http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100regionalnews/content_objec
tid=13833383_method=full_siteid=50061_headline=-Agonising-decision-over--l
ost--children-name_page.html

Agonising decision over 'lost' children Jan 19 2004



By Alan Weston Daily Post Staff


THE controversial doctor whose evidence helped convict Cheshire solicitor Sally
Clark of murdering her children is causing a dilemma for government officials.

Children's Minister Margaret Hodge has admitted that thou-sands of children
taken from their families on the expert evidence of Sir Roy Meadow may never
see their parents again.

It is estimated that 5,000 children may have been taken into care over the past
15 years as a result of Professor Meadow's theory of Munchausen's Syndrome by
Proxy.

The theory - that some mothers harm their children to draw attention to
themselves - has been largely discredited as a result of a series of
high-profile court cases, such as that of Mrs Clark.

However, in an interview with a national newspaper yesterday, Mrs Hodge warned
that, in many cases, it would not now be in the children's interests to reunite
them with their biological parents.

She said: "If a miscarriage of justice was made 10 or 15 years ago, what is in
the child's interest now? If the adoption order was made on the back of
Meadow's evidence and that was 10 years ago, what is the real interest of the
child?

"If they were taken as babies, the only parent they know is the adoptive one.
It is incredibly difficult.

"It is really a tough call to make. "The sort of families that are coming
forward are heartbroken families. But if the child was adopted at birth, the
sensible thing to do is to let it stay.

"As Children's Minister, my prime interest has to be the interests of the
child."

Prof Meadow's theory has been discredited as a result of three cases in which
he gave evidence against women who were wrongly accused of killing their
children.

As well as Mrs Clark, who was cleared on appeal, Trupti Patel was acquitted and
Angela Canning - who was jailed in 2002 for murdering her two baby sons - had
her conviction quashed last month.




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

Perhaps the same scenario is occurring in the US.

Please consider posting to Newsgroup alt support child protective services.

Thanks.


Lil sent in:
Subject: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam (LilMtnCbn)Date: 1/19/2004 11:50 PM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <20040119235048.21852.00000379@mb-m06.aol.com>http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100regionalnews/content_objectid=13833383_method=full_siteid=50061 _headline=-Agonising-decision-over--lost--children-name_page.htmlAgonising decision over 'lost' children Jan 19 2004By Alan Weston Daily Post StaffTHE controversial doctor whose evidence helped convict Cheshire solicitorSallyClark of murdering her children is causing a dilemma for governmentofficials.Children's Minister Margaret Hodge has admitted that thou-sands of childrentaken from their families on the expert evidence of Sir Roy Meadow may neversee their parents again.It is estimated that 5,000 children may have been taken into care over thepast15 years as a result of Professor Meadow's theory of Munchausen's Syndrome byProxy.The theory - that some mothers harm their children to draw attention tothemselves - has been largely discredited as a result of a series ofhigh-profile court cases, such as that of Mrs Clark.However, in an interview with a national newspaper yesterday, Mrs Hodgewarnedthat, in many cases, it would not now be in the children's interests toreunitethem with their biological parents.She said: "If a miscarriage of justice was made 10 or 15 years ago, what isinthe child's interest now? If the adoption order was made on the back ofMeadow's evidence and that was 10 years ago, what is the real interest of thechild?"If they were taken as babies, the only parent they know is the adoptive one.It is incredibly difficult."It is really a tough call to make. "The sort of families that are comingforward are heartbroken families. But if the child was adopted at birth, thesensible thing to do is to let it stay."As Children's Minister, my prime interest has to be the interests of thechild."Prof Meadow's theory has been discredited as a result of three cases in whichhe gave evidence against women who were wrongly accused of killing theirchildren.As well as Mrs Clark, who was cleared on appeal, Trupti Patel was acquittedandAngela Canning - who was jailed in 2002 for murdering her two baby sons - hadher conviction quashed last month.-------------------------A good friend will come and bail you out of jail . . . but, a true friendwillbe sitting next to you saying, "Damn . . . that was fun!"-----Unknown

>Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: fern5827@aol.com (Fern5827)Date: 1/21/04 7:07 AM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <20040121090701.22897.00000536@mb-m04.aol.com>Perhaps the same scenario is occurring in the US.Please consider posting to Newsgroup alt support child protective services.Thanks.

Oh, hell no. That's a scary bunch of people over there. 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

In article <20040121091413.24741.00000402@mb-m13.aol.com>, LilMtnCbn says...Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: fern5827@aol.com (Fern5827)Date: 1/21/04 7:07 AM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <20040121090701.22897.00000536@mb-m04.aol.com>Perhaps the same scenario is occurring in the US.Please consider posting to Newsgroup alt support child protective services.Thanks.Oh, hell no. That's a scary bunch of people over there. LOL

Scarier than us? Good gravy, I shudder to think ;)

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam (LilMtnCbn) wrote in message news:<20040119235048.21852.00000379@mb-m06.aol.com>... http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100regionalnews/content_objec tid=13833383_method=full_siteid=50061_headline=-Agonising-decision-over--l ost--children-name_page.html

Top post - all of those children should be returned to their parents forthwith.

Di


Agonising decision over 'lost' children Jan 19 2004 By Alan Weston Daily Post Staff THE controversial doctor whose evidence helped convict Cheshire solicitor Sally Clark of murdering her children is causing a dilemma for government officials. Children's Minister Margaret Hodge has admitted that thou-sands of children taken from their families on the expert evidence of Sir Roy Meadow may never see their parents again. It is estimated that 5,000 children may have been taken into care over the past 15 years as a result of Professor Meadow's theory of Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy. The theory - that some mothers harm their children to draw attention to themselves - has been largely discredited as a result of a series of high-profile court cases, such as that of Mrs Clark. However, in an interview with a national newspaper yesterday, Mrs Hodge warned that, in many cases, it would not now be in the children's interests to reunite them with their biological parents. She said: "If a miscarriage of justice was made 10 or 15 years ago, what is in the child's interest now? If the adoption order was made on the back of Meadow's evidence and that was 10 years ago, what is the real interest of the child? "If they were taken as babies, the only parent they know is the adoptive one. It is incredibly difficult. "It is really a tough call to make. "The sort of families that are coming forward are heartbroken families. But if the child was adopted at birth, the sensible thing to do is to let it stay. "As Children's Minister, my prime interest has to be the interests of the child." Prof Meadow's theory has been discredited as a result of three cases in which he gave evidence against women who were wrongly accused of killing their children. As well as Mrs Clark, who was cleared on appeal, Trupti Patel was acquitted and Angela Canning - who was jailed in 2002 for murdering her two baby sons - had her conviction quashed last month. ------------------------- 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 c599139c.0401210746.3385c645@posting.google.com, Dian at
patrice68@bigpond.com.au wrote on 21/1/04 3:46 pm:


Re the story:-

'It is estimated that 5,000 children may have been taken into care over the
past 15 years as a result of Professor Meadow's theory of Munchausen's
Syndrome by Proxy.'


Di said:-
Top post - all of those children should be returned to their parents forthwith. Di


Given this is about children taken away between 1 and 15 years ago, that
would be a bit difficult, English law requires the authorities to do what is
in the best interest of the individual child, not that of the birthmother.
Do you really think that it would be in the best interest of a seven year
old to remove him from the family he was placed with at the age of six
months? The solution isn't going to be that simple.

I do hope that Meadow get properly punished for his professional
incompetence that often involved mistakes in 'junior school level'
statistics on the probability of more than one cot death per family.

Robin

>Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: Robin Harritt karakoram@postadoption.infoDate: 1/21/2004 2:02 PM Newfoundland Standard TimeMessage-id: <BC346826.2FE1A%karakoram@postadoption.info>in article c599139c.0401210746.3385c645@posting.google.com, Dian atpatrice68@bigpond.com.au wrote on 21/1/04 3:46 pm:Re the story:-'It is estimated that 5,000 children may have been taken into care over thepast 15 years as a result of Professor Meadow's theory of Munchausen'sSyndrome by Proxy.'Di said:- Top post - all of those children should be returned to their parents forthwith. DiGiven this is about children taken away between 1 and 15 years ago, thatwould be a bit difficult, English law requires the authorities to do what isin the best interest of the individual child, not that of the birthmother.Do you really think that it would be in the best interest of a seven yearold to remove him from the family he was placed with at the age of sixmonths? The solution isn't going to be that simple.I do hope that Meadow get properly punished for his professionalincompetence that often involved mistakes in 'junior school level'statistics on the probability of more than one cot death per family.Robin

Exactly right Robin, to rip a child from the only family it has ever known and
place it with a stranger would be barbaric. Di, would you grab a 12 or 13 year
old and place it in a strange family? Ridiculous............

>Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: chosenchildinc1@aol.com (Chosenchildinc1)Date: 1/21/04 10:51 AM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <20040121125102.11601.00000409@mb-m12.aol.com>Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: Robin Harritt karakoram@postadoption.infoDate: 1/21/2004 2:02 PM Newfoundland Standard TimeMessage-id: <BC346826.2FE1A%karakoram@postadoption.info>in article c599139c.0401210746.3385c645@posting.google.com, Dian atpatrice68@bigpond.com.au wrote on 21/1/04 3:46 pm:Re the story:-'It is estimated that 5,000 children may have been taken into care over thepast 15 years as a result of Professor Meadow's theory of Munchausen'sSyndrome by Proxy.'Di said:- Top post - all of those children should be returned to their parents forthwith. DiGiven this is about children taken away between 1 and 15 years ago, thatwould be a bit difficult, English law requires the authorities to do what isin the best interest of the individual child, not that of the birthmother.Do you really think that it would be in the best interest of a seven yearold to remove him from the family he was placed with at the age of sixmonths? The solution isn't going to be that simple.I do hope that Meadow get properly punished for his professionalincompetence that often involved mistakes in 'junior school level'statistics on the probability of more than one cot death per family.RobinExactly right Robin, to rip a child from the only family it has ever knownandplace it with a stranger would be barbaric. Di, would you grab a 12 or 13yearold and place it in a strange family? Ridiculous............

Well, if they don't give the kids back, I certainly hope they open up the
adoptions and include regular visitations with their bfamilies. There's no
reason why the children shouldn't have a relationship with their family of
origin, especially if they were adopted fraudently.


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

Exactly right Robin, to rip a child from the only family it has ever known and
place it with a stranger would be barbaric. Di, would you grab a 12 or 13 year
old and place it in a strange family? Ridiculous...........

=============

In the case of stolen children or otherwise illegally adopted children, what
would you do? If the aparents knowingly raised a child obtained by unethical
or illegal means, do you think YOUR child should stay with them?

If the aparents didn't know that there was illegal or other immoral activities
involved, IMO, in the best interests of the child, the aparents should make
EVERY effort to transition the child in the introduction to the bfamily. Joint
custody, full custody, extended familial relationships are options, and much
depends on the age of the child and how the aparents handle it.

>Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam (LilMtnCbn)Date: 1/21/2004 2:44 PM Newfoundland Standard TimeMessage-id: <20040121131456.24702.00000442@mb-m16.aol.com>Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: chosenchildinc1@aol.com (Chosenchildinc1)Date: 1/21/04 10:51 AM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <20040121125102.11601.00000409@mb-m12.aol.com>Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: Robin Harritt karakoram@postadoption.infoDate: 1/21/2004 2:02 PM Newfoundland Standard TimeMessage-id: <BC346826.2FE1A%karakoram@postadoption.info>in article c599139c.0401210746.3385c645@posting.google.com, Dian atpatrice68@bigpond.com.au wrote on 21/1/04 3:46 pm:Re the story:-'It is estimated that 5,000 children may have been taken into care over thepast 15 years as a result of Professor Meadow's theory of Munchausen'sSyndrome by Proxy.'Di said:-> Top post - all of those children should be returned to their parents> forthwith.>> Di>Given this is about children taken away between 1 and 15 years ago, thatwould be a bit difficult, English law requires the authorities to do whatisin the best interest of the individual child, not that of the birthmother.Do you really think that it would be in the best interest of a seven yearold to remove him from the family he was placed with at the age of sixmonths? The solution isn't going to be that simple.I do hope that Meadow get properly punished for his professionalincompetence that often involved mistakes in 'junior school level'statistics on the probability of more than one cot death per family.RobinExactly right Robin, to rip a child from the only family it has ever knownandplace it with a stranger would be barbaric. Di, would you grab a 12 or 13yearold and place it in a strange family? Ridiculous............Well, if they don't give the kids back, I certainly hope they open up theadoptions and include regular visitations with their bfamilies. There's noreason why the children shouldn't have a relationship with their family oforigin, especially if they were adopted fraudently.-------------------------A good friend will come and bail you out of jail . . . but, a true friendwillbe sitting next to you saying, "Damn . . . that was fun!"-----Unknown
Agreed

in article 20040121131814.21741.00000550@mb-m06.aol.com, DJanice at
djanice@aol.com wrote on 21/1/04 6:18 pm:
Exactly right Robin, to rip a child from the only family it has ever known and place it with a stranger would be barbaric. Di, would you grab a 12 or 13 year old and place it in a strange family? Ridiculous........... ============= In the case of stolen children or otherwise illegally adopted children, what would you do? If the aparents knowingly raised a child obtained by unethical or illegal means, do you think YOUR child should stay with them?


There is no question of the adoptive parents having known at the time of the
adoption, that the children had been removed as a result false evidence
given by an expert witness. The adoptions resulting from the Meadow evidence
are probably not illegal adoptions in English law. Remember adoption in
England and Wales is a very different thing from adoption in the US, it is
properly regulated here.

If the aparents didn't know that there was illegal or other immoral activities involved, IMO, in the best interests of the child, the aparents should make EVERY effort to transition the child in the introduction to the bfamily. Joint custody, full custody, extended familial relationships are options, and much depends on the age of the child and how the aparents handle it.


These cases will be looked at by the Family Court on an individual basis, in
some cases the Meadow evidence was not the only evidence or the critical
evidence in the conviction leading to the child being adopted. There is no
problem with opening up an adoption in these circumstances, that is at the
discretion of the court, some will no doubt already have included contact
orders.

Robin

These cases will be looked at by the Family Court on an individual basis, in
some cases the Meadow evidence was not the only evidence or the critical
evidence in the conviction leading to the child being adopted. There is no
problem with opening up an adoption in these circumstances, that is at the
discretion of the court, some will no doubt already have included contact
orders.

Robin

============

THanks for the info I am just heartbroken for the kids in these situations.

in article 20040121131456.24702.00000442@mb-m16.aol.com, LilMtnCbn at
lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam wrote on 21/1/04 6:14 pm:
Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' children From: chosenchildinc1@aol.com (Chosenchildinc1) Date: 1/21/04 10:51 AM Mountain Standard Time Message-id: <20040121125102.11601.00000409@mb-m12.aol.com> Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' children From: Robin Harritt karakoram@postadoption.info Date: 1/21/2004 2:02 PM Newfoundland Standard Time Message-id: <BC346826.2FE1A%karakoram@postadoption.info> in article c599139c.0401210746.3385c645@posting.google.com, Dian at patrice68@bigpond.com.au wrote on 21/1/04 3:46 pm: Re the story:- 'It is estimated that 5,000 children may have been taken into care over the past 15 years as a result of Professor Meadow's theory of Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy.' Di said:-> Top post - all of those children should be returned to their parents> forthwith.>> Di> Given this is about children taken away between 1 and 15 years ago, that would be a bit difficult, English law requires the authorities to do what is in the best interest of the individual child, not that of the birthmother. Do you really think that it would be in the best interest of a seven year old to remove him from the family he was placed with at the age of six months? The solution isn't going to be that simple. I do hope that Meadow get properly punished for his professional incompetence that often involved mistakes in 'junior school level' statistics on the probability of more than one cot death per family. Robin

Exactly right Robin, to rip a child from the only family it has ever known and place it with a stranger would be barbaric. Di, would you grab a 12 or 13 year old and place it in a strange family? Ridiculous............

Well, if they don't give the kids back, I certainly hope they open up the adoptions and include regular visitations with their bfamilies. There's no reason why the children shouldn't have a relationship with their family of origin, especially if they were adopted fraudently.


False evidence given in a case against natural parents does not make the
adoption fraudulent. It is difficult to see how there can be an offence of
fraud in English adoption, as no money is exchanged in the way that it often
is in the US.

I expect, in any cases where it is determined that Meadow's evidence lead to
a false conviction, that any resultant adoption will be opened up if it were
previously closed, and contact orders will be made. But you can't just give
back a 7, 8, 9, 10, whatever year old child that was placed for adoption in
his or her first year of life. No matter how just it may seem to be to the
birth family, it is the child that matters and it will where possible, no
doubt, be largely the child's decision to make who his parents are,
certainly his or her views will be treated as paramount in accordance with
English law.


Robin

in article 20040121144632.12662.00000502@mb-m29.aol.com, DJanice at
djanice@aol.com wrote on 21/1/04 7:46 pm:
These cases will be looked at by the Family Court on an individual basis, in some cases the Meadow evidence was not the only evidence or the critical evidence in the conviction leading to the child being adopted. There is no problem with opening up an adoption in these circumstances, that is at the discretion of the court, some will no doubt already have included contact orders. Robin ============ THanks for the info I am just heartbroken for the kids in these situations.

So am I, I hope that the birth family and the children involved will receive
adequate compensation. Some of Meadow's evidence was really ridiculous but
was never questioned because was "the expert". Unfortunately this sort of
thing seems to happen over and over again in the British child care system,
what with the satanic abuse scandal and Higgs and Wyatt (meaningless 'reflex
anal dilatation tests') we seem to be plagued with dodgy experts. We are due
a new Children Bill before Parliament in the next couple of years, I hope
something will be done make these kind of errors less likely.

Robin

So am I, I hope that the birth family and the children involved will receive
adequate compensation.
=========

Geez, I can't even imagine what "adequate" compensation is for lost years.

in article 20040121154809.12662.00000504@mb-m29.aol.com, DJanice at
djanice@aol.com wrote on 21/1/04 8:48 pm:
So am I, I hope that the birth family and the children involved will receive adequate compensation. ========= Geez, I can't even imagine what "adequate" compensation is for lost years.

Sure, I suppose what I really mean is that hope the are not offered derisory
compensation as so often seems to be the case.

Robin

patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote in message news:<c599139c.0401210746.3385c645@posting.google.com>... lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam (LilMtnCbn) wrote in message news:<20040119235048.21852.00000379@mb-m06.aol.com>... http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100regionalnews/content_objec tid=13833383_method=full_siteid=50061_headline=-Agonising-decision-over--l ost--children-name_page.html Top post - all of those children should be returned to their parents forthwith.



You're serious, of course.





Rh. Di Agonising decision over 'lost' children Jan 19 2004 By Alan Weston Daily Post Staff THE controversial doctor whose evidence helped convict Cheshire solicitor Sally Clark of murdering her children is causing a dilemma for government officials. Children's Minister Margaret Hodge has admitted that thou-sands of children taken from their families on the expert evidence of Sir Roy Meadow may never see their parents again. It is estimated that 5,000 children may have been taken into care over the past 15 years as a result of Professor Meadow's theory of Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy. The theory - that some mothers harm their children to draw attention to themselves - has been largely discredited as a result of a series of high-profile court cases, such as that of Mrs Clark. However, in an interview with a national newspaper yesterday, Mrs Hodge warned that, in many cases, it would not now be in the children's interests to reunite them with their biological parents. She said: "If a miscarriage of justice was made 10 or 15 years ago, what is in the child's interest now? If the adoption order was made on the back of Meadow's evidence and that was 10 years ago, what is the real interest of the child? "If they were taken as babies, the only parent they know is the adoptive one. It is incredibly difficult. "It is really a tough call to make. "The sort of families that are coming forward are heartbroken families. But if the child was adopted at birth, the sensible thing to do is to let it stay. "As Children's Minister, my prime interest has to be the interests of the child." Prof Meadow's theory has been discredited as a result of three cases in which he gave evidence against women who were wrongly accused of killing their children. As well as Mrs Clark, who was cleared on appeal, Trupti Patel was acquitted and Angela Canning - who was jailed in 2002 for murdering her two baby sons - had her conviction quashed last month. ------------------------- 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

chosenchildinc1@aol.com (Chosenchildinc1) wrote in message news:<20040121125102.11601.00000409@mb-m12.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: Robin Harritt karakoram@postadoption.infoDate: 1/21/2004 2:02 PM Newfoundland Standard TimeMessage-id: <BC346826.2FE1A%karakoram@postadoption.info>in article c599139c.0401210746.3385c645@posting.google.com, Dian atpatrice68@bigpond.com.au wrote on 21/1/04 3:46 pm:Re the story:-'It is estimated that 5,000 children may have been taken into care over thepast 15 years as a result of Professor Meadow's theory of Munchausen'sSyndrome by Proxy.'Di said:- Top post - all of those children should be returned to their parents forthwith. DiGiven this is about children taken away between 1 and 15 years ago, thatwould be a bit difficult, English law requires the authorities to do what isin the best interest of the individual child, not that of the birthmother.Do you really think that it would be in the best interest of a seven yearold to remove him from the family he was placed with at the age of sixmonths? The solution isn't going to be that simple.I do hope that Meadow get properly punished for his professionalincompetence that often involved mistakes in 'junior school level'statistics on the probability of more than one cot death per family.Robin Exactly right Robin, to rip a child from the only family it has ever known and place it with a stranger would be barbaric.

That's rich coming from someone who makes her living not only by
separating children from the "only family they have ever known" but
also promoting such a barbaric act.

Di, would you grab a 12 or 13 year old and place it in a strange family? Ridiculous............

That "strange" family is the one they were taken from in the first
place.
What is ridiculous is you believing they should remain living in a
house with total strangers and being led to believe the reason they
were adopted was because their mother was a supposed murderer. Now
that would do far more harm than any restoration ever could. But of
course being the unprofessional that you are, you would not know of
such matters.

Robin Harritt <karakoram@postadoption.info> wrote in message news:<BC348AEE.2FE58%karakoram@postadoption.info>... in article 20040121131456.24702.00000442@mb-m16.aol.com, LilMtnCbn at lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam wrote on 21/1/04 6:14 pm: Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' children From: chosenchildinc1@aol.com (Chosenchildinc1) Date: 1/21/04 10:51 AM Mountain Standard Time Message-id: <20040121125102.11601.00000409@mb-m12.aol.com>> Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' children From: Robin Harritt> karakoram@postadoption.info Date: 1/21/2004 2:02 PM Newfoundland Standard> Time Message-id: <BC346826.2FE1A%karakoram@postadoption.info>>> in article c599139c.0401210746.3385c645@posting.google.com, Dian at> patrice68@bigpond.com.au wrote on 21/1/04 3:46 pm:>>> Re the story:->> 'It is estimated that 5,000 children may have been taken into care over the> past 15 years as a result of Professor Meadow's theory of Munchausen's> Syndrome by Proxy.'>>> Di said:->>> Top post - all of those children should be returned to their parents>> forthwith.>>>> Di>>>>> Given this is about children taken away between 1 and 15 years ago, that> would be a bit difficult, English law requires the authorities to do what is> in the best interest of the individual child, not that of the birthmother.> Do you really think that it would be in the best interest of a seven year> old to remove him from the family he was placed with at the age of six> months? The solution isn't going to be that simple.>> I do hope that Meadow get properly punished for his professional> incompetence that often involved mistakes in 'junior school level'> statistics on the probability of more than one cot death per family.>> Robin Exactly right Robin, to rip a child from the only family it has ever known and place it with a stranger would be barbaric. Di, would you grab a 12 or 13 year old and place it in a strange family? Ridiculous............ Well, if they don't give the kids back, I certainly hope they open up the adoptions and include regular visitations with their bfamilies. There's no reason why the children shouldn't have a relationship with their family of origin, especially if they were adopted fraudently. False evidence given in a case against natural parents does not make the adoption fraudulent. It is difficult to see how there can be an offence of fraud in English adoption, as no money is exchanged in the way that it often is in the US. I expect, in any cases where it is determined that Meadow's evidence lead to a false conviction, that any resultant adoption will be opened up if it were previously closed, and contact orders will be made. But you can't just give back a 7, 8, 9, 10, whatever year old child that was placed for adoption in his or her first year of life. No matter how just it may seem to be to the birth family, it is the child that matters and it will where possible, no doubt, be largely the child's decision to make who his parents are, certainly his or her views will be treated as paramount in accordance with English law. Robin

How do you think it will or has affected these children to be told the
reason for their adoptions?


Di

in article c599139c.0401211604.733c753@posting.google.com, Dian at
patrice68@bigpond.com.au wrote on 22/1/04 12:04 am:
Robin Harritt <karakoram@postadoption.info> wrote in message news:<BC348AEE.2FE58%karakoram@postadoption.info>... in article 20040121131456.24702.00000442@mb-m16.aol.com, LilMtnCbn at lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam wrote on 21/1/04 6:14 pm:> Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' children From:> chosenchildinc1@aol.com (Chosenchildinc1) Date: 1/21/04 10:51 AM Mountain> Standard Time Message-id: <20040121125102.11601.00000409@mb-m12.aol.com>>>> Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' children From: Robin Harritt>> karakoram@postadoption.info Date: 1/21/2004 2:02 PM Newfoundland Standard>> Time Message-id: <BC346826.2FE1A%karakoram@postadoption.info>>>>> in article c599139c.0401210746.3385c645@posting.google.com, Dian at>> patrice68@bigpond.com.au wrote on 21/1/04 3:46 pm:>>>>>> Re the story:->>>> 'It is estimated that 5,000 children may have been taken into care over>> the>> past 15 years as a result of Professor Meadow's theory of Munchausen's>> Syndrome by Proxy.'>>>>>> Di said:->>>>> Top post - all of those children should be returned to their parents>>> forthwith.>>>>>> Di>>>>>>>>> Given this is about children taken away between 1 and 15 years ago, that>> would be a bit difficult, English law requires the authorities to do what>> is>> in the best interest of the individual child, not that of the birthmother.>> Do you really think that it would be in the best interest of a seven year>> old to remove him from the family he was placed with at the age of six>> months? The solution isn't going to be that simple.>>>> I do hope that Meadow get properly punished for his professional>> incompetence that often involved mistakes in 'junior school level'>> statistics on the probability of more than one cot death per family.>>>> Robin> Exactly right Robin, to rip a child from the only family it has ever known> and place it with a stranger would be barbaric. Di, would you grab a 12 or> 13> year old and place it in a strange family? Ridiculous............ Well, if they don't give the kids back, I certainly hope they open up the adoptions and include regular visitations with their bfamilies. There's no reason why the children shouldn't have a relationship with their family of origin, especially if they were adopted fraudently. False evidence given in a case against natural parents does not make the adoption fraudulent. It is difficult to see how there can be an offence of fraud in English adoption, as no money is exchanged in the way that it often is in the US. I expect, in any cases where it is determined that Meadow's evidence lead to a false conviction, that any resultant adoption will be opened up if it were previously closed, and contact orders will be made. But you can't just give back a 7, 8, 9, 10, whatever year old child that was placed for adoption in his or her first year of life. No matter how just it may seem to be to the birth family, it is the child that matters and it will where possible, no doubt, be largely the child's decision to make who his parents are, certainly his or her views will be treated as paramount in accordance with English law. Robin

How do you think it will or has affected these children to be told the reason for their adoptions?

Very difficult isn't it, luckily children can be very resilient. Those left
with the task of sorting this whole mess out are going to have to be careful
to understand the difference between "unsafe conviction" and "proven
innocence" not all of these children could simply be returned to the natural
parents, it will require all forensic evidence to be looked at by other
experts. It can't be assumed at this stage that all of the convictions will
be overturned. In some cases what the children have been told may still
prove to be true.

Robin

"Robin Harritt" <karakoram@postadoption.info> wrote in message
news:BC348AEE.2FE58%karakoram@postadoption.info... in article 20040121131456.24702.00000442@mb-m16.aol.com, LilMtnCbn at lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam wrote on 21/1/04 6:14 pm: Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' children From: chosenchildinc1@aol.com (Chosenchildinc1) Date: 1/21/04 10:51 AM
Mountain Standard Time Message-id:
<20040121125102.11601.00000409@mb-m12.aol.com>> Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' children From: Robin
Harritt> karakoram@postadoption.info Date: 1/21/2004 2:02 PM Newfoundland
Standard> Time Message-id: <BC346826.2FE1A%karakoram@postadoption.info>>> in article c599139c.0401210746.3385c645@posting.google.com, Dian at> patrice68@bigpond.com.au wrote on 21/1/04 3:46 pm:>>> Re the story:->> 'It is estimated that 5,000 children may have been taken into care
over the> past 15 years as a result of Professor Meadow's theory of Munchausen's> Syndrome by Proxy.'>>> Di said:->>> Top post - all of those children should be returned to their parents>> forthwith.>>>> Di>>>>> Given this is about children taken away between 1 and 15 years ago,
that> would be a bit difficult, English law requires the authorities to do
what is> in the best interest of the individual child, not that of the
birthmother.> Do you really think that it would be in the best interest of a seven
year> old to remove him from the family he was placed with at the age of six> months? The solution isn't going to be that simple.>> I do hope that Meadow get properly punished for his professional> incompetence that often involved mistakes in 'junior school level'> statistics on the probability of more than one cot death per family.>> Robin Exactly right Robin, to rip a child from the only family it has ever
known and place it with a stranger would be barbaric. Di, would you grab a 12
or 13 year old and place it in a strange family? Ridiculous............ Well, if they don't give the kids back, I certainly hope they open up
the adoptions and include regular visitations with their bfamilies. There's
no reason why the children shouldn't have a relationship with their family
of origin, especially if they were adopted fraudently. False evidence given in a case against natural parents does not make the adoption fraudulent. It is difficult to see how there can be an offence of fraud in English adoption, as no money is exchanged in the way that it
often is in the US. I expect, in any cases where it is determined that Meadow's evidence lead
to a false conviction, that any resultant adoption will be opened up if it
were previously closed, and contact orders will be made. But you can't just
give back a 7, 8, 9, 10, whatever year old child that was placed for adoption
in his or her first year of life. No matter how just it may seem to be to the birth family, it is the child that matters and it will where possible, no doubt, be largely the child's decision to make who his parents are, certainly his or her views will be treated as paramount in accordance with English law. Robin

I've been waiting for Meadow to hit the fan after his disputed expert
testimony in Trupti Patel's case. I had the distinct impression that his
days as "expert" were soon to be over.

Marley

In article <20040121131456.24702.00000442@mb-m16.aol.com>,
lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam (LilMtnCbn) writes:
Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: chosenchildinc1@aol.com (Chosenchildinc1)Date: 1/21/04 10:51 AM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <20040121125102.11601.00000409@mb-m12.aol.com>Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: Robin Harritt karakoram@postadoption.infoDate: 1/21/2004 2:02 PM Newfoundland Standard TimeMessage-id: <BC346826.2FE1A%karakoram@postadoption.info>in article c599139c.0401210746.3385c645@posting.google.com, Dian atpatrice68@bigpond.com.au wrote on 21/1/04 3:46 pm:Re the story:-'It is estimated that 5,000 children may have been taken into care over thepast 15 years as a result of Professor Meadow's theory of Munchausen'sSyndrome by Proxy.'Di said:-> Top post - all of those children should be returned to their parents> forthwith.>> Di>Given this is about children taken away between 1 and 15 years ago, thatwould be a bit difficult, English law requires the authorities to do whatisin the best interest of the individual child, not that of the birthmother.Do you really think that it would be in the best interest of a seven yearold to remove him from the family he was placed with at the age of sixmonths? The solution isn't going to be that simple.I do hope that Meadow get properly punished for his professionalincompetence that often involved mistakes in 'junior school level'statistics on the probability of more than one cot death per family.Robin
Exactly right Robin, to rip a child from the only family it has ever knownandplace it with a stranger would be barbaric. Di, would you grab a 12 or 13yearold and place it in a strange family? Ridiculous............Well, if they don't give the kids back, I certainly hope they open up theadoptions and include regular visitations with their bfamilies. There's noreason why the children shouldn't have a relationship with their family oforigin, especially if they were adopted fraudently.

Children old enough to make the call certainly should be given the option. I
have no opinion on those too young to make the decision for themselves, other
than to say that I suspect the decision needs to be made on a case by case
basis, possibly with a bias toward opening the adoptions unless there are
compelling reasons not to do so.

J.





Reply to jmhjmd at aol.

in article N5IPb.84279$6y6.1695729@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net,
Marley Greiner at maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net wrote on 22/1/04 4:13 am:
"Robin Harritt" <karakoram@postadoption.info> wrote in message news:BC348AEE.2FE58%karakoram@postadoption.info... in article 20040121131456.24702.00000442@mb-m16.aol.com, LilMtnCbn at lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam wrote on 21/1/04 6:14 pm:> Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' children From:> chosenchildinc1@aol.com (Chosenchildinc1) Date: 1/21/04 10:51 AM Mountain> Standard Time Message-id: <20040121125102.11601.00000409@mb-m12.aol.com>>>> Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' children From: Robin Harritt>> karakoram@postadoption.info Date: 1/21/2004 2:02 PM Newfoundland Standard>> Time Message-id: <BC346826.2FE1A%karakoram@postadoption.info>>>>> in article c599139c.0401210746.3385c645@posting.google.com, Dian at>> patrice68@bigpond.com.au wrote on 21/1/04 3:46 pm:>>>>>> Re the story:->>>> 'It is estimated that 5,000 children may have been taken into care over>> the past 15 years as a result of Professor Meadow's theory of Munchausen's>> Syndrome by Proxy.'>>>>>> Di said:->>>>> Top post - all of those children should be returned to their parents>>> forthwith.>>>>>> Di>>>>>>>>> Given this is about children taken away between 1 and 15 years ago, that>> would be a bit difficult, English law requires the authorities to do what>> is in the best interest of the individual child, not that of the>> birthmother. Do you really think that it would be in the best interest of>> a seven year old to remove him from the family he was placed with at the>> age of six months? The solution isn't going to be that simple.>>>> I do hope that Meadow get properly punished for his professional>> incompetence that often involved mistakes in 'junior school level'>> statistics on the probability of more than one cot death per family.>>>> Robin>>> Exactly right Robin, to rip a child from the only family it has ever known> and place it with a stranger would be barbaric. Di, would you grab a 12 or> 13 year old and place it in a strange family? Ridiculous............> Well, if they don't give the kids back, I certainly hope they open up the adoptions and include regular visitations with their bfamilies. There's no reason why the children shouldn't have a relationship with their family of origin, especially if they were adopted fraudently. False evidence given in a case against natural parents does not make the adoption fraudulent. It is difficult to see how there can be an offence of fraud in English adoption, as no money is exchanged in the way that it often is in the US. I expect, in any cases where it is determined that Meadow's evidence lead to a false conviction, that any resultant adoption will be opened up if it were previously closed, and contact orders will be made. But you can't just give back a 7, 8, 9, 10, whatever year old child that was placed for adoption in his or her first year of life. No matter how just it may seem to be to the birth family, it is the child that matters and it will where possible, no doubt, be largely the child's decision to make who his parents are, certainly his or her views will be treated as paramount in accordance with English law. Robin I've been waiting for Meadow to hit the fan after his disputed expert testimony in Trupti Patel's case. I had the distinct impression that his days as "expert" were soon to be over. Marley


Dodgy evidence in one case might be an oversight, but three in row, where do
we get these people from and why does it always take so long for their
incompetence to surface?


Robin

"Dian" <patrice68@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message
news:c599139c.0401211547.496315a1@posting.google.c om... chosenchildinc1@aol.com (Chosenchildinc1) wrote in message
news:<20040121125102.11601.00000409@mb-m12.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: Robin Harritt karakoram@postadoption.infoDate: 1/21/2004 2:02 PM Newfoundland Standard TimeMessage-id: <BC346826.2FE1A%karakoram@postadoption.info>in article c599139c.0401210746.3385c645@posting.google.com, Dian atpatrice68@bigpond.com.au wrote on 21/1/04 3:46 pm:Re the story:-'It is estimated that 5,000 children may have been taken into care over
thepast 15 years as a result of Professor Meadow's theory of Munchausen'sSyndrome by Proxy.'Di said:-> Top post - all of those children should be returned to their parents> forthwith.>> Di>Given this is about children taken away between 1 and 15 years ago,
thatwould be a bit difficult, English law requires the authorities to do
what isin the best interest of the individual child, not that of the
birthmother.Do you really think that it would be in the best interest of a seven
yearold to remove him from the family he was placed with at the age of sixmonths? The solution isn't going to be that simple.I do hope that Meadow get properly punished for his professionalincompetence that often involved mistakes in 'junior school level'statistics on the probability of more than one cot death per family.Robin Exactly right Robin, to rip a child from the only family it has ever
known and place it with a stranger would be barbaric. That's rich coming from someone who makes her living not only by separating children from the "only family they have ever known" but also promoting such a barbaric act. Di, would you grab a 12 or 13 year old and place it in a strange family? Ridiculous............ That "strange" family is the one they were taken from in the first place. What is ridiculous is you believing they should remain living in a house with total strangers and being led to believe the reason they were adopted was because their mother was a supposed murderer.

These "Total Strangers" are the people they have called parents for the last
few years, most of them have no memory of their birth parents
Now that would do far more harm than any restoration ever could. But of course being the unprofessional that you are, you would not know of such matters.

and what are your professional, unbiased qualifications that allow you to
make such a black and white statement? (other than a belief that DNA trumps
everything else and a deep seated pathological hatred of adoptive parents)

Jason

>Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: "Jason Gorringe" jasongorringe@XXXXhotmail.comDate: 1/22/2004 7:22 AM Newfoundland Standard TimeMessage-id: <400fab7e$0$2435$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com>"Dian" <patrice68@bigpond.com.au> wrote in messagenews:c599139c.0401211547.496315a1@posting.g oogle.com... chosenchildinc1@aol.com (Chosenchildinc1) wrote in messagenews:<20040121125102.11601.00000409@mb-m12.aol.com>... >Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' children >From: Robin Harritt karakoram@postadoption.info >Date: 1/21/2004 2:02 PM Newfoundland Standard Time >Message-id: <BC346826.2FE1A%karakoram@postadoption.info> > >in article c599139c.0401210746.3385c645@posting.google.com, Dian at >patrice68@bigpond.com.au wrote on 21/1/04 3:46 pm: > > >Re the story:- > >'It is estimated that 5,000 children may have been taken into care overthe >past 15 years as a result of Professor Meadow's theory of Munchausen's >Syndrome by Proxy.' > > >Di said:- > >> Top post - all of those children should be returned to their parents >> forthwith. >> >> Di >> > > >Given this is about children taken away between 1 and 15 years ago,that >would be a bit difficult, English law requires the authorities to dowhat is >in the best interest of the individual child, not that of thebirthmother. >Do you really think that it would be in the best interest of a sevenyear >old to remove him from the family he was placed with at the age of six >months? The solution isn't going to be that simple. > >I do hope that Meadow get properly punished for his professional >incompetence that often involved mistakes in 'junior school level' >statistics on the probability of more than one cot death per family. > >Robin > > > > > > > > > Exactly right Robin, to rip a child from the only family it has everknown and place it with a stranger would be barbaric. That's rich coming from someone who makes her living not only by separating children from the "only family they have ever known" but also promoting such a barbaric act. Di, would you grab a 12 or 13 year old and place it in a strange family? Ridiculous............ That "strange" family is the one they were taken from in the first place. What is ridiculous is you believing they should remain living in a house with total strangers and being led to believe the reason they were adopted was because their mother was a supposed murderer.These "Total Strangers" are the people they have called parents for the lastfew years, most of them have no memory of their birth parents Now that would do far more harm than any restoration ever could. But of course being the unprofessional that you are, you would not know of such matters.and what are your professional, unbiased qualifications that allow you tomake such a black and white statement? (other than a belief that DNA trumpseverything else and a deep seated pathological hatred of adoptive parents)Jason
Now Jason, if you are going to hit Di with logic, she doesn't want to chit
chat, (stole that from Dean Martin), Di doesn't care about the adoptee, or the
adoptive family. She only cares about the birthmom. Didn't you know that all
babies are stolen, all birthfamilies are perfect and there is never any reason
for placement, and all birthmothers were is a state of dissassiciation at the
time of signing the relinquishment papers. They were in a fugue state and
completely not in control of their senses.

I know of a contested adoption with a three year old girl from the a foreign
country, the birthmom won her case and the court ordered the child removed
from the adoptive family. The only family she has known since birth. The
adoptive parents were the sad dupes in what happened and thought everything was
Kosher with the adoption. The court ordered a two year couseling program with
shared custody and scheduled visitation, upon completion the child will be
permanently with the birthmom. All agreed this was in the childs best interest,
even though the adoptive parents are broken hearted.

Thank God that Di was not the judge, she would have had a black van pull up to
the house at 3am, grab the child out of a sound sleep and whisk it away to it's
birthmom. Case closed, Di says, mission accomplished, all is well. No trauma
for the baby, she is with her rightful parent, and as for the adoptive family
and this babies siblings since birth, screw them all.

In article <BC35555F.2FF17%karakoram@postadoption.info>, Robin Harritt
<karakoram@postadoption.info> writes:
in article N5IPb.84279$6y6.1695729@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net,Marley Greiner at maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net wrote on 22/1/04 4:13 am: "Robin Harritt" <karakoram@postadoption.info> wrote in message news:BC348AEE.2FE58%karakoram@postadoption.info... in article 20040121131456.24702.00000442@mb-m16.aol.com, LilMtnCbn at lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam wrote on 21/1/04 6:14 pm:>> Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' children From:>> chosenchildinc1@aol.com (Chosenchildinc1) Date: 1/21/04 10:51 AMMountain>> Standard Time Message-id: <20040121125102.11601.00000409@mb-m12.aol.com>>>>>> Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' children From: RobinHarritt>>> karakoram@postadoption.info Date: 1/21/2004 2:02 PM NewfoundlandStandard>>> Time Message-id: <BC346826.2FE1A%karakoram@postadoption.info>>>>>>> in article c599139c.0401210746.3385c645@posting.google.com, Dian at>>> patrice68@bigpond.com.au wrote on 21/1/04 3:46 pm:>>>>>>>>> Re the story:->>>>>> 'It is estimated that 5,000 children may have been taken into care over>>> the past 15 years as a result of Professor Meadow's theory ofMunchausen's>>> Syndrome by Proxy.'>>>>>>>>> Di said:->>>>>>> Top post - all of those children should be returned to their parents>>>> forthwith.>>>>>>>> Di>>>>>>>>>>>>> Given this is about children taken away between 1 and 15 years ago,that>>> would be a bit difficult, English law requires the authorities to dowhat>>> is in the best interest of the individual child, not that of the>>> birthmother. Do you really think that it would be in the best interestof>>> a seven year old to remove him from the family he was placed with atthe>>> age of six months? The solution isn't going to be that simple.>>>>>> I do hope that Meadow get properly punished for his professional>>> incompetence that often involved mistakes in 'junior school level'>>> statistics on the probability of more than one cot death per family.>>>>>> Robin>>>>> Exactly right Robin, to rip a child from the only family it has everknown>> and place it with a stranger would be barbaric. Di, would you grab a 12or>> 13 year old and place it in a strange family? Ridiculous............>>> Well, if they don't give the kids back, I certainly hope they open up the> adoptions and include regular visitations with their bfamilies. There'sno> reason why the children shouldn't have a relationship with their familyof> origin, especially if they were adopted fraudently.> False evidence given in a case against natural parents does not make the adoption fraudulent. It is difficult to see how there can be an offence of fraud in English adoption, as no money is exchanged in the way that itoften is in the US. I expect, in any cases where it is determined that Meadow's evidence leadto a false conviction, that any resultant adoption will be opened up if itwere previously closed, and contact orders will be made. But you can't justgive back a 7, 8, 9, 10, whatever year old child that was placed for adoptionin his or her first year of life. No matter how just it may seem to be to the birth family, it is the child that matters and it will where possible, no doubt, be largely the child's decision to make who his parents are,certainly his or her views will be treated as paramount in accordance with Englishlaw. Robin I've been waiting for Meadow to hit the fan after his disputed expert testimony in Trupti Patel's case. I had the distinct impression that hisdays as "expert" were soon to be over. MarleyDodgy evidence in one case might be an oversight, but three in row, where dowe get these people from and why does it always take so long for theirincompetence to surface?Robin

I can't speak directly to these events, but most quackery survives and thrives
because the general populace knows so little of what science is or about the
scientific method. Add a dash of desire to believe and people can not only
swallow anything, but can pick it up and run with it.

