General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAnother adoptee commits suicide: Fashion designer L'Wren Scott,girlfriend of Mick Jagger, found dea
http://news.msn.com/pop-culture/fashion-designer-and-mick-jagger-girlfriend-lwren-scott-found-dead-in-nyAlthough we only hear about the famous, adoptees are four times a higher risk for suicide.
Risk of Suicide Attempt in Adopted and Nonadopted Offspring
By Claudia Corrigan DArcy | September 20, 2013 | Adoption Research & Statistics
The 2001 Adoptee Research Study says:
~snip~
Sixteen adopted adolescents (7.6%) and 197 nonadopted adolescents (3.1%) reported suicide attempt(s) in the past year. Counseling in the past year was reported by 36 adopted adolescents (16.9%) and 521 nonadopted adolescents (8.2%; P < .001). Adolescents who attempted suicide, compared with those who did not, were more likely to be female (67.6% vs 49.1%) and adopted (7.5% vs 3.1%)
The 2008 Adoptee Research Study says:
Nevertheless, being adopted approximately doubled the odds of having contact with a mental health professional and of having a disruptive behavior disorder.
The 2012 Adoptee Research results state:
For later adoption versus non-adoption, the estimated difference in suicidal thoughts was 2.9% higher during young adulthood for later adopted youth, 3.4% higher during early young adulthood and 3.5% higher during adolescence.2
What the new Pediatrics study also states that it is known that Adoptees living in Sweden are at increased risk of suicide attempt compared with nonadopted individuals, although factors mediating this risk are largely unknown..
~more @ link~
http://www.adoptionbirthmothers.com/adoptee-suicide-risk-4-time-higher-research/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
me b zola
(19,053 posts)
marshall
(6,665 posts)There are studies, much like the one s mentioned examining adoptees, that purport that suicide attempts are much higher among women who have undergone an abortion.
Of course, both studies also show that the vast majority of both groups do NOT attempt suicide.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)How about depressed women not wanting to bring kids into the world? They have every right not to be judged for it, too.
marshall
(6,665 posts)I'm not assuming I know anything about what Dawson was thinking, anymore than one can assume one knows what L'Wren Scott was thinking (which is indeed my point).
I am assuming that people are reportedly talking about it as a result of the 2012 interview with Australian Women's Weekly, in which she connected her depression to an abortion that she seems to have gotten to make her partner happy--(http://www.aww.com.au/news-features/in-the-mag/2012/9/charlotte-dawson-i-gave-up-my-baby-for-my-husband/).
In both the case of Scott and Dawson the suicides are being attributed to the circumstances of a pregnancy, as if a woman' slide revolves around that. Whether it is her own pregnancy or that of her mother, women should not be reduced to simply who gave birth to them or who they did or didn't give birth to.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)
me b zola
(19,053 posts)~although we are fb friends. Finding her blog was life changing for me.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)active.
She has been kicking butt and taking names for a long time.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)Another Version of Mother, Living in the Shadows (Myst's blog), All in the Family Adoption and First Mother's Forum. Do you post at FMF?
me b zola
(19,053 posts)Claudia @ Musings was my doorway to adoptionland. I had been told so many times by so many different people that I was the only adoptee ungrateful enough to have the thoughts and feelings that I had. To open Claudia's blog and step into the world where others like me shared their stories, pain, and triumph was vindication.
marshall
(6,665 posts)Both adopted by stepfathers who were also the fathers of their half siblings. They had struggles, but both turned out great!
me b zola
(19,053 posts)
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)They grew up knowing they were loved by a biological parent.
That is light years away from being adopted in a closed adoption, without any knowledge of who you came from and whether that person loves you or is even alive.
We have two adoptees in our extended family (one open and one closed adoption), and several adoptees among family members of close friends -- all products of closed adoptions. I speak from a lot of experience.
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)YOU weren't adopted.
Wow, just wow.
I am so offended by what you wrote.
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)According to research, most adoptees have some emotional difficulty dealing with their adoption at some point of another, and often during teenage years.
I have an adopted granddaughter whom we all love deeply -- but if she is sad someday that she lost her birth parents, we won't tell her she should be happy just to have us. We'll accept that no matter how much we love her, she could have real feelings of loss. And we'll do everything we can to let her know we understand how that must hurt, and that she'll always have us.
One good friend said as she grew up, over and over her adoptive mother said to her, "If you were my real daughter you wouldn't have done that." Can you imagine?
I'm glad for you that you have wonderful parents and no issues about your adoption. But not every adoptee feels the same way you do, even ones with wonderful parents. And we need to validate their feelings. It's not a sign of ingratitude if they feel loss. It's perfectly natural. They did experience a loss, not matter how wonderful their eventual family.
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)I didn't EVER feel as though I experienced a loss...well, except for when each of my PARENTS died.
We'll accept that no matter how much we love her, she could have real feelings of loss. And we'll do everything we can to let her know we understand how that must hurt, and that she'll always have us.
You may think that you "have experience" because you have an adopted granddaughter, but you really don't. You aren't the adopted child. Please don't talk to her about being adopted, EVER.
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)blueamy66
(6,795 posts)Why even talk about it?
What's the big deal?
What difference does it make?
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)But even in a closed adoption, she would have found out sometime. And if she were older when she found out, it would be much harder. I know a woman who didn't find out till her twenties, and it was extremely painful. She felt betrayed by both sets of parents, for withholding the truth.
Here's a good article, I think, about grief and loss issues in adoptive children, and how caring adults can help.
http://nysccc.org/wp-content/uploads/GriefandLosspaddock.pdf
me b zola
(19,053 posts)How old are you?
??
I found my mother just before my last birthday.
Have you read much about the baby scoop era? It was our version of the Magdalene Laundries. My mother was forced to nanny a young child while she was pregnant with me, knowing that they were going to take me from her against her will.
http://babyscoopera.com/
This may help: http://www.democraticunderground.com/101797052
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)I don't care about doing any type of research. My brother didn't either. And if she would have tried to get in contact with me, I would have been irate.
My Mother was my Mother. My Father was my Father. I loved them like nobody else could love their parents. Maybe this is why I am so touchy on this subject.
I understand that people have different feelings about this. Just throwing my experience out there.
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)me b zola
(19,053 posts)Yeah, some genius suggested to my amom that if I were to vacation in some lavish beach house with a "grateful" adoptee that I would stop asking questions about my identity, heritage, and family. Weeeeeee, that was soooooooo fun. I may have looked sixteen like the other girls but I was only 12. I also suffered from major depression, so when the girl began making fun of me for not loving my adoptee status I cried. And cried. And cried. Then they saw that I was an easy target so they forgot that they were supposed to make me love my adoptee status and they were just mean for the sheer joy of it.
I have no patience with adoptees whom feel the need to prevent others from finding healing.
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)If that means adopted Mom...there ya go...with the labels. I cannot believe people refer to their adopted Mother as an amom.
My Mom was my Mom.
Nobody was mean to me.
Sorry if your experience wasn't great....but don't project your bad experience on all adoptees.
adigal
(7,581 posts)Is correct and you are trying to deny feelings many, many adoptees feel.
Please don't speak for all of us. You can't.
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)who committed suicide and blamed her suicide on the fact that she was adopted.
Many, many adoptees were "ripped from their mothers' breasts"?
Sorry, don't buy it.
adigal
(7,581 posts)With it all.
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)The OP pissed me off. Big time.
My amom taught me to be vocal with my objections!!!
Dorian Gray
(13,501 posts)assessment, but the OP also speaks in generalities about all adoptees.
Every unique human being is going to have a unique experience surrounding his or her adoption. There is no one size fits all. Adoptions are not all good or all bad. No matter what the OP is trying to hint at.
I understand Blueamy's anger at the generalization.
Dorian Gray
(13,501 posts)have issues with their parents. It's inevitable. Adopted or not.
I was adopted. Did I ever have an "issue?" Sure, I was curious about why I was given up. Was I sad? Less sad than any of my friends in grammar school who constantly fought with their biological parents. Or who went through divorces in their families. Or any of the other millions of ways families fuck kids up.
I think it's important for families who choose to adopt to be open about it. To discuss. To validate the various emotions the child may have. But it's not a BAD thing.
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)Dorian Gray
(13,501 posts)In a situation like mine... a closed adoption when I was one month old... and always knowing about it.... No. Not really.
Like Blueamy, I never felt the need to learn more about my biological parents. I am not resentful. Sad. I've been curious and read the little bit of information that's available to me (original records my mom kept). But I never felt a sense of loss.
And there are plenty of kids in families with similar experiences.
And then there are kids adopted older who have very different experiences. My friend adopted two older children internationally. One, at 7, handled it fantastically. The other, at 4, had a very difficult time. And yes, he did experience a huge sense of loss.
It's important to be open to these myriad of feelings. To keep dialogue going. To try to understand the child's feelings and validate them. Of course.
But not all adoptions are bad things. And I get why adoptees here get defensive when language is used telling US that our experiences and families are "false."
