sylak wrote:
Very well put. Raymond

Well, thank you, Raymond! I can't say how many times I've written
of my exact feelings on this subject (see below) -- and yet only
one or two folks, at the most, ever respond...yet I *never* seem
to hear from ANY parents on my opinion. Don't you find that to be
rather strange? ;-)

pb...

Mmmmm....could it be that mothers are fed up with being blamed for
what those ever so clever adoption legislators decided was irrelevent
to the needs of the adoptee? Afterall, it wasn't the mothers who wrote
up the legislation that grafted the child onto another ancestral
family tree as if born to them. Nor did they introduce the closed
legislation which denied adoptees their right to their own families
medical histories. And aparents didn't give any thought to the
adoptees need for ongoing medical information. Nor were they concerned
with the child's ancestral history when they adopted or they would not
have altered the adoptees identities to that of their own. When is
everyone else going to be made accountable for the part they played
in going along with the charade instead of blaming this mess solely on
nparents?

I imagine blaming the construct of adoption itself for the adoptees
lack of vital information would be totally out of the question for
this ng?

snip, snip, snip I imagine blaming the construct of adoption itself for the adoptees lack of vital information would be totally out of the question for this ng?

The question that I pose is that the laws which are passed by legislators
are proposed by someone for a reason. Who are the laws "protecting" if not
the b-parents? I have not seen (within my limited experience) any b-parents
lobbying to have these laws nullified. The b-parent(s) know who they brought
into this world. Many of us have little knowledge, if any, about who brought
us in this world. I understand, at a certain level, the desire of b-parents
to distance themselves but I also understand, in some depth, the desire to
know who I am. Who has the more right?

Raymond

"sylak" <sylak@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:gLednRvrLvJUxibcRVn-qg@adelphia.com... snip, snip, snip I imagine blaming the construct of adoption itself for the adoptees lack of vital information would be totally out of the question for this ng? The question that I pose is that the laws which are passed by legislators are proposed by someone for a reason. Who are the laws "protecting" if not the b-parents? I have not seen (within my limited experience) any b-parents lobbying to have these laws nullified. The b-parent(s) know who they brought into this world. Many of us have little knowledge, if any, about who brought us in this world. I understand, at a certain level, the desire of b-parents to distance themselves but I also understand, in some depth, the desire to know who I am. Who has the more right? Raymond

Sorry Raymond, apparently no one warned you about Di. See, in her book (and
Jackie's) the birthmother (who should NEVER be called "birthmother" rather
just mother) ALWAYS trumps all.

You will learn as you go along, just didn't want you to feel totally lost
when and if they responded.

KL

On 11 Dec 2004 11:17:16 -0800, patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian)
wrote:
sylak wrote: Very well put. RaymondWell, thank you, Raymond! I can't say how many times I've writtenof my exact feelings on this subject (see below) -- and yet onlyone or two folks, at the most, ever respond...yet I *never* seemto hear from ANY parents on my opinion. Don't you find that to berather strange? ;-)pb...Mmmmm....could it be that mothers are fed up with being blamed forwhat those ever so clever adoption legislators decided was irreleventto the needs of the adoptee?

Ohhh Di... What are you thinking..
Afterall, it wasn't the mothers who wroteup the legislation that grafted the child onto another ancestralfamily tree as if born to them. Nor did they introduce the closedlegislation which denied adoptees their right to their own familiesmedical histories. And aparents didn't give any thought to theadoptees need for ongoing medical information. Nor were they concernedwith the child's ancestral history when they adopted or they would nothave altered the adoptees identities to that of their own. When iseveryone else going to be made accountable for the part they playedin going along with the charade instead of blaming this mess solely onnparents?

That is a question that is not going to be sorted by this bunch..

I imagine blaming the construct of adoption itself for the adopteeslack of vital information would be totally out of the question forthis ng?

They have a scapegoat Di.. All is well and all things are well..

Never never disturb their thinking..

Its a no no..

Jackie

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 15:42:47 -0500, "sylak" <sylak@adelphia.net>
wrote:
snip, snip, snip I imagine blaming the construct of adoption itself for the adoptees lack of vital information would be totally out of the question for this ng? The question that I pose is that the laws which are passed by legislatorsare proposed by someone for a reason. Who are the laws "protecting" if notthe b-parents?

It was to stop them from aborting the babies..
"Don't abort.. give the baby to me!"

