robin harritt <no.one@harritt.net> wrote in message news:<41300448.1010607@harritt.net>... Dian wrote: You have missed the entire point. It is SEPARATION from mom that was cited as being a contributing factor in RAD according to the article. All I am saying is that if that is so then it is little wonder that so many adoptees are also being diagnosed with it because ALL adoptees have experienced being separated from their nmom BEFORE being adopted. Think man think! But when you start thinking Di, don't you start to think, why are so many adoptees being Diagnosed with it now, when so few seem to have shown any evidence of it in the heyday of adoption in the 1950s, 60s and 70s? Isn't it the age at which separation occurs, how traumatic the separation is and how long it is before the child is presented with an opportunity to attach, that are the significant factors in RAD? Could the increase in diagnosis of RAD amongst adoptees have anything to do with children being left with unsuitable natural parents for far too long before adoption is considered? Robin

Adopted children have been known to be over-represented in the
psychiatric area
for 60 years. They have exhibited the same emotional problems as those
diagnosed with RAD today. They just didn't have a specific name for it
back then. Oh and I'm referring to the era where mostly newborns and
toddlers were being adopted.

"Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:9a095db9.0408281505.8dfe96d@posting.google.co m... robin harritt <no.one@harritt.net> wrote in message
news:<41300448.1010607@harritt.net>... Dian wrote: You have missed the entire point. It is SEPARATION from mom that was cited as being a contributing factor in RAD according to the article. All I am saying is that if that is so then it is little wonder that so many adoptees are also being diagnosed with it because ALL adoptees have experienced being separated from their nmom BEFORE being adopted. Think man think! But when you start thinking Di, don't you start to think, why are so many adoptees being Diagnosed with it now, when so few seem to have shown any evidence of it in the heyday of adoption in the 1950s, 60s and 70s? Isn't it the age at which separation occurs, how traumatic the separation is and how long it is before the child is presented with an opportunity to attach, that are the significant factors in RAD? Could the increase in diagnosis of RAD amongst adoptees have anything to do with children being left with unsuitable natural parents for far too long before adoption is considered? Robin Adopted children have been known to be over-represented in the psychiatric area for 60 years. They have exhibited the same emotional problems as those diagnosed with RAD today. They just didn't have a specific name for it back then. Oh and I'm referring to the era where mostly newborns and toddlers were being adopted.

Children are crazee because their breeders and adopters are crazee. Its a
reaction to abnormal environments. Family = abnormal.

Marley

Dian wrote:
robin harritt <no.one@harritt.net> wrote in message news:<41300448.1010607@harritt.net>... Dian wrote: You have missed the entire point. It is SEPARATION from mom that was cited as being a contributing factor in RAD according to the article. All I am saying is that if that is so then it is little wonder that so many adoptees are also being diagnosed with it because ALL adoptees have experienced being separated from their nmom BEFORE being adopted. Think man think! But when you start thinking Di, don't you start to think, why are so many adoptees being Diagnosed with it now, when so few seem to have shown any evidence of it in the heyday of adoption in the 1950s, 60s and 70s? Isn't it the age at which separation occurs, how traumatic the separation is and how long it is before the child is presented with an opportunity to attach, that are the significant factors in RAD? Could the increase in diagnosis of RAD amongst adoptees have anything to do with children being left with unsuitable natural parents for far too long before adoption is considered? Robin

Adopted children have been known to be over-represented in the psychiatric area for 60 years.

As an object of curiosity yes, as a genuine examples of pathology,
probably not. We are done no favours whatsoever by those who would have
it that there is a definite pattern of pathology arising out of
adoption. Take a look at the way Tony Blair's government wants to treat
us stake holders in adoption. Like we never did grow up and need some
big sensible social worker to look after us and protect us from those
horrible threating birth relatives who are coming after us.
They have exhibited the same emotional problems as those diagnosed with RAD today.

And your sources of reference for that assertion are?
They just didn't have a specific name for it back then. Oh and I'm referring to the era where mostly newborns and toddlers were being adopted.

Newborns and toddlers were and are two quite different species as far as
attachment is concerned. Newborn's attachment needs are very simple,
remember Harlow's monkeys, any convincing alternative was better than
nothing. A two year old suddenly torn away from his mother is another
thing altogether. The vast majority of adoptions here in the 1950s
through the 70s were of children placed at about six weeks with adoption
finalised about nine months, the vast majority were psychiatricaly
healthy children and grew up psychiatricaly healthy adults.

Robin

robin harritt <no.one@harritt.net> wrote
Adopted children have been known to be over-represented in the psychiatric area for 60 years. As an object of curiosity yes, as a genuine examples of pathology, probably not.

Are there any recent studies one way or the other?
The vast majority of adoptions here in the 1950s through the 70s were of children placed at about six weeks with adoption finalised about nine months, the vast majority were psychiatricaly healthy children and grew up psychiatricaly healthy adults.

But this is true of the vast majority of any group of children, pretty
much. Di's argument isn't that all or even most adoptees have
problems, but that more of them do than people who were not
relinquished.

I don't know if it's true, but it could be. If we allow for any
inherited pathology whatever, and believe that the child of people
with psychiatric problems is moe likely to be relinquished or removed
from its birth parents, this would mean that the overall pool of
adoptees, while consisting largely of healthy children, would also be
somewhat biased to ones with inherited risk factors.

It may also be true of birth mothers. Most birth mothers would
presumably be perfectly healthy and normal adults who were in
unfortunate circumstances at the time, and so would not have any more
pathology than a similar group of non-relinquishing mothers. However,
among women with pathologies, there may be a larger than usual
probability of relinquishment or termination of parental rights -- and
this group could bias the result.

This doesn't say anything about whether RAD is problem for adoptees or
not.

The only way to check would be to compare adoptees against a matched
group of people from the same background who were not relinquished.
Hard to do anyway, and of course harder when closed adoptions makes it
difficult to define "same background."

I suppose if someone really wanted to do this research, one way would
be to compare with non-relinquished siblings of adoptees.

Rupa

>Subject: Re: Schmitz kids said to have attachment disorderFrom: rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose)Date: 8/29/2004 4:34 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <e5619372.0408291434.505ef41a@posting.google.com>
But this is true of the vast majority of any group of children, prettymuch. Di's argument isn't that all or even most adoptees haveproblems, but that more of them do than people who were notrelinquished.

I wonder if the studies differentiate between adoptees (those relinquished as
newborns vs those who were TPR'd from abuse or neglect, even as toddlers).

I could see the numbers being high if 40 of a 100 studied had been TPR'd.
It may also be true of birth mothers. Most birth mothers wouldpresumably be perfectly healthy and normal adults who were inunfortunate circumstances at the time, and so would not have any morepathology than a similar group of non-relinquishing mothers. However,among women with pathologies, there may be a larger than usualprobability of relinquishment or termination of parental rights -- andthis group could bias the result.

I agree. There are certain conditions that could be described with
"risk-taking" behavior (ADD, etc). I wonder when they'll do a study about
that.


-------------------------
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

Robin, I applaud you for trying to talk some sense to Dian. It is like
teaching a cat to sing.

The best popular lit on attachment that I know of is a book by Robert
Karen called _Becoming Attached_. It is a summary of current research.
Karen comes down strongly on the importance of attachment. Funny, he
doesn't mention anything on in-utero bonding.

My dh, the biostatistician pointed out that it would have been just as
easy to write a book debunking the notion that attachment exists.
Nevertheless, it is hard to argue with Bowlby's monkeys.

Linda

in article ch07h8$ed1@wolfe.umd.edu, Linda Fortney at lfortney@dc.umd.edu wrote on 30/8/04 10:51 pm:
Robin, I applaud you for trying to talk some sense to Dian. It is like teaching a cat to sing.


No, much more difficult than that. A proper understanding of scientific method and statistics, would undermine Di's whole belief system.

The best popular lit on attachment that I know of is a book by Robert Karen called _Becoming Attached_. It is a summary of current research. Karen comes down strongly on the importance of attachment.


Thanks I'll keep an eye out for it. I had not heard of his work, but it is getting on for thirty years since I had to read anything like that. I'd like to see some clearer definitions of RAD. I don't think it had been recognized as a psychiatric condition in the 1970s and certainly not when I and my under 18 month old contemporaries were getting through several mother figures per month in 1954.

Funny, he doesn't mention anything on in-utero bonding.


Strange that ay.

My dh, the biostatistician pointed out that it would have been just as easy to write a book debunking the notion that attachment exists. Nevertheless, it is hard to argue with Bowlby's monkeys.


Bowlby delivered his famous paper to the World Health Organization in 1952 I think but I guess it took a while for it to have much effect, and when it did it was the wrong effect. Harlow was the man with the monkeys I do believe, but his evidence that any infant creature needs the comfort of a mother like object to cling to but it doesn't have to be its own mother, is fairly compelling.


Robin

lfortney@dc.umd.edu (Linda Fortney) wrote in message news:<ch07h8$ed1@wolfe.umd.edu>... Robin, I applaud you for trying to talk some sense to Dian. It is like teaching a cat to sing.
The best popular lit on attachment that I know of is a book by Robert Karen called _Becoming Attached_. It is a summary of current research. Karen comes down strongly on the importance of attachment. Funny, he doesn't mention anything on in-utero bonding. My dh, the biostatistician pointed out that it would have been just as easy to write a book debunking the notion that attachment exists.

Your dh might want to ask himself why adoptees separated from teir
mothers at birth search for those mothers they had no connection with
other than in utero.
If no bond were present there would be no interest in reunion, nor
would adoptee be angry/upset if their mother refused contact. Nor
would they feel rejected by a mother they never knew. Now would they
feel any love for a mother
they never knew. Nor would she be able to evoke so many mixed emotions
in the adoptee. AND visa versa.

In fact if no bond were present in utero the adoptive mother would
have totally replaced the natural mother in every respect. The
adoptee would not even be interested in obtaining his OBC. Afterall,
he already has a birth certificate that would have replaced the
original if no prebirth bond existed. An OBC is proof, or assumed
proof, of a connection to that mother he never knew. Some just want to
know her name.