J.





Reply to jmhjmd at aol.

In article <400fab7e$0$2435$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com>,
Jason Gorringe <jasongorringe@XXXXhotmail.com> wrote:
and what are your professional, unbiased qualifications that allow you tomake such a black and white statement? (other than a belief that DNA trumpseverything else and a deep seated pathological hatred of adoptive parents)Jason


Nice succinct summary of Di's world view, Jason. May I add that in Di's
world view the feelings and rights and mental health of children matter
not one whit. Di encourages taking a child from the only family he or she
has known and forcing them into an utterly alien environment. Yas, yas,
Di, I know, DNA uber alles, but even you, if you think about it for a bit
might conclude that DNA ain't everything.

Linda

chosenchildinc1@aol.com (Chosenchildinc1) wrote in message news:<20040122060914.24788.00000454@mb-m16.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: "Jason Gorringe" jasongorringe@XXXXhotmail.comDate: 1/22/2004 7:22 AM Newfoundland Standard TimeMessage-id: <400fab7e$0$2435$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com>"Dian" <patrice68@bigpond.com.au> wrote in messagenews:c599139c.0401211547.496315a1@posting.g oogle.com... chosenchildinc1@aol.com (Chosenchildinc1) wrote in message news:<20040121125102.11601.00000409@mb-m12.aol.com>... > >Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' children > >From: Robin Harritt karakoram@postadoption.info > >Date: 1/21/2004 2:02 PM Newfoundland Standard Time > >Message-id: <BC346826.2FE1A%karakoram@postadoption.info> > > > >in article c599139c.0401210746.3385c645@posting.google.com, Dian at > >patrice68@bigpond.com.au wrote on 21/1/04 3:46 pm: > > > > > >Re the story:- > > > >'It is estimated that 5,000 children may have been taken into care over the > >past 15 years as a result of Professor Meadow's theory of Munchausen's > >Syndrome by Proxy.' > > > > > >Di said:- > > > >> Top post - all of those children should be returned to their parents > >> forthwith. > >> > >> Di > >> > > > > > >Given this is about children taken away between 1 and 15 years ago, that > >would be a bit difficult, English law requires the authorities to do what is > >in the best interest of the individual child, not that of the birthmother. > >Do you really think that it would be in the best interest of a seven year > >old to remove him from the family he was placed with at the age of six > >months? The solution isn't going to be that simple. > > > >I do hope that Meadow get properly punished for his professional > >incompetence that often involved mistakes in 'junior school level' > >statistics on the probability of more than one cot death per family. > > > >Robin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Exactly right Robin, to rip a child from the only family it has ever known and > place it with a stranger would be barbaric. That's rich coming from someone who makes her living not only by separating children from the "only family they have ever known" but also promoting such a barbaric act. Di, would you grab a 12 or 13 year > old and place it in a strange family? Ridiculous............ That "strange" family is the one they were taken from in the first place. What is ridiculous is you believing they should remain living in a house with total strangers and being led to believe the reason they were adopted was because their mother was a supposed murderer.These "Total Strangers" are the people they have called parents for the lastfew years, most of them have no memory of their birth parents Now that would do far more harm than any restoration ever could. But of course being the unprofessional that you are, you would not know of such matters.and what are your professional, unbiased qualifications that allow you tomake such a black and white statement? (other than a belief that DNA trumpseverything else and a deep seated pathological hatred of adoptive parents)Jason Now Jason, if you are going to hit Di with logic, she doesn't want to chit chat, (stole that from Dean Martin), Di doesn't care about the adoptee, or the adoptive family. She only cares about the birthmom. Didn't you know that all babies are stolen, all birthfamilies are perfect and there is never any reason for placement, and all birthmothers were is a state of dissassiciation at the time of signing the relinquishment papers. They were in a fugue state and completely not in control of their senses. I know of a contested adoption with a three year old girl from the a foreign country, the birthmom won her case and the court ordered the child removed from the adoptive family. The only family she has known since birth.


What's with this inane argument of "The only family she has known
since birth?"
CPS takes children both rightly and wrongly every day of the week from
the only family they have everknown. And adoption is based on removing
children from
"the only family they have ever known" including infants.

Why do you believe adoptive families should be immune from having the
children they raise taken from them when these particular children
should not have been given to them in the first place? It it because
they purchase those chldren and people like you would have to refund
the money they paid?

Di


The adoptive parents were the sad dupes in what happened and thought everything was Kosher with the adoption.
The court ordered a two year couseling program with shared custody and scheduled visitation, upon completion the child will be permanently with the birthmom. All agreed this was in the childs best interest, even though the adoptive parents are broken hearted. Thank God that Di was not the judge, she would have had a black van pull up to the house at 3am, grab the child out of a sound sleep and whisk it away to it's birthmom. Case closed, Di says, mission accomplished, all is well. No trauma for the baby, she is with her rightful parent, and as for the adoptive family and this babies siblings since birth, screw them all.

"Jason Gorringe" <jasongorringe@XXXXhotmail.com> wrote in message news:<400fab7e$0$2435$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com>... "Dian" <patrice68@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message news:c599139c.0401211547.496315a1@posting.google.c om... chosenchildinc1@aol.com (Chosenchildinc1) wrote in message news:<20040121125102.11601.00000409@mb-m12.aol.com>... >Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' children >From: Robin Harritt karakoram@postadoption.info >Date: 1/21/2004 2:02 PM Newfoundland Standard Time >Message-id: <BC346826.2FE1A%karakoram@postadoption.info> > >in article c599139c.0401210746.3385c645@posting.google.com, Dian at >patrice68@bigpond.com.au wrote on 21/1/04 3:46 pm: > > >Re the story:- > >'It is estimated that 5,000 children may have been taken into care over the >past 15 years as a result of Professor Meadow's theory of Munchausen's >Syndrome by Proxy.' > > >Di said:- > >> Top post - all of those children should be returned to their parents >> forthwith. >> >> Di >> > > >Given this is about children taken away between 1 and 15 years ago, that >would be a bit difficult, English law requires the authorities to do what is >in the best interest of the individual child, not that of the birthmother. >Do you really think that it would be in the best interest of a seven year >old to remove him from the family he was placed with at the age of six >months? The solution isn't going to be that simple. > >I do hope that Meadow get properly punished for his professional >incompetence that often involved mistakes in 'junior school level' >statistics on the probability of more than one cot death per family. > >Robin > > > > > > > > > Exactly right Robin, to rip a child from the only family it has ever known and place it with a stranger would be barbaric. That's rich coming from someone who makes her living not only by separating children from the "only family they have ever known" but also promoting such a barbaric act. Di, would you grab a 12 or 13 year old and place it in a strange family? Ridiculous............ That "strange" family is the one they were taken from in the first place. What is ridiculous is you believing they should remain living in a house with total strangers and being led to believe the reason they were adopted was because their mother was a supposed murderer. These "Total Strangers" are the people they have called parents for the last few years,

And prior to their removal they were calling their natural parents
their parents for possibly years. So what's your point?

most of them have no memory of their birth parents
How do you know what memories they harbour or at what age they were
adopted?
Now that would do far more harm than any restoration ever could. But of course being the unprofessional that you are, you would not know of such matters. and what are your professional, unbiased qualifications that allow you to make such a black and white statement?

Have a look around you.

(other than a belief that DNA trumps everything else and a deep seated pathological hatred of adoptive parents)
My views have nothing to do with adoptive parents. A very serious
wrong was done to these families AND their children. Do you believe
the loss to
the adoptive parents trumps that of the natural family? and if so, why
so, when the natural family did no wrong and have already suffered the
loss of a child to death? Should they lose all of their other
children? How does that right
this wrong?

If anythng, I'd say your own bias is showing.
Jason


What's your problem, Jason? Children are removed from the only family
they have ever known every day of the week. Including every adoptee
who has ever walked this planet. You attached ot your adopters after
being removed form your nmother.

Or does attachment only work when the child is removed from it s
natrual family and adopted?

>Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 1/22/2004 4:38 PM Newfoundland Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0401221208.339fcd12@posting.google.com>chosenchildinc1@aol.com (Chosenchildinc1) wrote in messagenews:<20040122060914.24788.00000454@mb-m16.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: "Jason Gorringe" jasongorringe@XXXXhotmail.comDate: 1/22/2004 7:22 AM Newfoundland Standard TimeMessage-id: <400fab7e$0$2435$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com>"Dian" <patrice68@bigpond.com.au> wrote in messagenews:c599139c.0401211547.496315a1@posting.g oogle.com...> chosenchildinc1@aol.com (Chosenchildinc1) wrote in message news:<20040121125102.11601.00000409@mb-m12.aol.com>...> > >Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' children> > >From: Robin Harritt karakoram@postadoption.info> > >Date: 1/21/2004 2:02 PM Newfoundland Standard Time> > >Message-id: <BC346826.2FE1A%karakoram@postadoption.info>> > >> > >in article c599139c.0401210746.3385c645@posting.google.com, Dian at> > >patrice68@bigpond.com.au wrote on 21/1/04 3:46 pm:> > >> > >> > >Re the story:-> > >> > >'It is estimated that 5,000 children may have been taken into careover the> > >past 15 years as a result of Professor Meadow's theory ofMunchausen's> > >Syndrome by Proxy.'> > >> > >> > >Di said:-> > >> > >> Top post - all of those children should be returned to theirparents> > >> forthwith.> > >>> > >> Di> > >>> > >> > >> > >Given this is about children taken away between 1 and 15 years ago, that> > >would be a bit difficult, English law requires the authorities to do what is> > >in the best interest of the individual child, not that of the birthmother.> > >Do you really think that it would be in the best interest of a seven year> > >old to remove him from the family he was placed with at the age ofsix> > >months? The solution isn't going to be that simple.> > >> > >I do hope that Meadow get properly punished for his professional> > >incompetence that often involved mistakes in 'junior school level'> > >statistics on the probability of more than one cot death per family.> > >> > >Robin> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> > Exactly right Robin, to rip a child from the only family it has ever known and> > place it with a stranger would be barbaric.>> That's rich coming from someone who makes her living not only by> separating children from the "only family they have ever known" but> also promoting such a barbaric act.>> Di, would you grab a 12 or 13 year> > old and place it in a strange family? Ridiculous............>> That "strange" family is the one they were taken from in the first> place.> What is ridiculous is you believing they should remain living in a> house with total strangers and being led to believe the reason they> were adopted was because their mother was a supposed murderer.These "Total Strangers" are the people they have called parents for thelastfew years, most of them have no memory of their birth parents> Now that would do far more harm than any restoration ever could. But of> course being the unprofessional that you are, you would not know of> such matters.and what are your professional, unbiased qualifications that allow you tomake such a black and white statement? (other than a belief that DNAtrumpseverything else and a deep seated pathological hatred of adoptive parents)Jason Now Jason, if you are going to hit Di with logic, she doesn't want to chit chat, (stole that from Dean Martin), Di doesn't care about the adoptee, orthe adoptive family. She only cares about the birthmom. Didn't you know thatall babies are stolen, all birthfamilies are perfect and there is never anyreason for placement, and all birthmothers were is a state of dissassiciation atthe time of signing the relinquishment papers. They were in a fugue state and completely not in control of their senses. I know of a contested adoption with a three year old girl from the aforeign country, the birthmom won her case and the court ordered the child removed from the adoptive family. The only family she has known since birth.What's with this inane argument of "The only family she has knownsince birth?"

Sorry you see that as an inane, not an argument, but a statement, maybe that
says it all about you Di, you just don't care at all about the child, the child
that should be placed in an adoptive home because the birthmother is unwilling,
or unable to care for it, and the child that has been placed in an adoptive
home who would be dragged from that home to the home of a stranger, you just
don"t care about the child. I get it, it's as clear as a bell.

CPS takes children both rightly and wrongly every day of the week fromthe only family they have everknown. And adoption is based on removingchildren from"the only family they have ever known" including infants.Why do you believe adoptive families should be immune from having thechildren they raise taken from them,

it's not that black and white Di, Jason tried to explain it to you, so did I,
you have tunnel vision and that tunnel bi-passed the needs of the child. If you
read my complete post you would have read that the court did return the child,
in a humanistic way that was meant to decreas any trauma to that child, of
course, the child would not have been of your concern. Thank God, you are not a
family court Judge.


when these particular childrenshould not have been given to them in the first place? It it becausethey purchase those chldren and people like you would have to refundthe money they paid?

No Di, read what I wrote.............Di The adoptive parents were the sad dupes in what happened and thought everythingwas Kosher with the adoption.The court ordered a two year couseling program with shared custody and scheduled visitation, upon completion the child will be permanently with the birthmom. All agreed this was in the childs bestinterest, even though the adoptive parents are broken hearted. Thank God that Di was not the judge, she would have had a black van pull upto the house at 3am, grab the child out of a sound sleep and whisk it away toit's birthmom. Case closed, Di says, mission accomplished, all is well. Notrauma for the baby, she is with her rightful parent, and as for the adoptivefamily and this babies siblings since birth, screw them all.

>Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 1/21/04 3:47 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0401211547.496315a1@posting.google.com>chosenchildinc1@aol.com (Chosenchildinc1) wrote in messagenews:<20040121125102.11601.00000409@mb-m12.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: Robin Harritt karakoram@postadoption.infoDate: 1/21/2004 2:02 PM Newfoundland Standard TimeMessage-id: <BC346826.2FE1A%karakoram@postadoption.info>in article c599139c.0401210746.3385c645@posting.google.com, Dian atpatrice68@bigpond.com.au wrote on 21/1/04 3:46 pm:Re the story:-'It is estimated that 5,000 children may have been taken into care overthepast 15 years as a result of Professor Meadow's theory of Munchausen'sSyndrome by Proxy.'Di said:-> Top post - all of those children should be returned to their parents> forthwith.>> Di>Given this is about children taken away between 1 and 15 years ago, thatwould be a bit difficult, English law requires the authorities to do whatisin the best interest of the individual child, not that of the birthmother.Do you really think that it would be in the best interest of a seven yearold to remove him from the family he was placed with at the age of sixmonths? The solution isn't going to be that simple.I do hope that Meadow get properly punished for his professionalincompetence that often involved mistakes in 'junior school level'statistics on the probability of more than one cot death per family.Robin Exactly right Robin, to rip a child from the only family it has ever knownand place it with a stranger would be barbaric.That's rich coming from someone who makes her living not only byseparating children from the "only family they have ever known" butalso promoting such a barbaric act.Di, would you grab a 12 or 13 year old and place it in a strange family? Ridiculous............That "strange" family is the one they were taken from in the firstplace.
Di

You wish. @@

As hard as it is for you to comprehend, that " strange " family is the one, if
given your way, you'd force the only innocent, the child, to return to
immediately.

Well thank the courts, you're not left in charge.





Diane Welfare, "she describes the US market as a "$US1.4 billion business in
baby trafficking". ~~121603
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336884771.html

meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in message news:<20040122161825.26514.00000503@mb-m07.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 1/21/04 3:47 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0401211547.496315a1@posting.google.com>chosenchildinc1@aol.com (Chosenchildinc1) wrote in messagenews:<20040121125102.11601.00000409@mb-m12.aol.com>... >Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' children >From: Robin Harritt karakoram@postadoption.info >Date: 1/21/2004 2:02 PM Newfoundland Standard Time >Message-id: <BC346826.2FE1A%karakoram@postadoption.info> > >in article c599139c.0401210746.3385c645@posting.google.com, Dian at >patrice68@bigpond.com.au wrote on 21/1/04 3:46 pm: > > >Re the story:- > >'It is estimated that 5,000 children may have been taken into care over the >past 15 years as a result of Professor Meadow's theory of Munchausen's >Syndrome by Proxy.' > > >Di said:- > >> Top post - all of those children should be returned to their parents >> forthwith. >> >> Di >> > > >Given this is about children taken away between 1 and 15 years ago, that >would be a bit difficult, English law requires the authorities to do what is >in the best interest of the individual child, not that of the birthmother. >Do you really think that it would be in the best interest of a seven year >old to remove him from the family he was placed with at the age of six >months? The solution isn't going to be that simple. > >I do hope that Meadow get properly punished for his professional >incompetence that often involved mistakes in 'junior school level' >statistics on the probability of more than one cot death per family. > >Robin > > > > > > > > > Exactly right Robin, to rip a child from the only family it has ever known and place it with a stranger would be barbaric.That's rich coming from someone who makes her living not only byseparating children from the "only family they have ever known" butalso promoting such a barbaric act.Di, would you grab a 12 or 13 year old and place it in a strange family? Ridiculous............That "strange" family is the one they were taken from in the firstplace.Di You wish. @@ As hard as it is for you to comprehend, that " strange " family is the one, if given your way, you'd force the only innocent, the child, to return to immediately. Well thank the courts, you're not left in charge.
Unlilke you, I don't happen to hate natural families who have
committed no crime and don't believe they OR their children should be
punished by being permanently separated from each other merely for the
sake of the adopters happiness. The way you believe natural families
are incedental and deserve to be the losers even when offences are
committed upon them, you must absolutely despise yourself, Kathy. You
can't even identify with the loss of the natural families in this
terrible situation, let alone the loss felt by the child in being
wrongfully adopted. Anyone could be forgiven for assuming you're an
adoptive parent.

Di
Diane Welfare, "she describes the US market as a "$US1.4 billion business in baby trafficking". ~~121603 http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336884771.html

chosenchildinc1@aol.com (Chosenchildinc1) wrote in message news:<20040122152932.26490.00000479@mb-m07.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 1/22/2004 4:38 PM Newfoundland Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0401221208.339fcd12@posting.google.com>chosenchildinc1@aol.com (Chosenchildinc1) wrote in messagenews:<20040122060914.24788.00000454@mb-m16.aol.com>... >Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' children >From: "Jason Gorringe" jasongorringe@XXXXhotmail.com >Date: 1/22/2004 7:22 AM Newfoundland Standard Time >Message-id: <400fab7e$0$2435$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com> > > >"Dian" <patrice68@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message >news:c599139c.0401211547.496315a1@posting.google.c om... >> chosenchildinc1@aol.com (Chosenchildinc1) wrote in message news:<20040121125102.11601.00000409@mb-m12.aol.com>... >> > >Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' children >> > >From: Robin Harritt karakoram@postadoption.info >> > >Date: 1/21/2004 2:02 PM Newfoundland Standard Time >> > >Message-id: <BC346826.2FE1A%karakoram@postadoption.info> >> > > >> > >in article c599139c.0401210746.3385c645@posting.google.com, Dian at >> > >patrice68@bigpond.com.au wrote on 21/1/04 3:46 pm: >> > > >> > > >> > >Re the story:- >> > > >> > >'It is estimated that 5,000 children may have been taken into care over the >> > >past 15 years as a result of Professor Meadow's theory of Munchausen's >> > >Syndrome by Proxy.' >> > > >> > > >> > >Di said:- >> > > >> > >> Top post - all of those children should be returned to their parents >> > >> forthwith. >> > >> >> > >> Di >> > >> >> > > >> > > >> > >Given this is about children taken away between 1 and 15 years ago, that >> > >would be a bit difficult, English law requires the authorities to do what is >> > >in the best interest of the individual child, not that of the birthmother. >> > >Do you really think that it would be in the best interest of a seven year >> > >old to remove him from the family he was placed with at the age of six >> > >months? The solution isn't going to be that simple. >> > > >> > >I do hope that Meadow get properly punished for his professional >> > >incompetence that often involved mistakes in 'junior school level' >> > >statistics on the probability of more than one cot death per family. >> > > >> > >Robin >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > Exactly right Robin, to rip a child from the only family it has ever known and >> > place it with a stranger would be barbaric. >> >> That's rich coming from someone who makes her living not only by >> separating children from the "only family they have ever known" but >> also promoting such a barbaric act. >> >> Di, would you grab a 12 or 13 year >> > old and place it in a strange family? Ridiculous............ >> >> That "strange" family is the one they were taken from in the first >> place. >> What is ridiculous is you believing they should remain living in a >> house with total strangers and being led to believe the reason they >> were adopted was because their mother was a supposed murderer. > >These "Total Strangers" are the people they have called parents for the last >few years, most of them have no memory of their birth parents > >> Now that would do far more harm than any restoration ever could. But of >> course being the unprofessional that you are, you would not know of >> such matters. > >and what are your professional, unbiased qualifications that allow you to >make such a black and white statement? (other than a belief that DNA trumps >everything else and a deep seated pathological hatred of adoptive parents) > >Jason > > > > > > > > > Now Jason, if you are going to hit Di with logic, she doesn't want to chit chat, (stole that from Dean Martin), Di doesn't care about the adoptee, or the adoptive family. She only cares about the birthmom. Didn't you know that all babies are stolen, all birthfamilies are perfect and there is never any reason for placement, and all birthmothers were is a state of dissassiciation at the time of signing the relinquishment papers. They were in a fugue state and completely not in control of their senses. I know of a contested adoption with a three year old girl from the a foreign country, the birthmom won her case and the court ordered the child removed from the adoptive family. The only family she has known since birth.What's with this inane argument of "The only family she has knownsince birth?" Sorry you see that as an inane, not an argument, but a statement, maybe that says it all about you Di, you just don't care at all about the child, the child that should be placed in an adoptive home because the birthmother is unwilling, or unable to care for it, and the child that has been placed in an adoptive home who would be dragged from that home to the home of a stranger, you just don"t care about the child. I get it, it's as clear as a bell.

Oh get off your pathetical high horse. Unlike you who sees yourself as
the
saviour of children, I don't see you as anything of the sort. Nor do I
see that the best interest of a child who has been wrongfully removed
from their families and adopted (as these children have been) as being
in their best interests. Even if it is given to a 'saviour' as you
claim yourself to be.

And precisely where has it been said that the parents of these
children "were
unwilling or unable to care for" them? It doesn't surprise me one whit
that you would interpret the wrongful removal of children from their
real families as
as equating to those parents being "unwilling or unable to care for
them".
You and your ilk are all the same. Perverse. You will twist anything
if it means justifying the sale of another child.







Di


CPS takes children both rightly and wrongly every day of the week fromthe only family they have everknown. And adoption is based on removingchildren from"the only family they have ever known" including infants.Why do you believe adoptive families should be immune from having thechildren they raise taken from them, it's not that black and white Di, Jason tried to explain it to you, so did I, you have tunnel vision and that tunnel bi-passed the needs of the child. If you read my complete post you would have read that the court did return the child, in a humanistic way that was meant to decreas any trauma to that child, of course, the child would not have been of your concern. Thank God, you are not a family court Judge. when these particular childrenshould not have been given to them in the first place? It it becausethey purchase those chldren and people like you would have to refundthe money they paid? No Di, read what I wrote.............Di The adoptive parents were the sad dupes in what happened and thought everything was Kosher with the adoption. The court ordered a two year couseling program with shared custody and scheduled visitation, upon completion the child will be permanently with the birthmom. All agreed this was in the childs best interest, even though the adoptive parents are broken hearted. Thank God that Di was not the judge, she would have had a black van pull up to the house at 3am, grab the child out of a sound sleep and whisk it away to it's birthmom. Case closed, Di says, mission accomplished, all is well. No trauma for the baby, she is with her rightful parent, and as for the adoptive family and this babies siblings since birth, screw them all.

chosenchildinc1@aol.com (Chosenchildinc1) wrote in message news:<20040122152932.26490.00000479@mb-m07.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 1/22/2004 4:38 PM Newfoundland Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0401221208.339fcd12@posting.google.com>chosenchildinc1@aol.com (Chosenchildinc1) wrote in messagenews:<20040122060914.24788.00000454@mb-m16.aol.com>... >Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' children >From: "Jason Gorringe" jasongorringe@XXXXhotmail.com >Date: 1/22/2004 7:22 AM Newfoundland Standard Time >Message-id: <400fab7e$0$2435$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com> > > >"Dian" <patrice68@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message >news:c599139c.0401211547.496315a1@posting.google.c om... >> chosenchildinc1@aol.com (Chosenchildinc1) wrote in message news:<20040121125102.11601.00000409@mb-m12.aol.com>... >> > >Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' children >> > >From: Robin Harritt karakoram@postadoption.info >> > >Date: 1/21/2004 2:02 PM Newfoundland Standard Time >> > >Message-id: <BC346826.2FE1A%karakoram@postadoption.info> >> > > >> > >in article c599139c.0401210746.3385c645@posting.google.com, Dian at >> > >patrice68@bigpond.com.au wrote on 21/1/04 3:46 pm: >> > > >> > > >> > >Re the story:- >> > > >> > >'It is estimated that 5,000 children may have been taken into care over the >> > >past 15 years as a result of Professor Meadow's theory of Munchausen's >> > >Syndrome by Proxy.' >> > > >> > > >> > >Di said:- >> > > >> > >> Top post - all of those children should be returned to their parents >> > >> forthwith. >> > >> >> > >> Di >> > >> >> > > >> > > >> > >Given this is about children taken away between 1 and 15 years ago, that >> > >would be a bit difficult, English law requires the authorities to do what is >> > >in the best interest of the individual child, not that of the birthmother. >> > >Do you really think that it would be in the best interest of a seven year >> > >old to remove him from the family he was placed with at the age of six >> > >months? The solution isn't going to be that simple. >> > > >> > >I do hope that Meadow get properly punished for his professional >> > >incompetence that often involved mistakes in 'junior school level' >> > >statistics on the probability of more than one cot death per family. >> > > >> > >Robin >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > Exactly right Robin, to rip a child from the only family it has ever known and >> > place it with a stranger would be barbaric. >> >> That's rich coming from someone who makes her living not only by >> separating children from the "only family they have ever known" but >> also promoting such a barbaric act. >> >> Di, would you grab a 12 or 13 year >> > old and place it in a strange family? Ridiculous............ >> >> That "strange" family is the one they were taken from in the first >> place. >> What is ridiculous is you believing they should remain living in a >> house with total strangers and being led to believe the reason they >> were adopted was because their mother was a supposed murderer. > >These "Total Strangers" are the people they have called parents for the last >few years, most of them have no memory of their birth parents > >> Now that would do far more harm than any restoration ever could. But of >> course being the unprofessional that you are, you would not know of >> such matters. > >and what are your professional, unbiased qualifications that allow you to >make such a black and white statement? (other than a belief that DNA trumps >everything else and a deep seated pathological hatred of adoptive parents) > >Jason > > > > > > > > > Now Jason, if you are going to hit Di with logic, she doesn't want to chit chat, (stole that from Dean Martin), Di doesn't care about the adoptee, or the adoptive family. She only cares about the birthmom. Didn't you know that all babies are stolen, all birthfamilies are perfect and there is never any reason for placement, and all birthmothers were is a state of dissassiciation at the time of signing the relinquishment papers. They were in a fugue state and completely not in control of their senses. I know of a contested adoption with a three year old girl from the a foreign country, the birthmom won her case and the court ordered the child removed from the adoptive family. The only family she has known since birth.What's with this inane argument of "The only family she has knownsince birth?" Sorry you see that as an inane, not an argument, but a statement, maybe that says it all about you Di, you just don't care at all about the child, the child that should be placed in an adoptive home because the birthmother is unwilling, or unable to care for it, and the child that has been placed in an adoptive home who would be dragged from that home to the home of a stranger, you just don"t care about the child. I get it, it's as clear as a bell.

Oh get off your pathetical high horse. Unlike you who sees yourself as
the
saviour of children, I don't see you as anything of the sort. Nor do I
see that the best interest of a child who has been wrongfully removed
from their families and adopted (as these children have been) as being
in their best interests. Even if it is given to a 'saviour' as you
claim yourself to be.

And precisely where has it been said that the parents of these
children "were
unwilling or unable to care for" them? It doesn't surprise me one whit
that you would interpret the wrongful removal of children from their
real families as
as equating to those parents being "unwilling or unable to care for
them".
You and your ilk are all the same. Perverse. You will twist anything
if it means justifying the sale of another child.







Di


CPS takes children both rightly and wrongly every day of the week fromthe only family they have everknown. And adoption is based on removingchildren from"the only family they have ever known" including infants.Why do you believe adoptive families should be immune from having thechildren they raise taken from them, it's not that black and white Di, Jason tried to explain it to you, so did I, you have tunnel vision and that tunnel bi-passed the needs of the child. If you read my complete post you would have read that the court did return the child, in a humanistic way that was meant to decreas any trauma to that child, of course, the child would not have been of your concern. Thank God, you are not a family court Judge. when these particular childrenshould not have been given to them in the first place? It it becausethey purchase those chldren and people like you would have to refundthe money they paid? No Di, read what I wrote.............Di The adoptive parents were the sad dupes in what happened and thought everything was Kosher with the adoption. The court ordered a two year couseling program with shared custody and scheduled visitation, upon completion the child will be permanently with the birthmom. All agreed this was in the childs best interest, even though the adoptive parents are broken hearted. Thank God that Di was not the judge, she would have had a black van pull up to the house at 3am, grab the child out of a sound sleep and whisk it away to it's birthmom. Case closed, Di says, mission accomplished, all is well. No trauma for the baby, she is with her rightful parent, and as for the adoptive family and this babies siblings since birth, screw them all.

"Dian" <patrice68@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message
news:c599139c.0401221226.22007ce4@posting.google.c om... "Jason Gorringe" <jasongorringe@XXXXhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<400fab7e$0$2435$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com>... "Dian" <patrice68@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message news:c599139c.0401211547.496315a1@posting.google.c om... chosenchildinc1@aol.com (Chosenchildinc1) wrote in message news:<20040121125102.11601.00000409@mb-m12.aol.com>... > >Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' children > >From: Robin Harritt karakoram@postadoption.info > >Date: 1/21/2004 2:02 PM Newfoundland Standard Time > >Message-id: <BC346826.2FE1A%karakoram@postadoption.info> > > > >in article c599139c.0401210746.3385c645@posting.google.com, Dian at > >patrice68@bigpond.com.au wrote on 21/1/04 3:46 pm: > > > > > >Re the story:- > > > >'It is estimated that 5,000 children may have been taken into care
over the > >past 15 years as a result of Professor Meadow's theory of
Munchausen's > >Syndrome by Proxy.' > > > > > >Di said:- > > > >> Top post - all of those children should be returned to their
parents > >> forthwith. > >> > >> Di > >> > > > > > >Given this is about children taken away between 1 and 15 years ago, that > >would be a bit difficult, English law requires the authorities to
do what is > >in the best interest of the individual child, not that of the birthmother. > >Do you really think that it would be in the best interest of a
seven year > >old to remove him from the family he was placed with at the age of
six > >months? The solution isn't going to be that simple. > > > >I do hope that Meadow get properly punished for his professional > >incompetence that often involved mistakes in 'junior school level' > >statistics on the probability of more than one cot death per
family. > > > >Robin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Exactly right Robin, to rip a child from the only family it has ever known and > place it with a stranger would be barbaric. That's rich coming from someone who makes her living not only by separating children from the "only family they have ever known" but also promoting such a barbaric act. Di, would you grab a 12 or 13 year > old and place it in a strange family? Ridiculous............ That "strange" family is the one they were taken from in the first place. What is ridiculous is you believing they should remain living in a house with total strangers and being led to believe the reason they were adopted was because their mother was a supposed murderer. These "Total Strangers" are the people they have called parents for the
last few years, And prior to their removal they were calling their natural parents their parents for possibly years. So what's your point?

In the majority of the cases in question they were removed as infants, so
they did not call they birth parents ANYTHING. most of them have no memory of their birth parents How do you know what memories they harbour or at what age they were adopted?

The majority were taken at or very shortly after birth as the parents were
perceived to be a risk
Now that would do far more harm than any restoration ever could. But
of course being the unprofessional that you are, you would not know of such matters. and what are your professional, unbiased qualifications that allow you
to make such a black and white statement? Have a look around you.

Sorry, cannot see any of your qualifications around me (please answer the
question) (other than a belief that DNA trumps everything else and a deep seated pathological hatred of adoptive
parents) My views have nothing to do with adoptive parents.

Pull the other one, its got bells on!!!
A very serious wrong was done to these families AND their children.

Agree with you there completely.Do you believe the loss to the adoptive parents trumps that of the natural family?

No, the right of the child to a stable upbringing does though.
and if so, why so, when the natural family did no wrong and have already
suffered the loss of a child to death? Should they lose all of their other children? How does that right this wrong?

It does not, but how does breaking up the childs current family (which they
have had for years) right it, unless of course you regard the child as a
personal posession of the birth parents.
If anythng, I'd say your own bias is showing.


And that would be?
I believe the children should be returned if it is in the CHILD's interest
(certainly if they are in care or with foster parents)
If my bias is in favour of the childs interest, then I am happy to accept
the accusation
Jason What's your problem, Jason? Children are removed from the only family they have ever known every day of the week.

Yes, but normally because they are perceived to be at risk
Including every adoptee who has ever walked this planet.You attached ot your adopters after being removed form your nmother.

I did not, but then I was not adopted (assumptions again).

Or does attachment only work when the child is removed from it s natrual family and adopted?

No, but what does disrupting the child's life AGAIN achieve (except a warm
feeling for those who can claim to have RIGHTED A WRONG).

Jason

"Dian" <patrice68@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message
news:c599139c.0401221208.339fcd12@posting.google.c om... chosenchildinc1@aol.com (Chosenchildinc1) wrote in message
news:<20040122060914.24788.00000454@mb-m16.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: "Jason Gorringe" jasongorringe@XXXXhotmail.comDate: 1/22/2004 7:22 AM Newfoundland Standard TimeMessage-id: <400fab7e$0$2435$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com>"Dian" <patrice68@bigpond.com.au> wrote in messagenews:c599139c.0401211547.496315a1@posting.g oogle.com...> chosenchildinc1@aol.com (Chosenchildinc1) wrote in message news:<20040121125102.11601.00000409@mb-m12.aol.com>...> > >Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' children> > >From: Robin Harritt karakoram@postadoption.info> > >Date: 1/21/2004 2:02 PM Newfoundland Standard Time> > >Message-id: <BC346826.2FE1A%karakoram@postadoption.info>> > >> > >in article c599139c.0401210746.3385c645@posting.google.com, Dian
at> > >patrice68@bigpond.com.au wrote on 21/1/04 3:46 pm:> > >> > >> > >Re the story:-> > >> > >'It is estimated that 5,000 children may have been taken into care
over the> > >past 15 years as a result of Professor Meadow's theory of
Munchausen's> > >Syndrome by Proxy.'> > >> > >> > >Di said:-> > >> > >> Top post - all of those children should be returned to their
parents> > >> forthwith.> > >>> > >> Di> > >>> > >> > >> > >Given this is about children taken away between 1 and 15 years
ago, that> > >would be a bit difficult, English law requires the authorities to
do what is> > >in the best interest of the individual child, not that of the birthmother.> > >Do you really think that it would be in the best interest of a
seven year> > >old to remove him from the family he was placed with at the age of
six> > >months? The solution isn't going to be that simple.> > >> > >I do hope that Meadow get properly punished for his professional> > >incompetence that often involved mistakes in 'junior school level'> > >statistics on the probability of more than one cot death per
family.> > >> > >Robin> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> > Exactly right Robin, to rip a child from the only family it has
ever known and> > place it with a stranger would be barbaric.>> That's rich coming from someone who makes her living not only by> separating children from the "only family they have ever known" but> also promoting such a barbaric act.>> Di, would you grab a 12 or 13 year> > old and place it in a strange family? Ridiculous............>> That "strange" family is the one they were taken from in the first> place.> What is ridiculous is you believing they should remain living in a> house with total strangers and being led to believe the reason they> were adopted was because their mother was a supposed murderer.These "Total Strangers" are the people they have called parents for the
lastfew years, most of them have no memory of their birth parents> Now that would do far more harm than any restoration ever could. But
of> course being the unprofessional that you are, you would not know of> such matters.and what are your professional, unbiased qualifications that allow you
tomake such a black and white statement? (other than a belief that DNA
trumpseverything else and a deep seated pathological hatred of adoptive
parents)Jason Now Jason, if you are going to hit Di with logic, she doesn't want to
chit chat, (stole that from Dean Martin), Di doesn't care about the adoptee,
or the adoptive family. She only cares about the birthmom. Didn't you know that
all babies are stolen, all birthfamilies are perfect and there is never any
reason for placement, and all birthmothers were is a state of dissassiciation
at the time of signing the relinquishment papers. They were in a fugue state
and completely not in control of their senses. I know of a contested adoption with a three year old girl from the a
foreign country, the birthmom won her case and the court ordered the child
removed from the adoptive family. The only family she has known since birth. What's with this inane argument of "The only family she has known since birth?" CPS takes children both rightly and wrongly every day of the week from the only family they have everknown. And adoption is based on removing children from "the only family they have ever known" including infants. Why do you believe adoptive families should be immune from having the children they raise taken from them when these particular children should not have been given to them in the first place? It it because they purchase those chldren and people like you would have to refund the money they paid? Di
Well, you seem to have missed the point.

Children are taken away by child protection services (Social Services here
in the UK) because they are (rightly or wrongly) perceived to be at risk.
The option is to take the child away or leave them in what is deemed to be a
dangerous situation.

The options are to leave them in a stable family, clear the name of the
birth parent and arrange contact (and possibly pay compensation ,though how
you put a value on the injustice I do not know) or take a child from the
people THEY regard as parents and place them with people they do not know
(the children in these cases were removed as infants) causing great trauma
to both the child and the adoptive parents.

If you cannot see the difference then you really HAVE got serious issues!

As for refunding the money paid, adoptive parents do not pay for children in
the UK, so there is no issue there.

You seem to believe biology trumps everything.

As far as I am concerned, the right of the child to a healthy, stable and
safe upbringing trumps all other issues. traumatising innocent people
(remember, the adoptive parents have no connection to the court's decision)
to right past injustices is too high a cost.

Jason

"Robin Harritt" <karakoram@postadoption.info> wrote in message
news:BC3490BB.2FE5B%karakoram@postadoption.info... in article 20040121144632.12662.00000502@mb-m29.aol.com, DJanice at djanice@aol.com wrote on 21/1/04 7:46 pm: These cases will be looked at by the Family Court on an individual
basis, in some cases the Meadow evidence was not the only evidence or the critical evidence in the conviction leading to the child being adopted. There is
no problem with opening up an adoption in these circumstances, that is at
the discretion of the court, some will no doubt already have included
contact orders. Robin ============ THanks for the info I am just heartbroken for the kids in these
situations. So am I, I hope that the birth family and the children involved will
receive adequate compensation. Some of Meadow's evidence was really ridiculous but was never questioned because was "the expert". Unfortunately this sort of thing seems to happen over and over again in the British child care
system, what with the satanic abuse scandal and Higgs and Wyatt (meaningless
'reflex anal dilatation tests') we seem to be plagued with dodgy experts. We are
due a new Children Bill before Parliament in the next couple of years, I hope something will be done make these kind of errors less likely.

I'm reminded of all those groups of Irish people who were wrongly imprisoned
in England for fifteen, twenty years - largely on the say-so of incompetent,
criminally negligent forensic 'experts', and equally criminally minded
police officers, who didn't give a **** as long as they got *someone*. ANY
Irish man would do, and the more the merrier.

Prison officers too, had a field day, and of course the judiciary involved
have been shown up for their blind arrogance and stupidity, and for the
cruel and inhuman disregard for the rules of law.

When they were eventually released these innocent people reunited with
broken families, their children alienated, and lives ruined. Some of those
children have spoken about being tarred with the same brush as their fathers
and mothers - castigated and despised as bombers and terrorists. They were
often spat upon, locked in cupboards, and worse.

Very few of these former prisoners or their families have been compensated
in any real sense for what was done to them. Indeed, there IS no
compensation that could make up for their loss of freedom, family and the
lost years, but even so, the payments they received were derisory.

I somehow doubt that justice will be done in the case of these children and
their adoptive and biological families. Such an admission of guilt by the
State would open up an "an appalling vista..." as Lord Denning said in
relation to the Irish cases, when he opted instead to sweep the truth under
the carpet, protecting the State, and to hell with the innocent victims.

Helen
Robin

>Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: "Jason Gorringe" jasongorringe@XXXXhotmail.comDate: 1/23/04 6:45 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <401133a4$0$2432$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com>"Dian" <patrice68@bigpond.com.au> wrote in messagenews:c599139c.0401221226.22007ce4@posting.g oogle.com...

(snip)
and what are your professional, unbiased qualifications that allow youto make such a black and white statement?
Have a look around you.Sorry, cannot see any of your qualifications around me (please answer thequestion)

Oh this should be good, seeing that Di is incapable of seeing beyond her own
nose.

Just ask Di her thoughts on US State adoption statute for a laugh or two.
She'll promptly recite Aussie adoption inquiry law...LMAO!






Diane Welfare, "she describes the US market as a "$US1.4 billion business in
baby trafficking". ~~121603
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336884771.html

>Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: "Jason Gorringe" jasongorringe@XXXXhotmail.comDate: 1/23/04 6:46 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <401133bd$0$2437$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com>"Dian" <patrice68@bigpond.com.au> wrote in messagenews:c599139c.0401221208.339fcd12@posting.g oogle.com... chosenchildinc1@aol.com (Chosenchildinc1) wrote in messagenews:<20040122060914.24788.00000454@mb-m16.aol.com>... >Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' children >From: "Jason Gorringe" jasongorringe@XXXXhotmail.com >Date: 1/22/2004 7:22 AM Newfoundland Standard Time >Message-id: <400fab7e$0$2435$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com> > > >"Dian" <patrice68@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message >news:c599139c.0401211547.496315a1@posting.google.c om... >> chosenchildinc1@aol.com (Chosenchildinc1) wrote in message news:<20040121125102.11601.00000409@mb-m12.aol.com>... >> > >Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' children >> > >From: Robin Harritt karakoram@postadoption.info >> > >Date: 1/21/2004 2:02 PM Newfoundland Standard Time >> > >Message-id: <BC346826.2FE1A%karakoram@postadoption.info> >> > > >> > >in article c599139c.0401210746.3385c645@posting.google.com, Dianat >> > >patrice68@bigpond.com.au wrote on 21/1/04 3:46 pm: >> > > >> > > >> > >Re the story:- >> > > >> > >'It is estimated that 5,000 children may have been taken into careover the >> > >past 15 years as a result of Professor Meadow's theory ofMunchausen's >> > >Syndrome by Proxy.' >> > > >> > > >> > >Di said:- >> > > >> > >> Top post - all of those children should be returned to theirparents >> > >> forthwith. >> > >> >> > >> Di >> > >> >> > > >> > > >> > >Given this is about children taken away between 1 and 15 yearsago, that >> > >would be a bit difficult, English law requires the authorities todo what is >> > >in the best interest of the individual child, not that of the birthmother. >> > >Do you really think that it would be in the best interest of aseven year >> > >old to remove him from the family he was placed with at the age ofsix >> > >months? The solution isn't going to be that simple. >> > > >> > >I do hope that Meadow get properly punished for his professional >> > >incompetence that often involved mistakes in 'junior school level' >> > >statistics on the probability of more than one cot death perfamily. >> > > >> > >Robin >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > Exactly right Robin, to rip a child from the only family it hasever known and >> > place it with a stranger would be barbaric. >> >> That's rich coming from someone who makes her living not only by >> separating children from the "only family they have ever known" but >> also promoting such a barbaric act. >> >> Di, would you grab a 12 or 13 year >> > old and place it in a strange family? Ridiculous............ >> >> That "strange" family is the one they were taken from in the first >> place. >> What is ridiculous is you believing they should remain living in a >> house with total strangers and being led to believe the reason they >> were adopted was because their mother was a supposed murderer. > >These "Total Strangers" are the people they have called parents for thelast >few years, most of them have no memory of their birth parents > >> Now that would do far more harm than any restoration ever could. Butof >> course being the unprofessional that you are, you would not know of >> such matters. > >and what are your professional, unbiased qualifications that allow youto >make such a black and white statement? (other than a belief that DNAtrumps >everything else and a deep seated pathological hatred of adoptiveparents) > >Jason > > > > > > > > > Now Jason, if you are going to hit Di with logic, she doesn't want tochit chat, (stole that from Dean Martin), Di doesn't care about the adoptee,or the adoptive family. She only cares about the birthmom. Didn't you know thatall babies are stolen, all birthfamilies are perfect and there is never anyreason for placement, and all birthmothers were is a state of dissassiciationat the time of signing the relinquishment papers. They were in a fugue stateand completely not in control of their senses. I know of a contested adoption with a three year old girl from the aforeign country, the birthmom won her case and the court ordered the childremoved from the adoptive family. The only family she has known since birth. What's with this inane argument of "The only family she has known since birth?" CPS takes children both rightly and wrongly every day of the week from the only family they have everknown. And adoption is based on removing children from "the only family they have ever known" including infants. Why do you believe adoptive families should be immune from having the children they raise taken from them when these particular children should not have been given to them in the first place? It it because they purchase those chldren and people like you would have to refund the money they paid? DiWell, you seem to have missed the point.Children are taken away by child protection services (Social Services herein the UK) because they are (rightly or wrongly) perceived to be at risk.The option is to take the child away or leave them in what is deemed to be adangerous situation.The options are to leave them in a stable family, clear the name of thebirth parent and arrange contact (and possibly pay compensation ,though howyou put a value on the injustice I do not know) or take a child from thepeople THEY regard as parents and place them with people they do not know(the children in these cases were removed as infants) causing great traumato both the child and the adoptive parents. If you cannot see the difference then you really HAVE got serious issues!

