Katlat24 writes to Marcy:
Sorry but your deflection isn't working. Stop using the very real problemsof people living on the edge to justify what you are doing for a living.>>

I am curious, too, why Marcy is holding up sensational stories of disadvantaged
women who have made messes of their lives as examples of something. I am not
sure what. Yes, there are people, including mothers and pregnant women, who
cannot manage themselves or their responsibilities. What the hell does this
prove, Marcy? What is your point?


P2P

palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message news:<20040224165446.20400.00000274@mb-m04.aol.com>... Katlat24 writes to Marcy:Sorry but your deflection isn't working. Stop using the very real problemsof people living on the edge to justify what you are doing for a living.>> I am curious, too, why Marcy is holding up sensational stories of disadvantaged women who have made messes of their lives as examples of something. I am not sure what. Yes, there are people, including mothers and pregnant women, who cannot manage themselves or their responsibilities. What the hell does this prove, Marcy? What is your point?


It seems to me that the issue is that poverty isn't just people like
us, subtract the money. Some of the time, they make bad choices. At
the same time, choices that would seem relatively unimportant in the
context of a middle-class income, are magnified by poverty.

Take the girl who cannot get food stamps because she bought cigarettes
for her boyfriend. Surely we've all had the urge to do something for
people we love; sometimes we have even been pressured by people we
love to do something for them. If you have enough money, buying a
packet of cigarettes is completely trivial. But if you have
none...perhaps you use what you do have, food stamps. And of course
that disqualifies you from getting the food stamps again.

There's a book I read a few years ago: "Round about a pound a week."
It describes the life of some working class families in England
around (IIRC) the turn of the century (the last one, not this one).
These people earned so little that they could afford only barebones
accomodation - typically one room, heated by coal in an open hearth,
with very little light and air. The nutritional levels were also poor.

The only time their status improved was when the young people struck
out on their own. Their earnings, at that time, paid for a space and
food for themselves. However, then they would marry. Soon after that,
they would have children. The income, which was barely sufficient for
one, would now be spread among several members of the family.

As each child was born, the first thing the family did was to join an
insurance plan for the child -- so that if it died, it would get a
decent burial. It was hugely important to them not to allow the child
to be buried as a pauper.

Reading this, my initial reaction was: (1) Why did the young folk
marry when they could not afford it, thus allowing their marginal
prosperity to slip right back into dire poverty? (2) Wouldn't the
money spent on the burial fund be better spent buying some nutritious
food for the child instead?

Actually, the author forestalled these objections. She pointed out
that with no way to actually increase their incomes, getting married
despite the erosion of economic welfare was the only chance these
people would get at life. It was not as though a young man or woman
could hope that in a few years they would earn more and afford more.
The other option was to never marry, nevery have a family, and slog
away all their lives at jobs that were not in themselves rewarding but
just about paid the rent and food bills.

And in the matter of the burial fund: It was a given that some
children would die, if not from malnutrition then from disease. Not
even being able to give them a proper burial seemed to the parents
like the ultimate failure to parent the child.

So -- to return to the US a hundred years later: If a poor family eats
frequently at MacD's instead of cooking their own food, it seems like
a waste of money and an investment in poor health. And yet -- what are
their options for entertainment? Their jobs are probably dull and
unrewarding. Their family lives are disrupted, the social fabric torn.
They can't afford to see movies or go to the theater or on vacations.
No one has taught them to take pleasure in hiking or reading or
bird-watching.

With lives already narrowed by a lack of resources, it seems to me not
surprising that it isn't easy to break the cycle.

So if anyone is actually trying to make a difference to these folk, it
takes a degree of flexibility that government services sometimes do
not have.

(In the UK, BTW, that particular cycle was broken with the welfare
state. Other cycles may have been substituted; I'll defer to Robin.)

Rupa

On 26 Feb 2004 16:52:01 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose)
wrote:
It seems to me that the issue is that poverty isn't just people likeus, subtract the money. Some of the time, they make bad choices. Atthe same time, choices that would seem relatively unimportant in thecontext of a middle-class income, are magnified by poverty.

And if a woman in circumstances spoken about (above) relinquishes..
What does she do when the son or daughter return wealthy?

What if they do not like her or the family because they make bad
choices?

Jackie

>Subject: Re: Such A Piece Of S..TFrom: Jackie forgetit@me.comDate: 2/27/04 10:06 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <8780405k9j78kh8o6gnis96enlfjsoroq7@4ax.com>On 26 Feb 2004 16:52:01 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose)wrote:It seems to me that the issue is that poverty isn't just people likeus, subtract the money. Some of the time, they make bad choices. Atthe same time, choices that would seem relatively unimportant in thecontext of a middle-class income, are magnified by poverty.

RupaAnd if a woman in circumstances spoken about (above) relinquishes..What does she do when the son or daughter return wealthy?

Jackie

She can go on Origins and ***** about how her relinquished kid has a bigger
house than she does (and be offended if the kid doesn't buy the pizza when
invited for dinner)? Feel bitter and angry because the relinquished kid has
had a successful life without her, while her kept kid distinguished herself by
being in a band and being "artful" by vomiting on stage (what would Freud say
about THAT parenting experience)?

Here's a twisted thought! She might feel relieved/proud that the kid who she
tossed to the winds of fate landed on his/her feet and is doing well. What an
alien concept, Jackie!!

What if they do not like her or the family because they make badchoices?

It's as big of a chance as an adoptee must face when searching. Quite a few
get the door slammed in their face before "hello". Adoptees have already been
rejected/relinquished once. Don't you think they should get a chance to run
like hell if what they find is a personal nightmare?


Jackie




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

Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message news:<8780405k9j78kh8o6gnis96enlfjsoroq7@4ax.com>... On 26 Feb 2004 16:52:01 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote:It seems to me that the issue is that poverty isn't just people likeus, subtract the money. Some of the time, they make bad choices. Atthe same time, choices that would seem relatively unimportant in thecontext of a middle-class income, are magnified by poverty. And if a woman in circumstances spoken about (above) relinquishes.. What does she do when the son or daughter return wealthy?



Do?
How's about feeling happy, and infinitely relieved?
On the other hand, maybe you mean WWJD?





Rh.



What if they do not like her or the family because they make bad choices?







Jackie

lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam (LilMtnCbn) wrote in message news:<20040228024213.20326.00000462@mb-m04.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Such A Piece Of S..TFrom: Jackie forgetit@me.comDate: 2/27/04 10:06 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <8780405k9j78kh8o6gnis96enlfjsoroq7@4ax.com>On 26 Feb 2004 16:52:01 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose)wrote:It seems to me that the issue is that poverty isn't just people likeus, subtract the money. Some of the time, they make bad choices. Atthe same time, choices that would seem relatively unimportant in thecontext of a middle-class income, are magnified by poverty. RupaAnd if a woman in circumstances spoken about (above) relinquishes..What does she do when the son or daughter return wealthy? Jackie She can go on Origins and ***** about how her relinquished kid has a bigger house than she does (and be offended if the kid doesn't buy the pizza when invited for dinner)? Feel bitter and angry because the relinquished kid has had a successful life without her, while her kept kid distinguished herself by being in a band and being "artful" by vomiting on stage (what would Freud say about THAT parenting experience)? Here's a twisted thought! She might feel relieved/proud that the kid who she tossed to the winds of fate landed on his/her feet and is doing well. What an alien concept, Jackie!!What if they do not like her or the family because they make badchoices? It's as big of a chance as an adoptee must face when searching. Quite a few get the door slammed in their face before "hello". Adoptees have already been rejected/relinquished once.

You mean you don't view adoption as the loving choice it is promoted as being?

Di



Don't you think they should get a chance to run like hell if what they find is a personal nightmare?Jackie ------------------------- A good friend will come and bail you out of jail . . . but, a true friend will be sitting next to you saying, "Damn . . . that was fun!" -----Unknown

>Subject: Re: Such A Piece Of S..TFrom: patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian)Date: 2/28/04 10:10 AM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <9a095db9.0402280710.545a7bf7@posting.google.com>

< snip >
It's as big of a chance as an adoptee must face when searching. Quite a few get the door slammed in their face before "hello". Adoptees have already beenrejected/relinquished once.You mean you don't view adoption as the loving choice itis promoted as being?

Beats growing up abused or unwanted. Do you think all parents love and want
their children, Di?

Dad

>Subject: Re: Such A Piece Of S..TFrom: patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian)Date: 2/28/04 7:10 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <9a095db9.0402280710.545a7bf7@posting.google.com>lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam (LilMtnCbn) wrote in messagenews:<20040228024213.20326.00000462@mb-m04.aol.com>...

(snip)
It's as big of a chance as an adoptee must face when searching. Quite afew get the door slammed in their face before "hello". Adoptees have alreadybeen rejected/relinquished once.
You mean you don't view adoption as the loving choice it is promoted asbeing?Di

You only wish that this is what Marla meant. I doubt you'd be able to
comprehend the differences between voluntary relinquishment and adoption.
Here's a clue for you Di...one involves loss of family for the child due to
their first parent's dire circumstances and personal choices, and the other
one involves gain of family for the child because family equals permanency.
Now can you guess which one isn't the "loving choice?" *


*Grant it, adoption is like life itself and biological parenting comes with no
written guarantees for any child. The numbers of children waiting in care in
YOUR country should be convincing enough.










