Category Archives: Those Wacky PAPs

Stuff People Who Know Who Their Blood Relatives Are Say

Parenthood Requires Love, Not DNA!

PRLND is the name of a Facebook Group. You can click the link if you want, or you can take my word for how awful it is. It’s page after page of disembodied baby feet being held in disembodied adult hands, and posts about how love knows no color, and god’s plan, and how giving up a baby is not giving up a baby, and how Moses was adopted and every other nauseating trigger I or other adult adoptees have ever discussed. But this image took the motherfucking biscuit. Look at it. LOOK AT IT:three-things

Sacrificing family is for adoptees and their original families. So is sacrificing your heart: You will love who you are told to love and like it. Dignity? Are you SHITTING me? Adoptions are all about the loss of dignity–but not for youuu, you special, special parents who know DNA has nothing to do with love but also know who you are and where you come from.

Fuck you all with rusty rakes. Doesn’t cognitive dissonance ever reach a conscious level with you people?!

12 Comments

Filed under AdoptoLand, Stop Saying That, The Adoption Process Moral Pedestal, Those Wacky PAPs

Fuck You, Pennsylvania.

Because we all know what “streamlining” means, don’t we? It means PAPs get what PAPs want ASAP.

HARRISBURG, Pa. (CBS) — Three more bills from a package of legislation to streamline and speed up adoption procedures in Pennsylvania were approved by a state House committee on Wednesday.

Greg Grassa is Executive Director of the House Children and Youth Committee, which advanced three bills that are part of an eight bill package to tighten up adoption procedures. Grassa says one of the most important bills in the package has already passed the House and awaits action in the Senate. That measure would reduce the period of time a birth mother can revoke her consent from 30 days to 14 days.

Because nobody needs more than two weeks to make a decision that will affect her and her baby for the rest of their lives (and beyond). I mean, fuck that noise. The “most important” part of adoption is that the PAPs get what they want when they want it…even though adoption is supposed to be founded on the best interests of the child.

“From the adoptive family’s point of view, they can actually bring a child home and welcome them into their hearts and homes,” Grassa said, “and on the 29th day of the revocation period, the birth mother can still say ‘ahh, I’ve changed my mind.’”

Oh the unimaginable horror! Oh those poor adoptive families!

Thing is, those suffering “adoptive families” are NOT adoptive families: not until the mother relinquishes. If there’s one good thing I can say about my BSE adoption, it’s that I was NOT placed in my APs home before my mother relinquished me. I was given up, then put in foster care while the state found a match for me–a family with that matched my first family as closely as possible–and then adopted. That’s right: They wanted a match FOR ME, not for some mob of “adoptive families” who saw fit to approach my mother with a wad of cash, zero morals, and the presumption that she wanted to sell her daughter.

But we don’t do that anymore, do we? Because if we couldn’t put a non-adopted baby into an “adoptive” home, the mother would feel freer to change her mind. Far better to put the kid there right away so that if she does change her mind, she’ll be “taking the baby from the only home s/he’s ever known.” She will be the villain and everyone will tell her how horrible she is. After all, they paid her medical bills: she owes them. Now that societal shame is not enough, coercion must be employed, because who is adoption about, anyway?

Individual shaming is the way to go these days. Bitch, you led them on, and that means they’re entitled to use you. Don’t you know prostitutes can’t be raped? (If you think you see a difference between these two methods of shame-based economic coercion of women, do please tell me what it is.)

Also, if we want to be fair, shouldn’t we pass similar laws against non-adopted babies who have the temerity to die before they’re two weeks old? Someone–god, the Universe, the government, their bank accounts–SOMEBODY owes their parents a baby, because they paid their money and they got screwed over. If that sounds insane to you but the other does not, you are part of the problem. No matter how much you love your adoptee or how long you waited or how much you paid or what you think you were promised, you’re the problem.

On Wednesday, one bill approved by the committee requires courts to set a hearing date of no more than 20 days after birth parents’ file a petition to relinquish their parental rights.

NOW! NOW! NOW! Easier, cheaper, faster, NOW! If “your birth mother” kills herself when she learns how horrible you are, that’s…well, it’s rather convenient, isn’t it? Especially if you promised her an open adoption you had no intention of leaving open.

I was in the middle of composing this post when TAO put up an excellent one about the (shh!) E-word in adoption. Please read it and comment if you like (but read the guidelines first).


5 Comments

Filed under General Ignoramitude, Misognyny, Those Wacky PAPs

To “Jane,” Who Doesn’t Want to Be Called “Baby Thief”

Dear “Jane:

I’d like to start this by saying I understand your feelings are hurt. I imagine that encountering the online family preservation community was like a slap in the face.