Now that's an understatement!

Di is under the impression that adoptive parents are the ones that give kids
attachment issues.




Diane Welfare, "she describes the US market as a "$US1.4 billion business in
baby trafficking". ~~121603
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336884771.html

>Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: "helicon" helicon@eircom.netDate: 1/23/04 9:05 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <u%cQb.42$rb.3764@news.indigo.ie>"Robin Harritt" <karakoram@postadoption.info> wrote in messagenews:BC3490BB.2FE5B%karakoram@postadoption. info... in article 20040121144632.12662.00000502@mb-m29.aol.com, DJanice at djanice@aol.com wrote on 21/1/04 7:46 pm: These cases will be looked at by the Family Court on an individualbasis, in some cases the Meadow evidence was not the only evidence or the critical evidence in the conviction leading to the child being adopted. There isno problem with opening up an adoption in these circumstances, that is atthe discretion of the court, some will no doubt already have includedcontact orders. Robin ============ THanks for the info I am just heartbroken for the kids in thesesituations. So am I, I hope that the birth family and the children involved willreceive adequate compensation. Some of Meadow's evidence was really ridiculous but was never questioned because was "the expert". Unfortunately this sort of thing seems to happen over and over again in the British child caresystem, what with the satanic abuse scandal and Higgs and Wyatt (meaningless'reflex anal dilatation tests') we seem to be plagued with dodgy experts. We aredue a new Children Bill before Parliament in the next couple of years, I hope something will be done make these kind of errors less likely.I'm reminded of all those groups of Irish people who were wrongly imprisonedin England for fifteen, twenty years - largely on the say-so of incompetent,criminally negligent forensic 'experts', and equally criminally mindedpolice officers, who didn't give a **** as long as they got *someone*. ANYIrish man would do, and the more the merrier.

I'm reminded by my Irish friends that they were treated no better than niggers.




Diane Welfare, "she describes the US market as a "$US1.4 billion business in
baby trafficking". ~~121603
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336884771.html

meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in message news:<20040123194331.28505.00000774@mb-m01.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: "helicon" helicon@eircom.netDate: 1/23/04 9:05 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <u%cQb.42$rb.3764@news.indigo.ie>"Robin Harritt" <karakoram@postadoption.info> wrote in messagenews:BC3490BB.2FE5B%karakoram@postadoption. info... in article 20040121144632.12662.00000502@mb-m29.aol.com, DJanice at djanice@aol.com wrote on 21/1/04 7:46 pm: > These cases will be looked at by the Family Court on an individual basis, in > some cases the Meadow evidence was not the only evidence or the critical > evidence in the conviction leading to the child being adopted. There is no > problem with opening up an adoption in these circumstances, that is at the > discretion of the court, some will no doubt already have included contact > orders. > > Robin > > ============ > > THanks for the info I am just heartbroken for the kids in these situations. So am I, I hope that the birth family and the children involved will receive adequate compensation. Some of Meadow's evidence was really ridiculous but was never questioned because was "the expert". Unfortunately this sort of thing seems to happen over and over again in the British child care system, what with the satanic abuse scandal and Higgs and Wyatt (meaningless 'reflex anal dilatation tests') we seem to be plagued with dodgy experts. We are due a new Children Bill before Parliament in the next couple of years, I hope something will be done make these kind of errors less likely.I'm reminded of all those groups of Irish people who were wrongly imprisonedin England for fifteen, twenty years - largely on the say-so of incompetent,criminally negligent forensic 'experts', and equally criminally mindedpolice officers, who didn't give a **** as long as they got *someone*. ANYIrish man would do, and the more the merrier. I'm reminded by my Irish friends that they were treated no better than niggers.
Niggers??? You're dispicable.


Diane Welfare, "she describes the US market as a "$US1.4 billion business in baby trafficking". ~~121603 http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336884771.html

meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in message news:<20040123192122.28505.00000770@mb-m01.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: "Jason Gorringe" jasongorringe@XXXXhotmail.comDate: 1/23/04 6:45 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <401133a4$0$2432$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com>"Dian" <patrice68@bigpond.com.au> wrote in messagenews:c599139c.0401221226.22007ce4@posting.g oogle.com... (snip) > and what are your professional, unbiased qualifications that allow you to > make such a black and white statement? Have a look around you.Sorry, cannot see any of your qualifications around me (please answer thequestion) Oh this should be good, seeing that Di is incapable of seeing beyond her own nose. Just ask Di her thoughts on US State adoption statute for a laugh or two. She'll promptly recite Aussie adoption inquiry law...LMAO!
You mean to say you don't believe US parents have a fundamental right
to their own children and that anyone can take a woman's child from
her even before she signs away her parental rights? Do you really
believe it was totally lawful to forbid you to see your own child even
after you "begged" to see him? Are you still so oppressed that you
have never once questioned your fundamental right
to even see the child that came from your own body, Kathy? Who do you
think your son belonged to, the hospital staff?


http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000000/00000075.asp
In subsequent cases also, we have recognized the fundamental right of
parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of
their children… Diane Welfare, "she describes the US market as a "$US1.4 billion business in baby trafficking". ~~121603 http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336884771.html

patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote in message news:<c599139c.0401241030.139058a9@posting.google.com>... meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in message news:<20040123192122.28505.00000770@mb-m01.aol.com>... Just ask Di her thoughts on US State adoption statute for a laugh or two. She'll promptly recite Aussie adoption inquiry law...LMAO! You mean to say you don't believe US parents have a fundamental right to their own children and that anyone can take a woman's child from her even before she signs away her parental rights? Do you really believe it was totally lawful to forbid you to see your own child even after you "begged" to see him? Are you still so oppressed that you have never once questioned your fundamental right to even see the child that came from your own body, Kathy? Who do you think your son belonged to, the hospital staff?

No question about it. Every woman has the absolute right to have and
to hold her own child after birth.
However, if she'd already announced that she intended to relinquish
and unless she'd specifically stated ahead of time that she wanted to
see her child, I can *almost* understand why regular Joe type hospital
staff (reinforced by the beliefs and prejudices of the time) might
have thought it 'better', 'kinder', whatever, to keep her child from
her, despite her pleas.
I imagine they'd been likely have seen her request as an irrational
turn-around, something from which she needed to be 'protected'.
Is there actual written evidence of hospital policy to prevent
unmarried women from seeing their children?
It seems that in cases where a woman was insistent, she was obliged.
Shouldn't have been this way, but, IMO, this speaks more to pressure
than to force.


Rh.




http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000000/00000075.asp In subsequent cases also, we have recognized the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children? Diane Welfare, "she describes the US market as a "$US1.4 billion business in baby trafficking". ~~121603 http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336884771.html

>Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 1/24/04 10:30 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0401241030.139058a9@posting.google.com>meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in messagenews:<20040123192122.28505.00000770@mb-m01.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: "Jason Gorringe" jasongorringe@XXXXhotmail.comDate: 1/23/04 6:45 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <401133a4$0$2432$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com>"Dian" <patrice68@bigpond.com.au> wrote in messagenews:c599139c.0401221226.22007ce4@posting.g oogle.com... (snip)> > and what are your professional, unbiased qualifications that allow you to> > make such a black and white statement?>> Have a look around you.Sorry, cannot see any of your qualifications around me (please answer thequestion) Oh this should be good, seeing that Di is incapable of seeing beyond herown nose. Just ask Di her thoughts on US State adoption statute for a laugh or two. She'll promptly recite Aussie adoption inquiry law...LMAO!You mean to say you don't believe US parents have a fundamental rightto their own children and that anyone can take a woman's child fromher even before she signs away her parental rights? Do you reallybelieve it was totally lawful to forbid you to see your own child evenafter you "begged" to see him? Are you still so oppressed that youhave never once questioned your fundamental rightto even see the child that came from your own body, Kathy? Who do youthink your son belonged to, the hospital staff?

Are you still frothing over all this, Di?

I read the document you listed below. Consider it a courtesy. Note: the
keywords, ' subsequent cases ' in your doc. It told me that the women of
today, should not be treated like we were...What more do you want?

Now go take a nice nappy, and get a grip on yourself. You are too wrapped up in
US adoption practices from
40 years ago. Realize that not all law is good law, and there are plenty of
immoral and unethical adoption practices you ought to be dedicating yourself
to, instead of griping about **** you cannot change. You got your apology from
your government..If that is not good enough to satisfy your ego, what will?

What is important is for you to come out of your time machine, take a look
around you, and realize lots of these unkind, barbaric adoption practices are
buried in Al
Capone's tomb. If you don't believe me,...go ask Geraldo.

http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000000/00000075.aspIn subsequent cases also, we have recognized the fundamental right ofparents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control oftheir children… Diane Welfare, "she describes the US market as a "$US1.4 billion businessin baby trafficking". ~~121603 http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336884771.html



Diane Welfare, "she describes the US market as a "$US1.4 billion business in
baby trafficking". ~~121603
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336884771.html

meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in message news:<20040124224221.19922.00000692@mb-m17.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 1/24/04 10:30 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0401241030.139058a9@posting.google.com>meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in messagenews:<20040123192122.28505.00000770@mb-m01.aol.com>... >Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' children >From: "Jason Gorringe" jasongorringe@XXXXhotmail.com >Date: 1/23/04 6:45 AM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <401133a4$0$2432$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com> > > >"Dian" <patrice68@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message >news:c599139c.0401221226.22007ce4@posting.google.c om... (snip) >> > and what are your professional, unbiased qualifications that allow you to >> > make such a black and white statement? >> >> Have a look around you. > >Sorry, cannot see any of your qualifications around me (please answer the >question) Oh this should be good, seeing that Di is incapable of seeing beyond her own nose. Just ask Di her thoughts on US State adoption statute for a laugh or two. She'll promptly recite Aussie adoption inquiry law...LMAO!You mean to say you don't believe US parents have a fundamental rightto their own children and that anyone can take a woman's child fromher even before she signs away her parental rights? Do you reallybelieve it was totally lawful to forbid you to see your own child evenafter you "begged" to see him? Are you still so oppressed that youhave never once questioned your fundamental rightto even see the child that came from your own body, Kathy? Who do youthink your son belonged to, the hospital staff? Are you still frothing over all this, Di? I read the document you listed below. Consider it a courtesy. Note: the keywords, ' subsequent cases ' in your doc. It told me that the women of today, should not be treated like we were...What more do you want?

Then you obviously didn't read it at all.

Now go take a nice nappy, and get a grip on yourself. You are too wrapped up in US adoption practices from 40 years ago. Realize that not all law is good law, and there are plenty of immoral and unethical adoption practices you ought to be dedicating yourself to, instead of griping about **** you cannot change. You got your apology from your government..If that is not good enough to satisfy your ego, what will? What is important is for you to come out of your time machine, take a look around you, and realize lots of these unkind, barbaric adoption practices are buried in Al Capone's tomb. If you don't believe me,...go ask Geraldo.

http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000000/00000075.aspIn subsequent cases also, we have recognized the fundamental right ofparents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control oftheir children… Diane Welfare, "she describes the US market as a "$US1.4 billion business in baby trafficking". ~~121603 http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336884771.html Diane Welfare, "she describes the US market as a "$US1.4 billion business in baby trafficking". ~~121603 http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336884771.html

sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote No question about it. Every woman has the absolute right to have and to hold her own child after birth. However, if she'd already announced that she intended to relinquish and unless she'd specifically stated ahead of time that she wanted to see her child, I can *almost* understand why regular Joe type hospital staff (reinforced by the beliefs and prejudices of the time) might have thought it 'better', 'kinder', whatever, to keep her child from her, despite her pleas. I imagine they'd been likely have seen her request as an irrational turn-around, something from which she needed to be 'protected'. Is there actual written evidence of hospital policy to prevent unmarried women from seeing their children? It seems that in cases where a woman was insistent, she was obliged. Shouldn't have been this way, but, IMO, this speaks more to pressure than to force.

It wasn't just then. People do still believe that if parents want to
relinquish, they should not see their child. I've posted here before
about a program I saw quite recently on Discovery. It was about babies
and birth; and followed several couples from late pregnancy to the
mother's being delivered of the child.

One couple seemed to be barely making it themselves, and they had
decided to give up their son as soon as he was born.They explained to
the camera that they were struggling and did not wish to keep him.

The hospital staff immediately advised them not to see the child.

In fact, the parents decided to see the baby, and once they had seen
him, decided not to relinquish him.

I think the feeling is that if giving up the baby is the right
decision, seeing it makes it hard to follow through; and if the
parents do in the end relinquish, then having seen it makes the
mourning worse.

I don't know what, if any of this, is a generalisable truth. I'll go
with the decision resting with the birth-parents.

Rupa

On 25 Jan 2004 00:52:30 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose)
wrote:
I think the feeling is that if giving up the baby is the rightdecision, seeing it makes it hard to follow through; and if theparents do in the end relinquish, then having seen it makes themourning worse.

How can you mourn the loss of a baby that you have not held?

Or looked at..

Jackie

in article hgk710l0pmuu1kpuhphm4s0fh4njrpcvga@4ax.com, Jackie at
forgetit@me.com wrote on 25/1/04 2:27 pm:
On 25 Jan 2004 00:52:30 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote: I think the feeling is that if giving up the baby is the right decision, seeing it makes it hard to follow through; and if the parents do in the end relinquish, then having seen it makes the mourning worse. How can you mourn the loss of a baby that you have not held? Or looked at.. Jackie


How can an adoptee mourn the loss of a birthmother, brother, sister, father,
that they have never been held by, or looked at?

Robin

"Jackie" <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message
news:hgk710l0pmuu1kpuhphm4s0fh4njrpcvga@4ax.com... On 25 Jan 2004 00:52:30 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote:I think the feeling is that if giving up the baby is the rightdecision, seeing it makes it hard to follow through; and if theparents do in the end relinquish, then having seen it makes themourning worse. How can you mourn the loss of a baby that you have not held?

Woman throughout history *have* mourned babies that they have never held.
Very deformed babies, stillbirths, miscarriages, etc., were rarely shown to
the mother, and yet she would have (often) mourned that baby for the rest of
her days. (In Ireland, anyway)

It is only in recent times that it has been recognised that it is far kinder
and healthier if the parents, and possibly other children, can see and hold
the baby until they are ready to say goodbye. Most maternity hospitals here
provide special facilities for that purpose, and even take photographs if
requested to do so. They are very sensitive and arrange shawls and little
caps, etc., where there is a need to cover up major deformity.

Helen

Or looked at.. Jackie

sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote in message news:<dafc70.0401241706.75dda7a@posting.google.com>... patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote in message news:<c599139c.0401241030.139058a9@posting.google.com>... meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in message news:<20040123192122.28505.00000770@mb-m01.aol.com>... Just ask Di her thoughts on US State adoption statute for a laugh or two. She'll promptly recite Aussie adoption inquiry law...LMAO! You mean to say you don't believe US parents have a fundamental right to their own children and that anyone can take a woman's child from her even before she signs away her parental rights? Do you really believe it was totally lawful to forbid you to see your own child even after you "begged" to see him? Are you still so oppressed that you have never once questioned your fundamental right to even see the child that came from your own body, Kathy? Who do you think your son belonged to, the hospital staff? No question about it. Every woman has the absolute right to have and to hold her own child after birth. However, if she'd already announced that she intended to relinquish and unless she'd specifically stated ahead of time that she wanted to see her child,

On the contrary. SHE had to specifically state that she didn't want to
see her child, otherwise she was to be treated no differently to
married women. In fact under Australian law it was unlawful to even
approach the mother with the intention of obtaining her consent. She
had to request that a social worker be brought to her after delivery.
Never happened. Sw's were were informed of the birth of an illegitmate
child by hospital staff as was their rule.


I can *almost* understand why regular Joe type hospital staff (reinforced by the beliefs and prejudices of the time) might have thought it 'better', 'kinder', whatever, to keep her child from her, despite her pleas.

Why would they be kind to women they held such prejudices against and
contempt for?
I imagine they'd been likely have seen her request as an
irrational turn-around, something from which she needed to be 'protected'.
Exactly.

Is there actual written evidence of hospital policy to prevent unmarried women from seeing their children?

There is. A 9 page sworn 1994 statement outlining the entire procedure
declared to be policy, signed and witnessed by two solicitors and used
in evidence in a court case. Plus numerous documented evidence by
social workers declaring the same. Plus the transcripts of evidence in
hansard during our inquiry. They admitted that it was "routine policy
at the itme to "forbid" the mother from seeing her child.
It seems that in cases where a woman was insistent, she was obliged. Shouldn't have been this way, but, IMO, this speaks more to pressure than to force.

It was force until at least the mid late 70's. The mothers were
usually not even in the same hospital, let alone on the same ward as
their babies. They knew not where their babies were. Rh. http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000000/00000075.asp In subsequent cases also, we have recognized the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children? Diane Welfare, "she describes the US market as a "$US1.4 billion business in baby trafficking". ~~121603 http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336884771.html

rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote in message news:<e5619372.0401250052.493fb7e0@posting.google.com>... sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote No question about it. Every woman has the absolute right to have and to hold her own child after birth. However, if she'd already announced that she intended to relinquish and unless she'd specifically stated ahead of time that she wanted to see her child, I can *almost* understand why regular Joe type hospital staff (reinforced by the beliefs and prejudices of the time) might have thought it 'better', 'kinder', whatever, to keep her child from her, despite her pleas. I imagine they'd been likely have seen her request as an irrational turn-around, something from which she needed to be 'protected'. Is there actual written evidence of hospital policy to prevent unmarried women from seeing their children? It seems that in cases where a woman was insistent, she was obliged. Shouldn't have been this way, but, IMO, this speaks more to pressure than to force. It wasn't just then. People do still believe that if parents want to relinquish, they should not see their child. I've posted here before about a program I saw quite recently on Discovery. It was about babies and birth; and followed several couples from late pregnancy to the mother's being delivered of the child. One couple seemed to be barely making it themselves, and they had decided to give up their son as soon as he was born.They explained to the camera that they were struggling and did not wish to keep him. The hospital staff immediately advised them not to see the child. In fact, the parents decided to see the baby, and once they had seen him, decided not to relinquish him. I think the feeling is that if giving up the baby is the right decision, seeing it makes it hard to follow through; and if the parents do in the end relinquish, then having seen it makes the mourning worse.


I can see how not seeing the baby would make the grief less
accessible.

If parents are absolutely certain in their minds about their decision
to relinquish and feel they have no other option, I can totally
understand why, based on that, they'd make the choice not to see their
child.

For someone who was undecided and possibly had options, I think that
not seeing would make it very difficult to come to terms with the
whole thing.

On the other hand, seeing your child and then being forced to conform
to the denial frame of mind imposed by family and society has its own
detrimental effects.

I don't think comparisons work here. Any are odious.

I don't know what, if any of this, is a generalisable truth. I'll go with the decision resting with the birth-parents.



Absolutely agree about that.

My friend S (well, friend of a friend, but I knew her pretty well)
relinquished a year or so after myself, and she was asked whether she
wanted to have her child with her for a while after the birth. She
chose not to, and still says that she couldn't have coped with the
relinquishment if she had.

I, on the other hand (but only *now*, after reunion) am very grateful
that I was able to be with Adam for the time allowed.
The negative became a positive.
BUT I suspect, and this is purely speculative, of course, that for
those women who never got a chance to know their children after the
birth, the opposite might be true - that *after* reunion, the lacuna
preys on them and exacerbates their sense of loss.



Rh.


Rupa

Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message news:<hgk710l0pmuu1kpuhphm4s0fh4njrpcvga@4ax.com>... On 25 Jan 2004 00:52:30 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote:I think the feeling is that if giving up the baby is the rightdecision, seeing it makes it hard to follow through; and if theparents do in the end relinquish, then having seen it makes themourning worse. How can you mourn the loss of a baby that you have not held? Or looked at..


You can't, I agree.

However, Rupa isn't saying that this is her opinion. She's saying that
this is the way many people feel about it.

Read my post to her, esp. re. the 'lacuna' bit, and let me know if you
find anything there that clicks. Or not.

However, I must say that IMO, it really isn't possible to mourn your
child even if you *have* held him/her *if the mourning is disallowed*.
I mean, the 'It did not happen' is common to both experiences.
For the woman who didn't hold her child, that connection was never
experienced.
For the other, who did, it becomes like the memory of a
hallucination.
It's rendered unreal, something that never was, and consequently is
inaccessible.
I think that in both cases it's rather like an internal personal
earthquake.
For the person who's experienced it, the landscape has become
unrecognisable, but for everyone else remains totally familiar, and
they can't understand why it shouldn't be the same for you.


Rh. Jackie

>Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)Date: 1/25/04 11:21 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <dafc70.0401251121.705bc372@posting.google.com>Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote in messagenews:<hgk710l0pmuu1kpuhphm4s0fh4njrpcvga@4ax.com>... On 25 Jan 2004 00:52:30 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote:I think the feeling is that if giving up the baby is the rightdecision, seeing it makes it hard to follow through; and if theparents do in the end relinquish, then having seen it makes themourning worse. How can you mourn the loss of a baby that you have not held? Or looked at..You can't, I agree.However, Rupa isn't saying that this is her opinion. She's saying thatthis is the way many people feel about it.Read my post to her, esp. re. the 'lacuna' bit, and let me know if youfind anything there that clicks. Or not.However, I must say that IMO, it really isn't possible to mourn yourchild even if you *have* held him/her *if the mourning is disallowed*.I mean, the 'It did not happen' is common to both experiences.For the woman who didn't hold her child, that connection was neverexperienced.For the other, who did, it becomes like the memory of ahallucination.It's rendered unreal, something that never was, and consequently isinaccessible.I think that in both cases it's rather like an internal personalearthquake.For the person who's experienced it, the landscape has becomeunrecognisable, but for everyone else remains totally familiar, andthey can't understand why it shouldn't be the same for you.Rh.

I am going to agree with this. My good friend in my neighborhood, and I
reunited at the same time with our kids. A month a part actually.
She had spent 4 days with her daughter in the hospital, and let me tell you,
after reunion, many a mornings we both were sharing the box of kleenex letting
it out over a pot of coffee.




Diane Welfare, "she describes the US market as a "$US1.4 billion business in
baby trafficking". ~~121603
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336884771.html

In article <hgk710l0pmuu1kpuhphm4s0fh4njrpcvga@4ax.com>, Jackie
<forgetit@me.com> writes:
On 25 Jan 2004 00:52:30 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose)wrote:I think the feeling is that if giving up the baby is the rightdecision, seeing it makes it hard to follow through; and if theparents do in the end relinquish, then having seen it makes themourning worse.How can you mourn the loss of a baby that you have not held?Or looked at..Jackie

Please tell me you are not serious here Jackie. You may not have held the
baby, or seen the baby, but you carried the baby in your womb. Is there any
closer connection?

KL

>Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL)Date: 1/25/04 11:51 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <20040125145158.01632.00000291@mb-m03.aol.com>In article <hgk710l0pmuu1kpuhphm4s0fh4njrpcvga@4ax.com>, Jackie<forgetit@me.com> writes:On 25 Jan 2004 00:52:30 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose)wrote:I think the feeling is that if giving up the baby is the rightdecision, seeing it makes it hard to follow through; and if theparents do in the end relinquish, then having seen it makes themourning worse.How can you mourn the loss of a baby that you have not held?Or looked at..JackiePlease tell me you are not serious here Jackie. You may not have held thebaby, or seen the baby, but you carried the baby in your womb. Is there anycloser connection?KL

Ok, in all fairness to Jackie and other mothers like myself that were in the
same boat. Perhaps what she meant is this...How can you say good-bye forever
without first saying hello to your baby?

And yet this is what many of us did do, KL.




Diane Welfare, "she describes the US market as a "$US1.4 billion business in
baby trafficking". ~~121603
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336884771.html

Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message news:<hgk710l0pmuu1kpuhphm4s0fh4njrpcvga@4ax.com>... On 25 Jan 2004 00:52:30 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote:I think the feeling is that if giving up the baby is the rightdecision, seeing it makes it hard to follow through; and if theparents do in the end relinquish, then having seen it makes themourning worse. How can you mourn the loss of a baby that you have not held? Or looked at.. Jackie

You did, Jackie, for all that you say you didn't. No one who has been
on this ng with you from the early years doubts that.

Rupa

In article <20040125151349.13087.00000880@mb-m02.aol.com>,
meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) writes:
Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL)Date: 1/25/04 11:51 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <20040125145158.01632.00000291@mb-m03.aol.com>In article <hgk710l0pmuu1kpuhphm4s0fh4njrpcvga@4ax.com>, Jackie<forgetit@me.com> writes:On 25 Jan 2004 00:52:30 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose)wrote:>I think the feeling is that if giving up the baby is the right>decision, seeing it makes it hard to follow through; and if the>parents do in the end relinquish, then having seen it makes the>mourning worse.How can you mourn the loss of a baby that you have not held?Or looked at..JackiePlease tell me you are not serious here Jackie. You may not have held thebaby, or seen the baby, but you carried the baby in your womb. Is there anycloser connection?KLOk, in all fairness to Jackie and other mothers like myself that were in thesame boat. Perhaps what she meant is this...How can you say good-bye foreverwithout first saying hello to your baby?And yet this is what many of us did do, KL.

OK...I THOUGHT I had to be reading that wrong. I agree at the difficulty faced
by birthmothers in this situation. It is no easy matter on either side of this
coin. And I think that it is too easy to forget the other side of the issue.

KL

In article <20040125145158.01632.00000291@mb-m03.aol.com>, KL says...In article <hgk710l0pmuu1kpuhphm4s0fh4njrpcvga@4ax.com>, Jackie<forgetit@me.com> writes:On 25 Jan 2004 00:52:30 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose)wrote:I think the feeling is that if giving up the baby is the rightdecision, seeing it makes it hard to follow through; and if theparents do in the end relinquish, then having seen it makes themourning worse.How can you mourn the loss of a baby that you have not held?Or looked at..JackiePlease tell me you are not serious here Jackie. You may not have held thebaby, or seen the baby, but you carried the baby in your womb. Is there anycloser connection?

One of my SILs relinquished a baby girl almost 20 years ago. She refused to see
her baby because she couldn't comprehend signing the relinquishment papers after
actually viewing her. I know for a FACT that she has mourned that baby's loss -
though she does feel that she made the best decision for the both of them.

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 16:57:07 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net>
wrote:
"Jackie" <forgetit@me.com> wrote in messagenews:hgk710l0pmuu1kpuhphm4s0fh4njrpcvga@4ax .com... On 25 Jan 2004 00:52:30 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote:I think the feeling is that if giving up the baby is the rightdecision, seeing it makes it hard to follow through; and if theparents do in the end relinquish, then having seen it makes themourning worse. How can you mourn the loss of a baby that you have not held?Woman throughout history *have* mourned babies that they have never held.

Maybe the question is.. Was it a healing grief or a grief that never
goes away? A grief that shuts her down because human nature has been
thwarted..
Very deformed babies, stillbirths, miscarriages, etc., were rarely shown tothe mother, and yet she would have (often) mourned that baby for the rest ofher days. (In Ireland, anyway)

No closure for her..
It is only in recent times that it has been recognised that it is far kinderand healthier if the parents, and possibly other children, can see and holdthe baby until they are ready to say goodbye.

Exactly.. Now days it has been proven that the woman should hold the
baby and say her goodbyes.. Correct?
Most maternity hospitals hereprovide special facilities for that purpose, and even take photographs ifrequested to do so. They are very sensitive and arrange shawls and littlecaps, etc., where there is a need to cover up major deformity.

So now it is known that a person needs an image.. A memory to mourn..

What of the women who were forced to relinquish? What of the woman
who did not see her baby? The woman who was told to never speak of
that baby again.

What of her?

Do we say.. Heck just bypass her.. She is never going to see the light
of day again anyway..

Jackie

On 25 Jan 2004 11:21:47 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)
wrote:
Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message news:<hgk710l0pmuu1kpuhphm4s0fh4njrpcvga@4ax.com>... On 25 Jan 2004 00:52:30 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote:I think the feeling is that if giving up the baby is the rightdecision, seeing it makes it hard to follow through; and if theparents do in the end relinquish, then having seen it makes themourning worse. How can you mourn the loss of a baby that you have not held? Or looked at..You can't, I agree.However, Rupa isn't saying that this is her opinion. She's saying thatthis is the way many people feel about it.

And its a wrong way to feel about it..
Read my post to her, esp. re. the 'lacuna' bit, and let me know if youfind anything there that clicks. Or not.However, I must say that IMO, it really isn't possible to mourn yourchild even if you *have* held him/her *if the mourning is disallowed*.I mean, the 'It did not happen' is common to both experiences.

Yes.. Its all part of the toxicity of relinquishing a child this way.

For the woman who didn't hold her child, that connection was neverexperienced.

And then she is expected to welcome that son or daughter into her home
many years later.. And if she cannot do this.. If she can not talk
about what happened.. or share what happened with the rest of the
family she is considered childlike and bypassed..

"Contact the siblings in secrecy".. some tell the person looking for
reunion..

For the other, who did, it becomes like the memory of ahallucination.

That must have been horrible as well..

It's rendered unreal, something that never was, and consequently isinaccessible.I think that in both cases it's rather like an internal personalearthquake.

Yes.
For the person who's experienced it, the landscape has becomeunrecognisable, but for everyone else remains totally familiar, andthey can't understand why it shouldn't be the same for you.

I do not think that some people want to understand..

Much too difficult.

Jackie

On 25 Jan 2004 10:58:45 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)
wrote:
BUT I suspect, and this is purely speculative, of course, that forthose women who never got a chance to know their children after thebirth, the opposite might be true - that *after* reunion, the lacunapreys on them and exacerbates their sense of loss.

Its not healthy..

None of this is healthy..


Jackie

On 25 Jan 2004 19:51:58 GMT, klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL) wrote:
In article <hgk710l0pmuu1kpuhphm4s0fh4njrpcvga@4ax.com>, Jackie<forgetit@me.com> writes:On 25 Jan 2004 00:52:30 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose)wrote:I think the feeling is that if giving up the baby is the rightdecision, seeing it makes it hard to follow through; and if theparents do in the end relinquish, then having seen it makes themourning worse.How can you mourn the loss of a baby that you have not held?Or looked at..JackiePlease tell me you are not serious here Jackie.

I am as serious.

You may not have held thebaby, or seen the baby, but you carried the baby in your womb. Is there anycloser connection?

Yes there is a closer connection..

When my daughter was born all the senses were engaged when I held her.

The feeling part of me engaged.. The instinctive emotional part of me
engaged..


Jackie

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:57:16 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com>
wrote:
One of my SILs relinquished a baby girl almost 20 years ago. She refused to seeher baby because she couldn't comprehend signing the relinquishment papers afteractually viewing her. I know for a FACT that she has mourned that baby's loss -though she does feel that she made the best decision for the both of them.


That is your interpretation of what she has said to you.

That is second hand information.

Plus she has not reunited yet. (I am pretty sure I am correct here)
Its a whole new ballgame when you see a real person..


Jackie

On 25 Jan 2004 12:14:52 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose)
wrote:
Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message news:<hgk710l0pmuu1kpuhphm4s0fh4njrpcvga@4ax.com>... On 25 Jan 2004 00:52:30 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote:I think the feeling is that if giving up the baby is the rightdecision, seeing it makes it hard to follow through; and if theparents do in the end relinquish, then having seen it makes themourning worse. How can you mourn the loss of a baby that you have not held? Or looked at.. JackieYou did, Jackie, for all that you say you didn't. No one who has beenon this ng with you from the early years doubts that.

I was stuck in the grief Rupa..

IMO grief is supposed to have a beginning and an end.. (acceptance)

I needed to see him in order to find closure..

Maybe that is the issue of some women who refuse contact.. They are
stuck in the grief and are afraid of closure..

Afraid of going through that final door.. Afraid of letting the
familiar go..

Jackie

In article <hh9a10ts09oak2paf7tlko0hff63p7lfc5@4ax.com>, Jackie says...On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:57:16 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com>wrote:One of my SILs relinquished a baby girl almost 20 years ago. She refused to seeher baby because she couldn't comprehend signing the relinquishment papers afteractually viewing her. I know for a FACT that she has mourned that baby's loss -though she does feel that she made the best decision for the both of them.That is your interpretation of what she has said to you.

No Jackie, this is EXACTLY what my SIL told me. Don't try to tell me what I
know, please. Where you there for the conversation? No.
That is second hand information.

From my SIL who was the one that relinquished. Who the hell else?
Plus she has not reunited yet. (I am pretty sure I am correct here)Its a whole new ballgame when you see a real person..

Whatever, Jackie. I'm just saying that she told me. If you don't want to
believe her own words, I really don't give a ****.

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

"Jackie" <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message
news:hh9a10ts09oak2paf7tlko0hff63p7lfc5@4ax.com... On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:57:16 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote:One of my SILs relinquished a baby girl almost 20 years ago. She refused
to seeher baby because she couldn't comprehend signing the relinquishment
papers afteractually viewing her. I know for a FACT that she has mourned that baby's
loss -though she does feel that she made the best decision for the both of
them. That is your interpretation of what she has said to you.

Hmm, how much clearer can it be? The woman in question has said this. It
doesn't sound like an interpretation to me. Are we not to believe first
hand accounts? My bmom wrote me that she was *forced* to see me at
Crittenton She didn't want to see me. Nobody there could apparently
believe that she didn't want to see me. Am I to not believe her? By your
thinking, nobody should believe anything anybody says. I realize that in
today's duplicitious society we should not believe that people actually mean
what they say (does NO really mean NO?), so call me an idealist. That is second hand information. Plus she has not reunited yet. (I am pretty sure I am correct here) Its a whole new ballgame when you see a real person..

Emotions are fluid, amgibuouis and ever-evoling. I eve bet there's nmoms
and adopted persons out there who dont' like what they find and never want
to see the "lost" person again. What if you find (some of my worst
nightmares) a fundie, a social worker, a teacher, or a ponzi artist? Jackie

>Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: Jackie forgetit@me.comDate: 1/26/04 6:39 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <hh9a10ts09oak2paf7tlko0hff63p7lfc5@4ax.com>On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:57:16 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com>wrote:One of my SILs relinquished a baby girl almost 20 years ago. She refused toseeher baby because she couldn't comprehend signing the relinquishment papersafteractually viewing her. I know for a FACT that she has mourned that baby'sloss -though she does feel that she made the best decision for the both of them.That is your interpretation of what she has said to you.That is second hand information.

Could you get anymore condescending? What gives you the right to speak for her
sil's feelings?

It is very possible to mourn your child without seeing them. I certainly
mourned, and then upon reunion, the wound reopened, allowing me to complete my
grief work.

I suspect her sil might experience a similar
situation if she gets into reunion. Who knows? It's her journey.
Plus she has not reunited yet. (I am pretty sure I am correct here)Its a whole new ballgame when you see a real person..Jackie




Diane Welfare, "she describes the US market as a "$US1.4 billion business in
baby trafficking". ~~121603
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336884771.html

Am I to not believe her? By your
thinking, nobody should believe anything anybody says. I realize that in
today's duplicitious society we should not believe that people actually mean
what they say (does NO really mean NO?), so call me an idealist.
=========

IMO it's not about believing or not believing. It can often be only about
perception. People closest to me have heard only pieces of the truth regarding
the relinquishment of my son. Some of it due to repressed memory, some of it
due to my own inability to speak the words for so long, some of it just due to
privacy and discretion -- and not letting too many people enter into this
'sacred' part of my emotions and thoughts.

So if you asked my sister, my adult nieces, my adult nephews, four out of five
of my closest friends, you may get a piece of the truth from each. There's
been no lies, but I don't tell all to everyone.

Just a thought

In article <20040126134148.21741.00000954@mb-m06.aol.com>, DJanice says... Am I to not believe her? By yourthinking, nobody should believe anything anybody says. I realize that intoday's duplicitious society we should not believe that people actually meanwhat they say (does NO really mean NO?), so call me an idealist.=========IMO it's not about believing or not believing. It can often be only aboutperception. People closest to me have heard only pieces of the truth regardingthe relinquishment of my son. Some of it due to repressed memory, some of itdue to my own inability to speak the words for so long, some of it just due toprivacy and discretion -- and not letting too many people enter into this'sacred' part of my emotions and thoughts.So if you asked my sister, my adult nieces, my adult nephews, four out of fiveof my closest friends, you may get a piece of the truth from each. There'sbeen no lies, but I don't tell all to everyone.Just a thought

I do see what you're saying, however, I'm just repeating what my SIL told me.

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

I do see what you're saying, however, I'm just repeating what my SIL told me.

===============
Exactly. That's my point. Not that your SIL is lying to you, but that there
may be things she's not sharing with you, or even things that she may not
recognize herself.
IMO, I have found adoption issues different than any personal topic in the
amount of emotion and how time and awareness effect perceptions and the
emotions.

There are plenty of people in my life that would be able to quote me, how I
"felt" about relinquishing, what happened, etc... but there are very very very
few who could describe any of it with scope and accuracy.

"Robibnikoff" <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:CheRb.808$_4.44@www.newsranger.com... In article <20040126134148.21741.00000954@mb-m06.aol.com>, DJanice says... Am I to not believe her? By yourthinking, nobody should believe anything anybody says. I realize that
intoday's duplicitious society we should not believe that people actually
meanwhat they say (does NO really mean NO?), so call me an idealist.=========IMO it's not about believing or not believing. It can often be only
aboutperception. People closest to me have heard only pieces of the truth
regardingthe relinquishment of my son. Some of it due to repressed memory, some
of itdue to my own inability to speak the words for so long, some of it just
due toprivacy and discretion -- and not letting too many people enter into this'sacred' part of my emotions and thoughts.So if you asked my sister, my adult nieces, my adult nephews, four out of
fiveof my closest friends, you may get a piece of the truth from each.
There'sbeen no lies, but I don't tell all to everyone.Just a thought I do see what you're saying, however, I'm just repeating what my SIL told
me. Robyn Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster #1557

I understand, too, and I'm not disagreeing with Janice. I'm disagreeing
with the way Jackie framed her comments about your dialogue with your
cousin. And I don't understand why it's so difficult to talk about adoption
(again, not pointing this at Janice.) Adoption is a political issue.

Marley

Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message

rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote:Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message
How can you mourn the loss of a baby that you have not held? Or looked at..You did, Jackie, for all that you say you didn't. No one who has beenon this ng with you from the early years doubts that. I was stuck in the grief Rupa.. IMO grief is supposed to have a beginning and an end.. (acceptance) I needed to see him in order to find closure.. Maybe that is the issue of some women who refuse contact.. They are stuck in the grief and are afraid of closure.. Afraid of going through that final door.. Afraid of letting the familiar go..

Maybe...but then are you suggesting that mothers who haven't seen the
babies they relinquished have a greater need to reunite afterward, for
closure?
And that for mothers who saw their babies and were able to say their
farewells, the need is perhaps not as great?

I think it was wrong to stop mothers from seeing their babies.
I also think it's wrong to *insist* that mothers see the babies they
must relinquish. I think the mother, only the mother, must decide.

Rupa

Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message news:<ji8a10tk1cjhgoqfropk75ft8k09m6l4hf@4ax.com>... On 25 Jan 2004 11:21:47 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote:Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message news:<hgk710l0pmuu1kpuhphm4s0fh4njrpcvga@4ax.com>... On 25 Jan 2004 00:52:30 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote: >I think the feeling is that if giving up the baby is the right >decision, seeing it makes it hard to follow through; and if the >parents do in the end relinquish, then having seen it makes the >mourning worse. How can you mourn the loss of a baby that you have not held? Or looked at.. > >You can't, I agree.However, Rupa isn't saying that this is her opinion. She's saying thatthis is the way many people feel about it. And its a wrong way to feel about it..


Of course, I agree with you, and that's the thinking now.
But, in those times and for the majority of people, it was a sincerely
held belief.


Read my post to her, esp. re. the 'lacuna' bit, and let me know if youfind anything there that clicks. Or not.However, I must say that IMO, it really isn't possible to mourn yourchild even if you *have* held him/her *if the mourning is disallowed*.I mean, the 'It did not happen' is common to both experiences. Yes.. Its all part of the toxicity of relinquishing a child this way.For the woman who didn't hold her child, that connection was neverexperienced. And then she is expected to welcome that son or daughter into her home many years later.. And if she cannot do this.. If she can not talk about what happened.. or share what happened with the rest of the family she is considered childlike and bypassed..


Well, I doubt she's expected to kill the fatted calf exactly.
I doubt if many (any?) adoptees would expect it to be easy for her.
What I imagine they generally *don't* expect is to have the biological
door permanently slammed in their faces. Which, regardless of how
sympathetic they are towards their mother, is how it must feel.
It would take quite a bit of personal strength to deal with that kind
of rejection, IMO.


"Contact the siblings in secrecy".. some tell the person looking for reunion..



What would you recommend in a situation where the mother adamantly
refuses to deal?
I'm not just talking about giving time here. I mean someone who makes
it absolutely perfectly clear that she *never, ever, under any
circumstances* wants to deal (I don't have any answers, particularly.
I have inclinations, but no answers)



For the other, who did, it becomes like the memory of ahallucination. That must have been horrible as well..


Well, it's undealable with.
So one deals with it by not dealing with it. Same difference.



It's rendered unreal, something that never was, and consequently isinaccessible.I think that in both cases it's rather like an internal personalearthquake. Yes.For the person who's experienced it, the landscape has becomeunrecognisable, but for everyone else remains totally familiar, andthey can't understand why it shouldn't be the same for you. I do not think that some people want to understand..



Some don't, but then again, it has to be a difficult thing to
understand.
Especially if you've never been there.
In my experience most people don't, can't, fully understand, but are
sympathetic anyway, because they are empathetic, and have enough
imagination to have some idea. Very different from 40 years or so ago
when to even *consider* such a situation was taboo.

I know I've been fortunate myself, but I'm very well aware that there
are many deeply prejudiced angry people out there who've suckled their
grievances on venom and bile.
Such people aren't confined to any particular group, but those that
are are always on the look-out for scapegoats and easy targets.
Mostly, I think, searching adoptees are not like this.


Much too difficult.



It is difficult, but as far as the 'much too' is concerned, I'm
convinced we are talking 'some' rather than 'most' .




Rh. Jackie

Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message I needed to see him in order to find closure.. Maybe that is the issue of some women who refuse contact.. They are stuck in the grief and are afraid of closure.. Afraid of going through that final door.. Afraid of letting the familiar go..



I think you're on to something there.