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:<20040228102626.24987.00000490@mb-m26.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Such A Piece Of S..TFrom: patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian)Date: 2/28/04 10:10 AM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <9a095db9.0402280710.545a7bf7@posting.google.com> < snip > It's as big of a chance as an adoptee must face when searching. Quite a few get the door slammed in their face before "hello". Adoptees have already beenrejected/relinquished once.You mean you don't view adoption as the loving choice itis promoted as being? Beats growing up abused or unwanted. Do you think all parents love and want their children, Di?




So she says.



Rh. Dad

patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote in message news:<9a095db9.0402280710.545a7bf7@posting.google.com>... lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam (LilMtnCbn) wrote in message news:<20040228024213.20326.00000462@mb-m04.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Such A Piece Of S..TFrom: Jackie forgetit@me.comDate: 2/27/04 10:06 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <8780405k9j78kh8o6gnis96enlfjsoroq7@4ax.com>On 26 Feb 2004 16:52:01 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose)wrote:>It seems to me that the issue is that poverty isn't just people like>us, subtract the money. Some of the time, they make bad choices. At>the same time, choices that would seem relatively unimportant in the>context of a middle-class income, are magnified by poverty. RupaAnd if a woman in circumstances spoken about (above) relinquishes..What does she do when the son or daughter return wealthy? Jackie She can go on Origins and ***** about how her relinquished kid has a bigger house than she does (and be offended if the kid doesn't buy the pizza when invited for dinner)? Feel bitter and angry because the relinquished kid has had a successful life without her, while her kept kid distinguished herself by being in a band and being "artful" by vomiting on stage (what would Freud say about THAT parenting experience)? Here's a twisted thought! She might feel relieved/proud that the kid who she tossed to the winds of fate landed on his/her feet and is doing well. What an alien concept, Jackie!!What if they do not like her or the family because they make badchoices? It's as big of a chance as an adoptee must face when searching. Quite a few get the door slammed in their face before "hello". Adoptees have already been rejected/relinquished once. You mean you don't view adoption as the loving choice it is promoted as being?


That's a twisted extrapolation.





Rh.


Di Don't you think they should get a chance to run like hell if what they find is a personal nightmare?Jackie ------------------------- 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

meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in message news:<20040228111658.08803.00000629@mb-m13.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Such A Piece Of S..TFrom: patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian)Date: 2/28/04 7:10 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <9a095db9.0402280710.545a7bf7@posting.google.com>lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam (LilMtnCbn) wrote in messagenews:<20040228024213.20326.00000462@mb-m04.aol.com>... (snip) It's as big of a chance as an adoptee must face when searching. Quite a few get the door slammed in their face before "hello". Adoptees have already been rejected/relinquished once.You mean you don't view adoption as the loving choice it is promoted asbeing?Di You only wish that this is what Marla meant. I doubt you'd be able to comprehend the differences between voluntary relinquishment and adoption. Here's a clue for you Di...one involves loss of family for the child due to their first parent's dire circumstances and personal choices, and the other one involves gain of family for the child because family equals permanency. Now can you guess which one isn't the "loving choice?" *
Gee whiz Einstein, that's precisely what I meant. Tell me Kathy, as
relinquishing is not a "loving choice" why do you still promote it?

*Grant it, adoption is like life itself and biological parenting comes with no written guarantees for any child. The numbers of children waiting in care in YOUR country should be convincing enough.

You mean as opposed to your 600,000? Oh BTW, Einstein, abusive parents
whose children are taken into care don't "choose" adoption. The state
makes that decision for them. So stop equating those parents with non
abusive parents of newborns who get adoption promoted to them as a
"loving choice."

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

sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote in message news:<dafc70.0402281110.5492222f@posting.google.com>... adoptadad@aol.com (AdoptaDad) wrote in message news:<20040228102626.24987.00000490@mb-m26.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Such A Piece Of S..TFrom: patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian)Date: 2/28/04 10:10 AM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <9a095db9.0402280710.545a7bf7@posting.google.com> < snip >> It's as big of a chance as an adoptee must face when> searching. Quite a few get the door slammed in their> face before "hello". Adoptees have already been>rejected/relinquished once.You mean you don't view adoption as the loving choice itis promoted as being? Beats growing up abused or unwanted. Do you think all parents love and want their children, Di? So she says. Rh.


Liar.


Di Dad

Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message news:<8780405k9j78kh8o6gnis96enlfjsoroq7@4ax.com>... On 26 Feb 2004 16:52:01 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote:It seems to me that the issue is that poverty isn't just people likeus, subtract the money. Some of the time, they make bad choices. Atthe same time, choices that would seem relatively unimportant in thecontext of a middle-class income, are magnified by poverty. And if a woman in circumstances spoken about (above) relinquishes.. What does she do when the son or daughter return wealthy? What if they do not like her or the family because they make bad choices?

Surely the reaction must be as varied as people are?

Perhaps she'll glad that the son or daughter is wealthy. Perhaps
she'll wish she had that opportunity. Perhaps she will feel that the
person is in such a different life that they have nothing in common.
Perhaps she will feel that her b-son or b-daughter should help her.
Perhaps they will. Or perhaps they try, but can't. Perhaps she'll
resent him or her. Perhaps she will understand.

Who knows? What if her kept kids feel the same way?

Rupa

On 28 Feb 2004 07:10:14 -0800, patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian)
wrote:
It's as big of a chance as an adoptee must face when searching. Quite a few get the door slammed in their face before "hello". Adoptees have already been rejected/relinquished once.You mean you don't view adoption as the loving choice it is promoted as being?


Now now Di.. We must remember who is the boss here..


Jackie

On 28 Feb 2004 18:30:10 -0800, patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian)
wrote:

Kathy wrote.. *Grant it, adoption is like life itself and biological parenting comes with no written guarantees for any child. The numbers of children waiting in care in YOUR country should be convincing enough.You mean as opposed to your 600,000? Oh BTW, Einstein, abusive parentswhose children are taken into care don't "choose" adoption. The statemakes that decision for them. So stop equating those parents with nonabusive parents of newborns who get adoption promoted to them as a"loving choice."


Do you think the woman is smart enough to sort that? I don't.


Jackie

On 28 Feb 2004 22:17:31 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose)
wrote:
Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message news:<8780405k9j78kh8o6gnis96enlfjsoroq7@4ax.com>... On 26 Feb 2004 16:52:01 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote:It seems to me that the issue is that poverty isn't just people likeus, subtract the money. Some of the time, they make bad choices. Atthe same time, choices that would seem relatively unimportant in thecontext of a middle-class income, are magnified by poverty. And if a woman in circumstances spoken about (above) relinquishes.. What does she do when the son or daughter return wealthy? What if they do not like her or the family because they make bad choices?Surely the reaction must be as varied as people are?

Yes.
Perhaps she'll glad that the son or daughter is wealthy.

I am sure..
Perhapsshe'll wish she had that opportunity.

Absolutely..
Perhaps she will feel that theperson is in such a different life that they have nothing in common.

And perhaps she will know that she will not be able to bridge the
gap..
Perhaps she will feel that her b-son or b-daughter should help her.

Now that would kill a reunion IMO.
Perhaps they will. Or perhaps they try, but can't. Perhaps she'llresent him or her. Perhaps she will understand.Who knows? What if her kept kids feel the same way?

Two worlds colliding..

But the original thought was that the poor person makes bad choices in
life.. She buys cigarettes for the boyfriend because life sucks..



Jackie

in article 7bp340huofo2jjije706muc3oupvhv7clr@4ax.com, Jackie at
forgetit@me.com wrote on 29/2/04 1:14 pm:
On 28 Feb 2004 18:30:10 -0800, patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote: Kathy wrote.. *Grant it, adoption is like life itself and biological parenting comes with no written guarantees for any child. The numbers of children waiting in care in YOUR country should be convincing enough. You mean as opposed to your 600,000? Oh BTW, Einstein, abusive parents whose children are taken into care don't "choose" adoption. The state makes that decision for them. So stop equating those parents with non abusive parents of newborns who get adoption promoted to them as a "loving choice." Do you think the woman is smart enough to sort that? I don't. Jackie

The question is 600000 what? In full time care? Or is that the total number
of care placements including all short-term and respite care placements.

