"geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:%IRpc.6060$XI4.214199@news.xtra.co.nz... "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:SLMpc.12080$hH.294798@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... "geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message


The five couples and the teenager giving away her baby will be on New Zealand TV tomorrow. (20/20 program) I wonder what will be said here about it on talkback radio. No I won't be joining in, it takes at least half an hour waiting on the phone and I haven't the time. Geopelia Good decision! Marley Better to use newsgroups, no advertising blethering away while folks wait.
I haven't heard it mentioned yet on talkback, they are discussing the performance of Rugby teams this morning. I saw the program, and wonder what all the fuss has been about recently on this group. I thought it was very well handled, if we must have TV
sticking its nose into what should be private. The teenager made the right decision in the end, though I am not in favour of open adoptions. I'm glad she
chose the childless couple.

I always hear echoes of my father when you speak. It must be a generational
thing.
Should she have seen and handled the baby so much? Is that wise, when a child is to be adopted? Surely bonding should be avoided. What will be happening in ten years time? She will have lived a free
teenage life and will possibly be ready to settle down to marriage and a family. Will she still want to keep in touch with that baby? Will the parents have changed their minds about so much contact? How will the child feel about
it?

Will the economy recover? Will we ever leave Iraq? Will gays be allowed to
marry in all 50 states? Will the world explode in a fiery ball? Unless one
has a crystal ball it is hard to predict the future.


Kathy 1

"kat" <katlat24seeifthishelps@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2gs05aF626h5U1@uni-berlin.de... "geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:%IRpc.6060$XI4.214199@news.xtra.co.nz... "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:SLMpc.12080$hH.294798@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... "geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message > The five couples and the teenager giving away her baby will be on
New > Zealand TV tomorrow. (20/20 program) I wonder what will be said here about > it on talkback radio. No I won't be joining in, it takes at least
half an > hour waiting on the phone and I haven't the time. > > Geopelia Good decision! Marley > > Better to use newsgroups, no advertising blethering away while folks
wait. I haven't heard it mentioned yet on talkback, they are discussing the performance of Rugby teams this morning. I saw the program, and wonder what all the fuss has been about recently
on this group. I thought it was very well handled, if we must have TV sticking its nose into what should be private. The teenager made the right
decision in the end, though I am not in favour of open adoptions. I'm glad she chose the childless couple. I always hear echoes of my father when you speak. It must be a
generational thing.

Possibly. "The Wisdom of Age"? Only time will tell. Should she have seen and handled the baby so much? Is that wise, when a child is to be adopted? Surely bonding should be avoided. What will be happening in ten years time? She will have lived a free teenage life and will possibly be ready to settle down to marriage and a family. Will she still want to keep in touch with that baby? Will the parents
have changed their minds about so much contact? How will the child feel about it? Will the economy recover? Will we ever leave Iraq? Will gays be allowed
to marry in all 50 states? Will the world explode in a fiery ball? Unless
one has a crystal ball it is hard to predict the future. Kathy 1

They are making a start with gay marriage. After 40 years of happy marriage,
I would like to see gays allowed the same. Two people able to trust and
depend on each other for life in sickness and in health - everyone whoever
they are should be able to choose this.

As for the other questions, who knows? Ask your President about the economy
and Iraq, and an astronomer about the other.

I'm concerned about the happiness and future of four people, and whatever
may be politically correct today, I have misgivings about that situation.

Geopelia

"kat" <katlat24seeifthishelps@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2gs05aF626h5U1@uni-berlin.de... "geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:%IRpc.6060$XI4.214199@news.xtra.co.nz... "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:SLMpc.12080$hH.294798@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... "geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message > The five couples and the teenager giving away her baby will be on
New > Zealand TV tomorrow. (20/20 program) I wonder what will be said here about > it on talkback radio. No I won't be joining in, it takes at least
half an > hour waiting on the phone and I haven't the time. > > Geopelia Good decision! Marley > > Better to use newsgroups, no advertising blethering away while folks
wait. I haven't heard it mentioned yet on talkback, they are discussing the performance of Rugby teams this morning. I saw the program, and wonder what all the fuss has been about recently
on this group. I thought it was very well handled, if we must have TV sticking its nose into what should be private. The teenager made the right
decision in the end, though I am not in favour of open adoptions. I'm glad she chose the childless couple. I always hear echoes of my father when you speak. It must be a
generational thing.

Possibly. "The Wisdom of Age"? Only time will tell. Should she have seen and handled the baby so much? Is that wise, when a child is to be adopted? Surely bonding should be avoided. What will be happening in ten years time? She will have lived a free teenage life and will possibly be ready to settle down to marriage and a family. Will she still want to keep in touch with that baby? Will the parents
have changed their minds about so much contact? How will the child feel about it? Will the economy recover? Will we ever leave Iraq? Will gays be allowed
to marry in all 50 states? Will the world explode in a fiery ball? Unless
one has a crystal ball it is hard to predict the future. Kathy 1

They are making a start with gay marriage. After 40 years of happy marriage,
I would like to see gays allowed the same. Two people able to trust and
depend on each other for life in sickness and in health - everyone whoever
they are should be able to choose this.

As for the other questions, who knows? Ask your President about the economy
and Iraq, and an astronomer about the other.

I'm concerned about the happiness and future of four people, and whatever
may be politically correct today, I have misgivings about that situation.

Geopelia

> What will be happening in ten years time? She will have lived a freeteenage life and will possibly be ready to settle down to marriage and a family. Will she still want to keep in touch with that baby? Will the parents have changed their minds about so much contact? How will the child feel aboutit?Will the economy recover?

Yes.

Will we ever leave Iraq?

Yes.

Will gays be allowed tomarry in all 50 states?

Yes.

Will the world explode in a fiery ball?

No.
Unless onehas a crystal ball it is hard to predict the future.Kathy 1

See, it's not hard at all. It's accuracy that's tough.

J.
Crystal ball-less in Minnesota



Reply to jmhjmd at aol.

> What will be happening in ten years time? She will have lived a freeteenage life and will possibly be ready to settle down to marriage and a family. Will she still want to keep in touch with that baby? Will the parents have changed their minds about so much contact? How will the child feel aboutit?Will the economy recover?

Yes.

Will we ever leave Iraq?

Yes.

Will gays be allowed tomarry in all 50 states?

Yes.

Will the world explode in a fiery ball?

No.
Unless onehas a crystal ball it is hard to predict the future.Kathy 1

See, it's not hard at all. It's accuracy that's tough.

J.
Crystal ball-less in Minnesota



Reply to jmhjmd at aol.

"J." <jmdjmh@aol.compostible> wrote in message
news:20040518093604.18679.00000979@mb-m26.aol.com... What will be happening in ten years time? She will have lived a freeteenage life and will possibly be ready to settle down to marriage and a
family. Will she still want to keep in touch with that baby? Will the parents
have changed their minds about so much contact? How will the child feel
aboutit?Will the economy recover? Yes. Will we ever leave Iraq? Yes. Will gays be allowed tomarry in all 50 states? Yes. Will the world explode in a fiery ball? No.Unless onehas a crystal ball it is hard to predict the future.Kathy 1 See, it's not hard at all. It's accuracy that's tough.

J. Crystal ball-less in Minnesota

So true :)

Kathy 1

"J." <jmdjmh@aol.compostible> wrote in message
news:20040518093604.18679.00000979@mb-m26.aol.com... What will be happening in ten years time? She will have lived a freeteenage life and will possibly be ready to settle down to marriage and a
family. Will she still want to keep in touch with that baby? Will the parents
have changed their minds about so much contact? How will the child feel
aboutit?Will the economy recover? Yes. Will we ever leave Iraq? Yes. Will gays be allowed tomarry in all 50 states? Yes. Will the world explode in a fiery ball? No.Unless onehas a crystal ball it is hard to predict the future.Kathy 1 See, it's not hard at all. It's accuracy that's tough.

J. Crystal ball-less in Minnesota

So true :)

Kathy 1

"kat" <katlat24seeifthishelps@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2guighF71njqU1@uni-berlin.de... "J." <jmdjmh@aol.compostible> wrote in message news:20040518093604.18679.00000979@mb-m26.aol.com...> What will be happening in ten years time? She will have lived a freeteenage> life and will possibly be ready to settle down to marriage and a family.> Will she still want to keep in touch with that baby? Will the parents have> changed their minds about so much contact? How will the child feel aboutit?>Will the economy recover? Yes. Will we ever leave Iraq? Yes. Will gays be allowed tomarry in all 50 states? Yes. Will the world explode in a fiery ball? No.

Yes, if a large enough asteroid or comet hits it!
Unless onehas a crystal ball it is hard to predict the future.Kathy 1 See, it's not hard at all. It's accuracy that's tough. J. Crystal ball-less in Minnesota So true :) Kathy 1

"kat" <katlat24seeifthishelps@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2guighF71njqU1@uni-berlin.de... "J." <jmdjmh@aol.compostible> wrote in message news:20040518093604.18679.00000979@mb-m26.aol.com...> What will be happening in ten years time? She will have lived a freeteenage> life and will possibly be ready to settle down to marriage and a family.> Will she still want to keep in touch with that baby? Will the parents have> changed their minds about so much contact? How will the child feel aboutit?>Will the economy recover? Yes. Will we ever leave Iraq? Yes. Will gays be allowed tomarry in all 50 states? Yes. Will the world explode in a fiery ball? No.

Yes, if a large enough asteroid or comet hits it!
Unless onehas a crystal ball it is hard to predict the future.Kathy 1 See, it's not hard at all. It's accuracy that's tough. J. Crystal ball-less in Minnesota So true :) Kathy 1

Marley wrote re. domestic engineers:
Why shouldn't they? What makes them so special that they should lie around the house all day?

Because we're hot high class Mommas?
Once it was middle class privilege to say at home and do nothing all day.

Now only the wealthy and welfare mothers can do it. Or not do it
(something, that is.)
Women who did this reflected their husband's status. Now everybody is poor and stay-at home parents are just lazy unless

Enough sour grapes, Marlze. It's bad enough to laze about the house
all day *without* having to change diapers, clean messes and manage
the primitive needs of wee ones. One has to be suited to
domesticity, or at least resigned to it.

In any case, the real issue is whether kids benefit from the stability
of someone at home, provided that person is not a frustrated, abusive
or depressoid nut. In this day and age the sad thing is not that
women don't have the opportunity to go out and become mining engineers
and firepeople, but rather that they do not have the opportunity to
raise their own children, should they want to. Whether this is a
function of consumerist/real estate pressures as much as those of
self-actualization, I don't know.
been outsourced to India. People who stay home with their brats are simply freeloaders who let somebody else support them.

Hey, did you know that former sprogophobe Denise Castellucci (of
Voices of Adoption) had a baby in December and is now my neighbor.
Marlzey, I think you would make a really good Mommy too. I could see
you with one of those Chinese baby girls. Or maybe a Russian FAS kid,
if you're up to a challenge. ;^P hehehe. Just kidding.
It's interesting how the government moans and growns if poor woman wants to stay home and take care of Bratleilgh, but preaches to middle class women who don't.

Yes. Enforced matrimony for sperminators. Depenisation for wife and
girlfriend-beaters. Damzy for President!

Geopelia wrote:
Women who take motherhood and homemaking seriously don't "lie around the house all day". As well as raising and teaching their children, and doing the housework, shopping etc, they make clothes, preserve fruit etc, garden and raise vegetables, if they are farm wives they do a lot of the farm work,

Some have even (gasp) founded and ran adult adoptee rights groups!
But they don't count cuz they're evil abandoning lazy housewives.
Speaking of which, whatever the heck ever happened to Ms. Grimm? She
around?
they do voluntary work such as "meals on wheels", they take care of the family's finances, they entertain their husbands' business associates, they take the children to sports at weekends and to all the out of school

Putting up with other parents can be a job unto itself. Or so I hear.
Their contribution to the family is often far greater than the financial contribution of the average working mothers, whose wages must cover childcare, fares, clothes, make-up, and other expenses the stay at home women do not have.

This may be true in New Zealand (my family just returned from a trip
there - such a beautiful place!) and Britain, but Proctor and Gamblism
is so pervasive in the U.S. that even stay at home Moms often feel
compelled to wear tons of make-up and waste money on clothes they
don't need.

Marley writes:
Unfortunately, today both partners must work to make ends meet, and child rearing has to be put off for many years, by abortion if necessary.

It amazes me how many people still honestly think one can delay
childbearing until a woman's late 30's and beyond and still expect to
conceive easily. Someone should teach about the pain and cost of
reprotech and adoption in high school. Like in health class.
Women who prefer to make raising a family and running a happy home their career often don't have the choice any more. A man who prefers a wife who stays at home may not find a suitable partner.

There's no guarantee anyone will. But out-of-control
self-actualization and romance fantasies certainly have not helped
either gender.

Marley intones:
Wonem who prefer to stay ;home are stupid. Men who want them are

What about women? To heck with wonem. Woe unto nem.
stupider.

Like my husband. One dull knob there. Ooh, but what a knob..
There ought to be a special hell for breeders. Oh, there is . The home.

One wonem's hell is another heaven.
Some people would prefer the old closed adoptions. Who will prove right

In some cases, I think closed adoption *is* best. It was for me.
Besides, I've attended enough open adoption workshops at adoption
conferences to see the mania for openness and the hell it must wreak
on the poor kids whose birthparents don't want to be involved. But
the well-intentioned (?!) aparents who've found religion in open
adoption insist on contact, and the kid is disappointed over and over
by the birthparent who won't show up or call on a birthday. Whatever.
How about getting rid of adoption altogether and letting abortin be free on demand. Anybody dumb enough to keep their kid should pay for it.

Marley. Really. You're worse than some atheist screaming against God
or some fundie pointing fingers at dirty kaffirs. Tsk. You need to
get that Tivo thing so you can filter the diaper and Mr. Clean ads out
of your soap operas. Honestly, that should help.
Some people have religious beliefs that forbid abortion.

Or simple ethical beliefs.
If a woman who finds herself pregnant (even with the Pill accidents happen) is willing to have the child and allow it to be adopted, why not? A childless couple gets a baby, the child gets a stable home, and she passes her genes on to the next generation.

ADOPTION ROCKS DA HOUSE!!!! Besides, without adoption, there wouldn't
be alt.adoption. http://www.bastards.org/fun/mstrdntion/fqna.htm
Nuff said.
I believe the pressure on pregnant girls today to keep their babies themselves is wrong. It should be a free choice. By all means give them advice and point out the advantages and disadvantages of either course, but let them decide for themselves, unless they are underage.

In some religious communities the pressure is still to give the baby
away.
Do the majority of gays really want children? I doubt it.

Apparently the majority of straights in the US and UK don't want kids
either. At lease among those of European heritage.
Too right. Even if one lets people assume one is barren, (saves less argument) there is pressure to adopt! I think most of the old pressure is going now, though.

Pressure to adopt? Are you kidding? Yikes.

Can't wait to see the new Stepford Wives with St. Walken!!!

Damzy

Marley wrote re. domestic engineers:
Why shouldn't they? What makes them so special that they should lie around the house all day?

Because we're hot high class Mommas?
Once it was middle class privilege to say at home and do nothing all day.

Now only the wealthy and welfare mothers can do it. Or not do it
(something, that is.)
Women who did this reflected their husband's status. Now everybody is poor and stay-at home parents are just lazy unless

Enough sour grapes, Marlze. It's bad enough to laze about the house
all day *without* having to change diapers, clean messes and manage
the primitive needs of wee ones. One has to be suited to
domesticity, or at least resigned to it.

In any case, the real issue is whether kids benefit from the stability
of someone at home, provided that person is not a frustrated, abusive
or depressoid nut. In this day and age the sad thing is not that
women don't have the opportunity to go out and become mining engineers
and firepeople, but rather that they do not have the opportunity to
raise their own children, should they want to. Whether this is a
function of consumerist/real estate pressures as much as those of
self-actualization, I don't know.
been outsourced to India. People who stay home with their brats are simply freeloaders who let somebody else support them.

Hey, did you know that former sprogophobe Denise Castellucci (of
Voices of Adoption) had a baby in December and is now my neighbor.
Marlzey, I think you would make a really good Mommy too. I could see
you with one of those Chinese baby girls. Or maybe a Russian FAS kid,
if you're up to a challenge. ;^P hehehe. Just kidding.
It's interesting how the government moans and growns if poor woman wants to stay home and take care of Bratleilgh, but preaches to middle class women who don't.

Yes. Enforced matrimony for sperminators. Depenisation for wife and
girlfriend-beaters. Damzy for President!

Geopelia wrote:
Women who take motherhood and homemaking seriously don't "lie around the house all day". As well as raising and teaching their children, and doing the housework, shopping etc, they make clothes, preserve fruit etc, garden and raise vegetables, if they are farm wives they do a lot of the farm work,

Some have even (gasp) founded and ran adult adoptee rights groups!
But they don't count cuz they're evil abandoning lazy housewives.
Speaking of which, whatever the heck ever happened to Ms. Grimm? She
around?
they do voluntary work such as "meals on wheels", they take care of the family's finances, they entertain their husbands' business associates, they take the children to sports at weekends and to all the out of school

Putting up with other parents can be a job unto itself. Or so I hear.
Their contribution to the family is often far greater than the financial contribution of the average working mothers, whose wages must cover childcare, fares, clothes, make-up, and other expenses the stay at home women do not have.

This may be true in New Zealand (my family just returned from a trip
there - such a beautiful place!) and Britain, but Proctor and Gamblism
is so pervasive in the U.S. that even stay at home Moms often feel
compelled to wear tons of make-up and waste money on clothes they
don't need.

Marley writes:
Unfortunately, today both partners must work to make ends meet, and child rearing has to be put off for many years, by abortion if necessary.

It amazes me how many people still honestly think one can delay
childbearing until a woman's late 30's and beyond and still expect to
conceive easily. Someone should teach about the pain and cost of
reprotech and adoption in high school. Like in health class.
Women who prefer to make raising a family and running a happy home their career often don't have the choice any more. A man who prefers a wife who stays at home may not find a suitable partner.

There's no guarantee anyone will. But out-of-control
self-actualization and romance fantasies certainly have not helped
either gender.

Marley intones:
Wonem who prefer to stay ;home are stupid. Men who want them are

What about women? To heck with wonem. Woe unto nem.
stupider.

Like my husband. One dull knob there. Ooh, but what a knob..
There ought to be a special hell for breeders. Oh, there is . The home.

One wonem's hell is another heaven.
Some people would prefer the old closed adoptions. Who will prove right

In some cases, I think closed adoption *is* best. It was for me.
Besides, I've attended enough open adoption workshops at adoption
conferences to see the mania for openness and the hell it must wreak
on the poor kids whose birthparents don't want to be involved. But
the well-intentioned (?!) aparents who've found religion in open
adoption insist on contact, and the kid is disappointed over and over
by the birthparent who won't show up or call on a birthday. Whatever.
How about getting rid of adoption altogether and letting abortin be free on demand. Anybody dumb enough to keep their kid should pay for it.

Marley. Really. You're worse than some atheist screaming against God
or some fundie pointing fingers at dirty kaffirs. Tsk. You need to
get that Tivo thing so you can filter the diaper and Mr. Clean ads out
of your soap operas. Honestly, that should help.
Some people have religious beliefs that forbid abortion.

Or simple ethical beliefs.
If a woman who finds herself pregnant (even with the Pill accidents happen) is willing to have the child and allow it to be adopted, why not? A childless couple gets a baby, the child gets a stable home, and she passes her genes on to the next generation.

ADOPTION ROCKS DA HOUSE!!!! Besides, without adoption, there wouldn't
be alt.adoption. http://www.bastards.org/fun/mstrdntion/fqna.htm
Nuff said.
I believe the pressure on pregnant girls today to keep their babies themselves is wrong. It should be a free choice. By all means give them advice and point out the advantages and disadvantages of either course, but let them decide for themselves, unless they are underage.

In some religious communities the pressure is still to give the baby
away.
Do the majority of gays really want children? I doubt it.

Apparently the majority of straights in the US and UK don't want kids
either. At lease among those of European heritage.
Too right. Even if one lets people assume one is barren, (saves less argument) there is pressure to adopt! I think most of the old pressure is going now, though.

Pressure to adopt? Are you kidding? Yikes.

Can't wait to see the new Stepford Wives with St. Walken!!!

Damzy

"Damsel Plum" <amelusine@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c89c3e62.0406061613.616b4e25@posting.google.c om... Marley wrote re. domestic engineers: Why shouldn't they? What makes them so special that they should lie around the house all day? Because we're hot high class Mommas?

I KNOW you are, but you're about 10 cuts above the "average"--or more. Once it was middle class privilege to say at home and do nothing all day. Now only the wealthy and welfare mothers can do it. Or not do it (something, that is.)Women who did this reflected their husband's status. Now everybody is poor and stay-at home parents are just lazy unless Enough sour grapes, Marlze. It's bad enough to laze about the house all day *without* having to change diapers, clean messes and manage the primitive needs of wee ones. One has to be suited to domesticity, or at least resigned to it.

I don't see how anybody could be suited for it. Now being paid to this this
stuff is another story. I used to clean houses for $10 a day. Can you
beleive that? In any case, the real issue is whether kids benefit from the stability of someone at home, provided that person is not a frustrated, abusive or depressoid nut. In this day and age the sad thing is not that women don't have the opportunity to go out and become mining engineers and firepeople, but rather that they do not have the opportunity to raise their own children, should they want to. Whether this is a function of consumerist/real estate pressures as much as those of self-actualization, I don't know.

Well, you know me. I don't know why anybody would want to. As much as I
deplore work, I'd rather work than be stuck with a kid all day. been outsourced to India. People who stay home with their brats are simply freeloaders who let somebody else support them. Hey, did you know that former sprogophobe Denise Castellucci (of Voices of Adoption) had a baby in December and is now my neighbor. Marlzey, I think you would make a really good Mommy too. I could see you with one of those Chinese baby girls. Or maybe a Russian FAS kid, if you're up to a challenge. ;^P hehehe. Just kidding.

You'd better be! I prefer cats. My Abbie Kat , is my inspiration. She''s
angry at me right now for not letting her outside but she'll get over it.
Or not. There's just something fun about batting somebody in the eye in the
middle of the night to get even. It's interesting how the government moans and growns if poor woman
wants to stay home and take care of Bratleilgh, but preaches to middle class women who don't. Yes. Enforced matrimony for sperminators. Depenisation for wife and girlfriend-beaters. Damzy for President!

I'l vote for you. Geopelia wrote: Women who take motherhood and homemaking seriously don't "lie around the house all day". As well as raising and teaching their children, and
doing the housework, shopping etc, they make clothes, preserve fruit etc,
garden and raise vegetables, if they are farm wives they do a lot of the farm
work, Some have even (gasp) founded and ran adult adoptee rights groups! But they don't count cuz they're evil abandoning lazy housewives. Speaking of which, whatever the heck ever happened to Ms. Grimm? She around?

You never did know your place. I have no idea what Sheazy is up to except
that she's working for a Republican senator in Hawaii.

they do voluntary work such as "meals on wheels", they take care of the family's finances, they entertain their husbands' business associates,
they take the children to sports at weekends and to all the out of school Putting up with other parents can be a job unto itself. Or so I hear. Their contribution to the family is often far greater than the financial contribution of the average working mothers, whose wages must cover childcare, fares, clothes, make-up, and other expenses the stay at home women do not have. This may be true in New Zealand (my family just returned from a trip there - such a beautiful place!) and Britain, but Proctor and Gamblism is so pervasive in the U.S. that even stay at home Moms often feel compelled to wear tons of make-up and waste money on clothes they don't need.

Hey what did you do in NZ? I once knew a bdad there with the story of his
son's relinquishment inked on his back. Marley writes: > Unfortunately, today both partners must work to make ends meet, and child > rearing has to be put off for many years, by abortion if necessary. It amazes me how many people still honestly think one can delay childbearing until a woman's late 30's and beyond and still expect to conceive easily. Someone should teach about the pain and cost of reprotech and adoption in high school. Like in health class.

They can always adopt. Women > who prefer to make raising a family and running a happy home their career > often don't have the choice any more. A man who prefers a wife who
stays at > home may not find a suitable partner. There's no guarantee anyone will. But out-of-control self-actualization and romance fantasies certainly have not helped either gender. Marley intones: Wonem who prefer to stay ;home are stupid. Men who want them are What about women? To heck with wonem. Woe unto nem. stupider. Like my husband. One dull knob there. Ooh, but what a knob..

bwwwaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How is the old man? There ought to be a special hell for breeders. Oh, there is . The
home. One wonem's hell is another heaven. > Some people would prefer the old closed adoptions. Who will prove
right In some cases, I think closed adoption *is* best. It was for me. Besides, I've attended enough open adoption workshops at adoption conferences to see the mania for openness and the hell it must wreak on the poor kids whose birthparents don't want to be involved. But the well-intentioned (?!) aparents who've found religion in open adoption insist on contact, and the kid is disappointed over and over by the birthparent who won't show up or call on a birthday. Whatever. How about getting rid of adoption altogether and letting abortin be
free on demand. Anybody dumb enough to keep their kid should pay for it. Marley. Really. You're worse than some atheist screaming against God or some fundie pointing fingers at dirty kaffirs. Tsk. You need to get that Tivo thing so you can filter the diaper and Mr. Clean ads out of your soap operas. Honestly, that should help.

Hey, I don't even have cable, and I can't figure out how to use the VCR. I
can't even get it to play tapes. Some people have religious beliefs that forbid abortion. Or simple ethical beliefs. If a woman who finds herself pregnant (even with the Pill accidents
happen) is willing to have the child and allow it to be adopted, why not? A childless couple gets a baby, the child gets a stable home, and she
passes her genes on to the next generation.

Some of us don't want to pass on our genes. ADOPTION ROCKS DA HOUSE!!!! Besides, without adoption, there wouldn't be alt.adoption. http://www.bastards.org/fun/mstrdntion/fqna.htm Nuff said. I believe the pressure on pregnant girls today to keep their babies themselves is wrong. It should be a free choice. By all means give them advice and point out the advantages and disadvantages of either course,
but let them decide for themselves, unless they are underage. In some religious communities the pressure is still to give the baby away. > Do the majority of gays really want children? I doubt it. Apparently the majority of straights in the US and UK don't want kids either. At lease among those of European heritage. Too right. Even if one lets people assume one is barren, (saves less argument) there is pressure to adopt! I think most of the old pressure is going now, though. Pressure to adopt? Are you kidding? Yikes. Can't wait to see the new Stepford Wives with St. Walken!!! Damzy

Marley

"Damsel Plum" <amelusine@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c89c3e62.0406061613.616b4e25@posting.google.c om... Marley wrote re. domestic engineers: Why shouldn't they? What makes them so special that they should lie around the house all day? Because we're hot high class Mommas?

I KNOW you are, but you're about 10 cuts above the "average"--or more. Once it was middle class privilege to say at home and do nothing all day. Now only the wealthy and welfare mothers can do it. Or not do it (something, that is.)Women who did this reflected their husband's status. Now everybody is poor and stay-at home parents are just lazy unless Enough sour grapes, Marlze. It's bad enough to laze about the house all day *without* having to change diapers, clean messes and manage the primitive needs of wee ones. One has to be suited to domesticity, or at least resigned to it.

I don't see how anybody could be suited for it. Now being paid to this this
stuff is another story. I used to clean houses for $10 a day. Can you
beleive that? In any case, the real issue is whether kids benefit from the stability of someone at home, provided that person is not a frustrated, abusive or depressoid nut. In this day and age the sad thing is not that women don't have the opportunity to go out and become mining engineers and firepeople, but rather that they do not have the opportunity to raise their own children, should they want to. Whether this is a function of consumerist/real estate pressures as much as those of self-actualization, I don't know.

Well, you know me. I don't know why anybody would want to. As much as I
deplore work, I'd rather work than be stuck with a kid all day. been outsourced to India. People who stay home with their brats are simply freeloaders who let somebody else support them. Hey, did you know that former sprogophobe Denise Castellucci (of Voices of Adoption) had a baby in December and is now my neighbor. Marlzey, I think you would make a really good Mommy too. I could see you with one of those Chinese baby girls. Or maybe a Russian FAS kid, if you're up to a challenge. ;^P hehehe. Just kidding.

You'd better be! I prefer cats. My Abbie Kat , is my inspiration. She''s
angry at me right now for not letting her outside but she'll get over it.
Or not. There's just something fun about batting somebody in the eye in the
middle of the night to get even. It's interesting how the government moans and growns if poor woman
wants to stay home and take care of Bratleilgh, but preaches to middle class women who don't. Yes. Enforced matrimony for sperminators. Depenisation for wife and girlfriend-beaters. Damzy for President!

I'l vote for you. Geopelia wrote: Women who take motherhood and homemaking seriously don't "lie around the house all day". As well as raising and teaching their children, and
doing the housework, shopping etc, they make clothes, preserve fruit etc,
garden and raise vegetables, if they are farm wives they do a lot of the farm
work, Some have even (gasp) founded and ran adult adoptee rights groups! But they don't count cuz they're evil abandoning lazy housewives. Speaking of which, whatever the heck ever happened to Ms. Grimm? She around?

You never did know your place. I have no idea what Sheazy is up to except
that she's working for a Republican senator in Hawaii.

they do voluntary work such as "meals on wheels", they take care of the family's finances, they entertain their husbands' business associates,
they take the children to sports at weekends and to all the out of school Putting up with other parents can be a job unto itself. Or so I hear. Their contribution to the family is often far greater than the financial contribution of the average working mothers, whose wages must cover childcare, fares, clothes, make-up, and other expenses the stay at home women do not have. This may be true in New Zealand (my family just returned from a trip there - such a beautiful place!) and Britain, but Proctor and Gamblism is so pervasive in the U.S. that even stay at home Moms often feel compelled to wear tons of make-up and waste money on clothes they don't need.

Hey what did you do in NZ? I once knew a bdad there with the story of his
son's relinquishment inked on his back. Marley writes: > Unfortunately, today both partners must work to make ends meet, and child > rearing has to be put off for many years, by abortion if necessary. It amazes me how many people still honestly think one can delay childbearing until a woman's late 30's and beyond and still expect to conceive easily. Someone should teach about the pain and cost of reprotech and adoption in high school. Like in health class.

They can always adopt. Women > who prefer to make raising a family and running a happy home their career > often don't have the choice any more. A man who prefers a wife who
stays at > home may not find a suitable partner. There's no guarantee anyone will. But out-of-control self-actualization and romance fantasies certainly have not helped either gender. Marley intones: Wonem who prefer to stay ;home are stupid. Men who want them are What about women? To heck with wonem. Woe unto nem. stupider. Like my husband. One dull knob there. Ooh, but what a knob..

bwwwaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How is the old man? There ought to be a special hell for breeders. Oh, there is . The
home. One wonem's hell is another heaven. > Some people would prefer the old closed adoptions. Who will prove
right In some cases, I think closed adoption *is* best. It was for me. Besides, I've attended enough open adoption workshops at adoption conferences to see the mania for openness and the hell it must wreak on the poor kids whose birthparents don't want to be involved. But the well-intentioned (?!) aparents who've found religion in open adoption insist on contact, and the kid is disappointed over and over by the birthparent who won't show up or call on a birthday. Whatever. How about getting rid of adoption altogether and letting abortin be
free on demand. Anybody dumb enough to keep their kid should pay for it. Marley. Really. You're worse than some atheist screaming against God or some fundie pointing fingers at dirty kaffirs. Tsk. You need to get that Tivo thing so you can filter the diaper and Mr. Clean ads out of your soap operas. Honestly, that should help.

Hey, I don't even have cable, and I can't figure out how to use the VCR. I
can't even get it to play tapes. Some people have religious beliefs that forbid abortion. Or simple ethical beliefs. If a woman who finds herself pregnant (even with the Pill accidents
happen) is willing to have the child and allow it to be adopted, why not? A childless couple gets a baby, the child gets a stable home, and she
passes her genes on to the next generation.

Some of us don't want to pass on our genes. ADOPTION ROCKS DA HOUSE!!!! Besides, without adoption, there wouldn't be alt.adoption. http://www.bastards.org/fun/mstrdntion/fqna.htm Nuff said. I believe the pressure on pregnant girls today to keep their babies themselves is wrong. It should be a free choice. By all means give them advice and point out the advantages and disadvantages of either course,
but let them decide for themselves, unless they are underage. In some religious communities the pressure is still to give the baby away. > Do the majority of gays really want children? I doubt it. Apparently the majority of straights in the US and UK don't want kids either. At lease among those of European heritage. Too right. Even if one lets people assume one is barren, (saves less argument) there is pressure to adopt! I think most of the old pressure is going now, though. Pressure to adopt? Are you kidding? Yikes. Can't wait to see the new Stepford Wives with St. Walken!!! Damzy

Marley

"Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
You never did know your place. I have no idea what Sheazy is up to except that she's working for a Republican senator in Hawaii.

I bet.
Hey what did you do in NZ? I once knew a bdad there with the story of his son's relinquishment inked on his back.

As in tattooed? Yikes. There's an image that belongs on the
Internet. You do know tattoos are taboo in my household. Remember
that conference where I had to physically extricate myself from Shea's
considerable clutches to avoid being dragged off to the tattoo parlor?
That was frightening.

Hub was invited to NZ to give talks. We took the kids and drove
around both islands for a little over 2 weeks. Insanely beautiful
scenery. The kiwis are polite and reserved and not used to tourists.
My old man ordered steak one night in a remote area of the south
island and was served a horse steak. hehe. I've always had a fantasy
to move there. Who know? Maybe I will. Maybe I'll be raising
diamond doves with Geopelia in a few years.
It amazes me how many people still honestly think one can delay childbearing until a woman's late 30's and beyond and still expect to conceive easily. Someone should teach about the pain and cost of reprotech and adoption in high school. Like in health class. They can always adopt.

That's easy for you to say.
bwwwaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How is the old man?

Good, thanks. I'll tell him you say hi.
or some fundie pointing fingers at dirty kaffirs. Tsk. You need to get that Tivo thing so you can filter the diaper and Mr. Clean ads out of your soap operas. Honestly, that should help. Hey, I don't even have cable, and I can't figure out how to use the VCR. I can't even get it to play tapes.

But you do get your soaps, don't try to deny it - I know you!!!
Some of us don't want to pass on our genes.

Hey, who's twisting your arm?

Ok, so I looked at those links. Poor Mrs. Morrissey is manic on a
mission I see. Has she managed to adopt yet? If not, someone should
give her a few babies to keep her busy. That would help. Hopefully
she will be first in line when then legally dumped babies start
trickling into Massachusetts.

That said, it's easy for us not to realize how we must seem to people
who just don't understand, who don't know what Bill Pierce (PBUH) did
and said which harmed us as adopted citizens, in his attempt, in his
mind, to save lives from abortion and adoptions from failing. He was
manic on a mission too, wasn't he? And so was I when the issue was
something in which I believed. What drives you now, I don't really
know. I get Ron's angle, but I think you are just doing it for fun.

Damzy

"Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
You never did know your place. I have no idea what Sheazy is up to except that she's working for a Republican senator in Hawaii.

I bet.
Hey what did you do in NZ? I once knew a bdad there with the story of his son's relinquishment inked on his back.

As in tattooed? Yikes. There's an image that belongs on the
Internet. You do know tattoos are taboo in my household. Remember
that conference where I had to physically extricate myself from Shea's
considerable clutches to avoid being dragged off to the tattoo parlor?
That was frightening.

Hub was invited to NZ to give talks. We took the kids and drove
around both islands for a little over 2 weeks. Insanely beautiful
scenery. The kiwis are polite and reserved and not used to tourists.
My old man ordered steak one night in a remote area of the south
island and was served a horse steak. hehe. I've always had a fantasy
to move there. Who know? Maybe I will. Maybe I'll be raising
diamond doves with Geopelia in a few years.
It amazes me how many people still honestly think one can delay childbearing until a woman's late 30's and beyond and still expect to conceive easily. Someone should teach about the pain and cost of reprotech and adoption in high school. Like in health class. They can always adopt.

That's easy for you to say.
bwwwaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How is the old man?

Good, thanks. I'll tell him you say hi.
or some fundie pointing fingers at dirty kaffirs. Tsk. You need to get that Tivo thing so you can filter the diaper and Mr. Clean ads out of your soap operas. Honestly, that should help. Hey, I don't even have cable, and I can't figure out how to use the VCR. I can't even get it to play tapes.

But you do get your soaps, don't try to deny it - I know you!!!
Some of us don't want to pass on our genes.

Hey, who's twisting your arm?

Ok, so I looked at those links. Poor Mrs. Morrissey is manic on a
mission I see. Has she managed to adopt yet? If not, someone should
give her a few babies to keep her busy. That would help. Hopefully
she will be first in line when then legally dumped babies start
trickling into Massachusetts.

That said, it's easy for us not to realize how we must seem to people
who just don't understand, who don't know what Bill Pierce (PBUH) did
and said which harmed us as adopted citizens, in his attempt, in his
mind, to save lives from abortion and adoptions from failing. He was
manic on a mission too, wasn't he? And so was I when the issue was
something in which I believed. What drives you now, I don't really
know. I get Ron's angle, but I think you are just doing it for fun.

Damzy

Uh Marlze,

I read the salient parts of that Arlingtonian town hall page. Jeeez.
Ron is right - those guys are McCarthy-esque. They're their own worst
enemies too in a place like MA. Their approach would probably work
better in Kentucky.

I better get to sleep.

Later,

Damzy

Uh Marlze,

I read the salient parts of that Arlingtonian town hall page. Jeeez.
Ron is right - those guys are McCarthy-esque. They're their own worst
enemies too in a place like MA. Their approach would probably work
better in Kentucky.

I better get to sleep.

Later,

Damzy

"Damsel Plum" <amelusine@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c89c3e62.0406062250.4d7f9c5d@posting.google.c om... "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message You never did know your place. I have no idea what Sheazy is up to
except that she's working for a Republican senator in Hawaii. I bet.

Hey, it's what she says! Hey what did you do in NZ? I once knew a bdad there with the story of
his son's relinquishment inked on his back. As in tattooed? Yikes. There's an image that belongs on the Internet. You do know tattoos are taboo in my household. Remember that conference where I had to physically extricate myself from Shea's considerable clutches to avoid being dragged off to the tattoo parlor? That was frightening.