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)I fervently hope that my granddaughter's experience will be exactly like yours. But if she does go through some turmoil, for whatever reason, we will be there for her.
Dorian Gray
(13,501 posts)I'm glad. We all need our families to support us. Some families are better than others at support. Biologic ties don't guarantee that, though.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)feeling different, out-of-place, abandoned, having experienced loss, etc. etc. etc. with the same tenacity as you have displayed here then you will eventually be proven right. Only it will be YOU, rather than her being adopted, that made her feel different.
If you had a gay grandchild would you follow him or her around constantly reminding them that gays are a minority of the population, that they have to adopt *cough-cough* rather than have biological children of their own, that their relationships aren't recognized in most states of the union, etc. etc. etc.?
Give it a f***ing rest already.
As if biological parents are all they're cracked-up to be. My mother abandoned her family when I was 9, leaving my dad to raise my brother and I. She ran off to be a drunken whore who floated from one abusive boyfriend to another. The first time I heard from her in 15 years was when she called me -- in a drunken stupor,in the middle of the day -- to curse at me for not inviting her to my wedding.
Meanwhile, my step-mother is as decent a woman as any could hope to find. Love is an act of Will. Stop treating people as if we're nothing more than creatures of happenstance. It's ugly and diminishing. The fact you are bound and determined to push this issue after so many have registered their disgust at your comments displays a shocking degree of arrogance and insensitivity.
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)Response to pnwmom (Reply #174)
blueamy66 This message was self-deleted by its author.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Her books were in such a mess she wasn't even able to make PAYROLL. She was so desperate for cash she partnered with (shudder) Banana Republic.
But of course it had to be her parental/family situation that drove her (at a snail's pace) to wait until she was almost fifty, while dating "the most famous ugly man in the world," and then kill herself....
I think this thread smells like flame bait, myself.
Despite this, she always refused financial help from the Rolling Stones frontman.
Accounts for her business LS Fashion LTD show it had a deficit of $5,899,548 (4,237,164 Euros) and the designer owed creditors $7.641 million (euros 5,488,125).
Her company’s debts had doubled year-on-year in recent years.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/lwren-scott-dead-fashion-designers-3254646#ixzz2wJiVn03P
Orrex
(63,225 posts)Obviously her adoption led her to fuck up her finances, which in turn led to her suicide. Nothing other than her adoption could possibly explain it.
MADem
(135,425 posts)many biological children have a whole different set of issues which cause them to fuck up their lives as well, so really the only logical solution to life's problems is to avoid being born altogether.
Orrex
(63,225 posts)
I guess I must have forgotten to send you the memo...
Was too busy myself trying not to be born, as my mom every now and then likes to remind me about how annoying it was that I was a couple of weeks late...
me b zola
(19,053 posts)When your doctor says that smoking will put your risk of cancer or heart disease by __times, do you understand that information?
Adoptees are four times higher risk of suicide than nonadoptees.
MADem
(135,425 posts)We'll start by going to the source.
Now, let's look at the salient material from that source:
Apparently you chose to IGNORE the caution of the lead author and instead post flame-bait. Why is that?
Moreover, the study documents suicide ATTEMPTS of children--attempts, not completions. By CHILDREN--not adults. The children and parents were interviewed, and then interviewed again three years later. That's all in the report.
Yet you are pretending a 49 year old woman is the same as a 13 year old child.
Here's the conclusion of the report--something that you didn't even bury, you didn't even mention:
"It doesn't surprise me that children who've been adopted in great numbers have struggles, which, I guess, if you took to its natural consequences, would increase the suicide rate," he told Medscape Medical News. "But the thing that really comes out at me is it appears a vast majority of children are doing really well."
But let's not ruin your sky-is-falling anti-adoption narrative, I guess...you really should be ashamed of yourself.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)her business back 7-8 years ago. Her business model was never even close to sustainable- with day dresses for 1.5- 2 K? Even well established houses cannot make a profit on those- you have to be selling perfume or handbags to stay afloat- even if your Dior or YSL. She didn't have the name recognition or customer base outside a few friends to do that. She would need quite a few oil rich customers from the Middle East or Russia to make any money at all. Her Hollywood friends would be more likely to borrow as a favor than to pay for anything. She just did not have the clients.
Bigger designers than her broadened their brand awareness with collabs with much lower end retailers like H&M and Target without tarnishing their image at all. Many got great press for it. But she phoned those clothes in, took the money and ran. She just couldn't find enough filthy rich people to buy her stuff, couldn't live up to all the luxe life puff pieces written about her for much longer. Sad that a more ordinary life wasn't enough.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I agree with that assessment entirely. I'll wager most people never even knew who this poor woman was. I recognized her face from the odd Jagger photo but I never realized she was a hoity toity dress designer.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)some people with money who wanted to get close to that magic. No one would extend her credit to produce samples to show Fall, let alone pay for the venue and publicity needed, so she cancelled her last show. She'd been claiming she didn't want to do the typical fashion week things, but anyone who skips them is understood to be pretty much out of business.
You'd be surprised at how many rich and famous designers bleed money producing their better lines. Diane Von Furstenberg only made real money on licensing her name and ugly fuschia silk jumpsuits sold on QVC in the 90's. Wanting her cachet back, she married a mogul so she could buy back her name and get off of QVC. She is in the best stores these days, a household name, and still deeply in the red.
Donna Karan loses a lot of money, and recoups it with perfume. All the fine old Paris houses, same thing. Most of those 5-10K dresses? One of a kind, same garment worn on runway, then the designer or muse at a press event, loaned to starlet or model, often then spot cleaned and ending up on a rack at Bergdorf's. And the rich donate them to museums or charities after wearing once. Usually only one or two are ever produced, and they all hope someone with oil money will show up and pay full price someday. They are the only people who support that market now. If you can't sell bags or perfume to all us wannabes, you are going out of business the minute your backers pull the plug.
JustAnotherGen
(31,907 posts)Blue and Black Lines. Which was what some of the push back has been on her in the fashion blogosphere. She had designs that looked great on all body types - and she never put out a department store blue label?
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)I know she had very little to do with the capsule collection she did at BR, and had no one at the fittings. They picked two prints, and gave a few sketches a dress or two and a blouse and cardigan had sequins sprinkled on it. A few of the items were things already on the line, and they just threw stones and sequins in them, or her lips print. Her own work has a lot of hidden structure like couture, and BR wasn't ever going to be able to do that. (same thing happened with Narciso @ BR)
The truth is, a lot of her better line would have to be altered heavily if not made to measure to actually flatter the customer. And I'm sure, at 1.6 K for a wool dress, it was. I just don't think she had enough of a name to cash in on, and since she was shooting for a luxe customer, she would have concerns it could interfere with building her brand. It would have worked better if she had been a bit ore established.
JustAnotherGen
(31,907 posts)I love you even more now for this post!
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)emailed my boss. The BR offices (where I freelanced 7-8 years ago) are right upstairs from us, and there had just been a larger than life poster of La Wren in the lobby for three months. So we were a bit rocked by it all. It can be a brutal business for sure.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)6m euros is a lot to the majority of us, but to Mick Jagger it probably was pocket change lost in the sofa. He'd probably rather she was alive and embarrassed then gone forever.
Suicide is very complex; too complex, I think, to have a single point of blame. The financial problems may well have been the trigger, but the lack of self-worth (or whatever exactly caused her to refuse help, fear of being "owned?" who knows...) that would drive her to kill herself rather than accept help was likely a large factor too.
very sad to have so much going for you, and still decide to leave...
marshall
(6,665 posts)What other way do we have of looking at the world other than through the prism of our own lives. It is difficult to step back and try to process what we see from a point of view outside our own.
There are many instances of happy and successful people whose adoptions were closed--Dave Thomas, Steve Jobs, Faith Hill, Kristin Chenoweth, Melissa Gilbert, Sarah McLachlan, Ray Liotta, etc.
me b zola
(19,053 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)me b zola
(19,053 posts)I wrote an OP about the the increased suicide risk for adoptees.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)StevieM
(10,500 posts)were just infants. They did not have their entire heritage wiped out. Their life stories and origins were not hidden from them. Their records were not sealed away and replaced with a ridiculous forgery. (Although I guess Clinton's might have been). They were not denied access to, or knowledge of, their biological family members. They were not asked to be grateful that their original fathers were gone from their lives, or not to recognize them as relevant figures in their past or present. They weren't told their whole lives that the woman who gave life to them simply handed them off, and happily moved on with her life.
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)My entire heritage was wiped out?????
I was just simply handed off so that my birth mother could happily move on with her life?????
Another lovely post.
Jesus...
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)then that's great. But, according to the research, most adoptees do feel the loss of their birth parents to a significant degree. And in the case of international adoptions, they have also lost ties to a culture.
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)nt
pipi_k
(21,020 posts)the right thing for everyone to do.