I suspect it's the latter. According to Richard B. McKenzie

http://www.gsm.uci.edu/~mckenzie/rethink/mck97-ch16.html

<quote>

The foster-care system had well over 600,000 children in care in 1992, up by
more than 50 percent since 1986. At the same time, tens of thousands of
children across the country are waiting to be placed in the foster-care
system. The percentage of children in foster care who had been in the system
for two to three years increased by almost half in just seven years, from
under 11 percent in 1983 to nearly 16 percent in 1990. The percentage of
children in foster care for three to five years rose from under 12 percent
in 1983 to almost 17 percent in 1990. All the while, the percentage of
children adopted out of foster care declined by a third, from 12 percent in
1983 to under 8 percent in 1990.5

Foster care was intended to be temporary care. However, one out of every ten
children * over 60,000 of all current foster-care children * can expect
foster care to be, in effect, permanent care, given that they will spend
more than seven years in the system. For all too many children, foster care
will also be unstable care, especially since siblings are often sent to
different foster homes. Moreover, twenty-three percent of foster-care
children will have two placements, an additional 20 percent will experience
three to five placements, and 7 percent will have more than seven
placements, which means that more than one quarter of the children who go
into the foster-care system can expect to be shifted among more than three
foster parents.6 (and many can expect to go through dozens of placements.7).

<end quote>




With 3.7 per 1000 Australian children in at least one out of home care
placement in 2001 that¹s approx 3.7 x 19000 = 70,300 the US population is
about 15 x that of Aus so for the situation in the USA to be as bad as it is
in Aus there would need to be 1,054,500 such placements

(BTW In Tasmania it's 10.4 per 1000 that's equivalent to 2,964,000 in the
US)

Of course those are all somewhat false comparisons, but nowhere near as far
fetched as those Di tries to make

Do you think the woman is smart enough to sort that? I don't.


Robin

rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote in message news:<e5619372.0402282217.7386144a@posting.google.com>... Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message news:<8780405k9j78kh8o6gnis96enlfjsoroq7@4ax.com>... On 26 Feb 2004 16:52:01 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote:It seems to me that the issue is that poverty isn't just people likeus, subtract the money. Some of the time, they make bad choices. Atthe same time, choices that would seem relatively unimportant in thecontext of a middle-class income, are magnified by poverty. And if a woman in circumstances spoken about (above) relinquishes.. What does she do when the son or daughter return wealthy? What if they do not like her or the family because they make bad choices? Surely the reaction must be as varied as people are? Perhaps she'll glad that the son or daughter is wealthy. Perhaps she'll wish she had that opportunity. Perhaps she will feel that the person is in such a different life that they have nothing in common. Perhaps she will feel that her b-son or b-daughter should help her. Perhaps they will. Or perhaps they try, but can't. Perhaps she'll resent him or her. Perhaps she will understand. Who knows? What if her kept kids feel the same way? >


And equally there must be be situations where the adoptee has had a
difficult life of one sort or another (due perhaps to adoptive family
circumstances, illnesses, divorces, reversals of fortune, or simply
being adopted by lousy people), and finds that his family (families)
of origin have enjoyed greater stability and fortune than the one in
which he or she was raised.


Rh. Rupa

patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote in message news:<9a095db9.0402281831.44fa63a7@posting.google.com>... sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote in message news:<dafc70.0402281110.5492222f@posting.google.com>... adoptadad@aol.com (AdoptaDad) wrote in message news:<20040228102626.24987.00000490@mb-m26.aol.com>... >Subject: Re: Such A Piece Of S..T >From: patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) >Date: 2/28/04 10:10 AM Eastern Standard Time >Message-id: <9a095db9.0402280710.545a7bf7@posting.google.com> < snip > >> It's as big of a chance as an adoptee must face when >> searching. Quite a few get the door slammed in their >> face before "hello". Adoptees have already been >>rejected/relinquished once. > >You mean you don't view adoption as the loving choice it >is promoted as being? Beats growing up abused or unwanted. Do you think all parents love and want their children, Di? > > So she says. Liar.


There you go again (with the namecalling)
I expect the back-up singer will be along soon.

You've certainly said that normal women under normal circumstances
want their children.
Which, of course, begs the question of what is normal behavior, and
what are normal circumstances.


Rh. Di Dad

in article dafc70.0402290721.62157d2f@posting.google.com, Rhiannon at
sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca wrote on 29/2/04 3:21 pm:
rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote in message news:<e5619372.0402282217.7386144a@posting.google.com>... Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message news:<8780405k9j78kh8o6gnis96enlfjsoroq7@4ax.com>... On 26 Feb 2004 16:52:01 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote:> It seems to me that the issue is that poverty isn't just people like> us, subtract the money. Some of the time, they make bad choices. At> the same time, choices that would seem relatively unimportant in the> context of a middle-class income, are magnified by poverty. And if a woman in circumstances spoken about (above) relinquishes.. What does she do when the son or daughter return wealthy? What if they do not like her or the family because they make bad choices? Surely the reaction must be as varied as people are? Perhaps she'll glad that the son or daughter is wealthy. Perhaps she'll wish she had that opportunity. Perhaps she will feel that the person is in such a different life that they have nothing in common. Perhaps she will feel that her b-son or b-daughter should help her. Perhaps they will. Or perhaps they try, but can't. Perhaps she'll resent him or her. Perhaps she will understand. Who knows? What if her kept kids feel the same way?>> And equally there must be be situations where the adoptee has had a difficult life of one sort or another (due perhaps to adoptive family circumstances, illnesses, divorces, reversals of fortune, or simply being adopted by lousy people), and finds that his family (families) of origin have enjoyed greater stability and fortune than the one in which he or she was raised. Rh.

It's certainly an issue where several siblings were adopted (or not as the
case may be) to families of very different fortunes. It doesn't do to be a
snob, of any kind, if you want to go in for this reunion lark.

Robin

sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote in message news:<dafc70.0402290731.a4aaa53@posting.google.com>... patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote in message news:<9a095db9.0402281831.44fa63a7@posting.google.com>... sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote in message news:<dafc70.0402281110.5492222f@posting.google.com>... adoptadad@aol.com (AdoptaDad) wrote in message news:<20040228102626.24987.00000490@mb-m26.aol.com>... > >Subject: Re: Such A Piece Of S..T > >From: patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) > >Date: 2/28/04 10:10 AM Eastern Standard Time > >Message-id: <9a095db9.0402280710.545a7bf7@posting.google.com> > > < snip > > > >> It's as big of a chance as an adoptee must face when > >> searching. Quite a few get the door slammed in their > >> face before "hello". Adoptees have already been > >>rejected/relinquished once. > > > >You mean you don't view adoption as the loving choice it > >is promoted as being? > > Beats growing up abused or unwanted. Do you think all parents love > and want their children, Di? > > > > > > > So she says. Liar. There you go again (with the namecalling)


No, not name calling. Just calling a spade a spade. Either cite where
I've ever claimed that "all parents love and want their children" or
admit that you
lied.

Di

I expect the back-up singer will be along soon. You've certainly said that normal women under normal circumstances want their children. Which, of course, begs the question of what is normal behavior, and what are normal circumstances. Rh. Di > > Dad

>Subject: Re: Such A Piece Of S..TFrom: patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian)Date: 2/28/04 6:30 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <9a095db9.0402281830.342f2627@posting.google.com>meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in messagenews:<20040228111658.08803.00000629@mb-m13.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Such A Piece Of S..TFrom: patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian)Date: 2/28/04 7:10 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <9a095db9.0402280710.545a7bf7@posting.google.com>lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam (LilMtnCbn) wrote in messagenews:<20040228024213.20326.00000462@mb-m04.aol.com>... (snip)> It's as big of a chance as an adoptee must face when searching. Quite a few> get the door slammed in their face before "hello". Adoptees havealready been> rejected/relinquished once.You mean you don't view adoption as the loving choice it is promoted asbeing?Di You only wish that this is what Marla meant. I doubt you'd be able to comprehend the differences between voluntary relinquishment and adoption. Here's a clue for you Di...one involves loss of family for the child due to their first parent's dire circumstances and personal choices, and theother one involves gain of family for the child because family equals permanency. Now can you guess which one isn't the "loving choice?" *Gee whiz Einstein, that's precisely what I meant.

It's not what you meant and you know it.

Marla was talking about rejection and relinquishment which is a reality for
some adoptees....which has nothing to do with the personal quality of one's
adoption, a fact which you are unwilling to admit.
Nobody talked about promoting or encouraging anything, but you, in the above
exchange.

As always, it's about your anti-adoption agenda, and your inability to keep
your boo-hoo babble to yourself about expectant parents' rights to make their
own decisions and judgements about their children's fates.

Tell me Kathy, asrelinquishing is not a "loving choice" why do you still promote it?

I never have promoted relinquishing. If you'd take your blinders off, you'd see
that I promote choice for all women, and their God given rights to govern their
own reproduction.

Btw, what do you promote for all women other than your demands that they see it
only YOUR way OR the highway?

I know, I know, you ridicule and scorn any woman that doesn't march to mother
Di's universal anthem that all women make wonderful, loving, and caring
mothers.
*Grant it, adoption is like life itself and biological parenting comes withno written guarantees for any child. The numbers of children waiting in carein YOUR country should be convincing enough.
You mean as opposed to your 600,000?

There are not 600,000 children in MY country that need permanent homes. Were
you thinking about the number of children in our foster care system? To the
best of my knowledge, there are 125,000 or there abouts legally free available
children waiting for homes because their 'loving' mommies and daddies made
some pretty poor choices for their children's benefits.

So let's get back to YOUR country. How many waiting, legally free and available
children for adoption need homes?