Yes, I rememer that. Was it Seattle? Hub was invited to NZ to give talks. We took the kids and drove around both islands for a little over 2 weeks. Insanely beautiful scenery. The kiwis are polite and reserved and not used to tourists. My old man ordered steak one night in a remote area of the south island and was served a horse steak. hehe. I've always had a fantasy to move there. Who know? Maybe I will. Maybe I'll be raising diamond doves with Geopelia in a few years.

You'd make a nic couple. It amazes me how many people still honestly think one can delay childbearing until a woman's late 30's and beyond and still expect to conceive easily. Someone should teach about the pain and cost of reprotech and adoption in high school. Like in health class. They can always adopt. That's easy for you to say. bwwwaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How is the old man? Good, thanks. I'll tell him you say hi.

Thanks. He's a sweetheart. or some fundie pointing fingers at dirty kaffirs. Tsk. You need to get that Tivo thing so you can filter the diaper and Mr. Clean ads out of your soap operas. Honestly, that should help. Hey, I don't even have cable, and I can't figure out how to use the VCR.
I can't even get it to play tapes. But you do get your soaps, don't try to deny it - I know you!!!

Soaps are the only thing I watch usually, except stuff on PBS, but most of
the time I"m up here working. Some of us don't want to pass on our genes. Hey, who's twisting your arm? Ok, so I looked at those links. Poor Mrs. Morrissey is manic on a mission I see. Has she managed to adopt yet? If not, someone should give her a few babies to keep her busy. That would help. Hopefully she will be first in line when then legally dumped babies start trickling into Massachusetts. That said, it's easy for us not to realize how we must seem to people who just don't understand, who don't know what Bill Pierce (PBUH) did and said which harmed us as adopted citizens, in his attempt, in his mind, to save lives from abortion and adoptions from failing. He was manic on a mission too, wasn't he? And so was I when the issue was something in which I believed. What drives you now, I don't really know. I get Ron's angle, but I think you are just doing it for fun. Damzy

What fiun. Trust me, Damz. This isin't fun anymore. It's work and work
and work. The crap never stops.

Marley

"Damsel Plum" <amelusine@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c89c3e62.0406062250.4d7f9c5d@posting.google.c om... "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message You never did know your place. I have no idea what Sheazy is up to
except that she's working for a Republican senator in Hawaii. I bet.

Hey, it's what she says! Hey what did you do in NZ? I once knew a bdad there with the story of
his son's relinquishment inked on his back. As in tattooed? Yikes. There's an image that belongs on the Internet. You do know tattoos are taboo in my household. Remember that conference where I had to physically extricate myself from Shea's considerable clutches to avoid being dragged off to the tattoo parlor? That was frightening.

Yes, I rememer that. Was it Seattle? Hub was invited to NZ to give talks. We took the kids and drove around both islands for a little over 2 weeks. Insanely beautiful scenery. The kiwis are polite and reserved and not used to tourists. My old man ordered steak one night in a remote area of the south island and was served a horse steak. hehe. I've always had a fantasy to move there. Who know? Maybe I will. Maybe I'll be raising diamond doves with Geopelia in a few years.

You'd make a nic couple. It amazes me how many people still honestly think one can delay childbearing until a woman's late 30's and beyond and still expect to conceive easily. Someone should teach about the pain and cost of reprotech and adoption in high school. Like in health class. They can always adopt. That's easy for you to say. bwwwaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How is the old man? Good, thanks. I'll tell him you say hi.

Thanks. He's a sweetheart. or some fundie pointing fingers at dirty kaffirs. Tsk. You need to get that Tivo thing so you can filter the diaper and Mr. Clean ads out of your soap operas. Honestly, that should help. Hey, I don't even have cable, and I can't figure out how to use the VCR.
I can't even get it to play tapes. But you do get your soaps, don't try to deny it - I know you!!!

Soaps are the only thing I watch usually, except stuff on PBS, but most of
the time I"m up here working. Some of us don't want to pass on our genes. Hey, who's twisting your arm? Ok, so I looked at those links. Poor Mrs. Morrissey is manic on a mission I see. Has she managed to adopt yet? If not, someone should give her a few babies to keep her busy. That would help. Hopefully she will be first in line when then legally dumped babies start trickling into Massachusetts. That said, it's easy for us not to realize how we must seem to people who just don't understand, who don't know what Bill Pierce (PBUH) did and said which harmed us as adopted citizens, in his attempt, in his mind, to save lives from abortion and adoptions from failing. He was manic on a mission too, wasn't he? And so was I when the issue was something in which I believed. What drives you now, I don't really know. I get Ron's angle, but I think you are just doing it for fun. Damzy

What fiun. Trust me, Damz. This isin't fun anymore. It's work and work
and work. The crap never stops.

Marley

"Damsel Plum" <amelusine@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c89c3e62.0406062250.4d7f9c5d@posting.google.c om... "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message You never did know your place. I have no idea what Sheazy is up to
except that she's working for a Republican senator in Hawaii. I bet. Hey what did you do in NZ? I once knew a bdad there with the story of
his son's relinquishment inked on his back. As in tattooed? Yikes. There's an image that belongs on the Internet. You do know tattoos are taboo in my household. Remember that conference where I had to physically extricate myself from Shea's considerable clutches to avoid being dragged off to the tattoo parlor? That was frightening. Hub was invited to NZ to give talks. We took the kids and drove around both islands for a little over 2 weeks. Insanely beautiful scenery. The kiwis are polite and reserved and not used to tourists. My old man ordered steak one night in a remote area of the south island and was served a horse steak. hehe. I've always had a fantasy to move there. Who know? Maybe I will. Maybe I'll be raising diamond doves with Geopelia in a few years.

You would be very welcome in the bird clubs. I can't believe the horse steak
though, perhaps they were kidding you.
To immigrate permanently you have to have enough "points" and age is
considered, so don't delay too long. You can
get a temporary visitors permit though.
Most kiwis are very friendly people. It amazes me how many people still honestly think one can delay childbearing until a woman's late 30's and beyond and still expect to conceive easily. Someone should teach about the pain and cost of reprotech and adoption in high school. Like in health class. They can always adopt. That's easy for you to say.

It is almost impossible in New Zealand now as the waiting list is so long,
and abortion is legal and safe. Girls are allowed to choose who will adopt
their babies now, so you might not be chosen. Some couples go to Romania or
even China to get babies. Closed adoptions are not encouraged, and at 18
children are allowed to find their birth parents anyway.
On the good side, there are not the enormous costs in adopting that Amerians
seem to have. It is illegal to "sell" a baby.
Geopelia

bwwwaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How is the old man? Good, thanks. I'll tell him you say hi. or some fundie pointing fingers at dirty kaffirs. Tsk. You need to get that Tivo thing so you can filter the diaper and Mr. Clean ads out of your soap operas. Honestly, that should help. Hey, I don't even have cable, and I can't figure out how to use the VCR.
I can't even get it to play tapes. But you do get your soaps, don't try to deny it - I know you!!! Some of us don't want to pass on our genes. Hey, who's twisting your arm? Ok, so I looked at those links. Poor Mrs. Morrissey is manic on a mission I see. Has she managed to adopt yet? If not, someone should give her a few babies to keep her busy. That would help. Hopefully she will be first in line when then legally dumped babies start trickling into Massachusetts. That said, it's easy for us not to realize how we must seem to people who just don't understand, who don't know what Bill Pierce (PBUH) did and said which harmed us as adopted citizens, in his attempt, in his mind, to save lives from abortion and adoptions from failing. He was manic on a mission too, wasn't he? And so was I when the issue was something in which I believed. What drives you now, I don't really know. I get Ron's angle, but I think you are just doing it for fun. Damzy

"Damsel Plum" <amelusine@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c89c3e62.0406062250.4d7f9c5d@posting.google.c om... "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message You never did know your place. I have no idea what Sheazy is up to
except that she's working for a Republican senator in Hawaii. I bet. Hey what did you do in NZ? I once knew a bdad there with the story of
his son's relinquishment inked on his back. As in tattooed? Yikes. There's an image that belongs on the Internet. You do know tattoos are taboo in my household. Remember that conference where I had to physically extricate myself from Shea's considerable clutches to avoid being dragged off to the tattoo parlor? That was frightening. Hub was invited to NZ to give talks. We took the kids and drove around both islands for a little over 2 weeks. Insanely beautiful scenery. The kiwis are polite and reserved and not used to tourists. My old man ordered steak one night in a remote area of the south island and was served a horse steak. hehe. I've always had a fantasy to move there. Who know? Maybe I will. Maybe I'll be raising diamond doves with Geopelia in a few years.

You would be very welcome in the bird clubs. I can't believe the horse steak
though, perhaps they were kidding you.
To immigrate permanently you have to have enough "points" and age is
considered, so don't delay too long. You can
get a temporary visitors permit though.
Most kiwis are very friendly people. It amazes me how many people still honestly think one can delay childbearing until a woman's late 30's and beyond and still expect to conceive easily. Someone should teach about the pain and cost of reprotech and adoption in high school. Like in health class. They can always adopt. That's easy for you to say.

It is almost impossible in New Zealand now as the waiting list is so long,
and abortion is legal and safe. Girls are allowed to choose who will adopt
their babies now, so you might not be chosen. Some couples go to Romania or
even China to get babies. Closed adoptions are not encouraged, and at 18
children are allowed to find their birth parents anyway.
On the good side, there are not the enormous costs in adopting that Amerians
seem to have. It is illegal to "sell" a baby.
Geopelia

bwwwaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How is the old man? Good, thanks. I'll tell him you say hi. or some fundie pointing fingers at dirty kaffirs. Tsk. You need to get that Tivo thing so you can filter the diaper and Mr. Clean ads out of your soap operas. Honestly, that should help. Hey, I don't even have cable, and I can't figure out how to use the VCR.
I can't even get it to play tapes. But you do get your soaps, don't try to deny it - I know you!!! Some of us don't want to pass on our genes. Hey, who's twisting your arm? Ok, so I looked at those links. Poor Mrs. Morrissey is manic on a mission I see. Has she managed to adopt yet? If not, someone should give her a few babies to keep her busy. That would help. Hopefully she will be first in line when then legally dumped babies start trickling into Massachusetts. That said, it's easy for us not to realize how we must seem to people who just don't understand, who don't know what Bill Pierce (PBUH) did and said which harmed us as adopted citizens, in his attempt, in his mind, to save lives from abortion and adoptions from failing. He was manic on a mission too, wasn't he? And so was I when the issue was something in which I believed. What drives you now, I don't really know. I get Ron's angle, but I think you are just doing it for fun. Damzy

"geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:<QlZwc.1348$GB4.43004@news.xtra.co.nz>...
You would be very welcome in the bird clubs.

Even my red-rump hybrid? He could be dangerous!
I can't believe the horse steak though, perhaps they were kidding you.

Well, we found out from eating it. I've had horse and I know what it
smells and tastes like (we lived in Europe for a bit when I was
growing up - on the continent). Mind you it was way in the southwest,
in sandfly land.
To immigrate permanently you have to have enough "points" and age is considered, so don't delay too long. You can get a temporary visitors permit though. Most kiwis are very friendly people.

I don't think we'd have a problem. Needed skills and all that. We'll
see what happens here.
It is almost impossible in New Zealand now as the waiting list is so long, and abortion is legal and safe. Girls are allowed to choose who will adopt their babies now, so you might not be chosen. Some couples go to Romania or even China to get babies. Closed adoptions are not encouraged, and at 18 children are allowed to find their birth parents anyway. On the good side, there are not the enormous costs in adopting that Amerians seem to have. It is illegal to "sell" a baby.

Hmm. Yes, but do you have legalized babydumps?!

Damsel

"geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:<QlZwc.1348$GB4.43004@news.xtra.co.nz>...
You would be very welcome in the bird clubs.

Even my red-rump hybrid? He could be dangerous!
I can't believe the horse steak though, perhaps they were kidding you.

Well, we found out from eating it. I've had horse and I know what it
smells and tastes like (we lived in Europe for a bit when I was
growing up - on the continent). Mind you it was way in the southwest,
in sandfly land.
To immigrate permanently you have to have enough "points" and age is considered, so don't delay too long. You can get a temporary visitors permit though. Most kiwis are very friendly people.

I don't think we'd have a problem. Needed skills and all that. We'll
see what happens here.
It is almost impossible in New Zealand now as the waiting list is so long, and abortion is legal and safe. Girls are allowed to choose who will adopt their babies now, so you might not be chosen. Some couples go to Romania or even China to get babies. Closed adoptions are not encouraged, and at 18 children are allowed to find their birth parents anyway. On the good side, there are not the enormous costs in adopting that Amerians seem to have. It is illegal to "sell" a baby.

Hmm. Yes, but do you have legalized babydumps?!

Damsel

"Damsel Plum" <amelusine@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c89c3e62.0406071134.28c78c82@posting.google.c om... "geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:<QlZwc.1348$GB4.43004@news.xtra.co.nz>... You would be very welcome in the bird clubs. Even my red-rump hybrid? He could be dangerous!

Hybrids are not popular, but people would be curious as he is so unusual.I can't believe the horse steak though, perhaps they were kidding you. Well, we found out from eating it. I've had horse and I know what it smells and tastes like (we lived in Europe for a bit when I was growing up - on the continent). Mind you it was way in the southwest, in sandfly land.

I hope that was in a private home, not a public cafe! Are you sure it wasn't
deer, thar, goat or wild pig?
I ate it too in the war, also whale, in London.

Great sandflies, aren't they! Did you get attacked by wasps? To immigrate permanently you have to have enough "points" and age is considered, so don't delay too long. You can get a temporary visitors permit though. Most kiwis are very friendly people. I don't think we'd have a problem. Needed skills and all that. We'll see what happens here.

That's good. We need good tradesmen, like plumbers. Kids all want to go to
university these days (on enormous loans) and the trades are rather
neglected. It is almost impossible in New Zealand now as the waiting list is so
long, and abortion is legal and safe. Girls are allowed to choose who will
adopt their babies now, so you might not be chosen. Some couples go to Romania
or even China to get babies. Closed adoptions are not encouraged, and at 18 children are allowed to find their birth parents anyway. On the good side, there are not the enormous costs in adopting that
Amerians seem to have. It is illegal to "sell" a baby. Hmm. Yes, but do you have legalized babydumps?!

Not the ones where girls just put the baby through a flap. Very few babies
are found abandoned here, either.

There used to be homes where girls never saw the babies and they were just
adopted, though. The girls were assured the files would be closed for life,
but
the government changed that. It has completely destroyed the confidence
pregnant women used to have in adoption, as now they know any arrangement
may be changed retrospectively.
Fair enough if the girls want an open adoption, otherwise abortion is the
only way to ensure they are never found.

Geopelia

Damsel

"Damsel Plum" <amelusine@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c89c3e62.0406071134.28c78c82@posting.google.c om... "geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:<QlZwc.1348$GB4.43004@news.xtra.co.nz>... You would be very welcome in the bird clubs. Even my red-rump hybrid? He could be dangerous!

Hybrids are not popular, but people would be curious as he is so unusual.I can't believe the horse steak though, perhaps they were kidding you. Well, we found out from eating it. I've had horse and I know what it smells and tastes like (we lived in Europe for a bit when I was growing up - on the continent). Mind you it was way in the southwest, in sandfly land.

I hope that was in a private home, not a public cafe! Are you sure it wasn't
deer, thar, goat or wild pig?
I ate it too in the war, also whale, in London.

Great sandflies, aren't they! Did you get attacked by wasps? To immigrate permanently you have to have enough "points" and age is considered, so don't delay too long. You can get a temporary visitors permit though. Most kiwis are very friendly people. I don't think we'd have a problem. Needed skills and all that. We'll see what happens here.

That's good. We need good tradesmen, like plumbers. Kids all want to go to
university these days (on enormous loans) and the trades are rather
neglected. It is almost impossible in New Zealand now as the waiting list is so
long, and abortion is legal and safe. Girls are allowed to choose who will
adopt their babies now, so you might not be chosen. Some couples go to Romania
or even China to get babies. Closed adoptions are not encouraged, and at 18 children are allowed to find their birth parents anyway. On the good side, there are not the enormous costs in adopting that
Amerians seem to have. It is illegal to "sell" a baby. Hmm. Yes, but do you have legalized babydumps?!

Not the ones where girls just put the baby through a flap. Very few babies
are found abandoned here, either.

There used to be homes where girls never saw the babies and they were just
adopted, though. The girls were assured the files would be closed for life,
but
the government changed that. It has completely destroyed the confidence
pregnant women used to have in adoption, as now they know any arrangement
may be changed retrospectively.
Fair enough if the girls want an open adoption, otherwise abortion is the
only way to ensure they are never found.

Geopelia

Damsel

>Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: "geopelia" phildoran@xtra.co.nzDate: 6/7/04 2:59 PM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <2y5xc.1462$GB4.49933@news.xtra.co.nz>

(snip)

Re: government opening records to adoptees
It has completely destroyed the confidencepregnant women used to have in adoption, as now they know any arrangementmay be changed retrospectively.

You're ignorant to be speaking for an entire class of people. Destroyed their
confidence in adoption, my arce.

I think what you are really trying to say, is that you are very pissed off that
the baby supply has dropped down to nothing and think that closing records will
increase the supply. It won't.
Fair enough if the girls want an open adoption, otherwise abortion is theonly way to ensure they are never found.


Kathy

>Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: "geopelia" phildoran@xtra.co.nzDate: 6/7/04 2:59 PM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <2y5xc.1462$GB4.49933@news.xtra.co.nz>

(snip)

Re: government opening records to adoptees
It has completely destroyed the confidencepregnant women used to have in adoption, as now they know any arrangementmay be changed retrospectively.

You're ignorant to be speaking for an entire class of people. Destroyed their
confidence in adoption, my arce.

I think what you are really trying to say, is that you are very pissed off that
the baby supply has dropped down to nothing and think that closing records will
increase the supply. It won't.
Fair enough if the girls want an open adoption, otherwise abortion is theonly way to ensure they are never found.


Kathy

In article <c89c3e62.0406062250.4d7f9c5d@posting.google.com>,
amelusine@yahoo.com (Damsel Plum) wrote:
"Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message You never did know your place. I have no idea what Sheazy is up to except that she's working for a Republican senator in Hawaii. I bet. Hey what did you do in NZ? I once knew a bdad there with the story of his son's relinquishment inked on his back. As in tattooed? Yikes. There's an image that belongs on the Internet. You do know tattoos are taboo in my household. Remember that conference where I had to physically extricate myself from Shea's considerable clutches to avoid being dragged off to the tattoo parlor? That was frightening.


That wasn't Chicago, was it?

Hub was invited to NZ to give talks. We took the kids and drove around both islands for a little over 2 weeks. Insanely beautiful scenery. The kiwis are polite and reserved and not used to tourists. My old man ordered steak one night in a remote area of the south island and was served a horse steak. hehe. I've always had a fantasy to move there. Who know? Maybe I will. Maybe I'll be raising diamond doves with Geopelia in a few years.


Send me a real estate listing when you get there :-)

NZ is one place I'd love to see on an extended basis.




steve

In article <c89c3e62.0406062250.4d7f9c5d@posting.google.com>,
amelusine@yahoo.com (Damsel Plum) wrote:
"Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message You never did know your place. I have no idea what Sheazy is up to except that she's working for a Republican senator in Hawaii. I bet. Hey what did you do in NZ? I once knew a bdad there with the story of his son's relinquishment inked on his back. As in tattooed? Yikes. There's an image that belongs on the Internet. You do know tattoos are taboo in my household. Remember that conference where I had to physically extricate myself from Shea's considerable clutches to avoid being dragged off to the tattoo parlor? That was frightening.


That wasn't Chicago, was it?

Hub was invited to NZ to give talks. We took the kids and drove around both islands for a little over 2 weeks. Insanely beautiful scenery. The kiwis are polite and reserved and not used to tourists. My old man ordered steak one night in a remote area of the south island and was served a horse steak. hehe. I've always had a fantasy to move there. Who know? Maybe I will. Maybe I'll be raising diamond doves with Geopelia in a few years.


Send me a real estate listing when you get there :-)

NZ is one place I'd love to see on an extended basis.




steve

"Steve White" <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message
news:steve-A2133F.21493907062004@netnews.comcast.net... In article <c89c3e62.0406062250.4d7f9c5d@posting.google.com>, amelusine@yahoo.com (Damsel Plum) wrote: "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message You never did know your place. I have no idea what Sheazy is up to
except that she's working for a Republican senator in Hawaii. I bet. Hey what did you do in NZ? I once knew a bdad there with the story of
his son's relinquishment inked on his back. As in tattooed? Yikes. There's an image that belongs on the Internet. You do know tattoos are taboo in my household. Remember that conference where I had to physically extricate myself from Shea's considerable clutches to avoid being dragged off to the tattoo parlor? That was frightening. That wasn't Chicago, was it? Hub was invited to NZ to give talks. We took the kids and drove around both islands for a little over 2 weeks. Insanely beautiful scenery. The kiwis are polite and reserved and not used to tourists. My old man ordered steak one night in a remote area of the south island and was served a horse steak. hehe. I've always had a fantasy to move there. Who know? Maybe I will. Maybe I'll be raising diamond doves with Geopelia in a few years. Send me a real estate listing when you get there :-) NZ is one place I'd love to see on an extended basis. steve

You could try New Zealand Herald on Google and see if you can get into their
Real Estate section.
The Real Estate agents are madly scrabbling for listings now the boom in
housing is about to bust (according to Olly Newland). They leave leaflets in
our box several times a week, one lot sends personal mail, and one cheeky
female actually phoned me! We have been here 40 years and our home is not
for sale.
Geopelia

"Steve White" <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message
news:steve-A2133F.21493907062004@netnews.comcast.net... In article <c89c3e62.0406062250.4d7f9c5d@posting.google.com>, amelusine@yahoo.com (Damsel Plum) wrote: "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message You never did know your place. I have no idea what Sheazy is up to
except that she's working for a Republican senator in Hawaii. I bet. Hey what did you do in NZ? I once knew a bdad there with the story of
his son's relinquishment inked on his back. As in tattooed? Yikes. There's an image that belongs on the Internet. You do know tattoos are taboo in my household. Remember that conference where I had to physically extricate myself from Shea's considerable clutches to avoid being dragged off to the tattoo parlor? That was frightening. That wasn't Chicago, was it? Hub was invited to NZ to give talks. We took the kids and drove around both islands for a little over 2 weeks. Insanely beautiful scenery. The kiwis are polite and reserved and not used to tourists. My old man ordered steak one night in a remote area of the south island and was served a horse steak. hehe. I've always had a fantasy to move there. Who know? Maybe I will. Maybe I'll be raising diamond doves with Geopelia in a few years. Send me a real estate listing when you get there :-) NZ is one place I'd love to see on an extended basis. steve

You could try New Zealand Herald on Google and see if you can get into their
Real Estate section.
The Real Estate agents are madly scrabbling for listings now the boom in
housing is about to bust (according to Olly Newland). They leave leaflets in
our box several times a week, one lot sends personal mail, and one cheeky
female actually phoned me! We have been here 40 years and our home is not
for sale.
Geopelia

"Kathy " <meagan787@aol.comsthesun> wrote in message
news:20040607185834.02197.00000599@mb-m14.aol.com...Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: "geopelia" phildoran@xtra.co.nzDate: 6/7/04 2:59 PM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <2y5xc.1462$GB4.49933@news.xtra.co.nz> (snip) Re: government opening records to adopteesIt has completely destroyed the confidencepregnant women used to have in adoption, as now they know any arrangementmay be changed retrospectively. You're ignorant to be speaking for an entire class of people. Destroyed
their confidence in adoption, my arce.

Ask around. Years ago girls and their parents automatically considered
adoption, even if they didn't decide on it in the end, but today it doesn't
seem to be considered much, it's abortion or keeping the child that are the
usual alternatives.
I think what you are really trying to say, is that you are very pissed off
that the baby supply has dropped down to nothing and think that closing records
will increase the supply. It won't.

Not at all. I'm "pissed off" as you call it that the government can pass
this sort of retrospective legislation. I believe the girls and the
adopting parents had a right to privacy for life, as that was understood
when they agreed to adoption. I certainly wouldn't adopt a child, even if
one was available, under the present legislation.

If the government can do this, what is to stop them making other things
illegal, and charging people with the "new" crimes that they may have
committed BEFORE the legislation came in? It's a dangerous precedent.
Fair enough if the girls want an open adoption, otherwise abortion is
theonly way to ensure they are never found. Kathy

"Kathy " <meagan787@aol.comsthesun> wrote in message
news:20040607185834.02197.00000599@mb-m14.aol.com...Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: "geopelia" phildoran@xtra.co.nzDate: 6/7/04 2:59 PM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <2y5xc.1462$GB4.49933@news.xtra.co.nz> (snip) Re: government opening records to adopteesIt has completely destroyed the confidencepregnant women used to have in adoption, as now they know any arrangementmay be changed retrospectively. You're ignorant to be speaking for an entire class of people. Destroyed
their confidence in adoption, my arce.

Ask around. Years ago girls and their parents automatically considered
adoption, even if they didn't decide on it in the end, but today it doesn't
seem to be considered much, it's abortion or keeping the child that are the
usual alternatives.
I think what you are really trying to say, is that you are very pissed off
that the baby supply has dropped down to nothing and think that closing records
will increase the supply. It won't.

Not at all. I'm "pissed off" as you call it that the government can pass
this sort of retrospective legislation. I believe the girls and the
adopting parents had a right to privacy for life, as that was understood
when they agreed to adoption. I certainly wouldn't adopt a child, even if
one was available, under the present legislation.

If the government can do this, what is to stop them making other things
illegal, and charging people with the "new" crimes that they may have
committed BEFORE the legislation came in? It's a dangerous precedent.
Fair enough if the girls want an open adoption, otherwise abortion is
theonly way to ensure they are never found. Kathy

>Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy )Date: 6/7/2004 4:58 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <20040607185834.02197.00000599@mb-m14.aol.com>Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: "geopelia" phildoran@xtra.co.nzDate: 6/7/04 2:59 PM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <2y5xc.1462$GB4.49933@news.xtra.co.nz>(snip)Re: government opening records to adopteesIt has completely destroyed the confidencepregnant women used to have in adoption, as now they know any arrangementmay be changed retrospectively.
You're ignorant to be speaking for an entire class of people. Destroyed theirconfidence in adoption, my arce.

You forget that Geo is a product of what we in the US call the *secrets and
lies* generation. She probably still wipes her butt on the equivalant of old
Sears catalog pages in the outhouse on the back forty.


-------------------------
A good friend will come and bail you out of jail . . . but, a true friend will
be sitting next to you saying, "Damn . . . that was fun!"
-----Unknown

>Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy )Date: 6/7/2004 4:58 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <20040607185834.02197.00000599@mb-m14.aol.com>Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: "geopelia" phildoran@xtra.co.nzDate: 6/7/04 2:59 PM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <2y5xc.1462$GB4.49933@news.xtra.co.nz>(snip)Re: government opening records to adopteesIt has completely destroyed the confidencepregnant women used to have in adoption, as now they know any arrangementmay be changed retrospectively.
You're ignorant to be speaking for an entire class of people. Destroyed theirconfidence in adoption, my arce.

You forget that Geo is a product of what we in the US call the *secrets and
lies* generation. She probably still wipes her butt on the equivalant of old
Sears catalog pages in the outhouse on the back forty.


-------------------------
A good friend will come and bail you out of jail . . . but, a true friend will
be sitting next to you saying, "Damn . . . that was fun!"
-----Unknown

>Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: "geopelia" phildoran@xtra.co.nzDate: 6/7/2004 10:05 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <CUaxc.1607$GB4.53704@news.xtra.co.nz>"Kathy " <meagan787@aol.comsthesun> wrote in messagenews:20040607185834.02197.00000599@mb-m14.aol.com...Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: "geopelia" phildoran@xtra.co.nzDate: 6/7/04 2:59 PM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <2y5xc.1462$GB4.49933@news.xtra.co.nz> (snip) Re: government opening records to adopteesIt has completely destroyed the confidencepregnant women used to have in adoption, as now they know any arrangementmay be changed retrospectively. You're ignorant to be speaking for an entire class of people. Destroyedtheir confidence in adoption, my arce.Ask around. Years ago girls and their parents automatically consideredadoption, even if they didn't decide on it in the end, but today it doesn'tseem to be considered much, it's abortion or keeping the child that are theusual alternatives.

So what? Why should women/girls be forced into unwanted parenthood or into
providing babies for the infertile? I think it's a good thing.


-------------------------
A good friend will come and bail you out of jail . . . but, a true friend will
be sitting next to you saying, "Damn . . . that was fun!"
-----Unknown

>Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: "geopelia" phildoran@xtra.co.nzDate: 6/7/2004 10:05 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <CUaxc.1607$GB4.53704@news.xtra.co.nz>"Kathy " <meagan787@aol.comsthesun> wrote in messagenews:20040607185834.02197.00000599@mb-m14.aol.com...Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: "geopelia" phildoran@xtra.co.nzDate: 6/7/04 2:59 PM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <2y5xc.1462$GB4.49933@news.xtra.co.nz> (snip) Re: government opening records to adopteesIt has completely destroyed the confidencepregnant women used to have in adoption, as now they know any arrangementmay be changed retrospectively. You're ignorant to be speaking for an entire class of people. Destroyedtheir confidence in adoption, my arce.Ask around. Years ago girls and their parents automatically consideredadoption, even if they didn't decide on it in the end, but today it doesn'tseem to be considered much, it's abortion or keeping the child that are theusual alternatives.

So what? Why should women/girls be forced into unwanted parenthood or into
providing babies for the infertile? I think it's a good thing.


-------------------------
A good friend will come and bail you out of jail . . . but, a true friend will
be sitting next to you saying, "Damn . . . that was fun!"
-----Unknown

"LilMtnCbn" <lilmtncbn@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040608002104.20909.00000472@mb-m23.aol.com...Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: "geopelia" phildoran@xtra.co.nzDate: 6/7/2004 10:05 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <CUaxc.1607$GB4.53704@news.xtra.co.nz>"Kathy " <meagan787@aol.comsthesun> wrote in messagenews:20040607185834.02197.00000599@mb-m14.aol.com... >Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental Rights >From: "geopelia" phildoran@xtra.co.nz >Date: 6/7/04 2:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <2y5xc.1462$GB4.49933@news.xtra.co.nz> (snip) Re: government opening records to adoptees >It has completely destroyed the confidence >pregnant women used to have in adoption, as now they know any
arrangement >may be changed retrospectively. You're ignorant to be speaking for an entire class of people. Destroyedtheir confidence in adoption, my arce.Ask around. Years ago girls and their parents automatically consideredadoption, even if they didn't decide on it in the end, but today it
doesn'tseem to be considered much, it's abortion or keeping the child that are
theusual alternatives. So what? Why should women/girls be forced into unwanted parenthood or
into providing babies for the infertile? I think it's a good thing.
Abortion should be a woman's choice, but if she decides to give birth and
have the child adopted, that should also be her free choice. ------------------------- A good friend will come and bail you out of jail . . . but, a true friend
will be sitting next to you saying, "Damn . . . that was fun!" -----Unknown

"LilMtnCbn" <lilmtncbn@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040608002104.20909.00000472@mb-m23.aol.com...Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: "geopelia" phildoran@xtra.co.nzDate: 6/7/2004 10:05 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <CUaxc.1607$GB4.53704@news.xtra.co.nz>"Kathy " <meagan787@aol.comsthesun> wrote in messagenews:20040607185834.02197.00000599@mb-m14.aol.com... >Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental Rights >From: "geopelia" phildoran@xtra.co.nz >Date: 6/7/04 2:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <2y5xc.1462$GB4.49933@news.xtra.co.nz> (snip) Re: government opening records to adoptees >It has completely destroyed the confidence >pregnant women used to have in adoption, as now they know any
arrangement >may be changed retrospectively. You're ignorant to be speaking for an entire class of people. Destroyedtheir confidence in adoption, my arce.Ask around. Years ago girls and their parents automatically consideredadoption, even if they didn't decide on it in the end, but today it
doesn'tseem to be considered much, it's abortion or keeping the child that are
theusual alternatives. So what? Why should women/girls be forced into unwanted parenthood or
into providing babies for the infertile? I think it's a good thing.
Abortion should be a woman's choice, but if she decides to give birth and
have the child adopted, that should also be her free choice. ------------------------- A good friend will come and bail you out of jail . . . but, a true friend
will be sitting next to you saying, "Damn . . . that was fun!" -----Unknown

"LilMtnCbn" <lilmtncbn@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040608001904.20909.00000471@mb-m23.aol.com...Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy )Date: 6/7/2004 4:58 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <20040607185834.02197.00000599@mb-m14.aol.com>Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: "geopelia" phildoran@xtra.co.nzDate: 6/7/04 2:59 PM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <2y5xc.1462$GB4.49933@news.xtra.co.nz>(snip)Re: government opening records to adopteesIt has completely destroyed the confidencepregnant women used to have in adoption, as now they know any
arrangementmay be changed retrospectively.You're ignorant to be speaking for an entire class of people. Destroyed
theirconfidence in adoption, my arce. You forget that Geo is a product of what we in the US call the *secrets
and lies* generation. She probably still wipes her butt on the equivalant of
old Sears catalog pages in the outhouse on the back forty.

I will refrain from any rude remarks about your toilet arrangements. There
is quite enough porn on the net now!
Geopelia ------------------------- A good friend will come and bail you out of jail . . . but, a true friend
will be sitting next to you saying, "Damn . . . that was fun!" -----Unknown

"LilMtnCbn" <lilmtncbn@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040608001904.20909.00000471@mb-m23.aol.com...Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy )Date: 6/7/2004 4:58 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <20040607185834.02197.00000599@mb-m14.aol.com>Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: "geopelia" phildoran@xtra.co.nzDate: 6/7/04 2:59 PM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <2y5xc.1462$GB4.49933@news.xtra.co.nz>(snip)Re: government opening records to adopteesIt has completely destroyed the confidencepregnant women used to have in adoption, as now they know any
arrangementmay be changed retrospectively.You're ignorant to be speaking for an entire class of people. Destroyed
theirconfidence in adoption, my arce. You forget that Geo is a product of what we in the US call the *secrets
and lies* generation. She probably still wipes her butt on the equivalant of
old Sears catalog pages in the outhouse on the back forty.

I will refrain from any rude remarks about your toilet arrangements. There
is quite enough porn on the net now!
Geopelia ------------------------- A good friend will come and bail you out of jail . . . but, a true friend
will be sitting next to you saying, "Damn . . . that was fun!" -----Unknown

"geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:Laixc.1817$GB4.59291@news.xtra.co.nz...


Ask around. Years ago girls and their parents automatically consideredadoption, even if they didn't decide on it in the end, but today it doesn'tseem to be considered much, it's abortion or keeping the child that are theusual alternatives. So what? Why should women/girls be forced into unwanted parenthood or into providing babies for the infertile? I think it's a good thing. Abortion should be a woman's choice, but if she decides to give birth and have the child adopted, that should also be her free choice.


It is. What's your point?

Kathy 1

"geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:Laixc.1817$GB4.59291@news.xtra.co.nz...


Ask around. Years ago girls and their parents automatically consideredadoption, even if they didn't decide on it in the end, but today it doesn'tseem to be considered much, it's abortion or keeping the child that are theusual alternatives. So what? Why should women/girls be forced into unwanted parenthood or into providing babies for the infertile? I think it's a good thing. Abortion should be a woman's choice, but if she decides to give birth and have the child adopted, that should also be her free choice.


It is. What's your point?

Kathy 1

"geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:<CUaxc.1607$GB4.53704@news.xtra.co.nz>... "Kathy " <meagan787@aol.comsthesun> wrote in message news:20040607185834.02197.00000599@mb-m14.aol.com...Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: "geopelia" phildoran@xtra.co.nzDate: 6/7/04 2:59 PM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <2y5xc.1462$GB4.49933@news.xtra.co.nz> (snip) Re: government opening records to adopteesIt has completely destroyed the confidencepregnant women used to have in adoption, as now they know any arrangementmay be changed retrospectively. You're ignorant to be speaking for an entire class of people. Destroyed their confidence in adoption, my arce. Ask around. Years ago girls and their parents automatically considered adoption, even if they didn't decide on it in the end, but today it doesn't seem to be considered much, it's abortion or keeping the child that are the usual alternatives. I think what you are really trying to say, is that you are very pissed off that the baby supply has dropped down to nothing and think that closing records will increase the supply. It won't. Not at all. I'm "pissed off" as you call it that the government can pass this sort of retrospective legislation. I believe the girls and the adopting parents had a right to privacy for life, as that was understood when they agreed to adoption.



There never was any legal commitment to maintaining anonymity (as
opposed to "privacy"), and if it was assumed that there was, that was
a *mis*understanding of the situation.
BTW, you might as easily argue that people were misled into making
false assumptions.

In fact it was closed records that contravened the rights of both
natural parents and their children.


There was no promise made I certainly wouldn't adopt a child, even if one was available, under the present legislation.


Up to you (or your ilk)
And it would be a good thing, IMO.


If the government can do this, what is to stop them making other things illegal, and charging people with the "new" crimes that they may have committed BEFORE the legislation came in? It's a dangerous precedent.



The dangerous precedent was the deceptive information that encouraged
people to believe that they were entitled to anonymity under the law.



Fair enough if the girls want an open adoption, otherwise abortion is theonly way to ensure they are never found.