Number one, it might slip out someday from someone who knows about the adoption but doesn't know it's a big secret. And asking others to collude in something like that isn't fair to anyone. The best anyone can say if they don't want to lie is, "Ask your mom/dad". And if the day ever comes when the adoptee finds out, his entire world is rocked to its core when he realizes all the people who LIED to him.
Number two, what happens if/when the kid, not knowing she's adopted, grows up and has to fill out a medical history form with a physician? There's a big difference between a person saying, "Look, I was adopted, so I don't know my biological family history" and not knowing she was adopted and putting the totally wrong information down.
There are kid-friendly ways of bringing up the subject of adoption...like gently explaining, as soon as possible, a story that the child may want to hear over and over about how many mommies and daddies have their very own children that they made, but s/he...the adopted child... was so special that s/he was chosen.
Oh, and not telling is really bad advice if, as in the case of a few of my friends, who are white themselves...one set of parents adopted two African American boys (not siblings) a few years apart...
the other couple, also white, adopted Peruvian children...brother and sister.
At some point a kid is going to notice he doesn't look like his parents or the rest of the family. What do you do...tell the kid he's really white?
If different race kids can be told about their adoption, why shouldn't same race kids be told as well?
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)There is a difference between talking to your OWN child about their adoption and telling them that they can ask anything that they wish....and extended family bringing it up, when they choose to.
If I had a question, which I don't remember ever having, I would have asked my parent.
There is no need to constantly bring up the fact that the child is adopted and drill it into their head.
I knew that I was adopted. But I never THOUGHT about it. As I said before, nobody cared. We were a family, like any other family.
me b zola
(19,053 posts)Shame on you.
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)Yeah, because as a child, it would have been beneficial to hear all the time that you are adopted and different and I hope that you can grow up okay and not be suicidal?
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)Reread what was posted. I wasn't ripped from my mother's breast. My mother didn't just hand me off so that she could happily move on with her life.
What don't you get?
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)We have a young woman living with us now who REMEMBERS being ripped away from her mother at the age of approximately three, and then living in an orphanage. And she was adopted into a family with an abusive parent. Bad things can happen. Not every adoption is ideal. Accept it.
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)And no biological children are abused? Bad things can happen to any child, whatever their situation.
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)than those who only lose one. Think about it. Your parents both died. Isn't that worse than if only one died?
StevieM was also making the point that children adopted in international adoptions also lose a culture. That was also a factor for the young woman living with us -- and the loss she feels is very real.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)Last edited Tue Mar 18, 2014, 05:34 PM - Edit history (1)
I said the EXACT OPPOSITE. I said that adopted children are often told or led to believe that their birth parents happily moved on, when in fact, many of them are devastated by the loss for the rest of their days.
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)I was told I was adopted. I was given a Baby Book.
I never again thought, questioned, asked, cared again.
I loved my family. They were mine. End of story.
adigal
(7,581 posts)I'm not saying she happily marched off, but do you have any way to know this?
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)She gave me up in a closed adoption.
Why would I try to find her?
Why would I disrespect her wishes?
Again, I don't give a shit. I had PARENTS. I am shaking my head, cause I cannot grasp any of this.
Really?
Find another "cause" to rally around...leave me and mine alone.
adigal
(7,581 posts)I'm adopted too. And while I love my parents and am very grateful
I was adopted. I would never say I "don't give a shit" about my birth mother. I am stunned that you are so angry about a difference of opinion. People are entitled to their own feelings, and you are saying they should shut up because you "don't give a shit" about your birth mother.
Seriously, there is something really wrong here.
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)Get over it.
You are an adult.
Move on.
adigal
(7,581 posts)blueamy66
(6,795 posts)Move on.
You were adopted. I was adopted.
You cannot change reality.
Why dwell on something as trivial as this?
adigal
(7,581 posts)You came into this thread and berated every single person who expressed any pain or worries over adoption. You extrapolated your wonderful, joyous life (although I am struggling to understand how someone so joyous can be so angry over this) and told everyone else to STFU because you had good parents. You are accusing me of interfering with your cause (What is your cause? Shaming people with questions or curiosity or in pain?) You are illogical, angry, and responding irrationally.
And you tell people to find another cause to rally around. You have zero rights to tell others what they should feel. You can't extrapolate how you feel to everyone else. You have a real bug in your ear about anyone wondering or worrying about adoption. You have mocked and berated people who feel differently than you do.
And that's cruel.
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)She gave me up for adoption.
I have parents.
I can understand why some adopted kids have problems.....cause they dwell on stupid crap.
You were taken in by a family that wanted to love you....oh, the horror!
Ms. Toad
(34,093 posts)associated with many adoptions (of whatever nature) and describing adoptees (generally) as being "ripped from the breast of their mothers when they were just infants," and "told their whole lives that the woman who gave life to them simply handed them off, and happily moved on with her life." That is imagery chosen to inflame and blame (repeatedly - it is not the first time it has shown up on DU) and is an oversimplification of what is an excruciating decision for many women who choose not to abort, but who find themselves pregnant and not yet in a place where being a mother is a possibility.
It would be the best of all possible worlds if every pregnancy ended with a beloved child in the arms of its birth parents. But in an imperfect world, unwanted pregnancies are still a reality - and one of the imperfect solutions is adoption. Everything imperfect is just that - imperfect. But generically demonizing the mother (or the system which allows adoption) makes it worse.
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)nt
MADem
(135,425 posts)sort of mandated "adoptee despair" is the biggest, most steaming, honking load of wingnut bullshit I've ever read here. It's so egregiously wingnuttish it is aflame.
angel823
(409 posts)thank you here.
Angel in Texas
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)adoptees generally. For all I know, that poster was speaking from personal experience.
And clearly the circumstance of people like Clinton and Obama were very different, because they never lost at least one of their parents -- their mothers. To use them as examples of successful adoptees seems a little off the topic, to me. A stepparent adoption is a very different from losing both your birth parents and having to start completely over.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)in most cases the mother didn't truly want to give up her child, and that she never forgot or stopped loving the child as long as she lived. My goal was to show empathy to birth mothers, something that is sorely lacking in our society, where they are indeed demonized.
Ms. Toad
(34,093 posts)by implying that the adoption experience is universally of children being ripped from their mother's breast (demonizing the system) OR that the woman who gave life to them simply handed them off, and happily moved on with her life (demonizing the birth mother who truly chose to give up her child).
StevieM
(10,500 posts)Last edited Tue Mar 18, 2014, 11:23 PM - Edit history (1)
My point is that I believe our society teaches adopted children that their birth mothers gave them up, and happily moved on. Those were the standard talking points during the Baby Scoop Era, and are still prevalent today IMO.
And yes, I do believe that a large percentage of adoptions are coerced. And I do believe that many birth mothers are devastated to have lost their children.
As for "choosing" to give the child up--one option equals no choice. And a woman under the influence of drugs, including painkillers given at the hospital--as many prospective birth mothers are--CANNOT grant consent.
I am glad that you see me as demonizing the system--that is absolutely what I am trying to do. Because the system is a disgrace. It is a 15 billion dollar a year, for-profit industry, run by lawyers and adoption agencies. All adoptions should take place in front of a judge, there should be a waiting period after birth before papers can be signed (when hormones are no longer racing), coercive pre-birth matching should be outlawed, free and unbiased counseling should be offered before placement, and efforts must be made to ensure that the mother is not being coerced or signing under duress.
Ms. Toad
(34,093 posts)is part and parcel of what I find offensive. As if you believe no woman could or would freely choose to put her child up for adoption. Just because people make choices you do not agree with does not mean it was not a choice.
I am not addressing the very real problems of women not having the resources - of a variety of sorts - to make a variety of reproductive choices. This is solely addressed to your persistent dismissal of women who happen to make a choice to place their child for adoption as somehow not really making that choice.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)Even if she has an adoption being planned. She is still the mother. And a large number of prospective birth mothers choose to parent after the child is born.
A woman who is under the influence of drugs CANNOT GRANT CONSENT. A woman being told she owes it to her family--or some other family--to sign the papers, and not let people down, is UNDER DURESS. She is being coerced, and therefore not making a genuine choice.
Ms. Toad
(34,093 posts)It is offensive to deny the reality of women who actually do make that choice to give their children up - by telling them that they aren't capable of making that choice, because they are drugged (not the universal scenario), coerced by her family (not the universal scenario), and so on - essentially telling them that the very hard and emotionally complex choice they likely wrestled with for months wasn't really their choice, because you are sure they couldn't possibly have made that choice of their own free will.
You don't know better than women who have made that choice how they are feeling, or whether their choices were freely made, and it is offensive for you to continue to insist you do.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)of their own volition.
I have told you how we can make certain that this happens: all adoptions must take place in the presence of a judge; a waiting period before the papers are signed, and a period after signing when the decision can be rescinded and the adoption nullified; mandatory unbiased counseling; an end to the profit motive in the adoption industry; efforts made to ensure that the woman was not placed under duress; and an end to coercive pre-birth matching.