Rh. Jackie

In article <20040126150209.11350.00000757@mb-m05.aol.com>, DJanice says...I do see what you're saying, however, I'm just repeating what my SIL told me.===============Exactly. That's my point. Not that your SIL is lying to you, but that theremay be things she's not sharing with you, or even things that she may notrecognize herself.IMO, I have found adoption issues different than any personal topic in theamount of emotion and how time and awareness effect perceptions and theemotions.There are plenty of people in my life that would be able to quote me, how I"felt" about relinquishing, what happened, etc... but there are very very veryfew who could describe any of it with scope and accuracy.

I was debating on a response to this, because I don't want to it to turn
flame-o-riffic, but as it turns out, a lot of what my SIL told me about her
pregnancy and her reasons for relinquishing apparently has changed over the
years. What she originally told me was that she was told by her mother was that
if she didn't relinquish her baby for adoption, she'd be thrown out on the
street with no family support whatsoever. According to what I have been told by
her sisters, that is far from the case. Apparently what she wanted to do was to
keep her baby, go back to work and "let" her mother have the primary
responsibility of taking care of her child. Her mother said "no way", if you
have this child, then you have to take care of it yourself. My SIL was 19 when
she had her child and well, basically didn't want the responsibility. So, since
her mother was unwilling to take over the job, she felt she "had no choice" but
to relinquish.

So, honestly, who really knows the reasons for how things turned out. However,
I do stand by what my SIL said why she didn't want to see her daughter. I know
now that she has distorted some things, but I don't think this is one of them.

Obviously, I could be wrong.

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message news:<hh9a10ts09oak2paf7tlko0hff63p7lfc5@4ax.com>... On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:57:16 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote:One of my SILs relinquished a baby girl almost 20 years ago. She refused to seeher baby because she couldn't comprehend signing the relinquishment papers afteractually viewing her. I know for a FACT that she has mourned that baby's loss -though she does feel that she made the best decision for the both of them. That is your interpretation of what she has said to you. That is second hand information.


It's second hand info. to us, but was first hand (related directly) to
Robyn.
I see no reason why Robyn would misinform us.
I take take this at face value, especially as my friend S told me the
very same thing with regard to her relinquishment experience.

Plus she has not reunited yet. (I am pretty sure I am correct here) Its a whole new ballgame when you see a real person.


It's actually the same ballgame, but the second half of the match.




Rh. Jackie

In article <dafc70.0401261911.62d96451@posting.google.com>, Rhiannon says...Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message news:<hh9a10ts09oak2paf7tlko0hff63p7lfc5@4ax.com>... On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:57:16 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote:One of my SILs relinquished a baby girl almost 20 years ago. She refused to seeher baby because she couldn't comprehend signing the relinquishment papers afteractually viewing her. I know for a FACT that she has mourned that baby's loss -though she does feel that she made the best decision for the both of them. That is your interpretation of what she has said to you. That is second hand information.It's second hand info. to us, but was first hand (related directly) toRobyn.I see no reason why Robyn would misinform us.

Thanks - I'm only relating what I was told - no more, no less.
I take take this at face value, especially as my friend S told me thevery same thing with regard to her relinquishment experience. Plus she has not reunited yet. (I am pretty sure I am correct here) Its a whole new ballgame when you see a real person.

Indeed, but I don't see what this as to do with my SIL'sdecision to not see her
bdaughter prior to relinquishment.

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

In article <bi7a10pc4bqs43tp95mkmno8j0lkre6s1g@4ax.com>, Jackie
<forgetit@me.com> writes:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 16:57:07 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net>wrote:"Jackie" <forgetit@me.com> wrote in messagenews:hgk710l0pmuu1kpuhphm4s0fh4njrpcvga@4ax .com... On 25 Jan 2004 00:52:30 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote: >I think the feeling is that if giving up the baby is the right >decision, seeing it makes it hard to follow through; and if the >parents do in the end relinquish, then having seen it makes the >mourning worse. How can you mourn the loss of a baby that you have not held?Woman throughout history *have* mourned babies that they have never held.Maybe the question is.. Was it a healing grief or a grief that nevergoes away? A grief that shuts her down because human nature has beenthwarted..Very deformed babies, stillbirths, miscarriages, etc., were rarely shown tothe mother, and yet she would have (often) mourned that baby for the rest ofher days. (In Ireland, anyway)No closure for her..It is only in recent times that it has been recognised that it is far kinderand healthier if the parents, and possibly other children, can see and holdthe baby until they are ready to say goodbye.Exactly.. Now days it has been proven that the woman should hold thebaby and say her goodbyes.. Correct?Most maternity hospitals hereprovide special facilities for that purpose, and even take photographs ifrequested to do so. They are very sensitive and arrange shawls and littlecaps, etc., where there is a need to cover up major deformity.So now it is known that a person needs an image.. A memory to mourn..What of the women who were forced to relinquish? What of the womanwho did not see her baby? The woman who was told to never speak ofthat baby again.What of her?Do we say.. Heck just bypass her.. She is never going to see the lightof day again anyway..Jackie

Sorry to have to break this to you Jackie, but you seem to sound like you
expect her to be kept down. I don't ever hear you say anything about a
birthmother who isn't so dramatically traumatized that she can't function
anymore. It really sounds like you think all birthmom's are unable to grow at
all. Again, it's that stagnant, never-growing, stuck in the closet birthmom
who needs to be coddled mold that you seem to expect all birthmoms to fit.

KL

>Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL)Date: 1/26/04 10:12 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <20040127001248.23307.00006288@mb-m29.aol.com>
Do we say.. Heck just bypass her.. She is never going to see the lightof day again anyway..JackieSorry to have to break this to you Jackie, but you seem to sound like youexpect her to be kept down.

Well doh. It seems that every bmom MUST have the "Jackie experience".

I don't ever hear you say anything about abirthmother who isn't so dramatically traumatized that she can't functionanymore.

They don't exist. Just ask Jackie.
It really sounds like you think all birthmom's are unable to growatall.

Well seriously, what does that tell you about Jackie?

Again, it's that stagnant, never-growing, stuck in the closet birthmomwho needs to be coddled mold that you seem to expect all birthmoms to fit.

I think I'll let that stand for itself.

KL




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

"Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<kraRb.19433$6O4.519269@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... "Jackie" <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message news:hh9a10ts09oak2paf7tlko0hff63p7lfc5@4ax.com... On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:57:16 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote:One of my SILs relinquished a baby girl almost 20 years ago. She refused to seeher baby because she couldn't comprehend signing the relinquishment papers afteractually viewing her. I know for a FACT that she has mourned that baby's loss -though she does feel that she made the best decision for the both of them. That is your interpretation of what she has said to you. Hmm, how much clearer can it be? The woman in question has said this. It doesn't sound like an interpretation to me. Are we not to believe first hand accounts? My bmom wrote me that she was *forced* to see me at Crittenton She didn't want to see me. Nobody there could apparently believe that she didn't want to see me. Am I to not believe her? By your thinking, nobody should believe anything anybody says.

Your mother's letter was a first hand account. Robyn is second hand
interpretation. That's said, the comments of a mother stating that it
was the
best decision she could make is self brainwashing, an anasthetic she
uses to convince herself that she did the right thing in order to
avoid/reduce confronting the full blown pain of loss. Only after
reunion is it possible to really deal with one's true feelings at an
honest level. Until then it's all about convincing yourself that the
baby is pefectly happy, and God help those whose doubts set in before
reunion.

Di




I realize that in today's duplicitious society we should not believe that people actually mean what they say (does NO really mean NO?), so call me an idealist. That is second hand information. Plus she has not reunited yet. (I am pretty sure I am correct here) Its a whole new ballgame when you see a real person.. Emotions are fluid, amgibuouis and ever-evoling. I eve bet there's nmoms and adopted persons out there who dont' like what they find and never want to see the "lost" person again. What if you find (some of my worst nightmares) a fundie, a social worker, a teacher, or a ponzi artist? Jackie

"Dian" <patrice68@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message
news:c599139c.0401262224.43f4feac@posting.google.c om... "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:<kraRb.19433$6O4.519269@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... "Jackie" <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message news:hh9a10ts09oak2paf7tlko0hff63p7lfc5@4ax.com... On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:57:16 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote: >One of my SILs relinquished a baby girl almost 20 years ago. She
refused to see >her baby because she couldn't comprehend signing the relinquishment papers after >actually viewing her. I know for a FACT that she has mourned that
baby's loss - >though she does feel that she made the best decision for the both of them. That is your interpretation of what she has said to you. Hmm, how much clearer can it be? The woman in question has said this.
It doesn't sound like an interpretation to me. Are we not to believe first hand accounts? My bmom wrote me that she was *forced* to see me at Crittenton She didn't want to see me. Nobody there could apparently believe that she didn't want to see me. Am I to not believe her? By
your thinking, nobody should believe anything anybody says. Your mother's letter was a first hand account. Robyn is second hand interpretation. That's said, the comments of a mother stating that it was the best decision she could make is self brainwashing, an anasthetic she uses to convince herself that she did the right thing in order to avoid/reduce confronting the full blown pain of loss.

This is the same argument used by anti-aborts--that abortion harms women;
that abortion ruins their lives. It disempowers women; demonizes them as
"bad women" or "bad mothers" and perpetuates women's oppression. It centers
women's Self in the uterus. Obviously some women are harmed by
relinquishment and some women are harmed by abortion, but both arguments
deny women autonomy of thought and deed and are highly over-rated by
agendaists on both sides. Reproduction is a biological accident and I fail
to see why so much narcissistic emotion is invested in a biological
function. I certainly don't disagree with you that women are brainwashed or
brainwash themselves over relinquishment and adoption, but at the same time,
these arguments are a direct attack on autonomy and are anti-feminist and
anti-woman. Unfortunately, it appears that the definition of women is still
formed by reproduction, mothering, and self-sacrifice, and as long as that
definition continues we will enjoy reproduction and adoption in its current
patriarchal form.


Only after reunion is it possible to really deal with one's true feelings at an honest level. Until then it's all about convincing yourself that the baby is pefectly happy, and God help those whose doubts set in before reunion. Di

I agree with you, but what if you find out the baby IS perfectly happy? And
the same may be asked of adopted persons who are convinced their nmothers
are perfectly miserable or perfectly happy. The bottom line is if you're
not gonna keep it, then don't have it.

Marley I realize that in today's duplicitious society we should not believe that people actually
mean what they say (does NO really mean NO?), so call me an idealist. That is second hand information. Plus she has not reunited yet. (I am pretty sure I am correct here) Its a whole new ballgame when you see a real person.. Emotions are fluid, amgibuouis and ever-evoling. I eve bet there's
nmoms and adopted persons out there who dont' like what they find and never
want to see the "lost" person again. What if you find (some of my worst nightmares) a fundie, a social worker, a teacher, or a ponzi artist? Jackie

In article <c599139c.0401262224.43f4feac@posting.google.com>, Dian says..."Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<kraRb.19433$6O4.519269@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... "Jackie" <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message news:hh9a10ts09oak2paf7tlko0hff63p7lfc5@4ax.com... On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:57:16 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote: >One of my SILs relinquished a baby girl almost 20 years ago. She refused to see >her baby because she couldn't comprehend signing the relinquishment papers after >actually viewing her. I know for a FACT that she has mourned that baby's loss - >though she does feel that she made the best decision for the both of them. That is your interpretation of what she has said to you. Hmm, how much clearer can it be? The woman in question has said this. It doesn't sound like an interpretation to me. Are we not to believe first hand accounts? My bmom wrote me that she was *forced* to see me at Crittenton She didn't want to see me. Nobody there could apparently believe that she didn't want to see me. Am I to not believe her? By your thinking, nobody should believe anything anybody says.Your mother's letter was a first hand account. Robyn is second handinterpretation. That's said, the comments of a mother stating that itwas thebest decision she could make is self brainwashing, an anasthetic sheuses to convince herself that she did the right thing in order toavoid/reduce confronting the full blown pain of loss. Only afterreunion is it possible to really deal with one's true feelings at anhonest level. Until then it's all about convincing yourself that thebaby is pefectly happy, and God help those whose doubts set in beforereunion.

LOL - Now WHO'S doing their own interpretation.

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

On 27 Jan 2004 05:12:48 GMT, klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL) wrote:
In article <bi7a10pc4bqs43tp95mkmno8j0lkre6s1g@4ax.com>, Jackie<forgetit@me.com> writes:On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 16:57:07 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net>wrote:"Jackie" <forgetit@me.com> wrote in messagenews:hgk710l0pmuu1kpuhphm4s0fh4njrpcvga@4ax .com...> On 25 Jan 2004 00:52:30 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose)> wrote:>> >I think the feeling is that if giving up the baby is the right> >decision, seeing it makes it hard to follow through; and if the> >parents do in the end relinquish, then having seen it makes the> >mourning worse.>> How can you mourn the loss of a baby that you have not held?Woman throughout history *have* mourned babies that they have never held.Maybe the question is.. Was it a healing grief or a grief that nevergoes away? A grief that shuts her down because human nature has beenthwarted..Very deformed babies, stillbirths, miscarriages, etc., were rarely shown tothe mother, and yet she would have (often) mourned that baby for the rest ofher days. (In Ireland, anyway)No closure for her..It is only in recent times that it has been recognised that it is far kinderand healthier if the parents, and possibly other children, can see and holdthe baby until they are ready to say goodbye.Exactly.. Now days it has been proven that the woman should hold thebaby and say her goodbyes.. Correct?Most maternity hospitals hereprovide special facilities for that purpose, and even take photographs ifrequested to do so. They are very sensitive and arrange shawls and littlecaps, etc., where there is a need to cover up major deformity.So now it is known that a person needs an image.. A memory to mourn..What of the women who were forced to relinquish? What of the womanwho did not see her baby? The woman who was told to never speak ofthat baby again.What of her?Do we say.. Heck just bypass her.. She is never going to see the lightof day again anyway..JackieSorry to have to break this to you Jackie, but you seem to sound like youexpect her to be kept down.

Why do you say that?
I don't ever hear you say anything about abirthmother who isn't so dramatically traumatized that she can't functionanymore.

Are you talking about the ones who refuse contact because they are
just plain mean?

The ones who wish to (knowingly) hurt the relinquished son or
daughter?

Is there such a person? Or is she a myth.. Or heck an icon..

I remember listening to Rickie Solinger doing her talk in Sanfrancisco
at the BN convention.. She was talking about her book Wake Up Little
Susie and how some of us were treated back then. She talked about how
she was writing Beggars and Choosers and how she was interviewing
women who had relinquished in the fifties and sixties..

Someone from the audience spoke about the mean spirited women that
just did not care.. "What about them?" the person in the audience
asked..
Solinger was taken aback.. She was silenced in some ways..IMO

I met her after her talk and we discussed the woman that does not
care.. She had a friend that (according to her) did not care..
Why? was the question at hand..

I have thought about this ever since..

I still can not believe that a woman can turn her back on her child
and cause that child further pain out of selfishness..
I do not believe it works that way.
It really sounds like you think all birthmom's are unable to grow atall.

I rejoice if a woman comes out of the secret keeping..

I rejoice for her and everyone involved..

Again, it's that stagnant, never-growing, stuck in the closet birthmomwho needs to be coddled mold that you seem to expect all birthmoms to fit.

They are there.. Adoptees are being refused contact..

Pain is being caused.. Pain is happening..

Why would I address the issues of a woman who is out of the closet..
She is very much able to speak for herself..
Some of these women are amazing..

Jackie

On 26 Jan 2004 12:54:18 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)
wrote:
Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message news:<ji8a10tk1cjhgoqfropk75ft8k09m6l4hf@4ax.com>... On 25 Jan 2004 11:21:47 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote:Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message news:<hgk710l0pmuu1kpuhphm4s0fh4njrpcvga@4ax.com>...> On 25 Jan 2004 00:52:30 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose)> wrote:>> >I think the feeling is that if giving up the baby is the right> >decision, seeing it makes it hard to follow through; and if the> >parents do in the end relinquish, then having seen it makes the> >mourning worse.>> How can you mourn the loss of a baby that you have not held?>> Or looked at..> >> >>>>You can't, I agree.However, Rupa isn't saying that this is her opinion. She's saying thatthis is the way many people feel about it. And its a wrong way to feel about it..Of course, I agree with you, and that's the thinking now.But, in those times and for the majority of people, it was a sincerelyheld belief.

Yes.. And that wrong belief has caused a lot of pain..
Read my post to her, esp. re. the 'lacuna' bit, and let me know if youfind anything there that clicks. Or not.However, I must say that IMO, it really isn't possible to mourn yourchild even if you *have* held him/her *if the mourning is disallowed*.I mean, the 'It did not happen' is common to both experiences. Yes.. Its all part of the toxicity of relinquishing a child this way.For the woman who didn't hold her child, that connection was neverexperienced. And then she is expected to welcome that son or daughter into her home many years later.. And if she cannot do this.. If she can not talk about what happened.. or share what happened with the rest of the family she is considered childlike and bypassed..Well, I doubt she's expected to kill the fatted calf exactly.I doubt if many (any?) adoptees would expect it to be easy for her.

But they still expect her to open up.. They expect her to deal with
what she has been unable (unwilling) to deal with for years and
years..
What I imagine they generally *don't* expect is to have the biologicaldoor permanently slammed in their faces.

You are speaking in absolutes..

I do not think absolutes apply here..
Which, regardless of howsympathetic they are towards their mother, is how it must feel.

The door that is being slammed was built many many years before the
knock..
It would take quite a bit of personal strength to deal with that kindof rejection, IMO.

I agree.. and I hate when I see it happening..

That is why I share in the open about my journey from the secret
keeping and why it is so much nicer on the other side.

"Contact the siblings in secrecy".. some tell the person looking for reunion..What would you recommend in a situation where the mother adamantlyrefuses to deal?

Finding out why she is doing this..

Stand in her shoes for a minute..

I honestly believe that some birth moms feel that what they have gone
through is not considered.. No thoughts of her experience other than
in passing..
Whenever this kind of talk comes up we get an example of the real non
caring birth mom.. The one who is just plain selfish and mean..

It shuts her up.. It gives her the message that she may be judged and
judged harshly..
Guilt..

Heck she may be judging herself harshly and may not even know it..

I'm not just talking about giving time here. I mean someone who makesit absolutely perfectly clear that she *never, ever, under anycircumstances* wants to deal (I don't have any answers, particularly.I have inclinations, but no answers)


My recent theory on this is about the woman not wanting to deal with
the grief.. She is shut down in the denial..
She does not want to look at the reality of what really happened..

Maternal instincts are human nature.. Thwart that and you are going
against human nature.. There has got to be some stuffing going on..

IMO it is a leap of faith to finally feel what needs to be felt..

In my insanity I thought I would do damage to my parents..
I was afraid for them..
I had repressed my anger around what happened..
I had no outside input to my thinking (therapy)..No leveling words..

Fear and guilt.. Could also be the reason.
For the other, who did, it becomes like the memory of ahallucination. That must have been horrible as well..
Well, it's undealable with.So one deals with it by not dealing with it. Same difference.

Exactly..
It's rendered unreal, something that never was, and consequently isinaccessible.I think that in both cases it's rather like an internal personalearthquake. Yes.For the person who's experienced it, the landscape has becomeunrecognisable, but for everyone else remains totally familiar, andthey can't understand why it shouldn't be the same for you. I do not think that some people want to understand..Some don't, but then again, it has to be a difficult thing tounderstand.

I agree..
Especially if you've never been there.

I agree to that as well.
In my experience most people don't, can't, fully understand, but aresympathetic anyway, because they are empathetic, and have enoughimagination to have some idea. Very different from 40 years or so agowhen to even *consider* such a situation was taboo.

It was wrong.. It was against human nature..
I know I've been fortunate myself, but I'm very well aware that thereare many deeply prejudiced angry people out there who've suckled theirgrievances on venom and bile.Such people aren't confined to any particular group, but those thatare are always on the look-out for scapegoats and easy targets.Mostly, I think, searching adoptees are not like this.

Searching adoptees have a horrible time of it if they are refused
contact.. To be rejected again is as wrong as it gets..
Much too difficult.It is difficult, but as far as the 'much too' is concerned, I'mconvinced we are talking 'some' rather than 'most' .

One person rejected.. One person rejecting is one too many in my
world..

Jackie

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 15:33:36 GMT, "Marley Greiner"
<maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
"Jackie" <forgetit@me.com> wrote in messagenews:hh9a10ts09oak2paf7tlko0hff63p7lfc5@4ax .com... On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:57:16 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote:One of my SILs relinquished a baby girl almost 20 years ago. She refusedto seeher baby because she couldn't comprehend signing the relinquishmentpapers afteractually viewing her. I know for a FACT that she has mourned that baby'sloss -though she does feel that she made the best decision for the both ofthem. That is your interpretation of what she has said to you.Hmm, how much clearer can it be? The woman in question has said this. Itdoesn't sound like an interpretation to me.

I sometimes say what I am not thinking.. Not really feeling.

Not really understanding..

Lip service..
Are we not to believe firsthand accounts?

I told a very different story years ago..

That was my truth then.. It is not my truth now.
My bmom wrote me that she was *forced* to see me atCrittenton She didn't want to see me.

Wanted to pretend you away..

What we did in those years.
Nobody there could apparentlybelieve that she didn't want to see me.

Had they given a baby up for adoption?
Am I to not believe her?

I believe that your birth mom was living in a fantasy world.. I
believe that seeing you may have forced her to look at some reality..
By yourthinking, nobody should believe anything anybody says.

If they are talking about someone else in such an emotionally charged
issue then no I would not believe anything anybody says.

They are adding their emotional issues on top of the original
statement..

I realize that intoday's duplicitious society we should not believe that people actually meanwhat they say (does NO really mean NO?), so call me an idealist.

And your birth mom was living in a fantasy..
She did not really have a baby.. And she was raped..

All story making.. What we did as you well know..

Its what made us so easily manipulated.. Right?
That is second hand information. Plus she has not reunited yet. (I am pretty sure I am correct here) Its a whole new ballgame when you see a real person..Emotions are fluid, amgibuouis and ever-evoling. I eve bet there's nmomsand adopted persons out there who dont' like what they find and never wantto see the "lost" person again.

But they have met and they have given the information..

There is no secrecy.. Nothing hidden..

Its the secret keeping that I look at..

What if you find (some of my worstnightmares) a fundie, a social worker, a teacher, or a ponzi artist?

I know.. Its very strange..

Jackie who is waiting for another big snow dump today..

On 26 Jan 2004 22:24:50 -0800, patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote:
Only afterreunion is it possible to really deal with one's true feelings at anhonest level.

It becomes real..
Until then it's all about convincing yourself that thebaby is pefectly happy, and God help those whose doubts set in beforereunion.

Best to not think of it.

Jackie

On 26 Jan 2004 19:11:15 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)
wrote:
Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message news:<hh9a10ts09oak2paf7tlko0hff63p7lfc5@4ax.com>... On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:57:16 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote:One of my SILs relinquished a baby girl almost 20 years ago. She refused to seeher baby because she couldn't comprehend signing the relinquishment papers afteractually viewing her. I know for a FACT that she has mourned that baby's loss -though she does feel that she made the best decision for the both of them. That is your interpretation of what she has said to you. That is second hand information.It's second hand info. to us, but was first hand (related directly) toRobyn.I see no reason why Robyn would misinform us.

I do not think this is being done deliberately..
I take take this at face value, especially as my friend S told me thevery same thing with regard to her relinquishment experience.

Secret keeping and secret thoughts are hidden..
Plus she has not reunited yet. (I am pretty sure I am correct here) Its a whole new ballgame when you see a real person.It's actually the same ballgame, but the second half of the match.

Its a hard game to play..


Jackie

"Jackie" <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message
news:apoc10lpmvdvei8pviae02ne7rcneiid1q@4ax.com... On 27 Jan 2004 05:12:48 GMT, klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL) wrote:In article <bi7a10pc4bqs43tp95mkmno8j0lkre6s1g@4ax.com>, Jackie<forgetit@me.com> writes:On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 16:57:07 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net>
I still can not believe that a woman can turn her back on her child and cause that child further pain out of selfishness.. I do not believe it works that way.

I can. Women abuse their children every day; some kill them. It seems you're
arguing an essentialist construction of motherhood.
It really sounds like you think all birthmom's are unable to grow atall. I rejoice if a woman comes out of the secret keeping.. I rejoice for her and everyone involved..Again, it's that stagnant, never-growing, stuck in the closet birthmomwho needs to be coddled mold that you seem to expect all birthmoms to
fit. They are there.. Adoptees are being refused contact..

Maybe she doesn't care. Some don't.

Marley

On 26 Jan 2004 12:45:11 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose)
wrote:
Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote:Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message> How can you mourn the loss of a baby that you have not held?>> Or looked at..You did, Jackie, for all that you say you didn't. No one who has beenon this ng with you from the early years doubts that. I was stuck in the grief Rupa.. IMO grief is supposed to have a beginning and an end.. (acceptance) I needed to see him in order to find closure.. Maybe that is the issue of some women who refuse contact.. They are stuck in the grief and are afraid of closure.. Afraid of going through that final door.. Afraid of letting the familiar go..Maybe...but then are you suggesting that mothers who haven't seen thebabies they relinquished have a greater need to reunite afterward, forclosure?

I do not think of anyone on terms of who has a greater need..

I can only relate to my experience.. Rh tells us of hers.

I do not pretend that I know any of the answers.. I do try and sort
this kind of grief tho..
Pretending a child does not exist is wrong..IMO
Not accepting that something happened as traumatic as this has got to
be toxic for the feeling part of a person..

I can remember going on a camping trip to Florida with my hubby and
kids (early eighties.. well before coming out of the closet).. When
we hit Jacksonville I started to feel emotions.. I felt guilty about
feeling those emotions..

We stayed in a motel and not the camper.. (wanted to get cleaned up
etc) I went into the camper and cried alone.. I was angry with myself
for doing this.. I stopped myself because I felt I should not be
crying..

How wrong was that?

Today I no longer obsess on my son..

I believe I came to acceptance of that part of my life when I let him
go the second time..
I have such emotional freedom now Rupa..

If he writes me great.. If he does not write me he must be busy or
whatever.. My life is my own now..
And that for mothers who saw their babies and were able to say theirfarewells, the need is perhaps not as great?

Everyones journey is different..
I think it was wrong to stop mothers from seeing their babies.I also think it's wrong to *insist* that mothers see the babies theymust relinquish. I think the mother, only the mother, must decide.

Then the consequences of this kind of thinking is that the mother may
deny her child.. May deny her child contact with the siblings..

*May* stay in the never never land of it never happened..


Jackie

On 26 Jan 2004 12:58:22 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)
wrote:
Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message I needed to see him in order to find closure.. Maybe that is the issue of some women who refuse contact.. They are stuck in the grief and are afraid of closure.. Afraid of going through that final door.. Afraid of letting the familiar go..I think you're on to something there.


I threw it out on adoption.com last nite..

There are a lot of strong birth moms over there.. I look forward to
the comments..

Jackie

"Jackie" <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message
news:apoc10lpmvdvei8pviae02ne7rcneiid1q@4ax.com... On 27 Jan 2004 05:12:48 GMT, klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL) wrote:
I still can not believe that a woman can turn her back on her child and cause that child further pain out of selfishness.. I do not believe it works that way.


That's part of the problem. Just because *you* can not believe it exists
doesn't mean it does not exist. Others are better able to face the
reality that there are just some mean rotten people in this world (my fil
was one) and <gasp> some of them are even bmothers.

Kathy 1

>Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 1/26/04 10:24 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0401262224.43f4feac@posting.google.com>"Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in messagenews:<kraRb.19433$6O4.519269@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... "Jackie" <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message news:hh9a10ts09oak2paf7tlko0hff63p7lfc5@4ax.com... On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:57:16 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote: >One of my SILs relinquished a baby girl almost 20 years ago. Sherefused to see >her baby because she couldn't comprehend signing the relinquishment papers after >actually viewing her. I know for a FACT that she has mourned thatbaby's loss - >though she does feel that she made the best decision for the both of them. That is your interpretation of what she has said to you. Hmm, how much clearer can it be? The woman in question has said this. It doesn't sound like an interpretation to me. Are we not to believe first hand accounts? My bmom wrote me that she was *forced* to see me at Crittenton She didn't want to see me. Nobody there could apparently believe that she didn't want to see me. Am I to not believe her? By your thinking, nobody should believe anything anybody says.Your mother's letter was a first hand account. Robyn is second handinterpretation. That's said, the comments of a mother stating that itwas thebest decision she could make is self brainwashing, an anasthetic sheuses to convince herself that she did the right thing in order toavoid/reduce confronting the full blown pain of loss. Only afterreunion is it possible to really deal with one's true feelings at anhonest level. Until then it's all about convincing yourself that thebaby is pefectly happy, and God help those whose doubts set in beforereunion.Di

Do you EVER shut up when it comes to speaking for anyone but your sad sack?






Diane Welfare, "she describes the US market as a "$US1.4 billion business in
baby trafficking". ~~121603
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336884771.html

>Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: Jackie forgetit@me.comDate: 1/27/04 6:33 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <gjtc109eipjavg05h6m2d3rslt6sa7ptlc@4ax.com>On 26 Jan 2004 22:24:50 -0800, patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote: Only afterreunion is it possible to really deal with one's true feelings at anhonest level.It becomes real..


You are generalizing other mother's experiences again.
Until then it's all about convincing yourself that thebaby is pefectly happy, and God help those whose doubts set in beforereunion.Best to not think of it.Jackie

It didn't stop you. You've written that you went into therapy and did your
grief work before reunion. Changing your story again?




Diane Welfare, "she describes the US market as a "$US1.4 billion business in
baby trafficking". ~~121603
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336884771.html

>Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: Jackie forgetit@me.comDate: 1/27/04 6:38 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <8qtc1059hgeklsmum6cf00qqbb3uifi788@4ax.com>On 26 Jan 2004 19:11:15 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)wrote:Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote in messagenews:<hh9a10ts09oak2paf7tlko0hff63p7lfc5@4ax.com>... On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:57:16 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote: >One of my SILs relinquished a baby girl almost 20 years ago. She refusedto see >her baby because she couldn't comprehend signing the relinquishmentpapers after >actually viewing her. I know for a FACT that she has mourned that baby'sloss - >though she does feel that she made the best decision for the both ofthem. That is your interpretation of what she has said to you. That is second hand information. > >It's second hand info. to us, but was first hand (related directly) toRobyn.I see no reason why Robyn would misinform us.I do not think this is being done deliberately..I take take this at face value, especially as my friend S told me thevery same thing with regard to her relinquishment experience.Secret keeping and secret thoughts are hidden..

Perhaps for YOU, but you are not EVERY bmom.

There are many bmoms that chose not to keep secrets. Get off your soap, Jackie,
before you drown in your own suds.





Diane Welfare, "she describes the US market as a "$US1.4 billion business in
baby trafficking". ~~121603
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336884771.html

"Jackie" <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message
news:vksc10t8okcbcv8hpfpmjkpn591vujup1u@4ax.com... On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 15:33:36 GMT, "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote:"Jackie" <forgetit@me.com> wrote in messagenews:hh9a10ts09oak2paf7tlko0hff63p7lfc5@4ax .com... On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:57:16 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote: >One of my SILs relinquished a baby girl almost 20 years ago. She
refusedto see >her baby because she couldn't comprehend signing the relinquishmentpapers after >actually viewing her. I know for a FACT that she has mourned that
baby'sloss - >though she does feel that she made the best decision for the both ofthem. That is your interpretation of what she has said to you.Hmm, how much clearer can it be? The woman in question has said this.
Itdoesn't sound like an interpretation to me. I sometimes say what I am not thinking.. Not really feeling. Not really understanding.. Lip service.. Are we not to believe firsthand accounts? I told a very different story years ago.. That was my truth then.. It is not my truth now.

Truth evolves. It is only in the present. My bmom wrote me that she was *forced* to see me atCrittenton She didn't want to see me. Wanted to pretend you away..

She was afraid. What we did in those years. Nobody there could apparentlybelieve that she didn't want to see me. Had they given a baby up for adoption?

No. She didn't sign anytthing for abiout 6-7 weeks. . Since she's dead I
can't ask her why she waited that long. Am I to not believe her? I believe that your birth mom was living in a fantasy world.. I believe that seeing you may have forced her to look at some reality.. By yourthinking, nobody should believe anything anybody says. If they are talking about someone else in such an emotionally charged issue then no I would not believe anything anybody says. They are adding their emotional issues on top of the original statement.. I realize that intoday's duplicitious society we should not believe that people actually
meanwhat they say (does NO really mean NO?), so call me an idealist. And your birth mom was living in a fantasy.. She did not really have a baby.. And she was raped..

No she wasn't. I was conceived in a "tourist court" on the back Massillon
Road. She'd been seeing Jack on the sly for a couple years while Bob was in
France and England. All story making.. What we did as you well know.. Its what made us so easily manipulated.. Right? That is second hand information. Plus she has not reunited yet. (I am pretty sure I am correct here) Its a whole new ballgame when you see a real person..Emotions are fluid, amgibuouis and ever-evoling. I eve bet there's nmomsand adopted persons out there who dont' like what they find and never
wantto see the "lost" person again. But they have met and they have given the information.. There is no secrecy.. Nothing hidden.. Its the secret keeping that I look at.. What if you find (some of my worstnightmares) a fundie, a social worker, a teacher, or a ponzi artist? I know.. Its very strange.. Jackie who is waiting for another big snow dump today..

It's showed here for 2 days, then this morning we had a thunder storm. Go
figure. I talked to Vladimir htis morning. He moved to Orlando and it's
already in the low 70s this morning.

Marley

>Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam (LilMtnCbn)Date: 1/26/04 9:40 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <20040127004032.24788.00000743@mb-m16.aol.com>Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL)Date: 1/26/04 10:12 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <20040127001248.23307.00006288@mb-m29.aol.com>Do we say.. Heck just bypass her.. She is never going to see the lightof day again anyway..JackieSorry to have to break this to you Jackie, but you seem to sound like youexpect her to be kept down.Well doh. It seems that every bmom MUST have the "Jackie experience". I don't ever hear you say anything about abirthmother who isn't so dramatically traumatized that she can't functionanymore.They don't exist. Just ask Jackie. It really sounds like you think all birthmom's are unable to growatall.Well seriously, what does that tell you about Jackie?Again, it's that stagnant, never-growing, stuck in the closet birthmomwho needs to be coddled mold that you seem to expect all birthmoms to fit.I think I'll let that stand for itself.


Too bad, it will go right over Jackie's head.


KL




Diane Welfare, "she describes the US market as a "$US1.4 billion business in
baby trafficking". ~~121603
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336884771.html

>Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: Jackie forgetit@me.comDate: 1/27/04 5:25 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <apoc10lpmvdvei8pviae02ne7rcneiid1q@4ax.com>

(snip)
Sorry to have to break this to you Jackie, but you seem to sound like youexpect her to be kept down.Why do you say that?

Gee, I wonder how it is that some of us have come to this same conclusion.


I don't ever hear you say anything about abirthmother who isn't so dramatically traumatized that she can't functionanymore.
Are you talking about the ones who refuse contact because they arejust plain mean?

No, were talking about the ones that are not traumatised and are functioning
human beings.
The ones who wish to (knowingly) hurt the relinquished son ordaughter?
Is there such a person? Or is she a myth.. Or heck an icon..
Jackie

Nice dodge. Why won't you address what KL wrote? Why aren't your applauding[1]
for those birthmothers that are not drastically traumatized and able to
function?

But since you are playing, there are such birth parents that want nothing to do
with their bkids. And they are not in denial. They simply used relinquishment
as a means of solving THEIR problem. There are some women that never have
looked back with regret.

However, there are also some women that never kept secrets, and never waivered
on their decision to relinquish then or now. They don't wallow nor are they in
denial, keeping secrets. They are content that they did the right thing, came
out of the closet from day one, or have come out saying that they have found
peace with their decisions, and it those women that you seem to want to hold
down.

Gee, come to think of it, I've even heard you say that women that have found
acceptance with their decisions no matter how painful it was for them, are
'roll overs'
if they don't march to your pity party line.

(snip)

[1] Waiting for clapped hands


Diane Welfare, "she describes the US market as a "$US1.4 billion business in
baby trafficking". ~~121603
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336884771.html

Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wroteI think it was wrong to stop mothers from seeing their babies.I also think it's wrong to *insist* that mothers see the babies theymust relinquish. I think the mother, only the mother, must decide. Then the consequences of this kind of thinking is that the mother may deny her child.. May deny her child contact with the siblings.. *May* stay in the never never land of it never happened..


Her decision, then. Her right.

The received wisdom keeps changing. I don't think there is one single
answer that is right for everyone. I'm all for the person in question
making the decision for herself. It may or may not be the right one
for her, but I doubt very much that anyone else can make a better
call...for *her*.

Rupa

In article <fHoRb.118303$6y6.2352230@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> writes:
"Dian" <patrice68@bigpond.com.au> wrote in messagenews:c599139c.0401262224.43f4feac@posting.g oogle.com... "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in messagenews:<kraRb.19433$6O4.519269@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... "Jackie" <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message news:hh9a10ts09oak2paf7tlko0hff63p7lfc5@4ax.com... > On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:57:16 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> > wrote: > > >One of my SILs relinquished a baby girl almost 20 years ago. Sherefused to see > >her baby because she couldn't comprehend signing the relinquishment papers after > >actually viewing her. I know for a FACT that she has mourned thatbaby's loss - > >though she does feel that she made the best decision for the both of them. > > > That is your interpretation of what she has said to you. Hmm, how much clearer can it be? The woman in question has said this.It doesn't sound like an interpretation to me. Are we not to believe first hand accounts? My bmom wrote me that she was *forced* to see me at Crittenton She didn't want to see me. Nobody there could apparently believe that she didn't want to see me. Am I to not believe her? Byyour thinking, nobody should believe anything anybody says. Your mother's letter was a first hand account. Robyn is second hand interpretation. That's said, the comments of a mother stating that it was the best decision she could make is self brainwashing, an anasthetic she uses to convince herself that she did the right thing in order to avoid/reduce confronting the full blown pain of loss.This is the same argument used by anti-aborts--that abortion harms women;that abortion ruins their lives. It disempowers women; demonizes them as"bad women" or "bad mothers" and perpetuates women's oppression. It centerswomen's Self in the uterus. Obviously some women are harmed byrelinquishment and some women are harmed by abortion, but both argumentsdeny women autonomy of thought and deed and are highly over-rated byagendaists on both sides. Reproduction is a biological accident and I failto see why so much narcissistic emotion is invested in a biologicalfunction. I certainly don't disagree with you that women are brainwashed orbrainwash themselves over relinquishment and adoption, but at the same time,these arguments are a direct attack on autonomy and are anti-feminist andanti-woman. Unfortunately, it appears that the definition of women is stillformed by reproduction, mothering, and self-sacrifice, and as long as thatdefinition continues we will enjoy reproduction and adoption in its currentpatriarchal form.Only after reunion is it possible to really deal with one's true feelings at an honest level. Until then it's all about convincing yourself that the baby is pefectly happy, and God help those whose doubts set in before reunion. DiI agree with you, but what if you find out the baby IS perfectly happy?

<sarcasm>
Silly Marley....adoptees are NEVER happy....they are bitter and angry little
individuals, and must remain that way for the entirety of their lives, even
after reunion. Although, of course, they are NEVER to be mad at their
birthmother.
</sarcasm>

KL
Andthe same may be asked of adopted persons who are convinced their nmothersare perfectly miserable or perfectly happy. The bottom line is if you'renot gonna keep it, then don't have it.Marley

In article <apoc10lpmvdvei8pviae02ne7rcneiid1q@4ax.com>, Jackie
<forgetit@me.com> writes:
On 27 Jan 2004 05:12:48 GMT, klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL) wrote:Sorry to have to break this to you Jackie, but you seem to sound like youexpect her to be kept down.Why do you say that?

OK, first I must preface any response by saying that you have misinterpreted my
post. Again. I just don't want you to think that I am just trying to pick a
fight, or pick on you.

I thought my examples given explained why I thought you sounded like you
expected a birthmom to be kept down. I will expound on those examples...
I don't ever hear you say anything about abirthmother who isn't so dramatically traumatized that she can't functionanymore.Are you talking about the ones who refuse contact because they arejust plain mean?

No, I am talking about birthmothers who, while probably traumatized due to the
relinquishment (I don't doubt it is hurtful no matter what the situation), is
not OVERLY traumatized and is able to still function, and grow and even come to
some peace with it. Who is able to say YES to contact. Or even a meek maybe
to contact. My sentence meant that I don't hear you acknowledging that such
birthmothers even exist.
The ones who wish to (knowingly) hurt the relinquished son ordaughter?Is there such a person? Or is she a myth.. Or heck an icon..

Again, I wasn't talking about such, so these two sentences really should just
be snipped...but didn't want to be guilty of editing your post in any manner.
I remember listening to Rickie Solinger doing her talk in Sanfranciscoat the BN convention.. She was talking about her book Wake Up LittleSusie and how some of us were treated back then. She talked about howshe was writing Beggars and Choosers and how she was interviewingwomen who had relinquished in the fifties and sixties..Someone from the audience spoke about the mean spirited women thatjust did not care.. "What about them?" the person in the audienceasked..Solinger was taken aback.. She was silenced in some ways..IMO

Well.......let's think. Maybe Solinger needed to be silenced a bit. Reminded
that there are (hopefully not to any great number) some women who DO fit that
bill. It appears she was doing some generalizing, and was caught out on it.
JMHO of course. (Please if anyone else sees it this way, let me know, so I
don't think I have totally lost sight of the real world hehe)
I met her after her talk and we discussed the woman that does notcare.. She had a friend that (according to her) did not care..Why? was the question at hand..I have thought about this ever since..I still can not believe that a woman can turn her back on her childand cause that child further pain out of selfishness..I do not believe it works that way.

Well, reality bites. And there really are women out there like this. Just
look at the women who abuse their children physically. They seem to have no
problem harming their child.
It really sounds like you think all birthmom's are unable to grow atall.I rejoice if a woman comes out of the secret keeping..I rejoice for her and everyone involved..

Yes, but again, it's always about her coming out of the secret keeping after
the evil child has forced the issue. Made demands, as you infer. I haven't
heard (maybe I need my hearing checked) you rejoice for any mother unless she
was forced into a revelation. No rejoicing for the birthmother who dealt with
it before the fact of contact being made.
Again, it's that stagnant, never-growing, stuck in the closet birthmomwho needs to be coddled mold that you seem to expect all birthmoms to fit.They are there.. Adoptees are being refused contact..

I didn't say they weren't there. I simply point out that not all birthmothers
are them. And again, the contact issue seems to weigh the most heavily with
you.
Pain is being caused.. Pain is happening..

Welcome to adoption. Sorry, but that is really all I can think to say to
this.
Why would I address the issues of a woman who is out of the closet..She is very much able to speak for herself..Some of these women are amazing..

She is able to speak for herself, but that doesn't mean she deserves to be
ignored. Treated as if she doesn't exist at all. Which is what you seem to
do.

KL
Jackie

"Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote Truth evolves. It is only in the present.

"And what is actual is actual only for one time
And only for one place"

(TS Elliot, Ash Wednesday)

"Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<fHoRb.118303$6y6.2352230@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... "Dian" <patrice68@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message news:c599139c.0401262224.43f4feac@posting.google.c om... "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<kraRb.19433$6O4.519269@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... "Jackie" <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message news:hh9a10ts09oak2paf7tlko0hff63p7lfc5@4ax.com... > On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:57:16 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> > wrote: > > >One of my SILs relinquished a baby girl almost 20 years ago. She refused to see > >her baby because she couldn't comprehend signing the relinquishment papers after > >actually viewing her. I know for a FACT that she has mourned that baby's loss - > >though she does feel that she made the best decision for the both of them. > > > That is your interpretation of what she has said to you. Hmm, how much clearer can it be? The woman in question has said this. It doesn't sound like an interpretation to me. Are we not to believe first hand accounts? My bmom wrote me that she was *forced* to see me at Crittenton She didn't want to see me. Nobody there could apparently believe that she didn't want to see me. Am I to not believe her? By your thinking, nobody should believe anything anybody says. Your mother's letter was a first hand account. Robyn is second hand interpretation. That's said, the comments of a mother stating that it was the best decision she could make is self brainwashing, an anasthetic she uses to convince herself that she did the right thing in order to avoid/reduce confronting the full blown pain of loss. This is the same argument used by anti-aborts--that abortion harms women; that abortion ruins their lives. It disempowers women; demonizes them as "bad women" or "bad mothers" and perpetuates women's oppression. It centers women's Self in the uterus. Obviously some women are harmed by relinquishment and some women are harmed by abortion, but both arguments deny women autonomy of thought and deed and are highly over-rated by agendaists on both sides.