Better than being hidden away and then encouraged to pretend that
nothing had ever happened, don't you think? (Evidently not)



Rh.
Kathy

"geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:<CUaxc.1607$GB4.53704@news.xtra.co.nz>... "Kathy " <meagan787@aol.comsthesun> wrote in message news:20040607185834.02197.00000599@mb-m14.aol.com...Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: "geopelia" phildoran@xtra.co.nzDate: 6/7/04 2:59 PM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <2y5xc.1462$GB4.49933@news.xtra.co.nz> (snip) Re: government opening records to adopteesIt has completely destroyed the confidencepregnant women used to have in adoption, as now they know any arrangementmay be changed retrospectively. You're ignorant to be speaking for an entire class of people. Destroyed their confidence in adoption, my arce. Ask around. Years ago girls and their parents automatically considered adoption, even if they didn't decide on it in the end, but today it doesn't seem to be considered much, it's abortion or keeping the child that are the usual alternatives. I think what you are really trying to say, is that you are very pissed off that the baby supply has dropped down to nothing and think that closing records will increase the supply. It won't. Not at all. I'm "pissed off" as you call it that the government can pass this sort of retrospective legislation. I believe the girls and the adopting parents had a right to privacy for life, as that was understood when they agreed to adoption.



There never was any legal commitment to maintaining anonymity (as
opposed to "privacy"), and if it was assumed that there was, that was
a *mis*understanding of the situation.
BTW, you might as easily argue that people were misled into making
false assumptions.

In fact it was closed records that contravened the rights of both
natural parents and their children.


There was no promise made I certainly wouldn't adopt a child, even if one was available, under the present legislation.


Up to you (or your ilk)
And it would be a good thing, IMO.


If the government can do this, what is to stop them making other things illegal, and charging people with the "new" crimes that they may have committed BEFORE the legislation came in? It's a dangerous precedent.



The dangerous precedent was the deceptive information that encouraged
people to believe that they were entitled to anonymity under the law.



Fair enough if the girls want an open adoption, otherwise abortion is theonly way to ensure they are never found.



Better than being hidden away and then encouraged to pretend that
nothing had ever happened, don't you think? (Evidently not)



Rh.
Kathy

>Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: "geopelia" phildoran@xtra.co.nzDate: 6/8/2004 6:28 AM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <Ugixc.1820$GB4.59747@news.xtra.co.nz>"LilMtnCbn" <lilmtncbn@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:20040608001904.20909.00000471@mb-m23.aol.com...Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy )Date: 6/7/2004 4:58 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <20040607185834.02197.00000599@mb-m14.aol.com>>Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental Rights>From: "geopelia" phildoran@xtra.co.nz>Date: 6/7/04 2:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time>Message-id: <2y5xc.1462$GB4.49933@news.xtra.co.nz>(snip)Re: government opening records to adoptees>It has completely destroyed the confidence>pregnant women used to have in adoption, as now they know anyarrangement>may be changed retrospectively.You're ignorant to be speaking for an entire class of people. Destroyedtheirconfidence in adoption, my arce. You forget that Geo is a product of what we in the US call the *secretsand lies* generation. She probably still wipes her butt on the equivalant ofold Sears catalog pages in the outhouse on the back forty.I will refrain from any rude remarks about your toilet arrangements. Thereis quite enough porn on the net now!Geopelia

I'm an adoptee. I just pee wherever I'm standing.


-------------------------
A good friend will come and bail you out of jail . . . but, a true friend will
be sitting next to you saying, "Damn . . . that was fun!"
-----Unknown

>Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: "geopelia" phildoran@xtra.co.nzDate: 6/8/2004 6:28 AM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <Ugixc.1820$GB4.59747@news.xtra.co.nz>"LilMtnCbn" <lilmtncbn@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:20040608001904.20909.00000471@mb-m23.aol.com...Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy )Date: 6/7/2004 4:58 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <20040607185834.02197.00000599@mb-m14.aol.com>>Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental Rights>From: "geopelia" phildoran@xtra.co.nz>Date: 6/7/04 2:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time>Message-id: <2y5xc.1462$GB4.49933@news.xtra.co.nz>(snip)Re: government opening records to adoptees>It has completely destroyed the confidence>pregnant women used to have in adoption, as now they know anyarrangement>may be changed retrospectively.You're ignorant to be speaking for an entire class of people. Destroyedtheirconfidence in adoption, my arce. You forget that Geo is a product of what we in the US call the *secretsand lies* generation. She probably still wipes her butt on the equivalant ofold Sears catalog pages in the outhouse on the back forty.I will refrain from any rude remarks about your toilet arrangements. Thereis quite enough porn on the net now!Geopelia

I'm an adoptee. I just pee wherever I'm standing.


-------------------------
A good friend will come and bail you out of jail . . . but, a true friend will
be sitting next to you saying, "Damn . . . that was fun!"
-----Unknown

>Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: lilmtncbn@aol.com (LilMtnCbn)Date: 6/7/04 9:19 PM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <20040608001904.20909.00000471@mb-m23.aol.com>Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy )Date: 6/7/2004 4:58 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <20040607185834.02197.00000599@mb-m14.aol.com>Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: "geopelia" phildoran@xtra.co.nzDate: 6/7/04 2:59 PM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <2y5xc.1462$GB4.49933@news.xtra.co.nz>(snip)Re: government opening records to adopteesIt has completely destroyed the confidencepregnant women used to have in adoption, as now they know any arrangementmay be changed retrospectively.You're ignorant to be speaking for an entire class of people. Destroyedtheirconfidence in adoption, my arce.You forget that Geo is a product of what we in the US call the *secrets andlies* generation.

Oh really? I should have guessed.

She probably still wipes her butt on the equivalant of oldSears catalog pages in the outhouse on the back forty.

LOL! I bet she still wears a girdle too!


Kathy

>Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: lilmtncbn@aol.com (LilMtnCbn)Date: 6/7/04 9:19 PM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <20040608001904.20909.00000471@mb-m23.aol.com>Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy )Date: 6/7/2004 4:58 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <20040607185834.02197.00000599@mb-m14.aol.com>Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: "geopelia" phildoran@xtra.co.nzDate: 6/7/04 2:59 PM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <2y5xc.1462$GB4.49933@news.xtra.co.nz>(snip)Re: government opening records to adopteesIt has completely destroyed the confidencepregnant women used to have in adoption, as now they know any arrangementmay be changed retrospectively.You're ignorant to be speaking for an entire class of people. Destroyedtheirconfidence in adoption, my arce.You forget that Geo is a product of what we in the US call the *secrets andlies* generation.

Oh really? I should have guessed.

She probably still wipes her butt on the equivalant of oldSears catalog pages in the outhouse on the back forty.

LOL! I bet she still wears a girdle too!


Kathy

>Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: "geopelia" phildoran@xtra.co.nzDate: 6/8/04 5:28 AM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <Ugixc.1820$GB4.59747@news.xtra.co.nz>"LilMtnCbn" <lilmtncbn@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:20040608001904.20909.00000471@mb-m23.aol.com...Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy )Date: 6/7/2004 4:58 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <20040607185834.02197.00000599@mb-m14.aol.com>>Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental Rights>From: "geopelia" phildoran@xtra.co.nz>Date: 6/7/04 2:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time>Message-id: <2y5xc.1462$GB4.49933@news.xtra.co.nz>(snip)Re: government opening records to adoptees>It has completely destroyed the confidence>pregnant women used to have in adoption, as now they know anyarrangement>may be changed retrospectively.You're ignorant to be speaking for an entire class of people. Destroyedtheirconfidence in adoption, my arce. You forget that Geo is a product of what we in the US call the *secretsand lies* generation. She probably still wipes her butt on the equivalant ofold Sears catalog pages in the outhouse on the back forty.I will refrain from any rude remarks about your toilet arrangements. Thereis quite enough porn on the net now!Geopelia

Celeste, is that you !?!
Kathy

>Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: "geopelia" phildoran@xtra.co.nzDate: 6/8/04 5:28 AM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <Ugixc.1820$GB4.59747@news.xtra.co.nz>"LilMtnCbn" <lilmtncbn@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:20040608001904.20909.00000471@mb-m23.aol.com...Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy )Date: 6/7/2004 4:58 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <20040607185834.02197.00000599@mb-m14.aol.com>>Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental Rights>From: "geopelia" phildoran@xtra.co.nz>Date: 6/7/04 2:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time>Message-id: <2y5xc.1462$GB4.49933@news.xtra.co.nz>(snip)Re: government opening records to adoptees>It has completely destroyed the confidence>pregnant women used to have in adoption, as now they know anyarrangement>may be changed retrospectively.You're ignorant to be speaking for an entire class of people. Destroyedtheirconfidence in adoption, my arce. You forget that Geo is a product of what we in the US call the *secretsand lies* generation. She probably still wipes her butt on the equivalant ofold Sears catalog pages in the outhouse on the back forty.I will refrain from any rude remarks about your toilet arrangements. Thereis quite enough porn on the net now!Geopelia

Celeste, is that you !?!
Kathy

>Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: "geopelia" phildoran@xtra.co.nzDate: 6/7/04 9:05 PM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <CUaxc.1607$GB4.53704@news.xtra.co.nz>"Kathy " <meagan787@aol.comsthesun> wrote in messagenews:20040607185834.02197.00000599@mb-m14.aol.com...Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: "geopelia" phildoran@xtra.co.nzDate: 6/7/04 2:59 PM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <2y5xc.1462$GB4.49933@news.xtra.co.nz> (snip) Re: government opening records to adopteesIt has completely destroyed the confidencepregnant women used to have in adoption, as now they know any arrangementmay be changed retrospectively. You're ignorant to be speaking for an entire class of people. Destroyedtheir confidence in adoption, my arce.

Again, you're ignorant to be speaking for an entire class of people. Related to
Jackie, eh?
Ask around.

I don't need to ask around to know that what you wrote is pure stupidity.

Years ago girls and their parents automatically consideredadoption, even if they didn't decide on it in the end, but today it doesn'tseem to be considered much, it's abortion or keeping the child that are theusual alternatives.

So what's it to you if the child's mother and her parents no longer consider
their family a bunch of baby makers for the childless?
I think what you are really trying to say, is that you are very pissed offthat the baby supply has dropped down to nothing and think that closing recordswill increase the supply. It won't.Not at all. I'm "pissed off" as you call it that the government can passthis sort of retrospective legislation. I believe the girls and theadopting parents had a right to privacy for life, as that was understoodwhen they agreed to adoption.

Nobody promised any such thing.

I certainly wouldn't adopt a child, even ifone was available, under the present legislation.

Well pin a medal on your righteous ***.
If the government can do this, what is to stop them making other thingsillegal, and charging people with the "new" crimes that they may havecommitted BEFORE the legislation came in? It's a dangerous precedent.

What ever are you babbling about?
Fair enough if the girls want an open adoption, otherwise abortion istheonly way to ensure they are never found. Kathy


Kathy

>Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: "geopelia" phildoran@xtra.co.nzDate: 6/7/04 9:05 PM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <CUaxc.1607$GB4.53704@news.xtra.co.nz>"Kathy " <meagan787@aol.comsthesun> wrote in messagenews:20040607185834.02197.00000599@mb-m14.aol.com...Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: "geopelia" phildoran@xtra.co.nzDate: 6/7/04 2:59 PM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <2y5xc.1462$GB4.49933@news.xtra.co.nz> (snip) Re: government opening records to adopteesIt has completely destroyed the confidencepregnant women used to have in adoption, as now they know any arrangementmay be changed retrospectively. You're ignorant to be speaking for an entire class of people. Destroyedtheir confidence in adoption, my arce.

Again, you're ignorant to be speaking for an entire class of people. Related to
Jackie, eh?
Ask around.

I don't need to ask around to know that what you wrote is pure stupidity.

Years ago girls and their parents automatically consideredadoption, even if they didn't decide on it in the end, but today it doesn'tseem to be considered much, it's abortion or keeping the child that are theusual alternatives.

So what's it to you if the child's mother and her parents no longer consider
their family a bunch of baby makers for the childless?
I think what you are really trying to say, is that you are very pissed offthat the baby supply has dropped down to nothing and think that closing recordswill increase the supply. It won't.Not at all. I'm "pissed off" as you call it that the government can passthis sort of retrospective legislation. I believe the girls and theadopting parents had a right to privacy for life, as that was understoodwhen they agreed to adoption.

Nobody promised any such thing.

I certainly wouldn't adopt a child, even ifone was available, under the present legislation.

Well pin a medal on your righteous ***.
If the government can do this, what is to stop them making other thingsillegal, and charging people with the "new" crimes that they may havecommitted BEFORE the legislation came in? It's a dangerous precedent.

What ever are you babbling about?
Fair enough if the girls want an open adoption, otherwise abortion istheonly way to ensure they are never found. Kathy


Kathy

Geopelia:
Years ago girls and their parents automatically consideredadoption, even if they didn't decide on it in the end, but today it doesn'tseem to be considered much, it's abortion or keeping the child that are theusual alternatives.

There are people on this ng who think that adoption is evil because
they themselves regret having relinquished, they were subject to
abuses in the system, or they had a bad adoptive experience.

Kathy:
So what's it to you if the child's mother and her parents no longer consider their family a bunch of baby makers for the childless?

That remark sounds like a case in point. It's a question of
perspective. My birthmother certainly didn't consider herself as
such. The remark above suggests a degree of contempt for the
childless who seek parenthood through adoption, am I wrong?

Kathy:
I think what you are really trying to say, is that you are very pissed off that the baby supply has dropped down to nothing and think that closing records will increase the supply. It won't.

Geopelia:
Not at all. I'm "pissed off" as you call it that the government can passthis sort of retrospective legislation. I believe the girls and theadopting parents had a right to privacy for life, as that was understoodwhen they agreed to adoption.

The problem is that many birthmothers were promised that they *would*
be able to contact (or at least be contacted) by their offspring when
they reach adulthood. Then they realize that was not the case. So
they were screwed for a long time. Besides, it does sound like sour
grapes on your part, Geopelia, as I am assuming you are a potential
adoptive parent rather than a birthparent scared of some shlump of a
birthson sleeping on your couch for the next 6 months. Try reading
Anne Babb's article on Adoptive Parents: Fables, Fears and Facts
http://www.bastards.org/bq/more2.htm

By the way, I stopped editing the BQ because I had a big problem
writing in opposition to Baby Dumps. It created an insurmountable
existential problem for me which no amount of policy-speak remedied.
I'm sorry, but it's the truth. If that makes me weak-minded or a jerk
or just weak in your eyes, well, that's life.

Kathy:
Nobody promised any such thing.

Oh, some people did. Absolutely they did. They told birthmothers
whatever they wanted to hear. Some wanted to hear that they wouldn't
ever have to hear about this again.

Geopelia:
I certainly wouldn't adopt a child, even ifone was available, under the present legislation.

Why on earth not? With abortion readily available any alleged desire
for permanent anonymity is rendered moot. Is it because you fear
birthmothers who clamor to reclaim the child? That is relatively
rare.

Kathy:
Well pin a medal on your righteous ***.

Ah, Kathy's a diplomat. Winning hearts, changing minds..
If the government can do this, what is to stop them making other thingsillegal, and charging people with the "new" crimes that they may havecommitted BEFORE the legislation came in? It's a dangerous precedent. What ever are you babbling about?

She doesn't understand the state of the law prior to the change.
> Fair enough if the girls want an open adoption, otherwise abortion is the >only way to ensure they are never found.

Don't forget legalized babydumping! The other abortion! hehehe.

Damzy

Geopelia:
Years ago girls and their parents automatically consideredadoption, even if they didn't decide on it in the end, but today it doesn'tseem to be considered much, it's abortion or keeping the child that are theusual alternatives.

There are people on this ng who think that adoption is evil because
they themselves regret having relinquished, they were subject to
abuses in the system, or they had a bad adoptive experience.

Kathy:
So what's it to you if the child's mother and her parents no longer consider their family a bunch of baby makers for the childless?

That remark sounds like a case in point. It's a question of
perspective. My birthmother certainly didn't consider herself as
such. The remark above suggests a degree of contempt for the
childless who seek parenthood through adoption, am I wrong?

Kathy:
I think what you are really trying to say, is that you are very pissed off that the baby supply has dropped down to nothing and think that closing records will increase the supply. It won't.

Geopelia:
Not at all. I'm "pissed off" as you call it that the government can passthis sort of retrospective legislation. I believe the girls and theadopting parents had a right to privacy for life, as that was understoodwhen they agreed to adoption.

The problem is that many birthmothers were promised that they *would*
be able to contact (or at least be contacted) by their offspring when
they reach adulthood. Then they realize that was not the case. So
they were screwed for a long time. Besides, it does sound like sour
grapes on your part, Geopelia, as I am assuming you are a potential
adoptive parent rather than a birthparent scared of some shlump of a
birthson sleeping on your couch for the next 6 months. Try reading
Anne Babb's article on Adoptive Parents: Fables, Fears and Facts
http://www.bastards.org/bq/more2.htm

By the way, I stopped editing the BQ because I had a big problem
writing in opposition to Baby Dumps. It created an insurmountable
existential problem for me which no amount of policy-speak remedied.
I'm sorry, but it's the truth. If that makes me weak-minded or a jerk
or just weak in your eyes, well, that's life.

Kathy:
Nobody promised any such thing.

Oh, some people did. Absolutely they did. They told birthmothers
whatever they wanted to hear. Some wanted to hear that they wouldn't
ever have to hear about this again.

Geopelia:
I certainly wouldn't adopt a child, even ifone was available, under the present legislation.

Why on earth not? With abortion readily available any alleged desire
for permanent anonymity is rendered moot. Is it because you fear
birthmothers who clamor to reclaim the child? That is relatively
rare.

Kathy:
Well pin a medal on your righteous ***.

Ah, Kathy's a diplomat. Winning hearts, changing minds..
If the government can do this, what is to stop them making other thingsillegal, and charging people with the "new" crimes that they may havecommitted BEFORE the legislation came in? It's a dangerous precedent. What ever are you babbling about?

She doesn't understand the state of the law prior to the change.
> Fair enough if the girls want an open adoption, otherwise abortion is the >only way to ensure they are never found.

Don't forget legalized babydumping! The other abortion! hehehe.

Damzy

lilmtncbn@aol.com (LilMtnCbn) wrote in message news:<20040608001904.20909.00000471@mb-m23.aol.com>...Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental
You forget that Geo is a product of what we in the US call the *secrets and lies* generation. She probably still wipes her butt on the equivalant of old Sears catalog pages in the outhouse on the back forty.

Geo wishes for the same thing many anti-adoption birthmothers wish
for, alas, too late - a baby. She doesn't understand adoption, she
only knows what she has heard from others in her position.

Alt.adoption has been and can be a forum in which we learn from and
grow with each other. I don't even see an attempt at educating people
here. Yes, flaming is therapeutic, but counterproductive if you're
trying to educate people. Geo is not Celeste. She has not yet proved
herself uneducable in this area, has she?
------------------------- A good friend will come and bail you out of jail . . . but, a true friend will be sitting next to you saying, "Damn . . . that was fun!" -----Unknown

Going to jail for driving drunk and naked is stupid, no matter how fun
it is.

Damsel Prune

lilmtncbn@aol.com (LilMtnCbn) wrote in message news:<20040608001904.20909.00000471@mb-m23.aol.com>...Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental
You forget that Geo is a product of what we in the US call the *secrets and lies* generation. She probably still wipes her butt on the equivalant of old Sears catalog pages in the outhouse on the back forty.

Geo wishes for the same thing many anti-adoption birthmothers wish
for, alas, too late - a baby. She doesn't understand adoption, she
only knows what she has heard from others in her position.

Alt.adoption has been and can be a forum in which we learn from and
grow with each other. I don't even see an attempt at educating people
here. Yes, flaming is therapeutic, but counterproductive if you're
trying to educate people. Geo is not Celeste. She has not yet proved
herself uneducable in this area, has she?
------------------------- A good friend will come and bail you out of jail . . . but, a true friend will be sitting next to you saying, "Damn . . . that was fun!" -----Unknown

Going to jail for driving drunk and naked is stupid, no matter how fun
it is.

Damsel Prune

sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote in message news:<dafc70.0406080510.5687d748@posting.google.com>... "geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:<CUaxc.1607$GB4.53704@news.xtra.co.nz>...
> Fair enough if the girls want an open adoption, otherwise abortion is the only way to ensure they are never found.

Rh:
Better than being hidden away and then encouraged to pretend that nothing had ever happened, don't you think? (Evidently not)

You're saying aborting a baby is better than being hidden away (for up
to 9 months) and then encouraged to pretend that nothing had ever
happened. Well, it certainly more *convenient*. "Better"? Define
your terms.

Many of us would have been aborted. I was told in no uncertain terms
and repeatedly that this would have been the case with me, and
moreover that "natural" abortion techniques were attempted. I'm
sorry, I'd rather have an adopted identity than truly no identity.
And while we're being diplomatic, birthmothers who wish they had
aborted (for reasons other than being terrorized by PSYCHO-ADOPTEES)
can choke on my umbilical cord!

Excuse me.

Damsel

sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote in message news:<dafc70.0406080510.5687d748@posting.google.com>... "geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:<CUaxc.1607$GB4.53704@news.xtra.co.nz>...
> Fair enough if the girls want an open adoption, otherwise abortion is the only way to ensure they are never found.

Rh:
Better than being hidden away and then encouraged to pretend that nothing had ever happened, don't you think? (Evidently not)

You're saying aborting a baby is better than being hidden away (for up
to 9 months) and then encouraged to pretend that nothing had ever
happened. Well, it certainly more *convenient*. "Better"? Define
your terms.

Many of us would have been aborted. I was told in no uncertain terms
and repeatedly that this would have been the case with me, and
moreover that "natural" abortion techniques were attempted. I'm
sorry, I'd rather have an adopted identity than truly no identity.
And while we're being diplomatic, birthmothers who wish they had
aborted (for reasons other than being terrorized by PSYCHO-ADOPTEES)
can choke on my umbilical cord!

Excuse me.

Damsel

>Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: amelusine@yahoo.com (Damsel Plum)Date: 6/8/04 12:06 PM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <c89c3e62.0406081106.1f515156@posting.google.com>sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote in messagenews:<dafc70.0406080510.5687d748@posting.google.com>... "geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in messagenews:<CUaxc.1607$GB4.53704@news.xtra.co.nz>... > > Fair enough if the girls want an open adoption, otherwise abortion is the only way to ensure they are never found.Rh: Better than being hidden away and then encouraged to pretend that nothing had ever happened, don't you think? (Evidently not)You're saying aborting a baby is better than being hidden away (for upto 9 months) and then encouraged to pretend that nothing had everhappened. Well, it certainly more *convenient*. "Better"? Defineyour terms.Many of us would have been aborted. I was told in no uncertain termsand repeatedly that this would have been the case with me, andmoreover that "natural" abortion techniques were attempted. I'msorry, I'd rather have an adopted identity than truly no identity.And while we're being diplomatic, birthmothers who wish they hadaborted (for reasons other than being terrorized by PSYCHO-ADOPTEES)can choke on my umbilical cord!Excuse me.Damsel

APPLAUSE!
Kathy

>Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: amelusine@yahoo.com (Damsel Plum)Date: 6/8/04 12:06 PM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <c89c3e62.0406081106.1f515156@posting.google.com>sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote in messagenews:<dafc70.0406080510.5687d748@posting.google.com>... "geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in messagenews:<CUaxc.1607$GB4.53704@news.xtra.co.nz>... > > Fair enough if the girls want an open adoption, otherwise abortion is the only way to ensure they are never found.Rh: Better than being hidden away and then encouraged to pretend that nothing had ever happened, don't you think? (Evidently not)You're saying aborting a baby is better than being hidden away (for upto 9 months) and then encouraged to pretend that nothing had everhappened. Well, it certainly more *convenient*. "Better"? Defineyour terms.Many of us would have been aborted. I was told in no uncertain termsand repeatedly that this would have been the case with me, andmoreover that "natural" abortion techniques were attempted. I'msorry, I'd rather have an adopted identity than truly no identity.And while we're being diplomatic, birthmothers who wish they hadaborted (for reasons other than being terrorized by PSYCHO-ADOPTEES)can choke on my umbilical cord!Excuse me.Damsel

APPLAUSE!
Kathy

>Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: amelusine@yahoo.com (Damsel Plum)Date: 6/8/04 11:44 AM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <c89c3e62.0406081044.956a3e7@posting.google.com>Geopelia: Years ago girls and their parents automatically consideredadoption, even if they didn't decide on it in the end, but today itdoesn'tseem to be considered much, it's abortion or keeping the child that aretheusual alternatives.There are people on this ng who think that adoption is evil becausethey themselves regret having relinquished, they were subject toabuses in the system, or they had a bad adoptive experience.Kathy: So what's it to you if the child's mother and her parents no longerconsider their family a bunch of baby makers for the childless?That remark sounds like a case in point. It's a question ofperspective. My birthmother certainly didn't consider herself assuch. The remark above suggests a degree of contempt for thechildless who seek parenthood through adoption, am I wrong?

Yes, you're wrong.


Kathy

>Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: amelusine@yahoo.com (Damsel Plum)Date: 6/8/04 11:44 AM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <c89c3e62.0406081044.956a3e7@posting.google.com>Geopelia: Years ago girls and their parents automatically consideredadoption, even if they didn't decide on it in the end, but today itdoesn'tseem to be considered much, it's abortion or keeping the child that aretheusual alternatives.There are people on this ng who think that adoption is evil becausethey themselves regret having relinquished, they were subject toabuses in the system, or they had a bad adoptive experience.Kathy: So what's it to you if the child's mother and her parents no longerconsider their family a bunch of baby makers for the childless?That remark sounds like a case in point. It's a question ofperspective. My birthmother certainly didn't consider herself assuch. The remark above suggests a degree of contempt for thechildless who seek parenthood through adoption, am I wrong?

Yes, you're wrong.


Kathy

"Damsel Plum" <amelusine@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c89c3e62.0406081052.4616dcc2@posting.google.c om... lilmtncbn@aol.com (LilMtnCbn) wrote in message
news:<20040608001904.20909.00000471@mb-m23.aol.com>...Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental You forget that Geo is a product of what we in the US call the *secrets
and lies* generation. She probably still wipes her butt on the equivalant
of old Sears catalog pages in the outhouse on the back forty. Geo wishes for the same thing many anti-adoption birthmothers wish for, alas, too late - a baby. She doesn't understand adoption, she only knows what she has heard from others in her position. Alt.adoption has been and can be a forum in which we learn from and grow with each other. I don't even see an attempt at educating people here. Yes, flaming is therapeutic, but counterproductive if you're trying to educate people. Geo is not Celeste. She has not yet proved herself uneducable in this area, has she? ------------------------- A good friend will come and bail you out of jail . . . but, a true
friend will be sitting next to you saying, "Damn . . . that was fun!" -----Unknown Going to jail for driving drunk and naked is stupid, no matter how fun it is. Damsel Prune

I'm just pointing out the dangers of retrospective legislation by any
government. If it can be done with adoption law without anyone objecting, it
could be done with any other matter, civil or criminal.

(It could mean that any of us could be charged with something that was not a
crime at the time we did it, because it has since been made a crime. Is that
simple enough for you people?)

I see it as a possible erosion of many civil rights, not just the adoption
situation.

Is there a lawyer out there with a bit of intelligence and commonsense, who
can comment?

Geopelia

"Damsel Plum" <amelusine@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c89c3e62.0406081052.4616dcc2@posting.google.c om... lilmtncbn@aol.com (LilMtnCbn) wrote in message
news:<20040608001904.20909.00000471@mb-m23.aol.com>...Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental You forget that Geo is a product of what we in the US call the *secrets
and lies* generation. She probably still wipes her butt on the equivalant
of old Sears catalog pages in the outhouse on the back forty. Geo wishes for the same thing many anti-adoption birthmothers wish for, alas, too late - a baby. She doesn't understand adoption, she only knows what she has heard from others in her position. Alt.adoption has been and can be a forum in which we learn from and grow with each other. I don't even see an attempt at educating people here. Yes, flaming is therapeutic, but counterproductive if you're trying to educate people. Geo is not Celeste. She has not yet proved herself uneducable in this area, has she? ------------------------- A good friend will come and bail you out of jail . . . but, a true
friend will be sitting next to you saying, "Damn . . . that was fun!" -----Unknown Going to jail for driving drunk and naked is stupid, no matter how fun it is. Damsel Prune

I'm just pointing out the dangers of retrospective legislation by any
government. If it can be done with adoption law without anyone objecting, it
could be done with any other matter, civil or criminal.

(It could mean that any of us could be charged with something that was not a
crime at the time we did it, because it has since been made a crime. Is that
simple enough for you people?)

I see it as a possible erosion of many civil rights, not just the adoption
situation.

Is there a lawyer out there with a bit of intelligence and commonsense, who
can comment?

Geopelia

>Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: "geopelia" phildoran@xtra.co.nzDate: 6/8/04 2:38 PM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <Akqxc.1930$GB4.64885@news.xtra.co.nz>

(snip)
Is thatsimple enough for you people?)

you people?

lol


Kathy

>Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: "geopelia" phildoran@xtra.co.nzDate: 6/8/04 2:38 PM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <Akqxc.1930$GB4.64885@news.xtra.co.nz>

(snip)
Is thatsimple enough for you people?)

you people?

lol


Kathy

>Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: amelusine@yahoo.com (Damsel Plum)Date: 6/8/04 11:52 AM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <c89c3e62.0406081052.4616dcc2@posting.google.com>lilmtncbn@aol.com (LilMtnCbn) wrote in messagenews:<20040608001904.20909.00000471@mb-m23.aol.com>...Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental You forget that Geo is a product of what we in the US call the *secrets and lies* generation. She probably still wipes her butt on the equivalant ofold Sears catalog pages in the outhouse on the back forty.Geo wishes for the same thing many anti-adoption birthmothers wishfor, alas, too late - a baby. She doesn't understand adoption, sheonly knows what she has heard from others in her position.Alt.adoption has been and can be a forum in which we learn from andgrow with each other. I don't even see an attempt at educating peoplehere. Yes, flaming is therapeutic, but counterproductive if you'retrying to educate people. Geo is not Celeste.

Who are you to come here and tell us how we should post? I don't care who you
think that you are but if you don't like the flaming or the discussions don't
meet your approval, FRO!




Kathy

>Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: amelusine@yahoo.com (Damsel Plum)Date: 6/8/04 11:52 AM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <c89c3e62.0406081052.4616dcc2@posting.google.com>lilmtncbn@aol.com (LilMtnCbn) wrote in messagenews:<20040608001904.20909.00000471@mb-m23.aol.com>...Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental You forget that Geo is a product of what we in the US call the *secrets and lies* generation. She probably still wipes her butt on the equivalant ofold Sears catalog pages in the outhouse on the back forty.Geo wishes for the same thing many anti-adoption birthmothers wishfor, alas, too late - a baby. She doesn't understand adoption, sheonly knows what she has heard from others in her position.Alt.adoption has been and can be a forum in which we learn from andgrow with each other. I don't even see an attempt at educating peoplehere. Yes, flaming is therapeutic, but counterproductive if you'retrying to educate people. Geo is not Celeste.

Who are you to come here and tell us how we should post? I don't care who you
think that you are but if you don't like the flaming or the discussions don't
meet your approval, FRO!




Kathy

"Kathy " <meagan787@aol.comsthesun> wrote in message
news:20040608174949.17021.00000614@mb-m10.aol.com...Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: "geopelia" phildoran@xtra.co.nzDate: 6/8/04 2:38 PM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <Akqxc.1930$GB4.64885@news.xtra.co.nz> (snip)Is thatsimple enough for you people?) you people? lol Kathy
Some people here don't seem to understand the dangers of retrospective
legislation. They are the "you people" for whom I simplified the argument.
If you understood it, just ignore that bit.
I don't mean to insult anybody, unless they insult me first, of course.

Geopelia

"Kathy " <meagan787@aol.comsthesun> wrote in message
news:20040608174949.17021.00000614@mb-m10.aol.com...Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: "geopelia" phildoran@xtra.co.nzDate: 6/8/04 2:38 PM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <Akqxc.1930$GB4.64885@news.xtra.co.nz> (snip)Is thatsimple enough for you people?) you people? lol Kathy
Some people here don't seem to understand the dangers of retrospective
legislation. They are the "you people" for whom I simplified the argument.
If you understood it, just ignore that bit.
I don't mean to insult anybody, unless they insult me first, of course.

Geopelia

phildoran writes of adoption records:

<snip>
I'm "pissed off" as you call it that the government can passthis sort of retrospective legislation. I believe the girls and theadopting parents had a right to privacy for life, as that was understoodwhen they agreed to adoption. I certainly wouldn't adopt a child, even ifone was available, under the present legislation.


The need for "the girls" to have privacy, which most do not seek and were never
promised, does not supercede the rights of other citizens to information about
themselves. Ditto for the people who did the adopting. The time has come, in my
opinion, for our state governments to get out of the falsification game. If
people want to place children for adoption or if people wish to adopt then
spend the rest of their lives trying to hide from the other party, so be it.
However, I fail to see how it is the business of state governments to play a
role in the ruse. Their role is to keep records, accurate ones, and allow
citizens equal access to those records.


P2P

phildoran writes of adoption records:

<snip>
I'm "pissed off" as you call it that the government can passthis sort of retrospective legislation. I believe the girls and theadopting parents had a right to privacy for life, as that was understoodwhen they agreed to adoption. I certainly wouldn't adopt a child, even ifone was available, under the present legislation.


The need for "the girls" to have privacy, which most do not seek and were never
promised, does not supercede the rights of other citizens to information about
themselves. Ditto for the people who did the adopting. The time has come, in my
opinion, for our state governments to get out of the falsification game. If
people want to place children for adoption or if people wish to adopt then
spend the rest of their lives trying to hide from the other party, so be it.
However, I fail to see how it is the business of state governments to play a
role in the ruse. Their role is to keep records, accurate ones, and allow
citizens equal access to those records.


P2P

phildoran writes:
Abortion should be a woman's choice, but if she decides to give birth andhave the child adopted, that should also be her free choice.>

And it is. However, expecting the state to offer up lies in the way of records
or to play a role in a hiding game is ridiculous. I do wonder how states agreed
to participate in the first place.


P2P

phildoran writes:
Abortion should be a woman's choice, but if she decides to give birth andhave the child adopted, that should also be her free choice.>

And it is. However, expecting the state to offer up lies in the way of records
or to play a role in a hiding game is ridiculous. I do wonder how states agreed
to participate in the first place.


P2P

>And while we're being diplomatic, birthmothers who wish they hadaborted (for reasons other than being terrorized by PSYCHO-ADOPTEES)can choke on my umbilical cord!Excuse me.Damsel


Did you keep it?


P2P

>And while we're being diplomatic, birthmothers who wish they hadaborted (for reasons other than being terrorized by PSYCHO-ADOPTEES)can choke on my umbilical cord!Excuse me.Damsel


Did you keep it?


P2P

Marla writes:
You forget that Geo is a product of what we in the US call the *secrets andlies* generation. She probably still wipes her butt on the equivalant of oldSears catalog pages in the outhouse on the back forty.>

Yes, secrets, lies, don't-ask-don't-tell, be grateful, pretend, don't look for
trouble, don't dwell on the past and if you don't talk about it, how can it be
a problem?


P2P

Marla writes:
You forget that Geo is a product of what we in the US call the *secrets andlies* generation. She probably still wipes her butt on the equivalant of oldSears catalog pages in the outhouse on the back forty.>

Yes, secrets, lies, don't-ask-don't-tell, be grateful, pretend, don't look for
trouble, don't dwell on the past and if you don't talk about it, how can it be
a problem?


P2P

phildoran writes:
I'm just pointing out the dangers of retrospective legislation by anygovernment.>

<snip>

Most laws that are passed somehow impact events in the past, particularly when
they relate to civil rights. Laws are often necessary to undo forms of
discrimination and ways of thinking. States might be heavily invested in the
discrimination or readily look the other way for years.In the case of adoption
records, states have been active participants in it.


P2P

phildoran writes:
I'm just pointing out the dangers of retrospective legislation by anygovernment.>

<snip>

Most laws that are passed somehow impact events in the past, particularly when
they relate to civil rights. Laws are often necessary to undo forms of
discrimination and ways of thinking. States might be heavily invested in the
discrimination or readily look the other way for years.In the case of adoption
records, states have been active participants in it.


P2P

>Some people here don't seem to understand the dangers of retrospectivelegislation. They are the "you people" for whom I simplified the argument.If you understood it, just ignore that bit.I don't mean to insult anybody, unless they insult me first, of course.Geopelia


Geo, what are you suggesting? It sounds to me as if you are saying the
interests of all parties to adoption are best served when records relating to
adoption, including the births of the children, are falsified and kept under
state wraps. It sounds as if you are saying adopted people should be denied by
law access to information about themselves and their birth families.

Is this accurate?


P2P

>Some people here don't seem to understand the dangers of retrospectivelegislation. They are the "you people" for whom I simplified the argument.If you understood it, just ignore that bit.I don't mean to insult anybody, unless they insult me first, of course.Geopelia


Geo, what are you suggesting? It sounds to me as if you are saying the
interests of all parties to adoption are best served when records relating to
adoption, including the births of the children, are falsified and kept under
state wraps. It sounds as if you are saying adopted people should be denied by
law access to information about themselves and their birth families.

Is this accurate?


P2P

meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy ) wrote in message news:<20040608175230.17021.00000615@mb-m10.aol.com>...
Alt.adoption has been and can be a forum in which we learn from andgrow with each other. I don't even see an attempt at educating peoplehere. Yes, flaming is therapeutic, but counterproductive if you'retrying to educate people. Geo is not Celeste. Who are you to come here and tell us how we should post? I don't care who you think that you are but if you don't like the flaming or the discussions don't meet your approval, FRO!

Ah, shaddap idiot. Speaking your language now? I'm the friggin Queen
of Sheba surfing on a silver shoelace, k? Try saying that 5 times
fast.

My point is that if you want to help people to see the adoptee side of
things in a rational manner (and maybe you just want to flame and vent
and that is surely your prerogative), it takes slightly more finesse
than rampant name-calling and sarcasm. Not sure what your activity is
or has been in adoptee rights, just offering a suggestion. Once
someone has proven themselves consistently intractable well, then all
bets are off. Just my opinion, of curse.

Toodles,

Damz

meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy ) wrote in message news:<20040608175230.17021.00000615@mb-m10.aol.com>...
Alt.adoption has been and can be a forum in which we learn from andgrow with each other. I don't even see an attempt at educating peoplehere. Yes, flaming is therapeutic, but counterproductive if you'retrying to educate people. Geo is not Celeste. Who are you to come here and tell us how we should post? I don't care who you think that you are but if you don't like the flaming or the discussions don't meet your approval, FRO!