Ms. Toad
(34,093 posts)are brainwashed, and can't possibly know what they are talking about - or are lying.
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)That is my issue with you.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)The system WAS a disgrace back when you were adopted. It was nothing short of violent in many cases. Women being held against their wishes; signatures being extracted like a forced murder confession; denying women the right to see or hold their babies; allowing women to be fired or thrown out of their apartments.
Back in 1966 most women who relinquished didn't have much of a choice. To me that is a disgrace.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_scoop_era
FYI, the Wikipedia article takes it easy on this time period, especially in the U.S. Scroll down to the part about the BSE in Canada to get a better sense of what was happening throughout North America.
Finally, I recommend you see the movie Philomena.
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)I do not wish to live my life this way.
As an adopted child, I HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS.
I DON'T CARE.
Get over it. You have serious issues. Get help.
Jesus Christ.
Dorian Gray
(13,501 posts)who was adopted as an infant, I was never made to believe that it was easy for my biological parents to get rid of me. None of that language was there. It was always talked about as "Life if complicated and difficult. She loved me enough to choose for me to have a better life than I would have with her."
Early honesty about the situation makes it easier for the child to come to terms with it.
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)I really don't.
Crazy.
Dorian Gray
(13,501 posts)pnwmom
(108,995 posts)My granddaughter is adopted. But in connection with the adoption we did a lot of reading. And one thing I learned is that there is a large movement of unhappy adoptees, and pretty much universal agreement by therapists that it is important to validate their feelings, even if it makes us uncomfortable.
My daughter also gave me information on why they decided on an open U.S. adoption, as opposed to a closed international one. While it could obviously pose challenges in the future, they're hopeful that their child will be better off if the lines of communication remain open.
Dorian Gray
(13,501 posts)and reasonable.
These discussions about adoption are interesting to me.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)I didn't say that your mother "happily moved on with her life." I said that adoptees are told that their birth mothers happily moved on with their lives, rather than the truth, which is that most of them suffered a devastating loss, which haunted them for the rest of their days. In other words, my point was the exact opposite of what you thought it was.
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)But I was never told any of that. I don't even remember what I was told.
I just remember that I loved my family.
Thanks.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)But I won't apologize for feeling empathy for your natural mother. You say that you are 47--so you were probably born in 1966. That was the absolute height of the baby scoop era. Chances are your birth mother had no choice but to give you up. Back then they got the signatures like the way the Italian police got Amanda Knox's signature. Women were expected to relinquish--it wasn't a choice. If you didn't then you could be fired from your job, lose your apartment, cut off from your family. You were a pariah.
This woman gave you life. And chances are she never forgot you or stopped loving you. I hope that at the time of your next birthday, you will think about her. Because chances are she will be thinking about you at that exact moment.
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)But I won't think of her. Sorry. I wish I could, but I can't.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)at the ABSOLUTE HEIGHT of the Baby Scoop Era. Statistically speaking, chances are you were not voluntarily placed for adoption. Chances are your natural mother never wanted to give you up and was devastated to have lost you. Chances are the woman who gave you life still loves you and grieves for you to this day.
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)I don't care about the "woman that gave me life".
Chances are that I lived an AWESOME life with my family and I shouldn't have to care, as a baby, what happened back in 1966.
adigal
(7,581 posts)And it's pretty startling that you can't even imagine empathy for the woman who, I am sure, was pressured to give you up, and you are actually hostile towards her, shows some pretty serious, deep feelings about being adopted. They will surface someday. They did with me. I never thought about it, never thought I would want to learn who my birth mother was, but I did about 8 years ago, when in my mid 40s.
Or maybe you are just a totally cruel person who isn't capable of empathy.
Dorian Gray
(13,501 posts)This is so full of it.
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)I am 47 years old. Don't give a shit about my adoption.
You have serious issues. Deal with them. Don't throw them out at me and ask for my help.
I cannot believe this....
adigal
(7,581 posts)Your anger is making you read funny
Sen. Walter Sobchak
(8,692 posts)Two of my cousins went looking for their respective birth mothers and found nothing but a pair of dead junkies. Their mother warned them that their birth mothers were trash but they picked the scab anyways.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)You don't see anything wrong with that?
Most birth mothers are not junkies, they are women who were in a dire situation, without any help and with a whole lot of coercion. Maybe these women's lives were destroyed by the loss of their child, and that is what led the kids to a grave when they searched.
Also, the kids had a need to know their heritage and where they come from, regardless of whether their birth mothers were still living. And they might have been able to find their biological fathers, half-siblings and grandparents.
Sen. Walter Sobchak
(8,692 posts)I don't think there was anything wrong with warning them as adults when they pressed the issue that this was no Romeo and Juliet story. Their mothers were criminals and they were seized by the State of California. But she was none the less supportive and shared everything she knew and had taken detailed notes of everything the social workers had told them as foster parents.
The original motivation was the woman believed she remembered an older sister taking care of her, she had no recollection of her birth mother. Her brother had no recollection of anything and indicated he didn't really care either way but went along for the ride.
What she found was her mother had been a hippie turned junkie who kept the company of bikers and was hit and killed panhandling in traffic in San Francisco several years after she had been seized in a police raid. Her father was alive and serving life for murdering the member of a rival gang. The sister she recalled did indeed exist but was not someone she was inclined to make contact with.
Her brother found his mother was in prison for armed robbery when he was adopted and subsequently went back to prison for non-fatally stabbing another woman and eventually disappeared from a motel in Oregon in the summer of 1992 after racking up a ton of drug and prostitution related charges and was believed to have been murdered, possibly by the "Green River Killer"
These revelations really didn't do wonders for their states of mind. Both are extremely successful, they become ill contemplating what might have become of them had the State of California not snatched them. One of them knows exactly how her sister turned out.
marshall
(6,665 posts)The accounts I read recounted a good relationship with her family. And certainly the adoptees I mentioned were quoted as being extremely happy.
malaise
(269,182 posts)who is your other parent's mate are so different that we are talking chasm here.
Both had their own mother. Further Obama had his maternal grandparents as well.
Crunchy Frog
(26,647 posts)pnwmom
(108,995 posts)StevieM
(10,500 posts)Last edited Tue Mar 18, 2014, 04:47 PM - Edit history (1)
Ms. Toad
(34,093 posts)My adopted sister gave up her first child for adoption.
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)nt
StevieM
(10,500 posts)
treestar
(82,383 posts)There is a voluntary element to it.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)And IT IS a 15 billion dollar a year, for-profit industry.
Also, adoptions were incredibly involuntary during the Baby Scoop Era. Women back then didn't have a choice, in most cases.
MADem
(135,425 posts)The actual study that the OP mangled had to do with children and teens "attempting"--not completing, attempting--suicide over a very abbreviated period of time, just a few years...NOT middle aged, famous adults with superstar boyfriends and failing businesses actually doing the deed.
functioning_cog
(294 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)this is an awful post, because it highlights her adoptee status? She has a family, and it is rather crappy in light of her suicide to keep pointing out that she was adopted.
vankuria
(904 posts)It's presumptuous to assume Ms. Scott ended her life because she was adopted. No one knows the struggles she had and why she decided to end her life.
Bettie
(16,129 posts)I find it awful to blame adoptive parents for every problem that any adoptee ever experiences, as if they are terrible people for adopting. Might some adoptive families not be great? Yep, just like some bio families are train wrecks.
I'm sure her family is just as devastated as a 'birth family' would be.
me b zola
(19,053 posts)Perhaps if we can get adoptive parents to stop thinking its all about them then we can actually begin to understand what issues adoptees are dealing with.
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)Don't you get it?
Bettie
(16,129 posts)I hate the way people who adopt are demonized, which is what happens when people attribute all issues adopted kids/adults may have in their lives to adoption.
I think they forget that correlation does not equal causation.
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)The other poster that called an adoptive Mother "amom". Really? That would have definitely caused me to be upset.
But hey, my bmom threw me away cause she just wanted to move on happily with her life.....oh, after she ripped me away from her breast.
Please....
Bettie
(16,129 posts)Had I been put up for adoption.
Being raised by a 15 year old bipolar mother wasn't exactly wonderful. And my 21 year old pedophile father wasn't great either.
My whole goal in life is to be a better parent than what I had....the bar isn't all that high.
Any other family would likely have been better.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)She didn't rip you from her breast--you were likely ripped away from her breast against her wishes. And once again, I don't believe that she happily moved on with her life--I believe that she didn't, but our society often teaches adopted children that their natural mothers simply moved on and no longer think about them. That is certainly what was taught during the Baby Scoop Era.
I realize that you have said that you were not taught that--so fair enough. Also, I don't know when you posted this, maybe it was before you saw where I clarified the meaning of my remarks above.
I just don't understand how you can be so indifferent to the possibility that the woman who gave life to you--during the Baby Scoop Era--still loves you and never wanted to give you up. What if one of your nephews and nieces, when their children were infants, had drugs planted in their house, and then a corrupt CPS agent took their kids away? Would you expect them to stop loving their children? Wouldn't you want them to reunite with their kids some day? That's basically what happened to many women during the BSE--they had absolutely no choice.
