. It is beyond me to understand how causing MORE suffering, MORE pain, MORE loss is actually beneficial to anyone involved in adoption.

For the couple whose dreams have been shattered by the news they cannot ever bear their own children, I cannot see how offering a band-aid and invalidating their LOSS is helpful. Too often I hear and see couples faced with this devastating news only to be told its not the end of the world as they can always adopt. I'm sorry but these two issues need to be completely separated. This news is a LOSS all of its own. Most girls I knew growing up, like myself, had dreams about our future children and to be suddenly told they will never be realised is traumatic. These people need to be given the love, support and recognition they deserve, not to be thrown into the pit of creating pain for another family to ease their own. There is an old saying, "Two wrongs can never make it right" and I say this is true of adoption: LOSS plus LOSS plus LOSS does NOT equal happiness and gain. I'm not sure about you but according to my old basic mathematical equations we learnt at school, I would say all this loss can only equate to MORE loss, not less.

Loss for the couple who have lost the children who will never be born, loss for the mother of her own child and loss for the child of his/her own mother, family, heritage, family roots, identity etc.

So how does trading one loss for another do any good? It doesn't, it only makes matters worse.

Adoption is really NOT good. What is that famous saying in the Medical world? "First do no harm..." What the? I guess this was and is conveniently forgotten and dismissed of when it comes to the separation of mother and child for the purpose of adoption. Not only is it well known today adoption and mother/child separation causes harm, this has been well known since the 1940's. Yet when it comes to filling a demand where the dollar has become a god, this well researched knowledge is thrown out in favour of worshipping this 'god' and lining the pockets of the agencies and filling the desires of people wanting a child to call their 'own'. What a truly disturbing world we live in!

I have often heard if we lived in a perfect world adoption wouldn't need to exist. Separating out the issues of abuse, neglect etc, I really do not see the need for the world to be perfect before we rid it of adoption. If adoption was truly a success where all three main parties reported they were truly happy about their situation then perhaps there would be a need for adoption. But in 9/10 cases I know of, have heard of and researched, it is more likely 1-2 parties are unhappy which to me equates to adoption overall being one giant failure.

In concluding this post, I want to clearly state adoption has well and truly past its expiry date. There really is no use for it any longer. I challenge every person who reads this to find a really solid, valid, logical, intellectual reason for adoption to continue. And by this I mean without mentioning children who are abused, abandoned etc because this post is not about the alternatives to adoption; that one is yet to come. I am talking about the validity of adoption itself where it serves any real purpose; besides a personal desire to have a child. I want a valid reason as to why you think it is okay to continue a practise that is founded on loss, pain, scams, damage and destruction. If you cannot find one then I guess you would have to conclude for yourself that there is no point to continue with adoption.

Adoption needs to be abolished. Period. In a world where we are supposed to be more aware, more open with no secrets and no room for lies, we have no need for it.


  1. Great post Myst!!!

    Though I know you didn't want to make the entire post about God and adoption, I am so thankful you brought up the point that God didn't adopt us - he re-adopted us! It was something I hadn't thought of before but is exactly right when you do take the time to really read what is said.

    I'm looking forward to your post about other answers to adoption because that is where I always find myself stuck without any answers. I hate adoption how it is now! And I want to explore other ways to help children who truly need it without continuing to hurt them and their mothers.

  2. What about those who are convinced they made the best decisions to relinquish as teens and then grow up, and once becoming more stable and secure, decide to adopt?

  3. Myst,

    What a fantastic post. I think I will send the link to my son's a-mom. I highly doubt she would read it, but then again you never know. She is an editor after all and she may read it just to critique. But if she took away even a single sentence it would be more than she is willing to accept or acknowledge at this point.
    I know you never fail to make me think on a deeper level, and I thank you for that.
    I look forward to more, as always.

    Luv and Hugs,

  4. Mei-Ling - I have NEVER understood first/natural moms who go on to adopt a child. It just doesn't even register in my mind how they could do that. I have wondered this myself and though I come up with all kinds of answers, one that always strikes me is wondering if they adopt to somehow prove they are now "good" enough themselves to be a parent.

    I don't know and I will never understand this.

  5. Hi Mei-Ling,

    Like Cassi said, I don't understand those who do that either. But it still doesn't make adoption GOOD or RIGHT. Thats the whole point of my post, not that people THINK its good but whether the act itself is good. And as I said anything that creates more loss or loss at all is not okay.