Ah, shaddap idiot. Speaking your language now? I'm the friggin Queen
of Sheba surfing on a silver shoelace, k? Try saying that 5 times
fast.

My point is that if you want to help people to see the adoptee side of
things in a rational manner (and maybe you just want to flame and vent
and that is surely your prerogative), it takes slightly more finesse
than rampant name-calling and sarcasm. Not sure what your activity is
or has been in adoptee rights, just offering a suggestion. Once
someone has proven themselves consistently intractable well, then all
bets are off. Just my opinion, of curse.

Toodles,

Damz

"Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in message
news:20040608185441.09303.00000743@mb-m03.aol.com... phildoran writes:Abortion should be a woman's choice, but if she decides to give birth
andhave the child adopted, that should also be her free choice.> And it is. However, expecting the state to offer up lies in the way of
records or to play a role in a hiding game is ridiculous. I do wonder how states
agreed to participate in the first place. P2P

Are there lies in America? I suppose "Father Unknown" on the birth
certificate, even if the mother knows who it was, could be considered a lie
though. Do they do that in America? They do in New Zealand.
I think if the father registers the birth he can be on the certificate, for
couples living together.

Geopelia

"Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in message
news:20040608185441.09303.00000743@mb-m03.aol.com... phildoran writes:Abortion should be a woman's choice, but if she decides to give birth
andhave the child adopted, that should also be her free choice.> And it is. However, expecting the state to offer up lies in the way of
records or to play a role in a hiding game is ridiculous. I do wonder how states
agreed to participate in the first place. P2P

Are there lies in America? I suppose "Father Unknown" on the birth
certificate, even if the mother knows who it was, could be considered a lie
though. Do they do that in America? They do in New Zealand.
I think if the father registers the birth he can be on the certificate, for
couples living together.

Geopelia

amelusine@yahoo.com (Damsel Plum) wrote in message news:<c89c3e62.0406081106.1f515156@posting.google.com>... sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote in message news:<dafc70.0406080510.5687d748@posting.google.com>... "geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:<CUaxc.1607$GB4.53704@news.xtra.co.nz>... > > Fair enough if the girls want an open adoption, otherwise abortion is the only way to ensure they are never found. Rh: Better than being hidden away and then encouraged to pretend that nothing had ever happened, don't you think? (Evidently not) You're saying aborting a baby is better than being hidden away (for up to 9 months) and then encouraged to pretend that nothing had ever happened. Well, it certainly more *convenient*. "Better"? Define your terms.



Am I saying that? I don't think so. "Better" is your word, not mine.
There was a question mark at the end of that sentence, in case you
hadn't noticed.
I should like Geo to define *her* terms.




Many of us would have been aborted. I was told in no uncertain terms and repeatedly that this would have been the case with me, and moreover that "natural" abortion techniques were attempted. I'm sorry, I'd rather have an adopted identity than truly no identity. And while we're being diplomatic, birthmothers who wish they had aborted (for reasons other than being terrorized by PSYCHO-ADOPTEES) can choke on my umbilical cord!


You don't have to be diplomatic as far as I'm concerned.
You can keep your umbilical, caul and all.
I've never had an abortion and have never considered aborting (and on
the two occasions when it was suggested to me, I was horrified. But
that's just me)
However, that doesn't mean that I think it should be an option denied
to others.

But I am disturbed by Geo's contention that 'abortion is the only way
to ensure that *they* are never found'.
And the implication that closed records and secrecy are a positive for
shamed and beleagured women I find most bothersome.
Such attitudes just beget more shame, IMO.

Excuse me.


No problem.
I think I can imagine how you feel.



Rh.




Damsel

amelusine@yahoo.com (Damsel Plum) wrote in message news:<c89c3e62.0406081106.1f515156@posting.google.com>... sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote in message news:<dafc70.0406080510.5687d748@posting.google.com>... "geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:<CUaxc.1607$GB4.53704@news.xtra.co.nz>... > > Fair enough if the girls want an open adoption, otherwise abortion is the only way to ensure they are never found. Rh: Better than being hidden away and then encouraged to pretend that nothing had ever happened, don't you think? (Evidently not) You're saying aborting a baby is better than being hidden away (for up to 9 months) and then encouraged to pretend that nothing had ever happened. Well, it certainly more *convenient*. "Better"? Define your terms.



Am I saying that? I don't think so. "Better" is your word, not mine.
There was a question mark at the end of that sentence, in case you
hadn't noticed.
I should like Geo to define *her* terms.




Many of us would have been aborted. I was told in no uncertain terms and repeatedly that this would have been the case with me, and moreover that "natural" abortion techniques were attempted. I'm sorry, I'd rather have an adopted identity than truly no identity. And while we're being diplomatic, birthmothers who wish they had aborted (for reasons other than being terrorized by PSYCHO-ADOPTEES) can choke on my umbilical cord!


You don't have to be diplomatic as far as I'm concerned.
You can keep your umbilical, caul and all.
I've never had an abortion and have never considered aborting (and on
the two occasions when it was suggested to me, I was horrified. But
that's just me)
However, that doesn't mean that I think it should be an option denied
to others.

But I am disturbed by Geo's contention that 'abortion is the only way
to ensure that *they* are never found'.
And the implication that closed records and secrecy are a positive for
shamed and beleagured women I find most bothersome.
Such attitudes just beget more shame, IMO.

Excuse me.


No problem.
I think I can imagine how you feel.



Rh.




Damsel

> lilmtncbn@aol.com (LilMtnCbn)Date: 6/8/2004 12:21 AM Eastern Daylight TimeMessage-id: <20040608002104.20909.00000472@mb-m23.aol.com>Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: "geopelia" phildoran@xtra.co.nzDate: 6/7/2004 10:05 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <CUaxc.1607$GB4.53704@news.xtra.co.nz>"Kathy " <meagan787@aol.comsthesun> wrote in messagenews:20040607185834.02197.00000599@mb-m14.aol.com... >Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental Rights >From: "geopelia" phildoran@xtra.co.nz >Date: 6/7/04 2:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <2y5xc.1462$GB4.49933@news.xtra.co.nz> (snip) Re: government opening records to adoptees >It has completely destroyed the confidence >pregnant women used to have in adoption, as now they know any arrangement >may be changed retrospectively. You're ignorant to be speaking for an entire class of people. Destroyedtheir confidence in adoption, my arce.Ask around. Years ago girls and their parents automatically consideredadoption, even if they didn't decide on it in the end, but today it doesn'tseem to be considered much, it's abortion or keeping the child that are theusual alternatives.So what? Why should women/girls be forced into unwanted parenthood or intoproviding babies for the infertile? I think it's a good thing.

I just had a conversation with a coworker--he feels potential adoptive parents
shouldn't have to go any of the pre-adoption procedures--that it's their
god-given right to rear other people's unwanted children. WTF?? (Not very
related, but I had to get it off my chest)

-------------------------A good friend will come and bail you out of jail . . . but, a true friendwillbe sitting next to you saying, "Damn . . . that was fun!"-----Unknown


kj

> lilmtncbn@aol.com (LilMtnCbn)Date: 6/8/2004 12:21 AM Eastern Daylight TimeMessage-id: <20040608002104.20909.00000472@mb-m23.aol.com>Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: "geopelia" phildoran@xtra.co.nzDate: 6/7/2004 10:05 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <CUaxc.1607$GB4.53704@news.xtra.co.nz>"Kathy " <meagan787@aol.comsthesun> wrote in messagenews:20040607185834.02197.00000599@mb-m14.aol.com... >Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental Rights >From: "geopelia" phildoran@xtra.co.nz >Date: 6/7/04 2:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <2y5xc.1462$GB4.49933@news.xtra.co.nz> (snip) Re: government opening records to adoptees >It has completely destroyed the confidence >pregnant women used to have in adoption, as now they know any arrangement >may be changed retrospectively. You're ignorant to be speaking for an entire class of people. Destroyedtheir confidence in adoption, my arce.Ask around. Years ago girls and their parents automatically consideredadoption, even if they didn't decide on it in the end, but today it doesn'tseem to be considered much, it's abortion or keeping the child that are theusual alternatives.So what? Why should women/girls be forced into unwanted parenthood or intoproviding babies for the infertile? I think it's a good thing.

I just had a conversation with a coworker--he feels potential adoptive parents
shouldn't have to go any of the pre-adoption procedures--that it's their
god-given right to rear other people's unwanted children. WTF?? (Not very
related, but I had to get it off my chest)

-------------------------A good friend will come and bail you out of jail . . . but, a true friendwillbe sitting next to you saying, "Damn . . . that was fun!"-----Unknown


kj

In article <20040608230945.29519.00000634@mb-m05.aol.com>, kj says...
snipI just had a conversation with a coworker--he feels potential adoptive parentsshouldn't have to go any of the pre-adoption procedures--that it's theirgod-given right to rear other people's unwanted children. WTF?? (Not veryrelated, but I had to get it off my chest)

Really?!? Good gracious, he's lucky he didn't have the conversation with moi!

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

In article <20040608230945.29519.00000634@mb-m05.aol.com>, kj says...
snipI just had a conversation with a coworker--he feels potential adoptive parentsshouldn't have to go any of the pre-adoption procedures--that it's theirgod-given right to rear other people's unwanted children. WTF?? (Not veryrelated, but I had to get it off my chest)

Really?!? Good gracious, he's lucky he didn't have the conversation with moi!

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

In article <20040608185609.09303.00000744@mb-m03.aol.com>, Palms2pines says...And while we're being diplomatic, birthmothers who wish they hadaborted (for reasons other than being terrorized by PSYCHO-ADOPTEES)can choke on my umbilical cord!Excuse me.DamselDid you keep it?

:::::SPEW!!:::::

Dang, that was a perfectly good cup of coffee too ;)

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

In article <20040608185609.09303.00000744@mb-m03.aol.com>, Palms2pines says...And while we're being diplomatic, birthmothers who wish they hadaborted (for reasons other than being terrorized by PSYCHO-ADOPTEES)can choke on my umbilical cord!Excuse me.DamselDid you keep it?

:::::SPEW!!:::::

Dang, that was a perfectly good cup of coffee too ;)

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

"Damsel Plum" <amelusine@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c89c3e62.0406081106.1f515156@posting.google.c om... sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote in message
news:<dafc70.0406080510.5687d748@posting.google.com>... "geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:<CUaxc.1607$GB4.53704@news.xtra.co.nz>... > > Fair enough if the girls want an open adoption, otherwise abortion
is the only way to ensure they are never found. Rh: Better than being hidden away and then encouraged to pretend that nothing had ever happened, don't you think? (Evidently not) You're saying aborting a baby is better than being hidden away (for up to 9 months) and then encouraged to pretend that nothing had ever happened. Well, it certainly more *convenient*. "Better"? Define your terms. Many of us would have been aborted. I was told in no uncertain terms and repeatedly that this would have been the case with me, and moreover that "natural" abortion techniques were attempted. I'm sorry, I'd rather have an adopted identity than truly no identity.

I think you forgot to denigrate (or was it decompensate that you settled
on?) a group in that earlier list list of yours. The "I'm just grateful to
be alive" group of adoptees - that you apparently belong to.

And while we're being diplomatic, birthmothers who wish they had aborted (for reasons other than being terrorized by PSYCHO-ADOPTEES) can choke on my umbilical cord!

Using one of your phrases:
"The remark above suggests a degree of contempt" - for bmothers who wish
they had made a different choice regarding their unplanned pregnancy.

Kathy 1

"Damsel Plum" <amelusine@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c89c3e62.0406081106.1f515156@posting.google.c om... sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote in message
news:<dafc70.0406080510.5687d748@posting.google.com>... "geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:<CUaxc.1607$GB4.53704@news.xtra.co.nz>... > > Fair enough if the girls want an open adoption, otherwise abortion
is the only way to ensure they are never found. Rh: Better than being hidden away and then encouraged to pretend that nothing had ever happened, don't you think? (Evidently not) You're saying aborting a baby is better than being hidden away (for up to 9 months) and then encouraged to pretend that nothing had ever happened. Well, it certainly more *convenient*. "Better"? Define your terms. Many of us would have been aborted. I was told in no uncertain terms and repeatedly that this would have been the case with me, and moreover that "natural" abortion techniques were attempted. I'm sorry, I'd rather have an adopted identity than truly no identity.

I think you forgot to denigrate (or was it decompensate that you settled
on?) a group in that earlier list list of yours. The "I'm just grateful to
be alive" group of adoptees - that you apparently belong to.

And while we're being diplomatic, birthmothers who wish they had aborted (for reasons other than being terrorized by PSYCHO-ADOPTEES) can choke on my umbilical cord!

Using one of your phrases:
"The remark above suggests a degree of contempt" - for bmothers who wish
they had made a different choice regarding their unplanned pregnancy.

Kathy 1

"Damsel Plum" <amelusine@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c89c3e62.0406081044.956a3e7@posting.google.co m... Geopelia: Years ago girls and their parents automatically consideredadoption, even if they didn't decide on it in the end, but today it
doesn'tseem to be considered much, it's abortion or keeping the child that are
theusual alternatives. There are people on this ng who think that adoption is evil because they themselves regret having relinquished, they were subject to abuses in the system, or they had a bad adoptive experience. Kathy: So what's it to you if the child's mother and her parents no longer
consider their family a bunch of baby makers for the childless? That remark sounds like a case in point. It's a question of perspective. My birthmother certainly didn't consider herself as such. The remark above suggests a degree of contempt for the childless who seek parenthood through adoption, am I wrong? Kathy:> I think what you are really trying to say, is that you are very
pissed off that> the baby supply has dropped down to nothing and think that closing
records will> increase the supply. It won't. Geopelia:Not at all. I'm "pissed off" as you call it that the government can
passthis sort of retrospective legislation. I believe the girls and theadopting parents had a right to privacy for life, as that was
understoodwhen they agreed to adoption. The problem is that many birthmothers were promised that they *would* be able to contact (or at least be contacted) by their offspring when they reach adulthood. Then they realize that was not the case. So they were screwed for a long time. Besides, it does sound like sour grapes on your part, Geopelia, as I am assuming you are a potential adoptive parent rather than a birthparent scared of some shlump of a birthson sleeping on your couch for the next 6 months. Try reading Anne Babb's article on Adoptive Parents: Fables, Fears and Facts http://www.bastards.org/bq/more2.htm By the way, I stopped editing the BQ because I had a big problem writing in opposition to Baby Dumps. It created an insurmountable existential problem for me which no amount of policy-speak remedied. I'm sorry, but it's the truth. If that makes me weak-minded or a jerk or just weak in your eyes, well, that's life. Kathy: Nobody promised any such thing. Oh, some people did. Absolutely they did. They told birthmothers whatever they wanted to hear. Some wanted to hear that they wouldn't ever have to hear about this again. Geopelia: I certainly wouldn't adopt a child, even ifone was available, under the present legislation. Why on earth not? With abortion readily available


Abortion is not all that "readily available" as some like to think. It can
still be difficult, expensive and time-consuming to obtain. It is however,
improved from times past.

Kathy 1

"Damsel Plum" <amelusine@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c89c3e62.0406081044.956a3e7@posting.google.co m... Geopelia: Years ago girls and their parents automatically consideredadoption, even if they didn't decide on it in the end, but today it
doesn'tseem to be considered much, it's abortion or keeping the child that are
theusual alternatives. There are people on this ng who think that adoption is evil because they themselves regret having relinquished, they were subject to abuses in the system, or they had a bad adoptive experience. Kathy: So what's it to you if the child's mother and her parents no longer
consider their family a bunch of baby makers for the childless? That remark sounds like a case in point. It's a question of perspective. My birthmother certainly didn't consider herself as such. The remark above suggests a degree of contempt for the childless who seek parenthood through adoption, am I wrong? Kathy:> I think what you are really trying to say, is that you are very
pissed off that> the baby supply has dropped down to nothing and think that closing
records will> increase the supply. It won't. Geopelia:Not at all. I'm "pissed off" as you call it that the government can
passthis sort of retrospective legislation. I believe the girls and theadopting parents had a right to privacy for life, as that was
understoodwhen they agreed to adoption. The problem is that many birthmothers were promised that they *would* be able to contact (or at least be contacted) by their offspring when they reach adulthood. Then they realize that was not the case. So they were screwed for a long time. Besides, it does sound like sour grapes on your part, Geopelia, as I am assuming you are a potential adoptive parent rather than a birthparent scared of some shlump of a birthson sleeping on your couch for the next 6 months. Try reading Anne Babb's article on Adoptive Parents: Fables, Fears and Facts http://www.bastards.org/bq/more2.htm By the way, I stopped editing the BQ because I had a big problem writing in opposition to Baby Dumps. It created an insurmountable existential problem for me which no amount of policy-speak remedied. I'm sorry, but it's the truth. If that makes me weak-minded or a jerk or just weak in your eyes, well, that's life. Kathy: Nobody promised any such thing. Oh, some people did. Absolutely they did. They told birthmothers whatever they wanted to hear. Some wanted to hear that they wouldn't ever have to hear about this again. Geopelia: I certainly wouldn't adopt a child, even ifone was available, under the present legislation. Why on earth not? With abortion readily available


Abortion is not all that "readily available" as some like to think. It can
still be difficult, expensive and time-consuming to obtain. It is however,
improved from times past.

Kathy 1

"Damsel Plum" <amelusine@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c89c3e62.0406081810.666c6549@posting.google.c om... meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy ) wrote in message
news:<20040608175230.17021.00000615@mb-m10.aol.com>...Alt.adoption has been and can be a forum in which we learn from andgrow with each other. I don't even see an attempt at educating peoplehere. Yes, flaming is therapeutic, but counterproductive if you'retrying to educate people. Geo is not Celeste. Who are you to come here and tell us how we should post? I don't care
who you think that you are but if you don't like the flaming or the discussions
don't meet your approval, FRO! Ah, shaddap idiot. Speaking your language now? I'm the friggin Queen of Sheba surfing on a silver shoelace, k? Try saying that 5 times fast. My point is that if you want to help people to see the adoptee side of things in a rational manner (and maybe you just want to flame and vent and that is surely your prerogative), it takes slightly more finesse than rampant name-calling and sarcasm.


You appear to favor condescension.

Kathy 1


Not sure what your activity is or has been in adoptee rights, just offering a suggestion. Once someone has proven themselves consistently intractable well, then all bets are off. Just my opinion, of curse. Toodles, Damz

"Damsel Plum" <amelusine@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c89c3e62.0406081810.666c6549@posting.google.c om... meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy ) wrote in message
news:<20040608175230.17021.00000615@mb-m10.aol.com>...Alt.adoption has been and can be a forum in which we learn from andgrow with each other. I don't even see an attempt at educating peoplehere. Yes, flaming is therapeutic, but counterproductive if you'retrying to educate people. Geo is not Celeste. Who are you to come here and tell us how we should post? I don't care
who you think that you are but if you don't like the flaming or the discussions
don't meet your approval, FRO! Ah, shaddap idiot. Speaking your language now? I'm the friggin Queen of Sheba surfing on a silver shoelace, k? Try saying that 5 times fast. My point is that if you want to help people to see the adoptee side of things in a rational manner (and maybe you just want to flame and vent and that is surely your prerogative), it takes slightly more finesse than rampant name-calling and sarcasm.


You appear to favor condescension.

Kathy 1


Not sure what your activity is or has been in adoptee rights, just offering a suggestion. Once someone has proven themselves consistently intractable well, then all bets are off. Just my opinion, of curse. Toodles, Damz

"kat" <katlat24seeifthishelps@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2ioab7FpuchiU1@uni-berlin.de... "Damsel Plum" <amelusine@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:c89c3e62.0406081044.956a3e7@posting.google.co m... Geopelia: Years ago girls and their parents automatically considered >adoption, even if they didn't decide on it in the end, but today it doesn't >seem to be considered much, it's abortion or keeping the child that
are the >usual alternatives. There are people on this ng who think that adoption is evil because they themselves regret having relinquished, they were subject to abuses in the system, or they had a bad adoptive experience. Kathy: So what's it to you if the child's mother and her parents no longer consider their family a bunch of baby makers for the childless? That remark sounds like a case in point. It's a question of perspective. My birthmother certainly didn't consider herself as such. The remark above suggests a degree of contempt for the childless who seek parenthood through adoption, am I wrong? Kathy: >> I think what you are really trying to say, is that you are very pissed off that >> the baby supply has dropped down to nothing and think that closing records will >> increase the supply. It won't. Geopelia: >Not at all. I'm "pissed off" as you call it that the government can pass >this sort of retrospective legislation. I believe the girls and the >adopting parents had a right to privacy for life, as that was understood >when they agreed to adoption. The problem is that many birthmothers were promised that they *would* be able to contact (or at least be contacted) by their offspring when they reach adulthood. Then they realize that was not the case. So they were screwed for a long time. Besides, it does sound like sour grapes on your part, Geopelia, as I am assuming you are a potential adoptive parent rather than a birthparent scared of some shlump of a birthson sleeping on your couch for the next 6 months. Try reading Anne Babb's article on Adoptive Parents: Fables, Fears and Facts http://www.bastards.org/bq/more2.htm By the way, I stopped editing the BQ because I had a big problem writing in opposition to Baby Dumps. It created an insurmountable existential problem for me which no amount of policy-speak remedied. I'm sorry, but it's the truth. If that makes me weak-minded or a jerk or just weak in your eyes, well, that's life. Kathy: Nobody promised any such thing. Oh, some people did. Absolutely they did. They told birthmothers whatever they wanted to hear. Some wanted to hear that they wouldn't ever have to hear about this again. Geopelia: I certainly wouldn't adopt a child, even if >one was available, under the present legislation. Why on earth not? With abortion readily available Abortion is not all that "readily available" as some like to think. It
can still be difficult, expensive and time-consuming to obtain. It is
however, improved from times past. Kathy 1

If the girls had not been promised that adoption would be the end of the
story as far as they were concerned, (whether that was the legal position or
not), they might have had dangerous illegal abortions or attempted to abort
themselves.
Even if it was not true, it was a way to save the lives of girls and their
babies. Don't blame the social workers who were doing the best they could in
the circumstances prevailing at that time.

Geopelia

"kat" <katlat24seeifthishelps@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2ioab7FpuchiU1@uni-berlin.de... "Damsel Plum" <amelusine@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:c89c3e62.0406081044.956a3e7@posting.google.co m... Geopelia: Years ago girls and their parents automatically considered >adoption, even if they didn't decide on it in the end, but today it doesn't >seem to be considered much, it's abortion or keeping the child that
are the >usual alternatives. There are people on this ng who think that adoption is evil because they themselves regret having relinquished, they were subject to abuses in the system, or they had a bad adoptive experience. Kathy: So what's it to you if the child's mother and her parents no longer consider their family a bunch of baby makers for the childless? That remark sounds like a case in point. It's a question of perspective. My birthmother certainly didn't consider herself as such. The remark above suggests a degree of contempt for the childless who seek parenthood through adoption, am I wrong? Kathy: >> I think what you are really trying to say, is that you are very pissed off that >> the baby supply has dropped down to nothing and think that closing records will >> increase the supply. It won't. Geopelia: >Not at all. I'm "pissed off" as you call it that the government can pass >this sort of retrospective legislation. I believe the girls and the >adopting parents had a right to privacy for life, as that was understood >when they agreed to adoption. The problem is that many birthmothers were promised that they *would* be able to contact (or at least be contacted) by their offspring when they reach adulthood. Then they realize that was not the case. So they were screwed for a long time. Besides, it does sound like sour grapes on your part, Geopelia, as I am assuming you are a potential adoptive parent rather than a birthparent scared of some shlump of a birthson sleeping on your couch for the next 6 months. Try reading Anne Babb's article on Adoptive Parents: Fables, Fears and Facts http://www.bastards.org/bq/more2.htm By the way, I stopped editing the BQ because I had a big problem writing in opposition to Baby Dumps. It created an insurmountable existential problem for me which no amount of policy-speak remedied. I'm sorry, but it's the truth. If that makes me weak-minded or a jerk or just weak in your eyes, well, that's life. Kathy: Nobody promised any such thing. Oh, some people did. Absolutely they did. They told birthmothers whatever they wanted to hear. Some wanted to hear that they wouldn't ever have to hear about this again. Geopelia: I certainly wouldn't adopt a child, even if >one was available, under the present legislation. Why on earth not? With abortion readily available Abortion is not all that "readily available" as some like to think. It
can still be difficult, expensive and time-consuming to obtain. It is
however, improved from times past. Kathy 1

If the girls had not been promised that adoption would be the end of the
story as far as they were concerned, (whether that was the legal position or
not), they might have had dangerous illegal abortions or attempted to abort
themselves.
Even if it was not true, it was a way to save the lives of girls and their
babies. Don't blame the social workers who were doing the best they could in
the circumstances prevailing at that time.

Geopelia

sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote in message news:<dafc70.0406081858.10ced719@posting.google.com>... amelusine@yahoo.com (Damsel Plum) wrote in message news:<c89c3e62.0406081106.1f515156@posting.google.com>... sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote in message news:<dafc70.0406080510.5687d748@posting.google.com>... "geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:<CUaxc.1607$GB4.53704@news.xtra.co.nz>... > > > Fair enough if the girls want an open adoption, otherwise abortion is the only way to ensure they are never found. Rh: Better than being hidden away and then encouraged to pretend that nothing had ever happened, don't you think? (Evidently not) You're saying aborting a baby is better than being hidden away (for up to 9 months) and then encouraged to pretend that nothing had ever happened. Well, it certainly more *convenient*. "Better"? Define your terms.


Oooops, sorry. "Better" is indeed my word and not yours.
I should not post after imbibing in quantity. But that's no exuse. Am I saying that? I don't think so. "Better" is your word, not mine. There was a question mark at the end of that sentence, in case you hadn't noticed. I should like Geo to define *her* terms.



Ooops, sorry.
"Better" is indeed my word and not yours.
I shouldn't post after imbibing in quantity.
But that's no excuse.
Nevertheless, I should like Geo to elaborate.
Define my terms. Yes, well, O.K.
From my vantage point it seems that abortion's a less painful
experience than involuntary relinquishment.
Not that I necessarily think it's "better" (that was a lousy choice of
word), or that I'd chose it .
The rest goes.


Rh.

Many of us would have been aborted. I was told in no uncertain terms and repeatedly that this would have been the case with me, and moreover that "natural" abortion techniques were attempted. I'm sorry, I'd rather have an adopted identity than truly no identity. And while we're being diplomatic, birthmothers who wish they had aborted (for reasons other than being terrorized by PSYCHO-ADOPTEES) can choke on my umbilical cord! You don't have to be diplomatic as far as I'm concerned. You can keep your umbilical, caul and all. I've never had an abortion and have never considered aborting (and on the two occasions when it was suggested to me, I was horrified. But that's just me) However, that doesn't mean that I think it should be an option denied to others. But I am disturbed by Geo's contention that 'abortion is the only way to ensure that *they* are never found'. And the implication that closed records and secrecy are a positive for shamed and beleagured women I find most bothersome. Such attitudes just beget more shame, IMO. Excuse me. No problem. I think I can imagine how you feel. Rh. Damsel

sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote in message news:<dafc70.0406081858.10ced719@posting.google.com>... amelusine@yahoo.com (Damsel Plum) wrote in message news:<c89c3e62.0406081106.1f515156@posting.google.com>... sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote in message news:<dafc70.0406080510.5687d748@posting.google.com>... "geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:<CUaxc.1607$GB4.53704@news.xtra.co.nz>... > > > Fair enough if the girls want an open adoption, otherwise abortion is the only way to ensure they are never found. Rh: Better than being hidden away and then encouraged to pretend that nothing had ever happened, don't you think? (Evidently not) You're saying aborting a baby is better than being hidden away (for up to 9 months) and then encouraged to pretend that nothing had ever happened. Well, it certainly more *convenient*. "Better"? Define your terms.


Oooops, sorry. "Better" is indeed my word and not yours.
I should not post after imbibing in quantity. But that's no exuse. Am I saying that? I don't think so. "Better" is your word, not mine. There was a question mark at the end of that sentence, in case you hadn't noticed. I should like Geo to define *her* terms.



Ooops, sorry.
"Better" is indeed my word and not yours.
I shouldn't post after imbibing in quantity.
But that's no excuse.
Nevertheless, I should like Geo to elaborate.
Define my terms. Yes, well, O.K.
From my vantage point it seems that abortion's a less painful
experience than involuntary relinquishment.
Not that I necessarily think it's "better" (that was a lousy choice of
word), or that I'd chose it .
The rest goes.


Rh.

Many of us would have been aborted. I was told in no uncertain terms and repeatedly that this would have been the case with me, and moreover that "natural" abortion techniques were attempted. I'm sorry, I'd rather have an adopted identity than truly no identity. And while we're being diplomatic, birthmothers who wish they had aborted (for reasons other than being terrorized by PSYCHO-ADOPTEES) can choke on my umbilical cord! You don't have to be diplomatic as far as I'm concerned. You can keep your umbilical, caul and all. I've never had an abortion and have never considered aborting (and on the two occasions when it was suggested to me, I was horrified. But that's just me) However, that doesn't mean that I think it should be an option denied to others. But I am disturbed by Geo's contention that 'abortion is the only way to ensure that *they* are never found'. And the implication that closed records and secrecy are a positive for shamed and beleagured women I find most bothersome. Such attitudes just beget more shame, IMO. Excuse me. No problem. I think I can imagine how you feel. Rh. Damsel

>Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: Robibnikoff nospam@newsranger.comDate: 6/9/04 3:54 AM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <f%Bxc.5436$H4.221@www.newsranger.com>In article <20040608185609.09303.00000744@mb-m03.aol.com>, Palms2pinessays...And while we're being diplomatic, birthmothers who wish they hadaborted (for reasons other than being terrorized by PSYCHO-ADOPTEES)can choke on my umbilical cord!Excuse me.DamselDid you keep it?:::::SPEW!!:::::

::::double upchuck:::::


Kathy

>Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: Robibnikoff nospam@newsranger.comDate: 6/9/04 3:54 AM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <f%Bxc.5436$H4.221@www.newsranger.com>In article <20040608185609.09303.00000744@mb-m03.aol.com>, Palms2pinessays...And while we're being diplomatic, birthmothers who wish they hadaborted (for reasons other than being terrorized by PSYCHO-ADOPTEES)can choke on my umbilical cord!Excuse me.DamselDid you keep it?:::::SPEW!!:::::

::::double upchuck:::::


Kathy

>Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: "geopelia" phildoran@xtra.co.nzDate: 6/9/04 5:04 AM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <T%Cxc.193$s52.5777@news.xtra.co.nz>"kat" <katlat24seeifthishelps@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:2ioab7FpuchiU1@uni-berlin.de... "Damsel Plum" <amelusine@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:c89c3e62.0406081044.956a3e7@posting.google.co m... Geopelia: > Years ago girls and their parents automatically considered > >adoption, even if they didn't decide on it in the end, but today it doesn't > >seem to be considered much, it's abortion or keeping the child thatare the > >usual alternatives. There are people on this ng who think that adoption is evil because they themselves regret having relinquished, they were subject to abuses in the system, or they had a bad adoptive experience. Kathy: > So what's it to you if the child's mother and her parents no longer consider > their family a bunch of baby makers for the childless? That remark sounds like a case in point. It's a question of perspective. My birthmother certainly didn't consider herself as such. The remark above suggests a degree of contempt for the childless who seek parenthood through adoption, am I wrong? Kathy: > >> I think what you are really trying to say, is that you are very pissed off > that > >> the baby supply has dropped down to nothing and think that closing records > will > >> increase the supply. It won't. Geopelia: > >Not at all. I'm "pissed off" as you call it that the government can pass > >this sort of retrospective legislation. I believe the girls and the > >adopting parents had a right to privacy for life, as that was understood > >when they agreed to adoption. The problem is that many birthmothers were promised that they *would* be able to contact (or at least be contacted) by their offspring when they reach adulthood. Then they realize that was not the case. So they were screwed for a long time. Besides, it does sound like sour grapes on your part, Geopelia, as I am assuming you are a potential adoptive parent rather than a birthparent scared of some shlump of a birthson sleeping on your couch for the next 6 months. Try reading Anne Babb's article on Adoptive Parents: Fables, Fears and Facts http://www.bastards.org/bq/more2.htm By the way, I stopped editing the BQ because I had a big problem writing in opposition to Baby Dumps. It created an insurmountable existential problem for me which no amount of policy-speak remedied. I'm sorry, but it's the truth. If that makes me weak-minded or a jerk or just weak in your eyes, well, that's life. Kathy: > Nobody promised any such thing. Oh, some people did. Absolutely they did. They told birthmothers whatever they wanted to hear. Some wanted to hear that they wouldn't ever have to hear about this again. Geopelia: > I certainly wouldn't adopt a child, even if > >one was available, under the present legislation. Why on earth not? With abortion readily available Abortion is not all that "readily available" as some like to think. Itcan still be difficult, expensive and time-consuming to obtain. It ishowever, improved from times past. Kathy 1If the girls had not been promised that adoption would be the end of thestory as far as they were concerned, (whether that was the legal position ornot), they might have had dangerous illegal abortions or attempted to abortthemselves.Even if it was not true, it was a way to save the lives of girls and theirbabies. Don't blame the social workers who were doing the best they could inthe circumstances prevailing at that time.Geopelia

Maybe you ought to go take your girdle off, and tell us how we all should feel.
hehehe

Kathy

>Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: "geopelia" phildoran@xtra.co.nzDate: 6/9/04 5:04 AM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <T%Cxc.193$s52.5777@news.xtra.co.nz>"kat" <katlat24seeifthishelps@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:2ioab7FpuchiU1@uni-berlin.de... "Damsel Plum" <amelusine@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:c89c3e62.0406081044.956a3e7@posting.google.co m... Geopelia: > Years ago girls and their parents automatically considered > >adoption, even if they didn't decide on it in the end, but today it doesn't > >seem to be considered much, it's abortion or keeping the child thatare the > >usual alternatives. There are people on this ng who think that adoption is evil because they themselves regret having relinquished, they were subject to abuses in the system, or they had a bad adoptive experience. Kathy: > So what's it to you if the child's mother and her parents no longer consider > their family a bunch of baby makers for the childless? That remark sounds like a case in point. It's a question of perspective. My birthmother certainly didn't consider herself as such. The remark above suggests a degree of contempt for the childless who seek parenthood through adoption, am I wrong? Kathy: > >> I think what you are really trying to say, is that you are very pissed off > that > >> the baby supply has dropped down to nothing and think that closing records > will > >> increase the supply. It won't. Geopelia: > >Not at all. I'm "pissed off" as you call it that the government can pass > >this sort of retrospective legislation. I believe the girls and the > >adopting parents had a right to privacy for life, as that was understood > >when they agreed to adoption. The problem is that many birthmothers were promised that they *would* be able to contact (or at least be contacted) by their offspring when they reach adulthood. Then they realize that was not the case. So they were screwed for a long time. Besides, it does sound like sour grapes on your part, Geopelia, as I am assuming you are a potential adoptive parent rather than a birthparent scared of some shlump of a birthson sleeping on your couch for the next 6 months. Try reading Anne Babb's article on Adoptive Parents: Fables, Fears and Facts http://www.bastards.org/bq/more2.htm By the way, I stopped editing the BQ because I had a big problem writing in opposition to Baby Dumps. It created an insurmountable existential problem for me which no amount of policy-speak remedied. I'm sorry, but it's the truth. If that makes me weak-minded or a jerk or just weak in your eyes, well, that's life. Kathy: > Nobody promised any such thing. Oh, some people did. Absolutely they did. They told birthmothers whatever they wanted to hear. Some wanted to hear that they wouldn't ever have to hear about this again. Geopelia: > I certainly wouldn't adopt a child, even if > >one was available, under the present legislation. Why on earth not? With abortion readily available Abortion is not all that "readily available" as some like to think. Itcan still be difficult, expensive and time-consuming to obtain. It ishowever, improved from times past. Kathy 1If the girls had not been promised that adoption would be the end of thestory as far as they were concerned, (whether that was the legal position ornot), they might have had dangerous illegal abortions or attempted to abortthemselves.Even if it was not true, it was a way to save the lives of girls and theirbabies. Don't blame the social workers who were doing the best they could inthe circumstances prevailing at that time.Geopelia

Maybe you ought to go take your girdle off, and tell us how we all should feel.
hehehe

Kathy

>Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: amelusine@yahoo.com (Damsel Plum)Date: 6/8/04 7:10 PM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <c89c3e62.0406081810.666c6549@posting.google.com>meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy ) wrote in messagenews:<20040608175230.17021.00000615@mb-m10.aol.com>...Alt.adoption has been and can be a forum in which we learn from andgrow with each other. I don't even see an attempt at educating peoplehere. Yes, flaming is therapeutic, but counterproductive if you'retrying to educate people. Geo is not Celeste. Who are you to come here and tell us how we should post? I don't care whoyou think that you are but if you don't like the flaming or the discussionsdon't meet your approval, FRO!Ah, shaddap idiot. Speaking your language now? I'm the friggin Queenof Sheba surfing on a silver shoelace, k? Try saying that 5 timesfast.My point is that if you want to help people to see the adoptee side ofthings in a rational manner (and maybe you just want to flame and ventand that is surely your prerogative), it takes slightly more finessethan rampant name-calling and sarcasm. Not sure what your activity isor has been in adoptee rights, just offering a suggestion. Oncesomeone has proven themselves consistently intractable well, then allbets are off. Just my opinion, of curse.Toodles,Damz

I know all about the adoptee side. I gave birth to one....LOL


Kathy

>Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: amelusine@yahoo.com (Damsel Plum)Date: 6/8/04 7:10 PM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <c89c3e62.0406081810.666c6549@posting.google.com>meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy ) wrote in messagenews:<20040608175230.17021.00000615@mb-m10.aol.com>...Alt.adoption has been and can be a forum in which we learn from andgrow with each other. I don't even see an attempt at educating peoplehere. Yes, flaming is therapeutic, but counterproductive if you'retrying to educate people. Geo is not Celeste. Who are you to come here and tell us how we should post? I don't care whoyou think that you are but if you don't like the flaming or the discussionsdon't meet your approval, FRO!Ah, shaddap idiot. Speaking your language now? I'm the friggin Queenof Sheba surfing on a silver shoelace, k? Try saying that 5 timesfast.My point is that if you want to help people to see the adoptee side ofthings in a rational manner (and maybe you just want to flame and ventand that is surely your prerogative), it takes slightly more finessethan rampant name-calling and sarcasm. Not sure what your activity isor has been in adoptee rights, just offering a suggestion. Oncesomeone has proven themselves consistently intractable well, then allbets are off. Just my opinion, of curse.Toodles,Damz

I know all about the adoptee side. I gave birth to one....LOL


Kathy

>Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: "kat" katlat24seeifthishelps@hotmail.comDate: 6/9/04 4:28 AM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <2ioakrFp1n4fU1@uni-berlin.de>"Damsel Plum" <amelusine@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:c89c3e62.0406081810.666c6549@posting.g oogle.com... meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy ) wrote in messagenews:<20040608175230.17021.00000615@mb-m10.aol.com>... >Alt.adoption has been and can be a forum in which we learn from and >grow with each other. I don't even see an attempt at educating people >here. Yes, flaming is therapeutic, but counterproductive if you're >trying to educate people. Geo is not Celeste. Who are you to come here and tell us how we should post? I don't carewho you think that you are but if you don't like the flaming or the discussionsdon't meet your approval, FRO! Ah, shaddap idiot. Speaking your language now? I'm the friggin Queen of Sheba surfing on a silver shoelace, k? Try saying that 5 times fast. My point is that if you want to help people to see the adoptee side of things in a rational manner (and maybe you just want to flame and vent and that is surely your prerogative), it takes slightly more finesse than rampant name-calling and sarcasm.You appear to favor condescension.Kathy 1Not sure what your activity is or has been in adoptee rights, just offering a suggestion. Once someone has proven themselves consistently intractable well, then all bets are off. Just my opinion, of curse. Toodles, Damz

ROR!
Kathy

>Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: "kat" katlat24seeifthishelps@hotmail.comDate: 6/9/04 4:28 AM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <2ioakrFp1n4fU1@uni-berlin.de>"Damsel Plum" <amelusine@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:c89c3e62.0406081810.666c6549@posting.g oogle.com... meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy ) wrote in messagenews:<20040608175230.17021.00000615@mb-m10.aol.com>... >Alt.adoption has been and can be a forum in which we learn from and >grow with each other. I don't even see an attempt at educating people >here. Yes, flaming is therapeutic, but counterproductive if you're >trying to educate people. Geo is not Celeste. Who are you to come here and tell us how we should post? I don't carewho you think that you are but if you don't like the flaming or the discussionsdon't meet your approval, FRO! Ah, shaddap idiot. Speaking your language now? I'm the friggin Queen of Sheba surfing on a silver shoelace, k? Try saying that 5 times fast. My point is that if you want to help people to see the adoptee side of things in a rational manner (and maybe you just want to flame and vent and that is surely your prerogative), it takes slightly more finesse than rampant name-calling and sarcasm.You appear to favor condescension.Kathy 1Not sure what your activity is or has been in adoptee rights, just offering a suggestion. Once someone has proven themselves consistently intractable well, then all bets are off. Just my opinion, of curse. Toodles, Damz

ROR!
Kathy

>Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: Robibnikoff nospam@newsranger.comDate: 6/9/04 3:50 AM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <NXBxc.5435$H4.297@www.newsranger.com>In article <20040608230945.29519.00000634@mb-m05.aol.com>, kj says...snipI just had a conversation with a coworker--he feels potential adoptiveparentsshouldn't have to go any of the pre-adoption procedures--that it's theirgod-given right to rear other people's unwanted children. WTF?? (Not veryrelated, but I had to get it off my chest)Really?!? Good gracious, he's lucky he didn't have the conversation withmoi!