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)I don't know a thing about this "Baby Scoop Era". I will read up on it though.
And if my nieces' kids were taken from them, I'd pitch a holy fucking fit and probably be in jail right now.
Bettie
(16,129 posts)When you declare that children being raised by anyone that they do not have a biological connection to is what causes all problems adoptees have.
I'm not an adoptive parent. I'm not an adoptee.
I know many adoptive parents and adoptees and have known many in my life.
Some of them have issues, some don't.
Just like kids who are raised with their bio parents....some do great, some not so well.
Blaming the suicide referenced in the OP on the woman having been adopted is just foolish, look at the rest of her life, it was falling apart, she was deeply in debt, I'm pretty sure that is not 100% due to having been adopted.
me b zola
(19,053 posts)Anytime an adoptee or first mother says anything that breaks the myths of happy adoptionland people like yourself automatically make assumptions: that we are attacking adopters, or that there is some inherent problem with us. Rather than attack what you don't understand why not listen?
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)nt
StevieM
(10,500 posts)blueamy66
(6,795 posts)I have never heard that term. And I never want to hear that term again.
It has taken me 47 years to hear this crap about adoption?
Bettie
(16,129 posts)How can that be read other than that adoptees are miserable because of the evil, evil people who have taken them from their "first mothers" and then, obviously twisted them into suicidal messes.
Because there can be no happy endings in adoption, clearly, the adoptees who have posted about their own lives here are lying, right?
You seem to really hate your own adoptive parents, given the story you told about being forced to visit another adopted kid and other things you've said. Maybe they were terrible people, maybe they were terrible parents, but that happens in all kinds of families, it isn't unique to adopted kids. Many of us have grown up in abusive terrible situations and you know what? A lot of the time, people just suck.
Why do you attribute the suicide of a 50 year old woman who happens to be adopted solely to her adoption as a child rather than to her much more current personal and business problems? Do you really believe that was the only problem ever in her life? Do you attribute every problem you've ever encountered in your life to adoption?
Why are the anti-adoption people so very, very hung up on all of their problems springing solely from adoption?
Heck, I could turn every single bad thing that ever has happened to me into a problem springing from the sexual and physical abuse I suffered as a child (at the hands of my sacred biological parents, mind you).
I don't, because there are much more current things that require my attention. Do I still have some issues from that time? Yeah, but I deal. It is what people do, they deal with what they cannot change.
me b zola
(19,053 posts)~and attributing fun "facts" about me that you created out of thin air.
Adoptees are four times a higher risk for suicide.
That is what I wrote about.
The only thing that I have ever written about my adoptive parents is that they were good people. I intentionally do not write about them because people like you whom are committed to misrepresenting my posts will twist facts into lies, just like you have done so far with the little that I did write.
Bettie
(16,129 posts)You misrepresented the study you reference.
You used the suicide of a woman with many, many problems to push your own agenda with conjecture that it was her adoption that caused all of these problems.
Then, you get all pissy when people think you have an agenda.
OK. You have no agenda. You only want unicorns and butterflies in everyone's life...no adoptions EVER because birth parents are universally perfect and the only people who should ever raise any child are the ones whose genetic material met in egg and sperm.
There, better? Is that what you were looking for?
MADem
(135,425 posts)Bettie
(16,129 posts)I don't get it.
MADem
(135,425 posts)The poster has a personal issue with the way his biological mother was treated. For this reason, he has falsely extrapolated that all adoptions are bad, based on his specific and limited experience, and he is latching on to themes (which happen to be both anti-choice and rightwing) that support his personal feelings about this subject. He's also not representing the study he purports to reference accurately, and that, to my mind is the most egregious fault in his thread starting post.
Bettie
(16,129 posts)If the statistics were as he says they are, then it would indicate a serious correlation, between adoption and suicide, but when you look at it, it shows no such thing.
Makes anything he says afterward suspect at best.
Then, there is the attitude, which we are all obviously wrong in seeing...
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)My FAMILY is my FAMILY.
I grew up knowing that I was adopted but didn't give a shit. I had cousins and aunts and uncles and a brother and Grandparents. I never ONCE thought that I was any different than any other kid on the block.
Maybe it's people that make such a big deal about a child that is adopted that fuck it up for those adopted kids.
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)Maybe you could be a little more understanding and acknowledge that.
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)Maybe, if people wouldn't make such a big deal about a child being adopted, they wouldn't either.
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)blueamy66
(6,795 posts)nt
me b zola
(19,053 posts)~To let other adoptees~and first mothers~know that they are not alone, that there is a huge community where they can go and be acknowledged.
~To open sealed original birth certificates
~To reform adoption as it is practiced today and return to providing homes for orphans
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)nt
MADem
(135,425 posts)Each and every day.
I think this individual has personal issues, and is painting their own personal issues over EVERYONE's experiences.
It's rather a "dog in the manger" approach to the issue. Using untrue assertions, as was done in the OP, to make the case demonstrates that there is no case to make.
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)great definition 
MADem
(135,425 posts)The study dealt with suicide ATTEMPTS (not completions, attempts) by adopted CHILDREN over a very limited time frame of a few short years. CHILDREN--not adults.
The thread starter took that study and made it sound like the rate of "suicide" by adopted people is four times that of non-adoptees.
That's NOT what the study says at all. The thread starter didn't tell the truth about what the study said, who the study studied, and what the conclusions of the researchers were.
This kind of propaganda sales should be roundly discredited. It does no one any favors and it shops an anti-adoption, anti-choice wingnut theme. It's wrong.
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)As an adoptive grandmother, there is something essential, though, that I've learned from all the OP's postings on this subject. And that is that it's important for adoptive families to validate the feelings of adoptees -- even any painful or difficult ones. It doesn't have to be seen as a reflection on the adoptive family, if an adoptee goes through some turmoil when dealing with the fact of adoption.
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)This is so infuriating!!!!
In my Baby Book....not my "Adopted" Baby Book...I still have a card that came from the flowers that my PARENTS got when I came home...it read "to the new little baby girl on Ellington Avenue, Love, Grandma"....
She will always be my Grandma...not my Adopted Grandma...
Please quit calling yourself an adopted Grandmother!
Get it yet??????
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)since we were talking about adoption. But I don't think of myself or call myself an adoptive grandmother in other circumstances.
I wish you the best of luck.
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)And I want you to know that your passionate defense of your parents is lovely to see.
I hope when my granddaughter is an adult, she will feel just as centered and connected as you do.
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)it's been a rough 2 weeks....
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)whether or not we are adopted. I hope things get better soon.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)....who were adopted and harbor no ill will towards the system. It goes both ways. I have frequent seen him/her give sarcastic "Oh good for you!" type responses to those people as their entry into a thread on adoption. It makes them sound very bitter and angry.
Dorian Gray
(13,501 posts)when i read these threads.
Ms. Toad
(34,093 posts)That's what I've been reacting to.
xchrom
(108,903 posts)reformist2
(9,841 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)It creeps right up to the line and it isn't coming from a progressive POV at all...and suggests that every pregnant woman would ONLY willingly give up their child if they were DEAD, all other problems in their lives being eradicated.
Never mind a lack of maternal interest or instinct...that could NEVER be at issue! Never mind a lack of desire to assume that responsibility for the rest of their lives.
After all, its a woman's J-O-B to produce--and keep, and raise--children. It's a DUTY!!!
That's the creepy, icky sense I get from that stupid poster. This is the 21st Century, and those kinds of attitudes are very old school--and they do children NO favors.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)nt
me b zola
(19,053 posts)~snip~
In the book, you mention a verse of scripture that’s considered incredibly important in evangelical circles: James 1:27 [which says it is pure religion “to look after orphans and widows in their distress”]. Can you explain the significance of this verse?
That verse is cited very commonly among lots of Christian advocates involved in the orphan care and adoption movement. So tons of people who have come to [see] adoption as this perfect way they can live out their faith and mirror their own salvation experience in the adoption of a child — that is one of the bits of scripture they turn to.
But [something] that came up in my reporting is [questioning] that verse in terms of how well widows are being incorporated into this movement. One of my sources, an evangelical law professor named David M. Smolin, who has been a longstanding adoption reform advocate, spoke to this very eloquently, saying, “This movement has divorced the orphans and the widows from each other.” A lot of Christians who are involved in advocating for [adoption] reform say, “If you want to follow the Bible’s call, then you need to be caring for poor children and their families together.” What David Smolin was saying was that too often, many parts of this movement find it easier to help children by themselves — to just approach orphans as if they were standing all alone in the world and not look at the broader circumstances of the families they’re coming from, whether that’s a poor mother in Ethiopia who, after her husband died, is now in this position of having to find a job or keep her child, but has no good option to do both … A lot of times, people could do more help by addressing the holistic picture — helping a family stay together, rather than relinquishing a child for adoption in these cultures where adoption is becoming a go-to solution for poverty or family instability.