Do you know? Do you EVEN care?
Oh BTW, Einstein, abusive parentswhose children are taken into care don't "choose" adoption. The statemakes that decision for them.

Well, no duh. They don't follow their case plans, their children suffer, and
they get their rights severed. What's so difficult to understand about that?

The state making the decision doesn't make it any LESS a picnic for a child
whose first parents for whatever reason will not, cannot, parent their
children.
So stop equating those parents with nonabusive parents of newborns who get adoption promoted to them as a"loving choice."

Stop putting words in my mouth, and twisting around what I wrote. I never
equated THOSE kind of parents with NON ABUSIVE parents of newborns, but the
figures don't lie that THOSE kind of parents were once parents of newborns too.

Like it or not, the fact remains, not ALL parents of NEWBORNS are loving,
ready, able to parent their babies. A fact that seemingly eludes you, Di.

The numbers of children waiting for homes in foster care should convince you of
the realities that the choice of newborn adoption is a viable and loving option
for THOSE kinds of parents...And too bad for you that you are unwilling to
admit because of your own sick ego/sad experience with being a birthmother,
that children deserve that their parents make better choices for them.
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

>Subject: Re: Such A Piece Of S..TFrom: patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian)Date: 2/28/04 6:31 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <9a095db9.0402281831.44fa63a7@posting.google.com>sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote in messagenews:<dafc70.0402281110.5492222f@posting.google.com>... adoptadad@aol.com (AdoptaDad) wrote in messagenews:<20040228102626.24987.00000490@mb-m26.aol.com>... >Subject: Re: Such A Piece Of S..T >From: patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) >Date: 2/28/04 10:10 AM Eastern Standard Time >Message-id: <9a095db9.0402280710.545a7bf7@posting.google.com> < snip > >> It's as big of a chance as an adoptee must face when >> searching. Quite a few get the door slammed in their >> face before "hello". Adoptees have already been >>rejected/relinquished once. > >You mean you don't view adoption as the loving choice it >is promoted as being? Beats growing up abused or unwanted. Do you think all parents love and want their children, Di? > > So she says. Rh.Liar.

Your irony.

How do you figure sara is lieing, Di? You have made ALL parents of newborns out
to be saints. Wasn't it YOU that scolded me, (no less than a minute before this
one to sara), that ' I SHOULD '

" stop equating those parents with non
abusive parents of newborns who get adoption promoted to them as a
"loving choice."

Explain that one...Ooooo my dear,... you can't.**


**
I am ever so happy to call you on your double drivel you try to pass off as
thoughtful discussion on this ng., Di.............. <giggles>

Di Dad




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: Such A Piece Of S..TFrom: Jackie forgetit@me.comDate: 2/29/04 5:14 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <7bp340huofo2jjije706muc3oupvhv7clr@4ax.com>On 28 Feb 2004 18:30:10 -0800, patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian)wrote:Kathy wrote.. *Grant it, adoption is like life itself and biological parenting comeswith no written guarantees for any child. The numbers of children waiting in carein YOUR country should be convincing enough.You mean as opposed to your 600,000? Oh BTW, Einstein, abusive parentswhose children are taken into care don't "choose" adoption. The statemakes that decision for them. So stop equating those parents with nonabusive parents of newborns who get adoption promoted to them as a"loving choice."Do you think the woman is smart enough to sort that? I don't.Jackie

Oh dear.

LMAOPIMP!

So what 'should' that woman do, 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

patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote in message news:<9a095db9.0402291052.27c15ed6@posting.google.com>... sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote in message news:<dafc70.0402290731.a4aaa53@posting.google.com>... patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote in message news:<9a095db9.0402281831.44fa63a7@posting.google.com>... sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote in message news:<dafc70.0402281110.5492222f@posting.google.com>... > adoptadad@aol.com (AdoptaDad) wrote in message news:<20040228102626.24987.00000490@mb-m26.aol.com>... > > >Subject: Re: Such A Piece Of S..T > > >From: patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) > > >Date: 2/28/04 10:10 AM Eastern Standard Time > > >Message-id: <9a095db9.0402280710.545a7bf7@posting.google.com> > > > > < snip > > > > > >> It's as big of a chance as an adoptee must face when > > >> searching. Quite a few get the door slammed in their > > >> face before "hello". Adoptees have already been > > >>rejected/relinquished once. > > > > > >You mean you don't view adoption as the loving choice it > > >is promoted as being? > > > > Beats growing up abused or unwanted. Do you think all parents love > > and want their children, Di? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So she says. > > Liar. > > There you go again (with the namecalling) No, not name calling. Just calling a spade a spade. Either cite where I've ever claimed that "all parents love and want their children" or admit that you lied.


You're avoiding the issue, which I have elaborated on below..
You've said (on Origins) that mothers (specifically) want their
children unless they're mentally ill, or their heads have been messed
with.
And, no, I can't cite, because I don't print out stuff with an eye to
using it in the future (and you should know that)
It is you who have a hard time facing the truth. In fact, IMO, you
expend much of your energy avoiding it.
I expect the back-up singer will be along soon. You've certainly said that normal women under normal circumstances want their children. Which, of course, begs the question of what is normal behavior, and what are normal circumstances. Rh. Di > > > > Dad

Robin <karakoram@postadoption.info> wrote in message news:<BC67B952.36051%karakoram@postadoption.info>... And equally there must be be situations where the adoptee has had a difficult life of one sort or another (due perhaps to adoptive family circumstances, illnesses, divorces, reversals of fortune, or simply being adopted by lousy people), and finds that his family (families) of origin have enjoyed greater stability and fortune than the one in which he or she was raised. It's certainly an issue where several siblings were adopted (or not as the case may be) to families of very different fortunes. It doesn't do to be a snob, of any kind, if you want to go in for this reunion lark.


As you say, even more so where there are several sibs.
One thing Jackie's surely right about, and maybe it is what she meant
(though the way she expressed it was seriously dubious), is that
reunion itself can open up rifts (resentment, envy, insecurities)
beyond the obvious ones caused by adoption.

It doesn't do to be a snob, of any kind, if you want to go in for this reunion lark.


Right.
And it doesn't do to have an envious or resentful nature either !!!




Rh.





Robin

>Subject: Re: Such A Piece Of S..TFrom: sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)Date: 2/29/04 3:21 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <dafc70.0402291521.756499f@posting.google.com>patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote in messagenews:<9a095db9.0402291052.27c15ed6@posting.google.com>... sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote in messagenews:<dafc70.0402290731.a4aaa53@posting.google.com>... patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote in messagenews:<9a095db9.0402281831.44fa63a7@posting.google.com>... > sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote in messagenews:<dafc70.0402281110.5492222f@posting.google.com>... > > adoptadad@aol.com (AdoptaDad) wrote in messagenews:<20040228102626.24987.00000490@mb-m26.aol.com>... > > > >Subject: Re: Such A Piece Of S..T > > > >From: patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) > > > >Date: 2/28/04 10:10 AM Eastern Standard Time > > > >Message-id: <9a095db9.0402280710.545a7bf7@posting.google.com> > > > > > > < snip > > > > > > > >> It's as big of a chance as an adoptee must face when > > > >> searching. Quite a few get the door slammed in their > > > >> face before "hello". Adoptees have already been > > > >>rejected/relinquished once. > > > > > > > >You mean you don't view adoption as the loving choice it > > > >is promoted as being? > > > > > > Beats growing up abused or unwanted. Do you think all parentslove > > > and want their children, Di? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So she says. > > > > > > > Liar. > > > > > > > There you go again (with the namecalling) No, not name calling. Just calling a spade a spade. Either cite where I've ever claimed that "all parents love and want their children" or admit that you lied.You're avoiding the issue, which I have elaborated on below..
You've said (on Origins) that mothers (specifically) want theirchildren unless they're mentally ill, or their heads have been messedwith.

And, no, I can't cite, because I don't print out stuff with an eye tousing it in the future (and you should know that)
It is you who have a hard time facing the truth. In fact, IMO, youexpend much of your energy avoiding it.

Precisely to the point.

Thanks for saying it to Di, (her avoidance of the truth), so much more
eloquently than I would have, Rh. :-)






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

Re: Such A Piece Of S..T

Group: alt.adoption Date: Sun, Feb 29, 2004, 8:34pm (MST+7) From:
meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy)
Subject: Re: Such A Piece Of S..T
From: Jackie forgetit@me.com
Date: 2/29/04 5:14 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <7bp340huofo2jjije706muc3oupvhv7clr@4ax.com>
On 28 Feb 2004 18:30:10 -0800, patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote:
Kathy wrote..
*Grant it, adoption is like life itself and biological parenting comes
with no written guarantees for any child. The numbers of children
waiting in care in YOUR country should be convincing enough.
You mean as opposed to your 600,000? Oh BTW, Einstein, abusive parents
whose children are taken into care don't "choose" adoption. The state
makes that decision for them. So stop equating those parents with non
abusive parents of newborns who get adoption promoted to them as a
"loving choice."