Or me!


Kathy

>Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: Robibnikoff nospam@newsranger.comDate: 6/9/04 3:50 AM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <NXBxc.5435$H4.297@www.newsranger.com>In article <20040608230945.29519.00000634@mb-m05.aol.com>, kj says...snipI just had a conversation with a coworker--he feels potential adoptiveparentsshouldn't have to go any of the pre-adoption procedures--that it's theirgod-given right to rear other people's unwanted children. WTF?? (Not veryrelated, but I had to get it off my chest)Really?!? Good gracious, he's lucky he didn't have the conversation withmoi!

Or me!


Kathy

kjs668 writes:
I just had a conversation with a coworker--he feels potential adoptiveparentsshouldn't have to go any of the pre-adoption procedures--that it's theirgod-given right to rear other people's unwanted children. WTF?? (Not veryrelated, but I had to get it off my chest)

Good thing you vented here and didn't try to educate the clod, kj. I have
learned such starting points in conversations about adoption rarely prove
interesting, never mind fruitful. The holes in this clod's head are just too
big to fill.


P2P

kjs668 writes:
I just had a conversation with a coworker--he feels potential adoptiveparentsshouldn't have to go any of the pre-adoption procedures--that it's theirgod-given right to rear other people's unwanted children. WTF?? (Not veryrelated, but I had to get it off my chest)

Good thing you vented here and didn't try to educate the clod, kj. I have
learned such starting points in conversations about adoption rarely prove
interesting, never mind fruitful. The holes in this clod's head are just too
big to fill.


P2P

>Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: "kat" katlat24seeifthishelps@hotmail.comDate: 6/9/04 4:20 AM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <2ioa3tFpfdohU1@uni-berlin.de>"Damsel Plum" <amelusine@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:c89c3e62.0406081106.1f515156@posting.g oogle.com... sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote in messagenews:<dafc70.0406080510.5687d748@posting.google.com>... "geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in messagenews:<CUaxc.1607$GB4.53704@news.xtra.co.nz>... > > > Fair enough if the girls want an open adoption, otherwise abortionis the only way to ensure they are never found. Rh: Better than being hidden away and then encouraged to pretend that nothing had ever happened, don't you think? (Evidently not) You're saying aborting a baby is better than being hidden away (for up to 9 months) and then encouraged to pretend that nothing had ever happened. Well, it certainly more *convenient*. "Better"? Define your terms. Many of us would have been aborted. I was told in no uncertain terms and repeatedly that this would have been the case with me, and moreover that "natural" abortion techniques were attempted. I'm sorry, I'd rather have an adopted identity than truly no identity.I think you forgot to denigrate (or was it decompensate that you settledon?) a group in that earlier list list of yours. The "I'm just grateful tobe alive" group of adoptees - that you apparently belong to. And while we're being diplomatic, birthmothers who wish they had aborted (for reasons other than being terrorized by PSYCHO-ADOPTEES) can choke on my umbilical cord!Using one of your phrases: "The remark above suggests a degree of contempt" - for bmothers who wishthey had made a different choice regarding their unplanned pregnancy.Kathy 1

Right on!
Kathy

>Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: "kat" katlat24seeifthishelps@hotmail.comDate: 6/9/04 4:20 AM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <2ioa3tFpfdohU1@uni-berlin.de>"Damsel Plum" <amelusine@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:c89c3e62.0406081106.1f515156@posting.g oogle.com... sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote in messagenews:<dafc70.0406080510.5687d748@posting.google.com>... "geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in messagenews:<CUaxc.1607$GB4.53704@news.xtra.co.nz>... > > > Fair enough if the girls want an open adoption, otherwise abortionis the only way to ensure they are never found. Rh: Better than being hidden away and then encouraged to pretend that nothing had ever happened, don't you think? (Evidently not) You're saying aborting a baby is better than being hidden away (for up to 9 months) and then encouraged to pretend that nothing had ever happened. Well, it certainly more *convenient*. "Better"? Define your terms. Many of us would have been aborted. I was told in no uncertain terms and repeatedly that this would have been the case with me, and moreover that "natural" abortion techniques were attempted. I'm sorry, I'd rather have an adopted identity than truly no identity.I think you forgot to denigrate (or was it decompensate that you settledon?) a group in that earlier list list of yours. The "I'm just grateful tobe alive" group of adoptees - that you apparently belong to. And while we're being diplomatic, birthmothers who wish they had aborted (for reasons other than being terrorized by PSYCHO-ADOPTEES) can choke on my umbilical cord!Using one of your phrases: "The remark above suggests a degree of contempt" - for bmothers who wishthey had made a different choice regarding their unplanned pregnancy.Kathy 1

Right on!
Kathy

>Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: "geopelia" phildoran@xtra.co.nzDate: 6/9/04 5:04 AM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <T%Cxc.193$s52.5777@news.xtra.co.nz>"kat" <katlat24seeifthishelps@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:2ioab7FpuchiU1@uni-berlin.de... "Damsel Plum" <amelusine@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:c89c3e62.0406081044.956a3e7@posting.google.co m... Geopelia: > Years ago girls and their parents automatically considered > >adoption, even if they didn't decide on it in the end, but today it doesn't > >seem to be considered much, it's abortion or keeping the child thatare the > >usual alternatives. There are people on this ng who think that adoption is evil because they themselves regret having relinquished, they were subject to abuses in the system, or they had a bad adoptive experience. Kathy: > So what's it to you if the child's mother and her parents no longer consider > their family a bunch of baby makers for the childless? That remark sounds like a case in point. It's a question of perspective. My birthmother certainly didn't consider herself as such. The remark above suggests a degree of contempt for the childless who seek parenthood through adoption, am I wrong? Kathy: > >> I think what you are really trying to say, is that you are very pissed off > that > >> the baby supply has dropped down to nothing and think that closing records > will > >> increase the supply. It won't. Geopelia: > >Not at all. I'm "pissed off" as you call it that the government can pass > >this sort of retrospective legislation. I believe the girls and the > >adopting parents had a right to privacy for life, as that was understood > >when they agreed to adoption. The problem is that many birthmothers were promised that they *would* be able to contact (or at least be contacted) by their offspring when they reach adulthood. Then they realize that was not the case. So they were screwed for a long time. Besides, it does sound like sour grapes on your part, Geopelia, as I am assuming you are a potential adoptive parent rather than a birthparent scared of some shlump of a birthson sleeping on your couch for the next 6 months. Try reading Anne Babb's article on Adoptive Parents: Fables, Fears and Facts http://www.bastards.org/bq/more2.htm By the way, I stopped editing the BQ because I had a big problem writing in opposition to Baby Dumps. It created an insurmountable existential problem for me which no amount of policy-speak remedied. I'm sorry, but it's the truth. If that makes me weak-minded or a jerk or just weak in your eyes, well, that's life. Kathy: > Nobody promised any such thing. Oh, some people did. Absolutely they did. They told birthmothers whatever they wanted to hear. Some wanted to hear that they wouldn't ever have to hear about this again. Geopelia: > I certainly wouldn't adopt a child, even if > >one was available, under the present legislation. Why on earth not? With abortion readily available Abortion is not all that "readily available" as some like to think. Itcan still be difficult, expensive and time-consuming to obtain. It ishowever, improved from times past. Kathy 1If the girls had not been promised that adoption would be the end of thestory as far as they were concerned, (whether that was the legal position ornot), they might have had dangerous illegal abortions or attempted to abortthemselves.Even if it was not true, it was a way to save the lives of girls and theirbabies. Don't blame the social workers who were doing the best they could inthe circumstances prevailing at that time.Geopelia

Oh please, you make an entire class of pregnant women, some who willingly chose
adoption, some who did not, to be out to be a bunch of desperate baby loathing
cretins.
Kathy

>Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: "geopelia" phildoran@xtra.co.nzDate: 6/9/04 5:04 AM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <T%Cxc.193$s52.5777@news.xtra.co.nz>"kat" <katlat24seeifthishelps@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:2ioab7FpuchiU1@uni-berlin.de... "Damsel Plum" <amelusine@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:c89c3e62.0406081044.956a3e7@posting.google.co m... Geopelia: > Years ago girls and their parents automatically considered > >adoption, even if they didn't decide on it in the end, but today it doesn't > >seem to be considered much, it's abortion or keeping the child thatare the > >usual alternatives. There are people on this ng who think that adoption is evil because they themselves regret having relinquished, they were subject to abuses in the system, or they had a bad adoptive experience. Kathy: > So what's it to you if the child's mother and her parents no longer consider > their family a bunch of baby makers for the childless? That remark sounds like a case in point. It's a question of perspective. My birthmother certainly didn't consider herself as such. The remark above suggests a degree of contempt for the childless who seek parenthood through adoption, am I wrong? Kathy: > >> I think what you are really trying to say, is that you are very pissed off > that > >> the baby supply has dropped down to nothing and think that closing records > will > >> increase the supply. It won't. Geopelia: > >Not at all. I'm "pissed off" as you call it that the government can pass > >this sort of retrospective legislation. I believe the girls and the > >adopting parents had a right to privacy for life, as that was understood > >when they agreed to adoption. The problem is that many birthmothers were promised that they *would* be able to contact (or at least be contacted) by their offspring when they reach adulthood. Then they realize that was not the case. So they were screwed for a long time. Besides, it does sound like sour grapes on your part, Geopelia, as I am assuming you are a potential adoptive parent rather than a birthparent scared of some shlump of a birthson sleeping on your couch for the next 6 months. Try reading Anne Babb's article on Adoptive Parents: Fables, Fears and Facts http://www.bastards.org/bq/more2.htm By the way, I stopped editing the BQ because I had a big problem writing in opposition to Baby Dumps. It created an insurmountable existential problem for me which no amount of policy-speak remedied. I'm sorry, but it's the truth. If that makes me weak-minded or a jerk or just weak in your eyes, well, that's life. Kathy: > Nobody promised any such thing. Oh, some people did. Absolutely they did. They told birthmothers whatever they wanted to hear. Some wanted to hear that they wouldn't ever have to hear about this again. Geopelia: > I certainly wouldn't adopt a child, even if > >one was available, under the present legislation. Why on earth not? With abortion readily available Abortion is not all that "readily available" as some like to think. Itcan still be difficult, expensive and time-consuming to obtain. It ishowever, improved from times past. Kathy 1If the girls had not been promised that adoption would be the end of thestory as far as they were concerned, (whether that was the legal position ornot), they might have had dangerous illegal abortions or attempted to abortthemselves.Even if it was not true, it was a way to save the lives of girls and theirbabies. Don't blame the social workers who were doing the best they could inthe circumstances prevailing at that time.Geopelia

Oh please, you make an entire class of pregnant women, some who willingly chose
adoption, some who did not, to be out to be a bunch of desperate baby loathing
cretins.
Kathy

phildoran writes:
Are there lies in America?>>

Is this a trick question?

<< I suppose "Father Unknown" on the birthcertificate, even if the mother knows who it was, could be considered a liethough.>>

Ah, yes. That would be a lie. If a woman says she does not know who the father
of her baby is when she does, she is telling an untruth, aka a lie. However,
the state is not lying if they omit a father's name that has not been made
known.

<< Do they do that in America? They do in New Zealand.>>

Do what? If a woman will not divulge the name of the father of her baby, I am
sure no father's name is included on birth records. Individual states can
handle this absence of information as they each choose. Maybe some insert the
words "father unknown". What does any of this have to do with adoption,
falsified birth certificates and birth records being denied people who were
placed for adoption?

I think if the father registers the birth he can be on the certificate, forcouples living together.Geopelia>

Interesting. But relevant?




P2P

phildoran writes:
Are there lies in America?>>

Is this a trick question?

<< I suppose "Father Unknown" on the birthcertificate, even if the mother knows who it was, could be considered a liethough.>>

Ah, yes. That would be a lie. If a woman says she does not know who the father
of her baby is when she does, she is telling an untruth, aka a lie. However,
the state is not lying if they omit a father's name that has not been made
known.

<< Do they do that in America? They do in New Zealand.>>

Do what? If a woman will not divulge the name of the father of her baby, I am
sure no father's name is included on birth records. Individual states can
handle this absence of information as they each choose. Maybe some insert the
words "father unknown". What does any of this have to do with adoption,
falsified birth certificates and birth records being denied people who were
placed for adoption?

I think if the father registers the birth he can be on the certificate, forcouples living together.Geopelia>

Interesting. But relevant?




P2P

"Damsel Plum" <amelusine@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c89c3e62.0406081106.1f515156@posting.google.c om... sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote in message
news:<dafc70.0406080510.5687d748@posting.google.com>... "geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:<CUaxc.1607$GB4.53704@news.xtra.co.nz>... > > Fair enough if the girls want an open adoption, otherwise abortion
is the only way to ensure they are never found. Rh: Better than being hidden away and then encouraged to pretend that nothing had ever happened, don't you think? (Evidently not) You're saying aborting a baby is better than being hidden away (for up to 9 months) and then encouraged to pretend that nothing had ever happened. Well, it certainly more *convenient*. "Better"? Define your terms. Many of us would have been aborted. I was told in no uncertain terms and repeatedly that this would have been the case with me, and moreover that "natural" abortion techniques were attempted. I'm sorry, I'd rather have an adopted identity than truly no identity. And while we're being diplomatic, birthmothers who wish they had aborted (for reasons other than being terrorized by PSYCHO-ADOPTEES) can choke on my umbilical cord! Excuse me. Damsel

That's an existential and academic argument as you know. Didn't we have
this go-around here years ago? You either support reproductive autonomy or
you don't.

Marley

"Damsel Plum" <amelusine@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c89c3e62.0406081106.1f515156@posting.google.c om... sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote in message
news:<dafc70.0406080510.5687d748@posting.google.com>... "geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:<CUaxc.1607$GB4.53704@news.xtra.co.nz>... > > Fair enough if the girls want an open adoption, otherwise abortion
is the only way to ensure they are never found. Rh: Better than being hidden away and then encouraged to pretend that nothing had ever happened, don't you think? (Evidently not) You're saying aborting a baby is better than being hidden away (for up to 9 months) and then encouraged to pretend that nothing had ever happened. Well, it certainly more *convenient*. "Better"? Define your terms. Many of us would have been aborted. I was told in no uncertain terms and repeatedly that this would have been the case with me, and moreover that "natural" abortion techniques were attempted. I'm sorry, I'd rather have an adopted identity than truly no identity. And while we're being diplomatic, birthmothers who wish they had aborted (for reasons other than being terrorized by PSYCHO-ADOPTEES) can choke on my umbilical cord! Excuse me. Damsel

That's an existential and academic argument as you know. Didn't we have
this go-around here years ago? You either support reproductive autonomy or
you don't.

Marley

>Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines)Date: 6/9/04 3:13 PM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <20040609181332.13427.00000664@mb-m04.aol.com>phildoran writes:Are there lies in America?>>Is this a trick question?

Ya know, I am beginning to think she is related to Jackie.

Stupid questions, stupid people.
Kathy

>Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines)Date: 6/9/04 3:13 PM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <20040609181332.13427.00000664@mb-m04.aol.com>phildoran writes:Are there lies in America?>>Is this a trick question?

Ya know, I am beginning to think she is related to Jackie.

Stupid questions, stupid people.
Kathy

>Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: "Marley Greiner" maddogmarley@worldnet.att.netDate: 6/9/04 4:08 PM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <ILMxc.53374$_k3.1333013@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>"Damsel Plum" <amelusine@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:c89c3e62.0406081106.1f515156@posting.g oogle.com... sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote in messagenews:<dafc70.0406080510.5687d748@posting.google.com>... "geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in messagenews:<CUaxc.1607$GB4.53704@news.xtra.co.nz>... > > > Fair enough if the girls want an open adoption, otherwise abortionis the only way to ensure they are never found. Rh: Better than being hidden away and then encouraged to pretend that nothing had ever happened, don't you think? (Evidently not) You're saying aborting a baby is better than being hidden away (for up to 9 months) and then encouraged to pretend that nothing had ever happened. Well, it certainly more *convenient*. "Better"? Define your terms. Many of us would have been aborted. I was told in no uncertain terms and repeatedly that this would have been the case with me, and moreover that "natural" abortion techniques were attempted. I'm sorry, I'd rather have an adopted identity than truly no identity. And while we're being diplomatic, birthmothers who wish they had aborted (for reasons other than being terrorized by PSYCHO-ADOPTEES) can choke on my umbilical cord! Excuse me. DamselThat's an existential and academic argument as you know. Didn't we havethis go-around here years ago? You either support reproductive autonomy oryou don't.Marley

How sad it this?

This is the underlying problem with every adoption discussion. The pro-liar
agenda always gets in the way of progress.



Kathy

>Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: "Marley Greiner" maddogmarley@worldnet.att.netDate: 6/9/04 4:08 PM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <ILMxc.53374$_k3.1333013@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>"Damsel Plum" <amelusine@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:c89c3e62.0406081106.1f515156@posting.g oogle.com... sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote in messagenews:<dafc70.0406080510.5687d748@posting.google.com>... "geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in messagenews:<CUaxc.1607$GB4.53704@news.xtra.co.nz>... > > > Fair enough if the girls want an open adoption, otherwise abortionis the only way to ensure they are never found. Rh: Better than being hidden away and then encouraged to pretend that nothing had ever happened, don't you think? (Evidently not) You're saying aborting a baby is better than being hidden away (for up to 9 months) and then encouraged to pretend that nothing had ever happened. Well, it certainly more *convenient*. "Better"? Define your terms. Many of us would have been aborted. I was told in no uncertain terms and repeatedly that this would have been the case with me, and moreover that "natural" abortion techniques were attempted. I'm sorry, I'd rather have an adopted identity than truly no identity. And while we're being diplomatic, birthmothers who wish they had aborted (for reasons other than being terrorized by PSYCHO-ADOPTEES) can choke on my umbilical cord! Excuse me. DamselThat's an existential and academic argument as you know. Didn't we havethis go-around here years ago? You either support reproductive autonomy oryou don't.Marley

How sad it this?

This is the underlying problem with every adoption discussion. The pro-liar
agenda always gets in the way of progress.



Kathy

"Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in message
news:20040609181332.13427.00000664@mb-m04.aol.com... phildoran writes:Are there lies in America?>> Is this a trick question?
No, I'm curious about what you think are lies in American adoptions. << I suppose "Father Unknown" on the birthcertificate, even if the mother knows who it was, could be considered a
liethough.>> Ah, yes. That would be a lie. If a woman says she does not know who the
father of her baby is when she does, she is telling an untruth, aka a lie.
However, the state is not lying if they omit a father's name that has not been made known.

If the mother knows and tells them, they still put "Father Unknown", even if
the father would consent to his name on the Birth certificate << Do they do that in America? They do in New Zealand.>> Do what? If a woman will not divulge the name of the father of her baby,
I am sure no father's name is included on birth records. Individual states can handle this absence of information as they each choose. Maybe some insert
the words "father unknown". What does any of this have to do with adoption, falsified birth certificates and birth records being denied people who
were placed for adoption?

The new birth certificate was for the child's sake, to show it had "real"
parents and was no longer a bastard. It was the original certificate that
showed "father unknown".I think if the father registers the birth he can be on the certificate,
forcouples living together.Geopelia> Interesting. But relevant?
Yes. P2P

"Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in message
news:20040609181332.13427.00000664@mb-m04.aol.com... phildoran writes:Are there lies in America?>> Is this a trick question?
No, I'm curious about what you think are lies in American adoptions. << I suppose "Father Unknown" on the birthcertificate, even if the mother knows who it was, could be considered a
liethough.>> Ah, yes. That would be a lie. If a woman says she does not know who the
father of her baby is when she does, she is telling an untruth, aka a lie.
However, the state is not lying if they omit a father's name that has not been made known.

If the mother knows and tells them, they still put "Father Unknown", even if
the father would consent to his name on the Birth certificate << Do they do that in America? They do in New Zealand.>> Do what? If a woman will not divulge the name of the father of her baby,
I am sure no father's name is included on birth records. Individual states can handle this absence of information as they each choose. Maybe some insert
the words "father unknown". What does any of this have to do with adoption, falsified birth certificates and birth records being denied people who
were placed for adoption?

The new birth certificate was for the child's sake, to show it had "real"
parents and was no longer a bastard. It was the original certificate that
showed "father unknown".I think if the father registers the birth he can be on the certificate,
forcouples living together.Geopelia> Interesting. But relevant?
Yes. P2P

"Damsel Plum" <amelusine@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c89c3e62.0406091705.66647fe4@posting.google.c om... jmdjmh@aol.compostible (J.) wrote in message
news:<20040609123234.09269.00000709@mb-m03.aol.com>... veor depressoid nut. In this day and age the sad thing is not thatwomen don't have the opportunity to go out and become mining engineersand firepeople, but rather that they do not have the opportunity toraise their own children, should they want to. Whether this is afunction of consumerist/real estate pressures as much as those ofself-actualization, I don't know. Whether both adult members of a household work must work often is simply
a function of the choices we make, albeit often unwittingly. <rant> This is a perennial rant of mine, the "if you're going to have kids, take the time to raise them" rant, but I do realize it is a luxury despite what you write below and the similar choices my family has made. What breaks my heart is to see two parents who are away from home 50+ hours a week who then adopt children only to have them raised by a cavalcade of nannies, some of the kids ending up in military academies because no one wanted to deal with them then, why should anyone want to deal with them now? Sigh. </rant>

I agree with you on this. But kids are often trophies whether bio or
adopted, and baby rabies certainly isn't limited to those who can afford
them, or try to afford them. You only have to go to the mall or the
convenince store across the street from me to see that. Or watch Maury. I
don't understand, outside of exceptional circumstances, why somebody would
bother to adopt a kid they'll never see. But then I don't know why they'd
bother to go to all the trouble so they could have somebody to abuse, too.Marlzey, I think you would make a really good Mommy too. I could seeyou with one of those Chinese baby girls. Or maybe a Russian FAS kid,if you're up to a challenge. ;^P hehehe. Just kidding. Some of us thought that she and Bill would secretly raise an
internationally adopted platonic love child. Alas, that dream has died. Do you think Bill was Marley's platonic double, her animus, so to speak?

No doubt we were separated at birth, even though we wree born in different
states. We were/are both mean-spirited and nasty adoption panderers.

Marley

"Damsel Plum" <amelusine@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c89c3e62.0406091705.66647fe4@posting.google.c om... jmdjmh@aol.compostible (J.) wrote in message
news:<20040609123234.09269.00000709@mb-m03.aol.com>... veor depressoid nut. In this day and age the sad thing is not thatwomen don't have the opportunity to go out and become mining engineersand firepeople, but rather that they do not have the opportunity toraise their own children, should they want to. Whether this is afunction of consumerist/real estate pressures as much as those ofself-actualization, I don't know. Whether both adult members of a household work must work often is simply
a function of the choices we make, albeit often unwittingly. <rant> This is a perennial rant of mine, the "if you're going to have kids, take the time to raise them" rant, but I do realize it is a luxury despite what you write below and the similar choices my family has made. What breaks my heart is to see two parents who are away from home 50+ hours a week who then adopt children only to have them raised by a cavalcade of nannies, some of the kids ending up in military academies because no one wanted to deal with them then, why should anyone want to deal with them now? Sigh. </rant>

I agree with you on this. But kids are often trophies whether bio or
adopted, and baby rabies certainly isn't limited to those who can afford
them, or try to afford them. You only have to go to the mall or the
convenince store across the street from me to see that. Or watch Maury. I
don't understand, outside of exceptional circumstances, why somebody would
bother to adopt a kid they'll never see. But then I don't know why they'd
bother to go to all the trouble so they could have somebody to abuse, too.Marlzey, I think you would make a really good Mommy too. I could seeyou with one of those Chinese baby girls. Or maybe a Russian FAS kid,if you're up to a challenge. ;^P hehehe. Just kidding. Some of us thought that she and Bill would secretly raise an
internationally adopted platonic love child. Alas, that dream has died. Do you think Bill was Marley's platonic double, her animus, so to speak?

No doubt we were separated at birth, even though we wree born in different
states. We were/are both mean-spirited and nasty adoption panderers.

Marley

"Damsel Plum" <amelusine@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:c89c3e62.0406081052.4616dcc2@posting.g oogle.com... lilmtncbn@aol.com (LilMtnCbn) wrote in messagenews:<20040608001904.20909.00000471@mb-m23.aol.com>... >Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental You forget that Geo is a product of what we in the US call the *secretsand lies* generation. She probably still wipes her butt on the equivalantof old Sears catalog pages in the outhouse on the back forty. Geo wishes for the same thing many anti-adoption birthmothers wish for, alas, too late - a baby. She doesn't understand adoption, she only knows what she has heard from others in her position. Alt.adoption has been and can be a forum in which we learn from and grow with each other. I don't even see an attempt at educating people here. Yes, flaming is therapeutic, but counterproductive if you're trying to educate people. Geo is not Celeste. She has not yet proved herself uneducable in this area, has she? ------------------------- A good friend will come and bail you out of jail . . . but, a truefriend will be sitting next to you saying, "Damn . . . that was fun!" -----Unknown Going to jail for driving drunk and naked is stupid, no matter how fun it is. Damsel PruneI'm just pointing out the dangers of retrospective legislation by anygovernment. If it can be done with adoption law without anyone objecting, itcould be done with any other matter, civil or criminal.(It could mean that any of us could be charged with something that was not acrime at the time we did it, because it has since been made a crime. Is thatsimple enough for you people?)I see it as a possible erosion of many civil rights, not just the adoptionsituation.Is there a lawyer out there with a bit of intelligence and commonsense, whocan comment?Geopelia

Talk about your loaded questions . . .

First, a disclaimer. US and NZ law diverged some time back. All I can comment
on is where the law has gone in the US.

You're absolutely right about retrospective, or ex post facto, criminal laws.
They are prohibited by the US Constitution as fundamentally unfair, for obvious
reasons. I don't recall whether they were addressed in the Magna Carta.

Civil laws generally are not subject to the prohibition against retroactive
application, provided that they do not impose a penalty for conduct before
passage of the law or destroy a previously vested property interest. Exactly
what constitutes a property interest for this purpose falls into one of the
law's many grey areas. IIRC, the plaintiffs in the lawsuit challenging the
Oregon initiative unsuccessfully argued that under prior law they had a vested
privacy interest that could not be revoked legitimately. They lost on that and
every other issue they raised.

Is it an erosion of civl rights? Welcome to the quagmire. We've been slowly
defining just what "civil rights" means here in the US for a long time and it's
been anything but consistent. Our Constitution originally said people could be
property, but could still count as a fraction of a citizen for some purposes.
Now it says no one can own another. We continue to extract new rights from
that document as we move along into waters the drafters never imagined.

Ultimately, we define our civil rights as we go along. There was a time when
it was the king's right to have me killed at his whim; that was restrained at
least to the point that I was given an opportunity to be heard on my guilt or
innocence before I was hung. Now I can be heard again and again and again,
delaying my death for decades if I and my lawyers are adroit enough.

One could argue that civill liberties are a form of national self-indulgence,
IMO. Certainly they've not been the norm, even in our own time.

J.







Reply to jmhjmd at aol.

"Damsel Plum" <amelusine@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:c89c3e62.0406081052.4616dcc2@posting.g oogle.com... lilmtncbn@aol.com (LilMtnCbn) wrote in messagenews:<20040608001904.20909.00000471@mb-m23.aol.com>... >Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental You forget that Geo is a product of what we in the US call the *secretsand lies* generation. She probably still wipes her butt on the equivalantof old Sears catalog pages in the outhouse on the back forty. Geo wishes for the same thing many anti-adoption birthmothers wish for, alas, too late - a baby. She doesn't understand adoption, she only knows what she has heard from others in her position. Alt.adoption has been and can be a forum in which we learn from and grow with each other. I don't even see an attempt at educating people here. Yes, flaming is therapeutic, but counterproductive if you're trying to educate people. Geo is not Celeste. She has not yet proved herself uneducable in this area, has she? ------------------------- A good friend will come and bail you out of jail . . . but, a truefriend will be sitting next to you saying, "Damn . . . that was fun!" -----Unknown Going to jail for driving drunk and naked is stupid, no matter how fun it is. Damsel PruneI'm just pointing out the dangers of retrospective legislation by anygovernment. If it can be done with adoption law without anyone objecting, itcould be done with any other matter, civil or criminal.(It could mean that any of us could be charged with something that was not acrime at the time we did it, because it has since been made a crime. Is thatsimple enough for you people?)I see it as a possible erosion of many civil rights, not just the adoptionsituation.Is there a lawyer out there with a bit of intelligence and commonsense, whocan comment?Geopelia

Talk about your loaded questions . . .

First, a disclaimer. US and NZ law diverged some time back. All I can comment
on is where the law has gone in the US.

You're absolutely right about retrospective, or ex post facto, criminal laws.
They are prohibited by the US Constitution as fundamentally unfair, for obvious
reasons. I don't recall whether they were addressed in the Magna Carta.

Civil laws generally are not subject to the prohibition against retroactive
application, provided that they do not impose a penalty for conduct before
passage of the law or destroy a previously vested property interest. Exactly
what constitutes a property interest for this purpose falls into one of the
law's many grey areas. IIRC, the plaintiffs in the lawsuit challenging the
Oregon initiative unsuccessfully argued that under prior law they had a vested
privacy interest that could not be revoked legitimately. They lost on that and
every other issue they raised.

Is it an erosion of civl rights? Welcome to the quagmire. We've been slowly
defining just what "civil rights" means here in the US for a long time and it's
been anything but consistent. Our Constitution originally said people could be
property, but could still count as a fraction of a citizen for some purposes.
Now it says no one can own another. We continue to extract new rights from
that document as we move along into waters the drafters never imagined.

Ultimately, we define our civil rights as we go along. There was a time when
it was the king's right to have me killed at his whim; that was restrained at
least to the point that I was given an opportunity to be heard on my guilt or
innocence before I was hung. Now I can be heard again and again and again,
delaying my death for decades if I and my lawyers are adroit enough.

One could argue that civill liberties are a form of national self-indulgence,
IMO. Certainly they've not been the norm, even in our own time.

J.







Reply to jmhjmd at aol.

In article <Akqxc.1930$GB4.64885@news.xtra.co.nz>, "geopelia"
<phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
I'm just pointing out the dangers of retrospective legislation by anygovernment. If it can be done with adoption law without anyone objecting,it could be done with any other matter, civil or criminal.(It could mean that any of us could be charged with something that wasnot a crime at the time we did it, because it has since been made a crime. Isthat simple enough for you people?)

Well gee. In this country a little item called Article 1, Section 9, of the
Constitution of the United States would seem likely to prevent it. (I know, I
know, whole chunks of the Constitution have been and are daily being mauled
beyond recognition, and a case could be made that "three strikes" laws, for
example, or "civil commitment" laws against pedophiles, for another example,
violate this particular bit of the Constitution, but still the prohibition
against ex post facto laws is there in black and white.) I don't know whether
the citizens of New Zealand enjoy similar protection, but I wouldn't be
surprised if they did.

Moreover, laws are changed every day, and things become legal that were once
prohibited and (more usually) vice versa, without ever sending anyone to jail
for doing what was legal when they did it, and it's perfectly legitimate
(excuse the expression). Remember that the records of many adoptees were
*closed* retroactively in this country (again, don't know about NZ). Does that
seem equally unfair to you, that an adoptee might have free access to his
original birth certificate one day and lose it the next?

whoever
-----------------------------------------------
having my coffee and drinking it too

In article <Akqxc.1930$GB4.64885@news.xtra.co.nz>, "geopelia"
<phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
I'm just pointing out the dangers of retrospective legislation by anygovernment. If it can be done with adoption law without anyone objecting,it could be done with any other matter, civil or criminal.(It could mean that any of us could be charged with something that wasnot a crime at the time we did it, because it has since been made a crime. Isthat simple enough for you people?)

Well gee. In this country a little item called Article 1, Section 9, of the
Constitution of the United States would seem likely to prevent it. (I know, I
know, whole chunks of the Constitution have been and are daily being mauled
beyond recognition, and a case could be made that "three strikes" laws, for
example, or "civil commitment" laws against pedophiles, for another example,
violate this particular bit of the Constitution, but still the prohibition
against ex post facto laws is there in black and white.) I don't know whether
the citizens of New Zealand enjoy similar protection, but I wouldn't be
surprised if they did.

Moreover, laws are changed every day, and things become legal that were once
prohibited and (more usually) vice versa, without ever sending anyone to jail
for doing what was legal when they did it, and it's perfectly legitimate
(excuse the expression). Remember that the records of many adoptees were
*closed* retroactively in this country (again, don't know about NZ). Does that
seem equally unfair to you, that an adoptee might have free access to his
original birth certificate one day and lose it the next?

whoever
-----------------------------------------------
having my coffee and drinking it too

"J." <jmdjmh@aol.compostible> wrote in message
news:20040609232015.02451.00000850@mb-m01.aol.com..."Damsel Plum" <amelusine@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:c89c3e62.0406081052.4616dcc2@posting.g oogle.com... lilmtncbn@aol.com (LilMtnCbn) wrote in messagenews:<20040608001904.20909.00000471@mb-m23.aol.com>... > >Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No ParentalI'm just pointing out the dangers of retrospective legislation by anygovernment. If it can be done with adoption law without anyone objecting,
itcould be done with any other matter, civil or criminal.(It could mean that any of us could be charged with something that was
not acrime at the time we did it, because it has since been made a crime. Is
thatsimple enough for you people?)I see it as a possible erosion of many civil rights, not just the
adoptionsituation.Is there a lawyer out there with a bit of intelligence and commonsense,
whocan comment?Geopelia Talk about your loaded questions . . . First, a disclaimer. US and NZ law diverged some time back. All I can
comment on is where the law has gone in the US. You're absolutely right about retrospective, or ex post facto, criminal
laws. They are prohibited by the US Constitution as fundamentally unfair, for
obvious reasons. I don't recall whether they were addressed in the Magna Carta. Civil laws generally are not subject to the prohibition against
retroactive application, provided that they do not impose a penalty for conduct before passage of the law or destroy a previously vested property interest.
Exactly what constitutes a property interest for this purpose falls into one of
the law's many grey areas. IIRC, the plaintiffs in the lawsuit challenging
the Oregon initiative unsuccessfully argued that under prior law they had a
vested privacy interest that could not be revoked legitimately. They lost on
that and every other issue they raised. Is it an erosion of civl rights? Welcome to the quagmire. We've been
slowly defining just what "civil rights" means here in the US for a long time and
it's been anything but consistent. Our Constitution originally said people
could be property, but could still count as a fraction of a citizen for some
purposes. Now it says no one can own another. We continue to extract new rights
from that document as we move along into waters the drafters never imagined. Ultimately, we define our civil rights as we go along. There was a time
when it was the king's right to have me killed at his whim; that was restrained
at least to the point that I was given an opportunity to be heard on my guilt
or innocence before I was hung. Now I can be heard again and again and
again, delaying my death for decades if I and my lawyers are adroit enough. One could argue that civill liberties are a form of national
self-indulgence, IMO. Certainly they've not been the norm, even in our own time. J.