*The final bolding was mine
~much more @ link, short article well worth the read~
http://www.salon.com/2013/05/04/how_the_christian_right_perverts_adoption/
Is it "old school" to want to end women losing their children simply because of poverty? As a Liberal are you against the idea of a woman receiving social services that would allow her to keep her child?
Your argument and outrage seem convoluted to me.
MADem
(135,425 posts)choose.
It's a shame that your personal situation involved a "lack of choice" but that's not the case with everyone, and your attempt to paint your personal misery on every adoptive situation is crass. This entire thread is founded upon a falsehood that you constructed, willfully. Further, your arguments are wingnutty and trollish.
Again, you should be ASHAMED. What's outrageous is that you haven't slunk away in shame and deleted this hot mess.
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)nt
Thank you MADem.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)or placed under extreme duress. It is our business if the woman signed while under the influence of drugs. It is our business if a man who wants to raise his son or daughter is denied that right because states like Utah deny unmarried fathers the ability to claim their children.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Women who place their children in adoptive families are the ones to make that call--not you, nor me.
Most adoptions in the USA are not "Magdalene Laundry" situations. They're not obtained "under influence of drugs," either, unless the state takes the child from the mother because she's an unrepentant junkie who can't and/or won't care for a cat never mind a child.
Stop trying, with clawing desperation, to find the rare, oddball, curious, way-the-hell-out-of-the-norm scenario and pretending it's a paradigm. It's exactly what the OP did with that honking false iteration of the study cited and that rightwing imagery.
Wrong and unprogressive, disruptive and hurtful as well.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)It makes it easier to coerce her. And yes, a large percentage of women are on painkillers when they sign, especially after a C-section. A woman under the influence of drugs CANNOT GRANT CONSENT.
And it most definitely is my business if states like Utah have ridiculous laws that make it impossible for a father to claim his child, rather than allow for an adoption.
MADem
(135,425 posts)In fact, being on painkillers can INCREASE a person's resolve, because they aren't dealing with the added stress of pushing back against pain.
But thanks for that bit o' business, Dr. Welby.
The OP isn't about "Father's Rights" either. Get off that horse and stop going on about it. You want to discuss that topic, start your own thread on it. This train wreck of a thread is about mothers who are "forced" by nefarious others to give up their "true vocation" which is pushing out children, apparently, and how NO woman who has given birth in the entire world ever wants to do ANYTHING but raise children. It's only "evildoers" ripping the children away who divert these women from their biologically pre-ordained destinies.
Fact is, some women don't want to raise children, they don't have a "maternal instinct," they want to do other things with their lives, and the INTELLIGENT and CARING ones are smart enough to recognize this aspect of their natures and give their children to people who want to raise children and devote themselves to their needs. Now have a nice day.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)You are wrong if you think drugs don't affect a person's state of mind. Prescription pain killers are widely abused in this country--they are drugs like any other. And a woman under the influence of drugs CANNOT GRANT CONSENT.
Whether you choose to accept it or not, coercion is rampant in the adoption industry. It is a 15 billion dollar a year business that is determined push the adoption through, because that is how they make their money. And the lawyers and agencies who run it have shown that they can be ruthless when trying to take a child away from their mother.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)She couldn't even pay her staff. Her wonderful "empire" was a house of cards. She owed EVERYONE. She wouldn't ask her ugly ass boyfriend, who was rich as Roosevelt, for help.
She was a business failure, and her business was her life.
BeyondGeography
(39,382 posts)The victim is being used as a prop. It only adds to the sadness, imo.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)nt
one_voice
(20,043 posts)I agree it's crappy.
Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)Seriously, what is your alternative to adoption? Do you really think that pregnant women being supported "by the whole of society" would end adoption? What a naive worldview.
And it's pretty shitty to blame this woman's suicide on her adoption. The fact is, you have NO idea what led up to this. None.
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)You're right, maybe this particular suicide has nothing to do with that.
But how does it hurt to have her bring to our attention this research?
MADem
(135,425 posts)There is NO evidence that adoption had anything to do with Ms. Scott's death at nearly the half century point in her life.
There is, OTOH, a shitload of evidence that overwhelming business problems and personal failure in her high-pressure line of work impacted her decision to take her own life.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)fodder for a point unrelated to the deceased.
This is an exploitation of a woman whose life ended after much fear and shame about money. This is exploitative. She was a person, not an object lesson for some anti choice homily. She should be mourned, not used.
Barack_America
(28,876 posts)Her fashion house was reportedly over $10 million in debt. Why don't you find a study of suicide rates among those facing bankruptcy?
Ms. Toad
(34,093 posts)is correlated with being adopted, I find the graphic offensive. It presumes that everyone who finds themselves pregnant when they are not yet prepared to be a mother will either have an abortion or be forced to be a mother (with tons of support - but still not yet in a place where being a mother is a responsible choice).
MADem
(135,425 posts)They're mean, they're nasty, they have no patience or interest--and they are smart enough to know it.
It's not always the "poor woman" with no resources who gives up a child. Sometimes, some people just Don't. Want. Kids.
It's not personal, either. In that kind of situation, it's far better to give over a child to a family that will put their needs first, rather than hang on to a biological relative out of some warped sense of "duty." I have a great deal of admiration for a biological parent who knows their own limits and puts the child's future/well-being ahead of some idiotic societal pressure to be forced into a role they don't want to play.
There isn't much that is worse than being "tolerated" (in the most negative sense of the term). A child is lucky to be given a chance to avoid that kind of souless, spartan upbringing.
As a Social Worker I've seen up close the abuse and neglect of kids that should have been placed for adoption but for whatever reason were kept by their biological mothers. Mothers who were drug addicts, teenage girls who are clueless on how to parent and women who put their own interests above their child. I've also seen first hand the effects of the foster care system once a child is taken away. For a lucky few, they are adopted by their foster families or others who want to give a child a good life.
The generalizations in this thread are amazing, we don't know what caused Ms. Scott to take her own life.
get the red out
(13,468 posts)Now I start reading that adoption is bad. Isn't a child without a family what is bad? My Sister and BIL have two beautiful daughters through adoption and those little girls are loved. I think a child without a family to love them is what is bad and most harmful. And there are PLENTY of biological parents who do their kids no favors at all, I see them on the local news every day. Sad and true.
MADem
(135,425 posts)First, the study dealt with suicide attempts by children and adolescents, not adults.
It was a limited study that dealt with tracking attempts over a course of a few years--those kid/teen years, specifically.
Again--attempts, not suicide completions. Kids, not adults.
The study authors cautioned against extrapolation, and their conclusions included the fact that people shouldn't draw any adverse inferences from their work.
The death of a forty nine year old woman has NO RELATIONSHIP to this study at all. The OP suggesting that it does is frankly reprehensible.
get the red out
(13,468 posts)The misrepresentation seems to me to be a slight at adult adoptees. Taking the study out of context like this could be seen as an insult.
MADem
(135,425 posts)adoption, is personally resentful of the practice owing to his or her own biological parent's bad experience, and desires to cast all adoption in as bad a light as possible, to the point of taking a study about suicide "attempts" by children and adolescents and trying to paper it--with absolutely zero nexus-- onto the situation of a middle-aged woman.
It is shameful, what the OP has done. I've rarely seen this kind of thing at DU, but when I do see it I need to point it out.
LeftishBrit
(41,212 posts)Also, the increased risk of suicide could be at least in part due to negative experiences before the adoption took place. Most adoptions nowadays don't happen in early infancy; and the child could already have experienced an abusive or at least highly stressful environment in the biological family, and/or have been passed around between institutions and foster homes.
Forcing biological mothers to give up their infants, just because they were not married, as often happened in the past, is of course utterly wrong; but that does not mean that ALL adoptions are a bad thing, or worse than all forms of upbringing in a biological family.
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)Grief and Loss Issues for Adopted Children: Caring Adults Can Make a World of Difference
Adopted kids know they’re different. Remember when being different at school was the worst possible thing that could happen? In a study of second-grade children who were told that one of their classmates was adopted, the most common response was, “I’m sorry.”
They’re not only different, they’ve already faced one of the hardest lessons life has to teach. They have lost their birth parents and will have to confront the reality that painful, sad things can happen to them. For most of us who are not adopted, having a parent die or losing a parent through divorce may be the biggest loss we’ll ever know. Our parent is gone and we’re on our own, without protection, guidance and unconditional love. There is a huge hole in our lives. When this loss occurs in adulthood, we know it’s not our fault - we’re not all-powerful and we didn’t do anything to cause it. Adopted children, however, experience this loss from a child’s perspective - they do think they’re omnipotent and, therefore they must have done something to cause what happened.
From time to time, adopted children really wish their lives had turned out differently. And that’s a normal part of their developmental process. They know they can’t change their pasts. They tell me, “I was helpless - I couldn’t keep her with me” - “her” being the birth mother. They think, “I should have been able to change things and she would still be with me.” They feel a part of them is missing and it’s somehow their fault.