Nevertheless, it is hard to argue with Bowlby's monkeys. Linda

Bowlby's research was with institutionalised children, not with
monkeys.
He was an army psychiatrist who conducted a five year study on the
affects of maternal deprivation on institutionalised children during
WW2.

Maternal Care and Mental Health - A report on behalf of the World
Health
Organisation as a contribution to the United Nations programme for the
welfare of homeless children - by John Bowlby M.A., M.D. World Health
Organisation Monograph Series No 2 GENEVA 1952.

and then there's:

"Closeness between humans is not just a learned behaviour; it
has
biological roots as well. Studies in primates show that if the
normal
mothering process is interrupted by isolating the mother and
infant from each other, the infants brain does not develop
normally. For
example, the number and the sensitivity of the infant brain
receptor
sites for endorphin's - the internal morphine-like chemicals
that affect
mood - are diminished. In all mammalian species, if the mother
and infant
are separated the infant emits some type of distress cry which
evokes
complementary behaviours in the mother." Psychology of
Attachment/
Separation, B.A.van der Kolk, Psychiatric Times/Medicine and
Behaviour,
April 1987,p4 Q210


and then there's:

Jane Van Lawick Goodall 1971 in her studies of chimpanzee
families,
observed that newborn chimpanzees were adopted by their older
siblings
when the mother dies. After the loss of their mother, these
babies became
depressed, disturbed and physically and emotionally retarded.
They
withdrew from social contact, some eventually died from
emaciation or
disease, not unlike human orphans who are deprived of love and
care. The
chimpanzee baby, at least, rarely survives the loss of his mother
for long.
His depression is shattering. If he does not die he may become
delinquent
and an outcast in his community. The human child whose biological
mother
is unable to care for him, is just as much in need of affection,
love and
acceptance, and if he is to survive as a well balanced person,
his adoption
by the best possible substitute parents should be ensured so far
as it is
possible to do so. Medical Journal of Australia. The Adoption of
Infants
and the Role of the Adoption Advisory Clinic in New South Wales
F.GRUNSEIT Children's Department, Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney
1973

"Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:9a095db9.0408311817.14e4ad06@posting.google.c om... lfortney@dc.umd.edu (Linda Fortney) wrote in message
news:<ch07h8$ed1@wolfe.umd.edu>... Robin, I applaud you for trying to talk some sense to Dian. It is like teaching a cat to sing. The best popular lit on attachment that I know of is a book by Robert Karen called _Becoming Attached_. It is a summary of current research. Karen comes down strongly on the importance of attachment. Funny, he doesn't mention anything on in-utero bonding. My dh, the biostatistician pointed out that it would have been just as easy to write a book debunking the notion that attachment exists. Your dh might want to ask himself why adoptees separated from teir mothers at birth search for those mothers they had no connection with other than in utero. If no bond were present there would be no interest in reunion, nor would adoptee be angry/upset if their mother refused contact.

That's ridiculous, Di. Some adoptees want information. Some adotptees
want the truth. Some adoptees want nothing. Some adoptees are womb
crawlers. Some adptees are ax murderers. Some adoptees ae politicians.
Bonding is some New Age girlly girl entitlement crap chased by people who
no longer believe in God or have no use for farm labor.. Fetuses are like
parasites and tumors. Do you bond with them? .I"ve got pictures of my
uterine tumors that were removed 6 years ago,. They're kinda fun and gross
people out, but bond with them....?

Nor would they feel rejected by a mother they never knew. Now would they feel any love for a mother they never knew.

Why should anybody love somebody they never knew?

Nor would she be able to evoke so many mixed emotions in the adoptee. AND visa versa. In fact if no bond were present in utero the adoptive mother would have totally replaced the natural mother in every respect.

No. She's just a person, too. Over-attachment is a psychological disorder
like binge drinking or bulimia.

The adoptee would not even be interested in obtaining his OBC.

No. Adoptees want their obc as a right that has been denied. It's a legal
process and has nothing to do with touchy-feeling crap. OBC have nothing to
do with reunion. It's about legal standing and recognition.


Afterall, he already has a birth certificate that would have replaced the original if no prebirth bond existed. An OBC is proof, or assumed proof, of a connection to that mother he never knew. Some just want to know her name

Oh, please, Di. I really respect and admire all the work you've done, but
when you reduce women and adoptees to biological wimps, I gotta draw the
line. Fetuses are not people. They have no history or context--or
imagination for that matter. They're ugly little dependents who invade a
woman's body on some social pretext of population continuation. They are
non-persons, and even after birth they're not real people. To be real you
have to do something. Babies suck the life out of women. They destroy
careers and marriages and bank accounts. The turn smart women into tit
nazis. You're talking like a baybee lover and fetus worshiper. I can't
stand it, Di! Nevertheless, it is hard to argue with Bowlby's monkeys. Linda Bowlby's research was with institutionalised children, not with monkeys. He was an army psychiatrist who conducted a five year study on the affects of maternal deprivation on institutionalised children during WW2. Maternal Care and Mental Health - A report on behalf of the World Health Organisation as a contribution to the United Nations programme for the welfare of homeless children - by John Bowlby M.A., M.D. World Health Organisation Monograph Series No 2 GENEVA 1952. and then there's: "Closeness between humans is not just a learned behaviour; it has biological roots as well. Studies in primates show that if the normal mothering process is interrupted by isolating the mother and infant from each other, the infants brain does not develop normally. For example, the number and the sensitivity of the infant brain receptor sites for endorphin's - the internal morphine-like chemicals that affect mood - are diminished. In all mammalian species, if the mother and infant are separated the infant emits some type of distress cry which evokes complementary behaviours in the mother." Psychology of Attachment/ Separation, B.A.van der Kolk, Psychiatric Times/Medicine and Behaviour, April 1987,p4 Q210

Junk science. and then there's: Jane Van Lawick Goodall 1971 in her studies of chimpanzee families, observed that newborn chimpanzees were adopted by their older siblings when the mother dies. After the loss of their mother, these babies became depressed, disturbed and physically and emotionally retarded.

So what?
They withdrew from social contact, some eventually died from emaciation or disease, not unlike human orphans who are deprived of love and care.

And that is bad?

The chimpanzee baby, at least, rarely survives the loss of his mother for long. His depression is shattering. If he does not die he may become delinquent and an outcast in his community.

And that's bad? It's delinquents and outcasts in the human community that
keep society interesting. It's cerainly not contented adults. Do we want a
world full of GW Bushes?

The human child whose biological mother is unable to care for him, is just as much in need of affection, love and acceptance, and if he is to survive as a well balanced person, his adoption by the best possible substitute parents should be ensured so far as it is possible to do so. Medical Journal of Australia. The Adoption of Infants and the Role of the Adoption Advisory Clinic in New South Wales F.GRUNSEIT Children's Department, Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney 1973

More junk science.

Marley

.. Your dh might want to ask himself why adoptees separated from teir mothers at birth search for those mothers they had no connection with other than in utero. If no bond were present there would be no interest in reunion, nor would adoptee be angry/upset if their mother refused contact. Nor would they feel rejected by a mother they never knew. Now would they feel any love for a mother they never knew. Nor would she be able to evoke so many mixed emotions in the adoptee. AND visa versa. In fact if no bond were present in utero the adoptive mother would have totally replaced the natural mother in every respect. The adoptee would not even be interested in obtaining his OBC. Afterall, he already has a birth certificate that would have replaced the original if no prebirth bond existed. An OBC is proof, or assumed proof, of a connection to that mother he never knew. Some just want to know her name.


Some people search just as desparately for birth fathers and siblings
with whom they cannot possibly share any in utero bond. How do you
explain that need?
Megan

in article 9a095db9.0408311817.14e4ad06@posting.google.com, Dian at
patrice068@optusnet.com.au wrote on 1/9/04 3:17 am:
lfortney@dc.umd.edu (Linda Fortney) wrote in message news:<ch07h8$ed1@wolfe.umd.edu>... Robin, I applaud you for trying to talk some sense to Dian. It is like teaching a cat to sing.

The best popular lit on attachment that I know of is a book by Robert Karen called _Becoming Attached_. It is a summary of current research. Karen comes down strongly on the importance of attachment. Funny, he doesn't mention anything on in-utero bonding.
My dh, the biostatistician pointed out that it would have been just as easy to write a book debunking the notion that attachment exists.
Your dh might want to ask himself why adoptees separated from their mothers at birth search for those mothers they had no connection with other than in utero.

Then again, as a biologist and statistician he might also ask himself
why if in-utero bonding takes place, so many more don't ever search and
say that they don't ever wish to search?

If no bond were present there would be no interest in reunion, nor would adoptee be angry/upset if their mother refused contact. Nor would they feel rejected by a mother they never knew.


How does that prove in in-utero bonding, rather than later life
bonding with their own fantasy of what their mother is? And that makes
for a better explanation of why they are so often disappointed with
what they find.

Now would they feel any love for a mother they never knew. able to evoke so many mixed emotions in the adoptee. AND visa versa.


And how many do you feel are searching out of love rather than the
natural curiosity that you would expect them to have? The mother may
have loved the adoptee all those years, because she was a fully
developed adult at the time of the separation. The baby would have
been barely conscious of anything other than its own needs. Love may
come after the reunion for adoptee, sometimes that will be distorted
love as we see in the form of GSA.

In fact if no bond were present in utero the adoptive mother would have totally replaced the natural mother in every respect.


For some probably the majority of adoptees they do. It would be wrong
to mislead any hopeful birth mothers otherwise.

The adoptee would not even be interested in obtaining his OBC. Afterall, he already has a birth certificate that would have replaced the original if no prebirth bond existed. An OBC is proof, or assumed proof, of a connection to that mother he never knew. Some just want to know her name.


You don't think adopted people can be interested in their own genetics
and genealogy without necessarily being besotted with their
birthmother. If those that are, are explicable by in-utero bonding, why
do so many adoptees feel equally strongly about finding their fathers?
Why do they get so angry when birthmother won't tell them who their
father is? Is this because of the sperm's in-testicular bonding with
the birth father?