Thank you, somebody sensible at last!

New Zealand is now trying to remove the law that says a person cannot be
tried twice for the same crime. They already go to a second or third trial
if there is a hung jury. (Scotland used to have a "Not Proven" verdict,
which I think would be better in these cases.)
Now they are trying to make it a majority verdict in jury trials, not a
unanimous one. They are also talking about removing the right to a jury
trial in some cases.
They are also abolishing the right to take a case to the Privy Council.

What are people to do who know they are innocent, especially if they know
that certain evidence must have been planted?

Geopelia

Reply to jmhjmd at aol.

"J." <jmdjmh@aol.compostible> wrote in message
news:20040609232015.02451.00000850@mb-m01.aol.com..."Damsel Plum" <amelusine@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:c89c3e62.0406081052.4616dcc2@posting.g oogle.com... lilmtncbn@aol.com (LilMtnCbn) wrote in messagenews:<20040608001904.20909.00000471@mb-m23.aol.com>... > >Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No ParentalI'm just pointing out the dangers of retrospective legislation by anygovernment. If it can be done with adoption law without anyone objecting,
itcould be done with any other matter, civil or criminal.(It could mean that any of us could be charged with something that was
not acrime at the time we did it, because it has since been made a crime. Is
thatsimple enough for you people?)I see it as a possible erosion of many civil rights, not just the
adoptionsituation.Is there a lawyer out there with a bit of intelligence and commonsense,
whocan comment?Geopelia Talk about your loaded questions . . . First, a disclaimer. US and NZ law diverged some time back. All I can
comment on is where the law has gone in the US. You're absolutely right about retrospective, or ex post facto, criminal
laws. They are prohibited by the US Constitution as fundamentally unfair, for
obvious reasons. I don't recall whether they were addressed in the Magna Carta. Civil laws generally are not subject to the prohibition against
retroactive application, provided that they do not impose a penalty for conduct before passage of the law or destroy a previously vested property interest.
Exactly what constitutes a property interest for this purpose falls into one of
the law's many grey areas. IIRC, the plaintiffs in the lawsuit challenging
the Oregon initiative unsuccessfully argued that under prior law they had a
vested privacy interest that could not be revoked legitimately. They lost on
that and every other issue they raised. Is it an erosion of civl rights? Welcome to the quagmire. We've been
slowly defining just what "civil rights" means here in the US for a long time and
it's been anything but consistent. Our Constitution originally said people
could be property, but could still count as a fraction of a citizen for some
purposes. Now it says no one can own another. We continue to extract new rights
from that document as we move along into waters the drafters never imagined. Ultimately, we define our civil rights as we go along. There was a time
when it was the king's right to have me killed at his whim; that was restrained
at least to the point that I was given an opportunity to be heard on my guilt
or innocence before I was hung. Now I can be heard again and again and
again, delaying my death for decades if I and my lawyers are adroit enough. One could argue that civill liberties are a form of national
self-indulgence, IMO. Certainly they've not been the norm, even in our own time. J.


Thank you, somebody sensible at last!

New Zealand is now trying to remove the law that says a person cannot be
tried twice for the same crime. They already go to a second or third trial
if there is a hung jury. (Scotland used to have a "Not Proven" verdict,
which I think would be better in these cases.)
Now they are trying to make it a majority verdict in jury trials, not a
unanimous one. They are also talking about removing the right to a jury
trial in some cases.
They are also abolishing the right to take a case to the Privy Council.

What are people to do who know they are innocent, especially if they know
that certain evidence must have been planted?

Geopelia

Reply to jmhjmd at aol.

palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message news:<20040609180506.13427.00000663@mb-m04.aol.com>... kjs668 writes:I just had a conversation with a coworker--he feels potential adoptiveparentsshouldn't have to go any of the pre-adoption procedures--that it's theirgod-given right to rear other people's unwanted children. WTF?? (Not veryrelated, but I had to get it off my chest) Good thing you vented here and didn't try to educate the clod, kj. I have learned such starting points in conversations about adoption rarely prove interesting, never mind fruitful. The holes in this clod's head are just too big to fill.

I've found that with the proper patience and charm many people are
educable on these matters. Lots of people who want to be parents have
grappled for years with infertility, then reprotech which is
expensive, painful and humiliating, and then they get to adoption and
they are exasperated, realizing that there is a huge vetting process
in most cases. This is the source of much of these attitudes. Now,
you may have zero compassion for people so determined to be parents
based on your personal experience, but some of these people are good
people who will make good parents. So it is worth understanding their
point of view in order to try and make them understand yours.

By the way, what are people's relationships to adoption around here
these days? I'm an adoptee. :^P

Damz

palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message news:<20040609180506.13427.00000663@mb-m04.aol.com>... kjs668 writes:I just had a conversation with a coworker--he feels potential adoptiveparentsshouldn't have to go any of the pre-adoption procedures--that it's theirgod-given right to rear other people's unwanted children. WTF?? (Not veryrelated, but I had to get it off my chest) Good thing you vented here and didn't try to educate the clod, kj. I have learned such starting points in conversations about adoption rarely prove interesting, never mind fruitful. The holes in this clod's head are just too big to fill.

I've found that with the proper patience and charm many people are
educable on these matters. Lots of people who want to be parents have
grappled for years with infertility, then reprotech which is
expensive, painful and humiliating, and then they get to adoption and
they are exasperated, realizing that there is a huge vetting process
in most cases. This is the source of much of these attitudes. Now,
you may have zero compassion for people so determined to be parents
based on your personal experience, but some of these people are good
people who will make good parents. So it is worth understanding their
point of view in order to try and make them understand yours.

By the way, what are people's relationships to adoption around here
these days? I'm an adoptee. :^P

Damz

>Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy )Date: 6/9/2004 4:09 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <20040609180949.00323.00000688@mb-m14.aol.com>Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: "kat" katlat24seeifthishelps@hotmail.comDate: 6/9/04 4:20 AM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <2ioa3tFpfdohU1@uni-berlin.de>"Damsel Plum" <amelusine@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:c89c3e62.0406081106.1f515156@posting.g oogle.com... sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote in messagenews:<dafc70.0406080510.5687d748@posting.google.com>... > "geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in messagenews:<CUaxc.1607$GB4.53704@news.xtra.co.nz>... > > > > Fair enough if the girls want an open adoption, otherwise abortionis > the only way to ensure they are never found. Rh: > Better than being hidden away and then encouraged to pretend that > nothing had ever happened, don't you think? (Evidently not) You're saying aborting a baby is better than being hidden away (for up to 9 months) and then encouraged to pretend that nothing had ever happened. Well, it certainly more *convenient*. "Better"? Define your terms. Many of us would have been aborted. I was told in no uncertain terms and repeatedly that this would have been the case with me, and moreover that "natural" abortion techniques were attempted. I'm sorry, I'd rather have an adopted identity than truly no identity.I think you forgot to denigrate (or was it decompensate that you settledon?) a group in that earlier list list of yours. The "I'm just grateful tobe alive" group of adoptees - that you apparently belong to. And while we're being diplomatic, birthmothers who wish they had aborted (for reasons other than being terrorized by PSYCHO-ADOPTEES) can choke on my umbilical cord!Using one of your phrases: "The remark above suggests a degree of contempt" - for bmothers who wishthey had made a different choice regarding their unplanned pregnancy.Kathy 1Right on!Kathy

yep.


-------------------------
A good friend will come and bail you out of jail . . . but, a true friend will
be sitting next to you saying, "Damn . . . that was fun!"
-----Unknown

>Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy )Date: 6/9/2004 4:09 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <20040609180949.00323.00000688@mb-m14.aol.com>Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: "kat" katlat24seeifthishelps@hotmail.comDate: 6/9/04 4:20 AM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <2ioa3tFpfdohU1@uni-berlin.de>"Damsel Plum" <amelusine@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:c89c3e62.0406081106.1f515156@posting.g oogle.com... sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote in messagenews:<dafc70.0406080510.5687d748@posting.google.com>... > "geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in messagenews:<CUaxc.1607$GB4.53704@news.xtra.co.nz>... > > > > Fair enough if the girls want an open adoption, otherwise abortionis > the only way to ensure they are never found. Rh: > Better than being hidden away and then encouraged to pretend that > nothing had ever happened, don't you think? (Evidently not) You're saying aborting a baby is better than being hidden away (for up to 9 months) and then encouraged to pretend that nothing had ever happened. Well, it certainly more *convenient*. "Better"? Define your terms. Many of us would have been aborted. I was told in no uncertain terms and repeatedly that this would have been the case with me, and moreover that "natural" abortion techniques were attempted. I'm sorry, I'd rather have an adopted identity than truly no identity.I think you forgot to denigrate (or was it decompensate that you settledon?) a group in that earlier list list of yours. The "I'm just grateful tobe alive" group of adoptees - that you apparently belong to. And while we're being diplomatic, birthmothers who wish they had aborted (for reasons other than being terrorized by PSYCHO-ADOPTEES) can choke on my umbilical cord!Using one of your phrases: "The remark above suggests a degree of contempt" - for bmothers who wishthey had made a different choice regarding their unplanned pregnancy.Kathy 1Right on!Kathy

yep.


-------------------------
A good friend will come and bail you out of jail . . . but, a true friend will
be sitting next to you saying, "Damn . . . that was fun!"
-----Unknown

>Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: amelusine@yahoo.com (Damsel Plum)Date: 6/9/2004 10:16 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <c89c3e62.0406092016.45dd16b1@posting.google.com>palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in messagenews:<20040609180506.13427.00000663@mb-m04.aol.com>... kjs668 writes:I just had a conversation with a coworker--he feels potential adoptiveparentsshouldn't have to go any of the pre-adoption procedures--that it's theirgod-given right to rear other people's unwanted children. WTF?? (Notveryrelated, but I had to get it off my chest) Good thing you vented here and didn't try to educate the clod, kj. I have learned such starting points in conversations about adoption rarely prove interesting, never mind fruitful. The holes in this clod's head are justtoo big to fill.I've found that with the proper patience and charm many people areeducable on these matters. Lots of people who want to be parents havegrappled for years with infertility, then reprotech which isexpensive, painful and humiliating, and then they get to adoption andthey are exasperated, realizing that there is a huge vetting processin most cases. This is the source of much of these attitudes. Now,you may have zero compassion for people so determined to be parentsbased on your personal experience, but some of these people are goodpeople who will make good parents. So it is worth understanding theirpoint of view in order to try and make them understand yours.By the way, what are people's relationships to adoption around herethese days? I'm an adoptee. :^PDamz

Hahahahaha. Why don't you guess what Palm's triad position is. I mean, since
you've already appointed yourself the ng moniter and lectured on how to "nicely
get across the adoptee's point of view" when the post was already between
adoptees.

Please, dazzle us some more with your insight!


-------------------------
A good friend will come and bail you out of jail . . . but, a true friend will
be sitting next to you saying, "Damn . . . that was fun!"
-----Unknown

>Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: amelusine@yahoo.com (Damsel Plum)Date: 6/9/2004 10:16 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <c89c3e62.0406092016.45dd16b1@posting.google.com>palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in messagenews:<20040609180506.13427.00000663@mb-m04.aol.com>... kjs668 writes:I just had a conversation with a coworker--he feels potential adoptiveparentsshouldn't have to go any of the pre-adoption procedures--that it's theirgod-given right to rear other people's unwanted children. WTF?? (Notveryrelated, but I had to get it off my chest) Good thing you vented here and didn't try to educate the clod, kj. I have learned such starting points in conversations about adoption rarely prove interesting, never mind fruitful. The holes in this clod's head are justtoo big to fill.I've found that with the proper patience and charm many people areeducable on these matters. Lots of people who want to be parents havegrappled for years with infertility, then reprotech which isexpensive, painful and humiliating, and then they get to adoption andthey are exasperated, realizing that there is a huge vetting processin most cases. This is the source of much of these attitudes. Now,you may have zero compassion for people so determined to be parentsbased on your personal experience, but some of these people are goodpeople who will make good parents. So it is worth understanding theirpoint of view in order to try and make them understand yours.By the way, what are people's relationships to adoption around herethese days? I'm an adoptee. :^PDamz

Hahahahaha. Why don't you guess what Palm's triad position is. I mean, since
you've already appointed yourself the ng moniter and lectured on how to "nicely
get across the adoptee's point of view" when the post was already between
adoptees.

Please, dazzle us some more with your insight!


-------------------------
A good friend will come and bail you out of jail . . . but, a true friend will
be sitting next to you saying, "Damn . . . that was fun!"
-----Unknown

>"J." <jmdjmh@aol.compostible> wrote in messagenews:20040609232015.02451.00000850@mb-m01.aol.com..."Damsel Plum" <amelusine@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:c89c3e62.0406081052.4616dcc2@posting.g oogle.com...> lilmtncbn@aol.com (LilMtnCbn) wrote in messagenews:<20040608001904.20909.00000471@mb-m23.aol.com>...> > >Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental>>I'm just pointing out the dangers of retrospective legislation by anygovernment. If it can be done with adoption law without anyone objecting,itcould be done with any other matter, civil or criminal.(It could mean that any of us could be charged with something that wasnot acrime at the time we did it, because it has since been made a crime. Isthatsimple enough for you people?)I see it as a possible erosion of many civil rights, not just theadoptionsituation.Is there a lawyer out there with a bit of intelligence and commonsense,whocan comment?Geopelia Talk about your loaded questions . . . First, a disclaimer. US and NZ law diverged some time back. All I cancomment on is where the law has gone in the US. You're absolutely right about retrospective, or ex post facto, criminallaws. They are prohibited by the US Constitution as fundamentally unfair, forobvious reasons. I don't recall whether they were addressed in the Magna Carta. Civil laws generally are not subject to the prohibition againstretroactive application, provided that they do not impose a penalty for conduct before passage of the law or destroy a previously vested property interest.Exactly what constitutes a property interest for this purpose falls into one ofthe law's many grey areas. IIRC, the plaintiffs in the lawsuit challengingthe Oregon initiative unsuccessfully argued that under prior law they had avested privacy interest that could not be revoked legitimately. They lost onthat and every other issue they raised. Is it an erosion of civl rights? Welcome to the quagmire. We've beenslowly defining just what "civil rights" means here in the US for a long time andit's been anything but consistent. Our Constitution originally said peoplecould be property, but could still count as a fraction of a citizen for somepurposes. Now it says no one can own another. We continue to extract new rightsfrom that document as we move along into waters the drafters never imagined. Ultimately, we define our civil rights as we go along. There was a timewhen it was the king's right to have me killed at his whim; that was restrainedat least to the point that I was given an opportunity to be heard on my guiltor innocence before I was hung. Now I can be heard again and again andagain, delaying my death for decades if I and my lawyers are adroit enough. One could argue that civill liberties are a form of nationalself-indulgence, IMO. Certainly they've not been the norm, even in our own time. J.Thank you, somebody sensible at last!New Zealand is now trying to remove the law that says a person cannot betried twice for the same crime. They already go to a second or third trialif there is a hung jury. (Scotland used to have a "Not Proven" verdict,which I think would be better in these cases.)Now they are trying to make it a majority verdict in jury trials, not aunanimous one. They are also talking about removing the right to a jurytrial in some cases.They are also abolishing the right to take a case to the Privy Council.

Interesting developments. I imagine that NZ is not far ahead of the US in that
regard. The US Supreme Court's decision on the pending cases involving
"detainees" will point the way.

J.

What are people to do who know they are innocent, especially if they knowthat certain evidence must have been planted?Geopelia





Reply to jmhjmd at aol.

>"J." <jmdjmh@aol.compostible> wrote in messagenews:20040609232015.02451.00000850@mb-m01.aol.com..."Damsel Plum" <amelusine@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:c89c3e62.0406081052.4616dcc2@posting.g oogle.com...> lilmtncbn@aol.com (LilMtnCbn) wrote in messagenews:<20040608001904.20909.00000471@mb-m23.aol.com>...> > >Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental>>I'm just pointing out the dangers of retrospective legislation by anygovernment. If it can be done with adoption law without anyone objecting,itcould be done with any other matter, civil or criminal.(It could mean that any of us could be charged with something that wasnot acrime at the time we did it, because it has since been made a crime. Isthatsimple enough for you people?)I see it as a possible erosion of many civil rights, not just theadoptionsituation.Is there a lawyer out there with a bit of intelligence and commonsense,whocan comment?Geopelia Talk about your loaded questions . . . First, a disclaimer. US and NZ law diverged some time back. All I cancomment on is where the law has gone in the US. You're absolutely right about retrospective, or ex post facto, criminallaws. They are prohibited by the US Constitution as fundamentally unfair, forobvious reasons. I don't recall whether they were addressed in the Magna Carta. Civil laws generally are not subject to the prohibition againstretroactive application, provided that they do not impose a penalty for conduct before passage of the law or destroy a previously vested property interest.Exactly what constitutes a property interest for this purpose falls into one ofthe law's many grey areas. IIRC, the plaintiffs in the lawsuit challengingthe Oregon initiative unsuccessfully argued that under prior law they had avested privacy interest that could not be revoked legitimately. They lost onthat and every other issue they raised. Is it an erosion of civl rights? Welcome to the quagmire. We've beenslowly defining just what "civil rights" means here in the US for a long time andit's been anything but consistent. Our Constitution originally said peoplecould be property, but could still count as a fraction of a citizen for somepurposes. Now it says no one can own another. We continue to extract new rightsfrom that document as we move along into waters the drafters never imagined. Ultimately, we define our civil rights as we go along. There was a timewhen it was the king's right to have me killed at his whim; that was restrainedat least to the point that I was given an opportunity to be heard on my guiltor innocence before I was hung. Now I can be heard again and again andagain, delaying my death for decades if I and my lawyers are adroit enough. One could argue that civill liberties are a form of nationalself-indulgence, IMO. Certainly they've not been the norm, even in our own time. J.Thank you, somebody sensible at last!New Zealand is now trying to remove the law that says a person cannot betried twice for the same crime. They already go to a second or third trialif there is a hung jury. (Scotland used to have a "Not Proven" verdict,which I think would be better in these cases.)Now they are trying to make it a majority verdict in jury trials, not aunanimous one. They are also talking about removing the right to a jurytrial in some cases.They are also abolishing the right to take a case to the Privy Council.

Interesting developments. I imagine that NZ is not far ahead of the US in that
regard. The US Supreme Court's decision on the pending cases involving
"detainees" will point the way.

J.

What are people to do who know they are innocent, especially if they knowthat certain evidence must have been planted?Geopelia





Reply to jmhjmd at aol.

in article X6Rxc.454$s52.22440@news.xtra.co.nz, geopelia at
phildoran@xtra.co.nz wrote on 10/6/04 5:07 am:

<snip>
New Zealand is now trying to remove the law that says a person cannot be tried twice for the same crime.

Are they trying to copycat England & Wales? The latter has been muted by the
Home Secretary but is not popular, in fact our Home Secretary is not popular
either.

They already go to a second or third trial if there is a hung jury. (Scotland used to have a "Not Proven" verdict, which I think would be better in these cases.)

Scotland still does doesn't it?
Now they are trying to make it a majority verdict in jury trials, not a unanimous one. They are also talking about removing the right to a jury trial in some cases.

Ah..trying to steal Blunket's ideas again.

They are also abolishing the right to take a case to the Privy Council.

Don't you think it is about time they did? Most of the rest of the
Commonwealth has. Do you really think another country's judiciary should
pass judgments on cases in your country even if assisted by your own
judiciary?

What are people to do who know they are innocent, especially if they know that certain evidence must have been planted?

I don't know that the Privy Council is the right body to do it , London is a
long way away from where any crime in New Zealand will have been committed,
not that the Privy Council has been involved in any NZ criminal cases for a
long time has it? It is these day only used in the UK as a final court of
appeal against professional negligence charges brought by professional
bodies and similar such matters. Though some Caribbean nations rely on it
for more serious criminal judgements I believe, though they are not bound to
abide by its decisions.

Robin

in article X6Rxc.454$s52.22440@news.xtra.co.nz, geopelia at
phildoran@xtra.co.nz wrote on 10/6/04 5:07 am:

<snip>
New Zealand is now trying to remove the law that says a person cannot be tried twice for the same crime.

Are they trying to copycat England & Wales? The latter has been muted by the
Home Secretary but is not popular, in fact our Home Secretary is not popular
either.

They already go to a second or third trial if there is a hung jury. (Scotland used to have a "Not Proven" verdict, which I think would be better in these cases.)

Scotland still does doesn't it?
Now they are trying to make it a majority verdict in jury trials, not a unanimous one. They are also talking about removing the right to a jury trial in some cases.

Ah..trying to steal Blunket's ideas again.

They are also abolishing the right to take a case to the Privy Council.

Don't you think it is about time they did? Most of the rest of the
Commonwealth has. Do you really think another country's judiciary should
pass judgments on cases in your country even if assisted by your own
judiciary?

What are people to do who know they are innocent, especially if they know that certain evidence must have been planted?

I don't know that the Privy Council is the right body to do it , London is a
long way away from where any crime in New Zealand will have been committed,
not that the Privy Council has been involved in any NZ criminal cases for a
long time has it? It is these day only used in the UK as a final court of
appeal against professional negligence charges brought by professional
bodies and similar such matters. Though some Caribbean nations rely on it
for more serious criminal judgements I believe, though they are not bound to
abide by its decisions.

Robin

"LilMtnCbn" <lilmtncbn@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040610004112.07445.00000920@mb-m03.aol.com...Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: amelusine@yahoo.com (Damsel Plum)Date: 6/9/2004 10:16 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <c89c3e62.0406092016.45dd16b1@posting.google.com>palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in messagenews:<20040609180506.13427.00000663@mb-m04.aol.com>... kjs668 writes: >I just had a conversation with a coworker--he feels potential adoptive >parents >shouldn't have to go any of the pre-adoption procedures--that it's
their >god-given right to rear other people's unwanted children. WTF?? (Notvery >related, but I had to get it off my chest) > Good thing you vented here and didn't try to educate the clod, kj. I
have learned such starting points in conversations about adoption rarely
prove interesting, never mind fruitful. The holes in this clod's head are
justtoo big to fill.I've found that with the proper patience and charm many people areeducable on these matters. Lots of people who want to be parents havegrappled for years with infertility, then reprotech which isexpensive, painful and humiliating, and then they get to adoption andthey are exasperated, realizing that there is a huge vetting processin most cases. This is the source of much of these attitudes. Now,you may have zero compassion for people so determined to be parentsbased on your personal experience, but some of these people are goodpeople who will make good parents. So it is worth understanding theirpoint of view in order to try and make them understand yours.By the way, what are people's relationships to adoption around herethese days? I'm an adoptee. :^PDamz Hahahahaha. Why don't you guess what Palm's triad position is.

Now don't be silly. She is a "howling birthmother who hates adoption" -
just like the rest of us here ;)

Kathy 1

"LilMtnCbn" <lilmtncbn@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040610004112.07445.00000920@mb-m03.aol.com...Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: amelusine@yahoo.com (Damsel Plum)Date: 6/9/2004 10:16 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <c89c3e62.0406092016.45dd16b1@posting.google.com>palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in messagenews:<20040609180506.13427.00000663@mb-m04.aol.com>... kjs668 writes: >I just had a conversation with a coworker--he feels potential adoptive >parents >shouldn't have to go any of the pre-adoption procedures--that it's
their >god-given right to rear other people's unwanted children. WTF?? (Notvery >related, but I had to get it off my chest) > Good thing you vented here and didn't try to educate the clod, kj. I
have learned such starting points in conversations about adoption rarely
prove interesting, never mind fruitful. The holes in this clod's head are
justtoo big to fill.I've found that with the proper patience and charm many people areeducable on these matters. Lots of people who want to be parents havegrappled for years with infertility, then reprotech which isexpensive, painful and humiliating, and then they get to adoption andthey are exasperated, realizing that there is a huge vetting processin most cases. This is the source of much of these attitudes. Now,you may have zero compassion for people so determined to be parentsbased on your personal experience, but some of these people are goodpeople who will make good parents. So it is worth understanding theirpoint of view in order to try and make them understand yours.By the way, what are people's relationships to adoption around herethese days? I'm an adoptee. :^PDamz Hahahahaha. Why don't you guess what Palm's triad position is.

Now don't be silly. She is a "howling birthmother who hates adoption" -
just like the rest of us here ;)

Kathy 1

"fiend" <reveohw@aol.compromise> wrote in message
news:20040610000234.22098.00000312@mb-m15.aol.com... In article <Akqxc.1930$GB4.64885@news.xtra.co.nz>, "geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote:I'm just pointing out the dangers of retrospective legislation by anygovernment. If it can be done with adoption law without anyone objecting,it could be done with any other matter, civil or criminal.(It could mean that any of us could be charged with something that wasnot a crime at the time we did it, because it has since been made a
crime. Isthat simple enough for you people?) Well gee. In this country a little item called Article 1, Section 9, of
the Constitution of the United States would seem likely to prevent it. (I
know, I know, whole chunks of the Constitution have been and are daily being
mauled beyond recognition, and a case could be made that "three strikes" laws,
for example, or "civil commitment" laws against pedophiles, for another
example, violate this particular bit of the Constitution, but still the prohibition against ex post facto laws is there in black and white.) I don't know
whether the citizens of New Zealand enjoy similar protection, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did.

We do, as far as I know (not being a lawyer), but now they want to change
it. They say it will only be done in serious cases where new evidence comes
to light. But what may perhaps be allowable to convict a mass murderer could
also be used by some future government to silence its political opponents,
couldn't it?

What is of concern is the planting of evidence, to be "discovered" later.
Most people now accept the evidence of DNA, but what if the DNA sample is
planted? The defence suggested that this had been done in one case a while
ago, and there was indignation at the very idea. If I had been on the jury
(I wasn't) I would have had a few misgivings, as all the other evidence
seemed shaky and circumstantial. Evidence could be planted after the accused
has been acquitted, couldn't it, if another trial was to be allowed.

I don't think New Zealand actually has a constitution like U.S.A.
Moreover, laws are changed every day, and things become legal that were
once prohibited and (more usually) vice versa, without ever sending anyone to
jail for doing what was legal when they did it, and it's perfectly legitimate (excuse the expression). Remember that the records of many adoptees were *closed* retroactively in this country (again, don't know about NZ). Does
that seem equally unfair to you, that an adoptee might have free access to his original birth certificate one day and lose it the next? whoever ----------------------------------------------- having my coffee and drinking it too

Yes, closing open records is just as bad as opening closed records. The
principle is the same. What has originally been agreed to should stand until
all parties decide otherwise. That includes the adopting parents too.

"fiend" <reveohw@aol.compromise> wrote in message
news:20040610000234.22098.00000312@mb-m15.aol.com... In article <Akqxc.1930$GB4.64885@news.xtra.co.nz>, "geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote:I'm just pointing out the dangers of retrospective legislation by anygovernment. If it can be done with adoption law without anyone objecting,it could be done with any other matter, civil or criminal.(It could mean that any of us could be charged with something that wasnot a crime at the time we did it, because it has since been made a
crime. Isthat simple enough for you people?) Well gee. In this country a little item called Article 1, Section 9, of
the Constitution of the United States would seem likely to prevent it. (I
know, I know, whole chunks of the Constitution have been and are daily being
mauled beyond recognition, and a case could be made that "three strikes" laws,
for example, or "civil commitment" laws against pedophiles, for another
example, violate this particular bit of the Constitution, but still the prohibition against ex post facto laws is there in black and white.) I don't know
whether the citizens of New Zealand enjoy similar protection, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did.

We do, as far as I know (not being a lawyer), but now they want to change
it. They say it will only be done in serious cases where new evidence comes
to light. But what may perhaps be allowable to convict a mass murderer could
also be used by some future government to silence its political opponents,
couldn't it?

What is of concern is the planting of evidence, to be "discovered" later.
Most people now accept the evidence of DNA, but what if the DNA sample is
planted? The defence suggested that this had been done in one case a while
ago, and there was indignation at the very idea. If I had been on the jury
(I wasn't) I would have had a few misgivings, as all the other evidence
seemed shaky and circumstantial. Evidence could be planted after the accused
has been acquitted, couldn't it, if another trial was to be allowed.

I don't think New Zealand actually has a constitution like U.S.A.
Moreover, laws are changed every day, and things become legal that were
once prohibited and (more usually) vice versa, without ever sending anyone to
jail for doing what was legal when they did it, and it's perfectly legitimate (excuse the expression). Remember that the records of many adoptees were *closed* retroactively in this country (again, don't know about NZ). Does
that seem equally unfair to you, that an adoptee might have free access to his original birth certificate one day and lose it the next? whoever ----------------------------------------------- having my coffee and drinking it too

Yes, closing open records is just as bad as opening closed records. The
principle is the same. What has originally been agreed to should stand until
all parties decide otherwise. That includes the adopting parents too.

"Robin Harritt" <zybennderender@harritt.net> wrote in message
news:BCEDF62A.42AEE%zybennderender@harritt.net... in article X6Rxc.454$s52.22440@news.xtra.co.nz, geopelia at phildoran@xtra.co.nz wrote on 10/6/04 5:07 am: <snip> New Zealand is now trying to remove the law that says a person cannot be tried twice for the same crime. Are they trying to copycat England & Wales? The latter has been muted by
the Home Secretary but is not popular, in fact our Home Secretary is not
popular either. They already go to a second or third trial if there is a hung jury.
(Scotland used to have a "Not Proven" verdict, which I think would be better in
these cases.) Scotland still does doesn't it?

Yes, a man has just been acquitted of a murder there with a "not proven"
verdict. Now they are trying to make it a majority verdict in jury trials, not a unanimous one. They are also talking about removing the right to a jury trial in some cases. Ah..trying to steal Blunket's ideas again. They are also abolishing the right to take a case to the Privy Council. Don't you think it is about time they did? Most of the rest of the Commonwealth has. Do you really think another country's judiciary should pass judgments on cases in your country even if assisted by your own judiciary?


I checked on Google, it was abolished on 1 January 2004, except for a few
cases where matters had already been started.
I think there should be some final court that is independent of the country
where the case was originally heard, or there could be pressure from some
future government. I think there is some court of Human Rights somewhere in
Europe though. What are people to do who know they are innocent, especially if they
know that certain evidence must have been planted? I don't know that the Privy Council is the right body to do it , London is
a long way away from where any crime in New Zealand will have been
committed, not that the Privy Council has been involved in any NZ criminal cases for
a long time has it? It is these day only used in the UK as a final court
of appeal against professional negligence charges brought by professional bodies and similar such matters. Though some Caribbean nations rely on it for more serious criminal judgements I believe, though they are not bound
to abide by its decisions. Robin

"Robin Harritt" <zybennderender@harritt.net> wrote in message
news:BCEDF62A.42AEE%zybennderender@harritt.net... in article X6Rxc.454$s52.22440@news.xtra.co.nz, geopelia at phildoran@xtra.co.nz wrote on 10/6/04 5:07 am: <snip> New Zealand is now trying to remove the law that says a person cannot be tried twice for the same crime. Are they trying to copycat England & Wales? The latter has been muted by
the Home Secretary but is not popular, in fact our Home Secretary is not
popular either. They already go to a second or third trial if there is a hung jury.
(Scotland used to have a "Not Proven" verdict, which I think would be better in
these cases.) Scotland still does doesn't it?

Yes, a man has just been acquitted of a murder there with a "not proven"
verdict. Now they are trying to make it a majority verdict in jury trials, not a unanimous one. They are also talking about removing the right to a jury trial in some cases. Ah..trying to steal Blunket's ideas again. They are also abolishing the right to take a case to the Privy Council. Don't you think it is about time they did? Most of the rest of the Commonwealth has. Do you really think another country's judiciary should pass judgments on cases in your country even if assisted by your own judiciary?


I checked on Google, it was abolished on 1 January 2004, except for a few
cases where matters had already been started.
I think there should be some final court that is independent of the country
where the case was originally heard, or there could be pressure from some
future government. I think there is some court of Human Rights somewhere in
Europe though. What are people to do who know they are innocent, especially if they
know that certain evidence must have been planted? I don't know that the Privy Council is the right body to do it , London is
a long way away from where any crime in New Zealand will have been
committed, not that the Privy Council has been involved in any NZ criminal cases for
a long time has it? It is these day only used in the UK as a final court
of appeal against professional negligence charges brought by professional bodies and similar such matters. Though some Caribbean nations rely on it for more serious criminal judgements I believe, though they are not bound
to abide by its decisions. Robin

in article g5Yxc.626$s52.27190@news.xtra.co.nz, geopelia at
phildoran@xtra.co.nz wrote on 10/6/04 1:03 pm:

<snip> Yes, closing open records is just as bad as opening closed records. The principle is the same. What has originally been agreed to should stand until all parties decide otherwise. That includes the adopting parents too.

Even if, as in England, the closing of those records was never done with
the proper due legal and parliamentary process?

Is NZ yet another of those places where the ubiquitous "promise" was made to
birthmothers, yet not one single person can find any written record of it.
very few birthmother's have ever said they wanted it, but lots of adoptive
parents, adoption agency staff and retired adoption agency staff are getting
their panties all in twist about it?

Do you really honestly think that adopted people should have to be denied a
right to know their genetic family and all that goes with that, just to
honour some imaginary promise made to adoptive parents in general?

How do you feel about giving the right to decide whether elderly parents
should be euthanased to their children? Their adoptive children even? I see
a certain equivalence to parents denying adopted people information, the
lack of which may perhaps prove fatal to them in some cases, don't you?

Robin

in article g5Yxc.626$s52.27190@news.xtra.co.nz, geopelia at
phildoran@xtra.co.nz wrote on 10/6/04 1:03 pm:

<snip> Yes, closing open records is just as bad as opening closed records. The principle is the same. What has originally been agreed to should stand until all parties decide otherwise. That includes the adopting parents too.

Even if, as in England, the closing of those records was never done with
the proper due legal and parliamentary process?

Is NZ yet another of those places where the ubiquitous "promise" was made to
birthmothers, yet not one single person can find any written record of it.
very few birthmother's have ever said they wanted it, but lots of adoptive
parents, adoption agency staff and retired adoption agency staff are getting
their panties all in twist about it?

Do you really honestly think that adopted people should have to be denied a
right to know their genetic family and all that goes with that, just to
honour some imaginary promise made to adoptive parents in general?

How do you feel about giving the right to decide whether elderly parents
should be euthanased to their children? Their adoptive children even? I see
a certain equivalence to parents denying adopted people information, the
lack of which may perhaps prove fatal to them in some cases, don't you?

Robin

"Robin Harritt" <zybennderenderer@harritt.net> wrote in message
news:BCEE12F6.42B00%zybennderenderer@harritt.net.. . in article g5Yxc.626$s52.27190@news.xtra.co.nz, geopelia at phildoran@xtra.co.nz wrote on 10/6/04 1:03 pm: <snip> Yes, closing open records is just as bad as opening closed records. The principle is the same. What has originally been agreed to should stand
until all parties decide otherwise. That includes the adopting parents too. Even if, as in England, the closing of those records was never done with the proper due legal and parliamentary process? Is NZ yet another of those places where the ubiquitous "promise" was made
to birthmothers, yet not one single person can find any written record of it. very few birthmother's have ever said they wanted it, but lots of adoptive parents, adoption agency staff and retired adoption agency staff are
getting their panties all in twist about it? Do you really honestly think that adopted people should have to be denied
a right to know their genetic family and all that goes with that, just to honour some imaginary promise made to adoptive parents in general? How do you feel about giving the right to decide whether elderly parents should be euthanased to their children? Their adoptive children even? I
see a certain equivalence to parents denying adopted people information, the lack of which may perhaps prove fatal to them in some cases, don't you? Robin

Medical information is OK, especially information on genetic diseases, which
I suppose is what you mean by that last paragraph. A general description,
e.g. age, occupation, religion etc, could be given, but personal identifying
information should not, unless agreed to. Either party should be able to put
on record that they want no contact.
That would be better than allowing a meeting which is not wanted and which
could result in heartbreak.

Adopted people may already feel rejected, although it was motherhood that
was rejected, not an individul baby. After all, many girls never saw their
babies at all. Some may have wanted their babies, but circumstances
prevented it.
Adopted people may also resent the women who gave them away, and may not
want to meet them if they find them. It isn't always like the sentimental
stories of meetings, in the media.

Geopelia

"Robin Harritt" <zybennderenderer@harritt.net> wrote in message
news:BCEE12F6.42B00%zybennderenderer@harritt.net.. . in article g5Yxc.626$s52.27190@news.xtra.co.nz, geopelia at phildoran@xtra.co.nz wrote on 10/6/04 1:03 pm: <snip> Yes, closing open records is just as bad as opening closed records. The principle is the same. What has originally been agreed to should stand
until all parties decide otherwise. That includes the adopting parents too. Even if, as in England, the closing of those records was never done with the proper due legal and parliamentary process? Is NZ yet another of those places where the ubiquitous "promise" was made
to birthmothers, yet not one single person can find any written record of it. very few birthmother's have ever said they wanted it, but lots of adoptive parents, adoption agency staff and retired adoption agency staff are
getting their panties all in twist about it? Do you really honestly think that adopted people should have to be denied
a right to know their genetic family and all that goes with that, just to honour some imaginary promise made to adoptive parents in general? How do you feel about giving the right to decide whether elderly parents should be euthanased to their children? Their adoptive children even? I
see a certain equivalence to parents denying adopted people information, the lack of which may perhaps prove fatal to them in some cases, don't you? Robin

Medical information is OK, especially information on genetic diseases, which
I suppose is what you mean by that last paragraph. A general description,
e.g. age, occupation, religion etc, could be given, but personal identifying
information should not, unless agreed to. Either party should be able to put
on record that they want no contact.
That would be better than allowing a meeting which is not wanted and which
could result in heartbreak.