Do you think the woman is smart enough to sort that? I don't.
Jackie


Oh dear.
LMAOPIMP!
So what 'should' that woman do, 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


Change her pants and sit ON the toilet?
WF

in article dafc70.0402291544.4c9bdb3e@posting.google.com, Rhiannon at
sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca wrote on 29/2/04 11:44 pm:
Robin <karakoram@postadoption.info> wrote in message news:<BC67B952.36051%karakoram@postadoption.info>...> And equally there must be be situations where the adoptee has had a difficult life of one sort or another (due perhaps to adoptive family circumstances, illnesses, divorces, reversals of fortune, or simply being adopted by lousy people), and finds that his family (families) of origin have enjoyed greater stability and fortune than the one in which he or she was raised. It's certainly an issue where several siblings were adopted (or not as the case may be) to families of very different fortunes. It doesn't do to be a snob, of any kind, if you want to go in for this reunion lark.


As you say, even more so where there are several sibs. One thing Jackie's surely right about, and maybe it is what she meant (though the way she expressed it was seriously dubious),


But isn't it always dubious? I doubt it's what she meant, Jackie's never
seemed too keen on viewing the wider picture as far as separated siblings
go, from what I've seen here.

is that reunion itself can open up rifts (resentment, envy, insecurities) beyond the obvious ones caused by adoption.


Seems so for some, maybe there should be a test of maturity, before reunion
is allowed for birth mothers just as much if not more so than adoptees.

It doesn't do to be a snob, of any kind, if you want to go in for this reunion lark.

Right. And it doesn't do to have an envious or resentful nature either !!!


Indeed not, although I'm against it in principle, I sometimes wonder if
compulsory counselling for those contemplating reunion may not be a good
thing.


Dydd Gwyl Dewi hapus


Robin
(Rhobyn ab Dafydd)

On 29 Feb 2004 19:57:16 GMT, meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote:
The numbers of children waiting for homes in foster care should convince you ofthe realities that the choice of newborn adoption is a viable and loving optionfor THOSE kinds of parents...

Those kind of parents?
And too bad for you that you are unwilling toadmit because of your own sick ego/sad experience with being a birthmother,that children deserve that their parents make better choices for them.

Wow..


Jackie

In article <8780405k9j78kh8o6gnis96enlfjsoroq7@4ax.com>, Jackie says...On 26 Feb 2004 16:52:01 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose)wrote:It seems to me that the issue is that poverty isn't just people likeus, subtract the money. Some of the time, they make bad choices. Atthe same time, choices that would seem relatively unimportant in thecontext of a middle-class income, are magnified by poverty.And if a woman in circumstances spoken about (above) relinquishes..What does she do when the son or daughter return wealthy?

Um... say "hello"?
What if they do not like her or the family because they make badchoices?

Then they're f'ing snobs and not worth knowing. I grew up in a wealthier
household than my bmom and got to travel extrensively. I would certainly hope
that my bmom wouldn't be so shallow as to hold that against me.

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote in message news:<dafc70.0402291521.756499f@posting.google.com>... patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote in message news:<9a095db9.0402291052.27c15ed6@posting.google.com>... > > Beats growing up abused or unwanted. Do you think all
parents love > > > and want their children, Di? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So she says. > > > > > > > Liar. > > > > > > > There you go again (with the namecalling) No, not name calling. Just calling a spade a spade. Either cite where I've ever claimed that "all parents love and want their children" or admit that you lied. You're avoiding the issue, which I have elaborated on below..

I'm not avoiding the issue at all.
You've said (on Origins) that mothers (specifically) want their children unless they're mentally ill, or their heads have been messed with.

And your point is?

Of course there would be parents who are incapable of loving their
child and who don't want to parent. And yes it is unnatural not to
feel anything for a child you've given birth to unless other forces
are at play. We are mammals,
afterall. So what percentage of nmothers who relinquiish would you say
constitute mothers felt nothing for their child - 1%?, 10%?, 50%?,
100%?

Do you believe that most parents who abuse or neglect their children
do so because they don't love or want their child as Dad assumes is
the case, and if so why don't they all just leave the kids in care and
be done with them, instead of fighting through the courts for their
return as the majority of them do? Why don't they just sign over their
kids for adoption instead of the Court having to go to the bother of
dispensing with their parental rights years after the children have
been removed?

Or is it that you need to believe that the vast number of parents who
relinquish or lose their children due to bad parenting simply didn't
want their child anyway? If that's the case, what's all this crap
about adoption being a loving decision if they didn't want their
children in the first place?
And, no, I can't cite, because I don't print out stuff with an eye to using it in the future (and you should know that) It is you who have a hard time facing the truth. In fact, IMO, you expend much of your energy avoiding it.

I avoid nothing. You seem to need to dehumanise nparents as being
incapable of loving and wanting their own children. Whereas I believe
they would be in the minority, that it is circumstances that are the
deciding factor.

Di

I expect the back-up singer will be along soon. You've certainly said that normal women under normal circumstances want their children. Which, of course, begs the question of what is normal behavior, and what are normal circumstances. Rh. > > > Di > > > > > > Dad

>No, not name calling. Just calling a spade a spade. Either cite whereI've ever claimed that "all parents love and want their children" oradmit that youlied.Di

You most certainly have stated, Di, that you believe *no* mother wants to
relinquish her child.


P2P

>Do you think the woman is smart enough to sort that? I don't.Jackie


Stop projecting your own limitations onto all of womankind.


P2P

Robin <karakoram@postadoption.info> wrote in message news:<BC68BB44.36164%karakoram@postadoption.info>... in article dafc70.0402291544.4c9bdb3e@posting.google.com, Rhiannon at sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca wrote on 29/2/04 11:44 pm: Robin <karakoram@postadoption.info> wrote in message news:<BC67B952.36051%karakoram@postadoption.info>...>>>> And equally there must be be situations where the adoptee has had a> difficult life of one sort or another (due perhaps to adoptive family> circumstances, illnesses, divorces, reversals of fortune, or simply> being adopted by lousy people), and finds that his family (families)> of origin have enjoyed greater stability and fortune than the one in> which he or she was raised.>> It's certainly an issue where several siblings were adopted (or not as the case may be) to families of very different fortunes. It doesn't do to be a snob, of any kind, if you want to go in for this reunion lark. As you say, even more so where there are several sibs. One thing Jackie's surely right about, and maybe it is what she meant (though the way she expressed it was seriously dubious), But isn't it always dubious? I doubt it's what she meant, Jackie's never seemed too keen on viewing the wider picture as far as separated siblings go, from what I've seen here. is that reunion itself can open up rifts (resentment, envy, insecurities) beyond the obvious ones caused by adoption. Seems so for some, maybe there should be a test of maturity, before reunion is allowed for birth mothers just as much if not more so than adoptees.


Like a litmus?
If only!


It doesn't do to be a snob, of any kind, if you want to go in for this reunion lark. Right. And it doesn't do to have an envious or resentful nature either !!! Indeed not, although I'm against it in principle, I sometimes wonder if compulsory counselling for those contemplating reunion may not be a good thing.


I'm against it in principle too, though I can see that it might help
avert some damage. I wouldn't have minded it myself, if good
specialized counselling had been available.

Dydd Gwyl Dewi hapus


Thanks, Robin.
Same to you.




Rh. Robin (Rhobyn ab Dafydd)

>Subject: Re: Such A Piece Of S..TFrom: patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian)Date: 3/1/2004 9:29 AM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <9a095db9.0403010629.69ab4d4d@posting.google.com>

< snip >
You've said (on Origins) that mothers (specifically) want their children unless they're mentally ill, or their heads have been messed with.And your point is?Of course there would be parents who are incapable of loving theirchild and who don't want to parent.

Since you acknowledge their existence, what would you advise those parents to
do? What do you believe is in the best interest of their children? A
childhood spent in foster care?
And yes it is unnatural not to feel anything for a child you've given birth tounless other forces are at play. We are mammals, afterall. So what percentageof nmothers who relinquiish would you say constitute mothers felt nothingfor their child - 1%?, 10%?, 50%?, 100%?

If I had to make an educated guess... 1%?
Do you believe that most parents who abuse or neglect their childrendo so because they don't love or want their child as Dad assumes isthe case,

I don't believe most parents who abuse or neglect their children do so
because they don't love or want (or "feel nothing"... your words) for their
kids. Poll the men who beat their wives, most of them will tell you they
"love" their spouse.

Dad

adoptadad@aol.com (AdoptaDad) wrote in message news:<20040301135031.02207.00000666@mb-m19.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Such A Piece Of S..TFrom: patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian)Date: 3/1/2004 9:29 AM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <9a095db9.0403010629.69ab4d4d@posting.google.com> < snip > You've said (on Origins) that mothers (specifically) want their children unless they're mentally ill, or their heads have been messed with.And your point is?Of course there would be parents who are incapable of loving theirchild and who don't want to parent. Since you acknowledge their existence, what would you advise those parents to do? What do you believe is in the best interest of their children? A childhood spent in foster care?
Of course not. As I have said on numerous occasions, but you choose to
ignore,
they deserve a safe and loving alternative home. But that does not
automatically mean adoption. In Oz the options include Permanent
Placement and
Parenting Orders. Neither of which require the alteration of a child's
identity or the legal banishment from his natural family, in return
for the security he needs in childhood.
And yes it is unnatural not to feel anything for a child you've given birth tounless other forces are at play. We are mammals, afterall. So what percentageof nmothers who relinquiish would you say constitute mothers felt nothingfor their child - 1%?, 10%?, 50%?, 100%? If I had to make an educated guess... 1%?