And it was the perfect solution for the ones that decided that babies
were a clean slate (tainted blood theory discarded)..
Give the baby to normal people.. People who are married and have that
friken white picket fence..

And hey.. Nixon did not want any of those welfare queens driving
around in those Cadillacs.. Having far too many kids and just living
off of the government..

Beggars and Choosers.. Rickie Solinger

page 180

.....They also expressed themselves by singing songs about the
absurdity and obscenity of casting welfare recipients as consumers.
"Welfare Cadillac," was a favorite of Richard Nixon's. The president
once asked the band in a formal White House event to play it for his
guests. One verse went like this:

We got peanut butter and cheese and, man,
They give us flour by the sack
'Course them welfare checks, they meet
Them payments on this new Cadillac. 187

end of quoting from the book..


I have not seen (within my limited experience) any b-parentslobbying to have these laws nullified.

Some women were drugged for the delivery.. Some women were not allowed
to see their babies.. Some women were told to shut up and never talk
about the baby again.. Keep the secret.. No therapy for you..

Some women just gave up on their emotions.. Shut them down..
Believed the crap they were told..
Hide and are controlled..

No power for her.


The b-parent(s) know who they broughtinto this world. Many of us have little knowledge, if any, about who broughtus in this world. I understand, at a certain level, the desire of b-parentsto distance themselves but I also understand, in some depth, the desire toknow who I am. Who has the more right?

I do not think it is about right.. I think it is about levels of
abuse..
Who is having the hardest time.. and some will say that the person who
approaches the other in reunion is the person who should back off if
needs must..

Can you imagine turning around a facing a life of secrecy? Turning
around and telling the ones who love you that you have a very big
secret that is going to punch a very big hole in the family..

Why is it about rights? We were all abused by the system.

Jackie

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 17:21:11 -0600, "KL" <klbjornme@aohell.com> wrote:
"sylak" <sylak@adelphia.net> wrote in messagenews:gLednRvrLvJUxibcRVn-qg@adelphia.com... snip, snip, snip I imagine blaming the construct of adoption itself for the adoptees lack of vital information would be totally out of the question for this ng? The question that I pose is that the laws which are passed by legislators are proposed by someone for a reason. Who are the laws "protecting" if not the b-parents? I have not seen (within my limited experience) any b-parents lobbying to have these laws nullified. The b-parent(s) know who they brought into this world. Many of us have little knowledge, if any, about who brought us in this world. I understand, at a certain level, the desire of b-parents to distance themselves but I also understand, in some depth, the desire to know who I am. Who has the more right? RaymondSorry Raymond, apparently no one warned you about Di. See, in her book (andJackie's) the birthmother (who should NEVER be called "birthmother" ratherjust mother) ALWAYS trumps all.

You lie again..

I use the term birthmother.. I use it here and I use it on
adoption.com..
I use that term out of respect of CUB (Concerned United Birthparents)

I use it because CUB has grass roots organizations in the US.. they
have groups in many large cities.. They have retreats.. They have
local meetings.
They help a lot of people..

I also respect the fact that the group was formed in the mid seventies
(I wish I had of heard of it Alma did not help me) and I respect the
women that formed it..

Di and I disagree on this.. We always have disagreed.. But we are
still friends and we do not see the need to attack.. Attack what the
other is saying because our minds are completly blocked by our own
dogma..

Jackie

You will learn as you go along, just didn't want you to feel totally lostwhen and if they responded.KL

Sorry Raymond, apparently no one warned you about Di. See, in her book (and Jackie's) the birthmother (who should NEVER be called "birthmother" rather just mother) ALWAYS trumps all. You will learn as you go along, just didn't want you to feel totally lost when and if they responded. KL

No need to apologize. As for feeling lost that is nothing new. I realize
that there are those who are fixed in their thinking but not to respond in
some fashion would be less than polite. I could tell you a true story of a
woman who had a child out of wedlock at the age of 17. As was the custom in
those days her mother took on the child as one of her own. Throughout her
life this woman had to control every relationship she touched. If she could
not control it she destroyed it. No one would tell her son who his mother
was. He is now in a nursing home, his brains fried by years of alchoholism.
This woman passed away in 1997 and the only ones at the funeral were her
daughter and myself. Do not underestimate the determination of a b-mother.
So much unhappiness was caused by this woman who seemed to have the sole
goal of outliving everyone who knew her secret. It was so very sad.