If there are any behavioural biologists out there looking something to
do, can we hav a study please, on the in-testicular bond between sperm
and father. There is such obvious evidence for it in the adoptee's need
to find his or her birth father.

Nevertheless, it is hard to argue with Bowlby's monkeys. Linda

Bowlby's research was with institutionalised children, not with monkeys. He was an army psychiatrist who conducted a five year study on the affects of maternal deprivation on institutionalised children during WW2. Maternal Care and Mental Health - A report on behalf of the World Health Organisation as a contribution to the United Nations programme for the welfare of homeless children - by John Bowlby M.A., M.D. World Health Organisation Monograph Series No 2 GENEVA 1952. and then there's: "Closeness between humans is not just a learned behaviour; it has biological roots as well. Studies in primates show that if the normal mothering process is interrupted by isolating the mother and infant from each other, the infants brain does not develop normally. For example, the number and the sensitivity of the infant brain receptor sites for endorphin's - the internal morphine-like chemicals that affect mood - are diminished. In all mammalian species, if the mother and infant are separated the infant emits some type of distress cry which evokes complementary behaviours in the mother." Psychology of Attachment/ Separation, B.A.van der Kolk, Psychiatric Times/Medicine and Behaviour, April 1987,p4 Q210 and then there's: Jane Van Lawick Goodall 1971 in her studies of chimpanzee families, observed that newborn chimpanzees were adopted by their older siblings when the mother dies. After the loss of their mother, these babies became depressed, disturbed and physically and emotionally retarded. They withdrew from social contact, some eventually died from emaciation or disease, not unlike human orphans who are deprived of love and care. The chimpanzee baby, at least, rarely survives the loss of his mother for long. His depression is shattering. If he does not die he may become delinquent and an outcast in his community. The human child whose biological mother is unable to care for him, is just as much in need of affection, love and acceptance, and if he is to survive as a well balanced person, his adoption by the best possible substitute parents should be ensured so far as it is possible to do so. Medical Journal of Australia. The Adoption of Infants and the Role of the Adoption Advisory Clinic in New South Wales F.GRUNSEIT Children's Department, Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney 1973


And how do any of those studies prove or even present any evidence at
all for in-utero bonding, on the part of the foetus / infant?

Robin

In article <d2fd18a3.0408312338.251f2025@posting.google.com>, megan
<megan14r-reps@yahoo.com> wrote:
. Your dh might want to ask himself why adoptees separated from teir mothers at birth search for those mothers they had no connection with other than in utero. If no bond were present there would be no interest in reunion, nor would adoptee be angry/upset if their mother refused contact. Nor would they feel rejected by a mother they never knew. Now would they feel any love for a mother they never knew. Nor would she be able to evoke so many mixed emotions in the adoptee. AND visa versa. In fact if no bond were present in utero the adoptive mother would have totally replaced the natural mother in every respect. The adoptee would not even be interested in obtaining his OBC. Afterall, he already has a birth certificate that would have replaced the original if no prebirth bond existed. An OBC is proof, or assumed proof, of a connection to that mother he never knew. Some just want to know her name. Some people search just as desparately for birth fathers and siblings with whom they cannot possibly share any in utero bond. How do you explain that need? Megan

It's just got to be that in-testicular bond, I'm getting so exited
about this, I'm wondering if I can get a research grant (even though
I'm not a scientist) to follow up my theory. Could even be a Nobel
prize in the pipeline.

Robin

In article
<p8cZc.539431$Gx4.114653@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, Marley
Greiner <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
"Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:9a095db9.0408311817.14e4ad06@posting.google.c om... lfortney@dc.umd.edu (Linda Fortney) wrote in message news:<ch07h8$ed1@wolfe.umd.edu>... Robin, I applaud you for trying to talk some sense to Dian. It is like teaching a cat to sing. The best popular lit on attachment that I know of is a book by Robert Karen called _Becoming Attached_. It is a summary of current research. Karen comes down strongly on the importance of attachment. Funny, he doesn't mention anything on in-utero bonding. My dh, the biostatistician pointed out that it would have been just as easy to write a book debunking the notion that attachment exists.

Your dh might want to ask himself why adoptees separated from teir mothers at birth search for those mothers they had no connection with other than in utero. If no bond were present there would be no interest in reunion, nor would adoptee be angry/upset if their mother refused contact.

That's ridiculous, Di. Some adoptees want information. Some adotptees want the truth. Some adoptees want nothing. Some adoptees are womb crawlers. Some adptees are ax murderers. Some adoptees ae politicians. Bonding is some New Age girlly girl entitlement crap chased by people who no longer believe in God or have no use for farm labor.. Fetuses are like parasites and tumors. Do you bond with them? .I"ve got pictures of my uterine tumors that were removed 6 years ago,. They're kinda fun and gross people out, but bond with them....?


I've got my gall stones on the mantlepiece, is that bonding do you
suppose. They wouldn't pickle the gall blader for me and let me take
that home. But you know I feel there're a part of me and I want to keep
them near me.

Robin

Robin Harritt wrote: In article <d2fd18a3.0408312338.251f2025@posting.google.com>, megan <megan14r-reps@yahoo.com> wrote:.Your dh might want to ask himself why adoptees separated from teirmothers at birth search for those mothers they had no connection withother than in utero.If no bond were present there would be no interest in reunion, norwould adoptee be angry/upset if their mother refused contact. Norwould they feel rejected by a mother they never knew. Now would theyfeel any love for a motherthey never knew. Nor would she be able to evoke so many mixed emotionsin the adoptee. AND visa versa.In fact if no bond were present in utero the adoptive mother wouldhave totally replaced the natural mother in every respect. Theadoptee would not even be interested in obtaining his OBC. Afterall,he already has a birth certificate that would have replaced theoriginal if no prebirth bond existed. An OBC is proof, or assumedproof, of a connection to that mother he never knew. Some just want toknow her name.Some people search just as desparately for birth fathers and siblingswith whom they cannot possibly share any in utero bond. How do youexplain that need?Megan

It's just got to be that in-testicular bond,
I'm getting so exited about this, I'm wondering if I can get a research grant (even though I'm not a scientist) to follow up my theory. Could even be a Nobel prize in the pipeline. Robin

Or should that be in-testiculo? I wouldn't want to look ignorant on
grant application.

Robin

"megan" <megan14r-reps@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d2fd18a3.0408312338.251f2025@posting.google.c om... . Your dh might want to ask himself why adoptees separated from teir mothers at birth search for those mothers they had no connection with other than in utero. If no bond were present there would be no interest in reunion, nor would adoptee be angry/upset if their mother refused contact. Nor would they feel rejected by a mother they never knew. Now would they feel any love for a mother they never knew. Nor would she be able to evoke so many mixed emotions in the adoptee. AND visa versa. In fact if no bond were present in utero the adoptive mother would have totally replaced the natural mother in every respect. The adoptee would not even be interested in obtaining his OBC. Afterall, he already has a birth certificate that would have replaced the original if no prebirth bond existed. An OBC is proof, or assumed proof, of a connection to that mother he never knew. Some just want to know her name. Some people search just as desparately for birth fathers and siblings with whom they cannot possibly share any in utero bond. How do you explain that need? Megan

This should be interesting <smirk>

Do you think Di would be surprised that I have never felt, and still don't
feel, a "bond" with my bmom? I think my bmom's a cool lady, but we both
have our own lives and there was never any "bonding" involved.
--
__________
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557

"Robin Harritt" <no.one@fred.local> wrote in message
news:010920041010353672%no.one@fred.local... In article <p8cZc.539431$Gx4.114653@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, Marley Greiner <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote: "Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:9a095db9.0408311817.14e4ad06@posting.google.c om... lfortney@dc.umd.edu (Linda Fortney) wrote in message news:<ch07h8$ed1@wolfe.umd.edu>... > Robin, I applaud you for trying to talk some sense to Dian. It is
like > teaching a cat to sing. > The best popular lit on attachment that I know of is a book by
Robert > Karen called _Becoming Attached_. It is a summary of current
research. > Karen comes down strongly on the importance of attachment. Funny,
he > doesn't mention anything on in-utero bonding. > > My dh, the biostatistician pointed out that it would have been just
as > easy to write a book debunking the notion that attachment exists. Your dh might want to ask himself why adoptees separated from teir mothers at birth search for those mothers they had no connection with other than in utero. If no bond were present there would be no interest in reunion, nor would adoptee be angry/upset if their mother refused contact. That's ridiculous, Di. Some adoptees want information. Some
adotptees want the truth. Some adoptees want nothing. Some adoptees are womb crawlers. Some adptees are ax murderers. Some adoptees ae politicians. Bonding is some New Age girlly girl entitlement crap chased by people
who no longer believe in God or have no use for farm labor.. Fetuses are
like parasites and tumors. Do you bond with them? .I"ve got pictures of my uterine tumors that were removed 6 years ago,. They're kinda fun and
gross people out, but bond with them....? I've got my gall stones on the mantlepiece, is that bonding do you suppose. They wouldn't pickle the gall blader for me and let me take that home. But you know I feel there're a part of me and I want to keep them near me. Robin

This of the stones as your baybees, Robin.

Marley

"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:2plvpcFm72eeU1@uni-berlin.de... "megan" <megan14r-reps@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:d2fd18a3.0408312338.251f2025@posting.google.c om... . Your dh might want to ask himself why adoptees separated from teir mothers at birth search for those mothers they had no connection with other than in utero. If no bond were present there would be no interest in reunion, nor would adoptee be angry/upset if their mother refused contact. Nor would they feel rejected by a mother they never knew. Now would they feel any love for a mother they never knew. Nor would she be able to evoke so many mixed emotions in the adoptee. AND visa versa. In fact if no bond were present in utero the adoptive mother would have totally replaced the natural mother in every respect. The adoptee would not even be interested in obtaining his OBC. Afterall, he already has a birth certificate that would have replaced the original if no prebirth bond existed. An OBC is proof, or assumed proof, of a connection to that mother he never knew. Some just want to know her name. Some people search just as desparately for birth fathers and siblings with whom they cannot possibly share any in utero bond. How do you explain that need? Megan This should be interesting <smirk> Do you think Di would be surprised that I have never felt, and still don't feel, a "bond" with my bmom? I think my bmom's a cool lady, but we both have our own lives and there was never any "bonding" involved. -- __________ Robyn Resident Witchypoo #1557

That's juist the way I feel. She's gone now, but did I really need somebody
else to tell me how to dress?