Quite the contrary, IMO. There is nothing autonomous or empowered
about a woman who was not warned against something that has the known
potential to cause her lifelong harm and who subsequently lives with
the consequences of an uninformed choice. If anything it makes her a
victim of ignorance.


Reproduction is a biological accident and I fail to see why so much narcissistic emotion is invested in a biological function. I certainly don't disagree with you that women are brainwashed or brainwash themselves over relinquishment and adoption, but at the same time, these arguments are a direct attack on autonomy and are anti-feminist and anti-woman. Unfortunately, it appears that the definition of women is still formed by reproduction, mothering, and self-sacrifice, and as long as that definition continues we will enjoy reproduction and adoption in its current patriarchal form.
The problem with that is that pregnancy is part of the human
condition. It became a political issue only because both the patriachy
and feminists try to control other women's bodies and minds. True
feminism is about individual and informed choice. Whatever that choice
may be. It's not about swapping one
oppressor for another.

Di









Only after reunion is it possible to really deal with one's true feelings at an honest level. Until then it's all about convincing yourself that the baby is pefectly happy, and God help those whose doubts set in before reunion. Di I agree with you, but what if you find out the baby IS perfectly happy? And the same may be asked of adopted persons who are convinced their nmothers are perfectly miserable or perfectly happy. The bottom line is if you're not gonna keep it, then don't have it. Marley I realize that in today's duplicitious society we should not believe that people actually mean what they say (does NO really mean NO?), so call me an idealist. > > That is second hand information. > > Plus she has not reunited yet. (I am pretty sure I am correct here) > Its a whole new ballgame when you see a real person.. Emotions are fluid, amgibuouis and ever-evoling. I eve bet there's nmoms and adopted persons out there who dont' like what they find and never want to see the "lost" person again. What if you find (some of my worst nightmares) a fundie, a social worker, a teacher, or a ponzi artist? > > > Jackie

"KL" <klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell> wrote in message
news:20040127224231.15923.00003420@mb-m12.aol.com... In article <fHoRb.118303$6y6.2352230@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> writes:"Dian" <patrice68@bigpond.com.au> wrote in messagenews:c599139c.0401262224.43f4feac@posting.g oogle.com... "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in messagenews:<kraRb.19433$6O4.519269@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... > "Jackie" <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message > news:hh9a10ts09oak2paf7tlko0hff63p7lfc5@4ax.com... > > On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:57:16 GMT, Robibnikoff
<nospam@newsranger.com> > > wrote: > > > > >One of my SILs relinquished a baby girl almost 20 years ago. Sherefused > to see > > >her baby because she couldn't comprehend signing the
relinquishment > papers after > > >actually viewing her. I know for a FACT that she has mourned thatbaby's > loss - > > >though she does feel that she made the best decision for the both
of > them. > > > > > > That is your interpretation of what she has said to you. > > Hmm, how much clearer can it be? The woman in question has said
this.It > doesn't sound like an interpretation to me. Are we not to believe
first > hand accounts? My bmom wrote me that she was *forced* to see me at > Crittenton She didn't want to see me. Nobody there could apparently > believe that she didn't want to see me. Am I to not believe her?
Byyour > thinking, nobody should believe anything anybody says. Your mother's letter was a first hand account. Robyn is second hand interpretation. That's said, the comments of a mother stating that it was the best decision she could make is self brainwashing, an anasthetic she uses to convince herself that she did the right thing in order to avoid/reduce confronting the full blown pain of loss.This is the same argument used by anti-aborts--that abortion harms women;that abortion ruins their lives. It disempowers women; demonizes them as"bad women" or "bad mothers" and perpetuates women's oppression. It
centerswomen's Self in the uterus. Obviously some women are harmed byrelinquishment and some women are harmed by abortion, but both argumentsdeny women autonomy of thought and deed and are highly over-rated byagendaists on both sides. Reproduction is a biological accident and I
failto see why so much narcissistic emotion is invested in a biologicalfunction. I certainly don't disagree with you that women are brainwashed
orbrainwash themselves over relinquishment and adoption, but at the same
time,these arguments are a direct attack on autonomy and are anti-feminist andanti-woman. Unfortunately, it appears that the definition of women is
stillformed by reproduction, mothering, and self-sacrifice, and as long as
thatdefinition continues we will enjoy reproduction and adoption in its
currentpatriarchal form.Only after reunion is it possible to really deal with one's true feelings at an honest level. Until then it's all about convincing yourself that the baby is pefectly happy, and God help those whose doubts set in before reunion. DiI agree with you, but what if you find out the baby IS perfectly happy? <sarcasm> Silly Marley....adoptees are NEVER happy....they are bitter and angry
little individuals, and must remain that way for the entirety of their lives,
even after reunion. Although, of course, they are NEVER to be mad at their birthmother. </sarcasm> KL

No doubt, KL, but that description fits everybody I know. Do you actually
konw one happy person? I don't.

MarleyAndthe same may be asked of adopted persons who are convinced their nmothersare perfectly miserable or perfectly happy. The bottom line is if you'renot gonna keep it, then don't have it.Marley

"Rupa Bose" <rkbose@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message
news:e5619372.0401280003.6f4fead3@posting.google.c om... "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote Truth evolves. It is only in the present. "And what is actual is actual only for one time And only for one place" (TS Elliot, Ash Wednesday)

The perils of modernity and post.

Marley

>Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: Jackie forgetit@me.comDate: 1/27/2004
I can remember going on a camping trip to Florida with my hubby andkids (early eighties.. well before coming out of the closet).. Whenwe hit Jacksonville I started to feel emotions.. I felt guilty aboutfeeling those emotions..We stayed in a motel and not the camper.. (wanted to get cleaned upetc) I went into the camper and cried alone.. I was angry with myselffor doing this.. I stopped myself because I felt I should not becrying..
How wrong was that?

Don't feel bad, I did that on a trip to Colorado where I knew my sibling lived,
someone I have never met and probably never will.
Today I no longer obsess on my son..

Yeah, because your situation has changed from then.
I believe I came to acceptance of that part of my life when I let himgo the second time..I have such emotional freedom now Rupa..

Its the meeting, the knowledge, the truth that sets you free IMO.
If he writes me great.. If he does not write me he must be busy orwhatever.. My life is my own now..

Thats the acceptance, the relinquishment of trying to control someone.
Jackie

Kathy

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 15:35:12 GMT, "Marley Greiner"
<maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
And your birth mom was living in a fantasy.. She did not really have a baby.. And she was raped..No she wasn't. I was conceived in a "tourist court" on the back MassillonRoad. She'd been seeing Jack on the sly for a couple years while Bob was inFrance and England.

Yes but that was the story she told her parents and Bob.. Right?
That was her way out of being a 'bad' girl and getting caught..

You wrote last year..
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=VBIY9.3537%24rq4.334966%40bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net&output=gplain
She had this story that she was raped, and Ithink it's more likely that that was an easier story to have than the truth.

I bet not seeing you was part of the fantasy she was into..
The act.. The lie..

I also bet that this was the reason she would not see you when you
came knocking the first time.. What if her lie got out?



Jackie

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 14:52:19 GMT, "Marley Greiner"
<maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
"Jackie" <forgetit@me.com> wrote in messagenews:apoc10lpmvdvei8pviae02ne7rcneiid1q@4ax .com... On 27 Jan 2004 05:12:48 GMT, klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL) wrote:In article <bi7a10pc4bqs43tp95mkmno8j0lkre6s1g@4ax.com>, Jackie<forgetit@me.com> writes:>On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 16:57:07 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> I still can not believe that a woman can turn her back on her child and cause that child further pain out of selfishness.. I do not believe it works that way.I can. Women abuse their children every day; some kill them. It seems you'rearguing an essentialist construction of motherhood.

I still believe there is always a reason.. Human nature is not easily
thwarted IMO.
It really sounds like you think all birthmom's are unable to grow atall. I rejoice if a woman comes out of the secret keeping.. I rejoice for her and everyone involved..Again, it's that stagnant, never-growing, stuck in the closet birthmomwho needs to be coddled mold that you seem to expect all birthmoms tofit. They are there.. Adoptees are being refused contact..Maybe she doesn't care. Some don't.

The question is.. Why does she not care?
What happened to her?


Jackie

On 27 Jan 2004 11:24:25 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose)
wrote:
Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wroteI think it was wrong to stop mothers from seeing their babies.I also think it's wrong to *insist* that mothers see the babies theymust relinquish. I think the mother, only the mother, must decide. Then the consequences of this kind of thinking is that the mother may deny her child.. May deny her child contact with the siblings.. *May* stay in the never never land of it never happened..Her decision, then. Her right.

I do not think it should be encouraged..
The received wisdom keeps changing.

The reasoning behind not seeing the baby in my time was not wisdom..
Not for one second was it wisdom IMO.

It was denial of feelings.. What they did in those days..
I don't think there is one singleanswer that is right for everyone.

Not seeing a baby that a person has given birth to is toxic.. IMO
Toxic to the feeling self..
I'm all for the person in questionmaking the decision for herself.

What about a fifteen year old?

Where are the guides? Where is the councilor?

Is she told its best to see the baby? Does anyone listen to the
wisdom of women who have bene living this for a long time?

Or are some of us (birth moms) considered neuritic... Unable to cope..
Stuck in the past..
It may or may not be the right onefor her, but I doubt very much that anyone else can make a bettercall...for *her*.

Thats an easy way out of this.. IMO..

Jackie

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 10:14:31 -0500, "kat" <katlat24@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Jackie" <forgetit@me.com> wrote in messagenews:apoc10lpmvdvei8pviae02ne7rcneiid1q@4ax .com... On 27 Jan 2004 05:12:48 GMT, klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL) wrote: I still can not believe that a woman can turn her back on her child and cause that child further pain out of selfishness.. I do not believe it works that way.That's part of the problem. Just because *you* can not believe it existsdoesn't mean it does not exist. Others are better able to face thereality that there are just some mean rotten people in this world (my filwas one) and <gasp> some of them are even bmothers.

And with that belief firmly entrenched a person can just march past
the woman and contact the siblings..


Jackie

On 28 Jan 2004 01:33:00 -0800, patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote:
The problem with that is that pregnancy is part of the humancondition. It became a political issue only because both the patriachyand feminists try to control other women's bodies and minds. Truefeminism is about individual and informed choice. Whatever that choicemay be. It's not about swapping oneoppressor for another.


Yes.

Jackie

In article <j2hf10hcdojt8hrf9eipubv902cl01n04p@4ax.com>, Jackie says...On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 10:14:31 -0500, "kat" <katlat24@hotmail.com>wrote:"Jackie" <forgetit@me.com> wrote in messagenews:apoc10lpmvdvei8pviae02ne7rcneiid1q@4ax .com... On 27 Jan 2004 05:12:48 GMT, klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL) wrote: I still can not believe that a woman can turn her back on her child and cause that child further pain out of selfishness.. I do not believe it works that way.That's part of the problem. Just because *you* can not believe it existsdoesn't mean it does not exist. Others are better able to face thereality that there are just some mean rotten people in this world (my filwas one) and <gasp> some of them are even bmothers.And with that belief firmly entrenched a person can just march pastthe woman and contact the siblings..

Just like a friend of mine did when her bmom sent back all her letters and
pictures with a note saying "I don't know who you are. Don't ever contact me
again". Can you blame her for "bypassing" her bmom? I certainly don't.

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

On 28 Jan 2004 03:42:33 GMT, klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL) wrote:
In article <apoc10lpmvdvei8pviae02ne7rcneiid1q@4ax.com>, Jackie<forgetit@me.com> writes:On 27 Jan 2004 05:12:48 GMT, klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL) wrote:Sorry to have to break this to you Jackie, but you seem to sound like youexpect her to be kept down.Why do you say that?OK, first I must preface any response by saying that you have misinterpreted mypost. Again. I just don't want you to think that I am just trying to pick afight, or pick on you.I thought my examples given explained why I thought you sounded like youexpected a birthmom to be kept down. I will expound on those examples... I don't ever hear you say anything about abirthmother who isn't so dramatically traumatized that she can't functionanymore.Are you talking about the ones who refuse contact because they arejust plain mean?No, I am talking about birthmothers who, while probably traumatized due to therelinquishment (I don't doubt it is hurtful no matter what the situation), isnot OVERLY traumatized and is able to still function, and grow and even come tosome peace with it.

I worked hard on my issues and I did come to a peace with what
happened..
I welcomed contact.
Who is able to say YES to contact.

IMO we are not discussing women such as this..
Or even a meek maybeto contact. My sentence meant that I don't hear you acknowledging that suchbirthmothers even exist.

Bloody hell.. I am one of them..
The ones who wish to (knowingly) hurt the relinquished son ordaughter?Is there such a person? Or is she a myth.. Or heck an icon..Again, I wasn't talking about such, so these two sentences really should justbe snipped...but didn't want to be guilty of editing your post in any manner.

Maybe you want to edit my thinking as well..
I remember listening to Rickie Solinger doing her talk in Sanfranciscoat the BN convention.. She was talking about her book Wake Up LittleSusie and how some of us were treated back then. She talked about howshe was writing Beggars and Choosers and how she was interviewingwomen who had relinquished in the fifties and sixties..Someone from the audience spoke about the mean spirited women thatjust did not care.. "What about them?" the person in the audienceasked..Solinger was taken aback.. She was silenced in some ways..IMOWell.......let's think. Maybe Solinger needed to be silenced a bit.

Perfect..
Remindedthat there are (hopefully not to any great number) some women who DO fit thatbill.

Yes some women are just plain mean...
But the question is.. Why are they just plain mean?

It appears she was doing some generalizing, and was caught out on it.JMHO of course. (Please if anyone else sees it this way, let me know, so Idon't think I have totally lost sight of the real world hehe)

Aren't you are so darn smart..

I don't know why I am replying to someone as smart as you...
I met her after her talk and we discussed the woman that does notcare.. She had a friend that (according to her) did not care..Why? was the question at hand..I have thought about this ever since..I still can not believe that a woman can turn her back on her childand cause that child further pain out of selfishness..I do not believe it works that way.Well, reality bites. And there really are women out there like this. Justlook at the women who abuse their children physically. They seem to have noproblem harming their child.

If someone abuses a child there is usually a reason behind it..
She may have been abused herself..
And I bet they have lots of problems dealing with the fact they hit
the child.
It really sounds like you think all birthmom's are unable to grow atall.I rejoice if a woman comes out of the secret keeping..I rejoice for her and everyone involved..Yes, but again, it's always about her coming out of the secret keeping afterthe evil child has forced the issue.

You say this.. I do not..
Made demands, as you infer. I haven'theard (maybe I need my hearing checked) you rejoice for any mother unless shewas forced into a revelation. No rejoicing for the birthmother who dealt withit before the fact of contact being made.

You are arguing in circles.
Again, it's that stagnant, never-growing, stuck in the closet birthmomwho needs to be coddled mold that you seem to expect all birthmoms to fit.They are there.. Adoptees are being refused contact..I didn't say they weren't there. I simply point out that not all birthmothersare them. And again, the contact issue seems to weigh the most heavily withyou.

I do not want to see women bypassed because the common thinking is
that some birth moms are just plain mean and should be bypassed..
Pain is being caused.. Pain is happening..Welcome to adoption. Sorry, but that is really all I can think to say tothis.

Bankrupt..
Why would I address the issues of a woman who is out of the closet..She is very much able to speak for herself..Some of these women are amazing..She is able to speak for herself, but that doesn't mean she deserves to beignored. Treated as if she doesn't exist at all. Which is what you seem todo.


I do not.

That is your perception of my belief's..

Jackie

"Jackie" <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message
news:6kff101i8n5jl9a92ll6cur55ac7n4ece7@4ax.com... On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 15:35:12 GMT, "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote: And your birth mom was living in a fantasy.. She did not really have a baby.. And she was raped..No she wasn't. I was conceived in a "tourist court" on the back
MassillonRoad. She'd been seeing Jack on the sly for a couple years while Bob was
inFrance and England. Yes but that was the story she told her parents and Bob.. Right?

She certainly didn't tell that to Bob. He and Jack knew each other slightly
before and after the war, and Bob is the one who verified his last name for
me. Only problem is that nobody bothered to tell Jack about it. I have no
idea what she told her parents. But she she was 23 when she got knocked up
and Jack was 17, there may have been a little problem with the law if
anybody pursued the issue.


That was her way out of being a 'bad' girl and getting caught..

Apparently, she'd been caught previously. You wrote last year..
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=VBIY9.3537%24rq4.334966%40bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net&output=gplain She had this story that she was raped, and Ithink it's more likely that that was an easier story to have than the
truth. I bet not seeing you was part of the fantasy she was into.. The act.. The lie..

I have no idea. She said it hurt her. It makes no difference to me. I
don't know why anybody would want to look at a baby--anybody's baby--to
start with. The only likeable baby is Endora on Passions. I also bet that this was the reason she would not see you when you came knocking the first time.. What if her lie got out?

She was afraid of what her kids would think of her . That was very clear.
They didn't think anything about it. She'd already been a lousy mother to
her two a kids (my brother asked me after the funeral why; would anybody
allow "those people" to adopt us).so how could it get any worse. They all
kissed and made up in the end, but it was very strange. For some weird
reason my 1/2 siblings on both sides always get compared to me. Look how
"successful" Marley is and look at you--you bums. It's embarrassing. You
can't win.

Marley Jackie

"Jackie" <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message
news:5fgf10ts103ronj8p4qjriuvh82jh59qbt@4ax.com... On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 14:52:19 GMT, "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote:"Jackie" <forgetit@me.com> wrote in messagenews:apoc10lpmvdvei8pviae02ne7rcneiid1q@4ax .com... On 27 Jan 2004 05:12:48 GMT, klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL) wrote: >In article <bi7a10pc4bqs43tp95mkmno8j0lkre6s1g@4ax.com>, Jackie ><forgetit@me.com> writes: > >>On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 16:57:07 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> I still can not believe that a woman can turn her back on her child and cause that child further pain out of selfishness.. I do not believe it works that way.I can. Women abuse their children every day; some kill them. It seems
you'rearguing an essentialist construction of motherhood. I still believe there is always a reason.. Human nature is not easily thwarted IMO. > It really sounds like you think all birthmom's are unable to grow at >all. I rejoice if a woman comes out of the secret keeping.. I rejoice for her and everyone involved.. >Again, it's that stagnant, never-growing, stuck in the closet birthmom >who needs to be coddled mold that you seem to expect all birthmoms tofit. They are there.. Adoptees are being refused contact..Maybe she doesn't care. Some don't. The question is.. Why does she not care? What happened to her? Jackie

Simple. Some people just don't care. It may have nothing to do with the
adoptee. She may be asocial, a psychopath, or she finds them boring.

Marley

>Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: Jackie forgetit@me.comDate: 1/28/04 6:18 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <j2hf10hcdojt8hrf9eipubv902cl01n04p@4ax.com>On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 10:14:31 -0500, "kat" <katlat24@hotmail.com>wrote:"Jackie" <forgetit@me.com> wrote in messagenews:apoc10lpmvdvei8pviae02ne7rcneiid1q@4ax .com... On 27 Jan 2004 05:12:48 GMT, klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL) wrote: I still can not believe that a woman can turn her back on her child and cause that child further pain out of selfishness.. I do not believe it works that way.That's part of the problem. Just because *you* can not believe it existsdoesn't mean it does not exist. Others are better able to face thereality that there are just some mean rotten people in this world (my filwas one) and <gasp> some of them are even bmothers.And with that belief firmly entrenched a person can just march pastthe woman and contact the siblings..Jackie

Why not? If she's a mean, rotten self-consumed human being, (yeah, you know the
type), the adoptee owes her squat when it comes to his right to contact his
birth family. Her right to privacy for whatever reason, does not trump the
adoptee's right to make contact with his birth family. End of story.





Diane Welfare, "she describes the US market as a "$US1.4 billion business in
baby trafficking". ~~121603
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336884771.html

"Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:9nQRb.127754$6y6.2499676@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... "Jackie" <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message news:5fgf10ts103ronj8p4qjriuvh82jh59qbt@4ax.com... On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 14:52:19 GMT, "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote:"Jackie" <forgetit@me.com> wrote in messagenews:apoc10lpmvdvei8pviae02ne7rcneiid1q@4ax .com...> On 27 Jan 2004 05:12:48 GMT, klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL) wrote:>> >In article <bi7a10pc4bqs43tp95mkmno8j0lkre6s1g@4ax.com>, Jackie> ><forgetit@me.com> writes:> >> >>On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 16:57:07 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net>>>> I still can not believe that a woman can turn her back on her child> and cause that child further pain out of selfishness..> I do not believe it works that way.I can. Women abuse their children every day; some kill them. It seems you'rearguing an essentialist construction of motherhood. I still believe there is always a reason.. Human nature is not easily thwarted IMO.> > It really sounds like you think all birthmom's are unable to grow
at> >all.>> I rejoice if a woman comes out of the secret keeping..>> I rejoice for her and everyone involved..>>> >Again, it's that stagnant, never-growing, stuck in the closet
birthmom> >who needs to be coddled mold that you seem to expect all birthmoms
tofit.>> They are there.. Adoptees are being refused contact..Maybe she doesn't care. Some don't. The question is.. Why does she not care? What happened to her? Jackie Simple. Some people just don't care. It may have nothing to do with the adoptee




Right and it isn't up to the adoptee to be her psychiatrist and try to
unravel the mystery of her behavior which might be rooted in a
dysfunctional upbringing/abuse/terrible experiences all of which might take
years of *professional* help to help her overcome.

Kathy 1

"Jackie" <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message
news:j2hf10hcdojt8hrf9eipubv902cl01n04p@4ax.com... On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 10:14:31 -0500, "kat" <katlat24@hotmail.com> wrote:"Jackie" <forgetit@me.com> wrote in messagenews:apoc10lpmvdvei8pviae02ne7rcneiid1q@4ax .com... On 27 Jan 2004 05:12:48 GMT, klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL) wrote: I still can not believe that a woman can turn her back on her child and cause that child further pain out of selfishness.. I do not believe it works that way.That's part of the problem. Just because *you* can not believe it existsdoesn't mean it does not exist. Others are better able to face thereality that there are just some mean rotten people in this world (my
filwas one) and <gasp> some of them are even bmothers. And with that belief firmly entrenched a person can just march past the woman and contact the siblings.. Jackie

And that just bugs the **** out of you. Beyond the normal amount of
compassion/time/understanding an adoptee should show a bmother, it really
doesn't matter why she might be a rotten person. Some people are just rotten
(again my father-in-law comes to mind) and will remain that way until the
day they die (he did) unless and until they are willing to change and enlist
the help of a therapist. An adoptee isn't a therapist and shouldn't be
expected to become one.

Kathy 1

"Jackie" <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message
news:seef10drei8oibi43nduliljn9amvimsao@4ax.com... On 27 Jan 2004 18:58:19 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote:Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message
news:<g0rc10d1lbfrsbd2fuva9hbrkgk15oer3t@4ax.com>... On 26 Jan 2004 12:54:18 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote: >> >What would you recommend in a situation where the mother adamantly >refuses to deal? Finding out why she is doing this.. Stand in her shoes for a minute.. I honestly believe that some birth moms feel that what they have gone through is not considered.. No thoughts of her experience other than in passing.. Whenever this kind of talk comes up we get an example of the real non caring birth mom.. The one who is just plain selfish and mean.. It shuts her up.. It gives her the message that she may be judged and judged harshly.. Guilt.. Heck she may be judging herself harshly and may not even know it.. > >I agree with all of the above - finding out why she's doing this,standing in her shoes for a minute, giving her time, etc.But having done all that, if the mother continued to be unresponsive(and, as Rupa correctly says, that's her right) WHAT WOULD YOURECOMMEND THE ADOPTEE DO?I'm guessing the answer to that would be that they should simply goaway (correct me if I'm wrong)It's probably what most would do, anyway. Private letters would be my next move if I was an adoptee.. Private letters sent on a regular basis.. Talking about their life etc.. What else can a person do? How can you force a traumatized women to open up? Or if the woman is just plain mean.. Why would anyone want to know her? Contacting the siblings would probably be my next move if she was just plain mean.. What I hate is the so called common belief that some adoptees put out that says "If the birth mom does not want contact there is always the family members". http://www.ansrs.com/before_2.htmAdoptees, good news, approximately 90% of birthmothers want to be found.
Of the 10% who do not want to be found, other members of your birth-family
will probably welcome you, including siblings. Do not forget, you have a
birthfather too; he could welcome you. There is not one thought of the issues of the birth mom who does not want to be found in that paragraph.. That kind of attitude is what I find objectional.

Jackie it isn't up to the adoptee to try and solve the problems of the
bmother. To help her out of the prison she has locked herself into. That
type of work is better left to the professionals. So I can't find fault
with an adoptee who does not wish to undertake the project and just moves on
to someone with less issues. The adoptee might be sypathetic and
understanding to her plight but just be unwilling to get involved with that
type of situation.

Kathy 1

"Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3mQRb.127747$6y6.2500162@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... "Jackie" <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message news:6kff101i8n5jl9a92ll6cur55ac7n4ece7@4ax.com... On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 15:35:12 GMT, "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote:> And your birth mom was living in a fantasy..> She did not really have a baby.. And she was raped..No she wasn't. I was conceived in a "tourist court" on the back MassillonRoad. She'd been seeing Jack on the sly for a couple years while Bob
was inFrance and England. Yes but that was the story she told her parents and Bob.. Right? She certainly didn't tell that to Bob. He and Jack knew each other
slightly before and after the war, and Bob is the one who verified his last name
for me. Only problem is that nobody bothered to tell Jack about it. I have
no idea what she told her parents. But she she was 23 when she got knocked
up and Jack was 17, there may have been a little problem with the law if anybody pursued the issue. That was her way out of being a 'bad' girl and getting caught.. Apparently, she'd been caught previously. You wrote last year..
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=VBIY9.3537%24rq4.334966%40bgtnsc05-news
..ops.worldnet.att.net&output=gplain She had this story that she was raped, and Ithink it's more likely that that was an easier story to have than the truth. I bet not seeing you was part of the fantasy she was into.. The act.. The lie.. I have no idea. She said it hurt her. It makes no difference to me. I don't know why anybody would want to look at a baby--anybody's baby--to start with. The only likeable baby is Endora on Passions. I also bet that this was the reason she would not see you when you came knocking the first time.. What if her lie got out? She was afraid of what her kids would think of her . That was very clear. They didn't think anything about it. She'd already been a lousy mother to her two a kids (my brother asked me after the funeral why; would anybody allow "those people" to adopt us).so how could it get any worse. They all kissed and made up in the end, but it was very strange. For some weird reason my 1/2 siblings on both sides always get compared to me. Look how "successful" Marley is and look at you--you bums. It's embarrassing.
You can't win. Marley

No wonder she was a lousy mother to them if that is the type of "parenting"
that runs in her family. One of the *first* rules of parenting is to
*never* compare your kids! I hope your 1/2 sibs are able to tune that out
otherwise it is bound to have an impact on your relationship with them.

Kathy 1

"Jackie" <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message
news:8mhf10d9st0129780d9n3higi3up2mjthg@4ax.com... On 28 Jan 2004 03:42:33 GMT, klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL) wrote:In article <apoc10lpmvdvei8pviae02ne7rcneiid1q@4ax.com>, Jackie<forgetit@me.com> writes:

I do not want to see women bypassed because the common thinking is that some birth moms are just plain mean and should be bypassed..


Perhaps now they will be bypassed because of how you portray them and
adoptees will begin to think that it is all just too much to deal with and
life is short. They will spend their time and energy building a
relationship with family members that have less issues to deal with.

Kathy 1

"kat" <katlat24@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bv8l8h$pdecn$1@ID-203097.news.uni-berlin.de... "Jackie" <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message news:j2hf10hcdojt8hrf9eipubv902cl01n04p@4ax.com... On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 10:14:31 -0500, "kat" <katlat24@hotmail.com> wrote:"Jackie" <forgetit@me.com> wrote in messagenews:apoc10lpmvdvei8pviae02ne7rcneiid1q@4ax .com...> On 27 Jan 2004 05:12:48 GMT, klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL) wrote:>> I still can not believe that a woman can turn her back on her child> and cause that child further pain out of selfishness..> I do not believe it works that way.That's part of the problem. Just because *you* can not believe it
existsdoesn't mean it does not exist. Others are better able to face thereality that there are just some mean rotten people in this world (my filwas one) and <gasp> some of them are even bmothers. And with that belief firmly entrenched a person can just march past the woman and contact the siblings.. Jackie And that just bugs the **** out of you. Beyond the normal amount of compassion/time/understanding an adoptee should show a bmother, it really doesn't matter why she might be a rotten person. Some people are just
rotten (again my father-in-law comes to mind) and will remain that way until the day they die (he did) unless and until they are willing to change and
enlist the help of a therapist. An adoptee isn't a therapist and shouldn't be expected to become one. Kathy 1

One should never underestimate the rotteness of the human race. All of us
have had mean-spirited, sociopathic, psychotic, cheapskate, needy, clingy,
abusive, cold-hearted, and just plain nuttso people in and out of our lives
.. I couple of my grade school teachers come to mind. (My 7th grade teacher
was a scissors thrower).

Marley

"kat" <katlat24@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bv8m7j$p9fok$1@ID-203097.news.uni-berlin.de... "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:3mQRb.127747$6y6.2500162@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... "Jackie" <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message news:6kff101i8n5jl9a92ll6cur55ac7n4ece7@4ax.com... On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 15:35:12 GMT, "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote: >> And your birth mom was living in a fantasy.. >> She did not really have a baby.. And she was raped.. > >No she wasn't. I was conceived in a "tourist court" on the back Massillon >Road. She'd been seeing Jack on the sly for a couple years while Bob was in >France and England. Yes but that was the story she told her parents and Bob.. Right? She certainly didn't tell that to Bob. He and Jack knew each other slightly before and after the war, and Bob is the one who verified his last name for me. Only problem is that nobody bothered to tell Jack about it. I have no idea what she told her parents. But she she was 23 when she got knocked up and Jack was 17, there may have been a little problem with the law if anybody pursued the issue. That was her way out of being a 'bad' girl and getting caught.. Apparently, she'd been caught previously. You wrote last year..
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=VBIY9.3537%24rq4.334966%40bgtnsc05-news .ops.worldnet.att.net&output=gplain > She had this story that she was raped, and I >think it's more likely that that was an easier story to have than the truth. I bet not seeing you was part of the fantasy she was into.. The act.. The lie.. I have no idea. She said it hurt her. It makes no difference to me. I don't know why anybody would want to look at a baby--anybody's baby--to start with. The only likeable baby is Endora on Passions. I also bet that this was the reason she would not see you when you came knocking the first time.. What if her lie got out? She was afraid of what her kids would think of her . That was very
clear. They didn't think anything about it. She'd already been a lousy mother
to her two a kids (my brother asked me after the funeral why; would anybody allow "those people" to adopt us).so how could it get any worse. They
all kissed and made up in the end, but it was very strange. For some weird reason my 1/2 siblings on both sides always get compared to me. Look
how "successful" Marley is and look at you--you bums. It's embarrassing. You can't win. Marley No wonder she was a lousy mother to them if that is the type of
"parenting" that runs in her family. One of the *first* rules of parenting is to *never* compare your kids! I hope your 1/2 sibs are able to tune that out otherwise it is bound to have an impact on your relationship with them. Kathy 1
I suppose they're all used to it They're anywhere from 40-55 so they've had
enough time to deal with it. This comes from both side. Dottie even liked
my facial piercings, though she hated my sisters multiple ear pierces. Jack
hates them, btw. I gues it helps if you don't asked for money every other
week, too.

Marley

>Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 1/28/04 1:33 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0401280133.4fc16861@posting.google.com>"Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in messagenews:<fHoRb.118303$6y6.2352230@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... "Dian" <patrice68@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message news:c599139c.0401262224.43f4feac@posting.google.c om... "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<kraRb.19433$6O4.519269@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... > "Jackie" <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message > news:hh9a10ts09oak2paf7tlko0hff63p7lfc5@4ax.com... > > On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:57:16 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> > > wrote: > > > > >One of my SILs relinquished a baby girl almost 20 years ago. She refused to see > > >her baby because she couldn't comprehend signing the relinquishment papers after > > >actually viewing her. I know for a FACT that she has mourned that baby's loss - > > >though she does feel that she made the best decision for the both of them. > > > > > > That is your interpretation of what she has said to you. > > Hmm, how much clearer can it be? The woman in question has said this. It > doesn't sound like an interpretation to me. Are we not to believefirst > hand accounts? My bmom wrote me that she was *forced* to see me at > Crittenton She didn't want to see me. Nobody there could apparently > believe that she didn't want to see me. Am I to not believe her? By your > thinking, nobody should believe anything anybody says. Your mother's letter was a first hand account. Robyn is second hand interpretation. That's said, the comments of a mother stating that it was the best decision she could make is self brainwashing, an anasthetic she uses to convince herself that she did the right thing in order to avoid/reduce confronting the full blown pain of loss. This is the same argument used by anti-aborts--that abortion harms women; that abortion ruins their lives. It disempowers women; demonizes them as "bad women" or "bad mothers" and perpetuates women's oppression. It centers women's Self in the uterus. Obviously some women are harmed by relinquishment and some women are harmed by abortion, but both arguments deny women autonomy of thought and deed and are highly over-rated by agendaists on both sides.Quite the contrary, IMO. There is nothing autonomous or empoweredabout a woman who was not warned against something that has the knownpotential to cause her lifelong harm and who subsequently lives withthe consequences of an uninformed choice. If anything it makes her avictim of ignorance.

How the hell do you know that Robyn's bmom did not make her own decision? IF
she said that it was the best decision that she could have made at that time,
it does not mean that she is brainwashed, nor does it mean that she had no
power in making her decision.

You are so anti-women Di, it's pathetic.





Diane Welfare, "she describes the US market as a "$US1.4 billion business in
baby trafficking". ~~121603
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336884771.html

"Dian" <patrice68@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message
news:c599139c.0401280133.4fc16861@posting.google.c om... "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:<fHoRb.118303$6y6.2352230@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... "Dian" <patrice68@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message news:c599139c.0401262224.43f4feac@posting.google.c om... "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<kraRb.19433$6O4.519269@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... > "Jackie" <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message > news:hh9a10ts09oak2paf7tlko0hff63p7lfc5@4ax.com... > > On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:57:16 GMT, Robibnikoff
<nospam@newsranger.com> > > wrote: > > > > >One of my SILs relinquished a baby girl almost 20 years ago. She refused to see > > >her baby because she couldn't comprehend signing the
relinquishment papers after > > >actually viewing her. I know for a FACT that she has mourned
that baby's loss - > > >though she does feel that she made the best decision for the both
of them. > > > > > > That is your interpretation of what she has said to you. > > Hmm, how much clearer can it be? The woman in question has said
this. It > doesn't sound like an interpretation to me. Are we not to believe
first > hand accounts? My bmom wrote me that she was *forced* to see me at > Crittenton She didn't want to see me. Nobody there could
apparently > believe that she didn't want to see me. Am I to not believe her?
By your > thinking, nobody should believe anything anybody says. Your mother's letter was a first hand account. Robyn is second hand interpretation. That's said, the comments of a mother stating that it was the best decision she could make is self brainwashing, an anasthetic she uses to convince herself that she did the right thing in order to avoid/reduce confronting the full blown pain of loss. This is the same argument used by anti-aborts--that abortion harms
women; that abortion ruins their lives. It disempowers women; demonizes them
as "bad women" or "bad mothers" and perpetuates women's oppression. It
centers women's Self in the uterus. Obviously some women are harmed by relinquishment and some women are harmed by abortion, but both arguments deny women autonomy of thought and deed and are highly over-rated by agendaists on both sides. Quite the contrary, IMO. There is nothing autonomous or empowered about a woman who was not warned against something that has the known potential to cause her lifelong harm and who subsequently lives with the consequences of an uninformed choice. If anything it makes her a victim of ignorance. Reproduction is a biological accident and I fail to see why so much narcissistic emotion is invested in a biological function. I certainly don't disagree with you that women are
brainwashed or brainwash themselves over relinquishment and adoption, but at the same
time, these arguments are a direct attack on autonomy and are anti-feminist
and anti-woman. Unfortunately, it appears that the definition of women is
still formed by reproduction, mothering, and self-sacrifice, and as long as
that definition continues we will enjoy reproduction and adoption in its
current patriarchal form. The problem with that is that pregnancy is part of the human condition.

It shouldn't be, though.be, though. Biology is what keeps women within
patriarchy with it's nicey-nice conceptualization of women as .mothers,
nurtures, etc. . Without this false view of women, the entire culture would
crumble. One can't escape the fact that the goal of life if death, but you
don't have to be a part of the continuum, and be victimized to boot. .


It became a political issue only because both the patriachy and feminists try to control other women's bodies and minds. True feminism is about individual and informed choice. Whatever that choice may be. It's not about swapping one oppressor for another. Di

True, but people cannot live without oppression. Ever live in Denmark?
eech!

Marley Only after reunion is it possible to really deal with one's true feelings at an honest level. Until then it's all about convincing yourself that the baby is pefectly happy, and God help those whose doubts set in before reunion. Di I agree with you, but what if you find out the baby IS perfectly happy?
And the same may be asked of adopted persons who are convinced their
nmothers are perfectly miserable or perfectly happy. The bottom line is if
you're not gonna keep it, then don't have it. Marley I realize that in > today's duplicitious society we should not believe that people
actually mean > what they say (does NO really mean NO?), so call me an idealist. > > > > That is second hand information. > > > > Plus she has not reunited yet. (I am pretty sure I am correct
here) > > Its a whole new ballgame when you see a real person.. > > Emotions are fluid, amgibuouis and ever-evoling. I eve bet there's nmoms > and adopted persons out there who dont' like what they find and
never want > to see the "lost" person again. What if you find (some of my worst > nightmares) a fundie, a social worker, a teacher, or a ponzi
artist? > > > > > > Jackie

>Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: Jackie forgetit@me.comDate: 1/28/04 10:14 AM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <8mhf10d9st0129780d9n3higi3up2mjthg@4ax.com>

< snip >
If someone abuses a child there is usually a reason behind it..

But never a good one.
She may have been abused herself..

Kids learn parenting from their parents. All the more reason to find some
way to break the chain of abuse.
And I bet they have lots of problems dealing withthe fact they hit the child.

Not to mention the problems they dealt their own children.

Dad

Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message news:<klgf10pseb6eheirh84r1jg293gbnj68nh@4ax.com>... On 27 Jan 2004 11:24:25 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote:Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote >I think it was wrong to stop mothers from seeing their babies. >I also think it's wrong to *insist* that mothers see the babies they >must relinquish. I think the mother, only the mother, must decide. Then the consequences of this kind of thinking is that the mother may deny her child.. May deny her child contact with the siblings.. *May* stay in the never never land of it never happened..Her decision, then. Her right. I do not think it should be encouraged..The received wisdom keeps changing. The reasoning behind not seeing the baby in my time was not wisdom.. Not for one second was it wisdom IMO. It was denial of feelings.. What they did in those days..I don't think there is one singleanswer that is right for everyone. Not seeing a baby that a person has given birth to is toxic.. IMO Toxic to the feeling self..I'm all for the person in questionmaking the decision for herself. What about a fifteen year old? Where are the guides? Where is the councilor? Is she told its best to see the baby? Does anyone listen to the wisdom of women who have bene living this for a long time? Or are some of us (birth moms) considered neuritic... Unable to cope.. Stuck in the past..It may or may not be the right onefor her, but I doubt very much that anyone else can make a bettercall...for *her*. Thats an easy way out of this.. IMO.. Jackie

Well said, Jackie. They already knew the harm that not seeing the
baby caused as long ago as 1956. Lakeside was a Jewish Mother and Baby
Home in New York and carried out its own 2 year study on the effects
of seeing and not seeing the baby. The let the mother decide for
themselves. The outcome is shown below. You can get it from libraries.
It's just one of a number of such studies of the era.

The Unmarried Mother in our Society,
chapter 23 - Lakeside Girls.
(Shall I look at my baby?)
Sarah B. Edlin. 1956

"In a professional agency such as ours...we experimented with
permitting
the girl to make her own choice in the matter of seeing or not
seeing her
baby. We observed - and so did the adoption agency with whom we
work
very closely and with whom we share our thinking - that in the
main, the
girl who did not see her baby was much more disturbed after her
return
home, than the girl who had seen her child and had returned to
Lakeview
with it for a week or two.

It is obvious that in these cases the girl (who refuses to see her
baby) is
merely carrying out her own pattern of unreality, and is trying to
negate
the whole racking experience by refusing to recognise it's
existence. We try
to make this clear to her, and urge her to change her decision.
But we
cannot and do not always succeed in making the girl understand the
turmoil
and conflict she is storing up for herself by not seeing the baby.
All we
can do is to exert out fullest efforts to influence her to do so."


It is unnatural not to want to see the baby you've just given birth to
and that alone should be an indicator that the mother is not in a fit
state to make the decision or to sign anything. She should not be
allowed ot sign a thing until she has been given time to face the
reality of what she is about to do and can make an informed choice
either way...instead of denying the reality of it all. To then go
ahead and encourage this practice throughout the 60's is an
unconsciounable act of abject abuse committed against millions of
young unsuspecting mothers around the world. Many of whom will never
recover. May the instigators of this atrocity all rot in hell.

Di

Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote
rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote:I'm all for the person in questionmaking the decision for herself. What about a fifteen year old? Where are the guides? Where is the councilor? Is she told its best to see the baby? Does anyone listen to the wisdom of women who have bene living this for a long time?
But do you *know* that it's always best for everyone to see their
babies? You didn't see yours when you wanted to, and you have deep
regrets. But for another person, seeing the child and then
relinquishing might make an already painful situation much worse.

People are different. And I think they should make their own
decisions. They might be right or wrong, but no one else is likely to
be *more* right.

Your advice, as someone who has lived with the pain of relinquishing a
baby without having seen him, is always to look, and I respect that.
But you can't know what the alternative is. Would it have been better
had you see him? How can you know? You would have to consider a mother
who had done both, relinquished one child after seeing him, and
another without seeing him. Even then, external circumstances could
confuse the issue.

It may or may not be the right onefor her, but I doubt very much that anyone else can make a bettercall...for *her*. Thats an easy way out of this.. IMO..

Yes. And that's the easy way that, had they taken in your case, you
would have seen your baby before you relinquished him.

I think one generation of birthmothers having decisions made for them
is enough.