And that 1% is indicative of most nparents?
Do you believe that most parents who abuse or neglect their childrendo so because they don't love or want their child as Dad assumes isthe case, I don't believe most parents who abuse or neglect their children do so because they don't love or want (or "feel nothing"... your words) for their kids. Poll the men who beat their wives, most of them will tell you they "love" their spouse.

If you do believe that, why say what you said? I don't understand why
you
need to promote this perception that many parents who relinquish or
abuse do so
because their children were simply unwanted and unloved, when you do
know that is rarely the reason. I understand it even less coming from
both Lisa and Kathy.

God knows such children have enough to contend with without having
their sense of abandonment and unwantedness reinforced by such
comments. Acknowledging the capabilities of dysfunctional parents is
one thing but encouraging those children to believe they were
unwanted/unloved is something else again. It
seems cruel and must hurt, even if those children are now adults
reading these forums.

Di
Dad

patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote in message news:<9a095db9.0403010629.69ab4d4d@posting.google.com>... sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote in message news:<dafc70.0402291521.756499f@posting.google.com>... patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote in message news:<9a095db9.0402291052.27c15ed6@posting.google.com>... > > > Beats growing up abused or unwanted. Do you think all parents love > > > > and want their children, Di? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So she says. > > > > > > > > > > > > Liar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There you go again (with the namecalling) No, not name calling. Just calling a spade a spade. Either cite where I've ever claimed that "all parents love and want their children" or admit that you lied. > > You're avoiding the issue, which I have elaborated on below.. I'm not avoiding the issue at all. You've said (on Origins) that mothers (specifically) want their children unless they're mentally ill, or their heads have been messed with. And your point is?



Since you now see fit to address it below, why're you asking?
It might have been more seemly to do so in the first place, (rather
than simply screeching 'Liar!' )



.. Of course there would be parents who are incapable of loving their child and who don't want to parent. And yes it is unnatural not to feel anything for a child you've given birth to unless other forces are at play. We are mammals, afterall. So what percentage of nmothers who relinquiish would you say constitute mothers felt nothing for their child - 1%?, 10%?, 50%?, 100%?




Miniscule (closer to 1% than any of those other figures).
But the fact is that they do exist. As I've already said, it begs the
question 'What is natural?' A growing number of scientists and
psychologists are challenging the assumption that it is natural for
mothers to love and care for their children. Most, IMO, do, but it may
be just as natural for them, under certain circumstances, not to.



Do you believe that most parents who abuse or neglect their children do so because they don't love or want their child as Dad assumes is the case, and if so why don't they all just leave the kids in care and be done with them, instead of fighting through the courts for their return as the majority of them do? Why don't they just sign over their kids for adoption instead of the Court having to go to the bother of dispensing with their parental rights years after the children have been removed?



Why d'you assume that I (or Dad, for that matter) think that?
I believe most do love their children. However, all of those that
don't or who are indifferent, are not necessarily damaged, though some
might be.



Or is it that you need to believe that the vast number of parents who relinquish or lose their children due to bad parenting simply didn't want their child anyway? If that's the case, what's all this crap about adoption being a loving decision if they didn't want their children in the first place?



I've never said that adoption is 'the loving option' (Cite me if I
have!)
In fact, I think that adoption is only ever good (and even then not in
an unqualified way) for those in desperate enough straits to need it.
Of those there are few, IMO.
I suppose that makes me 'pro-adoption' by your 'If your not with us,
you're against us' standards. However, I'd consider myself to be more
anti than pro. Whatever.




And, no, I can't cite, because I don't print out stuff with an eye to using it in the future (and you should know that) It is you who have a hard time facing the truth. In fact, IMO, you expend much of your energy avoiding it. > I avoid nothing. You seem to need to dehumanise nparents as being incapable of loving and wanting their own children.



It is not *I* who accuses other relinquishing mothers of indifference
or lack of feeling (it seems that you, however, feel the need to do so
quite frequently), and I'm confident that you'll not find any instance
where I have.


Whereas I believe they would be in the minority, that it is circumstances that are the deciding factor.




I believe they'd be in the minority too, and when they are, in most
(though I would never say all) cases, it would be as a *natural*
response to circumstances.


Rh. Di > > I expect the back-up singer will be along soon. > > You've certainly said that normal women under normal circumstances > want their children. > Which, of course, begs the question of what is normal behavior, and > what are normal circumstances. > > > Rh. > > > > > > Di > > > > > > > > Dad

Robin karakoram@postadoption.infoDate: 3/1/2004 5:04 AM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <BC68BB44.36164%karakoram@postadoption.info>in article dafc70.0402291544.4c9bdb3e@posting.google.com, Rhiannon atsarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca wrote on 29/2/04 11:44 pm: Robin <karakoram@postadoption.info> wrote in message news:<BC67B952.36051%karakoram@postadoption.info>...>>>> And equally there must be be situations where the adoptee has had a> difficult life of one sort or another (due perhaps to adoptive family> circumstances, illnesses, divorces, reversals of fortune, or simply> being adopted by lousy people), and finds that his family (families)> of origin have enjoyed greater stability and fortune than the one in> which he or she was raised.>> It's certainly an issue where several siblings were adopted (or not as the case may be) to families of very different fortunes. It doesn't do to be a snob, of any kind, if you want to go in for this reunion lark. As you say, even more so where there are several sibs. One thing Jackie's surely right about, and maybe it is what she meant (though the way she expressed it was seriously dubious),But isn't it always dubious? I doubt it's what she meant, Jackie's neverseemed too keen on viewing the wider picture as far as separated siblingsgo, from what I've seen here. is that reunion itself can open up rifts (resentment, envy, insecurities) beyond the obvious ones caused by adoption.Seems so for some, maybe there should be a test of maturity, before reunionis allowed for birth mothers just as much if not more so than adoptees. It doesn't do to be a snob, of any kind, if you want to go in for this reunion lark. Right. And it doesn't do to have an envious or resentful nature either !!!Indeed not, although I'm against it in principle, I sometimes wonder ifcompulsory counselling for those contemplating reunion may not be a goodthing.Dydd Gwyl Dewi hapus

Is that Welsh?
Robin(Rhobyn ab Dafydd)


kj

sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote

<re pre-reunion counselling>> I'm against it in principle too, though I can see that it might help avert some damage. I wouldn't have minded it myself, if good specialized counselling had been available.


What I am happy about is internet. The web has made so much
information available, and as discussions are held and various stories
accumulate, it becomes at least a window into the human condition at
various turning points. Before, we all had to deal with limited
information, often from experts who honestly believed that their views
were the truth -- and of course, people being as diverse as they are,
they weren't.

I recall reading here when reunions were quite unusual. And posters on
this ng urging the person in reunion to go ahead, her counterpart
could only welcome her with open arms. Not that long ago, either -
less than 10 years.

Rupa

in article 20040301222410.25073.00000597@mb-m07.aol.com, kj at
kjs668@aol.comeek wrote on 2/3/04 3:24 am:
Robin karakoram@postadoption.info Date: 3/1/2004 5:04 AM Eastern Standard Time Message-id: <BC68BB44.36164%karakoram@postadoption.info> in article dafc70.0402291544.4c9bdb3e@posting.google.com, Rhiannon at sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca wrote on 29/2/04 11:44 pm: Robin <karakoram@postadoption.info> wrote in message news:<BC67B952.36051%karakoram@postadoption.info>...>>>>>>> And equally there must be be situations where the adoptee has had a>> difficult life of one sort or another (due perhaps to adoptive family>> circumstances, illnesses, divorces, reversals of fortune, or simply>> being adopted by lousy people), and finds that his family (families)>> of origin have enjoyed greater stability and fortune than the one in>> which he or she was raised.>>>>>> It's certainly an issue where several siblings were adopted (or not as> the case may be) to families of very different fortunes.> It doesn't do to be a snob, of any kind, if you want to go in for this> reunion> lark. As you say, even more so where there are several sibs. One thing Jackie's surely right about, and maybe it is what she meant (though the way she expressed it was seriously dubious), But isn't it always dubious? I doubt it's what she meant, Jackie's never seemed too keen on viewing the wider picture as far as separated siblings go, from what I've seen here. is that reunion itself can open up rifts (resentment, envy, insecurities) beyond the obvious ones caused by adoption. Seems so for some, maybe there should be a test of maturity, before reunion is allowed for birth mothers just as much if not more so than adoptees.> It doesn't do to be a snob, of any kind, if you want to go in for this> reunion lark. Right. And it doesn't do to have an envious or resentful nature either !!! Indeed not, although I'm against it in principle, I sometimes wonder if compulsory counselling for those contemplating reunion may not be a good thing. Dydd Gwyl Dewi hapus Is that Welsh?