Marley

In article <9a095db9.0408311817.14e4ad06@posting.google.com>,
Dian <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote:Your dh might want to ask himself why adoptees separated from teirmothers at birth search for those mothers they had no connection withother than in utero.If no bond were present there would be no interest in reunion, norwould adoptee be angry/upset if their mother refused contact. Norwould they feel rejected by a mother they never knew. Now would theyfeel any love for a mother


Boef merde.

Consider some alternatives Dian. An adopted person might search for his
or her birthmother because of:

wanting to find out about their genetic background

curiosity

finding out about the circumstances of their relinquishment

etc., etc.

Have you got any solid print (not web, print) information from a reputable
peer reviewed scholarly journal that agrees with your fantasies of
mystical attachment in the womb?

Linda

Robin Harritt <no.one@fred.local> wrote in message news:<010920040958169329%no.one@fred.local>... In article <d2fd18a3.0408312338.251f2025@posting.google.com>, megan <megan14r-reps@yahoo.com> wrote: . Your dh might want to ask himself why adoptees separated from teir mothers at birth search for those mothers they had no connection with other than in utero. If no bond were present there would be no interest in reunion, nor would adoptee be angry/upset if their mother refused contact. Nor would they feel rejected by a mother they never knew. Now would they feel any love for a mother they never knew. Nor would she be able to evoke so many mixed emotions in the adoptee. AND visa versa. In fact if no bond were present in utero the adoptive mother would have totally replaced the natural mother in every respect. The adoptee would not even be interested in obtaining his OBC. Afterall, he already has a birth certificate that would have replaced the original if no prebirth bond existed. An OBC is proof, or assumed proof, of a connection to that mother he never knew. Some just want to know her name. Some people search just as desparately for birth fathers and siblings with whom they cannot possibly share any in utero bond. How do you explain that need? Megan It's just got to be that in-testicular bond, I'm getting so exited about this, I'm wondering if I can get a research grant (even though I'm not a scientist) to follow up my theory. Could even be a Nobel prize in the pipeline.


Go for it, Robin.
You've got the potential here for making a vas deferens to the world
of post-relinquishment angst.


Rh. Robin

>Subject: Re: Schmitz kids said to have attachment disorderFrom: sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)Date: 9/1/2004 2:40 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <dafc70.0409011240.471565ea@posting.google.com>
It's just got to be that in-testicular bond, I'm getting so exited about this, I'm wondering if I can get a research grant (even though I'm not a scientist) to follow up my theory. Could even be a Nobel prize in the pipeline.Go for it, Robin.You've got the potential here for making a vas deferens to the worldof post-relinquishment angst.Rh.

Bwwaaaaa!!


-------------------------
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

In article <dafc70.0409011240.471565ea@posting.google.com>, Rhiannon
<sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca> wrote:
Robin Harritt <no.one@fred.local> wrote in message news:<010920040958169329%no.one@fred.local>... In article <d2fd18a3.0408312338.251f2025@posting.google.com>, megan <megan14r-reps@yahoo.com> wrote: . > > Your dh might want to ask himself why adoptees separated from teir > mothers at birth search for those mothers they had no connection with > other than in utero. > If no bond were present there would be no interest in reunion, nor > would adoptee be angry/upset if their mother refused contact. Nor > would they feel rejected by a mother they never knew. Now would they > feel any love for a mother > they never knew. Nor would she be able to evoke so many mixed emotions > in the adoptee. AND visa versa. > > In fact if no bond were present in utero the adoptive mother would > have totally replaced the natural mother in every respect. The > adoptee would not even be interested in obtaining his OBC. Afterall, > he already has a birth certificate that would have replaced the > original if no prebirth bond existed. An OBC is proof, or assumed > proof, of a connection to that mother he never knew. Some just want to > know her name. > Some people search just as desparately for birth fathers and siblings with whom they cannot possibly share any in utero bond. How do you explain that need? Megan It's just got to be that in-testicular bond, I'm getting so exited about this, I'm wondering if I can get a research grant (even though I'm not a scientist) to follow up my theory. Could even be a Nobel prize in the pipeline. Go for it, Robin. You've got the potential here for making a vas deferens to the world of post-relinquishment angst.

Good grief.

Well yes, I am hoping that I might make a seminal contribution to the
subject.

Robin

On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 09:52:40 +0100, Robin Harritt <no.one@fred.local>
wrote:
in article 9a095db9.0408311817.14e4ad06@posting.google.com, Dian atpatrice068@optusnet.com.au wrote on 1/9/04 3:17 am: lfortney@dc.umd.edu (Linda Fortney) wrote in message news:<ch07h8$ed1@wolfe.umd.edu>... Robin, I applaud you for trying to talk some sense to Dian. It is like teaching a cat to sing. The best popular lit on attachment that I know of is a book by Robert Karen called _Becoming Attached_. It is a summary of current research. Karen comes down strongly on the importance of attachment. Funny, he doesn't mention anything on in-utero bonding. My dh, the biostatistician pointed out that it would have been just as easy to write a book debunking the notion that attachment exists. Your dh might want to ask himself why adoptees separated from their mothers at birth search for those mothers they had no connection with other than in utero.Then again, as a biologist and statistician he might also ask himselfwhy if in-utero bonding takes place, so many more don't ever search andsay that they don't ever wish to search? If no bond were present there would be no interest in reunion, nor would adoptee be angry/upset if their mother refused contact. Nor would they feel rejected by a mother they never knew.How does that prove in in-utero bonding, rather than later lifebonding with their own fantasy of what their mother is? And that makesfor a better explanation of why they are so often disappointed withwhat they find.

And to further complicate the issue of in-utero bonding... Surely this
bonding is a two-way thing? My first daughter was brought to me soon
after her birth. Not only didn't I feel a bond to her, I wasn't even
totally sure they'd given me the right baby. She wasn't what I
expected and I didn't see anything familiar about her at all. I cared
for her but it took a few months before I started feeling a real
connection between the two of us. I remember looking at the other
mothers in the hospital with their new babies and thinking how odd it
was that they were talking to their newborns.

Then several years later my Korean baby son was placed in my arms and
he felt instantly "mine". He felt familiar to me, even though my
daughter hadn't.

My husband and I sometimes discuss how we'd react if we found out any
of our biological children had been a switched baby in hospital or had
been fathered by someone else. Neither of us feels it would be a big
deal. Our connection is to our children, whether adopted or bio. I
don't feel any more tangible a bond or connection to those I gave
birth to than those I adopted.

Julia

>Subject: Re: Schmitz kids said to have attachment disorderFrom: Robin Harritt no.one@fred.localDate: 9/1/2004 5:13 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <020920040013218649%no.one@fred.local>In article <dafc70.0409011240.471565ea@posting.google.com>, Rhiannon<sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca> wrote: Robin Harritt <no.one@fred.local> wrote in message news:<010920040958169329%no.one@fred.local>... In article <d2fd18a3.0408312338.251f2025@posting.google.com>, megan <megan14r-reps@yahoo.com> wrote: > . > > > > Your dh might want to ask himself why adoptees separated from teir > > mothers at birth search for those mothers they had no connection with > > other than in utero. > > If no bond were present there would be no interest in reunion, nor > > would adoptee be angry/upset if their mother refused contact. Nor > > would they feel rejected by a mother they never knew. Now would they > > feel any love for a mother > > they never knew. Nor would she be able to evoke so many mixedemotions > > in the adoptee. AND visa versa. > > > > In fact if no bond were present in utero the adoptive mother would > > have totally replaced the natural mother in every respect. The > > adoptee would not even be interested in obtaining his OBC. Afterall, > > he already has a birth certificate that would have replaced the > > original if no prebirth bond existed. An OBC is proof, or assumed > > proof, of a connection to that mother he never knew. Some just wantto > > know her name. > > > > > Some people search just as desparately for birth fathers and siblings > with whom they cannot possibly share any in utero bond. How do you > explain that need? > Megan It's just got to be that in-testicular bond, I'm getting so exited about this, I'm wondering if I can get a research grant (even though I'm not a scientist) to follow up my theory. Could even be a Nobel prize in the pipeline. > > Go for it, Robin. You've got the potential here for making a vas deferens to the world of post-relinquishment angst.Good grief.Well yes, I am hoping that I might make a seminal contribution to thesubject.Robin

I bet when you do it, you'll just have a ball.


-------------------------
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: Schmitz kids said to have attachment disorderFrom: Julia jurol@nospam.hotmail.comDate: 9/1/2004 5:46 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <97ncj09nh4lpjnh2qe9fcot62gpirvme59@4ax.com>
And to further complicate the issue of in-utero bonding... Surely thisbonding is a two-way thing? My first daughter was brought to me soonafter her birth. Not only didn't I feel a bond to her, I wasn't eventotally sure they'd given me the right baby. She wasn't what Iexpected and I didn't see anything familiar about her at all. I caredfor her but it took a few months before I started feeling a realconnection between the two of us. I remember looking at the othermothers in the hospital with their new babies and thinking how odd itwas that they were talking to their newborns.

Same here. Between the c-sec and complications, and maybe just being really
young (plus both MIL and mom taking over when I first got home), I felt like I
was just "babysitting" this cute, needy thing.

It wasn't until about week 3 until I was hit with the whammy.


-------------------------
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

In article <9a095db9.0408311817.14e4ad06@posting.google.com>,
patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote:

Your dh might want to ask himself why adoptees separated from teir mothers at birth search for those mothers they had no connection with other than in utero.


Curiosity.

Cultural expectations.

Desire to receive specific information.

Desire to hear about medical background.

Psychological needs.