Rupa

Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message news:<8mhf10d9st0129780d9n3higi3up2mjthg@4ax.com>... On 28 Jan 2004 03:42:33 GMT, klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL) wrote:In article <apoc10lpmvdvei8pviae02ne7rcneiid1q@4ax.com>, Jackie<forgetit@me.com> writes:On 27 Jan 2004 05:12:48 GMT, klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL) wrote:>>Sorry to have to break this to you Jackie, but you seem to sound like you>expect her to be kept down.Why do you say that?OK, first I must preface any response by saying that you have misinterpreted mypost. Again. I just don't want you to think that I am just trying to pick afight, or pick on you.I thought my examples given explained why I thought you sounded like youexpected a birthmom to be kept down. I will expound on those examples...> I don't ever hear you say anything about a>birthmother who isn't so dramatically traumatized that she can't function>anymore.Are you talking about the ones who refuse contact because they arejust plain mean?No, I am talking about birthmothers who, while probably traumatized due to therelinquishment (I don't doubt it is hurtful no matter what the situation), isnot OVERLY traumatized and is able to still function, and grow and even come tosome peace with it. I worked hard on my issues and I did come to a peace with what happened.. I welcomed contact.Who is able to say YES to contact. IMO we are not discussing women such as this.. Or even a meek maybeto contact. My sentence meant that I don't hear you acknowledging that suchbirthmothers even exist. Bloody hell.. I am one of them..The ones who wish to (knowingly) hurt the relinquished son ordaughter?Is there such a person? Or is she a myth.. Or heck an icon..Again, I wasn't talking about such, so these two sentences really should justbe snipped...but didn't want to be guilty of editing your post in any manner. Maybe you want to edit my thinking as well..I remember listening to Rickie Solinger doing her talk in Sanfranciscoat the BN convention.. She was talking about her book Wake Up LittleSusie and how some of us were treated back then. She talked about howshe was writing Beggars and Choosers and how she was interviewingwomen who had relinquished in the fifties and sixties..Someone from the audience spoke about the mean spirited women thatjust did not care.. "What about them?" the person in the audienceasked..Solinger was taken aback.. She was silenced in some ways..IMOWell.......let's think. Maybe Solinger needed to be silenced a bit. Perfect.. Remindedthat there are (hopefully not to any great number) some women who DO fit thatbill. Yes some women are just plain mean... But the question is.. Why are they just plain mean? It appears she was doing some generalizing, and was caught out on it.JMHO of course. (Please if anyone else sees it this way, let me know, so Idon't think I have totally lost sight of the real world hehe) Aren't you are so darn smart.. I don't know why I am replying to someone as smart as you...I met her after her talk and we discussed the woman that does notcare.. She had a friend that (according to her) did not care..Why? was the question at hand..I have thought about this ever since..I still can not believe that a woman can turn her back on her childand cause that child further pain out of selfishness..I do not believe it works that way.Well, reality bites. And there really are women out there like this. Justlook at the women who abuse their children physically. They seem to have noproblem harming their child. If someone abuses a child there is usually a reason behind it.. She may have been abused herself.. And I bet they have lots of problems dealing with the fact they hit the child.> It really sounds like you think all birthmom's are unable to grow at>all.I rejoice if a woman comes out of the secret keeping..I rejoice for her and everyone involved..Yes, but again, it's always about her coming out of the secret keeping afterthe evil child has forced the issue. You say this.. I do not.. Made demands, as you infer. I haven'theard (maybe I need my hearing checked) you rejoice for any mother unless shewas forced into a revelation. No rejoicing for the birthmother who dealt withit before the fact of contact being made. You are arguing in circles.>Again, it's that stagnant, never-growing, stuck in the closet birthmom>who needs to be coddled mold that you seem to expect all birthmoms to fit.They are there.. Adoptees are being refused contact..I didn't say they weren't there. I simply point out that not all birthmothersare them. And again, the contact issue seems to weigh the most heavily withyou. I do not want to see women bypassed because the common thinking is that some birth moms are just plain mean and should be bypassed..Pain is being caused.. Pain is happening..Welcome to adoption. Sorry, but that is really all I can think to say tothis. Bankrupt..Why would I address the issues of a woman who is out of the closet..She is very much able to speak for herself..Some of these women are amazing..She is able to speak for herself, but that doesn't mean she deserves to beignored. Treated as if she doesn't exist at all. Which is what you seem todo. I do not. That is your perception of my belief's.. Jackie

Looks like you've just been ordered to speak on every mothers behalf:-)

Di

meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in message news:<20040128120404.11625.00000874@mb-m12.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 1/28/04 1:33 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0401280133.4fc16861@posting.google.com>"Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in messagenews:<fHoRb.118303$6y6.2352230@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... "Dian" <patrice68@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message news:c599139c.0401262224.43f4feac@posting.google.c om... > "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<kraRb.19433$6O4.519269@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... > > "Jackie" <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message > > news:hh9a10ts09oak2paf7tlko0hff63p7lfc5@4ax.com... > > > On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:57:16 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > >One of my SILs relinquished a baby girl almost 20 years ago. She refused to see > > > >her baby because she couldn't comprehend signing the relinquishment papers after > > > >actually viewing her. I know for a FACT that she has mourned that baby's loss - > > > >though she does feel that she made the best decision for the both of them. > > > > > > > > > That is your interpretation of what she has said to you. > > > > Hmm, how much clearer can it be? The woman in question has said this. It > > doesn't sound like an interpretation to me. Are we not to believe first > > hand accounts? My bmom wrote me that she was *forced* to see me at > > Crittenton She didn't want to see me. Nobody there could apparently > > believe that she didn't want to see me. Am I to not believe her? By your > > thinking, nobody should believe anything anybody says. > > Your mother's letter was a first hand account. Robyn is second hand > interpretation. That's said, the comments of a mother stating that it > was the > best decision she could make is self brainwashing, an anasthetic she > uses to convince herself that she did the right thing in order to > avoid/reduce confronting the full blown pain of loss. This is the same argument used by anti-aborts--that abortion harms women; that abortion ruins their lives. It disempowers women; demonizes them as "bad women" or "bad mothers" and perpetuates women's oppression. It centers women's Self in the uterus. Obviously some women are harmed by relinquishment and some women are harmed by abortion, but both arguments deny women autonomy of thought and deed and are highly over-rated by agendaists on both sides.Quite the contrary, IMO. There is nothing autonomous or empoweredabout a woman who was not warned against something that has the knownpotential to cause her lifelong harm and who subsequently lives withthe consequences of an uninformed choice. If anything it makes her avictim of ignorance. How the hell do you know that Robyn's bmom did not make her own decision? IF she said that it was the best decision that she could have made at that time, it does not mean that she is brainwashed, nor does it mean that she had no power in making her decision.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.......What does Robyn's mother have to do with
this discussion? Go back to sleep.
You are so anti-women Di, it's pathetic.


You mean unlike you who has never once shown an iota of regret or
remorse about the loss of your son and wants to depict all mothers as
being as cold blooded as you are? I've got news for you, Kathy. Even
mothers who made the decision usually still regret being unable to
raise their child and feel tremendous
remorse for the loss of their child. In many cases they feel even
worse because they know their pain is caused by their own decision.
It's you who is the cold blooded oddity, so stop trying to make
mothers out to be like you.

Di
Diane Welfare, "she describes the US market as a "$US1.4 billion business in baby trafficking". ~~121603 http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336884771.html

In article <c599139c.0401281621.2218ec77@posting.google.com>, Dian says...meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in message news:<20040128120404.11625.00000874@mb-m12.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 1/28/04 1:33 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0401280133.4fc16861@posting.google.com>"Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in messagenews:<fHoRb.118303$6y6.2352230@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...> "Dian" <patrice68@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message> news:c599139c.0401262224.43f4feac@posting.google.c om...> > "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<kraRb.19433$6O4.519269@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...> > > "Jackie" <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message> > > news:hh9a10ts09oak2paf7tlko0hff63p7lfc5@4ax.com...> > > > On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:57:16 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com>> > > > wrote:> > > >> > > > >One of my SILs relinquished a baby girl almost 20 years ago. She> refused> to see> > > > >her baby because she couldn't comprehend signing the relinquishment papers after> > > > >actually viewing her. I know for a FACT that she has mourned that> baby's> loss -> > > > >though she does feel that she made the best decision for the both of them.> > > >> > > >> > > > That is your interpretation of what she has said to you.> > >> > > Hmm, how much clearer can it be? The woman in question has said this. It> > > doesn't sound like an interpretation to me. Are we not to believe first> > > hand accounts? My bmom wrote me that she was *forced* to see me at> > > Crittenton She didn't want to see me. Nobody there could apparently> > > believe that she didn't want to see me. Am I to not believe her? By your> > > thinking, nobody should believe anything anybody says.> >> > Your mother's letter was a first hand account. Robyn is second hand> > interpretation. That's said, the comments of a mother stating that it> > was the> > best decision she could make is self brainwashing, an anasthetic she> > uses to convince herself that she did the right thing in order to> > avoid/reduce confronting the full blown pain of loss.>> This is the same argument used by anti-aborts--that abortion harms women;> that abortion ruins their lives. It disempowers women; demonizes them as> "bad women" or "bad mothers" and perpetuates women's oppression. It centers> women's Self in the uterus. Obviously some women are harmed by> relinquishment and some women are harmed by abortion, but both arguments> deny women autonomy of thought and deed and are highly over-rated by> agendaists on both sides.Quite the contrary, IMO. There is nothing autonomous or empoweredabout a woman who was not warned against something that has the knownpotential to cause her lifelong harm and who subsequently lives withthe consequences of an uninformed choice. If anything it makes her avictim of ignorance. How the hell do you know that Robyn's bmom did not make her own decision? IF she said that it was the best decision that she could have made at that time, it does not mean that she is brainwashed, nor does it mean that she had no power in making her decision.Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.......What does Robyn's mother have to do withthis discussion? Go back to sleep.

Actually, nothing really - I was talking about my SIL. However, my bmom DOES
feel that she did make the best decision for both of us - We have discussed this
on the telephone. Would you say that you don't believe it?

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

"Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:zQRRb.128294$6y6.2508484@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... "kat" <katlat24@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:bv8l8h$pdecn$1@ID-203097.news.uni-berlin.de... "Jackie" <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message news:j2hf10hcdojt8hrf9eipubv902cl01n04p@4ax.com... On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 10:14:31 -0500, "kat" <katlat24@hotmail.com> wrote: > >"Jackie" <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message >news:apoc10lpmvdvei8pviae02ne7rcneiid1q@4ax.com... >> On 27 Jan 2004 05:12:48 GMT, klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL) wrote: >> > >> I still can not believe that a woman can turn her back on her child >> and cause that child further pain out of selfishness.. >> I do not believe it works that way. > > >That's part of the problem. Just because *you* can not believe it exists >doesn't mean it does not exist. Others are better able to face the >reality that there are just some mean rotten people in this world
(my fil >was one) and <gasp> some of them are even bmothers. And with that belief firmly entrenched a person can just march past the woman and contact the siblings.. Jackie And that just bugs the **** out of you. Beyond the normal amount of compassion/time/understanding an adoptee should show a bmother, it
really doesn't matter why she might be a rotten person. Some people are just rotten (again my father-in-law comes to mind) and will remain that way until
the day they die (he did) unless and until they are willing to change and enlist the help of a therapist. An adoptee isn't a therapist and shouldn't be expected to become one. Kathy 1 One should never underestimate the rotteness of the human race. All of us have had mean-spirited, sociopathic, psychotic, cheapskate, needy, clingy, abusive, cold-hearted, and just plain nuttso people in and out of our
lives . I couple of my grade school teachers come to mind. (My 7th grade
teacher was a scissors thrower).

Did s/he give you your first piercing? <s>

Helen
Marley

patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote in message news:<c599139c.0401281144.2649757e@posting.google.com>... Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message news:<klgf10pseb6eheirh84r1jg293gbnj68nh@4ax.com>... On 27 Jan 2004 11:24:25 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote:Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote>> >I think it was wrong to stop mothers from seeing their babies.> >I also think it's wrong to *insist* that mothers see the babies they> >must relinquish. I think the mother, only the mother, must decide.>> Then the consequences of this kind of thinking is that the mother may> deny her child.. May deny her child contact with the siblings..>> *May* stay in the never never land of it never happened..Her decision, then. Her right. I do not think it should be encouraged..The received wisdom keeps changing. The reasoning behind not seeing the baby in my time was not wisdom.. Not for one second was it wisdom IMO. It was denial of feelings.. What they did in those days..I don't think there is one singleanswer that is right for everyone. Not seeing a baby that a person has given birth to is toxic.. IMO Toxic to the feeling self..I'm all for the person in questionmaking the decision for herself. What about a fifteen year old? Where are the guides? Where is the councilor? Is she told its best to see the baby? Does anyone listen to the wisdom of women who have bene living this for a long time? Or are some of us (birth moms) considered neuritic... Unable to cope.. Stuck in the past..It may or may not be the right onefor her, but I doubt very much that anyone else can make a bettercall...for *her*. Thats an easy way out of this.. IMO.. Jackie Well said, Jackie. They already knew the harm that not seeing the baby caused as long ago as 1956. Lakeside was a Jewish Mother and Baby Home in New York and carried out its own 2 year study on the effects of seeing and not seeing the baby. The let the mother decide for themselves. The outcome is shown below. You can get it from libraries. It's just one of a number of such studies of the era. The Unmarried Mother in our Society, chapter 23 - Lakeside Girls. (Shall I look at my baby?) Sarah B. Edlin. 1956 "In a professional agency such as ours...we experimented with permitting the girl to make her own choice in the matter of seeing or not seeing her baby. We observed - and so did the adoption agency with whom we work very closely and with whom we share our thinking - that in the main, the girl who did not see her baby was much more disturbed after her return home, than the girl who had seen her child and had returned to Lakeview with it for a week or two. It is obvious that in these cases the girl (who refuses to see her baby) is merely carrying out her own pattern of unreality, and is trying to negate the whole racking experience by refusing to recognise it's existence. We try to make this clear to her, and urge her to change her decision. But we cannot and do not always succeed in making the girl understand the turmoil and conflict she is storing up for herself by not seeing the baby. All we can do is to exert out fullest efforts to influence her to do so." It is unnatural not to want to see the baby you've just given birth to and that alone should be an indicator that the mother is not in a fit state to make the decision or to sign anything.



Should I take this to mean that you think that women who choose (as
opposed to 'not wanting to') not to see their children are unbalanced
and not to be taken seriously?

If she *has* to relinquish, or even sincerely believes she *has* to
relinquish, what then?
If she's not fit to make a decision, but has to, what then?
Is she to be pressured into see her child even if she makes it
abundantly clear that she'd rather not?
Is she be denied *yet another* decision?
If so, it seems to be this would be one more example of 'for your own
good' paternalism.

I agree with you about informed choice, and that seeing one's child
should be encouraged.
But I wholeheartedly agree with Rupa that no-one should be pressured
either way, and that the decision should rest with the individual.
Informed choice should never include pressure, tacit or overt.

As far as it's being unnatural (to prefer not to see your child),
there's nothing unnatural about the instict to avoid pain.
If one knows there's no chance of keeping, it seems to me that nothing
could more natural or realistic than to try to numb that reality.
People do what they have to do.
After all, it's important to be able to survive in the short term to
even get anywhere close to the long term.


Rh.

allowed ot sign a thing until she has been given time to face the reality of what she is about to do and can make an informed choice either way..



..instead of denying the reality of it all. To then go ahead and encourage this practice throughout the 60's is an unconsciounable act of abject abuse committed against millions of young unsuspecting mothers around the world. Many of whom will never recover. May the instigators of this atrocity all rot in hell. Di

"helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:plZRb.608$rb.52446@news.indigo.ie... "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:zQRRb.128294$6y6.2508484@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... "kat" <katlat24@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:bv8l8h$pdecn$1@ID-203097.news.uni-berlin.de... "Jackie" <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message news:j2hf10hcdojt8hrf9eipubv902cl01n04p@4ax.com... > On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 10:14:31 -0500, "kat" <katlat24@hotmail.com> > wrote: > > > > >"Jackie" <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message > >news:apoc10lpmvdvei8pviae02ne7rcneiid1q@4ax.com... > >> On 27 Jan 2004 05:12:48 GMT, klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL)
wrote: > >> > > > >> I still can not believe that a woman can turn her back on her
child > >> and cause that child further pain out of selfishness.. > >> I do not believe it works that way. > > > > > >That's part of the problem. Just because *you* can not believe it exists > >doesn't mean it does not exist. Others are better able to face
the > >reality that there are just some mean rotten people in this world (my fil > >was one) and <gasp> some of them are even bmothers. > > And with that belief firmly entrenched a person can just march past > the woman and contact the siblings.. > > > Jackie And that just bugs the **** out of you. Beyond the normal amount of compassion/time/understanding an adoptee should show a bmother, it really doesn't matter why she might be a rotten person. Some people are just rotten (again my father-in-law comes to mind) and will remain that way until the day they die (he did) unless and until they are willing to change and enlist the help of a therapist. An adoptee isn't a therapist and shouldn't
be expected to become one. Kathy 1 One should never underestimate the rotteness of the human race. All of
us have had mean-spirited, sociopathic, psychotic, cheapskate, needy,
clingy, abusive, cold-hearted, and just plain nuttso people in and out of our lives . I couple of my grade school teachers come to mind. (My 7th grade teacher was a scissors thrower). Did s/he give you your first piercing? <s> Helen Marley

Nah. She didn't pick on girls very much. But it was bad news to be a boy
in her class. But everyone was terrified of her.

Marley

In article <BdORb.127049$6y6.2489683@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> writes:
"KL" <klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell> wrote in messagenews:20040127224231.15923.00003420@mb-m12.aol.com... In article <fHoRb.118303$6y6.2352230@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> writes:"Dian" <patrice68@bigpond.com.au> wrote in messagenews:c599139c.0401262224.43f4feac@posting.g oogle.com...> "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in messagenews:<kraRb.19433$6O4.519269@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...> > "Jackie" <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message> > news:hh9a10ts09oak2paf7tlko0hff63p7lfc5@4ax.com...> > > On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:57:16 GMT, Robibnikoff<nospam@newsranger.com>> > > wrote:> > >> > > >One of my SILs relinquished a baby girl almost 20 years ago. Sherefused> > to see> > > >her baby because she couldn't comprehend signing therelinquishment> > papers after> > > >actually viewing her. I know for a FACT that she has mourned thatbaby's> > loss -> > > >though she does feel that she made the best decision for the bothof> > them.> > >> > >> > > That is your interpretation of what she has said to you.> >> > Hmm, how much clearer can it be? The woman in question has saidthis.It> > doesn't sound like an interpretation to me. Are we not to believefirst> > hand accounts? My bmom wrote me that she was *forced* to see me at> > Crittenton She didn't want to see me. Nobody there could apparently> > believe that she didn't want to see me. Am I to not believe her?Byyour> > thinking, nobody should believe anything anybody says.>> Your mother's letter was a first hand account. Robyn is second hand> interpretation. That's said, the comments of a mother stating that it> was the> best decision she could make is self brainwashing, an anasthetic she> uses to convince herself that she did the right thing in order to> avoid/reduce confronting the full blown pain of loss.This is the same argument used by anti-aborts--that abortion harms women;that abortion ruins their lives. It disempowers women; demonizes them as"bad women" or "bad mothers" and perpetuates women's oppression. Itcenterswomen's Self in the uterus. Obviously some women are harmed byrelinquishment and some women are harmed by abortion, but both argumentsdeny women autonomy of thought and deed and are highly over-rated byagendaists on both sides. Reproduction is a biological accident and Ifailto see why so much narcissistic emotion is invested in a biologicalfunction. I certainly don't disagree with you that women are brainwashedorbrainwash themselves over relinquishment and adoption, but at the sametime,these arguments are a direct attack on autonomy and are anti-feminist andanti-woman. Unfortunately, it appears that the definition of women isstillformed by reproduction, mothering, and self-sacrifice, and as long asthatdefinition continues we will enjoy reproduction and adoption in itscurrentpatriarchal form.Only after> reunion is it possible to really deal with one's true feelings at an> honest level. Until then it's all about convincing yourself that the> baby is pefectly happy, and God help those whose doubts set in before> reunion.>> DiI agree with you, but what if you find out the baby IS perfectly happy? <sarcasm> Silly Marley....adoptees are NEVER happy....they are bitter and angrylittle individuals, and must remain that way for the entirety of their lives,even after reunion. Although, of course, they are NEVER to be mad at their birthmother. </sarcasm> KLNo doubt, KL, but that description fits everybody I know. Do you actuallykonw one happy person? I don't.

Well, yes, I do know at least one happy person. Mayhap even a few.

KL
MarleyAndthe same may be asked of adopted persons who are convinced their nmothersare perfectly miserable or perfectly happy. The bottom line is if you'renot gonna keep it, then don't have it.Marley

In article <8mhf10d9st0129780d9n3higi3up2mjthg@4ax.com>, Jackie
<forgetit@me.com> writes:
On 28 Jan 2004 03:42:33 GMT, klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL) wrote:In article <apoc10lpmvdvei8pviae02ne7rcneiid1q@4ax.com>, Jackie<forgetit@me.com> writes:On 27 Jan 2004 05:12:48 GMT, klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL) wrote:>>Sorry to have to break this to you Jackie, but you seem to sound like you>expect her to be kept down.Why do you say that?OK, first I must preface any response by saying that you have misinterpretedmypost. Again. I just don't want you to think that I am just trying to pickafight, or pick on you.I thought my examples given explained why I thought you sounded like youexpected a birthmom to be kept down. I will expound on those examples...> I don't ever hear you say anything about a>birthmother who isn't so dramatically traumatized that she can't function>anymore.Are you talking about the ones who refuse contact because they arejust plain mean?No, I am talking about birthmothers who, while probably traumatized due totherelinquishment (I don't doubt it is hurtful no matter what the situation),isnot OVERLY traumatized and is able to still function, and grow and even cometosome peace with it.I worked hard on my issues and I did come to a peace with whathappened..I welcomed contact.

Yes, you did, but we weren't talking about you, were we?
Who is able to say YES to contact.IMO we are not discussing women such as this.. Or even a meek maybeto contact. My sentence meant that I don't hear you acknowledging that suchbirthmothers even exist.Bloody hell.. I am one of them..

And yet you don't want to speak for yourself, or others like you. You are
insistent on the trapped bmother.
The ones who wish to (knowingly) hurt the relinquished son ordaughter?Is there such a person? Or is she a myth.. Or heck an icon..Again, I wasn't talking about such, so these two sentences really shouldjustbe snipped...but didn't want to be guilty of editing your post in anymanner.Maybe you want to edit my thinking as well..

I guess in a way that is really what this whole place is about, right? Don't
we all have our ideas changed by what we learn from others? But no, I wasn't
specifically talking about editing your thinking.
I remember listening to Rickie Solinger doing her talk in Sanfranciscoat the BN convention.. She was talking about her book Wake Up LittleSusie and how some of us were treated back then. She talked about howshe was writing Beggars and Choosers and how she was interviewingwomen who had relinquished in the fifties and sixties..Someone from the audience spoke about the mean spirited women thatjust did not care.. "What about them?" the person in the audienceasked..Solinger was taken aback.. She was silenced in some ways..IMOWell.......let's think. Maybe Solinger needed to be silenced a bit.Perfect..

And why is that "Perfect.." Why can't you see any other sides to this?
Remindedthat there are (hopefully not to any great number) some women who DO fitthatbill.Yes some women are just plain mean...But the question is.. Why are they just plain mean? It appears she was doing some generalizing, and was caught out on it.JMHO of course. (Please if anyone else sees it this way, let me know, so Idon't think I have totally lost sight of the real world hehe)Aren't you are so darn smart..I don't know why I am replying to someone as smart as you...I met her after her talk and we discussed the woman that does notcare.. She had a friend that (according to her) did not care..Why? was the question at hand..I have thought about this ever since..I still can not believe that a woman can turn her back on her childand cause that child further pain out of selfishness..I do not believe it works that way.Well, reality bites. And there really are women out there like this. Justlook at the women who abuse their children physically. They seem to have noproblem harming their child.If someone abuses a child there is usually a reason behind it..She may have been abused herself..And I bet they have lots of problems dealing with the fact they hitthe child.

Not necessarily.
> It really sounds like you think all birthmom's are unable to grow at>all.I rejoice if a woman comes out of the secret keeping..I rejoice for her and everyone involved..Yes, but again, it's always about her coming out of the secret keeping afterthe evil child has forced the issue.You say this.. I do not..

But that is the way you infer it.
Made demands, as you infer. I haven'theard (maybe I need my hearing checked) you rejoice for any mother unlessshewas forced into a revelation. No rejoicing for the birthmother who dealtwithit before the fact of contact being made.You are arguing in circles.

Now see, you are so used to your circling logic being straight, that you see my
straight logic as a circle. <<<sigh>>>
>Again, it's that stagnant, never-growing, stuck in the closet birthmom>who needs to be coddled mold that you seem to expect all birthmoms to fit.They are there.. Adoptees are being refused contact..I didn't say they weren't there. I simply point out that not allbirthmothersare them. And again, the contact issue seems to weigh the most heavily withyou.I do not want to see women bypassed because the common thinking isthat some birth moms are just plain mean and should be bypassed..

But what bothers so many people is that you want to do that at the expense of
the adoptee. The one who was bypassed in the beginning is to be bypassed
again.
Pain is being caused.. Pain is happening..Welcome to adoption. Sorry, but that is really all I can think to say tothis.Bankrupt..

Well that was a non-statement. Thanks for nothing.
Why would I address the issues of a woman who is out of the closet..She is very much able to speak for herself..Some of these women are amazing..She is able to speak for herself, but that doesn't mean she deserves to beignored. Treated as if she doesn't exist at all. Which is what you seem todo.I do not.That is your perception of my belief's..

No, Jackie, that is the perception of many people here. Just ask.

KL
Jackie

TOP POST: WTF???????

KL

In article <c599139c.0401281546.73ac97ef@posting.google.com>,
patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) writes:
Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote in messagenews:<8mhf10d9st0129780d9n3higi3up2mjthg@4ax.com>... On 28 Jan 2004 03:42:33 GMT, klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL) wrote:In article <apoc10lpmvdvei8pviae02ne7rcneiid1q@4ax.com>, Jackie<forgetit@me.com> writes:>On 27 Jan 2004 05:12:48 GMT, klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL) wrote:>>>>>Sorry to have to break this to you Jackie, but you seem to sound likeyou>>expect her to be kept down.>>Why do you say that?OK, first I must preface any response by saying that you havemisinterpreted mypost. Again. I just don't want you to think that I am just trying topick afight, or pick on you.I thought my examples given explained why I thought you sounded like youexpected a birthmom to be kept down. I will expound on those examples...>> I don't ever hear you say anything about a>>birthmother who isn't so dramatically traumatized that she can'tfunction>>anymore.>>Are you talking about the ones who refuse contact because they are>just plain mean?No, I am talking about birthmothers who, while probably traumatized due totherelinquishment (I don't doubt it is hurtful no matter what the situation),isnot OVERLY traumatized and is able to still function, and grow and evencome tosome peace with it. I worked hard on my issues and I did come to a peace with what happened.. I welcomed contact.Who is able to say YES to contact. IMO we are not discussing women such as this.. Or even a meek maybeto contact. My sentence meant that I don't hear you acknowledging thatsuchbirthmothers even exist. Bloody hell.. I am one of them..>The ones who wish to (knowingly) hurt the relinquished son or>daughter?>>Is there such a person? Or is she a myth.. Or heck an icon..Again, I wasn't talking about such, so these two sentences really shouldjustbe snipped...but didn't want to be guilty of editing your post in anymanner. Maybe you want to edit my thinking as well..>I remember listening to Rickie Solinger doing her talk in Sanfrancisco>at the BN convention.. She was talking about her book Wake Up Little>Susie and how some of us were treated back then. She talked about how>she was writing Beggars and Choosers and how she was interviewing>women who had relinquished in the fifties and sixties..>>Someone from the audience spoke about the mean spirited women that>just did not care.. "What about them?" the person in the audience>asked..>Solinger was taken aback.. She was silenced in some ways..IMOWell.......let's think. Maybe Solinger needed to be silenced a bit. Perfect.. Remindedthat there are (hopefully not to any great number) some women who DO fitthatbill. Yes some women are just plain mean... But the question is.. Why are they just plain mean? It appears she was doing some generalizing, and was caught out on it.JMHO of course. (Please if anyone else sees it this way, let me know, soIdon't think I have totally lost sight of the real world hehe) Aren't you are so darn smart.. I don't know why I am replying to someone as smart as you...>I met her after her talk and we discussed the woman that does not>care.. She had a friend that (according to her) did not care..>Why? was the question at hand..>>I have thought about this ever since..>>I still can not believe that a woman can turn her back on her child>and cause that child further pain out of selfishness..>I do not believe it works that way.Well, reality bites. And there really are women out there like this.Justlook at the women who abuse their children physically. They seem to havenoproblem harming their child. If someone abuses a child there is usually a reason behind it.. She may have been abused herself.. And I bet they have lots of problems dealing with the fact they hit the child.>> It really sounds like you think all birthmom's are unable to grow at>>all.>>I rejoice if a woman comes out of the secret keeping..>>I rejoice for her and everyone involved..Yes, but again, it's always about her coming out of the secret keepingafterthe evil child has forced the issue. You say this.. I do not.. Made demands, as you infer. I haven'theard (maybe I need my hearing checked) you rejoice for any mother unlessshewas forced into a revelation. No rejoicing for the birthmother who dealtwithit before the fact of contact being made. You are arguing in circles.>>Again, it's that stagnant, never-growing, stuck in the closet birthmom>>who needs to be coddled mold that you seem to expect all birthmoms tofit.>>They are there.. Adoptees are being refused contact..I didn't say they weren't there. I simply point out that not allbirthmothersare them. And again, the contact issue seems to weigh the most heavilywithyou. I do not want to see women bypassed because the common thinking is that some birth moms are just plain mean and should be bypassed..>Pain is being caused.. Pain is happening..Welcome to adoption. Sorry, but that is really all I can think to say tothis. Bankrupt..>Why would I address the issues of a woman who is out of the closet..>She is very much able to speak for herself..>Some of these women are amazing..She is able to speak for herself, but that doesn't mean she deserves to beignored. Treated as if she doesn't exist at all. Which is what you seemtodo. I do not. That is your perception of my belief's.. JackieLooks like you've just been ordered to speak on every mothers behalf:-)Di

"KL" <klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell> wrote in message
news:20040128225836.05957.00000185@mb-m26.aol.com... In article <BdORb.127049$6y6.2489683@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> writes:"KL" <klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell> wrote in messagenews:20040127224231.15923.00003420@mb-m12.aol.com... In article
<fHoRb.118303$6y6.2352230@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> writes: >"Dian" <patrice68@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message >news:c599139c.0401262224.43f4feac@posting.google.c om... >> "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message >news:<kraRb.19433$6O4.519269@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... >> > "Jackie" <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message >> > news:hh9a10ts09oak2paf7tlko0hff63p7lfc5@4ax.com... >> > > On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:57:16 GMT, Robibnikoff<nospam@newsranger.com> >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > > >One of my SILs relinquished a baby girl almost 20 years ago.
She >refused >> > to see >> > > >her baby because she couldn't comprehend signing therelinquishment >> > papers after >> > > >actually viewing her. I know for a FACT that she has mourned
that >baby's >> > loss - >> > > >though she does feel that she made the best decision for the
bothof >> > them. >> > > >> > > >> > > That is your interpretation of what she has said to you. >> > >> > Hmm, how much clearer can it be? The woman in question has saidthis. >It >> > doesn't sound like an interpretation to me. Are we not to believefirst >> > hand accounts? My bmom wrote me that she was *forced* to see me
at >> > Crittenton She didn't want to see me. Nobody there could
apparently >> > believe that she didn't want to see me. Am I to not believe her?By >your >> > thinking, nobody should believe anything anybody says. >> >> Your mother's letter was a first hand account. Robyn is second hand >> interpretation. That's said, the comments of a mother stating that
it >> was the >> best decision she could make is self brainwashing, an anasthetic she >> uses to convince herself that she did the right thing in order to >> avoid/reduce confronting the full blown pain of loss. > >This is the same argument used by anti-aborts--that abortion harms
women; >that abortion ruins their lives. It disempowers women; demonizes them
as >"bad women" or "bad mothers" and perpetuates women's oppression. Itcenters >women's Self in the uterus. Obviously some women are harmed by >relinquishment and some women are harmed by abortion, but both
arguments >deny women autonomy of thought and deed and are highly over-rated by >agendaists on both sides. Reproduction is a biological accident and Ifail >to see why so much narcissistic emotion is invested in a biological >function. I certainly don't disagree with you that women are
brainwashedor >brainwash themselves over relinquishment and adoption, but at the sametime, >these arguments are a direct attack on autonomy and are anti-feminist
and >anti-woman. Unfortunately, it appears that the definition of women isstill >formed by reproduction, mothering, and self-sacrifice, and as long asthat >definition continues we will enjoy reproduction and adoption in itscurrent >patriarchal form. > > >Only after >> reunion is it possible to really deal with one's true feelings at an >> honest level. Until then it's all about convincing yourself that the >> baby is pefectly happy, and God help those whose doubts set in
before >> reunion. >> >> Di > >I agree with you, but what if you find out the baby IS perfectly
happy? <sarcasm> Silly Marley....adoptees are NEVER happy....they are bitter and angrylittle individuals, and must remain that way for the entirety of their lives,even after reunion. Although, of course, they are NEVER to be mad at their birthmother. </sarcasm> KLNo doubt, KL, but that description fits everybody I know. Do you
actuallykonw one happy person? I don't. Well, yes, I do know at least one happy person. Mayhap even a few. KLMarley >And >the same may be asked of adopted persons who are convinced their
nmothers >are perfectly miserable or perfectly happy. The bottom line is if
you're >not gonna keep it, then don't have it. > >Marley

Are they rich Republicans?

Marley

rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote in message news:<e5619372.0401281335.1af86e16@posting.google.com>... Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote:I'm all for the person in questionmaking the decision for herself. What about a fifteen year old? Where are the guides? Where is the councilor? Is she told its best to see the baby? Does anyone listen to the wisdom of women who have bene living this for a long time? But do you *know* that it's always best for everyone to see their babies? You didn't see yours when you wanted to, and you have deep regrets. But for another person, seeing the child and then relinquishing might make an already painful situation much worse. People are different. And I think they should make their own decisions. They might be right or wrong, but no one else is likely to be *more* right. Your advice, as someone who has lived with the pain of relinquishing a baby without having seen him, is always to look, and I respect that. But you can't know what the alternative is. Would it have been better had you see him? How can you know? You would have to consider a mother who had done both, relinquished one child after seeing him, and another without seeing him. Even then, external circumstances could confuse the issue.It may or may not be the right onefor her, but I doubt very much that anyone else can make a bettercall...for *her*. Thats an easy way out of this.. IMO.. Yes. And that's the easy way that, had they taken in your case, you would have seen your baby before you relinquished him. I think one generation of birthmothers having decisions made for them is enough. Rupa


The idea of seeing the baby is to face the reality of what you are
about to do, not to pretend the baby doesn't exist in order to pretend
no loss occurred.
Which was precisely why the practice was inroduced in the first place.

I have no doubt that the vast majority of mothers who refuse contact
are still living out the same level of unreality that was imposed on
them at the time of the adoption. How can they not when the baby never
became a real person?

It's a disgraceful practice and should never be offered as a choice to
a
new mother already traumatised by birth as well as the pending
separation from her child. If she can't cope with seeing her baby
before relinquishing itm then she is not in a fit state to make the
decision to give it up.

Di










Di

Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message news:<MNYRb.1138$_4.163@www.newsranger.com>... In article <c599139c.0401281621.2218ec77@posting.google.com>, Dian says...meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in message news:<20040128120404.11625.00000874@mb-m12.aol.com>... >Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' children >From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) >Date: 1/28/04 1:33 AM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <c599139c.0401280133.4fc16861@posting.google.com> > >"Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message >news:<fHoRb.118303$6y6.2352230@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... >> "Dian" <patrice68@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message >> news:c599139c.0401262224.43f4feac@posting.google.c om... >> > "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<kraRb.19433$6O4.519269@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... >> > > "Jackie" <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message >> > > news:hh9a10ts09oak2paf7tlko0hff63p7lfc5@4ax.com... >> > > > On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:57:16 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> >> > > > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > >One of my SILs relinquished a baby girl almost 20 years ago. She >> refused >> to see >> > > > >her baby because she couldn't comprehend signing the relinquishment papers after >> > > > >actually viewing her. I know for a FACT that she has mourned that >> baby's >> loss - >> > > > >though she does feel that she made the best decision for the both of them. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > That is your interpretation of what she has said to you. >> > > >> > > Hmm, how much clearer can it be? The woman in question has said this. It >> > > doesn't sound like an interpretation to me. Are we not to believe first >> > > hand accounts? My bmom wrote me that she was *forced* to see me at >> > > Crittenton She didn't want to see me. Nobody there could apparently >> > > believe that she didn't want to see me. Am I to not believe her? By your >> > > thinking, nobody should believe anything anybody says. >> > >> > Your mother's letter was a first hand account. Robyn is second hand >> > interpretation. That's said, the comments of a mother stating that it >> > was the >> > best decision she could make is self brainwashing, an anasthetic she >> > uses to convince herself that she did the right thing in order to >> > avoid/reduce confronting the full blown pain of loss. >> >> This is the same argument used by anti-aborts--that abortion harms women; >> that abortion ruins their lives. It disempowers women; demonizes them as >> "bad women" or "bad mothers" and perpetuates women's oppression. It centers >> women's Self in the uterus. Obviously some women are harmed by >> relinquishment and some women are harmed by abortion, but both arguments >> deny women autonomy of thought and deed and are highly over-rated by >> agendaists on both sides. > >Quite the contrary, IMO. There is nothing autonomous or empowered >about a woman who was not warned against something that has the known >potential to cause her lifelong harm and who subsequently lives with >the consequences of an uninformed choice. If anything it makes her a >victim of ignorance. How the hell do you know that Robyn's bmom did not make her own decision? IF she said that it was the best decision that she could have made at that time, it does not mean that she is brainwashed, nor does it mean that she had no power in making her decision.Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.......What does Robyn's mother have to do withthis discussion? Go back to sleep. Actually, nothing really - I was talking about my SIL. However, my bmom DOES feel that she did make the best decision for both of us - We have discussed this on the telephone. Would you say that you don't believe it? Robyn Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster #1557

What sort of question is that? If she said she made the right decision
and if you've had the life she wanted for you then why would you need
my opinion?
Tell me though, how long did it take before she finally knew she had
made the right decision? Was it the day after you were gone, during
the years in between, or when you told her you'd had a good life?

Di

sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote in message news:<dafc70.0401281814.34bfacaa@posting.google.com>... patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote in message news:<c599139c.0401281144.2649757e@posting.google.com>... Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message news:<klgf10pseb6eheirh84r1jg293gbnj68nh@4ax.com>... On 27 Jan 2004 11:24:25 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote: >Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote >> >> >I think it was wrong to stop mothers from seeing their babies. >> >I also think it's wrong to *insist* that mothers see the babies they >> >must relinquish. I think the mother, only the mother, must decide. >> >> Then the consequences of this kind of thinking is that the mother may >> deny her child.. May deny her child contact with the siblings.. >> >> *May* stay in the never never land of it never happened.. > > >Her decision, then. Her right. I do not think it should be encouraged.. >The received wisdom keeps changing. The reasoning behind not seeing the baby in my time was not wisdom.. Not for one second was it wisdom IMO. It was denial of feelings.. What they did in those days.. >I don't think there is one single >answer that is right for everyone. Not seeing a baby that a person has given birth to is toxic.. IMO Toxic to the feeling self.. >I'm all for the person in question >making the decision for herself. What about a fifteen year old? Where are the guides? Where is the councilor? Is she told its best to see the baby? Does anyone listen to the wisdom of women who have bene living this for a long time? Or are some of us (birth moms) considered neuritic... Unable to cope.. Stuck in the past.. >It may or may not be the right one >for her, but I doubt very much that anyone else can make a better >call...for *her*. Thats an easy way out of this.. IMO.. Jackie Well said, Jackie. They already knew the harm that not seeing the baby caused as long ago as 1956. Lakeside was a Jewish Mother and Baby Home in New York and carried out its own 2 year study on the effects of seeing and not seeing the baby. The let the mother decide for themselves. The outcome is shown below. You can get it from libraries. It's just one of a number of such studies of the era. The Unmarried Mother in our Society, chapter 23 - Lakeside Girls. (Shall I look at my baby?) Sarah B. Edlin. 1956 "In a professional agency such as ours...we experimented with permitting the girl to make her own choice in the matter of seeing or not seeing her baby. We observed - and so did the adoption agency with whom we work very closely and with whom we share our thinking - that in the main, the girl who did not see her baby was much more disturbed after her return home, than the girl who had seen her child and had returned to Lakeview with it for a week or two. It is obvious that in these cases the girl (who refuses to see her baby) is merely carrying out her own pattern of unreality, and is trying to negate the whole racking experience by refusing to recognise it's existence. We try to make this clear to her, and urge her to change her decision. But we cannot and do not always succeed in making the girl understand the turmoil and conflict she is storing up for herself by not seeing the baby. All we can do is to exert out fullest efforts to influence her to do so." It is unnatural not to want to see the baby you've just given birth to and that alone should be an indicator that the mother is not in a fit state to make the decision or to sign anything. Should I take this to mean that you think that women who choose (as opposed to 'not wanting to') not to see their children are unbalanced and not to be taken seriously?

What kind of question is that? By not wanting or choosing not ot see
their baby they are trying to pretend the child is unreal in order to
avoid feeling any loss. it doesn't work.
If she *has* to relinquish, or even sincerely believes she *has* to relinquish, what then?

Unless she is going to deny her child's existance twenty years later
when he/she come lookig for her, I'd say she is doing neither of them
any favours by choosing not to she her child.
If she's not fit to make a decision, but has to, what then?

What is she, an animal? or are we going to pretend she had an abortion
instead?
Is she to be pressured into see her child even if she makes it abundantly clear that she'd rather not?

If she abjectly refuses to thenso be it. However she shoujld be warned
of the consequences of not seeing the child before shemakes that
decision.

Is she be denied *yet another* decision?

You think trying tp pretend the child doesn't exist is a healthy
choice let alone helps he rmake aninfomred choice?
If so, it seems to be this would be one more example of 'for your own good' paternalism.

Perhaps because I have been there and have first hand experience of
the deterimental effects of not seeing the baby, I have a better
understandng of this issue than you ever could. And unlike you I
would not wish it upon any other mother.
I agree with you about informed choice, and that seeing one's child should be encouraged.

After your earlier questions why am I having trouble believing you?

But I wholeheartedly agree with Rupa that no-one should be pressured either way, and that the decision should rest with the individual. Informed choice should never include pressure, tacit or overt.
Nobody is suggesting that any pressure not be put on any mother to see
her child or not. That said, she who refuses to see her child will
eventually come around to needing to see it, if the baby is placed
nearby and she is given time to connect to that natural urge she is
trying to stifle.
As far as it's being unnatural (to prefer not to see your child), there's nothing unnatural about the instict to avoid pain.

In which case I take it you agree that shut down mothers have a
perfect right to avoid any communication with their adult child who
search, in order to avoid that same pain?
If one knows there's no chance of keeping, it seems to me that nothing could more natural or realistic than to try to numb that reality. People do what they have to do.

That then also applies to mothers 30-40 years later. Explain that to
adoptees if you can.
After all, it's important to be able to survive in the short term to even get anywhere close to the long term.

So you pretend the child doesn't exist. It's how adoption works. And
people wonder why I'm opposed to adoption when the mother has to block
the child out of her mind, pretend her child doesn't exist, in order
to survive it. To remain sane. Not something I'd recommend in all good
conscence.

Di
Rh. allowed ot sign a thing until she has been given time to face the reality of what she is about to do and can make an informed choice either way.. .instead of denying the reality of it all. To then go ahead and encourage this practice throughout the 60's is an unconsciounable act of abject abuse committed against millions of young unsuspecting mothers around the world. Many of whom will never recover. May the instigators of this atrocity all rot in hell. Di

patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote The idea of seeing the baby is to face the reality of what you are about to do, not to pretend the baby doesn't exist in order to pretend no loss occurred. Which was precisely why the practice was inroduced in the first place.

Right. And some people would consider that forcing a mother to see the
child she will relinquish is rubbing her nose in it.

A child who is not seen is an abstraction, unlike a physically present
baby. I doubt very much that a mother would pretend the baby doesn't
exist. But, as Jackie pointed out, it may not become concrete for her.

To my mind, if that's what she wants, she should have that right.

As she should have the right to see and hold and feed her child, if
she wants to do any or all of those things.
I have no doubt that the vast majority of mothers who refuse contact are still living out the same level of unreality that was imposed on them at the time of the adoption. How can they not when the baby never became a real person?