Raymond

>Subject: Re: Marilyn Churley's Adoption BillFrom: Jackie somewhere@aolDate: 12/11/2004 5:14 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <972nr0to3mmcokav1kj9cieu1rqsfr3c13@4ax.com>
Some women were drugged for the delivery.. Some women were not allowedto see their babies.. Some women were told to shut up and never talkabout the baby again.. Keep the secret..

And many weren't.

No therapy for you..

I think you should have insisted.




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

"Jackie" <somewhere@aol> wrote in message
news:972nr0to3mmcokav1kj9cieu1rqsfr3c13@4ax.com... On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 15:42:47 -0500, "sylak" <sylak@adelphia.net> wrote:snip, snip, snip I imagine blaming the construct of adoption itself for the adoptees lack of vital information would be totally out of the question for this ng? The question that I pose is that the laws which are passed by legislatorsare proposed by someone for a reason. Who are the laws "protecting" if notthe b-parents? It was to stop them from aborting the babies.. "Don't abort.. give the baby to me!"

Sealed records started way before abortion was illegal. Sealed records
were designed to protect adoptive parents and the adoption industry. Sealed
records are definitely supported NOW by anti-abortion interests, but they
had absolytel nothing to do with the formation of the system. An
anti-abortion movement didn't even exist until 30 some years ago. And it was the perfect solution for the ones that decided that babies were a clean slate (tainted blood theory discarded).. Give the baby to normal people.. People who are married and have that friken white picket fence.. And hey.. Nixon did not want any of those welfare queens driving around in those Cadillacs.. Having far too many kids and just living off of the government..

What does Richard Nixon have to do with anything? Beggars and Choosers.. Rickie Solinger page 180 ....They also expressed themselves by singing songs about the absurdity and obscenity of casting welfare recipients as consumers. "Welfare Cadillac," was a favorite of Richard Nixon's. The president once asked the band in a formal White House event to play it for his guests. One verse went like this:

And he had nothing to do with sealed records. You're takng what Rickie says
out of context. Nixon, as far as I know, supported "choice."

Marley

Jackie:

I remember during my days as a welfare case worker being amazed by how many
welfare recipients had more spendable income than myself. I also saw a lot
of kids that were being "kept" because that is what brought the money in.
Many of these kids later wound up in the criminal justice system. Unless a
woman was impregnated under force then she made decisions that resulted in a
child with no history. As a point of interest I do not recall ever having a
woman tell me she had become pregnant by force. This issue seems to have
been pretty well wrung out here so will not belabor it. Everyone has a
right to thier own opinion. Be well.

Raymond

>Subject: Re: Marilyn Churley's Adoption BillFrom: Jackie somewhere@aolDate: 12/11/2004 4:19 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <ub3nr0tuveumn2i6mv3u1m2l8p0handnub@4ax.com>

(snip)
. Attack what theother is saying because our minds are completly blocked by our owndogma..
Jackie

Stoned again?






Kathy

>Subject: Re: Marilyn Churley's Adoption BillFrom: Jackie somewhere@aolDate: 12/11/2004 4:14 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <972nr0to3mmcokav1kj9cieu1rqsfr3c13@4ax.com>

Top Posting:

Oh Merry Christmassss, you're still the same old bore!
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 15:42:47 -0500, "sylak" <sylak@adelphia.net>wrote:snip, snip, snip I imagine blaming the construct of adoption itself for the adoptees lack of vital information would be totally out of the question for this ng? The question that I pose is that the laws which are passed by legislatorsare proposed by someone for a reason. Who are the laws "protecting" if notthe b-parents?It was to stop them from aborting the babies.."Don't abort.. give the baby to me!"And it was the perfect solution for the ones that decided that babieswere a clean slate (tainted blood theory discarded)..Give the baby to normal people.. People who are married and have thatfriken white picket fence..And hey.. Nixon did not want any of those welfare queens drivingaround in those Cadillacs.. Having far too many kids and just livingoff of the government..Beggars and Choosers.. Rickie Solingerpage 180....They also expressed themselves by singing songs about theabsurdity and obscenity of casting welfare recipients as consumers."Welfare Cadillac," was a favorite of Richard Nixon's. The presidentonce asked the band in a formal White House event to play it for hisguests. One verse went like this:We got peanut butter and cheese and, man,They give us flour by the sack'Course them welfare checks, they meetThem payments on this new Cadillac. 187end of quoting from the book.. I have not seen (within my limited experience) any b-parentslobbying to have these laws nullified.Some women were drugged for the delivery.. Some women were not allowedto see their babies.. Some women were told to shut up and never talkabout the baby again.. Keep the secret.. No therapy for you..Some women just gave up on their emotions.. Shut them down..Believed the crap they were told..Hide and are controlled..No power for her.The b-parent(s) know who they broughtinto this world. Many of us have little knowledge, if any, about who broughtus in this world. I understand, at a certain level, the desire of b-parentsto distance themselves but I also understand, in some depth, the desire toknow who I am. Who has the more right?I do not think it is about right.. I think it is about levels ofabuse..Who is having the hardest time.. and some will say that the person whoapproaches the other in reunion is the person who should back off ifneeds must..Can you imagine turning around a facing a life of secrecy? Turningaround and telling the ones who love you that you have a very bigsecret that is going to punch a very big hole in the family..Why is it about rights? We were all abused by the system.Jackie