Not one of these potential explanations requires one to assume a 'bond'
in utero.

If no bond were present there would be no interest in reunion, nor would adoptee be angry/upset if their mother refused contact. Nor would they feel rejected by a mother they never knew. Now would they feel any love for a mother they never knew. Nor would she be able to evoke so many mixed emotions in the adoptee. AND visa versa.


Balderdash.

Tell you what -- you find a way to prove that a bond exists, using any
valid, accepted scientific metric. I'll wait.





steve

>Subject: Re: Schmitz kids said to have attachment disorderFrom: Steve White steve@spam.me.neverDate: 9/1/2004 11:13 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <steve-67E14F.00132902092004@netnews.comcast.net>In article <9a095db9.0408311817.14e4ad06@posting.google.com>, patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote: Your dh might want to ask himself why adoptees separated from teir mothers at birth search for those mothers they had no connection with other than in utero.Curiosity.Cultural expectations.Desire to receive specific information.Desire to hear about medical background.Psychological needs.Not one of these potential explanations requires one to assume a 'bond'in utero. If no bond were present there would be no interest in reunion, nor would adoptee be angry/upset if their mother refused contact. Nor would they feel rejected by a mother they never knew. Now would they feel any love for a mother they never knew. Nor would she be able to evoke so many mixed emotions in the adoptee. AND visa versa.Balderdash.Tell you what -- you find a way to prove that a bond exists, using anyvalid, accepted scientific metric. I'll wait.

Oddly enough, although I felt a definite psychological/mental bond with my bmom
when we talked on the phone for the year before we met face to face,
physically, I felt a bigger bond with my b-aunt when we all met.

You know, spontaneous hugging, reaching out and touching each other while
talking, holding hands, etc.

There could be a lot of reasons for that. Bmom said her parents were very
emotionally cold people.

I come from a fairly physical afamily (definitely not like My Big Fat Greek
Wedding, where everybody hugs and kisses and shouts all the time. We're
Protestants, don't ya know).

Anyway, we throw an arm around each other, snuggle close if we're sitting
together, we pat each other, put our hands on shoulders if we're talking in a
group and standing behind somebody. Nothing extravagant or overly emotional.

I didn't feel any of that kind of connection with my bmom. The only real
emotional zing I felt was when my baunt hugged me, and near the end of our
visit, when my brother and I were horsing around a bit, like a couple of kids.

Not to say that bmom and I don't have a satisfying relationship.

But in July, when I went to pick big guy up from summer school in Kansas and
ran up against severe thunderstorms, tornado warnings, flash floods and a
broken windshield wiper, I just wanted my mommy. LOL




-------------------------
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

Robin Harritt <no.one@fred.local> wrote in message news:<010920041010353672%no.one@fred.local>... In article <p8cZc.539431$Gx4.114653@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, Marley Greiner <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote: "Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:9a095db9.0408311817.14e4ad06@posting.google.c om... lfortney@dc.umd.edu (Linda Fortney) wrote in message news:<ch07h8$ed1@wolfe.umd.edu>... > Robin, I applaud you for trying to talk some sense to Dian. It is like > teaching a cat to sing. > The best popular lit on attachment that I know of is a book by Robert > Karen called _Becoming Attached_. It is a summary of current research. > Karen comes down strongly on the importance of attachment. Funny, he > doesn't mention anything on in-utero bonding. > > My dh, the biostatistician pointed out that it would have been just as > easy to write a book debunking the notion that attachment exists. Your dh might want to ask himself why adoptees separated from teir mothers at birth search for those mothers they had no connection with other than in utero. If no bond were present there would be no interest in reunion, nor would adoptee be angry/upset if their mother refused contact. That's ridiculous, Di. Some adoptees want information. Some adotptees want the truth. Some adoptees want nothing. Some adoptees are womb crawlers. Some adptees are ax murderers. Some adoptees ae politicians. Bonding is some New Age girlly girl entitlement crap chased by people who no longer believe in God or have no use for farm labor.. Fetuses are like parasites and tumors. Do you bond with them? .I"ve got pictures of my uterine tumors that were removed 6 years ago,. They're kinda fun and gross people out, but bond with them....? I've got my gall stones on the mantlepiece, is that bonding do you suppose. They wouldn't pickle the gall blader for me and let me take that home. But you know I feel there're a part of me and I want to keep them near me. Robin

In the words of my 8 yo daughter eeeuuuuwww gross
Could make an interesting table decoration

Robin Harritt <no.one@harritt.net> wrote in message news:<2plr4cFmdg03U1@uni-berlin.de>... Robin Harritt wrote: In article <d2fd18a3.0408312338.251f2025@posting.google.com>, megan <megan14r-reps@yahoo.com> wrote:.>Your dh might want to ask himself why adoptees separated from teir>mothers at birth search for those mothers they had no connection with>other than in utero.>If no bond were present there would be no interest in reunion, nor>would adoptee be angry/upset if their mother refused contact. Nor>would they feel rejected by a mother they never knew. Now would they>feel any love for a mother>they never knew. Nor would she be able to evoke so many mixed emotions>in the adoptee. AND visa versa.>>In fact if no bond were present in utero the adoptive mother would>have totally replaced the natural mother in every respect. The>adoptee would not even be interested in obtaining his OBC. Afterall,>he already has a birth certificate that would have replaced the>original if no prebirth bond existed. An OBC is proof, or assumed>proof, of a connection to that mother he never knew. Some just want to>know her name.>Some people search just as desparately for birth fathers and siblingswith whom they cannot possibly share any in utero bond. How do youexplain that need?Megan It's just got to be that in-testicular bond, I'm getting so exited about this, I'm wondering if I can get a research grant (even though I'm not a scientist) to follow up my theory. Could even be a Nobel prize in the pipeline. Robin Or should that be in-testiculo? I wouldn't want to look ignorant on grant application. Robin

Who needs a grant? Just gather some anecdotal evidence from 3 or 4 of
your close friends and publish on the net. You will surely fool some
people.

M

Steve White wrote:
In article <9a095db9.0408311817.14e4ad06@posting.google.com>, patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote:Your dh might want to ask himself why adoptees separated from teirmothers at birth search for those mothers they had no connection withother than in utero. Curiosity. Cultural expectations. Desire to receive specific information. Desire to hear about medical background. Psychological needs. Not one of these potential explanations requires one to assume a 'bond' in utero.If no bond were present there would be no interest in reunion, norwould adoptee be angry/upset if their mother refused contact. Norwould they feel rejected by a mother they never knew. Now would theyfeel any love for a mother they never knew. Nor would she be able toevoke so many mixed emotions in the adoptee. AND visa versa. Balderdash. Tell you what -- you find a way to prove that a bond exists, using any valid, accepted scientific metric. I'll wait. steve

C'mon now, steve...show us all your uterus!

...using any valid, accepted scientific metric...

Without even the merest suggestion of anecdotal evidence your
requirements[1] would never find their way into all those *very
important studies* you continually yammer on about. The Great
White Doctor refuses to believe anything could simply *be* --
any your belief in GOD? Show me "...any valid, accepted scientific
metric..." to prove that God exists.


[1] requirement

\Re*quire"ment\ (-ment), n. 1. The act of requiring; demand; requisition.

2. That which is required; an imperative or authoritative command; an
essential condition; something needed or necessary; a need.

One of those who believe that they can fill up every requirement
contained in the rule of righteousness. --J. M. Mason.

God gave her the child, and gave her too an instinctive knowledge of its
nature and requirements. --Hawthorne.

pb...



"I hate it when they say, 'He gave his life for his country.'
Nobody gives their life for anything. We steal the lives of
these kids. We take it away from them. They don't die for
the honor and glory of their country. We kill them."

--Admiral Gene LaRocque

Robin Harritt <no.one@fred.local> wrote in message news:<020920040013218649%no.one@fred.local>... In article <dafc70.0409011240.471565ea@posting.google.com>, Rhiannon <sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca> wrote: Robin Harritt <no.one@fred.local> wrote in message news:<010920040958169329%no.one@fred.local>... In article <d2fd18a3.0408312338.251f2025@posting.google.com>, megan <megan14r-reps@yahoo.com> wrote: > . > > > > Your dh might want to ask himself why adoptees separated from teir > > mothers at birth search for those mothers they had no connection with > > other than in utero. > > If no bond were present there would be no interest in reunion, nor > > would adoptee be angry/upset if their mother refused contact. Nor > > would they feel rejected by a mother they never knew. Now would they > > feel any love for a mother > > they never knew. Nor would she be able to evoke so many mixed emotions > > in the adoptee. AND visa versa. > > > > In fact if no bond were present in utero the adoptive mother would > > have totally replaced the natural mother in every respect. The > > adoptee would not even be interested in obtaining his OBC. Afterall, > > he already has a birth certificate that would have replaced the > > original if no prebirth bond existed. An OBC is proof, or assumed > > proof, of a connection to that mother he never knew. Some just want to > > know her name. > > > > > Some people search just as desparately for birth fathers and siblings > with whom they cannot possibly share any in utero bond. How do you > explain that need? > Megan It's just got to be that in-testicular bond, I'm getting so exited about this, I'm wondering if I can get a research grant (even though I'm not a scientist) to follow up my theory. Could even be a Nobel prize in the pipeline. > > Go for it, Robin. You've got the potential here for making a vas deferens to the world of post-relinquishment angst. Good grief. Well yes, I am hoping that I might make a seminal contribution to the subject.

Well, it's quite a conception you've got there.
I hope you pull it off (so to speak).
Otherwise, go get thee to a seminary.