We don’t talk enough about the things that hurt in adoption. So when adopted children say, “I miss my birth mother,” adults try to “fix” their pain with consoling words like “Mommy and daddy wanted you so much to be in their family.” But to adopted children, it sounds as though adults don’t listen when they try to communicate their grief and their loss. And even when adults do listen well, adopted children can’t be fully comforted because they don’t yet fully understand their own feelings. So anger and frustration, or sadness and anxiety result. Though these are normal responses for children, they can become a problem when they affect their emotional growth and development ... and when they negatively affect their relationships and self-esteem. Other kids may not want to spend time with these children. Parents and siblings may have trouble falling in love and staying in love with some adopted children because of the behaviors those feelings cause.
SNIP
LisaL
(44,974 posts)And apparently in a lot of debt? The OP's articles is about adolescents.
This woman wasn't one.
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)about the higher risk of suicides and other problems faced by adoptees. There is a lot of research now about that and I think she's just trying to inform people, and so made the connection to this woman.
LisaL
(44,974 posts)pnwmom
(108,995 posts)a subject I'm interested in because I have two adoptees who are very close to me, and several others among my friends.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)in thread. So of course you will face questions yourself, one you step up to speak for the OP, which you did, over and over and over. To say 'why are you asking me' is really a special sort of word turd.
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)blueamy66
(6,795 posts)Again, please do not speak to your grandchild about this if you subscribe to this crap.
"I miss my birth mother". Really? Really?
"Other kids may not want to spend time with 'these' children". Holy Jesus.
Other kids tell them that they "are sorry" when they find out that a classmate is adopted?
on edit: Just read about Dee Paddock...I'm sure that her views have nothing to do with the type of practice she has. Keep telling parents that their kids have issues cause they're adopted and those parents will keep coming back.
Ms. Toad
(34,093 posts)http://www.fosterparents.com/articles/index87nacac.html
Not to minimize the feelings of any birth mother or adoptee who does experience loss from non-traumatic adoptions near birth into/from similar families, but Dee Paddock went through a particular kind of hell relating to the myth (all to prevalent still, when we have lots of reasons to know better) that enough love will fix everything. Our family went through that hell with one of my siblings because of the damage that was done to him before he joined our family at age 4. And removing a child from intimate relationships with immediate and extended family who look like him adds to the potential for isolation. Then we didn't know any better - so the advice they gave my parents was not a blatant lie. Just misguided. But (some) adoption agencies are still spouting that nonsense with respect to older/cross cultural adoptions (as her experience with professionals suggests).
There is a wide range of adoption experiences, on all 3 sides of the triad (child, birth family, adoptive family) - some really rich, and some brutal and heartwrenching. And the objective circumstances don't necessarily dictate how you will experience them. The older the adoption, the more dysfunctional the early years, the more different the adoptive family from the child, the more likely it will be that there is the potential for the experience to be on the negative end of the scale. The flip of those factors make it more likely there is the potential for the experience to be on the positive end of the scale.
But there are no absolutes. And we need to support all of the members of the triad in whatever they are experiencing - both joy and grief - without presumptions about what one does, or ought to, feel. And without demonizing birth parents who make hard choices - or the system which makes adoption possible.
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)for our granddaughter, as much as we all love her. Some day she might feel the loss of her birth parents that we just can't protect her from. Everyone will face a loss like that at some point in their lives (through death, not adoption), but it is especially sad and hard when it happens to babies and children.
Meanwhile, we took in a young adult woman who needed a new home, after her international adoption didn't work out. Since coming to live with us, she's gotten her GED and is almost halfway through college. She's an absolutely wonderful person, but the pain of her circumstances emerges and she just has to deal with it. (Recently, she's found a good therapist.)
Every adoption is different, but many involve some pain beyond that experienced by most non-adopted children. I don't see how it helps anyone to pretend otherwise.
Ms. Toad
(34,093 posts)It is condemning adoption (generally), and making blanket statements that imply that all adopted children and birth families feel (or should feel) grief, pain, etc. Threads like this are really offensive to people who have had emotionally healthy adoption experiences - because they imply that if they are not horribly damaged by "being ripped from their mother's breast" there is something wrong with them. Yes - there are people who feel like that, and they have every right to those feelings. But they do not have a right to demand (or imply) that it is the universal experience of adoption. It isn't. And that is me, speaking from the perspective of having 3 adopted siblings, for whom things did go terribly awry. Even with that experience, I know better than to insist that everyone has that experience.
Most adoptions of infants (and I am aware of many) - even into very culturally different families - work out very well for all involved. So don't look for/expect those problems in your granddaughter or you may well create them. Yes, be open to whatever feelings she may have. But blaming every sadness on her adoption - waiting for it to crop up "some day" will make it a self-fulfilling prophecy.
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)pnwmom
(108,995 posts)to follow your advice never to tell her she's adopted. As wrong as that would be for most adoptions, it would make no sense at all for children in open adoptions who are likely to have contact with a birth parent in the future.
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)just don't HARP on it.
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)But she will be told when she's old enough to understand what it means.
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)And in the meantime, leave it alone.
catbyte
(34,455 posts)Last edited Tue Mar 18, 2014, 10:02 AM - Edit history (1)
She told him, "Well, you were adopted. It's not like you were his real son." His sister, who was his biological daughter, just sat there and said nothing, too eager for the money. We/I haven't spoken to her since.
Deuce
(959 posts)Company owned by L'Wren Scott in debt
http://news.msn.com/pop-culture/company-owned-by-lwren-scott-in-debt
Nine
(1,741 posts)She got pregnant at 18 or thereabouts. She's in her early forties now. She described the biological father as a "dirtbag." The adoption was open, at least to the extent that she kept in touch with the adoptive parents. I knew this friend for about a year before she told me. She was completely at peace with the situation. She said she wanted him to have a good life and that's what has happened. I don't think she felt "forced" to give up her child at all, just like I don't think most women who have abortions are haunted by it for the rest of their lives even though I think most women take that decision very seriously.
I don't understand this need by some to demonize adoption.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)The same day, we had a quiz and when I handed it in, I signed my name and below it wrote, a mentally ill student.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Xithras
(16,191 posts)The biological mothers of adopted children disproportionately hail from the poorest segments of our society. Unfortunately, poor pregnant women are also substantially less likely to receive proper prenatal care and enjoy a healthy diet, and are statistically more likely to engage in risky behaviors such as smoking or consuming drugs and alcohol. As a whole, this means that adopted children have an above average chance of suffering from prenatal abnormalities that can cause mental or physical disabilities later in life.
It's not the adoption that causes the difference, but the prenatal environment of the adopted child.
me b zola
(19,053 posts)Take adoption out of your statement and you have written a horrible classist insult.
The problems that adoptees experience begin with relinquishment. It is related to removing an infant from their mother. This is the foundation for all of the other problems to follow.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)I'll spell it out for you...
Facts:
The poor don't eat as well as the non-poor.
The poor don't get the same medical care as the non poor.
The poor are statistically more likely to consume alcohol excessively and use harder drugs than the non poor.
None of these things are even remotely debatable, and all are not only backed up by solid science, but are just plain common sense.
More facts:
Poor nutrition, poor medical care, alcohol, and drug abuse increase the prevalence of birth abnormalities.
Multiple studies from everyone from the UN World Health Organization to the March of Dimes have demonstrated a direct and unassailable correlation between poverty and birth defects.
According to the UN, being born into poverty increases an infants odds of being born with developmental abnormalities by as much as a FACTOR OF TWO!!! Poor babies are nearly twice as likely to experience developmental abnormalities as the non poor. This is because they (again) don't eat as well, don't get the same medical care, and are statistically more likely to engage in "risky" behavior like alcohol or drug consumption.
And the final fact that makes all of this germane to this particular topic:
The #1 reason that women give their babies up for adoption is POVERTY. They lack the financial resources to raise the child, so they give them up to others who can.
Ergo: Most babies who are placed for adoption are born to poor mothers. Babies born to poor mothers are up to twice as likely to have birth defects, which is true whether or not the child is placed for adoption. Because the percentage of poor mothers placing babies up for adoption is higher than the percentage of the poor among the population as a whole, the odds of a baby put up for adoption having a developmental abnormality are ALSO higher than among the population as a whole.
The only "hateful", insulting, or classist thing about ANY of that is the fact that poor mothers can't afford to eat decently, or get medical care, or raise their own children if they choose. It's insulting to us all that CLASS can determine whether or not a particular child is born with a disability. In a just world, birth defect rates among the poor would be the same as the non-poor, which would wipe out any statistical differences between adopted children and non adopted children. That's an indictment of society as a whole, and not of adoptive children or the poor.
adigal
(7,581 posts)My birth mother came from a religious intact Irish family, very loving, but girls didn't have babies then. It had nothing to do with economics, or prenatal nutrition.