Happy (St) David's day.

Our national saint's day. Traditionally celebrated on the first day of
March.

I say "our" simply because my birth mother chose to name me Gareth Dafydd
Curle (though she and/or the English registrar had some difficulty with the
spelling of Dafydd or Daffydd whichever she intended and left out the final
d and perhaps middle f, on the OBC). I do rather think she was trying to
tell me something despite the known Scottish connections on her side.

I think St David's day should now be worth celebrating now that Wales has
started for the first time in many years to distil a Penderyn Single Malt
Wisgi, along with the already established, Brecon Premium Vodka, Brecon Dry
Gin and Merlyn Welsh Cream Liqueur.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/3520409.stm

Robin

(or for those of a Welsh inclination Rhobyn)

Lean more about the government people of Wales (Cymru)
http://www.cymru.gov.uk/index.htm

>Subject: Re: Such A Piece Of S..TFrom: sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)Date: 3/1/2004 8:13 PM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <dafc70.0403011713.12b6980e@posting.google.com>patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote in messagenews:<9a095db9.0403010629.69ab4d4d@posting.google.com>... sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote in messagenews:<dafc70.0402291521.756499f@posting.google.com>...

< snip >

Di wrote: Do you believe that most parents who abuse or neglect their children do so because they don't love or want their child as Dad assumes is the case, and if so why don't they all just leave the kids in care and be done with them, instead of fighting through the courts for their return as the majority of them do? Why don't they just sign over their kids for adoption instead of the Court having to go to the bother of dispensing with their parental rights years after the children have been removed? Why d'you assume that I (or Dad, for that matter) think that?

a) Invent straw man
b) Prop straw man up
c) Knock straw man down
d) Congratulate oneself
I believe most do love their children.

If love is to be defined as a feeling, I'm sure ALL of them do. If love is
to be defined as a behavior, that's another story. I have no doubt that my
son's birthmother had feelings of love for him - she just couldn't overcome
her own family's dysfunction and drug addictions to the level required for
basic parenting.
However, all of those that don't or who are indifferent, are not necessarily
damaged,though some might be.

You know that, I know that, I wonder why Di can't seem to piece it together?

Dad

>Subject: Re: Such A Piece Of S..TFrom: patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian)Date: 3/1/04 4:23 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <9a095db9.0403011623.335f8c4e@posting.google.com>adoptadad@aol.com (AdoptaDad) wrote in messagenews:<20040301135031.02207.00000666@mb-m19.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Such A Piece Of S..TFrom: patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian)Date: 3/1/2004 9:29 AM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <9a095db9.0403010629.69ab4d4d@posting.google.com> < snip >> You've said (on Origins) that mothers (specifically) want their> children unless they're mentally ill, or their heads have been messed> with.And your point is?Of course there would be parents who are incapable of loving theirchild and who don't want to parent. Since you acknowledge their existence, what would you advise thoseparents to do? What do you believe is in the best interest of their children? A childhood spent in foster care?Of course not. As I have said on numerous occasions, but you choose toignore,they deserve a safe and loving alternative home. But that does notautomatically mean adoption. In Oz the options include PermanentPlacement andParenting Orders. Neither of which require the alteration of a child'sidentity or the legal banishment from his natural family, in returnfor the security he needs in childhood.And yes it is unnatural not to feel anything for a child you've givenbirth tounless other forces are at play. We are mammals, afterall. So whatpercentageof nmothers who relinquiish would you say constitute mothers felt nothingfor their child - 1%?, 10%?, 50%?, 100%? If I had to make an educated guess... 1%?And that 1% is indicative of most nparents?Do you believe that most parents who abuse or neglect their childrendo so because they don't love or want their child as Dad assumes isthe case, I don't believe most parents who abuse or neglect their children do so because they don't love or want (or "feel nothing"... your words) for their kids. Poll the men who beat their wives, most of them will tell you they "love" their spouse.If you do believe that, why say what you said? I don't understand whyyouneed to promote this perception that many parents who relinquish orabuse do sobecause their children were simply unwanted and unloved, when you doknow that is rarely the reason. I understand it even less coming fromboth Lisa and Kathy.

Hey lil Ms. twinkle toes, keep building those strawmen arguments.

Maybe you are projecting again or are trying to purge yourself of your own
guilt, trying to convince the reader that bmoms, such as yourself, wanted,
loved, and would have been a caring parent to her child? Is this why you need
to make the eagle scream?

Why continue to be the crusader for all nmoms, Di? Why not just speak for your
feelings about your experience with relinquishment? Why is this so hard for
you?

Nobody here has promoted the idea that all relinquishing parents would become
abusive parents. Nobody here has said that all those that relinquish do so
because they don't want or love their children. Where are you yanking this crap
from?

It is you that keeps making these absurd arguments up in your head, Di. You
have gone on record stating numerous times both here and on Origins, that all
women want their children unless they've been brainwashed, or they're mentally
incapacitated. Don't deny it. LOL, it is you,
Di, that has made cartoon characters of an entire class of people;
relinquishing mothers.

I think the reason you continue to do so, and then turn around in the same
series of posts, making it look like others have made these grossly exaggerated
statements, is because you are unwilling to see that your truth as a
relinquishing mother is not everyone else's truth.

Dare say, you'll never see a statement written by me where I have said all
mothers want their children unless they are mentally ill or have been brain
washed into thinking that they are not good enough to care for their child.
Please, who do you think that you are trying to kid, Di???

Time to accept some responsibility for what you write here; overstate, fudge,
twist, embellish, about what others on this ng. think or have written in
regards to those parents that relinquish their newborns.

Deal with your stuff, Di, and you won't have to keep making these ridiculous
arguments that are only making you look more foolish and cowardly by the day,
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

>Subject: Re: Such A Piece Of S..TFrom: Jackie forgetit@me.comDate: 3/1/04 5:03 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <p1d6409oeicds7bnra2oaj0vdj02enqhrr@4ax.com>On 29 Feb 2004 19:57:16 GMT, meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote:The numbers of children waiting for homes in foster care should convince youofthe realities that the choice of newborn adoption is a viable and lovingoptionfor THOSE kinds of parents...Those kind of parents?And too bad for you that you are unwilling toadmit because of your own sick ego/sad experience with being a birthmother,that children deserve that their parents make better choices for them.Wow..Jackie

Wow, indeed.

Yes, ma'am... *THOSE* kind of parents that use their kids to inflate their own
sick egos; those kinds of parents that treat their child as nothing more than
chattel. THOSE kinds of parents that have no business being entrusted with a
precious child. THOSE kind of dysfunctional parents that drink and drug making
their children suffer from their neglect or abuse.
THOSE kinds of parents that haven't dealt with their own crap, and think that a
child will solve their problems. I have hundreds more examples I could write
about, Jackie...but if you really want to know about THOSE kind of
parents....take a good, hard look at how many of their children are lingering
in foster care in YOUR country,.....and then, you get back to me.




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:<20040229153131.06694.00000496@mb-m05.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Such A Piece Of S..TFrom: patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian)Date: 2/28/04 6:31 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <9a095db9.0402281831.44fa63a7@posting.google.com>sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote in messagenews:<dafc70.0402281110.5492222f@posting.google.com>... adoptadad@aol.com (AdoptaDad) wrote in message news:<20040228102626.24987.00000490@mb-m26.aol.com>... > >Subject: Re: Such A Piece Of S..T > >From: patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) > >Date: 2/28/04 10:10 AM Eastern Standard Time > >Message-id: <9a095db9.0402280710.545a7bf7@posting.google.com> > > < snip > > > >> It's as big of a chance as an adoptee must face when > >> searching. Quite a few get the door slammed in their > >> face before "hello". Adoptees have already been > >>rejected/relinquished once. > > > >You mean you don't view adoption as the loving choice it > >is promoted as being? > > Beats growing up abused or unwanted. Do you think all parents love > and want their children, Di? > > > > > > > So she says. Rh.Liar. Your irony. How do you figure sara is lieing, Di? You have made ALL parents of newborns out to be saints. Wasn't it YOU that scolded me, (no less than a minute before this one to sara), that ' I SHOULD ' " stop equating those parents with non abusive parents of newborns who get adoption promoted to them as a "loving choice." Explain that one...Ooooo my dear,... you can't.**


Get help.


** I am ever so happy to call you on your double drivel you try to pass off as thoughtful discussion on this ng., Di.............. <giggles>Di > > Dad 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 in message news:<dafc70.0403011713.12b6980e@posting.google.com>... patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote in message news:<9a095db9.0403010629.69ab4d4d@posting.google.com>... sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote in message news:<dafc70.0402291521.756499f@posting.google.com>... patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote in message news:<9a095db9.0402291052.27c15ed6@posting.google.com>... > > > > Beats growing up abused or unwanted. Do you think all parents love > > > > > and want their children, Di? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So she says. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Liar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There you go again (with the namecalling) > > > No, not name calling. Just calling a spade a spade. Either cite where > I've ever claimed that "all parents love and want their children" or > admit that you > lied. > > > > > > > You're avoiding the issue, which I have elaborated on below.. I'm not avoiding the issue at all. You've said (on Origins) that mothers (specifically) want their children unless they're mentally ill, or their heads have been messed with. And your point is? Since you now see fit to address it below, why're you asking? It might have been more seemly to do so in the first place, (rather than simply screeching 'Liar!' )

That might have posed some difficulty given that you said nothing more
than "So she says." at the time of my response.