Rh.
Robin

>Subject: Re: Schmitz kids said to have attachment disorderPath:lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!feed2.newsrea der.com!news
reader.com!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!newsfeed.icl.net!proxad.net!postne
ws2.google.com!not-for-mailFrom: sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)Newsgroups: alt.adoptionDate: 2 Sep 2004 20:14:18 -0700Organization: http://groups.google.comLines: 69Message-ID: <dafc70.0409021914.3a69fa8c@posting.google.com>References: <20040822084838.11381.00002661@mb-m23.aol.com><41300448.1010607@harritt.net><9a095db9.0408281505.8dfe96d@posting.google.com><2pclaeFipd23U4@uni-berlin.de> <ch07h8$ed1@wolfe.umd.edu><9a095db9.0408311817.14e4ad06@posting.google.com><d2fd18a3.0408312338.251f2025@posting.google.com><010920040958169329%no.one@fred.local><dafc70.0409011240.471565ea@posting.google.com><020920040013218649%no.one@fred.local>NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.68.39.7Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bitX-Trace: posting.google.com 1094181258 23023 127.0.0.1 (3 Sep 2004 03:14:18GMT)X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.comNNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 03:14:18 +0000 (UTC)Robin Harritt <no.one@fred.local> wrote in messagenews:<020920040013218649%no.one@fred.local>... In article <dafc70.0409011240.471565ea@posting.google.com>, Rhiannon <sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca> wrote: Robin Harritt <no.one@fred.local> wrote in message news:<010920040958169329%no.one@fred.local>... > In article <d2fd18a3.0408312338.251f2025@posting.google.com>, megan > <megan14r-reps@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > . > > > > > > Your dh might want to ask himself why adoptees separated from teir > > > mothers at birth search for those mothers they had no connectionwith > > > other than in utero. > > > If no bond were present there would be no interest in reunion, nor > > > would adoptee be angry/upset if their mother refused contact. Nor > > > would they feel rejected by a mother they never knew. Now wouldthey > > > feel any love for a mother > > > they never knew. Nor would she be able to evoke so many mixedemotions > > > in the adoptee. AND visa versa. > > > > > > In fact if no bond were present in utero the adoptive mother would > > > have totally replaced the natural mother in every respect. The > > > adoptee would not even be interested in obtaining his OBC.Afterall, > > > he already has a birth certificate that would have replaced the > > > original if no prebirth bond existed. An OBC is proof, or assumed > > > proof, of a connection to that mother he never knew. Some just wantto > > > know her name. > > > > > > > > > Some people search just as desparately for birth fathers and siblings > > with whom they cannot possibly share any in utero bond. How do you > > explain that need? > > Megan > > It's just got to be that in-testicular bond, I'm getting so exited > about this, I'm wondering if I can get a research grant (even though > I'm not a scientist) to follow up my theory. Could even be a Nobel > prize in the pipeline. > > > > > > Go for it, Robin. You've got the potential here for making a vas deferens to the world of post-relinquishment angst. Good grief. Well yes, I am hoping that I might make a seminal contribution to the subject.Well, it's quite a conception you've got there.I hope you pull it off (so to speak).

I think that would be "wank", Yank.
Otherwise, go get thee to a seminary.

Don't you mean "semen", 'arry?

J.

Rh.


Robin





Reply to jmhjmd at aol.

"J." <jmdjmh@aol.compostible> wrote in message
news:20040902231808.03602.00000118@mb-m04.aol.com...Subject: Re: Schmitz kids said to have attachment disorderPath:lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!feed2.newsrea der.com!news reader.com!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!newsfeed.icl.net!proxad.net!postne ws2.google.com!not-for-mailFrom: sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)Newsgroups: alt.adoptionDate: 2 Sep 2004 20:14:18 -0700Organization: http://groups.google.comLines: 69Message-ID: <dafc70.0409021914.3a69fa8c@posting.google.com>References: <20040822084838.11381.00002661@mb-m23.aol.com><41300448.1010607@harritt.net><9a095db9.0408281505.8dfe96d@posting.google.com><2pclaeFipd23U4@uni-berlin.de> <ch07h8$ed1@wolfe.umd.edu><9a095db9.0408311817.14e4ad06@posting.google.com><d2fd18a3.0408312338.251f2025@posting.google.com><010920040958169329%no.one@fred.local><dafc70.0409011240.471565ea@posting.google.com><020920040013218649%no.one@fred.local>NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.68.39.7Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bitX-Trace: posting.google.com 1094181258 23023 127.0.0.1 (3 Sep 2004
03:14:18GMT)X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.comNNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 03:14:18 +0000 (UTC)Robin Harritt <no.one@fred.local> wrote in messagenews:<020920040013218649%no.one@fred.local>... In article <dafc70.0409011240.471565ea@posting.google.com>, Rhiannon <sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca> wrote: > Robin Harritt <no.one@fred.local> wrote in message > news:<010920040958169329%no.one@fred.local>... > > In article <d2fd18a3.0408312338.251f2025@posting.google.com>, megan > > <megan14r-reps@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > . > > > > > > > > Your dh might want to ask himself why adoptees separated from
teir > > > > mothers at birth search for those mothers they had no
connectionwith > > > > other than in utero. > > > > If no bond were present there would be no interest in reunion,
nor > > > > would adoptee be angry/upset if their mother refused contact.
Nor > > > > would they feel rejected by a mother they never knew. Now wouldthey > > > > feel any love for a mother > > > > they never knew. Nor would she be able to evoke so many mixedemotions > > > > in the adoptee. AND visa versa. > > > > > > > > In fact if no bond were present in utero the adoptive mother
would > > > > have totally replaced the natural mother in every respect. The > > > > adoptee would not even be interested in obtaining his OBC.Afterall, > > > > he already has a birth certificate that would have replaced the > > > > original if no prebirth bond existed. An OBC is proof, or
assumed > > > > proof, of a connection to that mother he never knew. Some just
wantto > > > > know her name. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some people search just as desparately for birth fathers and
siblings > > > with whom they cannot possibly share any in utero bond. How do
you > > > explain that need? > > > Megan > > > > It's just got to be that in-testicular bond, I'm getting so exited > > about this, I'm wondering if I can get a research grant (even
though > > I'm not a scientist) to follow up my theory. Could even be a Nobel > > prize in the pipeline. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Go for it, Robin. > You've got the potential here for making a vas deferens to the world > of post-relinquishment angst. Good grief. Well yes, I am hoping that I might make a seminal contribution to the subject. > >Well, it's quite a conception you've got there.I hope you pull it off (so to speak). I think that would be "wank", Yank.Otherwise, go get thee to a seminary. Don't you mean "semen", 'arry?

Who's the jerk-off who started this thread? :)
--
__________
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557

"pb..." <woodlark-99@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:ch87n402t6v@news4.newsguy.com...


The Great White Doctor refuses to believe anything could simply *be* -- any your belief in GOD? Show me "...any valid, accepted scientific metric..." to prove that God exists.

If Di had presented her comments as *her belief* than you would have a
point - but she did not. She attempted to portray it as being based in
scientific fact.

Kathy

kat wrote: "pb..." <woodlark-99@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:ch87n402t6v@news4.newsguy.com...The Great White Doctor refuses to believe anything could simply *be*-- any your belief in GOD? Show me "...any valid, accepted scientificmetric..." to prove that God exists. If Di had presented her comments as *her belief* than you would have a point - but she did not. She attempted to portray it as being based in scientific fact. Kathy

I wasn't corresponding with Di though, Kathy. Dr. steve doesn't believe
that anything exists unless he's got that everlovin' double-blind study,
or what-the-hell-other-kind of studies he worships. Don't forget his
words:

"...Tell you what -- you find a way to prove that a bond exists, usingany valid, accepted scientific metric. I'll wait..."


pb...



"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or
that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only
unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American
public."
--Theodore Roosevelt, 1918

jmdjmh@aol.compostible (J.) wrote in message news:<20040902231808.03602.00000118@mb-m04.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Schmitz kids said to have attachment disorderPath:lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!feed2.newsrea der.com!news reader.com!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!newsfeed.icl.net!proxad.net!postne ws2.google.com!not-for-mailFrom: sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)Newsgroups: alt.adoptionDate: 2 Sep 2004 20:14:18 -0700Organization: http://groups.google.comLines: 69Message-ID: <dafc70.0409021914.3a69fa8c@posting.google.com>References: <20040822084838.11381.00002661@mb-m23.aol.com><41300448.1010607@harritt.net><9a095db9.0408281505.8dfe96d@posting.google.com><2pclaeFipd23U4@uni-berlin.de> <ch07h8$ed1@wolfe.umd.edu><9a095db9.0408311817.14e4ad06@posting.google.com><d2fd18a3.0408312338.251f2025@posting.google.com><010920040958169329%no.one@fred.local><dafc70.0409011240.471565ea@posting.google.com><020920040013218649%no.one@fred.local>NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.68.39.7Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bitX-Trace: posting.google.com 1094181258 23023 127.0.0.1 (3 Sep 2004 03:14:18GMT)X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.comNNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 03:14:18 +0000 (UTC)Robin Harritt <no.one@fred.local> wrote in messagenews:<020920040013218649%no.one@fred.local>... In article <dafc70.0409011240.471565ea@posting.google.com>, Rhiannon <sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca> wrote: > Robin Harritt <no.one@fred.local> wrote in message > news:<010920040958169329%no.one@fred.local>... > > In article <d2fd18a3.0408312338.251f2025@posting.google.com>, megan > > <megan14r-reps@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > . > > > > > > > > Your dh might want to ask himself why adoptees separated from teir > > > > mothers at birth search for those mothers they had no connection with > > > > other than in utero. > > > > If no bond were present there would be no interest in reunion, nor > > > > would adoptee be angry/upset if their mother refused contact. Nor > > > > would they feel rejected by a mother they never knew. Now would they > > > > feel any love for a mother > > > > they never knew. Nor would she be able to evoke so many mixed emotions > > > > in the adoptee. AND visa versa. > > > > > > > > In fact if no bond were present in utero the adoptive mother would > > > > have totally replaced the natural mother in every respect. The > > > > adoptee would not even be interested in obtaining his OBC. Afterall, > > > > he already has a birth certificate that would have replaced the > > > > original if no prebirth bond existed. An OBC is proof, or assumed > > > > proof, of a connection to that mother he never knew. Some just want to > > > > know her name. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some people search just as desparately for birth fathers and siblings > > > with whom they cannot possibly share any in utero bond. How do you > > > explain that need? > > > Megan > > > > It's just got to be that in-testicular bond, I'm getting so exited > > about this, I'm wondering if I can get a research grant (even though > > I'm not a scientist) to follow up my theory. Could even be a Nobel > > prize in the pipeline. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Go for it, Robin. > You've got the potential here for making a vas deferens to the world > of post-relinquishment angst. Good grief. Well yes, I am hoping that I might make a seminal contribution to the subject. > >Well, it's quite a conception you've got there.I hope you pull it off (so to speak). I think that would be "wank", Yank.