    For mothers who relinquish and then adopt, I believe they have never resolved things in their own lives, regardless of the fact they think they have or not. They are still in the fog and may never come out of it. Same for adoptees who go onto adopt which I have read several cases of.

    As far as I am conerned, the NEED for adoption when we have so many avenues, research, information available to us for alternatives, is over. There are always, always, always alternatives. You (not you, you but you as in general humans) just have to think outside the square and look into a situation deeper.


  6. Hi Cassi :)

    Thanks, have been dying to post this one for a while as I am soooo passionate about it. In a few days I will be posting alternatives to adoption as I have had to look into this to counter people saying there is nothing else available, when there is and can be.

    I had the God adopting us back argument with a few pastors and they were stumped. I have even been told my logic and reasoning is perfect but they choose to believe adoption is still okay because that is what society dictates to them. Churches like everyone else still listen to the main stream voice, regardless of the fact they don't. I think the reason I see things so differently is I have had a broad experience. As a child, I lived in the slums of the Philippines where my parents were aid workers and then later we lived in Egypt and I went to a Muslim school although I am not Muslim. My view of the world has been shaped by my expereinces and have read my Bible not as a tool of punishment or to bash someone over the head with but a book of teaching and history. I find the West has changed its meaning and warped its message drastically and that is what I cannot but into. Anyway now I'm rambling, aaaarrrrgggghhhh... sorry!

  7. Hi Denise...

    Wow, I wonder what your son's amom would think? Like most adoptive parents I have come across, she would probably dismiss it. People won't see the truth even if it is right in their faces... more than proves my pijnt about adoption being about their own needs and NOTHING about the child's need. If there was going to be anything based on a child's need, it could never be adoption given it is built on a foundation of serving an adults need to further himself in his political/financial world. Once you have a rotten foundation, nothing can ever be good as it will all topple one day and I hope thats what will happen in the years to come; the demise of adoption to the scrap heap where it belongs.

    Myst :)

  8. Good post. I am glad that you did not write it on "adoption and the Bible," because this is one of the greatest adoption-industry-spawned myths: that adoption is in the Bible. Child adoption was created by a Massachusetts statute in 1851 and then spread to the rest of the White European world from there. Pure and simple. Moses was not adopted: he was fostered. For several reasons, not even including the fact that he was not born subsequent to 1851! I cover these reasons in a blog post at
    http://cedartrees.wordpress.com/2009/03/11/why-adoption-is-how-it-is/We need to educate people on the horrors and tragedy of adoption. Thank you for writing this blog -- it goes far towards this objective.

  9. I'm an adoptive momand found your site, my sons first birthday is tomorrow and I can't stop thinking about his mom and where she is and if she is ok. I really think she had several ligitimate reasons for her choice- mental illness , homeless, no support system however I agree with so much of your post too. I know that sounds weird and I may not be welcome here but I found your post to be very thought provoking for me.

  10. Hi Mama Bear,

    Thank you for commenting. I always welcome all parties, even those who might not agree with me at ALL. I will be following up my post with one about alternatives to adoption for children who DO need care outside of their natural familes.

    I wanted to say whilst I am completely against adoption, I do see the need for children to be placed in loving, permanent homes where it is not possible for them to be raised by either their natural parents or other relatives. It is a sad fact of life that children need care but I am not one to keep a child with parents without looking at all the facts.

    Thank you for posting :)

    Myst xxx

  11. Thanks Myst for continuing to write these posts. It is so important for people to be aware of it.

    I agree... that the Bible / adoption does get very boring. And your comment about pastors following main stream just speaks Volumes to me. Aren't they supposed to be messengers of God? No, like all humans, they are peer pressured into main stream.

    And... regarding Abductions & Adoptions... I think there actually is a lot of information on mothers who are targetted, and children who are targetted. The people who target them are called Spotters. the Tann cases had many spotters in them. Crazy logic. Also, I believe my daughter's pediatrician was a spotter, as he was related to a person who worked in the "adoption" agency. Food for thought.

    I look forward to reading about your alternatives! :)

  12. Myst said...
    "I do see the need for children to be placed in loving, permanent homes where it is not possible for them to be raised by either their natural parents or other relatives.People won't see the truth even if it is right in their faces..."

    Right...believe me I have seen a lot of such cases....but you have to understand that a lot of children will be hungry and homeless if there is not an adoption.Many adults want not to take PERMANENT CARE about a child but to have a lawful hair , too.
    In my view through adoption benefit both children and adults.