I’m pretty sure that’s because you’ve been told all your life what a blessed and booful and beneficent thing adoption is…for people like you. And I doubt you’ve questioned that very much. I’m writing this to tell you it is time to start questioning that, if only for your future adoptee’s sake, because your future adoptee will be the product of pain and loss.

I know you want your own child, and I know it will seem very cruel to you when I ask you to perform the following thought experiment:

1) Think about what it would be like to bear your own child out of your own body, to have what you so long for.
2) Ask yourself: Who would willingly let go of that precious child? Who would willingly give it away?

The answer is and always has been “almost nobody.” The only reason most “birth mothers” win that title is that they felt they had no other choice. What you stand to benefit from, what you hope and pray for, what you literally describe yourself as entitled to is someone else’s unthinkable tragedy.

I’m not even going to talk much about what adoption is for the adoptee here, because there’s only so long a blog post can be. Just think about the woman you expect to willingly hand over her child to you (and then, as you say, “be respectful” of you…should you stoop to an open adoption…if you must).

I asked you to imagine that because you describe first mothers’ regret over losing their children as “blame-shifting.” You really seem to believe that if a woman relinquishes a child, it’s because she had a free and uncoerced choice to do so. We live in a society where women earn less than men and our reproductive choices are constantly challenged; yet when a woman gives up her own flesh and blood, you seem to think she is a free agent.

You are “blame shifting.” You are blaming women for the very misfortune you expect to benefit from.

If, as you say, you believe adoption can be about “finding homes for children,” then you should seek out an existing child who needs a home. Do not write “Dear Birthmother” letters to pregnant women, do not rent billboards with messages aimed at pregnant women, do not put ads aimed at pregnant women in the Penny Saver, do not pay a pregnant woman’s medical expenses, do not start a website telling pregnant women what you can give their babies.

If taking in a child who really needs a home is so unacceptable to you because it might be temporary (or for any other reason), then don’t pretend you want to give a home to a child who needs one.

I believe you when you say infertility hurts, but these days there are simply not enough desperate women lacking reproductive choices out there to supply every couple who wants one with a child. Again, that is literally what you are complaining about:  a shortfall of desperate women without reproductive choices. And you have the gall to claim such women have the advantage over you:

A person who is coming to adoption from a place of infertility is NOT in a position of power over anyone.

An infertile person is not in a position of privilege, no matter what these other groups might like to believe.

Infertility does not negate privilege. If you are well-off enough to consider adoption, you ARE in a position of privilege relative to the child’s first mother. How else could you adopt?

You live in a Western democracy. You are almost certainly white. You can realistically consider adopting. That means you either have access to a great deal of money or to the ability to borrow or otherwise obtain that money. I understand it may not feel that way, but you are incredibly privileged. To say you lack privilege because you’re infertile on a planet where women’s fertility has always been an instrument of our oppression is untrue and offensive.

[Critics] also place a moral judgement on a couple’s only alternative to parenthood and make adoption seem like it’s only being done to satisfy [APs’] selfish needs.

“Jane,” that is where you lost the last scrap of my sympathy . “Alternative to parenthood”? I was not my adoptive parents’ alternative to parenthood; I was their route to parenthood. They were and are (two of) my (four) parents. When you phrase it this way, you’re saying adoptive parenthood is not parenthood, and that is no attitude with which to raise an adopted child. While parenting adopted children is different from parenting biological children, it is certainly parenting. If you don’t think it is, you need to do some of those things the mean family preservation people might have told you to do, like get a pet, because what’s the diff? Pretending is pretending, isn’t it?

Why should my desire to become a parent [don’t you mean become an alternative to a parent?] be seen any differently [than the desire of fertile people]?

Because your desire literally depends on someone else’s loss, that’s why. I know I keep saying that. I’m saying it again because it is the point you keep missing and missing and missing.

As an infertile couple, we have the same right as anyone else to adopt and build a family.

That is true: You have the same a right to another woman’s baby or child that anyone else has, which is no right at all.

Know what might make infertility hurt a little bit less? Letting go of the (insane) idea that somewhere out there is a woman who is hatching a very special baby intended just for you. Because as long as you believe in her, you can believe in your entitlement to her offspring and her (also insane) desire to freely give them to you. And the more deprived you feel of what’s hers, the more you hurt.