Hey, I'm no Yank, Hank.

Otherwise, go get thee to a seminary. Don't you mean "semen", 'arry?

Shirley you must be right.
(though in mine own defense, Robin took the first liberty)


Rh.
J.Rh. Robin Reply to jmhjmd at aol.

>Subject: Re: Schmitz kids said to have attachment disorderFrom: "kat" katlat24seeifthishelps@hotmail.comDate: 9/3/04 2:59 AM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <2pqtjvFokptnU1@uni-berlin.de>"pb..." <woodlark-99@newsguy.com> wrote in messagenews:ch87n402t6v@news4.newsguy.com...The Great White Doctor refuses to believe anything could simply *be* -- any your belief in GOD? Show me "...any valid, accepted scientific metric..." to prove that God exists.If Di had presented her comments as *her belief* than you would have apoint - but she did not. She attempted to portray it as being based inscientific fact.Kathy

True. I think Steve readily took apart Di's opinions for what they really
are...more of her wishful delusions.


Kathy

"kat" <katlat24seeifthishelps@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<2pqtjvFokptnU1@uni-berlin.de>... "pb..." <woodlark-99@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:ch87n402t6v@news4.newsguy.com... The Great White Doctor refuses to believe anything could simply *be* -- any your belief in GOD? Show me "...any valid, accepted scientific metric..." to prove that God exists. If Di had presented her comments as *her belief* than you would have a point - but she did not. She attempted to portray it as being based in scientific fact. Kathy

What's this obsession you all have with the need for scientific fact?
It's hardly new news. All you need do is type in 'bonding in utero'
and a whole host of info on the subject pops up on pregnancy sites.
Anyone would think you all live on Mars the way you don't know that
what has been basic common knowledge for decades. And just so that you
know, pre-birth bonding,
if severed at birth, is recognised, not by a sense of love, but by a
sense of loss/abandonment. Which wouldn't be felt if no bond had
existed.

So are we now going to argue that, unlike older child adoption who
have a memory of the mother/separation, infant adoptions don't feel
any sense of loss or abandonment, or are all the adoption "experts"
also wrong?

Julia <jurol@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<97ncj09nh4lpjnh2qe9fcot62gpirvme59@4ax.com>... On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 09:52:40 +0100, Robin Harritt <no.one@fred.local> wrote:in article 9a095db9.0408311817.14e4ad06@posting.google.com, Dian atpatrice068@optusnet.com.au wrote on 1/9/04 3:17 am: lfortney@dc.umd.edu (Linda Fortney) wrote in message news:<ch07h8$ed1@wolfe.umd.edu>... Robin, I applaud you for trying to talk some sense to Dian. It is like teaching a cat to sing.> The best popular lit on attachment that I know of is a book by> Robert Karen called _Becoming Attached_. It is a summary of current> research. Karen comes down strongly on the importance of> attachment. Funny, he doesn't mention anything on in-utero bonding.> My dh, the biostatistician pointed out that it would have been just> as easy to write a book debunking the notion that attachment exists. Your dh might want to ask himself why adoptees separated from their mothers at birth search for those mothers they had no connection with other than in utero.Then again, as a biologist and statistician he might also ask himselfwhy if in-utero bonding takes place, so many more don't ever search andsay that they don't ever wish to search? If no bond were present there would be no interest in reunion, nor would adoptee be angry/upset if their mother refused contact. Nor would they feel rejected by a mother they never knew.How does that prove in in-utero bonding, rather than later lifebonding with their own fantasy of what their mother is? And that makesfor a better explanation of why they are so often disappointed withwhat they find. And to further complicate the issue of in-utero bonding... Surely this bonding is a two-way thing? My first daughter was brought to me soon after her birth. Not only didn't I feel a bond to her, I wasn't even totally sure they'd given me the right baby. She wasn't what I expected and I didn't see anything familiar about her at all. I cared for her but it took a few months before I started feeling a real connection between the two of us. I remember looking at the other mothers in the hospital with their new babies and thinking how odd it was that they were talking to their newborns.

The question is not whether you bonded with her, but whether she
bonded with you in utero.








Then several years later my Korean baby son was placed in my arms and he felt instantly "mine". He felt familiar to me, even though my daughter hadn't. My husband and I sometimes discuss how we'd react if we found out any of our biological children had been a switched baby in hospital or had been fathered by someone else. Neither of us feels it would be a big deal. Our connection is to our children, whether adopted or bio. I don't feel any more tangible a bond or connection to those I gave birth to than those I adopted. Julia

>Subject: Re: Schmitz kids said to have attachment disorderFrom: patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian)Date: 9/3/04 9:49 AM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <9a095db9.0409030849.41ddc67e@posting.google.com>"kat" <katlat24seeifthishelps@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:<2pqtjvFokptnU1@uni-berlin.de>... "pb..." <woodlark-99@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:ch87n402t6v@news4.newsguy.com... The Great White Doctor refuses to believe anything could simply *be* -- any your belief in GOD? Show me "...any valid, accepted scientific metric..." to prove that God exists. If Di had presented her comments as *her belief* than you would have a point - but she did not. She attempted to portray it as being based in scientific fact. KathyWhat's this obsession you all have with the need for scientific fact?It's hardly new news. All you need do is type in 'bonding in utero'and a whole host of info on the subject pops up on pregnancy sites.Anyone would think you all live on Mars the way you don't know thatwhat has been basic common knowledge for decades. And just so that youknow, pre-birth bonding,if severed at birth, is recognised, not by a sense of love, but by asense of loss/abandonment. Which wouldn't be felt if no bond hadexisted.So are we now going to argue that, unlike older child adoption whohave a memory of the mother/separation, infant adoptions don't feelany sense of loss or abandonment, or are all the adoption "experts"also wrong?

You are off comparing apples to oranges.

You want to believe that the in-utero bond is the reason why adoptees will
search. In reality, it probably has little to do with it at all. I do believe
the bonds probably do exist... Why would an adoptee who had his bond severed at
birth, rejected by his mother, want to go looking for another possible
rejection via reunion?

No, it probably has more to do with his curiosity about his roots, heritage,
etc.,... than his need to be rocked by his first mommy..(snark)








Kathy

"Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:9a095db9.0409030849.41ddc67e@posting.google.c om... "kat" <katlat24seeifthishelps@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<2pqtjvFokptnU1@uni-berlin.de>... "pb..." <woodlark-99@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:ch87n402t6v@news4.newsguy.com... The Great White Doctor refuses to believe anything could simply *be* -- any your belief in GOD? Show me "...any valid, accepted scientific metric..." to prove that God exists. If Di had presented her comments as *her belief* than you would have a point - but she did not. She attempted to portray it as being based in scientific fact. Kathy What's this obsession you all have with the need for scientific fact? It's hardly new news. All you need do is type in 'bonding in utero' and a whole host of info on the subject pops up on pregnancy sites. Anyone would think you all live on Mars the way you don't know that what has been basic common knowledge for decades. And just so that you know, pre-birth bonding, if severed at birth, is recognised, not by a sense of love, but by a sense of loss/abandonment. Which wouldn't be felt if no bond had existed. So are we now going to argue that, unlike older child adoption who have a memory of the mother/separation, infant adoptions don't feel any sense of loss or abandonment, or are all the adoption "experts" also wrong?

*If* they do (and btw do the adoption "experts" quiz the infants as to their
"sense of loss or abandonment") that does not translate into your assertion
that this early "sense of loss or abandoment" (due to in utero bonding) is
what leads adoptees to seek out their bmother. I also see you have not
commented on what leads adoptees to seek out their bfather or bsisblings.
Or are you under the impression that the reasons aren't one and the same.
That adoptees seek out bmothers because of in utero bonding but seek out
other brelatives for totally different reasons.

Kathy

"Kathy " <meagan787@aol.comsthesun> wrote in message
news:20040903184845.27025.00000245@mb-m13.aol.com...Subject: Re: Schmitz kids said to have attachment disorderFrom: patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian)Date: 9/3/04 9:49 AM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <9a095db9.0409030849.41ddc67e@posting.google.com>"kat" <katlat24seeifthishelps@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:<2pqtjvFokptnU1@uni-berlin.de>... "pb..." <woodlark-99@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:ch87n402t6v@news4.newsguy.com... The Great > White Doctor refuses to believe anything could simply *be* -- > any your belief in GOD? Show me "...any valid, accepted scientific > metric..." to prove that God exists. If Di had presented her comments as *her belief* than you would have a point - but she did not. She attempted to portray it as being based in scientific fact. KathyWhat's this obsession you all have with the need for scientific fact?It's hardly new news. All you need do is type in 'bonding in utero'and a whole host of info on the subject pops up on pregnancy sites.Anyone would think you all live on Mars the way you don't know thatwhat has been basic common knowledge for decades. And just so that youknow, pre-birth bonding,if severed at birth, is recognised, not by a sense of love, but by asense of loss/abandonment. Which wouldn't be felt if no bond hadexisted.So are we now going to argue that, unlike older child adoption whohave a memory of the mother/separation, infant adoptions don't feelany sense of loss or abandonment, or are all the adoption "experts"also wrong? You are off comparing apples to oranges. You want to believe that the in-utero bond is the reason why adoptees will search. In reality, it probably has little to do with it at all. I do
believe the bonds probably do exist... Why would an adoptee who had his bond
severed at birth, rejected by his mother, want to go looking for another possible rejection via reunion? No, it probably has more to do with his curiosity about his roots,
heritage, etc.,... than his need to be rocked by his first mommy..(snark)

Do genealogists bond in utereo, with their long lost relativestoo? You've
never met an obsessed person until you've met a geneologist--or an
historian. I still have dreams about the women I researched for my thesis
and dissertation in the mid-1980s. It's one of the hazards of any research
trade.