  13. George... you have then missed the entire point of this post. There is NO WAY adoption can EVER benefit children seeing it is a man made law designed to give adults what THEY want.

    Please explain how stripping a child of all their heritage, history, natural family, name, birth certificate etc is actually beneficial for a child? I think you are seeing adoption through rose-soloured glasses, the same glasses all people who need adoption for THEMSELVES choose to see it.

    Adoption is NOT the answer. You would allow millions of mothers and children to suffer what I have posted about all for what? People only want to take in children if they can OWN them, that isn't caring about the CHILD, that is wanting something for the adult. I think you need to step away from the Kool-aid and see adoption for what it really is.

  14. I just wanted to add George that starving children and adoption have nothing to do with each other. That is just another lie people use to sell adoption. Do you think people really care what happens to a child? Of course they don't. Their are animals that are better treated in this world so please don't try to sell me that crap. I have heard it all before. You have not given me a valid reason yet why adoption should continue, all you have given me is the same crap the rest of society sprouts when they know nothing else to say.

  15. Aren't all laws 'man-made'? That too designed by adults?

    Adoption is NOT the bogeyman you are making it out to be. While I agree with you that we need to take adoption agencies out of the process - take the whole moneymaking/profit part out of it - please do realise that adoption has benefited a lot of us in ways that you clearly cannot begin to comprehend - I don't just mean adoptive parents, but kids who have been fortunate enough to find a loving family.

    I think you should also look at opinions and views other than your own before you make such sweeping judgments.

    But also, having gone through your other posts, I feel what happened to you was wrong, and your child should have been returned to you. I fail to see how that did not happen, when you seem to have indicated right along that you did not want to give your child up for adoption.

  16. Adoption is not a bogey man it is a monstrosity on all counts.

    Believe me, I have read many, many other opinions in the past 11 years and yes I am aware that there are many who do not concur with my own point of view. But why should I stay in line if the line is heading over a cliff? Why should I remain blind and stupid when I have a brain to think for myself and eyes to see the plain truth? I refuse to be boxed and forced to live what others want to make me live just because it makes others feel better about themselves. I speak out after researching adoption and its practises, meeting tons of people, speaking with even more over the net, in person etc over the last 11 years. So I base my opinion on alot of solid fact, research, other mother's stories, what adoptees have told me, what professionals have spoken to me about. What about you? What do you base your comment here on? The same blind sweeping judgement the rest of the sheep bleat on about. I have never been a sheep. I choose not to conform because being a conformist is soul destroying. Its part of the reason I lost MY DAUGHTER in the first place.

    I am not making "sweeping judgements" at all, in fact I would say you are the one doing that as you have not bothered to back up any of your comments so far with any intelligent, resonable or logical explanation to continue with adoption.

    All you have done is attack my view while ignoring all the evidence to back up why adoption should be abolished. Unless you are offering something tangible to show me how valid adoption is then your comment is invaild with no merit whatsoever.

  17. Myst, What is your viewpoint on abortion? Should it be abolished as well?

  18. I am not comfortable with abortion and it is not something I would persue for myself but unlike adoption there are, sadly, more real reasons (eg medical, life and death reasons etc) for its existence and so no, I don't think it should be abolished. Adoption on the other hand does not remove a threat and to remove a child from an abusive home does not need adoption to step in. They are completely different and adoption has no credibility to it.

    I do not judge people who choose abortion for personal reasons as I know for a long time after I lost Amber I struggled with not having an abortion myself and have adoptee friends who tell me they wish they had been aborted and never known the pain of adoption.

    I am also sick of the correlation between the two as abortion occurs at a very early stage when a woman decides she dows not wish to be pregnant... adoption occurs once the child is born and parenting is at question. Seriously, abortion is only used in the debate of adoption to help adopters get what they want. It isn't because people really care about the child! What a load of crap. Pro-lifers just have their own agenda and this is usually to push adoption. Many pro-lifers I have met are very pro adoption and so that goes hand in hand. The problem most people have is thinking that these so called "do-gooders" actually care about the child. I always thought they did... I have seen sicne the child is merely a pawn in their agenda as they are for adoption or any other thing children are used in.

    I donot agree with people who have abortions when they say they do it for strangers not to feel threatened in the future which I feel is plain stupid and outrageous.


Comments are on. Polite, respectful discussion is welcome. Abuse will not be tolerated. Thanks :)