Adopted people may already feel rejected, although it was motherhood that
was rejected, not an individul baby. After all, many girls never saw their
babies at all. Some may have wanted their babies, but circumstances
prevented it.
Adopted people may also resent the women who gave them away, and may not
want to meet them if they find them. It isn't always like the sentimental
stories of meetings, in the media.

Geopelia

in article xcZxc.649$s52.27822@news.xtra.co.nz, geopelia at
phildoran@xtra.co.nz wrote on 10/6/04 2:19 pm:
"Robin Harritt" <zybennderenderer@harritt.net> wrote in message news:BCEE12F6.42B00%zybennderenderer@harritt.net.. . in article g5Yxc.626$s52.27190@news.xtra.co.nz, geopelia at phildoran@xtra.co.nz wrote on 10/6/04 1:03 pm: <snip> Yes, closing open records is just as bad as opening closed records. The principle is the same. What has originally been agreed to should stand until all parties decide otherwise. That includes the adopting parents too. Even if, as in England, the closing of those records was never done with the proper due legal and parliamentary process? Is NZ yet another of those places where the ubiquitous "promise" was made to birthmothers, yet not one single person can find any written record of it. very few birthmother's have ever said they wanted it, but lots of adoptive parents, adoption agency staff and retired adoption agency staff are getting their panties all in twist about it? Do you really honestly think that adopted people should have to be denied a right to know their genetic family and all that goes with that, just to honour some imaginary promise made to adoptive parents in general? How do you feel about giving the right to decide whether elderly parents should be euthanased to their children? Their adoptive children even? I see a certain equivalence to parents denying adopted people information, the lack of which may perhaps prove fatal to them in some cases, don't you? Robin

Medical information is OK, especially information on genetic diseases, which I suppose is what you mean by that last paragraph. A general description, e.g. age, occupation, religion etc, could be given, but personal identifying information should not, unless agreed to. Either party should be able to put on record that they want no contact. That would be better than allowing a meeting which is not wanted and which could result in heartbreak. Adopted people may already feel rejected, although it was motherhood that was rejected, not an individul baby. After all, many girls never saw their babies at all. Some may have wanted their babies, but circumstances prevented it. Adopted people may also resent the women who gave them away, and may not want to meet them if they find them. It isn't always like the sentimental stories of meetings, in the media. Geopelia

You've never formally introduced yerself here have you? Who was it that
filled your head with all that old drivel, was it part of some
"professional" or pseudo professional training? It wouldn't be taken very
seriously by anyone working professionally in adoption in the UK today.
Sounds a lot like a 1960s/70s excuse.

Certainly not all adopted people do want to find their birth family (and
this about whole birth family not just birthmothers) and visa versa. But it
is their decisions to make and it informed decision making. It certainly
should not be decided by an SW or a bunch of politicians whether we find
each other, know each other.

I am a voluntary adult post adoption support worker for an adoption charity
in the UK, have been for a long time. I'll ask again what is / was your
interest in adoption? What brings you here? Doesn't hardly seem polite to
loiter about here without introducing yourself.

Robin

in article xcZxc.649$s52.27822@news.xtra.co.nz, geopelia at
phildoran@xtra.co.nz wrote on 10/6/04 2:19 pm:
"Robin Harritt" <zybennderenderer@harritt.net> wrote in message news:BCEE12F6.42B00%zybennderenderer@harritt.net.. . in article g5Yxc.626$s52.27190@news.xtra.co.nz, geopelia at phildoran@xtra.co.nz wrote on 10/6/04 1:03 pm: <snip> Yes, closing open records is just as bad as opening closed records. The principle is the same. What has originally been agreed to should stand until all parties decide otherwise. That includes the adopting parents too. Even if, as in England, the closing of those records was never done with the proper due legal and parliamentary process? Is NZ yet another of those places where the ubiquitous "promise" was made to birthmothers, yet not one single person can find any written record of it. very few birthmother's have ever said they wanted it, but lots of adoptive parents, adoption agency staff and retired adoption agency staff are getting their panties all in twist about it? Do you really honestly think that adopted people should have to be denied a right to know their genetic family and all that goes with that, just to honour some imaginary promise made to adoptive parents in general? How do you feel about giving the right to decide whether elderly parents should be euthanased to their children? Their adoptive children even? I see a certain equivalence to parents denying adopted people information, the lack of which may perhaps prove fatal to them in some cases, don't you? Robin

Medical information is OK, especially information on genetic diseases, which I suppose is what you mean by that last paragraph. A general description, e.g. age, occupation, religion etc, could be given, but personal identifying information should not, unless agreed to. Either party should be able to put on record that they want no contact. That would be better than allowing a meeting which is not wanted and which could result in heartbreak. Adopted people may already feel rejected, although it was motherhood that was rejected, not an individul baby. After all, many girls never saw their babies at all. Some may have wanted their babies, but circumstances prevented it. Adopted people may also resent the women who gave them away, and may not want to meet them if they find them. It isn't always like the sentimental stories of meetings, in the media. Geopelia

You've never formally introduced yerself here have you? Who was it that
filled your head with all that old drivel, was it part of some
"professional" or pseudo professional training? It wouldn't be taken very
seriously by anyone working professionally in adoption in the UK today.
Sounds a lot like a 1960s/70s excuse.

Certainly not all adopted people do want to find their birth family (and
this about whole birth family not just birthmothers) and visa versa. But it
is their decisions to make and it informed decision making. It certainly
should not be decided by an SW or a bunch of politicians whether we find
each other, know each other.

I am a voluntary adult post adoption support worker for an adoption charity
in the UK, have been for a long time. I'll ask again what is / was your
interest in adoption? What brings you here? Doesn't hardly seem polite to
loiter about here without introducing yourself.

Robin

> >Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: "kat" katlat24seeifthishelps@hotmail.comDate: 6/9/04 4:20 AM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <2ioa3tFpfdohU1@uni-berlin.de>"Damsel Plum" <amelusine@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:c89c3e62.0406081106.1f515156@posting.g oogle.com... And while we're being diplomatic, birthmothers who wish they had aborted (for reasons other than being terrorized by PSYCHO-ADOPTEES) can choke on my umbilical cord!Using one of your phrases: "The remark above suggests a degree of contempt" - for bmothers who wishthey had made a different choice regarding their unplanned pregnancy.


It does, somewhat.
I guess she's sensitive (as opposed to merely touchy)
She also seems to have a talent for making assumptions.

Anyway, that's her problem, not mine.



Rh.

Kathy 1

> >Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: "kat" katlat24seeifthishelps@hotmail.comDate: 6/9/04 4:20 AM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <2ioa3tFpfdohU1@uni-berlin.de>"Damsel Plum" <amelusine@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:c89c3e62.0406081106.1f515156@posting.g oogle.com... And while we're being diplomatic, birthmothers who wish they had aborted (for reasons other than being terrorized by PSYCHO-ADOPTEES) can choke on my umbilical cord!Using one of your phrases: "The remark above suggests a degree of contempt" - for bmothers who wishthey had made a different choice regarding their unplanned pregnancy.


It does, somewhat.
I guess she's sensitive (as opposed to merely touchy)
She also seems to have a talent for making assumptions.

Anyway, that's her problem, not mine.



Rh.

Kathy 1

>Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: lilmtncbn@aol.com (LilMtnCbn)Date: 6/9/04 9:41 PM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <20040610004112.07445.00000920@mb-m03.aol.com>Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: amelusine@yahoo.com (Damsel Plum)Date: 6/9/2004 10:16 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <c89c3e62.0406092016.45dd16b1@posting.google.com>palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in messagenews:<20040609180506.13427.00000663@mb-m04.aol.com>... kjs668 writes: >I just had a conversation with a coworker--he feels potential adoptive >parents >shouldn't have to go any of the pre-adoption procedures--that it's their >god-given right to rear other people's unwanted children. WTF?? (Notvery >related, but I had to get it off my chest) > Good thing you vented here and didn't try to educate the clod, kj. I have learned such starting points in conversations about adoption rarely prove interesting, never mind fruitful. The holes in this clod's head are justtoo big to fill.I've found that with the proper patience and charm many people areeducable on these matters. Lots of people who want to be parents havegrappled for years with infertility, then reprotech which isexpensive, painful and humiliating, and then they get to adoption andthey are exasperated, realizing that there is a huge vetting processin most cases. This is the source of much of these attitudes. Now,you may have zero compassion for people so determined to be parentsbased on your personal experience, but some of these people are goodpeople who will make good parents. So it is worth understanding theirpoint of view in order to try and make them understand yours.By the way, what are people's relationships to adoption around herethese days? I'm an adoptee. :^PDamzHahahahaha. Why don't you guess what Palm's triad position is. I mean,sinceyou've already appointed yourself the ng moniter and lectured on how to"nicelyget across the adoptee's point of view" when the post was already betweenadoptees.Please, dazzle us some more with your insight!

Really, Jeeeeeshus, could she get anymore condescending?

I think she needs a good ***** slap, and I'm in the mood this morning.
Kathy

>Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: lilmtncbn@aol.com (LilMtnCbn)Date: 6/9/04 9:41 PM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <20040610004112.07445.00000920@mb-m03.aol.com>Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: amelusine@yahoo.com (Damsel Plum)Date: 6/9/2004 10:16 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <c89c3e62.0406092016.45dd16b1@posting.google.com>palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in messagenews:<20040609180506.13427.00000663@mb-m04.aol.com>... kjs668 writes: >I just had a conversation with a coworker--he feels potential adoptive >parents >shouldn't have to go any of the pre-adoption procedures--that it's their >god-given right to rear other people's unwanted children. WTF?? (Notvery >related, but I had to get it off my chest) > Good thing you vented here and didn't try to educate the clod, kj. I have learned such starting points in conversations about adoption rarely prove interesting, never mind fruitful. The holes in this clod's head are justtoo big to fill.I've found that with the proper patience and charm many people areeducable on these matters. Lots of people who want to be parents havegrappled for years with infertility, then reprotech which isexpensive, painful and humiliating, and then they get to adoption andthey are exasperated, realizing that there is a huge vetting processin most cases. This is the source of much of these attitudes. Now,you may have zero compassion for people so determined to be parentsbased on your personal experience, but some of these people are goodpeople who will make good parents. So it is worth understanding theirpoint of view in order to try and make them understand yours.By the way, what are people's relationships to adoption around herethese days? I'm an adoptee. :^PDamzHahahahaha. Why don't you guess what Palm's triad position is. I mean,sinceyou've already appointed yourself the ng moniter and lectured on how to"nicelyget across the adoptee's point of view" when the post was already betweenadoptees.Please, dazzle us some more with your insight!

Really, Jeeeeeshus, could she get anymore condescending?

I think she needs a good ***** slap, and I'm in the mood this morning.
Kathy

***top**

Thanks for this, J. You are refreshingly insightful in just about all matters.

jmdjmh writes:
First, a disclaimer. US and NZ law diverged some time back. All I cancommenton is where the law has gone in the US.You're absolutely right about retrospective, or ex post facto, criminal laws.They are prohibited by the US Constitution as fundamentally unfair, forobviousreasons. I don't recall whether they were addressed in the Magna Carta.Civil laws generally are not subject to the prohibition against retroactiveapplication, provided that they do not impose a penalty for conduct beforepassage of the law or destroy a previously vested property interest. Exactlywhat constitutes a property interest for this purpose falls into one of thelaw's many grey areas. IIRC, the plaintiffs in the lawsuit challenging theOregon initiative unsuccessfully argued that under prior law they had avestedprivacy interest that could not be revoked legitimately. They lost on thatandevery other issue they raised.Is it an erosion of civl rights? Welcome to the quagmire. We've been slowlydefining just what "civil rights" means here in the US for a long time andit'sbeen anything but consistent. Our Constitution originally said people couldbeproperty, but could still count as a fraction of a citizen for some purposes.Now it says no one can own another. We continue to extract new rights fromthat document as we move along into waters the drafters never imagined.Ultimately, we define our civil rights as we go along. There was a time whenit was the king's right to have me killed at his whim; that was restrained atleast to the point that I was given an opportunity to be heard on my guilt orinnocence before I was hung. Now I can be heard again and again and again,delaying my death for decades if I and my lawyers are adroit enough.One could argue that civill liberties are a form of national self-indulgence,IMO. Certainly they've not been the norm, even in our own time.J.



P2P

***top**

Thanks for this, J. You are refreshingly insightful in just about all matters.

jmdjmh writes:
First, a disclaimer. US and NZ law diverged some time back. All I cancommenton is where the law has gone in the US.You're absolutely right about retrospective, or ex post facto, criminal laws.They are prohibited by the US Constitution as fundamentally unfair, forobviousreasons. I don't recall whether they were addressed in the Magna Carta.Civil laws generally are not subject to the prohibition against retroactiveapplication, provided that they do not impose a penalty for conduct beforepassage of the law or destroy a previously vested property interest. Exactlywhat constitutes a property interest for this purpose falls into one of thelaw's many grey areas. IIRC, the plaintiffs in the lawsuit challenging theOregon initiative unsuccessfully argued that under prior law they had avestedprivacy interest that could not be revoked legitimately. They lost on thatandevery other issue they raised.Is it an erosion of civl rights? Welcome to the quagmire. We've been slowlydefining just what "civil rights" means here in the US for a long time andit'sbeen anything but consistent. Our Constitution originally said people couldbeproperty, but could still count as a fraction of a citizen for some purposes.Now it says no one can own another. We continue to extract new rights fromthat document as we move along into waters the drafters never imagined.Ultimately, we define our civil rights as we go along. There was a time whenit was the king's right to have me killed at his whim; that was restrained atleast to the point that I was given an opportunity to be heard on my guilt orinnocence before I was hung. Now I can be heard again and again and again,delaying my death for decades if I and my lawyers are adroit enough.One could argue that civill liberties are a form of national self-indulgence,IMO. Certainly they've not been the norm, even in our own time.J.



P2P

Geopelia offers her/his insight:
Adopted people may already feel rejected, although it was motherhood thatwas rejected, not an individul baby. After all, many girls never saw theirbabies at all. Some may have wanted their babies, but circumstancesprevented it.Adopted people may also resent the women who gave them away, and may notwant to meet them if they find them. It isn't always like the sentimentalstories of meetings, in the media.Geopelia


You're daring. I'll give you that. What do you feel places you in a position
to speak for so many, Geo? What is the foundation for your views on adoption
(off track as they seem to me)?


P2P

Geopelia offers her/his insight:
Adopted people may already feel rejected, although it was motherhood thatwas rejected, not an individul baby. After all, many girls never saw theirbabies at all. Some may have wanted their babies, but circumstancesprevented it.Adopted people may also resent the women who gave them away, and may notwant to meet them if they find them. It isn't always like the sentimentalstories of meetings, in the media.Geopelia


You're daring. I'll give you that. What do you feel places you in a position
to speak for so many, Geo? What is the foundation for your views on adoption
(off track as they seem to me)?


P2P

***top post**

Words from a person with not one day's experience caring for children:
But kids are often trophies whether bio oradopted, and baby rabies certainly isn't limited to those who can affordthem, or try to afford them. >

The only way, Marley, children could fall into the ornament category in one's
life is if the parent delegates all care to other adults or employees. Only a
tiny minority of parents can afford such domestic staff or even desire it.
Raising children is not a show-off activity as you imagine, much like standing
in the driveway polishing one's Bentley.




P2P

***top post**

Words from a person with not one day's experience caring for children:
But kids are often trophies whether bio oradopted, and baby rabies certainly isn't limited to those who can affordthem, or try to afford them. >

The only way, Marley, children could fall into the ornament category in one's
life is if the parent delegates all care to other adults or employees. Only a
tiny minority of parents can afford such domestic staff or even desire it.
Raising children is not a show-off activity as you imagine, much like standing
in the driveway polishing one's Bentley.




P2P

"Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in message
news:20040610111833.11516.00000971@mb-m04.aol.com... ***top post** Words from a person with not one day's experience caring for children: But kids are often trophies whether bio oradopted, and baby rabies certainly isn't limited to those who can affordthem, or try to afford them. > The only way, Marley, children could fall into the ornament category in
one's life is if the parent delegates all care to other adults or employees.
Only a tiny minority of parents can afford such domestic staff or even desire it. Raising children is not a show-off activity as you imagine, much like
standing in the driveway polishing one's Bentley.

They are psychological trophies. I'm not talking about wealth. They
"prove" you're a man or a woman or any other number of things. I didn't say
all paents feel this way, but there are certainly enough of them.

Marley P2P

"Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in message
news:20040610111833.11516.00000971@mb-m04.aol.com... ***top post** Words from a person with not one day's experience caring for children: But kids are often trophies whether bio oradopted, and baby rabies certainly isn't limited to those who can affordthem, or try to afford them. > The only way, Marley, children could fall into the ornament category in
one's life is if the parent delegates all care to other adults or employees.
Only a tiny minority of parents can afford such domestic staff or even desire it. Raising children is not a show-off activity as you imagine, much like
standing in the driveway polishing one's Bentley.

They are psychological trophies. I'm not talking about wealth. They
"prove" you're a man or a woman or any other number of things. I didn't say
all paents feel this way, but there are certainly enough of them.

Marley P2P

>Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: "Marley Greiner" maddogmarley@worldnet.att.netDate: 6/10/04 8:30 AM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <T8%xc.39743$Gx4.32765@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>"Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in messagenews:20040610111833.11516.00000971@mb-m04.aol.com... ***top post** Words from a person with not one day's experience caring for children: But kids are often trophies whether bio oradopted, and baby rabies certainly isn't limited to those who can affordthem, or try to afford them. > The only way, Marley, children could fall into the ornament category inone's life is if the parent delegates all care to other adults or employees.Only a tiny minority of parents can afford such domestic staff or even desire it. Raising children is not a show-off activity as you imagine, much likestanding in the driveway polishing one's Bentley.They are psychological trophies. I'm not talking about wealth. They"prove" you're a man or a woman or any other number of things. I didn't sayall paents feel this way, but there are certainly enough of them.Marley

So why mention it at all? It seems to bother you that other people want to
parent.

I don't care what you choose. Why would it bother you what so many choose to
do?

My kids, my grand children are not my trophies.....they are my family.


Kathy

>Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: "Marley Greiner" maddogmarley@worldnet.att.netDate: 6/10/04 8:30 AM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <T8%xc.39743$Gx4.32765@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>"Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in messagenews:20040610111833.11516.00000971@mb-m04.aol.com... ***top post** Words from a person with not one day's experience caring for children: But kids are often trophies whether bio oradopted, and baby rabies certainly isn't limited to those who can affordthem, or try to afford them. > The only way, Marley, children could fall into the ornament category inone's life is if the parent delegates all care to other adults or employees.Only a tiny minority of parents can afford such domestic staff or even desire it. Raising children is not a show-off activity as you imagine, much likestanding in the driveway polishing one's Bentley.They are psychological trophies. I'm not talking about wealth. They"prove" you're a man or a woman or any other number of things. I didn't sayall paents feel this way, but there are certainly enough of them.Marley

So why mention it at all? It seems to bother you that other people want to
parent.

I don't care what you choose. Why would it bother you what so many choose to
do?

My kids, my grand children are not my trophies.....they are my family.


Kathy

"geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:<2y5xc.1462$GB4.49933@news.xtra.co.nz>... Fair enough if the girls want an open adoption, otherwise abortion is the only way to ensure they are never found.



Sadly, that kind of anonymity was important to many in the past,
*particularly* to the parents of 'inconveniently' pregnant daughters.

It almost sounds as if you regret the passing of those days.



Rh. Geopelia

"geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:<2y5xc.1462$GB4.49933@news.xtra.co.nz>... Fair enough if the girls want an open adoption, otherwise abortion is the only way to ensure they are never found.



Sadly, that kind of anonymity was important to many in the past,
*particularly* to the parents of 'inconveniently' pregnant daughters.

It almost sounds as if you regret the passing of those days.



Rh. Geopelia

amelusine@yahoo.com (Damsel Plum) wrote in message news:<c89c3e62.0406092016.45dd16b1@posting.google.com>... palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message news:<20040609180506.13427.00000663@mb-m04.aol.com>... kjs668 writes:I just had a conversation with a coworker--he feels potential adoptiveparentsshouldn't have to go any of the pre-adoption procedures--that it's theirgod-given right to rear other people's unwanted children. WTF?? (Not veryrelated, but I had to get it off my chest) Good thing you vented here and didn't try to educate the clod, kj. I have learned such starting points in conversations about adoption rarely prove interesting, never mind fruitful. The holes in this clod's head are just too big to fill. I've found that with the proper patience and charm



Whose?
Yours?


many people are educable on these matters.


Oh, la la.
Happy proslytizing to you too.
And many people will simply become irritated, if what I've seen up to
now is anything to go by.



Lots of people who want to be parents have grappled for years with infertility, then reprotech which is expensive, painful and humiliating, and then they get to adoption and they are exasperated, realizing that there is a huge vetting process in most cases. This is the source of much of these attitudes.



You know that?
Even if it were true, I'd still question their logic.



Now, you may have zero compassion for people so determined to be parents based on your personal experience, but some of these people are good people who will make good parents.




I'm downright saintly.
And an exemplary a-parent as well.
No filthy coffee mugs in our house.



So it is worth understanding their point of view in order to try and make them understand yours.



What a wonderful departure point for communication.
That really makes me feel sooo good.
You must be a 'people person'.


By the way, what are people's relationships to adoption around here these days? I'm an adoptee. :^P



Hmmm. . . just don't even begin to try and educate me.
And if I do happen to manifest anything like understanding for your
point of view I hope you'll have the decency to recognise that it's
from my own vantage point and initiative that I do so.

In answer to your question, I'm a b-parent and an a-parent.


Rh.
Damz

amelusine@yahoo.com (Damsel Plum) wrote in message news:<c89c3e62.0406092016.45dd16b1@posting.google.com>... palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message news:<20040609180506.13427.00000663@mb-m04.aol.com>... kjs668 writes:I just had a conversation with a coworker--he feels potential adoptiveparentsshouldn't have to go any of the pre-adoption procedures--that it's theirgod-given right to rear other people's unwanted children. WTF?? (Not veryrelated, but I had to get it off my chest) Good thing you vented here and didn't try to educate the clod, kj. I have learned such starting points in conversations about adoption rarely prove interesting, never mind fruitful. The holes in this clod's head are just too big to fill. I've found that with the proper patience and charm



Whose?
Yours?


many people are educable on these matters.


Oh, la la.
Happy proslytizing to you too.
And many people will simply become irritated, if what I've seen up to
now is anything to go by.



Lots of people who want to be parents have grappled for years with infertility, then reprotech which is expensive, painful and humiliating, and then they get to adoption and they are exasperated, realizing that there is a huge vetting process in most cases. This is the source of much of these attitudes.



You know that?
Even if it were true, I'd still question their logic.



Now, you may have zero compassion for people so determined to be parents based on your personal experience, but some of these people are good people who will make good parents.




I'm downright saintly.
And an exemplary a-parent as well.
No filthy coffee mugs in our house.



So it is worth understanding their point of view in order to try and make them understand yours.



What a wonderful departure point for communication.
That really makes me feel sooo good.
You must be a 'people person'.


By the way, what are people's relationships to adoption around here these days? I'm an adoptee. :^P



Hmmm. . . just don't even begin to try and educate me.
And if I do happen to manifest anything like understanding for your
point of view I hope you'll have the decency to recognise that it's
from my own vantage point and initiative that I do so.

In answer to your question, I'm a b-parent and an a-parent.


Rh.
Damz

"Kathy " <meagan787@aol.comsthesun> wrote in message
news:20040610123021.09638.00000746@mb-m11.aol.com...Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: "Marley Greiner" maddogmarley@worldnet.att.netDate: 6/10/04 8:30 AM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <T8%xc.39743$Gx4.32765@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>"Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in messagenews:20040610111833.11516.00000971@mb-m04.aol.com... ***top post** Words from a person with not one day's experience caring for children: > But kids are often trophies whether bio or >adopted, and baby rabies certainly isn't limited to those who can
afford >them, or try to afford them. > The only way, Marley, children could fall into the ornament category inone's life is if the parent delegates all care to other adults or employees.Only a tiny minority of parents can afford such domestic staff or even desire
it. Raising children is not a show-off activity as you imagine, much likestanding in the driveway polishing one's Bentley.They are psychological trophies. I'm not talking about wealth. They"prove" you're a man or a woman or any other number of things. I didn't
sayall paents feel this way, but there are certainly enough of them.Marley So why mention it at all? It seems to bother you that other people want to parent. I don't care what you choose. Why would it bother you what so many choose
to do? My kids, my grand children are not my trophies.....they are my family. Kath

Well, this was in response to Damsel's post about people who adopt and then
outsouce their kids. Why bother to adopt (or have biologically if you're
not going to take care of them and expect others to do it for you, or in
some cases let them run wild n the streets. That's all. For once, I wasn't
criticizing.

Marley

"Kathy " <meagan787@aol.comsthesun> wrote in message
news:20040610123021.09638.00000746@mb-m11.aol.com...Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: "Marley Greiner" maddogmarley@worldnet.att.netDate: 6/10/04 8:30 AM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <T8%xc.39743$Gx4.32765@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>"Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in messagenews:20040610111833.11516.00000971@mb-m04.aol.com... ***top post** Words from a person with not one day's experience caring for children: > But kids are often trophies whether bio or >adopted, and baby rabies certainly isn't limited to those who can
afford >them, or try to afford them. > The only way, Marley, children could fall into the ornament category inone's life is if the parent delegates all care to other adults or employees.Only a tiny minority of parents can afford such domestic staff or even desire
it. Raising children is not a show-off activity as you imagine, much likestanding in the driveway polishing one's Bentley.They are psychological trophies. I'm not talking about wealth. They"prove" you're a man or a woman or any other number of things. I didn't
sayall paents feel this way, but there are certainly enough of them.Marley So why mention it at all? It seems to bother you that other people want to parent. I don't care what you choose. Why would it bother you what so many choose
to do? My kids, my grand children are not my trophies.....they are my family. Kath

Well, this was in response to Damsel's post about people who adopt and then
outsouce their kids. Why bother to adopt (or have biologically if you're
not going to take care of them and expect others to do it for you, or in
some cases let them run wild n the streets. That's all. For once, I wasn't
criticizing.

Marley

meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy ) wrote in message news:<20040610105928.04252.00000883@mb-m13.aol.com>...
I'm in the mood this morning. Kathy

For what, baby? Metaphoric mud wrestling? Bring it on.

You haven't said "hello" til ya done it in jello,

Damz, mildly amused

meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy ) wrote in message news:<20040610105928.04252.00000883@mb-m13.aol.com>...
I'm in the mood this morning. Kathy

For what, baby? Metaphoric mud wrestling? Bring it on.

You haven't said "hello" til ya done it in jello,

Damz, mildly amused

"kat" <katlat24seeifthishelps@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<2iqtknFqd4spU1@uni-berlin.de>...
Now don't be silly. She is a "howling birthmother who hates adoption" - just like the rest of us here ;)

I make the distinction because there used to be a delightful pack of
frisky she-wolves 'round these parts who howled in impressive
3-part-harmony (an effect not quite yet achieved at present, but keep
trying!), the distinction being that those wolves *loved* adoption and
even wrote a musical lauding its liberating effects on their
lifestyles.

Vitriol is fine, as is venting but Bastards just wanna have fun.

Damz

"kat" <katlat24seeifthishelps@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<2iqtknFqd4spU1@uni-berlin.de>...
Now don't be silly. She is a "howling birthmother who hates adoption" - just like the rest of us here ;)

I make the distinction because there used to be a delightful pack of
frisky she-wolves 'round these parts who howled in impressive
3-part-harmony (an effect not quite yet achieved at present, but keep
trying!), the distinction being that those wolves *loved* adoption and
even wrote a musical lauding its liberating effects on their
lifestyles.

Vitriol is fine, as is venting but Bastards just wanna have fun.

Damz

meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy ) wrote in message news:<20040609170506.02197.00000684@mb-m14.aol.com>...
>can choke on my umbilical cord!>> >>Did you keep it?:::::SPEW!!::::: ::::double upchuck:::::

Alas..

Damz

meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy ) wrote in message news:<20040609170506.02197.00000684@mb-m14.aol.com>...
>can choke on my umbilical cord!>> >>Did you keep it?:::::SPEW!!::::: ::::double upchuck:::::

Alas..

Damz

Kathy addresses Marley:
It seems to bother you that other people want toparent.I don't care what you choose. Why would it bother you what so many choose todo?My kids, my grand children are not my trophies.....they are my family.Kathy
It seems to bother you that other people want toparent.I don't care what you choose. Why would it bother you what so many choose todo?My kids, my grand children are not my trophies.....they are my family.Kathy


I could not agree more. I realize Marley's ribbing is mostly in good fun.
However, ongoing assertions that having children, wanting children, raising
children are just mindless endeavors of the self centered grates on my nerves.
There is nothing in this world that will move yourself out of your own center
stage like parenting. Definitely not a pastime for the self absorbed.


P2P

Kathy addresses Marley:
It seems to bother you that other people want toparent.I don't care what you choose. Why would it bother you what so many choose todo?My kids, my grand children are not my trophies.....they are my family.Kathy
It seems to bother you that other people want toparent.I don't care what you choose. Why would it bother you what so many choose todo?My kids, my grand children are not my trophies.....they are my family.Kathy


I could not agree more. I realize Marley's ribbing is mostly in good fun.
However, ongoing assertions that having children, wanting children, raising
children are just mindless endeavors of the self centered grates on my nerves.
There is nothing in this world that will move yourself out of your own center
stage like parenting. Definitely not a pastime for the self absorbed.


P2P

"Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in message
news:20040610170123.13318.00000498@mb-m26.aol.com... Kathy addresses Marley:It seems to bother you that other people want toparent.I don't care what you choose. Why would it bother you what so many choose
todo?My kids, my grand children are not my trophies.....they are my family.KathyIt seems to bother you that other people want toparent.I don't care what you choose. Why would it bother you what so many choose
todo?My kids, my grand children are not my trophies.....they are my family.Kathy I could not agree more. I realize Marley's ribbing is mostly in good fun. However, ongoing assertions that having children, wanting children,
raising children are just mindless endeavors of the self centered grates on my
nerves. There is nothing in this world that will move yourself out of your own
center stage like parenting. Definitely not a pastime for the self absorbed. P2P

Cheesh! The one time I wasn't attacking anybody on here on the kid issue
and I get beat up. If you don't think that some people have children just
to trot around as ornaments of then you guys need to get out more. Did I
say that's why you have them? No. Can we say Joan Crawford?

Marley

"Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in message
news:20040610170123.13318.00000498@mb-m26.aol.com... Kathy addresses Marley:It seems to bother you that other people want toparent.I don't care what you choose. Why would it bother you what so many choose
todo?My kids, my grand children are not my trophies.....they are my family.KathyIt seems to bother you that other people want toparent.I don't care what you choose. Why would it bother you what so many choose
todo?My kids, my grand children are not my trophies.....they are my family.Kathy I could not agree more. I realize Marley's ribbing is mostly in good fun. However, ongoing assertions that having children, wanting children,
raising children are just mindless endeavors of the self centered grates on my
nerves. There is nothing in this world that will move yourself out of your own
center stage like parenting. Definitely not a pastime for the self absorbed. P2P

Cheesh! The one time I wasn't attacking anybody on here on the kid issue
and I get beat up. If you don't think that some people have children just
to trot around as ornaments of then you guys need to get out more. Did I
say that's why you have them? No. Can we say Joan Crawford?

Marley

"Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:Pf4yc.41479$Gx4.914@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... "Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in message news:20040610170123.13318.00000498@mb-m26.aol.com... Kathy addresses Marley:It seems to bother you that other people want toparent.I don't care what you choose. Why would it bother you what so many
choose todo?My kids, my grand children are not my trophies.....they are my family.KathyIt seems to bother you that other people want toparent.I don't care what you choose. Why would it bother you what so many
choose todo?My kids, my grand children are not my trophies.....they are my family.Kathy I could not agree more. I realize Marley's ribbing is mostly in good
fun. However, ongoing assertions that having children, wanting children, raising children are just mindless endeavors of the self centered grates on my nerves. There is nothing in this world that will move yourself out of your own center stage like parenting. Definitely not a pastime for the self absorbed. P2P Cheesh! The one time I wasn't attacking anybody on here on the kid issue and I get beat up. If you don't think that some people have children just to trot around as ornaments of then you guys need to get out more. Did I say that's why you have them? No. Can we say Joan Crawford? Marley

Well said!
Some people seem to think a childless woman is not complete. The pressure to
have children, and later the pressure to adopt if one is assumed to be
barren, can be fierce. It certainly was 50 years ago.
Children are human beings, not pets that can be disposed of if they become
inconvenient. Would Joan Crawford be allowed to adopt today?

Geopelia

"Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:Pf4yc.41479$Gx4.914@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... "Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in message news:20040610170123.13318.00000498@mb-m26.aol.com... Kathy addresses Marley:It seems to bother you that other people want toparent.I don't care what you choose. Why would it bother you what so many
choose todo?My kids, my grand children are not my trophies.....they are my family.KathyIt seems to bother you that other people want toparent.I don't care what you choose. Why would it bother you what so many
choose todo?My kids, my grand children are not my trophies.....they are my family.Kathy I could not agree more. I realize Marley's ribbing is mostly in good
fun. However, ongoing assertions that having children, wanting children, raising children are just mindless endeavors of the self centered grates on my nerves. There is nothing in this world that will move yourself out of your own center stage like parenting. Definitely not a pastime for the self absorbed. P2P Cheesh! The one time I wasn't attacking anybody on here on the kid issue and I get beat up. If you don't think that some people have children just to trot around as ornaments of then you guys need to get out more. Did I say that's why you have them? No. Can we say Joan Crawford? Marley

Well said!
Some people seem to think a childless woman is not complete. The pressure to
have children, and later the pressure to adopt if one is assumed to be
barren, can be fierce. It certainly was 50 years ago.
Children are human beings, not pets that can be disposed of if they become
inconvenient. Would Joan Crawford be allowed to adopt today?

Geopelia

Damsel Plum steps on her soapbox and winds herself up:
I've found that with the proper patience and charm many people areeducable on these matters. >>

And I've found I run short of patience and charm for clods who clearly require
a six week course in sensitivity training followed by a semester of adoption
education before they recognize the rudeness in asking an adoptive parent, oh,
let's say, "What happened to his real parents?" Oops! I'm giving away my
status!

<<Lots of people who want to be parents havegrappled for years with infertility, then reprotech which isexpensive, painful and humiliating, and then they get to adoption andthey are exasperated, >>

Awwwww. My heart bleeds. Truly.

<<realizing that there is a huge vetting processin most cases. This is the source of much of these attitudes. >>

You're dead wrong. But, don't let that slow you down. You're on a roll!

<<Now,you may have zero compassion for people so determined to be parentsbased on your personal experience,>>

Now, that's funny.

<< but some of these people are goodpeople who will make good parents. >>

Funny and smarmy.

<< So it is worth understanding theirpoint of view in order to try and make them understand yours.>>

Funny, smarmy and boring.

By the way, what are people's relationships to adoption around herethese days? I'm an adoptee. :^PDamz

That explains everything.




P2P

Damsel Plum steps on her soapbox and winds herself up:
I've found that with the proper patience and charm many people areeducable on these matters. >>

And I've found I run short of patience and charm for clods who clearly require
a six week course in sensitivity training followed by a semester of adoption
education before they recognize the rudeness in asking an adoptive parent, oh,
let's say, "What happened to his real parents?" Oops! I'm giving away my
status!

<<Lots of people who want to be parents havegrappled for years with infertility, then reprotech which isexpensive, painful and humiliating, and then they get to adoption andthey are exasperated, >>

Awwwww. My heart bleeds. Truly.

<<realizing that there is a huge vetting processin most cases. This is the source of much of these attitudes. >>

You're dead wrong. But, don't let that slow you down. You're on a roll!

<<Now,you may have zero compassion for people so determined to be parentsbased on your personal experience,>>

Now, that's funny.

<< but some of these people are goodpeople who will make good parents. >>

Funny and smarmy.

<< So it is worth understanding theirpoint of view in order to try and make them understand yours.>>

Funny, smarmy and boring.

By the way, what are people's relationships to adoption around herethese days? I'm an adoptee. :^PDamz

That explains everything.




P2P

"geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:bx4yc.736$s52.32692@news.xtra.co.nz... "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:Pf4yc.41479$Gx4.914@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... "Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in message news:20040610170123.13318.00000498@mb-m26.aol.com... Kathy addresses Marley: >It seems to bother you that other people want to >parent. > >I don't care what you choose. Why would it bother you what so many choose to >do? > >My kids, my grand children are not my trophies.....they are my
family. > > >Kathy > > > > > > > > > > > > > >It seems to bother you that other people want to >parent. > >I don't care what you choose. Why would it bother you what so many choose to >do? > >My kids, my grand children are not my trophies.....they are my
family. > > >Kathy > I could not agree more. I realize Marley's ribbing is mostly in good fun. However, ongoing assertions that having children, wanting children, raising children are just mindless endeavors of the self centered grates on my nerves. There is nothing in this world that will move yourself out of your own center stage like parenting. Definitely not a pastime for the self absorbed. P2P Cheesh! The one time I wasn't attacking anybody on here on the kid
issue and I get beat up. If you don't think that some people have children
just to trot around as ornaments of then you guys need to get out more. Did
I say that's why you have them? No. Can we say Joan Crawford? Marley Well said! Some people seem to think a childless woman is not complete. The pressure
to have children, and later the pressure to adopt if one is assumed to be barren, can be fierce. It certainly was 50 years ago. Children are human beings, not pets that can be disposed of if they become inconvenient. Would Joan Crawford be allowed to adopt today? Geopelia

Well I woud hope not, but then theres Rose O'Donnell!

My bmom never had any more bio kids and adopted two 10 and 12 years after
I
was born. The day of her funeral, her son said to me, "Why did they ever
let those people adopt kids?" She told her daughter several times that she
didn't like kids and that they adopted just to fit in. It showed.