Hmm. I wonder if the vast majority of mothers who refuse contact never
saw their babies.
It's a disgraceful practice and should never be offered as a choice to a new mother already traumatised by birth as well as the pending separation from her child. If she can't cope with seeing her baby before relinquishing itm then she is not in a fit state to make the decision to give it up.

I see your point; but I disagree that your decision should apply to
all birthmothers. People are different. I think they should have the
right to determine what they wish to do, for themselves.

Rupa

patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote


True feminism is about individual and informed choice. Whatever that choice may be. It's not about swapping one oppressor for another. Di

I completely agree with that statement: Individual and informed
choice. Whatever that choice may be.

Rupa

In article <c599139c.0401290131.23f3a4f1@posting.google.com>, Dian says...Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message news:<MNYRb.1138$_4.163@www.newsranger.com>...
snip Actually, nothing really - I was talking about my SIL. However, my bmom DOES feel that she did make the best decision for both of us - We have discussed this on the telephone. Would you say that you don't believe it? Robyn Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster #1557What sort of question is that? If she said she made the right decisionand if you've had the life she wanted for you then why would you needmy opinion?

I don't "need" your opinion - I was just curious. Problem?
Tell me though, how long did it take before she finally knew she hadmade the right decision? Was it the day after you were gone, duringthe years in between, or when you told her you'd had a good life?

How the hell should I know?

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

On 28 Jan 2004 13:39:46 GMT, tmnkat@aol.com (Tm n Kat) wrote:
Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: Jackie forgetit@me.comDate: 1/27/2004I can remember going on a camping trip to Florida with my hubby andkids (early eighties.. well before coming out of the closet).. Whenwe hit Jacksonville I started to feel emotions.. I felt guilty aboutfeeling those emotions..We stayed in a motel and not the camper.. (wanted to get cleaned upetc) I went into the camper and cried alone.. I was angry with myselffor doing this.. I stopped myself because I felt I should not becrying..How wrong was that?Don't feel bad, I did that on a trip to Colorado where I knew my sibling lived,someone I have never met and probably never will.

But she sent you a card on your birthday.. Correct?
Today I no longer obsess on my son..Yeah, because your situation has changed from then.

I wish your situation would change..

I wish people allowed other people the right to fall from grace..
I believe I came to acceptance of that part of my life when I let himgo the second time..I have such emotional freedom now Rupa..Its the meeting, the knowledge, the truth that sets you free IMO.If he writes me great.. If he does not write me he must be busy orwhatever.. My life is my own now..Thats the acceptance, the relinquishment of trying to control someone.


Yes..


Jackie

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 10:53:00 -0500, "kat" <katlat24@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Jackie it isn't up to the adoptee to try and solve the problems of thebmother. To help her out of the prison she has locked herself into. Thattype of work is better left to the professionals. So I can't find faultwith an adoptee who does not wish to undertake the project and just moves onto someone with less issues. The adoptee might be sypathetic andunderstanding to her plight but just be unwilling to get involved with thattype of situation.Kathy 1

Its like you believe the adoptee can remove himself or herself from
what really happened..

Sort of like saying.."Its not my problem".




Jackie

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 15:15:11 GMT, "Marley Greiner"
<maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
"Jackie" <forgetit@me.com> wrote in messagenews:6kff101i8n5jl9a92ll6cur55ac7n4ece7@4ax .com... On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 15:35:12 GMT, "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote:> And your birth mom was living in a fantasy..> She did not really have a baby.. And she was raped..No she wasn't. I was conceived in a "tourist court" on the backMassillonRoad. She'd been seeing Jack on the sly for a couple years while Bob wasinFrance and England. Yes but that was the story she told her parents and Bob.. Right?She certainly didn't tell that to Bob. He and Jack knew each other slightlybefore and after the war, and Bob is the one who verified his last name forme. Only problem is that nobody bothered to tell Jack about it. I have noidea what she told her parents. But she she was 23 when she got knocked upand Jack was 17, there may have been a little problem with the law ifanybody pursued the issue.

I always thought she told you that she was raped..
Its such a perfect lie.. It absolves everything..
One can put the blame somewhere else..
That was her way out of being a 'bad' girl and getting caught..Apparently, she'd been caught previously. You wrote last year..http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=VBIY9.3537%24rq4.334966%40bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net&output=gplain She had this story that she was raped, and Ithink it's more likely that that was an easier story to have than thetruth. I bet not seeing you was part of the fantasy she was into.. The act.. The lie..I have no idea. She said it hurt her.

What a game some of us had to play..
My moms philosophy was .. If all else fails make up a lie..

It makes no difference to me. Idon't know why anybody would want to look at a baby--anybody's baby--tostart with. The only likeable baby is Endora on Passions. I also bet that this was the reason she would not see you when you came knocking the first time.. What if her lie got out?She was afraid of what her kids would think of her . That was very clear.

Or her parents.. I bet she was more afraid of them..
They didn't think anything about it. She'd already been a lousy mother toher two a kids (my brother asked me after the funeral why; would anybodyallow "those people" to adopt us).so how could it get any worse. They allkissed and made up in the end, but it was very strange. For some weirdreason my 1/2 siblings on both sides always get compared to me. Look how"successful" Marley is and look at you--you bums. It's embarrassing. Youcan't win.

The old put down control game..

My sister had money.. She married well..

Jackie

On 28 Jan 2004 11:44:35 -0800, patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote:
She should not beallowed ot sign a thing until she has been given time to face thereality of what she is about to do and can make an informed choiceeither way...instead of denying the reality of it all. To then goahead and encourage this practice throughout the 60's is anunconsciounable act of abject abuse committed against millions ofyoung unsuspecting mothers around the world. Many of whom will neverrecover. May the instigators of this atrocity all rot in hell.

It took me years to sort this.. Mans inhumanity to (wo)man..


Jackie

"Rupa Bose" <rkbose@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message
news:e5619372.0401290334.522c59c3@posting.google.c om... patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote True feminism is about individual and informed choice. Whatever that choice may be. It's not about swapping one oppressor for another. Di I completely agree with that statement: Individual and informed choice. Whatever that choice may be.

I agree, and with the understanding that it is nobody's place to judge her,
for good or for ill, whatever her choice is.

Helen
Rupa

On 29 Jan 2004 02:05:34 -0800, patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote:

Rh wrote.. As far as it's being unnatural (to prefer not to see your child), there's nothing unnatural about the instict to avoid pain.In which case I take it you agree that shut down mothers have aperfect right to avoid any communication with their adult child whosearch, in order to avoid that same pain?

Much easier to just pretend the woman is an unfeeling woman..
Cause..... after all there are places to go and siblings to meet..

Jackie

On 28 Jan 2004 13:35:09 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose)
wrote:
Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote:I'm all for the person in questionmaking the decision for herself. What about a fifteen year old? Where are the guides? Where is the councilor? Is she told its best to see the baby? Does anyone listen to the wisdom of women who have bene living this for a long time?But do you *know* that it's always best for everyone to see theirbabies? You didn't see yours when you wanted to, and you have deepregrets. But for another person, seeing the child and thenrelinquishing might make an already painful situation much worse.

One of the healthiest thing I did when I was finally grieving the loss
of my child was to do a meditation..
I imagined my son as an infant.. I imagined myself holding him..
I imagined myself giving him up..

And I felt the pain..

Also I visited friends in a hospital who were new parents..
They allowed me to hold the baby.. The baby that was hours old..
I said to that baby.. Welcome to the world.. I am glad your a boy..
I said the words I wish I could have said to my son..

Finally I started acknowledging my pain..
I no longer stuffed it.. I cried all the way home from that hospital
visit.. My hubby holding my hand..
It was a cleansing thing..
People are different. And I think they should make their owndecisions. They might be right or wrong, but no one else is likely tobe *more* right.

I would not force anyone to do anything..

All I can do is share what I know..
Your advice, as someone who has lived with the pain of relinquishing ababy without having seen him, is always to look, and I respect that.But you can't know what the alternative is. Would it have been betterhad you see him? How can you know?

Maybe I would have felt some pain.. I know I would have had an image
when I thought of him..
Something concrete to hang on to..

Maybe the depression would not have been so bad..

You would have to consider a motherwho had done both, relinquished one child after seeing him, andanother without seeing him. Even then, external circumstances couldconfuse the issue.

Its an unnatural act..
A baby has not died.. A baby is gone and is supposed to be just fine..

How does one start the grieving process when there is nothing to
trigger.. Nothing to get the ball rolling.

I needed to grieve my loss.. I needed to stay connected to my feeling
self..
It may or may not be the right onefor her, but I doubt very much that anyone else can make a bettercall...for *her*. Thats an easy way out of this.. IMO..Yes. And that's the easy way that, had they taken in your case, youwould have seen your baby before you relinquished him.I think one generation of birthmothers having decisions made for themis enough.

I think women today are having their decisions made for them..

The only difference now is the game that is played..


Jackie

in article csuh10dq14oefr9e870rcvb43gi8ouhhcb@4ax.com, Jackie at
forgetit@me.com wrote on 29/1/04 12:27 pm:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 10:53:00 -0500, "kat" <katlat24@hotmail.com> wrote: Jackie it isn't up to the adoptee to try and solve the problems of the bmother. To help her out of the prison she has locked herself into. That type of work is better left to the professionals. So I can't find fault with an adoptee who does not wish to undertake the project and just moves on to someone with less issues. The adoptee might be sypathetic and understanding to her plight but just be unwilling to get involved with that type of situation. Kathy 1 Its like you believe the adoptee can remove himself or herself from what really happened.. Sort of like saying.."Its not my problem".

Actually Jackie, if an adopted person needs to contact siblings, but the
birthmother hasn't got her stuff together having been given ample time to do
so, then that is not the adopted person's problem.

Robin

On 29 Jan 2004 03:31:14 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose)
wrote:
patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote The idea of seeing the baby is to face the reality of what you are about to do, not to pretend the baby doesn't exist in order to pretend no loss occurred. Which was precisely why the practice was inroduced in the first place.Right. And some people would consider that forcing a mother to see thechild she will relinquish is rubbing her nose in it.A child who is not seen is an abstraction, unlike a physically presentbaby. I doubt very much that a mother would pretend the baby doesn'texist. But, as Jackie pointed out, it may not become concrete for her.To my mind, if that's what she wants, she should have that right.As she should have the right to see and hold and feed her child, ifshe wants to do any or all of those things.

Does she have the right to refuse contact twenty or thirty years down
the road?
Does she have the right to control the meeting of the siblings?
Does she have the right to control like she was controlled?
I have no doubt that the vast majority of mothers who refuse contact are still living out the same level of unreality that was imposed on them at the time of the adoption. How can they not when the baby never became a real person?Hmm. I wonder if the vast majority of mothers who refuse contact neversaw their babies.

From the ones I have corresponded with.. I believe that they stayed
with the secret keeping.. Out of site out of mind..

Pretend all is well and all things are well..
It's a disgraceful practice and should never be offered as a choice to a new mother already traumatised by birth as well as the pending separation from her child. If she can't cope with seeing her baby before relinquishing itm then she is not in a fit state to make the decision to give it up.I see your point; but I disagree that your decision should apply toall birthmothers. People are different. I think they should have theright to determine what they wish to do, for themselves.


Take the new birth mom.. The one in the open adoption..
The one who thinks everything is hunky dory..
The one who waits for the image.. the picture..

She can't understand what is wrong.. She can't understand why she is
sad.. Another boondoggle..

Just like the safe haven.. Some women are encouraged to drop the baby
off.. The society encourages her by their wonderful heartbreaking
stories of another baby saved. .
She is swayed.. She is a hero..

She is boondoggled..

And she can't go back..

Jackie

On 28 Jan 2004 15:27:00 GMT, meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote:
And with that belief firmly entrenched a person can just march pastthe woman and contact the siblings..JackieWhy not? If she's a mean, rotten self-consumed human being, (yeah, you know thetype), the adoptee owes her squat when it comes to his right to contact hisbirth family. Her right to privacy for whatever reason, does not trump theadoptee's right to make contact with his birth family. End of story.

No tears to cry.. No feelings left..

Roger Waters wrote that..


Jackie

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 11:21:40 -0500, "kat" <katlat24@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Jackie" <forgetit@me.com> wrote in messagenews:8mhf10d9st0129780d9n3higi3up2mjthg@4ax .com... On 28 Jan 2004 03:42:33 GMT, klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL) wrote:In article <apoc10lpmvdvei8pviae02ne7rcneiid1q@4ax.com>, Jackie<forgetit@me.com> writes: I do not want to see women bypassed because the common thinking is that some birth moms are just plain mean and should be bypassed..Perhaps now they will be bypassed because of how you portray them andadoptees will begin to think that it is all just too much to deal with andlife is short. They will spend their time and energy building arelationship with family members that have less issues to deal with.

Yes I am sure this will be the new way of it..

Why try and understand something when you don't have to..

Just forget about it and history will keep on repeating itself..


Jackie

On 28 Jan 2004 19:40:54 GMT, adoptadad@aol.com (AdoptaDad) wrote:
Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: Jackie forgetit@me.comDate: 1/28/04 10:14 AM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <8mhf10d9st0129780d9n3higi3up2mjthg@4ax.com> < snip >If someone abuses a child there is usually a reason behind it.. But never a good one.

Amen to that..
She may have been abused herself.. Kids learn parenting from their parents. All the more reason to find someway to break the chain of abuse.

Yes.. No one should have to live in the horror of ongoing abuse...
And I bet they have lots of problems dealing withthe fact they hit the child. Not to mention the problems they dealt their own children.

The real question is .. "How do we prevent it?"

Do we have a society that allows easy access to abortion or medical
help?
Do we have a society that has a place for the abused women and
children? A place where they can be given help..
A safe place where no more harm will occur..

Or do we have a society that just slams the door on the ones who need
help.. A society that looks down on them when they use drugs to cope.

Jackie

On 28 Jan 2004 15:46:54 -0800, patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote:
>Why would I address the issues of a woman who is out of the closet..>She is very much able to speak for herself..>Some of these women are amazing..She is able to speak for herself, but that doesn't mean she deserves to beignored. Treated as if she doesn't exist at all. Which is what you seem todo. I do not. That is your perception of my belief's.. JackieLooks like you've just been ordered to speak on every mothers behalf:-)


Its like I am being told.. "Honest I am not trying to shut you up".

But........


Jackie

On 29 Jan 2004 03:58:39 GMT, klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL) wrote:

<snipped my lecture>

Or even a meek maybeto contact. My sentence meant that I don't hear you acknowledging that suchbirthmothers even exist.Bloody hell.. I am one of them..And yet you don't want to speak for yourself, or others like you. You areinsistent on the trapped bmother.

And you want to compartmentalize us..
What's the saying.. Divide and concur..
>The ones who wish to (knowingly) hurt the relinquished son or>daughter?>>Is there such a person? Or is she a myth.. Or heck an icon..Again, I wasn't talking about such, so these two sentences really shouldjustbe snipped...but didn't want to be guilty of editing your post in anymanner.Maybe you want to edit my thinking as well..I guess in a way that is really what this whole place is about, right? Don'twe all have our ideas changed by what we learn from others? But no, I wasn'tspecifically talking about editing your thinking.

If someone gives me an 'aha' moment.. I will and have acknowledge it..

But so far on this particular subject this has not happened..
>I remember listening to Rickie Solinger doing her talk in Sanfrancisco>at the BN convention.. She was talking about her book Wake Up Little>Susie and how some of us were treated back then. She talked about how>she was writing Beggars and Choosers and how she was interviewing>women who had relinquished in the fifties and sixties..>>Someone from the audience spoke about the mean spirited women that>just did not care.. "What about them?" the person in the audience>asked..>Solinger was taken aback.. She was silenced in some ways..IMOWell.......let's think. Maybe Solinger needed to be silenced a bit.Perfect..And why is that "Perfect.." Why can't you see any other sides to this?

Have you read her books?

Do you know what you are talking about?

Do you really think the woman should be silenced?

I traveled across the country at great expense to my husband to hear
the woman speak.. Why would I want her to be silenced?
I went there to hear her because her book.. Wake up Little Susie
helped me..
Remindedthat there are (hopefully not to any great number) some women who DO fitthatbill.Yes some women are just plain mean...But the question is.. Why are they just plain mean? It appears she was doing some generalizing, and was caught out on it.JMHO of course. (Please if anyone else sees it this way, let me know, so Idon't think I have totally lost sight of the real world hehe)Aren't you are so darn smart..I don't know why I am replying to someone as smart as you...>I met her after her talk and we discussed the woman that does not>care.. She had a friend that (according to her) did not care..>Why? was the question at hand..>>I have thought about this ever since..>>I still can not believe that a woman can turn her back on her child>and cause that child further pain out of selfishness..>I do not believe it works that way.Well, reality bites. And there really are women out there like this. Justlook at the women who abuse their children physically. They seem to have noproblem harming their child.If someone abuses a child there is usually a reason behind it..She may have been abused herself..And I bet they have lots of problems dealing with the fact they hitthe child.Not necessarily.>> It really sounds like you think all birthmom's are unable to grow at>>all.>>I rejoice if a woman comes out of the secret keeping..>>I rejoice for her and everyone involved..Yes, but again, it's always about her coming out of the secret keeping afterthe evil child has forced the issue.You say this.. I do not..But that is the way you infer it.

According to your perception of what I post..
Made demands, as you infer. I haven'theard (maybe I need my hearing checked) you rejoice for any mother unlessshewas forced into a revelation. No rejoicing for the birthmother who dealtwithit before the fact of contact being made.You are arguing in circles.Now see, you are so used to your circling logic being straight, that you see mystraight logic as a circle. <<<sigh>>>

I thought you had gone back to school..
>>Again, it's that stagnant, never-growing, stuck in the closet birthmom>>who needs to be coddled mold that you seem to expect all birthmoms to fit.>>They are there.. Adoptees are being refused contact..I didn't say they weren't there. I simply point out that not allbirthmothersare them. And again, the contact issue seems to weigh the most heavily withyou.I do not want to see women bypassed because the common thinking isthat some birth moms are just plain mean and should be bypassed..But what bothers so many people is that you want to do that at the expense ofthe adoptee. The one who was bypassed in the beginning is to be bypassedagain.

Not true.. And the next question is.. Who started this bypassing?

And my answer is.. Not the birth mom..
>Pain is being caused.. Pain is happening..Welcome to adoption. Sorry, but that is really all I can think to say tothis.Bankrupt..Well that was a non-statement. Thanks for nothing.>Why would I address the issues of a woman who is out of the closet..>She is very much able to speak for herself..>Some of these women are amazing..She is able to speak for herself, but that doesn't mean she deserves to beignored. Treated as if she doesn't exist at all. Which is what you seem todo.I do not.That is your perception of my belief's..No, Jackie, that is the perception of many people here. Just ask.

I don't have to ask.. I know.


Jackie

in article lm0i10ti6pku3tobp017qtvijvvhnachqi@4ax.com, Jackie at
forgetit@me.com wrote on 29/1/04 12:57 pm:
On 29 Jan 2004 02:05:34 -0800, patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote: Rh wrote.. As far as it's being unnatural (to prefer not to see your child), there's nothing unnatural about the instict to avoid pain. In which case I take it you agree that shut down mothers have a perfect right to avoid any communication with their adult child who search, in order to avoid that same pain? Much easier to just pretend the woman is an unfeeling woman.. Cause..... after all there are places to go and siblings to meet..

So you really believe that everyone should wait for ever for the only person
in the adoption who had choices to begin with in the vast majority of cases?
It is in practical, health and social terms far more important for many of
us to be able to know our siblings than it is for us to know our birthmother
if she doesn't want to know us. Once a birthmother has been told, and
telling her in those circumstances is just a mark of respect IMO, then no
one should be in control of whether or not siblings can meet. The more you
keep repeating your bypassed birthmother chant the more ridiculous you look
to the vast majority of people be they adoptees, birthmothers or whatever,
repeating it ad nauseum won't make it any less ridiculous.

Robin

Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose)Date: 1/29/2004 6:34 AM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <e5619372.0401290334.522c59c3@posting.google.com>patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote True feminism is about individual and informed choice. Whatever that choice may be. It's not about swapping one oppressor for another. DiI completely agree with that statement: Individual and informedchoice. Whatever that choice may be.

But if she makes the choice not to see her child, she should be declared
incompetent and therefore it should be unlawful for her to make that decision
for herself.

Yeah, that's the ticket.

Dad

In article <b3vh10tm5bkqbb0m8guuj4hjft343o31bp@4ax.com>, Jackie says...
snipI always thought she told you that she was raped..Its such a perfect lie.. It absolves everything..One can put the blame somewhere else..

I'm sure glad my SIL didn't have to deal with anything like this. Everyone in
the entire family knew/knows about the daughter she relinquished and are all
eagerly hoping that the girl will one day search for her bfamily.

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

>Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: Jackie forgetit@me.comDate: 1/29/04 4:27 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <csuh10dq14oefr9e870rcvb43gi8ouhhcb@4ax.com>On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 10:53:00 -0500, "kat" <katlat24@hotmail.com>wrote:Jackie it isn't up to the adoptee to try and solve the problems of thebmother. To help her out of the prison she has locked herself into. Thattype of work is better left to the professionals. So I can't find faultwith an adoptee who does not wish to undertake the project and just moves onto someone with less issues. The adoptee might be sypathetic andunderstanding to her plight but just be unwilling to get involved with thattype of situation.Kathy 1Its like you believe the adoptee can remove himself or herself fromwhat really happened..Sort of like saying.."Its not my problem".
Jackie

You're joking, right?




Diane Welfare, "she describes the US market as a "$US1.4 billion business in
baby trafficking". ~~121603
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336884771.html

patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote in message news:<c599139c.0401290205.67b86c9@posting.google.com>... sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote in message news:<dafc70.0401281814.34bfacaa@posting.google.com>... It is unnatural not to want to see the baby you've just given birth to and that alone should be an indicator that the mother is not in a fit state to make the decision or to sign anything. > > Should I take this to mean that you think that women who choose (as opposed to 'not wanting to') not to see their children are unbalanced and not to be taken seriously? What kind of question is that? By not wanting or choosing not ot see their baby they are trying to pretend the child is unreal in order to avoid feeling any loss. it doesn't work.



'Not in a fit state' is your opinion, not hers.
You neatly cancel out her right to autonomy by saying that she's 'not
in a fit state'. It's a no win situation for her.


If she *has* to relinquish, or even sincerely believes she *has* to relinquish, what then? Unless she is going to deny her child's existance twenty years later when he/she come lookig for her, I'd say she is doing neither of them any favours by choosing not to she her child.



That's not the point.
If she is given to believe that she'll never going to be able see her
child again, why should she believe he/she's going to come looking for
her.


If she's not fit to make a decision, but has to, what then? What is she, an animal? or are we going to pretend she had an abortion instead?



It was *you*, not *me*, who said she isn't fit to make a decision if
she refuses to see her child.
And it was to that statement that I was responding.



Is she to be pressured into see her child even if she makes it abundantly clear that she'd rather not? If she abjectly refuses to thenso be it. However she shoujld be warned of the consequences of not seeing the child before shemakes that decision.



'Abjectly'? Hardly.
Of course I agree she should be warned of the consequences.
That's the whole point. That's what 'informed choice' is all about.
And then she should be allowed to make her own decision - *without*
being called 'abject' if it is her will not to.

Is she be denied *yet another* decision? You think trying tp pretend the child doesn't exist is a healthy choice let alone helps he rmake aninfomred choice?



Again, not the point.
Healthy or unhealthy, it should be her choice.


If so, it seems to be this would be one more example of 'for your own good' paternalism. Perhaps because I have been there and have first hand experience of the deterimental effects of not seeing the baby, I have a better understandng of this issue than you ever could. And unlike you I would not wish it upon any other mother.




You clearly believe you have a better understanding of this issue than
any living person on this earth - and more particularly than any other
mother who doesn't agree with you.
This is just paternalism in another guise.

What I'm wishing on other mothers is for them to preserve at least
some freedom of choice even within a limited area.
What you are wishing on other mothers is that they should conform to
your belief system.


I agree with you about informed choice, and that seeing one's child should be encouraged. After your earlier questions why am I having trouble believing you?



I'm going to put this *very* delicately (rather than say what first
came into my head)
Your having trouble believing me because of the interpretation you put
on those 'earlier questions'.



But I wholeheartedly agree with Rupa that no-one should be pressured either way, and that the decision should rest with the individual. Informed choice should never include pressure, tacit or overt. Nobody is suggesting that any pressure not be put on any mother to see her child or not. That said, she who refuses to see her child will eventually come around to needing to see it, if the baby is placed nearby and she is given time to connect to that natural urge she is trying to stifle.



That's not the same as leaving the choice up to her.
Of *course* if the child is placed nearby she's going to eventually
want to see it.
That in itself takes away her autonomy.
It's not 'informed choice'. It's pressure.

What if she can't keep her child anyway, and has good reason to
believe that she will never see him/her again?
It's *that* kind of situation that I'm talking about.



As far as it's being unnatural (to prefer not to see your child), there's nothing unnatural about the instict to avoid pain. In which case I take it you agree that shut down mothers have a perfect right to avoid any communication with their adult child who search, in order to avoid that same pain?



Not a perfect right. But perhaps an imperfect one.
I've said before that it's their 'right', though I don't think it
'right'.
And I think that the adoptee has the 'right' to challenge that
'right'.
Let people work it out.


If one knows there's no chance of keeping, it seems to me that nothing could more natural or realistic than to try to numb that reality. People do what they have to do. That then also applies to mothers 30-40 years later. Explain that to adoptees if you can. After all, it's important to be able to survive in the short term to even get anywhere close to the long term. So you pretend the child doesn't exist. It's how adoption works. And people wonder why I'm opposed to adoption when the mother has to block the child out of her mind, pretend her child doesn't exist, in order to survive it. To remain sane. Not something I'd recommend in all good conscence.



We wouldn't even be having this discussion if there was no such thing
as adoption.
I propose the nightmare scenario that we're closer on this than you'd
ever care to imagine.





Rh. Di Rh. allowed ot sign a thing until she has been given time to face the reality of what she is about to do and can make an informed choice either way.. > > .instead of denying the reality of it all. To then go ahead and encourage this practice throughout the 60's is an unconsciounable act of abject abuse committed against millions of young unsuspecting mothers around the world. Many of whom will never recover. May the instigators of this atrocity all rot in hell. Di

rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote in message news:<e5619372.0401290334.522c59c3@posting.google.com>... patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote True feminism is about individual and informed choice. Whatever that choice may be. It's not about swapping one oppressor for another. Di I completely agree with that statement: Individual and informed choice. Whatever that choice may be.



ITA, irony and all.



Rh. Rupa

"Jackie" <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message
news:tp2i10l8dp4pqmgaqhrd6ffrvcrhu5l3s4@4ax.com... On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 11:21:40 -0500, "kat" <katlat24@hotmail.com> wrote:"Jackie" <forgetit@me.com> wrote in messagenews:8mhf10d9st0129780d9n3higi3up2mjthg@4ax .com... On 28 Jan 2004 03:42:33 GMT, klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL) wrote: >In article <apoc10lpmvdvei8pviae02ne7rcneiid1q@4ax.com>, Jackie ><forgetit@me.com> writes: > I do not want to see women bypassed because the common thinking is that some birth moms are just plain mean and should be bypassed..Perhaps now they will be bypassed because of how you portray them andadoptees will begin to think that it is all just too much to deal with
andlife is short. They will spend their time and energy building arelationship with family members that have less issues to deal with. Yes I am sure this will be the new way of it.. Why try and understand something when you don't have to..

Understanding and wanting to deal with it are two very different things.
One can do both simultaneously.


Kathy 1

>Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 1/28/2004 11:23 PM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0401282023.15ed2efb@posting.google.com>

< snip >
If she can't cope with seeing her baby before relinquishing itm then she is
not in a fit state to make the decision to give it up.Di

So, she's de facto "incompetent" if she makes the decision not to see her
child, but magically regains her competence when it comes to the much bigger
decision of whether to relinquish her child or not. Wow.. that's pretty
nifty.

Dad

"Jackie" <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message
news:csuh10dq14oefr9e870rcvb43gi8ouhhcb@4ax.com... On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 10:53:00 -0500, "kat" <katlat24@hotmail.com> wrote:Jackie it isn't up to the adoptee to try and solve the problems of thebmother. To help her out of the prison she has locked herself into.
Thattype of work is better left to the professionals. So I can't find faultwith an adoptee who does not wish to undertake the project and just moves
onto someone with less issues. The adoptee might be sypathetic andunderstanding to her plight but just be unwilling to get involved with
thattype of situation.Kathy 1 Its like you believe the adoptee can remove himself or herself from what really happened.. Sort of like saying.."Its not my problem".


It doesn't have to become the adoptee's problem unless they choose/want it
to. To remove the bmother in secrecy for a moment, what if the adoptee
found a bmother who was open about the adoption but a raging alcoholic who
is difficult to have a relationship with? If the adoptee does not wish to
deal with that they can choose to concentrate on developing relationships
with other bfamily members or they can continue to try to develop a
relationship with the bmother and hope that one day she seeks the help she
so desperately needs. It really is a personal choice on the part of the
adoptee.

Kathy 1

>Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 1/29/04 2:05 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0401290205.67b86c9@posting.google.com>

(snip)
So you pretend the child doesn't exist.

I never pretended my child didn't exist and I do not know of any other mother
that pretended either.

It's how adoption works.>

If you say so. (giggle)

Andpeople wonder why I'm opposed to adoption when the mother has to blockthe child out of her mind, pretend her child doesn't exist, in orderto survive it.

Oooo boo hoo. What decade are you stuck in? Hey Sandra Dee, this *has to* crap
is cop out.

To remain sane. >

Rubbish. This is an excuse.
Not something I'd recommend in all goodconscence.Di

Don't worry, I doubt anyone believes that abolishing adoption is the answer
because you chose to pretend your son did not exist.







Diane Welfare, "she describes the US market as a "$US1.4 billion business in
baby trafficking". ~~121603
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336884771.html

>Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: Jackie forgetit@me.comDate: 1/29/04 4:57 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <lm0i10ti6pku3tobp017qtvijvvhnachqi@4ax.com>On 29 Jan 2004 02:05:34 -0800, patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote:Rh wrote.. As far as it's being unnatural (to prefer not to see your child), there's nothing unnatural about the instict to avoid pain.In which case I take it you agree that shut down mothers have aperfect right to avoid any communication with their adult child whosearch, in order to avoid that same pain?Much easier to just pretend the woman is an unfeeling woman..Cause..... after all there are places to go and siblings to meet..Jackie

Nobody is pretending that most women that are birthmothers are unfeeling. It's
you that can't stop beating the drum. Your argument is all wet, Jackie.

Time to get some new pity pot material, wouldn't you say? <yawn>




Diane Welfare, "she describes the US market as a "$US1.4 billion business in
baby trafficking". ~~121603
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336884771.html

>Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy)Date: 1/29/2004 12:07 PM Newfoundland Standard TimeMessage-id: <20040129103740.28383.00001099@mb-m01.aol.com>Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 1/29/04 2:05 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0401290205.67b86c9@posting.google.com>(snip)So you pretend the child doesn't exist.I never pretended my child didn't exist and I do not know of any other motherthat pretended either.It's how adoption works.>If you say so. (giggle) Andpeople wonder why I'm opposed to adoption when the mother has to blockthe child out of her mind, pretend her child doesn't exist, in orderto survive it.Oooo boo hoo. What decade are you stuck in? Hey Sandra Dee, this *has to*crapis cop out.


She can't stop, she's not "allowed" to. She'll get yelled at.

"Rhiannon" <sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:dafc70.0401290726.66ec5e5f@posting.google.com ... patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote in message
news:<c599139c.0401290205.67b86c9@posting.google.com>... sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote in message
news:<dafc70.0401281814.34bfacaa@posting.google.com>...


You clearly believe you have a better understanding of this issue than any living person on this earth - and more particularly than any other mother who doesn't agree with you.

Yep. That comes through loudly and clearly in every post she writes.

This is just paternalism in another guise.

Exactly. The oppressed becomes the oppressor.

Kathy 1

"Jackie" <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message
news:lv0i10lulrbchob22lfkqdaf2g1krqkq00@4ax.com... On 28 Jan 2004 13:35:09 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote:Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote: >I'm all for the person in question >making the decision for herself. What about a fifteen year old? Where are the guides? Where is the councilor? Is she told its best to see the baby? Does anyone listen to the wisdom of women who have bene living this for a long time?But do you *know* that it's always best for everyone to see theirbabies? You didn't see yours when you wanted to, and you have deepregrets. But for another person, seeing the child and thenrelinquishing might make an already painful situation much worse. One of the healthiest thing I did when I was finally grieving the loss of my child was to do a meditation.. I imagined my son as an infant.. I imagined myself holding him.. I imagined myself giving him up.. And I felt the pain.. Also I visited friends in a hospital who were new parents.. They allowed me to hold the baby.. The baby that was hours old.. I said to that baby.. Welcome to the world.. I am glad your a boy.. I said the words I wish I could have said to my son..

Wow. I never would have thought of that but I can see how that might be
helpful. Did your therapist suggest that?
Finally I started acknowledging my pain.. I no longer stuffed it.. I cried all the way home from that hospital visit.. My hubby holding my hand.. It was a cleansing thing..People are different. And I think they should make their owndecisions. They might be right or wrong, but no one else is likely tobe *more* right. I would not force anyone to do anything.. All I can do is share what I know..Your advice, as someone who has lived with the pain of relinquishing ababy without having seen him, is always to look, and I respect that.But you can't know what the alternative is. Would it have been betterhad you see him? How can you know? Maybe I would have felt some pain.. I know I would have had an image when I thought of him.. Something concrete to hang on to.. Maybe the depression would not have been so bad..

The child is gone either way. How could the depression *not* be as bad?
That just doesn't make any sense.
You would have to consider a motherwho had done both, relinquished one child after seeing him, andanother without seeing him. Even then, external circumstances couldconfuse the issue. Its an unnatural act.. A baby has not died.. A baby is gone and is supposed to be just fine.. How does one start the grieving process when there is nothing to trigger.. Nothing to get the ball rolling.

People do it all the time. I don't know why you can't fathom that.


Kathy 1

In article <BC3EB9B1.312B5%karakoram@postadoption.info>,
Robin <karakoram@postadoption.info> wrote:Actually Jackie, if an adopted person needs to contact siblings, but thebirthmother hasn't got her stuff together having been given ample time to doso, then that is not the adopted person's problem.

Standing, clapping and cheering, Robin.

I predict however, this response will elicit another long string of Jackie
posts going over the ground that has been frequently covered. Jackie has
this bizarre argument style--if you keep on repeating people will agree
with you.

Linda

>Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: Jackie forgetit@me.comDate: 1/29/04 5:30 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <lj2i10hu44d9b8bn02m1b2vbvcfjefrcib@4ax.com>On 28 Jan 2004 15:27:00 GMT, meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote:And with that belief firmly entrenched a person can just march pastthe woman and contact the siblings..JackieWhy not? If she's a mean, rotten self-consumed human being, (yeah, you knowthetype), the adoptee owes her squat when it comes to his right to contact hisbirth family. Her right to privacy for whatever reason, does not trump theadoptee's right to make contact with his birth family. End of story.No tears to cry.. No feelings left..Roger Waters wrote that..
Jackie

Not 'amusing', that you would use this pop hero's poetry to excuse the type of
birthmother that I desribed above. You have excuses for everything, don't you?







Diane Welfare, "she describes the US market as a "$US1.4 billion business in
baby trafficking". ~~121603
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336884771.html

>Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: "helicon" helicon@eircom.netDate: 1/29/04 4:50 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <6d7Sb.647$rb.52529@news.indigo.ie>"Rupa Bose" <rkbose@pacific.net.sg> wrote in messagenews:e5619372.0401290334.522c59c3@posting.g oogle.com... patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote True feminism is about individual and informed choice. Whatever that choice may be. It's not about swapping one oppressor for another. Di I completely agree with that statement: Individual and informed choice. Whatever that choice may be.I agree, and with the understanding that it is nobody's place to judge her,for good or for ill, whatever her choice is.Helen

And that includes her choice not to see her child, and it also includes her
choice not to
have counseling that would sway her decision to see her child.




Diane Welfare, "she describes the US market as a "$US1.4 billion business in
baby trafficking". ~~121603
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336884771.html

In article <VO%Rb.30564$6O4.817109@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Marley
Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> writes:
"KL" <klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell> wrote in messagenews:20040128225836.05957.00000185@mb-m26.aol.com... In article <BdORb.127049$6y6.2489683@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> writes:"KL" <klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell> wrote in messagenews:20040127224231.15923.00003420@mb-m12.aol.com...> In article<fHoRb.118303$6y6.2352230@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,> "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> writes:>> >"Dian" <patrice68@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message> >news:c599139c.0401262224.43f4feac@posting.google.c om...> >> "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message> >news:<kraRb.19433$6O4.519269@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...> >> > "Jackie" <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message> >> > news:hh9a10ts09oak2paf7tlko0hff63p7lfc5@4ax.com...> >> > > On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:57:16 GMT, Robibnikoff<nospam@newsranger.com>> >> > > wrote:> >> > >> >> > > >One of my SILs relinquished a baby girl almost 20 years ago.She> >refused> >> > to see> >> > > >her baby because she couldn't comprehend signing therelinquishment> >> > papers after> >> > > >actually viewing her. I know for a FACT that she has mournedthat> >baby's> >> > loss -> >> > > >though she does feel that she made the best decision for thebothof> >> > them.> >> > >> >> > >> >> > > That is your interpretation of what she has said to you.> >> >> >> > Hmm, how much clearer can it be? The woman in question has saidthis.> >It> >> > doesn't sound like an interpretation to me. Are we not to believefirst> >> > hand accounts? My bmom wrote me that she was *forced* to see meat> >> > Crittenton She didn't want to see me. Nobody there couldapparently> >> > believe that she didn't want to see me. Am I to not believe her?By> >your> >> > thinking, nobody should believe anything anybody says.> >>> >> Your mother's letter was a first hand account. Robyn is second hand> >> interpretation. That's said, the comments of a mother stating thatit> >> was the> >> best decision she could make is self brainwashing, an anasthetic she> >> uses to convince herself that she did the right thing in order to> >> avoid/reduce confronting the full blown pain of loss.> >> >This is the same argument used by anti-aborts--that abortion harmswomen;> >that abortion ruins their lives. It disempowers women; demonizes themas> >"bad women" or "bad mothers" and perpetuates women's oppression. Itcenters> >women's Self in the uterus. Obviously some women are harmed by> >relinquishment and some women are harmed by abortion, but botharguments> >deny women autonomy of thought and deed and are highly over-rated by> >agendaists on both sides. Reproduction is a biological accident and Ifail> >to see why so much narcissistic emotion is invested in a biological> >function. I certainly don't disagree with you that women arebrainwashedor> >brainwash themselves over relinquishment and adoption, but at the sametime,> >these arguments are a direct attack on autonomy and are anti-feministand> >anti-woman. Unfortunately, it appears that the definition of women isstill> >formed by reproduction, mothering, and self-sacrifice, and as long asthat> >definition continues we will enjoy reproduction and adoption in itscurrent> >patriarchal form.> >> >> >Only after> >> reunion is it possible to really deal with one's true feelings at an> >> honest level. Until then it's all about convincing yourself that the> >> baby is pefectly happy, and God help those whose doubts set inbefore> >> reunion.> >>> >> Di> >> >I agree with you, but what if you find out the baby IS perfectlyhappy?>> <sarcasm>> Silly Marley....adoptees are NEVER happy....they are bitter and angrylittle> individuals, and must remain that way for the entirety of their lives,even> after reunion. Although, of course, they are NEVER to be mad at their> birthmother.> </sarcasm>>> KLNo doubt, KL, but that description fits everybody I know. Do youactuallykonw one happy person? I don't. Well, yes, I do know at least one happy person. Mayhap even a few. KLMarley>> >And> >the same may be asked of adopted persons who are convinced theirnmothers> >are perfectly miserable or perfectly happy. The bottom line is ifyou're> >not gonna keep it, then don't have it.> >> >MarleyAre they rich Republicans?Marley

No, I don't think they necessarily are. Of course, I tend to avoid any mention
of politics. I know my parents are. And it makes for rough times, since I am
not.

KL

In article <e5619372.0401290334.522c59c3@posting.google.com>,
rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) writes:
patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote True feminism is about individual and informed choice. Whatever that choice may be. It's not about swapping one oppressor for another. DiI completely agree with that statement: Individual and informedchoice. Whatever that choice may be.Rupa

And sadly, for some, that choice WILL be to be oppressed. (Just saying.)

KL

In article <hs3i10h8pb7vjsougmkfuvpufmocj42obj@4ax.com>, Jackie
<forgetit@me.com> writes:
On 29 Jan 2004 03:58:39 GMT, klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL) wrote:<snipped my lecture>> Or even a meek maybe>to contact. My sentence meant that I don't hear you acknowledging thatsuch>birthmothers even exist.Bloody hell.. I am one of them..And yet you don't want to speak for yourself, or others like you. You areinsistent on the trapped bmother.And you want to compartmentalize us..What's the saying.. Divide and concur..

I believe you meant divide and conquer. But it is moot because that is not
what I was saying. Of course, the truth never stopped you before, why should
it now?
>>The ones who wish to (knowingly) hurt the relinquished son or>>daughter?>>>>Is there such a person? Or is she a myth.. Or heck an icon..>>Again, I wasn't talking about such, so these two sentences really shouldjust>be snipped...but didn't want to be guilty of editing your post in anymanner.Maybe you want to edit my thinking as well..I guess in a way that is really what this whole place is about, right?Don'twe all have our ideas changed by what we learn from others? But no, Iwasn'tspecifically talking about editing your thinking.If someone gives me an 'aha' moment.. I will and have acknowledge it..But so far on this particular subject this has not happened..

Perhaps because you tend to listen to others opinions about this subject with
your fingers in your ears while humming? Unless of course it is Di talking.
>>I remember listening to Rickie Solinger doing her talk in Sanfrancisco>>at the BN convention.. She was talking about her book Wake Up Little>>Susie and how some of us were treated back then. She talked about how>>she was writing Beggars and Choosers and how she was interviewing>>women who had relinquished in the fifties and sixties..>>>>Someone from the audience spoke about the mean spirited women that>>just did not care.. "What about them?" the person in the audience>>asked..>>Solinger was taken aback.. She was silenced in some ways..IMO>>Well.......let's think. Maybe Solinger needed to be silenced a bit.Perfect..And why is that "Perfect.." Why can't you see any other sides to this?Have you read her books?Do you know what you are talking about?Do you really think the woman should be silenced?I traveled across the country at great expense to my husband to hearthe woman speak.. Why would I want her to be silenced?I went there to hear her because her book.. Wake up Little Susiehelped me..

But none of what you just wrote here has a thing to do with why she was
originally brought up. I meant that on that one particular subject, that one
particular scene, that maybe, just maybe she needed to be silenced, at least
long enough to stop and consider that which she had overlooked initially.
(God, what a terrible sentence, but it is too early in the morning to go back
and fix it!)
> Reminded>that there are (hopefully not to any great number) some women who DO fitthat>bill.Yes some women are just plain mean...But the question is.. Why are they just plain mean?> It appears she was doing some generalizing, and was caught out on it.>JMHO of course. (Please if anyone else sees it this way, let me know, soI>don't think I have totally lost sight of the real world hehe)Aren't you are so darn smart..I don't know why I am replying to someone as smart as you...>>I met her after her talk and we discussed the woman that does not>>care.. She had a friend that (according to her) did not care..>>Why? was the question at hand..>>>>I have thought about this ever since..>>>>I still can not believe that a woman can turn her back on her child>>and cause that child further pain out of selfishness..>>I do not believe it works that way.>>Well, reality bites. And there really are women out there like this.Just>look at the women who abuse their children physically. They seem to haveno>problem harming their child.If someone abuses a child there is usually a reason behind it..She may have been abused herself..And I bet they have lots of problems dealing with the fact they hitthe child.Not necessarily.>>> It really sounds like you think all birthmom's are unable to grow at>>>all.>>>>I rejoice if a woman comes out of the secret keeping..>>>>I rejoice for her and everyone involved..>>Yes, but again, it's always about her coming out of the secret keepingafter>the evil child has forced the issue.You say this.. I do not..But that is the way you infer it.According to your perception of what I post..