Marley Kathy

In article <9a095db9.0409030849.41ddc67e@posting.google.com>,
patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote:

What's this obsession you all have with the need for scientific fact?


Clearly it's never bothered you!

It's hardly new news. All you need do is type in 'bonding in utero' and a whole host of info on the subject pops up on pregnancy sites.


Those, my dear, are called "anecdotes". Get enough of them together in
one place and time and you can create "myths", "fables" and "common
knowledge". All along the lines of the sun revolving about the earth --
sure does look like it. Until a couple of scientists (what WERE their
names?) came along and proved otherwise.

Precious little of your "common knowledge" will be true, but it might
help you sleep better at night.

Anyone would think you all live on Mars the way you don't know that what has been basic common knowledge for decades. And just so that you know, pre-birth bonding, if severed at birth, is recognised, not by a sense of love, but by a sense of loss/abandonment. Which wouldn't be felt if no bond had existed.


You have to ignore just about all of human psychology to make that
argument work, but feel free to try.

So are we now going to argue that, unlike older child adoption who have a memory of the mother/separation, infant adoptions don't feel any sense of loss or abandonment, or are all the adoption "experts" also wrong?


Once again, using any acceptable scientific metric, prove that in-utero
bonding exists.




steve

Di asserts:

<snip>
In fact if no bond were present in utero the adoptive mother wouldhave totally replaced the natural mother in every respect. Theadoptee would not even be interested in obtaining his OBC. Afterall,he already has a birth certificate that would have replaced theoriginal if no prebirth bond existed. An OBC is proof, or assumedproof, of a connection to that mother he never knew. Some just want toknow her name.

Is anyone disputing the fact of mother-child bonding in utero? If someone is,
I suppose I missed it.

Your assertion, however, that the depth of the mother-child bond in utero is
universally the driving force behind searches and reunions or that searches and
reunions prove the depth of the mother-child bond in utero is flawed. Many
reasons for searching surely exist, ranging from curiosity to health issues to
a need to know that could be based on a host of emotions.

You get shot down, Di, because of your giant "scientific" assertions based on
nothing but personal beliefs and your annoying tendence to speak for the
masses.


P2P

Kathy asks Di:
Some people search just as desparately for birth fathers and siblingswith whom they cannot possibly share any in utero bond. How do youexplain that need?Megan


It's the In Utero Bonding By Association Syndrome, silly.


P2P

>Have you got any solid print (not web, print) information from a reputablepeer reviewed scholarly journal that agrees with your fantasies ofmystical attachment in the womb?Linda


I am not a big believer in the mystical mojo of in utero attachment, but I do
strongly believe my sons have "attachments" to their birth family members that
I see through similarities in mannerisms, personalities and personality quirks.
I do believe we are each born wired in some ways genetically determined.

Another plug for open adoption: It is fun, interesting and healthy, imo, that
my sons can see for themselves characteristics they inherited.



P2P

>Go for it, Robin.You've got the potential here for making a vas deferens to the worldof post-relinquishment angst.Rh.



Ar, ar, arrrr. You couldn't help yourself, could you?


P2P

Di asserts:
Adopted children have been known to be over-represented in thepsychiatric areafor 60 years.>>

Back to the same old debate--due to the fact of having been adopted? Or, due
to the facts of early childhood neglect and abuse at the hands of bio parents?

I have an article from the USA Today magazine that includes a "study" of
adopted children that shows them to be more confident, higher achieving and
happier than their peers. What does this prove? I think it proves adoption is
good for children.


P2P

"Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in message
news:20040904132000.09347.00000221@mb-m05.aol.com... Di asserts: <snip>In fact if no bond were present in utero the adoptive mother wouldhave totally replaced the natural mother in every respect. Theadoptee would not even be interested in obtaining his OBC. Afterall,he already has a birth certificate that would have replaced theoriginal if no prebirth bond existed. An OBC is proof, or assumedproof, of a connection to that mother he never knew. Some just want toknow her name. Is anyone disputing the fact of mother-child bonding in utero? If someone
is, I suppose I missed it.

I did, but nobody replied. New Age middle class claptrap.

Marley

palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message news:<20040904132937.09347.00000225@mb-m05.aol.com>...Go for it, Robin.You've got the potential here for making a vas deferens to the worldof post-relinquishment angst. Ar, ar, arrrr. You couldn't help yourself, could you?

Couldn't.
The devil made me do it.


Rh.

P2P

Dian wrote: "kat" <katlat24seeifthishelps@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<2pqtjvFokptnU1@uni-berlin.de>... "pb..." <woodlark-99@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:ch87n402t6v@news4.newsguy.com... The Great White Doctor refuses to believe anything could simply *be* -- any your belief in GOD? Show me "...any valid, accepted scientific metric..." to prove that God exists. If Di had presented her comments as *her belief* than you would have a point - but she did not. She attempted to portray it as being based in scientific fact. Kathy
What's this obsession you all have with the need for scientific fact?


Well the literal meaning of the word science is knowledge, as opposed to
superstition and utter drivel. But then you've made it fairly clear that
you do not understand what the difference is, many times already Di.

It's hardly new news. All you need do is type in 'bonding in utero' and a whole host of info on the subject pops up on pregnancy sites.


Yes but the vast majority of it has no real scientific basis whatsoever.


Anyone would think you all live on Mars the way you don't know that what has been basic common knowledge for decades.



The fact that people have been repeating the same drivel for decades
does not magically make it scientific knowledge Di, if it was ridiculous
drivel in 1950 it will still be ridiculous drivel today.


And just so that you know, pre-birth bonding, if severed at birth, is recognised, not by a sense of love, but by a sense of loss/abandonment. Which wouldn't be felt if no bond had existed.



How many newborns have you spoken to about their feelings about
immediate post partum separation from their gestational mothers? Does
this also occur when the gestational mother is not also the genetic
mother? Do all the children resulting from surrogacy arrangements have
this "sense of loss/abandonment"?


So are we now going to argue that, unlike older child adoption who have a memory of the mother/separation, infant adoptions don't feel any sense of loss or abandonment, or are all the adoption "experts" also wrong?


I'm not aware that a majority of those adoption experts who form a part
of the respected scientific community that publishes its finding in
proper peer reviewed journals, would argue what you are trying to argue,
- that a child bonds with its mother in the womb - Dian. So no I don't
believe that the genuine experts are wrong, because they are not making
those claims.

Robin

In article <20040903184845.27025.00000245@mb-m13.aol.com>,

Di (who else) intoned:
What's this obsession you all have with the need for scientific fact?It's hardly new news. All you need do is type in 'bonding in utero'and a whole host of info on the subject pops up on pregnancy sites.Anyone would think you all live on Mars the way you don't know thatwhat has been basic common knowledge for decades. And just so that youknow, pre-birth bonding,



Di, people used to believe the earth was flat, that there were such things
as unicorns and that the sun revolved around the earth. In other words,
believing in something doesn't make it so.

And despite the number of anecdotes you can collect from the Internet
about bonding in utero, that doesn't make it so. The plural of anecdote
is not research.

And, I too will point out the fact that adopted persons passionately
search for their birth fathers or birth siblings. There certainly is no
uterus involved there.

In Kurt Vonnegut's terms, this utero-bonding is a pack of "foma"--a
comforting lie.

Linda

PB, would love to talk with you about some information. E-Mail me off line
klask_rl@yahoo.com Thanks.

PB, would love to talk with you about some information. E-Mail me off line
klask_rl@yahoo.com Thanks.

lfortney@dc.umd.edu (Linda Fortney) wrote in message news:<chifjc$3ma@wolfe.umd.edu>... In article <20040903184845.27025.00000245@mb-m13.aol.com>, Di (who else) intoned:What's this obsession you all have with the need for scientific fact?It's hardly new news. All you need do is type in 'bonding in utero'and a whole host of info on the subject pops up on pregnancy sites.Anyone would think you all live on Mars the way you don't know thatwhat has been basic common knowledge for decades. And just so that youknow, pre-birth bonding, Di, people used to believe the earth was flat, that there were such things as unicorns and that the sun revolved around the earth. In other words, believing in something doesn't make it so. And despite the number of anecdotes you can collect from the Internet about bonding in utero, that doesn't make it so. The plural of anecdote is not research. And, I too will point out the fact that adopted persons passionately search for their birth fathers or birth siblings. There certainly is no uterus involved there.
In Kurt Vonnegut's terms, this utero-bonding is a pack of "foma"--a comforting lie.

What else would you expect from a fiction writer and adoptive parent?

Linda

"Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:9a095db9.0409091853.498a7c00@posting.google.c om... lfortney@dc.umd.edu (Linda Fortney) wrote in message
news:<chifjc$3ma@wolfe.umd.edu>... In article <20040903184845.27025.00000245@mb-m13.aol.com>, Di (who else) intoned:>>What's this obsession you all have with the need for scientific fact?>It's hardly new news. All you need do is type in 'bonding in utero'>and a whole host of info on the subject pops up on pregnancy sites.>Anyone would think you all live on Mars the way you don't know that>what has been basic common knowledge for decades. And just so that you>know, pre-birth bonding, Di, people used to believe the earth was flat, that there were such
things as unicorns and that the sun revolved around the earth. In other
words, believing in something doesn't make it so. And despite the number of anecdotes you can collect from the Internet about bonding in utero, that doesn't make it so. The plural of anecdote is not research. And, I too will point out the fact that adopted persons passionately search for their birth fathers or birth siblings. There certainly is no uterus involved there. In Kurt Vonnegut's terms, this utero-bonding is a pack of "foma"--a comforting lie. What else would you expect from a fiction writer and adoptive parent? Linda

I'm neither and I think it's girlly girl crap.. Do people bond with a tumor
or a parasite?Baybees would bond with a celery stalk if it fed it. This
goes into the same circular file as the idea that getting AIDS is the
ultimate act of love.

Marley