When her daughter was a little girl she got slapped and yelled at one day
for singing
"Bicycle Built for Two" with the lines:

It won't be a stylish marriage
I can't afford a carraige

which in some bizarre way my bmom translated to mean baby carriage = attack
on her infertility or something. How weird is that?

Marley

"geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:bx4yc.736$s52.32692@news.xtra.co.nz... "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:Pf4yc.41479$Gx4.914@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... "Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in message news:20040610170123.13318.00000498@mb-m26.aol.com... Kathy addresses Marley: >It seems to bother you that other people want to >parent. > >I don't care what you choose. Why would it bother you what so many choose to >do? > >My kids, my grand children are not my trophies.....they are my
family. > > >Kathy > > > > > > > > > > > > > >It seems to bother you that other people want to >parent. > >I don't care what you choose. Why would it bother you what so many choose to >do? > >My kids, my grand children are not my trophies.....they are my
family. > > >Kathy > I could not agree more. I realize Marley's ribbing is mostly in good fun. However, ongoing assertions that having children, wanting children, raising children are just mindless endeavors of the self centered grates on my nerves. There is nothing in this world that will move yourself out of your own center stage like parenting. Definitely not a pastime for the self absorbed. P2P Cheesh! The one time I wasn't attacking anybody on here on the kid
issue and I get beat up. If you don't think that some people have children
just to trot around as ornaments of then you guys need to get out more. Did
I say that's why you have them? No. Can we say Joan Crawford? Marley Well said! Some people seem to think a childless woman is not complete. The pressure
to have children, and later the pressure to adopt if one is assumed to be barren, can be fierce. It certainly was 50 years ago. Children are human beings, not pets that can be disposed of if they become inconvenient. Would Joan Crawford be allowed to adopt today? Geopelia

Well I woud hope not, but then theres Rose O'Donnell!

My bmom never had any more bio kids and adopted two 10 and 12 years after
I
was born. The day of her funeral, her son said to me, "Why did they ever
let those people adopt kids?" She told her daughter several times that she
didn't like kids and that they adopted just to fit in. It showed.

When her daughter was a little girl she got slapped and yelled at one day
for singing
"Bicycle Built for Two" with the lines:

It won't be a stylish marriage
I can't afford a carraige

which in some bizarre way my bmom translated to mean baby carriage = attack
on her infertility or something. How weird is that?

Marley

>Cheesh! The one time I wasn't attacking anybody on here on the kid issueand I get beat up. If you don't think that some people have children justto trot around as ornaments of then you guys need to get out more. Did Isay that's why you have them? No. Can we say Joan Crawford?Marley


OK. You've repented sufficiently. All's forgiven.

BTW, even Joan Crawford probably entered parenthood with the best of
intentions. She must have realized eventually she had neither the patience or
the lifestyle conducive to day-to-day effective parenting. She blew it. Many
do.

Smooches.


P2P

>Cheesh! The one time I wasn't attacking anybody on here on the kid issueand I get beat up. If you don't think that some people have children justto trot around as ornaments of then you guys need to get out more. Did Isay that's why you have them? No. Can we say Joan Crawford?Marley


OK. You've repented sufficiently. All's forgiven.

BTW, even Joan Crawford probably entered parenthood with the best of
intentions. She must have realized eventually she had neither the patience or
the lifestyle conducive to day-to-day effective parenting. She blew it. Many
do.

Smooches.


P2P

Would Joan Crawford be allowed to adopt today?Geopelia

Was Angelina Jolie?


P2P

Would Joan Crawford be allowed to adopt today?Geopelia

Was Angelina Jolie?


P2P

meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy ) wrote in message news:<20040610123021.09638.00000746@mb-m11.aol.com>...Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: "Marley Greiner" maddogmarley@worldnet.att.netDate: 6/10/04 8:30 AM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <T8%xc.39743$Gx4.32765@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>"Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in messagenews:20040610111833.11516.00000971@mb-m04.aol.com... ***top post** Words from a person with not one day's experience caring for children: > But kids are often trophies whether bio or >adopted, and baby rabies certainly isn't limited to those who can afford >them, or try to afford them. > The only way, Marley, children could fall into the ornament category in one's life is if the parent delegates all care to other adults or employees. Only a tiny minority of parents can afford such domestic staff or even desire it. Raising children is not a show-off activity as you imagine, much like standing in the driveway polishing one's Bentley.They are psychological trophies. I'm not talking about wealth. They"prove" you're a man or a woman or any other number of things. I didn't sayall paents feel this way, but there are certainly enough of them.Marley So why mention it at all? It seems to bother you that other people want to parent. I don't care what you choose. Why would it bother you what so many choose to do? My kids, my grand children are not my trophies.....they are my family.



ITA.



Rh. Kathy

meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy ) wrote in message news:<20040610123021.09638.00000746@mb-m11.aol.com>...Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: "Marley Greiner" maddogmarley@worldnet.att.netDate: 6/10/04 8:30 AM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <T8%xc.39743$Gx4.32765@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>"Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in messagenews:20040610111833.11516.00000971@mb-m04.aol.com... ***top post** Words from a person with not one day's experience caring for children: > But kids are often trophies whether bio or >adopted, and baby rabies certainly isn't limited to those who can afford >them, or try to afford them. > The only way, Marley, children could fall into the ornament category in one's life is if the parent delegates all care to other adults or employees. Only a tiny minority of parents can afford such domestic staff or even desire it. Raising children is not a show-off activity as you imagine, much like standing in the driveway polishing one's Bentley.They are psychological trophies. I'm not talking about wealth. They"prove" you're a man or a woman or any other number of things. I didn't sayall paents feel this way, but there are certainly enough of them.Marley So why mention it at all? It seems to bother you that other people want to parent. I don't care what you choose. Why would it bother you what so many choose to do? My kids, my grand children are not my trophies.....they are my family.



ITA.



Rh. Kathy

>Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines)Date: 6/10/04 2:01 PM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <20040610170123.13318.00000498@mb-m26.aol.com>Kathy addresses Marley:It seems to bother you that other people want toparent.I don't care what you choose. Why would it bother you what so many choose todo?My kids, my grand children are not my trophies.....they are my family.KathyIt seems to bother you that other people want toparent.I don't care what you choose. Why would it bother you what so many choose todo?My kids, my grand children are not my trophies.....they are my family.KathyI could not agree more. I realize Marley's ribbing is mostly in good fun.

It is, and I should remind myself of this fact more often.

However, it it continues....she's all mine.

And I am not as I said in very good mood lately.. ;{)


Kathy

>Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines)Date: 6/10/04 2:01 PM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <20040610170123.13318.00000498@mb-m26.aol.com>Kathy addresses Marley:It seems to bother you that other people want toparent.I don't care what you choose. Why would it bother you what so many choose todo?My kids, my grand children are not my trophies.....they are my family.KathyIt seems to bother you that other people want toparent.I don't care what you choose. Why would it bother you what so many choose todo?My kids, my grand children are not my trophies.....they are my family.KathyI could not agree more. I realize Marley's ribbing is mostly in good fun.

It is, and I should remind myself of this fact more often.

However, it it continues....she's all mine.

And I am not as I said in very good mood lately.. ;{)


Kathy

>Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy )Date: 6/10/2004 5:57 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <20040610195751.05521.00000699@mb-m17.aol.com>
I could not agree more. I realize Marley's ribbing is mostly in good fun.It is, and I should remind myself of this fact more often.However, it it continues....she's all mine.And I am not as I said in very good mood lately.. ;{)

Then can I give you two cookies and a hug?




-------------------------
A good friend will come and bail you out of jail . . . but, a true friend will
be sitting next to you saying, "Damn . . . that was fun!"
-----Unknown

>Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy )Date: 6/10/2004 5:57 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <20040610195751.05521.00000699@mb-m17.aol.com>
I could not agree more. I realize Marley's ribbing is mostly in good fun.It is, and I should remind myself of this fact more often.However, it it continues....she's all mine.And I am not as I said in very good mood lately.. ;{)

Then can I give you two cookies and a hug?




-------------------------
A good friend will come and bail you out of jail . . . but, a true friend will
be sitting next to you saying, "Damn . . . that was fun!"
-----Unknown

"geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:<T%Cxc.193$s52.5777@news.xtra.co.nz>... If the girls had not been promised that adoption would be the end of the story as far as they were concerned, (whether that was the legal position or not), they might have had dangerous illegal abortions or attempted to abort themselves.



Why d'you persist in seeing things in terms of either adoption or
abortion when there was another alternative?
Just curious.



Even if it was not true, it was a way to save the lives of girls and their babies.




Like I said, it didn't *have* to be an 'either/or' situation.
Nor do I think the motive for making such a promise was entirely
altruistic.


Don't blame the social workers




No, I don't 'blame' as such, but then neither do I think they can be
absolved either, just because of 'the times'.
They contributed (or at least acquiesced) to that climate of
hypocrisy, secrecy and lies.
And where and when they do avoid accountability, it's a case of 'I
plead innocent by virtue of still being in denial'.
Just IMO, of course.


for the circumstances prevailing at that time.




The circumstances may have been mitigating, but no more than that.




Rh. Geopelia

"geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:<T%Cxc.193$s52.5777@news.xtra.co.nz>... If the girls had not been promised that adoption would be the end of the story as far as they were concerned, (whether that was the legal position or not), they might have had dangerous illegal abortions or attempted to abort themselves.



Why d'you persist in seeing things in terms of either adoption or
abortion when there was another alternative?
Just curious.



Even if it was not true, it was a way to save the lives of girls and their babies.




Like I said, it didn't *have* to be an 'either/or' situation.
Nor do I think the motive for making such a promise was entirely
altruistic.


Don't blame the social workers




No, I don't 'blame' as such, but then neither do I think they can be
absolved either, just because of 'the times'.
They contributed (or at least acquiesced) to that climate of
hypocrisy, secrecy and lies.
And where and when they do avoid accountability, it's a case of 'I
plead innocent by virtue of still being in denial'.
Just IMO, of course.


for the circumstances prevailing at that time.




The circumstances may have been mitigating, but no more than that.




Rh. Geopelia

>> >"Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in messagenews:20040610111833.11516.00000971@mb-m04.aol.com...> ***top post**>> Words from a person with not one day's experience caring for children:>> > But kids are often trophies whether bio or> >adopted, and baby rabies certainly isn't limited to those who canafford> >them, or try to afford them. >>> The only way, Marley, children could fall into the ornament category inone's> life is if the parent delegates all care to other adults or employees.Only a> tiny minority of parents can afford such domestic staff or even desireit.> Raising children is not a show-off activity as you imagine, much likestanding> in the driveway polishing one's Bentley.They are psychological trophies. I'm not talking about wealth. They"prove" you're a man or a woman or any other number of things. I didn'tsayall paents feel this way, but there are certainly enough of them.Marley So why mention it at all? It seems to bother you that other people want to parent. I don't care what you choose. Why would it bother you what so many chooseto do? My kids, my grand children are not my trophies.....they are my family. KathWell, this was in response to Damsel's post about people who adopt and thenoutsouce their kids. Why bother to adopt (or have biologically if you'renot going to take care of them and expect others to do it for you, or insome cases let them run wild n the streets. That's all. For once, I wasn'tcriticizing.Marley

I should have known that someone that calls themselves a damsel had something
to do with it.


Kathy

>> >"Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in messagenews:20040610111833.11516.00000971@mb-m04.aol.com...> ***top post**>> Words from a person with not one day's experience caring for children:>> > But kids are often trophies whether bio or> >adopted, and baby rabies certainly isn't limited to those who canafford> >them, or try to afford them. >>> The only way, Marley, children could fall into the ornament category inone's> life is if the parent delegates all care to other adults or employees.Only a> tiny minority of parents can afford such domestic staff or even desireit.> Raising children is not a show-off activity as you imagine, much likestanding> in the driveway polishing one's Bentley.They are psychological trophies. I'm not talking about wealth. They"prove" you're a man or a woman or any other number of things. I didn'tsayall paents feel this way, but there are certainly enough of them.Marley So why mention it at all? It seems to bother you that other people want to parent. I don't care what you choose. Why would it bother you what so many chooseto do? My kids, my grand children are not my trophies.....they are my family. KathWell, this was in response to Damsel's post about people who adopt and thenoutsouce their kids. Why bother to adopt (or have biologically if you'renot going to take care of them and expect others to do it for you, or insome cases let them run wild n the streets. That's all. For once, I wasn'tcriticizing.Marley

I should have known that someone that calls themselves a damsel had something
to do with it.


Kathy

"Rhiannon" <sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:dafc70.0406101753.e7dd380@posting.google.com. .. "geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:<T%Cxc.193$s52.5777@news.xtra.co.nz>... If the girls had not been promised that adoption would be the end of the story as far as they were concerned, (whether that was the legal
position or not), they might have had dangerous illegal abortions or attempted to abort themselves. Why d'you persist in seeing things in terms of either adoption or abortion when there was another alternative? Just curious.

You mean keeping the child themselves? If that was possible they wouldn't
have been needing help to free themselves from it. Even if it was not true, it was a way to save the lives of girls and
their babies. Like I said, it didn't *have* to be an 'either/or' situation. Nor do I think the motive for making such a promise was entirely altruistic. Don't blame the social workers No, I don't 'blame' as such, but then neither do I think they can be absolved either, just because of 'the times'. They contributed (or at least acquiesced) to that climate of hypocrisy, secrecy and lies. And where and when they do avoid accountability, it's a case of 'I plead innocent by virtue of still being in denial'. Just IMO, of course. for the circumstances prevailing at that time. The circumstances may have been mitigating, but no more than that. Rh. Geopelia

Just curious, but why does your computer leave so much space in these posts?

"Rhiannon" <sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:dafc70.0406101753.e7dd380@posting.google.com. .. "geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:<T%Cxc.193$s52.5777@news.xtra.co.nz>... If the girls had not been promised that adoption would be the end of the story as far as they were concerned, (whether that was the legal
position or not), they might have had dangerous illegal abortions or attempted to abort themselves. Why d'you persist in seeing things in terms of either adoption or abortion when there was another alternative? Just curious.

You mean keeping the child themselves? If that was possible they wouldn't
have been needing help to free themselves from it. Even if it was not true, it was a way to save the lives of girls and
their babies. Like I said, it didn't *have* to be an 'either/or' situation. Nor do I think the motive for making such a promise was entirely altruistic. Don't blame the social workers No, I don't 'blame' as such, but then neither do I think they can be absolved either, just because of 'the times'. They contributed (or at least acquiesced) to that climate of hypocrisy, secrecy and lies. And where and when they do avoid accountability, it's a case of 'I plead innocent by virtue of still being in denial'. Just IMO, of course. for the circumstances prevailing at that time. The circumstances may have been mitigating, but no more than that. Rh. Geopelia

Just curious, but why does your computer leave so much space in these posts?

>Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: lilmtncbn@aol.com (LilMtnCbn)Date: 6/10/04 6:06 PM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <20040610210601.00400.00000837@mb-m14.aol.com>Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy )Date: 6/10/2004 5:57 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <20040610195751.05521.00000699@mb-m17.aol.com>I could not agree more. I realize Marley's ribbing is mostly in good fun.It is, and I should remind myself of this fact more often.However, it it continues....she's all mine.And I am not as I said in very good mood lately.. ;{)Then can I give you two cookies and a hug?

How about a bag a cookies and a young guy for the weekend?

What an asskickin' day.....'[)


Kathy

>Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: lilmtncbn@aol.com (LilMtnCbn)Date: 6/10/04 6:06 PM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <20040610210601.00400.00000837@mb-m14.aol.com>Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy )Date: 6/10/2004 5:57 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <20040610195751.05521.00000699@mb-m17.aol.com>I could not agree more. I realize Marley's ribbing is mostly in good fun.It is, and I should remind myself of this fact more often.However, it it continues....she's all mine.And I am not as I said in very good mood lately.. ;{)Then can I give you two cookies and a hug?

How about a bag a cookies and a young guy for the weekend?

What an asskickin' day.....'[)


Kathy

>Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)Date: 6/10/04 3:50 PM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <dafc70.0406101450.263beb95@posting.google.com>meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy ) wrote in messagenews:<20040610123021.09638.00000746@mb-m11.aol.com>...Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: "Marley Greiner" maddogmarley@worldnet.att.netDate: 6/10/04 8:30 AM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <T8%xc.39743$Gx4.32765@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>"Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in messagenews:20040610111833.11516.00000971@mb-m04.aol.com...> ***top post**>> Words from a person with not one day's experience caring for children:>> > But kids are often trophies whether bio or> >adopted, and baby rabies certainly isn't limited to those who canafford> >them, or try to afford them. >>> The only way, Marley, children could fall into the ornament category in one's> life is if the parent delegates all care to other adults or employees. Only a> tiny minority of parents can afford such domestic staff or even desireit.> Raising children is not a show-off activity as you imagine, much like standing> in the driveway polishing one's Bentley.They are psychological trophies. I'm not talking about wealth. They"prove" you're a man or a woman or any other number of things. I didn'tsayall paents feel this way, but there are certainly enough of them.Marley So why mention it at all? It seems to bother you that other people want to parent. I don't care what you choose. Why would it bother you what so many chooseto do? My kids, my grand children are not my trophies.....they are my family.ITA.Rh.

You complete, me, Sara....

:)


Kathy

>Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)Date: 6/10/04 3:50 PM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <dafc70.0406101450.263beb95@posting.google.com>meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy ) wrote in messagenews:<20040610123021.09638.00000746@mb-m11.aol.com>...Subject: Re: California Lesbian Mom Has No Parental RightsFrom: "Marley Greiner" maddogmarley@worldnet.att.netDate: 6/10/04 8:30 AM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <T8%xc.39743$Gx4.32765@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>"Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in messagenews:20040610111833.11516.00000971@mb-m04.aol.com...> ***top post**>> Words from a person with not one day's experience caring for children:>> > But kids are often trophies whether bio or> >adopted, and baby rabies certainly isn't limited to those who canafford> >them, or try to afford them. >>> The only way, Marley, children could fall into the ornament category in one's> life is if the parent delegates all care to other adults or employees. Only a> tiny minority of parents can afford such domestic staff or even desireit.> Raising children is not a show-off activity as you imagine, much like standing> in the driveway polishing one's Bentley.They are psychological trophies. I'm not talking about wealth. They"prove" you're a man or a woman or any other number of things. I didn'tsayall paents feel this way, but there are certainly enough of them.Marley So why mention it at all? It seems to bother you that other people want to parent. I don't care what you choose. Why would it bother you what so many chooseto do? My kids, my grand children are not my trophies.....they are my family.ITA.Rh.

You complete, me, Sara....

:)


Kathy

"geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:<xcZxc.649$s52.27822@news.xtra.co.nz>... "Robin Harritt" <zybennderenderer@harritt.net> wrote in message news:BCEE12F6.42B00%zybennderenderer@harritt.net.. . in article g5Yxc.626$s52.27190@news.xtra.co.nz, geopelia at phildoran@xtra.co.nz wrote on 10/6/04 1:03 pm: <snip> Yes, closing open records is just as bad as opening closed records. The principle is the same. What has originally been agreed to should stand until all parties decide otherwise. That includes the adopting parents too. Even if, as in England, the closing of those records was never done with the proper due legal and parliamentary process? Is NZ yet another of those places where the ubiquitous "promise" was made to birthmothers, yet not one single person can find any written record of it. very few birthmother's have ever said they wanted it, but lots of adoptive parents, adoption agency staff and retired adoption agency staff are getting their panties all in twist about it? Do you really honestly think that adopted people should have to be denied a right to know their genetic family and all that goes with that, just to honour some imaginary promise made to adoptive parents in general? How do you feel about giving the right to decide whether elderly parents should be euthanased to their children? Their adoptive children even? I see a certain equivalence to parents denying adopted people information, the lack of which may perhaps prove fatal to them in some cases, don't you? Medical information is OK, especially information on genetic diseases, which I suppose is what you mean by that last paragraph. A general description, e.g. age, occupation, religion etc, could be given, but personal identifying information should not, unless agreed to. Either party should be able to put on record that they want no contact. That would be better than allowing a meeting which is not wanted and which could result in heartbreak.



"Heartbreak"'s a hyperbolic way of putting it, IMO, but some people
might experience a no contact veto as a "heartbreaking" second
rejection.


Adopted people may already feel rejected, although it was motherhood > that was rejected, not an individul baby.



As above.
Anyway, we're talking about individual *adults* now, who should be
able to deal on *adult* terms.


After all, many girls never saw their babies at all. Some may have wanted their babies, but circumstances prevented it.



Circumstances are usually contingent, one way or another, on other
people.



Adopted people may also resent the women who gave them away, and > may not want to meet them if they find them. It isn't always like the sentimental stories of meetings, in the media.



Most sensible people aren't going to believe it is. Anyway, that's not
the point.
If one adult wants to meet another adult, there's no 'good enough'
reason to prevent them from from doing so.
Let them work it out together. - over to them, so to speak.



Rh. Geopelia

"geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:<xcZxc.649$s52.27822@news.xtra.co.nz>... "Robin Harritt" <zybennderenderer@harritt.net> wrote in message news:BCEE12F6.42B00%zybennderenderer@harritt.net.. . in article g5Yxc.626$s52.27190@news.xtra.co.nz, geopelia at phildoran@xtra.co.nz wrote on 10/6/04 1:03 pm: <snip> Yes, closing open records is just as bad as opening closed records. The principle is the same. What has originally been agreed to should stand until all parties decide otherwise. That includes the adopting parents too. Even if, as in England, the closing of those records was never done with the proper due legal and parliamentary process? Is NZ yet another of those places where the ubiquitous "promise" was made to birthmothers, yet not one single person can find any written record of it. very few birthmother's have ever said they wanted it, but lots of adoptive parents, adoption agency staff and retired adoption agency staff are getting their panties all in twist about it? Do you really honestly think that adopted people should have to be denied a right to know their genetic family and all that goes with that, just to honour some imaginary promise made to adoptive parents in general? How do you feel about giving the right to decide whether elderly parents should be euthanased to their children? Their adoptive children even? I see a certain equivalence to parents denying adopted people information, the lack of which may perhaps prove fatal to them in some cases, don't you? Medical information is OK, especially information on genetic diseases, which I suppose is what you mean by that last paragraph. A general description, e.g. age, occupation, religion etc, could be given, but personal identifying information should not, unless agreed to. Either party should be able to put on record that they want no contact. That would be better than allowing a meeting which is not wanted and which could result in heartbreak.



"Heartbreak"'s a hyperbolic way of putting it, IMO, but some people
might experience a no contact veto as a "heartbreaking" second
rejection.


Adopted people may already feel rejected, although it was motherhood > that was rejected, not an individul baby.



As above.
Anyway, we're talking about individual *adults* now, who should be
able to deal on *adult* terms.


After all, many girls never saw their babies at all. Some may have wanted their babies, but circumstances prevented it.



Circumstances are usually contingent, one way or another, on other
people.



Adopted people may also resent the women who gave them away, and > may not want to meet them if they find them. It isn't always like the sentimental stories of meetings, in the media.



Most sensible people aren't going to believe it is. Anyway, that's not
the point.
If one adult wants to meet another adult, there's no 'good enough'
reason to prevent them from from doing so.
Let them work it out together. - over to them, so to speak.



Rh. Geopelia

"geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:<UV8yc.855$s52.35317@news.xtra.co.nz>... "Rhiannon" <sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca> wrote in message news:dafc70.0406101753.e7dd380@posting.google.com. .. Why d'you persist in seeing things in terms of either adoption or abortion when there was another alternative? Just curious. You mean keeping the child themselves? If that was possible they wouldn't have been needing help to free themselves from it.


It was still an alternative, IMO. Just one that was denied.
Now, you may think that adds up to pretty much the same thing, but I wouldn't agree.
It was an alternative that wasn't *made* available, but could and should have been.


Re.the 'space' thing.
It's not my computer. It's me.
I just like it (not sure why)
Maybe it's a defense mechanism :-)





Rh.

Even if it was not true, it was a way to save the lives of girls and their babies. Like I said, it didn't *have* to be an 'either/or' situation. Nor do I think the motive for making such a promise was entirely altruistic. > > Don't blame the social workers > > No, I don't 'blame' as such, but then neither do I think they can be absolved either, just because of 'the times'. They contributed (or at least acquiesced) to that climate of hypocrisy, secrecy and lies. And where and when they do avoid accountability, it's a case of 'I plead innocent by virtue of still being in denial'. Just IMO, of course. > > for the circumstances prevailing at that time. > > The circumstances may have been mitigating, but no more than that. Rh. Geopelia Just curious, but why does your computer leave so much space in these posts? >

"geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:<UV8yc.855$s52.35317@news.xtra.co.nz>... "Rhiannon" <sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca> wrote in message news:dafc70.0406101753.e7dd380@posting.google.com. .. Why d'you persist in seeing things in terms of either adoption or abortion when there was another alternative? Just curious. You mean keeping the child themselves? If that was possible they wouldn't have been needing help to free themselves from it.


It was still an alternative, IMO. Just one that was denied.
Now, you may think that adds up to pretty much the same thing, but I wouldn't agree.
It was an alternative that wasn't *made* available, but could and should have been.


Re.the 'space' thing.
It's not my computer. It's me.
I just like it (not sure why)
Maybe it's a defense mechanism :-)





Rh.

Even if it was not true, it was a way to save the lives of girls and their babies. Like I said, it didn't *have* to be an 'either/or' situation. Nor do I think the motive for making such a promise was entirely altruistic. > > Don't blame the social workers > > No, I don't 'blame' as such, but then neither do I think they can be absolved either, just because of 'the times'. They contributed (or at least acquiesced) to that climate of hypocrisy, secrecy and lies. And where and when they do avoid accountability, it's a case of 'I plead innocent by virtue of still being in denial'. Just IMO, of course. > > for the circumstances prevailing at that time. > > The circumstances may have been mitigating, but no more than that. Rh. Geopelia Just curious, but why does your computer leave so much space in these posts? >

meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy ) wroteFrom: "Marley Greiner" maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net
That's an existential and academic argument as you know. Didn't we havethis go-around here years ago? You either support reproductive autonomy oryou don't.Marley How sad it this? This is the underlying problem with every adoption discussion. The pro-liar agenda always gets in the way of progress. Kathy

This went right over my head...

Rupa

meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy ) wroteFrom: "Marley Greiner" maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net
That's an existential and academic argument as you know. Didn't we havethis go-around here years ago? You either support reproductive autonomy oryou don't.Marley How sad it this? This is the underlying problem with every adoption discussion. The pro-liar agenda always gets in the way of progress. Kathy

This went right over my head...

Rupa

>Robibnikoff nospam@newsranger.comDate: 6/9/2004 6:50 AM Eastern Daylight TimeMessage-id: <NXBxc.5435$H4.297@www.newsranger.com>In article <20040608230945.29519.00000634@mb-m05.aol.com>, kj says...snipI just had a conversation with a coworker--he feels potential adoptiveparentsshouldn't have to go any of the pre-adoption procedures--that it's theirgod-given right to rear other people's unwanted children. WTF?? (Not veryrelated, but I had to get it off my chest)Really?!? Good gracious, he's lucky he didn't have the conversation withmoi!

Normally I would have ripped his nutsack off--but this guy is a nightmare to
have a disagreement with. I just tried to be logical--and you know what they
say--you can't logically argue someone out of a position they haven't been
logically argued into.
RobynResident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster#1557


kj

>Robibnikoff nospam@newsranger.comDate: 6/9/2004 6:50 AM Eastern Daylight TimeMessage-id: <NXBxc.5435$H4.297@www.newsranger.com>In article <20040608230945.29519.00000634@mb-m05.aol.com>, kj says...snipI just had a conversation with a coworker--he feels potential adoptiveparentsshouldn't have to go any of the pre-adoption procedures--that it's theirgod-given right to rear other people's unwanted children. WTF?? (Not veryrelated, but I had to get it off my chest)Really?!? Good gracious, he's lucky he didn't have the conversation withmoi!

Normally I would have ripped his nutsack off--but this guy is a nightmare to
have a disagreement with. I just tried to be logical--and you know what they
say--you can't logically argue someone out of a position they haven't been
logically argued into.
RobynResident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster#1557


kj

>palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines)Date: 6/9/2004 6:05 PM Eastern Daylight TimeMessage-id: <20040609180506.13427.00000663@mb-m04.aol.com>kjs668 writes:I just had a conversation with a coworker--he feels potential adoptiveparentsshouldn't have to go any of the pre-adoption procedures--that it's theirgod-given right to rear other people's unwanted children. WTF?? (Not veryrelated, but I had to get it off my chest)Good thing you vented here and didn't try to educate the clod, kj. I havelearned such starting points in conversations about adoption rarely proveinteresting, never mind fruitful. The holes in this clod's head are just toobig to fill.

I showed him Lori's favorite web-page (adopted serial killers), hopefully
that'll put him off for a bit.

P2P


kj

>palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines)Date: 6/9/2004 6:05 PM Eastern Daylight TimeMessage-id: <20040609180506.13427.00000663@mb-m04.aol.com>kjs668 writes:I just had a conversation with a coworker--he feels potential adoptiveparentsshouldn't have to go any of the pre-adoption procedures--that it's theirgod-given right to rear other people's unwanted children. WTF?? (Not veryrelated, but I had to get it off my chest)Good thing you vented here and didn't try to educate the clod, kj. I havelearned such starting points in conversations about adoption rarely proveinteresting, never mind fruitful. The holes in this clod's head are just toobig to fill.

I showed him Lori's favorite web-page (adopted serial killers), hopefully
that'll put him off for a bit.

P2P


kj

>amelusine@yahoo.com (Damsel Plum)Date: 6/10/2004 12:16 AM Eastern Daylight TimeMessage-id: <c89c3e62.0406092016.45dd16b1@posting.google.com>palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in messagenews:<20040609180506.13427.00000663@mb-m04.aol.com>... kjs668 writes:I just had a conversation with a coworker--he feels potential adoptiveparentsshouldn't have to go any of the pre-adoption procedures--that it's theirgod-given right to rear other people's unwanted children. WTF?? (Notveryrelated, but I had to get it off my chest) Good thing you vented here and didn't try to educate the clod, kj. I have learned such starting points in conversations about adoption rarely prove interesting, never mind fruitful. The holes in this clod's head are justtoo big to fill.I've found that with the proper patience and charm many people areeducable on these matters. Lots of people who want to be parents havegrappled for years with infertility, then reprotech which isexpensive, painful and humiliating, and then they get to adoption andthey are exasperated, realizing that there is a huge vetting processin most cases. This is the source of much of these attitudes. Now,you may have zero compassion for people so determined to be parentsbased on your personal experience, but some of these people are goodpeople who will make good parents. So it is worth understanding theirpoint of view in order to try and make them understand yours.
I've known tons of adoptive parents (and even regular people) who I will
happily discussed being an adopted adult with--it's one of those situations
where I believe it's more important to be open and to educated rather than be
secretive. I'm not ashamed.

By the way, what are people's relationships to adoption around herethese days? I'm an adoptee. :^P

Me too. My a-parents birthed four kids and then adopted me. I haven't met any
birth people yet.
Damz


kj

>amelusine@yahoo.com (Damsel Plum)Date: 6/10/2004 12:16 AM Eastern Daylight TimeMessage-id: <c89c3e62.0406092016.45dd16b1@posting.google.com>palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in messagenews:<20040609180506.13427.00000663@mb-m04.aol.com>... kjs668 writes:I just had a conversation with a coworker--he feels potential adoptiveparentsshouldn't have to go any of the pre-adoption procedures--that it's theirgod-given right to rear other people's unwanted children. WTF?? (Notveryrelated, but I had to get it off my chest) Good thing you vented here and didn't try to educate the clod, kj. I have learned such starting points in conversations about adoption rarely prove interesting, never mind fruitful. The holes in this clod's head are justtoo big to fill.I've found that with the proper patience and charm many people areeducable on these matters. Lots of people who want to be parents havegrappled for years with infertility, then reprotech which isexpensive, painful and humiliating, and then they get to adoption andthey are exasperated, realizing that there is a huge vetting processin most cases. This is the source of much of these attitudes. Now,you may have zero compassion for people so determined to be parentsbased on your personal experience, but some of these people are goodpeople who will make good parents. So it is worth understanding theirpoint of view in order to try and make them understand yours.
I've known tons of adoptive parents (and even regular people) who I will
happily discussed being an adopted adult with--it's one of those situations
where I believe it's more important to be open and to educated rather than be
secretive. I'm not ashamed.

By the way, what are people's relationships to adoption around herethese days? I'm an adoptee. :^P

Me too. My a-parents birthed four kids and then adopted me. I haven't met any
birth people yet.
Damz


kj

In article <20040615002942.07360.00001218@mb-m03.aol.com>, kj says...Robibnikoff nospam@newsranger.comDate: 6/9/2004 6:50 AM Eastern Daylight TimeMessage-id: <NXBxc.5435$H4.297@www.newsranger.com>In article <20040608230945.29519.00000634@mb-m05.aol.com>, kj says...snipI just had a conversation with a coworker--he feels potential adoptiveparentsshouldn't have to go any of the pre-adoption procedures--that it's theirgod-given right to rear other people's unwanted children. WTF?? (Not veryrelated, but I had to get it off my chest)Really?!? Good gracious, he's lucky he didn't have the conversation withmoi!Normally I would have ripped his nutsack off--

Whoa! Almost shot coffee through my nose!

but this guy is a nightmare tohave a disagreement with. I just tried to be logical--and you know what theysay--you can't logically argue someone out of a position they haven't beenlogically argued into.

Agreed. While I've never confronted my BIL, I know there's no way that I could
convince him that adopted kids don't attempt to kill their parents when they
grow up - Despite the fact that I haven't tried to knock off my own. Ah well ;/

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

In article <20040615002942.07360.00001218@mb-m03.aol.com>, kj says...Robibnikoff nospam@newsranger.comDate: 6/9/2004 6:50 AM Eastern Daylight TimeMessage-id: <NXBxc.5435$H4.297@www.newsranger.com>In article <20040608230945.29519.00000634@mb-m05.aol.com>, kj says...snipI just had a conversation with a coworker--he feels potential adoptiveparentsshouldn't have to go any of the pre-adoption procedures--that it's theirgod-given right to rear other people's unwanted children. WTF?? (Not veryrelated, but I had to get it off my chest)Really?!? Good gracious, he's lucky he didn't have the conversation withmoi!Normally I would have ripped his nutsack off--

Whoa! Almost shot coffee through my nose!

but this guy is a nightmare tohave a disagreement with. I just tried to be logical--and you know what theysay--you can't logically argue someone out of a position they haven't beenlogically argued into.

Agreed. While I've never confronted my BIL, I know there's no way that I could
convince him that adopted kids don't attempt to kill their parents when they
grow up - Despite the fact that I haven't tried to knock off my own. Ah well ;/

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

>Robibnikoff nospam@newsranger.comDate: 6/15/2004 6:02 AM Eastern Daylight TimeMessage-id: <WOzzc.5958$H4.304@www.newsranger.com>In article <20040615002942.07360.00001218@mb-m03.aol.com>, kj says...Robibnikoff nospam@newsranger.comDate: 6/9/2004 6:50 AM Eastern Daylight TimeMessage-id: <NXBxc.5435$H4.297@www.newsranger.com>In article <20040608230945.29519.00000634@mb-m05.aol.com>, kj says...snip>>I just had a conversation with a coworker--he feels potential adoptiveparents>shouldn't have to go any of the pre-adoption procedures--that it's their>god-given right to rear other people's unwanted children. WTF?? (Notvery>related, but I had to get it off my chest)Really?!? Good gracious, he's lucky he didn't have the conversation withmoi!Normally I would have ripped his nutsack off--Whoa! Almost shot coffee through my nose!

That wouldn't be comfortable--and Fiend would say it was a waste of good
coffee.
but this guy is a nightmare tohave a disagreement with. I just tried to be logical--and you know whattheysay--you can't logically argue someone out of a position they haven't beenlogically argued into.Agreed. While I've never confronted my BIL, I know there's no way that Icouldconvince him that adopted kids don't attempt to kill their parents when theygrow up - Despite the fact that I haven't tried to knock off my own. Ah well;/

Sometimes when people are that annoying, I behave poorly--you
know--exaggerating acts of adoptee violence and stuff. You should show him
Crackangelo's sight!
Here's the URL... Tee hee! Torture him like a good adoptee!
http://www.abolishadoption.com/AdoptedKillers.html
RobynResident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster#1557


kj

>Robibnikoff nospam@newsranger.comDate: 6/15/2004 6:02 AM Eastern Daylight TimeMessage-id: <WOzzc.5958$H4.304@www.newsranger.com>In article <20040615002942.07360.00001218@mb-m03.aol.com>, kj says...Robibnikoff nospam@newsranger.comDate: 6/9/2004 6:50 AM Eastern Daylight TimeMessage-id: <NXBxc.5435$H4.297@www.newsranger.com>In article <20040608230945.29519.00000634@mb-m05.aol.com>, kj says...snip>>I just had a conversation with a coworker--he feels potential adoptiveparents>shouldn't have to go any of the pre-adoption procedures--that it's their>god-given right to rear other people's unwanted children. WTF?? (Notvery>related, but I had to get it off my chest)Really?!? Good gracious, he's lucky he didn't have the conversation withmoi!Normally I would have ripped his nutsack off--Whoa! Almost shot coffee through my nose!

That wouldn't be comfortable--and Fiend would say it was a waste of good
coffee.
but this guy is a nightmare tohave a disagreement with. I just tried to be logical--and you know whattheysay--you can't logically argue someone out of a position they haven't beenlogically argued into.Agreed. While I've never confronted my BIL, I know there's no way that Icouldconvince him that adopted kids don't attempt to kill their parents when theygrow up - Despite the fact that I haven't tried to knock off my own. Ah well;/

Sometimes when people are that annoying, I behave poorly--you
know--exaggerating acts of adoptee violence and stuff. You should show him
Crackangelo's sight!
Here's the URL... Tee hee! Torture him like a good adoptee!
http://www.abolishadoption.com/AdoptedKillers.html
RobynResident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster#1557


kj