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.
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.