Kathy

>Subject: Re: Marilyn Churley's Adoption BillFrom: Jackie somewhere@aolDate: 12/11/2004 3:54 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <o02nr0l9fegn7hf153bbkmjutq9qgdkba2@4ax.com>On 11 Dec 2004 11:17:16 -0800, patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian)wrote:sylak wrote: Very well put. RaymondWell, thank you, Raymond! I can't say how many times I've writtenof my exact feelings on this subject (see below) -- and yet onlyone or two folks, at the most, ever respond...yet I *never* seemto hear from ANY parents on my opinion. Don't you find that to berather strange? ;-)pb...Mmmmm....could it be that mothers are fed up with being blamed forwhat those ever so clever adoption legislators decided was irreleventto the needs of the adoptee?Ohhh Di... What are you thinking..Afterall, it wasn't the mothers who wroteup the legislation that grafted the child onto another ancestralfamily tree as if born to them. Nor did they introduce the closedlegislation which denied adoptees their right to their own familiesmedical histories. And aparents didn't give any thought to theadoptees need for ongoing medical information. Nor were they concernedwith the child's ancestral history when they adopted or they would nothave altered the adoptees identities to that of their own. When iseveryone else going to be made accountable for the part they playedin going along with the charade instead of blaming this mess solely onnparents?That is a question that is not going to be sorted by this bunch..

Maybe you could yammer another 6,854 posts and tell us all about it.

(yawn)




Kathy

>Subject: Re: Marilyn Churley's Adoption BillFrom: meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy )Date: 12/12/2004 11:42 AM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <20041212134229.06555.00001194@mb-m24.aol.com>
That is a question that is not going to be sorted by this bunch..Maybe you could yammer another 6,854 posts and tell us all about it.(yawn)

Nooooooo!! Don't encourage her! 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

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 19:37:49 -0500, "sylak" <sylak@adelphia.net>
wrote:
Sorry Raymond, apparently no one warned you about Di. See, in her book (and Jackie's) the birthmother (who should NEVER be called "birthmother" rather just mother) ALWAYS trumps all. You will learn as you go along, just didn't want you to feel totally lost when and if they responded. KLNo need to apologize. As for feeling lost that is nothing new. I realizethat there are those who are fixed in their thinking but not to respond insome fashion would be less than polite. I could tell you a true story of awoman who had a child out of wedlock at the age of 17. As was the custom inthose days her mother took on the child as one of her own. Throughout herlife this woman had to control every relationship she touched. If she couldnot control it she destroyed it. No one would tell her son who his motherwas. He is now in a nursing home, his brains fried by years of alchoholism.This woman passed away in 1997 and the only ones at the funeral were herdaughter and myself. Do not underestimate the determination of a b-mother.So much unhappiness was caused by this woman who seemed to have the solegoal of outliving everyone who knew her secret. It was so very sad.Raymond


Your opinion of birthmothers is very obvious to me Raymond..

You will definitely fit in here..

Do you have other dreadful stories to entertain us with?


Jackie

Entertain? Hardly. Each and every one of us is different and each deals
with events differently. Some times we can simply be too close to something
to deal with it logically or even rationally.

Raymond

On: 12/12/04 7:45 PM Eastern Standard Time
Jackie somewhere@ao wrote:
Your opinion of birthmothers is very obvious to me Raymond..