The family you feel entitled to build is not rightfully yours. That (insane) idea is bullshit, and it always was bullshit. It seemed saner in the past because women had fewer rights and choices then. Adoption is an act that, were women accorded full human rights, would be so rare that the word would lose its current meaning. And while I suspect infertility hurts more than I can imagine, I think all the women who did not and do not want to relinquish their children are more important than that pain. And I think it’s many decades past time to kill the idea that anyone is literally entitled to a child if s/he can find a family tragedy to benefit from (and plunk down the bucks).

PS: I also think it’s over the top and unconstructive to call people who are not, for example, the Capobiancos “baby thieves,” but that’s beside the point.

 

81 Comments

Filed under General Ignoramitude, Misognyny, Those Wacky PAPs

The only thing that could have made that photo more annoying

has come to pass: The couple in it believe those trumped-up, bullshit Planned Parenthood videos.

In case anyone has any doubts, they’re bullshit.

No, really:

It’s bullshit.

And since so many people seem to think their tax dollars go to pay for elective abortions, I’ll add: that’s bullshit too. (If you have a problem with exceptions for rape, incest, and health conditions medically certified to threaten the pregnant woman’s life, well, I don’t even know what to say to you.)

2 Comments

Filed under General Ignoramitude, Misognyny, NaBloPoMo, The Adoption Process Moral Pedestal, Those Wacky PAPs

Anguish in Adoption

Is anguish felt by relinquishing mothers? Apparently not. Is it felt by APs who discover their beloved children were actually stolen? By late discovery adoptees? By twins separated by adoption? Not judging by the article we’ll be reading today. Adoption anguish is for rich foreigners who want to take advantage of impoverished Indian women by buying their reproductive abilities.

Anguish is for people who have no babies…and no hearts. Anguish is for those who have the luxury of turning down less than perfect babies. Anguish is for *pederasts. Anguish is for “fertility specialists” who find the exploitation of poor women “beautiful” as well as profitable. It’s for the woman whose “only option” is to rent a womb because the world owes her a baby of her own. It’s for her husband, who spouts the old tired bullshit about how purchased children “will have a more loved life because their parents have made so much of an effort to obtain have them.” He adds “It would be madness to ban it.”

Madness to consider the exploitation of human incubators. Madness to consider changing a society that doesn’t value poor women. Madness for him and his wife not to get what they want at a cut-rate price (even thought their willingness to pay is what suposedly makes them such superior parents). Surrogates, the article points out, exist in other, richer countries. They simply expect to be paid a much larger fraction of what their time, trouble and suffering are worth.

Who cares if the human incubator signed a contract she never got a copy of? Who cares if she didn’t realize until the time came to give birth that she is going to undergo a C-section instead (like it or not)? Who cares if she is “not paid the promised amount and lack[s] health insurance if things go wrong”?

It’s fine to exploit women and reduce them to objects if they are poor and couldn’t get the money any other way. Most enlightened liberals I know say similar things about prostitutes and porn actresses–but, oddly enough, never about minimum wage workers, sweatshop workers, or migrant workers who keep fruit prices low by working for less than minimum wage. Those people, they all agree, are being exploited, and something should be done about it. Somehow it’s only the women whose reproductive organs are for sale who cannot feel anguish. They are simply exercising their rights and making their choices.

*An old-fashioned term to be sure, but one I must prefer to “pedophile,” which implies that baby-rapers love their victims.

14 Comments

Filed under AdoptoLand, Colonialism ROCKS!, Misognyny, NaBloPoMo, Those Wacky PAPs

“From her archive”

comes this guaranteed-to-make-ya-click advice column rerun. It’s not nearly archival enough.

Carolyn Hax is an advice columnist for The Washington Post. This “rerun” column posted on 16 August, 2015:

Carolyn Hax is away. In her absence, we are offering columns from her archive.

Dear Carolyn: My husband and I are “bidding”

if you put quotation marks around this word, it won’t be true

for a closed adoption

really, what other kind is there?

through our church. The birth mother is 17 and already has a child.

It’s two thousand somethingsomething and our local church, rather than helping a girl who clearly needs help, is raffling off her baby. We are the bestest Christians ever!

She is considering us as well as one other couple. This process involves a lot of waiting and is really fraying my nerves. We are the “better” couple — higher income, more child care experience, a son who can’t wait to be a big brother, and we live in the suburbs (while the other family has a condo in the city). We have not yet met the mother, but the other couple has apparently established a friendly relationship with her.

This is wrong not because it’s coercive, of course, but because it allowed them to cut in line ahead of ME. Can you imagine–there’s something I want, and there’s actually a line to wait for it, and there are people who aren’t me in the line, and I have to wait behind them? just because they got there first? Where, I ask you Lord Jesus, is the justice in that?!