Well, I am not alone in that perception of what you post. If anything, I am in
the majority. Which would tend to say more about either your intent, or your
posting skills.
> Made demands, as you infer. I haven't>heard (maybe I need my hearing checked) you rejoice for any mother unlessshe>was forced into a revelation. No rejoicing for the birthmother who dealtwith>it before the fact of contact being made.You are arguing in circles.Now see, you are so used to your circling logic being straight, that you seemystraight logic as a circle. <<<sigh>>>I thought you had gone back to school..

Which has **** to do with what was said.
>>>Again, it's that stagnant, never-growing, stuck in the closet birthmom>>>who needs to be coddled mold that you seem to expect all birthmoms tofit.>>>>They are there.. Adoptees are being refused contact..>>I didn't say they weren't there. I simply point out that not allbirthmothers>are them. And again, the contact issue seems to weigh the most heavilywith>you.I do not want to see women bypassed because the common thinking isthat some birth moms are just plain mean and should be bypassed..But what bothers so many people is that you want to do that at the expenseofthe adoptee. The one who was bypassed in the beginning is to be bypassedagain.Not true.. And the next question is.. Who started this bypassing?And my answer is.. Not the birth mom..

Well it certainly wasn't the adoptee, was it? Again, you want to worship the
birthmother at the expense of the adoptee. Over look the feelings of the
adoptee, yet again. Hell, why not, they have been the problem all along,
haven't they?
>>Pain is being caused.. Pain is happening..>>Welcome to adoption. Sorry, but that is really all I can think to say to>this.Bankrupt..Well that was a non-statement. Thanks for nothing.

Just noticing that you didn't respond to this. Guess you really didn't have
any response worth anything, did you?
>>Why would I address the issues of a woman who is out of the closet..>>She is very much able to speak for herself..>>Some of these women are amazing..>>She is able to speak for herself, but that doesn't mean she deserves to be>ignored. Treated as if she doesn't exist at all. Which is what you seemto>do.I do not.That is your perception of my belief's..No, Jackie, that is the perception of many people here. Just ask.I don't have to ask.. I know.

And yet you can't see the problem? If a majority of people said I wasn't
making sense, or was in the wrong, you can bet I would re-examine my position.
If I still felt I was in the right, I would then examine how I had stated what
I felt, so I could make myself better understood. I certainly wouldn't go
around spouting the same exact words over and over again. Not when it was
obvious that my point was being made with those words. But then, that's just
rationality speaking.

KLJackie

>Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)Date: 1/29/04 7:26 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <dafc70.0401290726.66ec5e5f@posting.google.com>patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote in messagenews:<c599139c.0401290205.67b86c9@posting.google.com>... sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote in messagenews:<dafc70.0401281814.34bfacaa@posting.google.com>... > > It is unnatural not to want to see the baby you've just given birth to > and that alone should be an indicator that the mother is not in a fit > state to make the decision or to sign anything. > > > > > > > Should I take this to mean that you think that women who choose (as opposed to 'not wanting to') not to see their children are unbalanced and not to be taken seriously? What kind of question is that? By not wanting or choosing not ot see their baby they are trying to pretend the child is unreal in order to avoid feeling any loss. it doesn't work.'Not in a fit state' is your opinion, not hers.You neatly cancel out her right to autonomy by saying that she's 'notin a fit state'. It's a no win situation for her. If she *has* to relinquish, or even sincerely believes she *has* to relinquish, what then? Unless she is going to deny her child's existance twenty years later when he/she come lookig for her, I'd say she is doing neither of them any favours by choosing not to she her child.That's not the point.If she is given to believe that she'll never going to be able see herchild again, why should she believe he/she's going to come looking forher. If she's not fit to make a decision, but has to, what then? What is she, an animal? or are we going to pretend she had an abortion instead?It was *you*, not *me*, who said she isn't fit to make a decision ifshe refuses to see her child.

Which proves Di is not for the right of every woman to make their own choice.




Diane Welfare, "she describes the US market as a "$US1.4 billion business in
baby trafficking". ~~121603
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336884771.html

>Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: "kat" katlat24@hotmail.comDate: 1/29/04 7:51 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <bvba64$qhc2s$1@ID-203097.news.uni-berlin.de>"Rhiannon" <sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca> wrote in messagenews:dafc70.0401290726.66ec5e5f@posting.goo gle.com... patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote in messagenews:<c599139c.0401290205.67b86c9@posting.google.com>... sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote in messagenews:<dafc70.0401281814.34bfacaa@posting.google.com>... You clearly believe you have a better understanding of this issue than any living person on this earth - and more particularly than any other mother who doesn't agree with you.Yep. That comes through loudly and clearly in every post she writes. This is just paternalism in another guise.Exactly. The oppressed becomes the oppressor.Kathy 1

Couldn't agree more!




Diane Welfare, "she describes the US market as a "$US1.4 billion business in
baby trafficking". ~~121603
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336884771.html

In article <20040126112750.20582.00000428@mb-m21.aol.com>,
Kathy <meagan787@aol.comsthesun> wrote:

Jackie said:
That is your interpretation of what she has said to you.That is second hand information.

Kathy said:Could you get anymore condescending? What gives you the right to speak for hersil's feelings?

I know what you mean, Kathy. Jackie can be so breathtakingly arrogant.

Jackie, the fact that you relinquished and reunited does NOT make you an
expert on every relinquishment or reunion, for god's sake.

Jackie, reserve your pontificating for your own situation, and that goes
double for Di.

Linda

..
..
..
..
..
..
..

In article <dafc70.0401261911.62d96451@posting.google.com>,
Rhiannon <sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca> wrote:
I take take this at face value, especially as my friend S told me thevery same thing with regard to her relinquishment experience.


RH, what's wrong with you? Jackie has the single only unique but
universal relinquishment and reunion scenario. Any other relinquishment
experiences are simply not valid if they contradict Jackie.

I hope you have it straight now, Rh.

Linda

PS Di is allowed to have an experience that differs in minor points from
Jackie's, but it is hard to tell since Jackie changes her story so often
so she can be the most victimized person in the universe.

"Jackie" <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message
news:b3vh10tm5bkqbb0m8guuj4hjft343o31bp@4ax.com... On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 15:15:11 GMT, "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote:"Jackie" <forgetit@me.com> wrote in messagenews:6kff101i8n5jl9a92ll6cur55ac7n4ece7@4ax .com... On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 15:35:12 GMT, "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote: >> And your birth mom was living in a fantasy.. >> She did not really have a baby.. And she was raped.. > >No she wasn't. I was conceived in a "tourist court" on the backMassillon >Road. She'd been seeing Jack on the sly for a couple years while Bob
wasin >France and England. Yes but that was the story she told her parents and Bob.. Right?She certainly didn't tell that to Bob. He and Jack knew each other
slightlybefore and after the war, and Bob is the one who verified his last name
forme. Only problem is that nobody bothered to tell Jack about it. I have
noidea what she told her parents. But she she was 23 when she got knocked
upand Jack was 17, there may have been a little problem with the law ifanybody pursued the issue. I always thought she told you that she was raped.. Its such a perfect lie.. It absolves everything.. One can put the blame somewhere else..

She said that initially and then admitted that it wasn't true. She also
told her daughter that she didn't know where babies came from. Go figure! That was her way out of being a 'bad' girl and getting caught..Apparently, she'd been caught previously. You wrote last year..http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=VBIY9.3537%24rq4.334966%40bgtnsc05-new
s.ops.worldnet.att.net&output=gplain > She had this story that she was raped, and I >think it's more likely that that was an easier story to have than thetruth. I bet not seeing you was part of the fantasy she was into.. The act.. The lie..I have no idea. She said it hurt her. What a game some of us had to play.. My moms philosophy was .. If all else fails make up a lie..

Lots of people think that. If it's a lie all the crap will go away. It's
how families operate and control their members.It makes no difference to me. Idon't know why anybody would want to look at a baby--anybody's baby--tostart with. The only likeable baby is Endora on Passions. I also bet that this was the reason she would not see you when you came knocking the first time.. What if her lie got out?

I don't know. Absolutely nobody knew about me. That's the really weird
part. My grandmother and one of her sisters were absolutely inseparable and
she didn't even know. Heaven knows what excuse was used when Dottie was
disappeared. But then this was all about social climbing.She was afraid of what her kids would think of her . That was very clear. Or her parents.. I bet she was more afraid of them..

She was very much afraid of them, and didn't like them, but my existence
was only part of it. They hated her husband and went to extremes to
denigrate him and control their lives. Dottie and Bob lived with the GPs
for awhile when he had to drop out of college due to illness. My
bgrandfather forced them to sleep in separate bedrooms Bob told me. They
cut her out of their will and left all their money to the bank to teach her
a lesson for marrying him. Grandpa was an SOB. Bob and Jack always refer
to him as "that bastard." He was a rubber company executive, yet he stole
an ironing board from the company and bragged about it. My bgrandmother's
very large family detested him and all but one sister refused to attend
Dottie's wedding because they didn't want to be near him.. He was
physically abusive, too, not to mention ashamed of his working class roots
and liked to tell people he was Welsh when he was British. The weird part
is that he was a great grandpa. Dottie's kids adored him and found him a
port in storm of their parents marriage.They didn't think anything about it. She'd already been a lousy mother
toher two a kids (my brother asked me after the funeral why; would anybodyallow "those people" to adopt us).so how could it get any worse. They
allkissed and made up in the end, but it was very strange. For some weirdreason my 1/2 siblings on both sides always get compared to me. Look how"successful" Marley is and look at you--you bums. It's embarrassing.
Youcan't win. The old put down control game..

I think Jack is tired of paying car repairs, moving expenses, and gas bills
for the gainfully employed. My sister had money.. She married well.. Jackie

That's not all bad.

Marley

In article <lm0i10ti6pku3tobp017qtvijvvhnachqi@4ax.com>,
Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote:
Much easier to just pretend the woman is an unfeeling woman..Cause..... after all there are places to go and siblings to meet..Jackie


Much easier to pretend the adoptee has no feelings or desires at all.
Much easier to pretend that the adoptee has no need to find his or her
siblings.

The
purpose of an adoption reunion is to benefit the birthmother, period.

How can you be so selfish?

Linda

"KL" <klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell> wrote in message
news:20040129111239.01632.00000386@mb-m03.aol.com... In article <VO%Rb.30564$6O4.817109@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> writes:> >> KL > >No doubt, KL, but that description fits everybody I know. Do youactually >konw one happy person? I don't. Well, yes, I do know at least one happy person. Mayhap even a few. KL >Marley >> >> >And >> >the same may be asked of adopted persons who are convinced theirnmothers >> >are perfectly miserable or perfectly happy. The bottom line is ifyou're >> >not gonna keep it, then don't have it. >> > >> >MarleyAre they rich Republicans?Marley No, I don't think they necessarily are. Of course, I tend to avoid any
mention of politics. I know my parents are. And it makes for rough times, since
I am not. KL

My mother actually said, "Spiro Agnew speaks for me."

Marley

>Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 1/28/04 4:21 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0401281621.2218ec77@posting.google.com>meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in messagenews:<20040128120404.11625.00000874@mb-m12.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 1/28/04 1:33 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0401280133.4fc16861@posting.google.com>"Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in messagenews:<fHoRb.118303$6y6.2352230@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...> "Dian" <patrice68@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message> news:c599139c.0401262224.43f4feac@posting.google.c om...> > "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<kraRb.19433$6O4.519269@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...> > > "Jackie" <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message> > > news:hh9a10ts09oak2paf7tlko0hff63p7lfc5@4ax.com...> > > > On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:57:16 GMT, Robibnikoff<nospam@newsranger.com>> > > > wrote:> > > >> > > > >One of my SILs relinquished a baby girl almost 20 years ago. She> refused> to see> > > > >her baby because she couldn't comprehend signing therelinquishment papers after> > > > >actually viewing her. I know for a FACT that she has mournedthat> baby's> loss -> > > > >though she does feel that she made the best decision for the bothof them.> > > >> > > >> > > > That is your interpretation of what she has said to you.> > >> > > Hmm, how much clearer can it be? The woman in question has saidthis. It> > > doesn't sound like an interpretation to me. Are we not to believe first> > > hand accounts? My bmom wrote me that she was *forced* to see me at> > > Crittenton She didn't want to see me. Nobody there couldapparently> > > believe that she didn't want to see me. Am I to not believe her?By your> > > thinking, nobody should believe anything anybody says.> >> > Your mother's letter was a first hand account. Robyn is second hand> > interpretation. That's said, the comments of a mother stating that it> > was the> > best decision she could make is self brainwashing, an anasthetic she> > uses to convince herself that she did the right thing in order to> > avoid/reduce confronting the full blown pain of loss.>> This is the same argument used by anti-aborts--that abortion harmswomen;> that abortion ruins their lives. It disempowers women; demonizes themas> "bad women" or "bad mothers" and perpetuates women's oppression. Itcenters> women's Self in the uterus. Obviously some women are harmed by> relinquishment and some women are harmed by abortion, but both arguments> deny women autonomy of thought and deed and are highly over-rated by> agendaists on both sides.Quite the contrary, IMO. There is nothing autonomous or empoweredabout a woman who was not warned against something that has the knownpotential to cause her lifelong harm and who subsequently lives withthe consequences of an uninformed choice. If anything it makes her avictim of ignorance. How the hell do you know that Robyn's bmom did not make her own decision?IF she said that it was the best decision that she could have made at thattime, it does not mean that she is brainwashed, nor does it mean that she had no power in making her decision.Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.......What does Robyn's mother have to do withthis discussion? Go back to sleep.

I believe it was Robyn that wrote, "My bmom wrote me that she was *forced* to
see me at Crittenton She didn't want to see me. Nobody there could apparently believe that she didn't want to see me. Am I to not believe her? By your thinking, nobody should believe anything anybody says."

To which you replied:
Your mother's letter was a first hand account. Robyn is second hand interpretation. That's said, the comments of a mother stating that it was the best decision she could make is self brainwashing, an anasthetic she uses to convince herself that she did the right thing in order to avoid/reduce confronting the full blown pain of loss.

What was that you were saying about me being asleep, Di?

You were not only speaking for Robyn's SIL's experience, saying her choice was
wrong for her, but were also speaking about Robyn's bmom that was *forced* to
view her daughter before she signed the papers at Crittenton. Do you advocate
women being FORCED to view their child, Di? If so, you are no better than those
that kept children away from their mothers against their will.

(snip)







Diane Welfare, "she describes the US market as a "$US1.4 billion business in
baby trafficking". ~~121603
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336884771.html

>Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 1/29/04 1:31 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0401290131.23f3a4f1@posting.google.com>Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in messagenews:<MNYRb.1138$_4.163@www.newsranger.com>... In article <c599139c.0401281621.2218ec77@posting.google.com>, Dian says...meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in messagenews:<20040128120404.11625.00000874@mb-m12.aol.com>...> >Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' children> >From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)> >Date: 1/28/04 1:33 AM Pacific Standard Time> >Message-id: <c599139c.0401280133.4fc16861@posting.google.com>> >> >"Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message> >news:<fHoRb.118303$6y6.2352230@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...> >> "Dian" <patrice68@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message> >> news:c599139c.0401262224.43f4feac@posting.google.c om...> >> > "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<kraRb.19433$6O4.519269@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...> >> > > "Jackie" <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message> >> > > news:hh9a10ts09oak2paf7tlko0hff63p7lfc5@4ax.com...> >> > > > On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:57:16 GMT, Robibnikoff<nospam@newsranger.com>> >> > > > wrote:> >> > > >> >> > > > >One of my SILs relinquished a baby girl almost 20 years ago.She> >> refused> >> to see> >> > > > >her baby because she couldn't comprehend signing therelinquishment papers after> >> > > > >actually viewing her. I know for a FACT that she has mournedthat> >> baby's> >> loss -> >> > > > >though she does feel that she made the best decision for theboth of them.> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > > That is your interpretation of what she has said to you.> >> > >> >> > > Hmm, how much clearer can it be? The woman in question has saidthis. It> >> > > doesn't sound like an interpretation to me. Are we not tobelieve first> >> > > hand accounts? My bmom wrote me that she was *forced* to see meat> >> > > Crittenton She didn't want to see me. Nobody there couldapparently> >> > > believe that she didn't want to see me. Am I to not believeher? By your> >> > > thinking, nobody should believe anything anybody says.> >> >> >> > Your mother's letter was a first hand account. Robyn is second hand> >> > interpretation. That's said, the comments of a mother stating thatit> >> > was the> >> > best decision she could make is self brainwashing, an anastheticshe> >> > uses to convince herself that she did the right thing in order to> >> > avoid/reduce confronting the full blown pain of loss.> >>> >> This is the same argument used by anti-aborts--that abortion harmswomen;> >> that abortion ruins their lives. It disempowers women; demonizesthem as> >> "bad women" or "bad mothers" and perpetuates women's oppression. Itcenters> >> women's Self in the uterus. Obviously some women are harmed by> >> relinquishment and some women are harmed by abortion, but botharguments> >> deny women autonomy of thought and deed and are highly over-rated by> >> agendaists on both sides.> >> >Quite the contrary, IMO. There is nothing autonomous or empowered> >about a woman who was not warned against something that has the known> >potential to cause her lifelong harm and who subsequently lives with> >the consequences of an uninformed choice. If anything it makes her a> >victim of ignorance.>> How the hell do you know that Robyn's bmom did not make her owndecision? IF> she said that it was the best decision that she could have made at thattime,> it does not mean that she is brainwashed, nor does it mean that she hadno> power in making her decision.>Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.......What does Robyn's mother have to do withthis discussion? Go back to sleep. Actually, nothing really - I was talking about my SIL. However, my bmomDOES feel that she did make the best decision for both of us - We have discussedthis on the telephone. Would you say that you don't believe it? Robyn Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster #1557What sort of question is that? If she said she made the right decisionand if you've had the life she wanted for you then why would you needmy opinion?Tell me though, how long did it take before she finally knew she hadmade the right decision? Was it the day after you were gone, duringthe years in between, or when you told her you'd had a good life?Di

What difference would it make when she decided that she made the right
decision?
The fact is that she realizes that she did.




Diane Welfare, "she describes the US market as a "$US1.4 billion business in
baby trafficking". ~~121603
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336884771.html

In article <20040129103740.28383.00001099@mb-m01.aol.com>, Kathy says...Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 1/29/04 2:05 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0401290205.67b86c9@posting.google.com>(snip)So you pretend the child doesn't exist.I never pretended my child didn't exist and I do not know of any other motherthat pretended either.

Neither did my SIL.
It's how adoption works.>If you say so. (giggle)

Oy ;)

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

"Kathy" <meagan787@aol.comsthesun> wrote in message
news:20040129113533.28383.00001107@mb-m01.aol.com...Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 1/28/04 4:21 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0401281621.2218ec77@posting.google.com>meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in messagenews:<20040128120404.11625.00000874@mb-m12.aol.com>... >Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' children >From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) >Date: 1/28/04 1:33 AM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <c599139c.0401280133.4fc16861@posting.google.com> > >"Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message >news:<fHoRb.118303$6y6.2352230@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... >> "Dian" <patrice68@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message >> news:c599139c.0401262224.43f4feac@posting.google.c om... >> > "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<kraRb.19433$6O4.519269@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... >> > > "Jackie" <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message >> > > news:hh9a10ts09oak2paf7tlko0hff63p7lfc5@4ax.com... >> > > > On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:57:16 GMT, Robibnikoff<nospam@newsranger.com> >> > > > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > >One of my SILs relinquished a baby girl almost 20 years ago.
She >> refused >> to see >> > > > >her baby because she couldn't comprehend signing therelinquishment papers after >> > > > >actually viewing her. I know for a FACT that she has mournedthat >> baby's >> loss - >> > > > >though she does feel that she made the best decision for the
bothof them. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > That is your interpretation of what she has said to you. >> > > >> > > Hmm, how much clearer can it be? The woman in question has saidthis. It >> > > doesn't sound like an interpretation to me. Are we not to
believe first >> > > hand accounts? My bmom wrote me that she was *forced* to see me
at >> > > Crittenton She didn't want to see me. Nobody there couldapparently >> > > believe that she didn't want to see me. Am I to not believe
her?By your >> > > thinking, nobody should believe anything anybody says. >> > >> > Your mother's letter was a first hand account. Robyn is second
hand >> > interpretation. That's said, the comments of a mother stating that
it >> > was the >> > best decision she could make is self brainwashing, an anasthetic
she >> > uses to convince herself that she did the right thing in order to >> > avoid/reduce confronting the full blown pain of loss. >> >> This is the same argument used by anti-aborts--that abortion harmswomen; >> that abortion ruins their lives. It disempowers women; demonizes
themas >> "bad women" or "bad mothers" and perpetuates women's oppression. Itcenters >> women's Self in the uterus. Obviously some women are harmed by >> relinquishment and some women are harmed by abortion, but both
arguments >> deny women autonomy of thought and deed and are highly over-rated by >> agendaists on both sides. > >Quite the contrary, IMO. There is nothing autonomous or empowered >about a woman who was not warned against something that has the known >potential to cause her lifelong harm and who subsequently lives with >the consequences of an uninformed choice. If anything it makes her a >victim of ignorance. How the hell do you know that Robyn's bmom did not make her own
decision?IF she said that it was the best decision that she could have made at thattime, it does not mean that she is brainwashed, nor does it mean that she had
no power in making her decision.Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.......What does Robyn's mother have to do withthis discussion? Go back to sleep. I believe it was Robyn that wrote, "My bmom wrote me that she was *forced*
to see me at > Crittenton She didn't want to see me. Nobody there could
apparently > believe that she didn't want to see me. Am I to not believe her?
By your > thinking, nobody should believe anything anybody says." To which you replied: Your mother's letter was a first hand account. Robyn is second hand interpretation. That's said, the comments of a mother stating that it was the best decision she could make is self brainwashing, an anasthetic she uses to convince herself that she did the right thing in order to avoid/reduce confronting the full blown pain of loss. What was that you were saying about me being asleep, Di? You were not only speaking for Robyn's SIL's experience, saying her choice
was wrong for her, but were also speaking about Robyn's bmom that was
*forced* to view her daughter before she signed the papers at Crittenton. Do you
advocate women being FORCED to view their child, Di?


Why yes in fact she does. She said *not seeing* the child should not be an
option offered to pbmothers.

If so, you are no better than those that kept children away from their mothers against their will.



Exactly but she *justifies* it because she has "experienced" it and was
harmed by it and therefore all bmothers will be harmed by it.

Kathy 1

In article <bvb8u5$q1p4b$1@ID-203097.news.uni-berlin.de>, kat says..."Jackie" <forgetit@me.com> wrote in messagenews:tp2i10l8dp4pqmgaqhrd6ffrvcrhu5l3s4@4ax .com...
snip Yes I am sure this will be the new way of it.. Why try and understand something when you don't have to..Understanding and wanting to deal with it are two very different things.One can do both simultaneously.

This reminds me of my frustration with Jackie prior to my opening up
communication with my bmom again. She kept going on and on about how I should
understand what my bmom went through, ad nauseum. Now granted my situation did
have a happy ending, but what if it didn't? What would my "understanding" have
gotten me? Not much.

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

"Robibnikoff" <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:WWaSb.1214$_4.162@www.newsranger.com... In article <bvb8u5$q1p4b$1@ID-203097.news.uni-berlin.de>, kat says..."Jackie" <forgetit@me.com> wrote in messagenews:tp2i10l8dp4pqmgaqhrd6ffrvcrhu5l3s4@4ax .com... snip Yes I am sure this will be the new way of it.. Why try and understand something when you don't have to..Understanding and wanting to deal with it are two very different things.One can do both simultaneously.

Ooops that should read *not* wanting to deal with it :)

This reminds me of my frustration with Jackie prior to my opening up communication with my bmom again. She kept going on and on about how I
should understand what my bmom went through, ad nauseum. Now granted my
situation did have a happy ending, but what if it didn't? What would my "understanding"
have gotten me? Not much.

Exactly. For some reason Jackie seems to think that "understanding" is all
it takes. It's the magic pill that cures all ills.


Kathy 1

>Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: "Marley Greiner" maddogmarley@worldnet.att.netDate: 1/29/04 8:32 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <XAaSb.32391$6O4.878067@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>"KL" <klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell> wrote in messagenews:20040129111239.01632.00000386@mb-m03.aol.com... In article <VO%Rb.30564$6O4.817109@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,"Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> writes: >> >> KL> >> >No doubt, KL, but that description fits everybody I know. Do youactually> >konw one happy person? I don't.>> Well, yes, I do know at least one happy person. Mayhap even a few.>> KL>> >Marley> >>> >> >And> >> >the same may be asked of adopted persons who are convinced theirnmothers> >> >are perfectly miserable or perfectly happy. The bottom line is ifyou're> >> >not gonna keep it, then don't have it.> >> >> >> >MarleyAre they rich Republicans?Marley No, I don't think they necessarily are. Of course, I tend to avoid anymention of politics. I know my parents are. And it makes for rough times, sinceI am not. KLMy mother actually said, "Spiro Agnew speaks for me."Marley

Spiro Agnew, now there's a character from the past.




Diane Welfare, "she describes the US market as a "$US1.4 billion business in
baby trafficking". ~~121603
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336884771.html

"Robibnikoff" <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:lSaSb.1213$_4.190@www.newsranger.com... In article <20040129103740.28383.00001099@mb-m01.aol.com>, Kathy says...Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 1/29/04 2:05 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0401290205.67b86c9@posting.google.com>(snip)So you pretend the child doesn't exist.I never pretended my child didn't exist and I do not know of any other
motherthat pretended either. Neither did my SIL.It's how adoption works.>If you say so. (giggle) Oy ;) Robyn Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster #1557

I wonder why when Di adds 2+2 it equals 5? Just because some mothers who
didn't see their child pretended it didn't exist it doesn't mean that *all*
bmothers that don't see their child do. Yet she *tries* to say she doesn't
speak for *all *bmothers but so many of her posts prove otherwise.

Kathy 1

In article <bvbefb$qbe7k$1@ID-203097.news.uni-berlin.de>, kat says..."Robibnikoff" <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in messagenews:WWaSb.1214$_4.162@www.newsranger.com.. . In article <bvb8u5$q1p4b$1@ID-203097.news.uni-berlin.de>, kat says..."Jackie" <forgetit@me.com> wrote in messagenews:tp2i10l8dp4pqmgaqhrd6ffrvcrhu5l3s4@4ax .com... snip>> Yes I am sure this will be the new way of it..>> Why try and understand something when you don't have to..Understanding and wanting to deal with it are two very different things.One can do both simultaneously.Ooops that should read *not* wanting to deal with it :) This reminds me of my frustration with Jackie prior to my opening up communication with my bmom again. She kept going on and on about how Ishould understand what my bmom went through, ad nauseum. Now granted mysituation did have a happy ending, but what if it didn't? What would my "understanding"have gotten me? Not much.Exactly. For some reason Jackie seems to think that "understanding" is allit takes. It's the magic pill that cures all ills.

Indeed. Understanding what the bmom went through does not provide an adoptee
with the name of their birthfather, information about their other bfamily
members, ancestry or family history.

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

>Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: Robibnikoff nospam@newsranger.comDate: 1/29/04 8:51 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <lSaSb.1213$_4.190@www.newsranger.com>In article <20040129103740.28383.00001099@mb-m01.aol.com>, Kathy says...Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 1/29/04 2:05 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0401290205.67b86c9@posting.google.com>(snip)So you pretend the child doesn't exist.I never pretended my child didn't exist and I do not know of any othermotherthat pretended either.Neither did my SIL.It's how adoption works.>If you say so. (giggle)Oy ;)Robyn

If I only had a way to get this old sock in a certain birthmother's pie hole.
:P~~~












Diane Welfare, "she describes the US market as a "$US1.4 billion business in
baby trafficking". ~~121603
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336884771.html

adoptadad@aol.com (AdoptaDad) wrote in message news:<20040129103537.22756.00000942@mb-m18.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 1/28/2004 11:23 PM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0401282023.15ed2efb@posting.google.com> < snip > If she can't cope with seeing her baby before relinquishing itm then she is not in a fit state to make the decision to give it up.Di So, she's de facto "incompetent" if she makes the decision not to see her child, but magically regains her competence when it comes to the much bigger decision of whether to relinquish her child or not. Wow.. that's pretty nifty.


Yup.
Nimble.
That's our Di for you ;-)


Rh. Dad

adoptadad@aol.com (AdoptaDad) wrote in message news:<20040129092327.22756.00000939@mb-m18.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose)Date: 1/29/2004 6:34 AM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <e5619372.0401290334.522c59c3@posting.google.com>patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote True feminism is about individual and informed choice. Whatever that choice may be. It's not about swapping one oppressor for another. DiI completely agree with that statement: Individual and informedchoice. Whatever that choice may be. But if she makes the choice not to see her child, she should be declared incompetent and therefore it should be unlawful for her to make that decision for herself. Yeah, that's the ticket.


You got it, Dad.
Foxy, eh?


Rh. Dad

Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote
rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote:A child who is not seen is an abstraction, unlike a physically presentbaby. I doubt very much that a mother would pretend the baby doesn'texist. But, as Jackie pointed out, it may not become concrete for her.To my mind, if that's what she wants, she should have that right.As she should have the right to see and hold and feed her child, ifshe wants to do any or all of those things. Does she have the right to refuse contact twenty or thirty years down the road?

Yes; I think everyone has the right to refuse contact with anyone, in
their personal capacity, once they're all adults.
Does she have the right to control the meeting of the siblings?

No, if they're adults.
Does she have the right to control like she was controlled?

Well, what I'm proposing is that she should *not* be controlled, that
she should be the one making the decisions.
I have no doubt that the vast majority of mothers who refuse contact are still living out the same level of unreality that was imposed on them at the time of the adoption. How can they not when the baby never became a real person?Hmm. I wonder if the vast majority of mothers who refuse contact neversaw their babies. From the ones I have corresponded with.. I believe that they stayed with the secret keeping.. Out of site out of mind.. Pretend all is well and all things are well..

Perhaps so. But does it correlate with not having seen the baby?

Rupa

Di writes:
Unlilke you, I don't happen to hate natural families who havecommitted no crime and don't believe they OR their children should bepunished by being permanently separated from each other merely for thesake of the adopters happiness. The way you believe natural familiesare incedental and deserve to be the losers even when offences arecommitted upon them, you must absolutely despise yourself, Kathy. Youcan't even identify with the loss of the natural families in thisterrible situation, let alone the loss felt by the child in beingwrongfully adopted. Anyone could be forgiven for assuming you're anadoptive parent.Di


Di, get real. Sometimes you are so far over the top I find it hard to listen.
Do you really think anyone here "hates natural families"? What you fail to take
into account is that a child is not likely to mourn biological relatives if he
or she cannot recall them. I am not saying there would be no trauma, recalled
or not, if a child were illegally or wrongfully snatched from his or her
biological family. But, you seem to believe a second "snatching", one at an age
of full memory, would right an earlier wrong. You cannot possibly be so obtuse
as to believe a child would never suffer being ripped from an adoptive home
regardless of the circumstances that led to the adoption. If people
participate in an illegal adoption you have to understand they still might be
capable of providing a loving home for the children involved and that the
children, no matter what they eventually learn or when they learn it, might be
devastated to be removed. This is what authorities and those who genuinely
care about the welfare *of the child* take into consideration.



P2P

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 08:27:44 -0500, Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote:
On 29 Jan 2004 03:31:14 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose)wrote:patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote The idea of seeing the baby is to face the reality of what you are about to do, not to pretend the baby doesn't exist in order to pretend no loss occurred. Which was precisely why the practice was inroduced in the first place.Right. And some people would consider that forcing a mother to see thechild she will relinquish is rubbing her nose in it.A child who is not seen is an abstraction, unlike a physically presentbaby. I doubt very much that a mother would pretend the baby doesn'texist. But, as Jackie pointed out, it may not become concrete for her.To my mind, if that's what she wants, she should have that right.As she should have the right to see and hold and feed her child, ifshe wants to do any or all of those things.Does she have the right to refuse contact twenty or thirty years downthe road?

Absolutely. Then, or at any other time.
Does she have the right to control the meeting of the siblings?

No, she doesn't have the right to control contact between any other
adults.

Julia

lfortney@dc.umd.edu (Linda Fortney) wrote in message news:<bvban9$pp@holmes.umd.edu>... In article <BC3EB9B1.312B5%karakoram@postadoption.info>, Robin <karakoram@postadoption.info> wrote:Actually Jackie, if an adopted person needs to contact siblings, but thebirthmother hasn't got her stuff together having been given ample time to doso, then that is not the adopted person's problem. Standing, clapping and cheering, Robin. I predict however, this response will elicit another long string of Jackie posts going over the ground that has been frequently covered. Jackie has this bizarre argument style--


if you keep on repeating people will agree with you. Linda

You mean like the perpetual old "adoption is in the best interest of
the child" routine?

Di

"kat" <katlat24@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<bvbak5$qomb9$1@ID-203097.news.uni-berlin.de>... "Jackie" <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message news:lv0i10lulrbchob22lfkqdaf2g1krqkq00@4ax.com... On 28 Jan 2004 13:35:09 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote:Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote> rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote:>> >I'm all for the person in question> >making the decision for herself.>> What about a fifteen year old?> Where are the guides? Where is the councilor?> Is she told its best to see the baby? Does anyone listen to the> wisdom of women who have bene living this for a long time?>But do you *know* that it's always best for everyone to see theirbabies? You didn't see yours when you wanted to, and you have deepregrets. But for another person, seeing the child and thenrelinquishing might make an already painful situation much worse. One of the healthiest thing I did when I was finally grieving the loss of my child was to do a meditation.. I imagined my son as an infant.. I imagined myself holding him.. I imagined myself giving him up.. And I felt the pain.. Also I visited friends in a hospital who were new parents.. They allowed me to hold the baby.. The baby that was hours old.. I said to that baby.. Welcome to the world.. I am glad your a boy.. I said the words I wish I could have said to my son.. Wow. I never would have thought of that but I can see how that might be helpful. Did your therapist suggest that? Finally I started acknowledging my pain.. I no longer stuffed it.. I cried all the way home from that hospital visit.. My hubby holding my hand.. It was a cleansing thing..People are different. And I think they should make their owndecisions. They might be right or wrong, but no one else is likely tobe *more* right. I would not force anyone to do anything.. All I can do is share what I know..Your advice, as someone who has lived with the pain of relinquishing ababy without having seen him, is always to look, and I respect that.But you can't know what the alternative is. Would it have been betterhad you see him? How can you know? Maybe I would have felt some pain.. I know I would have had an image when I thought of him.. Something concrete to hang on to.. Maybe the depression would not have been so bad.. The child is gone either way. How could the depression *not* be as bad? That just doesn't make any sense. You would have to consider a motherwho had done both, relinquished one child after seeing him, andanother without seeing him. Even then, external circumstances couldconfuse the issue. Its an unnatural act.. A baby has not died.. A baby is gone and is supposed to be just fine.. How does one start the grieving process when there is nothing to trigger.. Nothing to get the ball rolling. People do it all the time. I don't know why you can't fathom that.
What people and in what context?

Di Kathy 1

In article <c599139c.0401291351.27be32a1@posting.google.com>,
Dian <patrice68@bigpond.com.au> wrote:
You mean like the perpetual old "adoption is in the best interest ofthe child" routine?Di

Di, I am very familiar with your world view as regards adoption, and
your deeply held faith in the primal wound nonsense etc., but none of your
arguments have convinced me. Yes, sometimes adoption IS in the best
interests of the child.

Linda

PS Here's another arrow for your quiver--go google Tim Sheridan's posts
on "relatedness deprivation." It's yet another wacked out theory on the
"inevitable" damage adoption does to children.

Is adoption ideal? Hell no. Is it sometimes necessary, yes.

In article <c599139c.0401280133.4fc16861@posting.google.com>,
Dian <patrice68@bigpond.com.au> wrote:Quite the contrary, IMO. There is nothing autonomous or empoweredabout a woman who was not warned against something that has the knownpotential to cause her lifelong harm and who subsequently lives withthe consequences of an uninformed choice. If anything it makes her avictim of ignorance.

And ideally, all potential birth mothers would get adaquate counseling.

But here we go again with the portrayl of birthmother as helpless.
Whenever I made a life altering decision, I always took the trouble to
inform myself of possible consequences. I even did this when I was quite
young, and I certainly don't consider myself in any way exceptional.

Linda

In article <bvc0fg$r51@marlowe.umd.edu>, Linda Fortney says...In article <c599139c.0401280133.4fc16861@posting.google.com>,Dian <patrice68@bigpond.com.au> wrote:Quite the contrary, IMO. There is nothing autonomous or empoweredabout a woman who was not warned against something that has the knownpotential to cause her lifelong harm and who subsequently lives withthe consequences of an uninformed choice. If anything it makes her avictim of ignorance.And ideally, all potential birth mothers would get adaquate counseling.

Interesting. I'd love to ask my bmom this question, but I think we need to get
a bit closer.But here we go again with the portrayl of birthmother as helpless.Whenever I made a life altering decision, I always took the trouble toinform myself of possible consequences. I even did this when I was quiteyoung, and I certainly don't consider myself in any way exceptional.

If you don't mind my asking, how young were you when you relinquished? My bmom
was 18, 17 when she got pregnant.

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

lfortney@dc.umd.edu (Linda Fortney) wrote in message news:<bvbc90$15a@holmes.umd.edu>... In article <dafc70.0401261911.62d96451@posting.google.com>, Rhiannon <sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca> wrote:I take this at face value, especially as my friend S told me thevery same thing with regard to her relinquishment experience. RH, what's wrong with you? Jackie has the single only unique but universal relinquishment and reunion scenario. Any other relinquishment experiences are simply not valid if they contradict Jackie. I hope you have it straight now, Rh.



I'm suitably chastened.



Rh. Linda PS Di is allowed to have an experience that differs in minor points from Jackie's, but it is hard to tell since Jackie changes her story so often so she can be the most victimized person in the universe.

>Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: Jackie forgetit@me.comDate: 1/29/2004 6:24 AM Central
Don't feel bad, I did that on a trip to Colorado where I knew my siblinglived,someone I have never met and probably never will.But she sent you a card on your birthday.. Correct?

My birth mom sent me a card. I really think this will always be the way.
I wish your situation would change..I wish people allowed other people the right to fall from grace..

It did change when I found my birth family. That was the big hurdle in my
life...the rest I can handle. Don't you feel that way, that you weren't
looking for that ideal son, just to know who he is and he know who you was
getting over the hurdle in life? I might have my moments but nothing like
before my search and overall, my life is pretty content at this point.
Jackie

Kathy

sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote in message news:<dafc70.0401291034.445644c4@posting.google.com>... adoptadad@aol.com (AdoptaDad) wrote in message news:<20040129092327.22756.00000939@mb-m18.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose)Date: 1/29/2004 6:34 AM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <e5619372.0401290334.522c59c3@posting.google.com>patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote> True feminism is about individual and informed choice. Whatever> that choice may be. It's not about swapping one oppressor for another.>> DiI completely agree with that statement: Individual and informedchoice. Whatever that choice may be. But if she makes the choice not to see her child, she should be declared incompetent and therefore it should be unlawful for her to make that decision for herself. Yeah, that's the ticket. You got it, Dad. Foxy, eh? Rh. Dad

So you would both support your kids drug habits because, afterall,
it's their own decision, right? What groovy parents you two are.

Di

"Dian" <patrice68@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message
news:c599139c.0401291759.492f413f@posting.google.c om... sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote in message
news:<dafc70.0401291034.445644c4@posting.google.com>... adoptadad@aol.com (AdoptaDad) wrote in message
news:<20040129092327.22756.00000939@mb-m18.aol.com>... >Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' children >From: rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) >Date: 1/29/2004 6:34 AM Eastern Standard Time >Message-id: <e5619372.0401290334.522c59c3@posting.google.com> > >patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote > > >> True feminism is about individual and informed choice. Whatever >> that choice may be. It's not about swapping one oppressor for
another. >> >> Di > >I completely agree with that statement: Individual and informed >choice. Whatever that choice may be. But if she makes the choice not to see her child, she should be
declared incompetent and therefore it should be unlawful for her to make that
decision for herself. Yeah, that's the ticket. > > You got it, Dad. Foxy, eh? Rh. Dad So you would both support your kids drug habits because, afterall, it's their own decision, right? What groovy parents you two are.

What would *you* do, Di? Reject your son because he was addicted to
something? Because he was less than perfect in your eyes? Or would you do
what any loving parent would do, and support your child in whatever way you
could, so that he might find courage, and ways to change his life around?

Nothing "groovy" about it, either. Just loving.

Helen
Di

In article <c599139c.0401291759.492f413f@posting.google.com>, Dian says...sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote in message news:<dafc70.0401291034.445644c4@posting.google.com>... adoptadad@aol.com (AdoptaDad) wrote in message news:<20040129092327.22756.00000939@mb-m18.aol.com>... >Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' children >From: rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) >Date: 1/29/2004 6:34 AM Eastern Standard Time >Message-id: <e5619372.0401290334.522c59c3@posting.google.com> > >patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote > > >> True feminism is about individual and informed choice. Whatever >> that choice may be. It's not about swapping one oppressor for another. >> >> Di > >I completely agree with that statement: Individual and informed >choice. Whatever that choice may be. But if she makes the choice not to see her child, she should be declared incompetent and therefore it should be unlawful for her to make that decision for herself. Yeah, that's the ticket. > > You got it, Dad. Foxy, eh? Rh. DadSo you would both support your kids drug habits because, afterall,it's their own decision, right? What groovy parents you two are.

Um.. WTF?

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

In article <XAaSb.32391$6O4.878067@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Marley
Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> writes:
"KL" <klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell> wrote in messagenews:20040129111239.01632.00000386@mb-m03.aol.com... In article <VO%Rb.30564$6O4.817109@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,"Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> writes: >> >> KL> >> >No doubt, KL, but that description fits everybody I know. Do youactually> >konw one happy person? I don't.>> Well, yes, I do know at least one happy person. Mayhap even a few.>> KL>> >Marley> >>> >> >And> >> >the same may be asked of adopted persons who are convinced theirnmothers> >> >are perfectly miserable or perfectly happy. The bottom line is ifyou're> >> >not gonna keep it, then don't have it.> >> >> >> >MarleyAre they rich Republicans?Marley No, I don't think they necessarily are. Of course, I tend to avoid anymention of politics. I know my parents are. And it makes for rough times, sinceI am not. KLMy mother actually said, "Spiro Agnew speaks for me."Marley

I could say, "Who is Spiro Agnew?"......actually, I kinda HAVE to say that. I
was born in 1967, and still don't pay attention to politics enough to know who
is who most of the time.

KL

In article <c599139c.0401291759.492f413f@posting.google.com>,
patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) writes:
sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote in messagenews:<dafc70.0401291034.445644c4@posting.google.com>... adoptadad@aol.com (AdoptaDad) wrote in messagenews:<20040129092327.22756.00000939@mb-m18.aol.com>... >Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' children >From: rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) >Date: 1/29/2004 6:34 AM Eastern Standard Time >Message-id: <e5619372.0401290334.522c59c3@posting.google.com> > >patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote > > >> True feminism is about individual and informed choice. Whatever >> that choice may be. It's not about swapping one oppressor for another. >> >> Di > >I completely agree with that statement: Individual and informed >choice. Whatever that choice may be. But if she makes the choice not to see her child, she should bedeclared incompetent and therefore it should be unlawful for her to make thatdecision for herself. Yeah, that's the ticket. > > You got it, Dad. Foxy, eh? Rh. DadSo you would both support your kids drug habits because, afterall,it's their own decision, right? What groovy parents you two are.Di

Apple: Orange.

Not exactly the same thing Di. But you already knew that, you just wanted to
spout off again.

KL