<snip>

Ruh Roh! Now you've done it, Raymond. You let the brithmother out of the bag.
Doesn't matter what you say or actually think about them as a group or as
individuals. Jackie "knows" what you truly think of them.
You will definitely fit in here..

Now I'm not so sure this is true. So far, he's shown himself to be thoughtful,
reasonably informed, open to new ideas, different opinions, and with a
proclivity toward civilized discourse. Not at all a.a. material, IMO.
Do you have other dreadful stories to entertain us with?

Give him time, Jackie. He's just begun to get to know you.

Gary
PFC
BB

"Jackie" <somewhere@aol> wrote in message
news:6gppr01fdkqin7asoubg2uqf3ofv2khn8i@4ax.com... On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 19:37:49 -0500, "sylak" <sylak@adelphia.net> wrote: Sorry Raymond, apparently no one warned you about Di. See, in her book (and Jackie's) the birthmother (who should NEVER be called "birthmother" rather just mother) ALWAYS trumps all. You will learn as you go along, just didn't want you to feel totally lost when and if they responded. KLNo need to apologize. As for feeling lost that is nothing new. I realizethat there are those who are fixed in their thinking but not to respond insome fashion would be less than polite. I could tell you a true story of awoman who had a child out of wedlock at the age of 17. As was the custominthose days her mother took on the child as one of her own. Throughout herlife this woman had to control every relationship she touched. If shecouldnot control it she destroyed it. No one would tell her son who his motherwas. He is now in a nursing home, his brains fried by years ofalchoholism.This woman passed away in 1997 and the only ones at the funeral were herdaughter and myself. Do not underestimate the determination of a b-mother.So much unhappiness was caused by this woman who seemed to have the solegoal of outliving everyone who knew her secret. It was so very sad.Raymond Your opinion of birthmothers is very obvious to me Raymond.. You will definitely fit in here.. Do you have other dreadful stories to entertain us with? Jackie

Jesus Jackie, stuff a sock in it, will ya? The poor guy just relayed one
factual story. He did NOT attack ALL birthmothers everywhere. Then again,
he doesn't group them into one pathetic group as you and Di do.

KL

>Subject: Re: Marilyn Churley's Adoption BillFrom: Jackie somewhere@aolDate: 12/11/2004
Some women just gave up on their emotions.. Shut them down..Believed the crap they were told..Hide and are controlled..No power for her.

.....and the result of the shut down. Jackie, you taught me about distance,
about the lack of maternial feelings to the child from the mothers standpoint.
I never knew that. I thought my mother would feel for me like I feel for my
daughters and the way I felt for her as my mother. I have seen mothers distant
with their children, and I knew it existed, I just naively never thought it
would happen to me.
Who is having the hardest time.. and some will say that the person whoapproaches the other in reunion is the person who should back off ifneeds must..

I think you are blindsighted about who has the hardest time. It is equally
hard for both the relinquisher and the relinquished, for the triad, the family.
It effects everyone.
Can you imagine turning around a facing a life of secrecy? Turningaround and telling the ones who love you that you have a very bigsecret that is going to punch a very big hole in the family..

My family has survived many punches and each punch has been a learning
experience for us. Never, has it diminished our love and support for one
another.
Why is it about rights? We were all abused by the system.Jackie

and as one result of that, some continue the cycle and in turn become the
abuser.

Kathy J

>Subject: Re: Marilyn Churley's Adoption BillFrom: lilmtncbn@aol.com (LilMtnCbn)Date: 12/12/2004 11:24 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <20041212142417.05910.00001325@mb-m19.aol.com>Subject: Re: Marilyn Churley's Adoption BillFrom: meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy )Date: 12/12/2004 11:42 AM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <20041212134229.06555.00001194@mb-m24.aol.com>That is a question that is not going to be sorted by this bunch..Maybe you could yammer another 6,854 posts and tell us all about it.(yawn)Nooooooo!! Don't encourage her! LOL

She's ignoring me.


Kathy

Actually, I am rather fond of birthmothers. I had one of those myself. So
did my children. We all have things happen in our lives but there comes a
time (as my youngest would say) to build a bridge and get over it. There are
no simple answers, only choices to be made. The story about that tragic
women was merely an illustration of what should not happen. She was a very
smart and capable woman but could not let go and those demons followed her
to the grave. I expect that is enough philosophizing for one evening.

Raymond
1SG