We hope to do the same over the summer, to help her decision process

by which I mean to help her pick us and our superior suburban money, NOW because oh mah precious fraying nerves

My problem is

that slavery no longer exists

that I cannot come to terms with the fact that the choice will ultimately rest with this girl

when obviously she should simply punt the baby into my lap and disappear without my having to sully my hands with her. I mean who does she think she is, the baby’s mother?!

On paper

by which I mean in reality

my husband and I are the easy

by which I mean obvious, correct, only and One True

choice. Nothing against the other couple

except that they suck and we rock, of course

but I believe if it were up to an objective party, anyone would choose us. But the process is designed so that the girl

the child’s own mother! I mean, can you believe this shit?!

has the final say, which I can’t understand. Why should it be her decision? She has already demonstrated questionable decision-making capabilities

in bringing into this world the child I want to love and cherish and raise as my own, that stupid slut

and she will never know anything about us besides what she learns over a couple of casual lunches. We hope to make a good impression on her, but I am really going to pieces over the thought that maybe there are factors we won’t be able to influence. Why is this OK??? Atlanta

Carolyn’s reply: Dear Atlanta: If I were the mom, your quickness to dismiss both the other couple and my right to make decisions for my baby would disqualify you without so much as a follow-up “casual lunch.”

What I see are two families who want a child, and both may offer this baby a wonderful home — neither one “better” than the other, just different. And I see a mother who got herself in a stupid spot but who is doing her best to get out of it, in the way that best serves her child.

If you can’t get over yourself long enough to see this isn’t a competition, but instead a community effort to save a life — and, therefore, that any good home is a great outcome, even if the home isn’t yours — then I hope you’ll recuse yourself from the “auction” altogether. Yours truly, City-Dweller

Nice answer, Carolyn.Please look away while I vomit. Yours truly, Snarkuchin.

9 Comments

Filed under AdoptoLand, NaBloPoMo, The Adoption Process Moral Pedestal, Those Wacky PAPs, You're going to Hell for this.

How Dare You?

IIRC, Susan Faludi discovered in an interview she did for Backlash that Randall Terry got the idea for Operation Rescue after his infertile wife took to hanging around the local abortion clinic holding a sign that read “Don’t Kill Your Baby–Give It To Me.” I feel very sorry for anyone, infertile or no, who got married to Randall Terry, but the sentiment drives me nuts. And it just…won’t…go…away. This popped up on a couple of adoption-related FB groups I frequent recently.fuuuuckyouuuuuuuu(It made me so mad I downloaded it under the title “Fuuuck youuuuuuuuuuu.”)

“God loves you and your baby.” Translation: We don’t love you. We think you’re an incubator. Too bad God doesn’t love you enough to fix your life so you could raise your own baby, if that’s why you’re aborting. Truth is, we don’t care why you’re aborting. Women’s lives are never complicated, and certainly not by such easy-peasy little ol’ events as pregnancies and child rearing. Women don’t actually have feelings. Well, women like the wonderful Christian lady in the photo do, but the kind of woman who even considers having an abortion? Pffft. Fuck them. Er, I mean, God loves you!

“Don’t abort!” Translation: Don’t carry on with the twenty-minute, actually-safer-than-pregnancy-and-childbirth procedure you decided on long before you had to encounter our righteous asses on the way to your appointment. Do what we, two strangers who know nothing about your life, want you to do!

“We will adopt your baby!” Translation: Come on, just devote the next several months of your  life to making a human being out of your flesh and blood and bones? Pwease? Risk your health, perhaps even your life, just because we asked you to? Pleeeease? And then give birth and hand over the baby to us? We’ll be your best friends, honest.

“Come talk to us!” Translation: We don’t give a flying fuck about you, but you have something we want. Come on, Girl! C’mere! [whistles] That’s a good girl, who’s a goood girl?

How dare you people, whoever you are? If you think she’s aborting because she can’t afford a baby, how dare you attempt to prey on her instead of doing the truly Christlike thing: offering to help? If you think she’s aborting because she’s alone and scared, or can’t face her parents, how fucking dare you decide this is a situation for you to gain from rather than offering to help? If you think she’s a beloved child of God and your sister in Christ, why can’t you have the least speck of empathy for her and offer to help? How dare you see her as less human than the embryo you believe she’s carrying? (She might be going to the women’s health center for any number of other reasons, you know.)

How dare you expect anyone to give you a baby to raise?

And how dare you call an embryo a baby? You fucking well know better.

15 Comments

Filed under General Ignoramitude, Jesus Told Me To, Misognyny, NaBloPoMo, Stop Saying That, Those Wacky PAPs, You're going to Hell for this.