You just made some huge assumptions, and I hope no one takes them to heart, because they are quite damaging to an adoptive person.
MADem
(135,425 posts)either. You made up stuff to fit an agenda you had, and you still haven't acknowledged or corrected your misrepresentations. I am using the word "misrepresentations" to be polite.
I have provided upthread a link to the actual study that you didn't represent accurately. It doesn't say what you claim it said. So why would we attach ANY veracity to a single one of your remarks?
Sounds to me like the pot is calling the kettle in this little imbroglio.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)it was one of the reasons my husband's Aunt chose abortion. She was a middle aged, married, woman in her 40s, and also a grandmother. They did not want more children at their ages. Her husband was in his 50s and had cancer. She told me herself that she did not chose adoption because she did not want an adult child to come looking for her (her husband would be dead by then) when she would be an old woman maybe even in a nursing home. She said didn't want to answer a whole lot of questions about WHY didn't they didn't keep the child themselves. That was her, and also her husband's, choice. BTW, this was in the 1950's and she had to go through a LOT just to get an abortion. Adoption would have been much easier for her in those days. I guess that tell you how strongly she felt about it.
I think my husband's Aunt answered this OT for you.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Anyone who puts their nose in her business needs to butt it back out toute suite.
It's her right--no one else's--to choose.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)I gave him a reason WHY. The mother, or parents, don't want to have that child come looking for them decades later. Unfortunately, many adoptees seem to think it is their RIGHT to find their birth mothers, AND have a relationship with them. If the mother wants that, fine. More so, DON'T. They need to respect other people's rights, and not just their own.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I also like the idea of open adoptions, but I think if a birth mother doesn't want to be found, they should be left alone. Perhaps filling out a medical history questionnaire detailing all known diseases, and now, with the ability to determine what is "up" with a person's tendencies towards diseases by looking at the DNA, offering up a DNA sample for the adopted child to access for some medical history information, that would solve the problem without trying to uncover someone who doesn't want to be located.
My point about the aunt's 'business' had more to do with folks entering into the whole choice debate--I think it's a doctor-patient-and-no-one-else decision.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)her means commits suicide. Having a massive 6 million debt hanging over ones head could lead to suicide. In other words you have no idea why she took her life.
JI7
(89,274 posts)i'm guessing those who have the most trouble are those who may remember their birth parents or whoever originally took care of them and were later adopted by others. or even those who have had to spend time in a bunch of foster homes. those who did not have stability.
but most adoptees i know whose only parents/gaurdian they knew was the ones that adopted them don't have many problems. for them it's just like most kids who are raised by their birth parents. in fact i find most of them don't have much interest in finding their birth parents either . for them it's no different than bio kids raised by only by their bio parents. it's the only thing they knew and what they call home.
but in this case she was almost 50 and as others have mentioned there were so many other issues which others in the same situation have done the same thing.
MADem
(135,425 posts)It has nothing to do with middle aged women facing bankruptcy. His attempt to marry the two is more about a personal agenda than anything else.
The death of Ms. Scott was probably about humiliation at business failure , bankruptcy, an inability to pay employees, and an unsustainable business model--not about emotional issues as a pre-teen/teen leading to suicide ATTEMPTS (the study's focus), not completions.
This thread takes two separate things and tries to mesh them together with a goal of denigrating adoption, because the OP's bio mother was forced to give up her child against her will. It's a personal agenda.
That is certainly it in a nutshell. Very well put.
JI7
(89,274 posts)at first i thought it was mostly about the days when women were forced to give up kids for adoption . this is before things like birth control and gains in women's rights.
but they seem to use it for every situation. and that graphic which implies all women who get pregnant would naturally want to have and keep the baby is just weird.
and now using some nearly 50 year old woman with huge money problems committing suicide as having to do with adoption is just.................................
MADem
(135,425 posts)who have adopted, and it's dishonest to take a study about children and adolescents ATTEMPTING suicide and transpose it onto an older woman with business issues.
I also think the whole anti-choice/anti-adoption vibe is straight out of the far right wing, and I disapprove strongly of this kind of shit being shopped at DU.
It's fine to be angry at past infractions where "Magdalene Laundry" crap was pulled to the detriment of mothers and children, but it's completely unfair to take personal experience that impacted two people and try to DEMAND that everyone else who has been in an adoption long afterwards is affected in the same way, without any evidence that this is the case.
It's a shitty thing to do.
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)It sums up this entire thread perfectly.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)
Terra Alta
(5,158 posts)She killed herself because she was deep up to her eyeballs in debt, and was too proud to let Jagger help her(and he could have easily afforded to). The fact that she was adopted had nothing to do with it. Many people who were adopted have grown to be happy, healthy, individuals.
noamnety
(20,234 posts)and disgustingly paternalistic to presume that every woman who carries a child to term secretly WANTS to be a parent.
marshall
(6,665 posts)Whether one is looking at it from the point of view of the adopted child, or the birth mother, or the adoptive parent, focusing on this one aspect is paternalistic and ignores the individuality of the person.
adigal
(7,581 posts)I knew I was wanted, that's for sure, but I can see issues. I am very sensitive, and no one in my family is at all.now that I know my birth family, I can see that temperamentally, I fit in better with them. They are liberal Dems, my parents are Republicans. That's my biggest issue, and my parents gave me a great education and stability that my birth mother didn't give my birth siblings born later.
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)you really think that genetics play a part in one's political affiliation?
adigal
(7,581 posts)are hard wired. I was born sensitive, and still am. My family, not at all. If you feel empathy for people, you are more likely to be a liberal.
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)nt
MADem
(135,425 posts)times," "suicide" and "adopted" in it, and he created a mash of falsehoods.
I've linked to an abstract of the actual study in this thread. In truth, the study revealed that pre-teen/teen children who are adopted, during a Very Small Window of Time--a few years, are four times more likely to ATTEMPT (not complete) suicide than non-adoptive children. The study was small, the study results were smaller still, and the researchers cautioned against drawing any inferences from their work. That, however, didn't stop the OP from taking a study that looked at kids from 11 or 12 to 16, or so, and applying it to a 49 year old woman millions of dollars in debt and on the brink of "fashion disgrace," who was having romantic issues with her Very Famous Boyfriend.
It's possible for a Democrat to have Republican parents even if they're your birth parents. You know how, sometimes, parents with perfect vision can have children who are blind as bats? Or two myopic parents can have kids who can shoot a pimple off a fly's behind at forty paces? I'm thinking Hillary Clinton (who was GOP until she got into Wellesley and flipped completely) and Elizabeth Warren (who was a Republican until the eighties, and then she figured it out).
I do know that there's something to genetics, too, and personalities and even things like personal quirks and gestures can be passed down through the generations. I've seen grandchildren make the same gesture or expression as a long-dead great-grandparent. I've known a grand niece with the same disposition as a great aunt.
Our DNA does help to define us, most certainly. But so do the "care and feeding" and basic nurturing we get, day to day, from those who care for us as we come up. I came up in a huge family that included adult aunts/uncles who were no blood relative but were as much a relation to me as my biological parents. The most important thing is having people who care about you, keep you warm/fed/safe, and help to prepare you to find your own way in the world, even if you don't agree with them all the time.
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)bravo
LeftishBrit
(41,212 posts)Last edited Wed Mar 19, 2014, 04:34 PM - Edit history (1)
is that a very broadbrush attack is being made on a particular family structure. Without the graphic, it might have been just a medical warning; but this is implying that all biological mothers are or should be capable of looking after their own children with sufficient social support. This is not always the case. There are some circumstances where this is simply not possible, or where the support needed would be so great as to amount to open adoption under another name. What if the biological mother is a 12-year-old child? What if the baby is the product of incest, and the predatory father or uncle is still living in the family home? What if the mother simply cannot cope with having a child, and is likely to abuse or neglect the child - or has already done so?
In any case, it would not be appropriate on the board to slam all divorced people, for example, because some children have undoubtedly had damaging childhood experiences associated with parental divorce; or to claim that all only children will be spoilt brats, or that all children from large families will be emotionally neglected; or to attack any other sort of family set-up as wrong in virtually all circumstances. The same goes for adoption.
MADem
(135,425 posts)me b zola
(19,053 posts)How many names have I been called in this thread? I didn't alert on any of them because I want everyone to see the hatred being hurled upon us. We are "special" and "chosen" until we speak our truths.
As for your "what ifs" what if we found homes for children who need families, instead of finding children for needy families? None of the haters in this thread can even agree that finding families for children who truly need them is what adoption is supposed to be about. Such a simple proposal met with such hatred and vitriol. I can guess as to why this is, but unlike all of the detractors on this thread, I will not attribute words to you all like you have done to me. I will not play word games to make it seem that you have said something that you have not.
Its simple and it shouldn't be controversial at all. Adoption should not be about finding a child for a needy family. There are untold numbers of American children in foster care whom need families. Adopt and love them.
Response to me b zola (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