The "seemly" thing to do is to ask the question before expecting the
reply.

Di











. Of course there would be parents who are incapable of loving their child and who don't want to parent. And yes it is unnatural not to feel anything for a child you've given birth to unless other forces are at play. We are mammals, afterall. So what percentage of nmothers who relinquiish would you say constitute mothers felt nothing for their child - 1%?, 10%?, 50%?, 100%? Miniscule (closer to 1% than any of those other figures). But the fact is that they do exist. As I've already said, it begs the question 'What is natural?' A growing number of scientists and psychologists are challenging the assumption that it is natural for mothers to love and care for their children. Most, IMO, do, but it may be just as natural for them, under certain circumstances, not to. Do you believe that most parents who abuse or neglect their children do so because they don't love or want their child as Dad assumes is the case, and if so why don't they all just leave the kids in care and be done with them, instead of fighting through the courts for their return as the majority of them do? Why don't they just sign over their kids for adoption instead of the Court having to go to the bother of dispensing with their parental rights years after the children have been removed? Why d'you assume that I (or Dad, for that matter) think that? I believe most do love their children. However, all of those that don't or who are indifferent, are not necessarily damaged, though some might be. Or is it that you need to believe that the vast number of parents who relinquish or lose their children due to bad parenting simply didn't want their child anyway? If that's the case, what's all this crap about adoption being a loving decision if they didn't want their children in the first place? I've never said that adoption is 'the loving option' (Cite me if I have!) In fact, I think that adoption is only ever good (and even then not in an unqualified way) for those in desperate enough straits to need it. Of those there are few, IMO. I suppose that makes me 'pro-adoption' by your 'If your not with us, you're against us' standards. However, I'd consider myself to be more anti than pro. Whatever. And, no, I can't cite, because I don't print out stuff with an eye to using it in the future (and you should know that) It is you who have a hard time facing the truth. In fact, IMO, you expend much of your energy avoiding it. > > I avoid nothing. You seem to need to dehumanise nparents as being incapable of loving and wanting their own children. It is not *I* who accuses other relinquishing mothers of indifference or lack of feeling (it seems that you, however, feel the need to do so quite frequently), and I'm confident that you'll not find any instance where I have. Whereas I believe they would be in the minority, that it is circumstances that are the deciding factor. I believe they'd be in the minority too, and when they are, in most (though I would never say all) cases, it would be as a *natural* response to circumstances. Rh. Di > > > > > > > I expect the back-up singer will be along soon. > > > > You've certainly said that normal women under normal circumstances > > want their children. > > Which, of course, begs the question of what is normal behavior, and > > what are normal circumstances. > > > > > > Rh. > > > > > > > > > Di > > > > > > > > > > Dad

>Subject: Re: Such A Piece Of S..TFrom: patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian)Date: 3/1/04 6:29 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <9a095db9.0403010629.69ab4d4d@posting.google.com>sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote in messagenews:<dafc70.0402291521.756499f@posting.google.com>... patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote in messagenews:<9a095db9.0402291052.27c15ed6@posting.google.com>... > > > Beats growing up abused or unwanted. Do you think allparents love > > > > and want their children, Di? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So she says. > > > > > > > > > > > > Liar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There you go again (with the namecalling) No, not name calling. Just calling a spade a spade. Either cite where I've ever claimed that "all parents love and want their children" or admit that you lied. > > You're avoiding the issue, which I have elaborated on below..I'm not avoiding the issue at all. You've said (on Origins) that mothers (specifically) want their children unless they're mentally ill, or their heads have been messed with.And your point is?Of course there would be parents who are incapable of loving theirchild and who don't want to parent. And yes it is unnatural not tofeel anything for a child you've given birth to unless other forcesare at play. We are mammals,afterall. So what percentage of nmothers who relinquiish would you sayconstitute mothers felt nothing for their child - 1%?, 10%?, 50%?,100%?Do you believe that most parents who abuse or neglect their childrendo so because they don't love or want their child as Dad assumes isthe case, and if so why don't they all just leave the kids in care andbe done with them, instead of fighting through the courts for theirreturn as the majority of them do? Why don't they just sign over theirkids for adoption instead of the Court having to go to the bother ofdispensing with their parental rights years after the children havebeen removed?Or is it that you need to believe that the vast number of parents whorelinquish or lose their children due to bad parenting simply didn'twant their child anyway? If that's the case, what's all this crapabout adoption being a loving decision if they didn't want theirchildren in the first place? And, no, I can't cite, because I don't print out stuff with an eye to using it in the future (and you should know that) It is you who have a hard time facing the truth. In fact, IMO, you expend much of your energy avoiding it. >I avoid nothing.


You avoid and imo, deliberately deflect, and outright tell bold faced lies
about others' points of view. I mean how could you do this, Di, and not
realize that most of us can see right through your self-made bull****? You
forfeit your own integrity when you make up **** like you have spewed below:
You seem to need to dehumanise nparents as beingincapable of loving and wanting their own children. Whereas I believethey would be in the minority, that it is circumstances that are thedeciding factor.Di

What a crock of BULL ****.




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: Such A Piece Of S..TFrom: patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian)Date: 3/2/04 8:24 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <9a095db9.0403020824.55ede9a1@posting.google.com>

(snip)
Get help.
Di

Bwahahahahahaha!


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: Such A Piece Of S..TFrom: palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines)Date: 3/1/04 8:33 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <20040301113333.20229.00000676@mb-m04.aol.com>Do you think the woman is smart enough to sort that? I don't.JackieStop projecting your own limitations onto all of womankind.P2P

Omg, but YES!




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:<e5619372.0403012151.2b03c532@posting.google.com>... sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote <re pre-reunion counselling>> I'm against it in principle too, though I can see that it might help avert some damage. I wouldn't have minded it myself, if good specialized counselling had been available. What I am happy about is internet. The web has made so much information available, and as discussions are held and various stories accumulate, it becomes at least a window into the human condition at various turning points.


I agree. It's been invaluable to me.



Before, we all had to deal with limited information, often from experts who honestly believed that their views were the truth -- and of course, people being as diverse as they are, they weren't.



I know what you mean. I don't believe I could have accepted mandatory
counselling, on the aforesaid principle among other reasons. There's
no guarantee it would have been any good anyway, and I'm sure that
lousy counselling just compounds a person's problems, and is worse
than none at all.
However, it would have been nice to have had a wise discreet person
there *in the flesh*, who could be objective, was familiar with the
issues, and knew what they were talking about. The web's great, but
there's much room for misunderstanding, and if you are dealing with
heavily charged emotional issues you need to be pretty tough to mine
its gold.



I recall reading here when reunions were quite unusual. And posters on this ng urging the person in reunion to go ahead, her counterpart could only welcome her with open arms. Not that long ago, either - less than 10 years.



It can be an incredible instrument for change, no doubt about that.



Rh. Rupa

Robin karakoram@postadoption.infoDate: 3/2/2004 9:50 AM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <BC6A4F9C.3640B%karakoram@postadoption.info>in article 20040301222410.25073.00000597@mb-m07.aol.com, kj atkjs668@aol.comeek wrote on 2/3/04 3:24 am: Robin karakoram@postadoption.info Date: 3/1/2004 5:04 AM Eastern Standard Time Message-id: <BC68BB44.36164%karakoram@postadoption.info>

(snip rest to shorten reading time)
Dydd Gwyl Dewi hapus Is that Welsh?Happy (St) David's day.Our national saint's day. Traditionally celebrated on the first day ofMarch.I say "our" simply because my birth mother chose to name me Gareth DafyddCurle (though she and/or the English registrar had some difficulty with thespelling of Dafydd or Daffydd whichever she intended and left out the finald and perhaps middle f, on the OBC). I do rather think she was trying totell me something despite the known Scottish connections on her side.I think St David's day should now be worth celebrating now that Wales hasstarted for the first time in many years to distil a Penderyn Single MaltWisgi, along with the already established, Brecon Premium Vodka, Brecon DryGin and Merlyn Welsh Cream Liqueur.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/3520409.stmRobin(or for those of a Welsh inclination Rhobyn)Lean more about the government people of Wales (Cymru)http://www.cymru.gov.uk/index.htm

Damn those religious types taking away good booze.

Anyway, I've decided. I'm coming to visit you. I'm sure you won't mind.
kj

"kj" <kjs668@aol.comeek> wrote in message
news:20040302191434.01855.00000725@mb-m22.aol.com...Robin karakoram@postadoption.infoDate: 3/2/2004 9:50 AM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <BC6A4F9C.3640B%karakoram@postadoption.info>in article 20040301222410.25073.00000597@mb-m07.aol.com, kj atkjs668@aol.comeek wrote on 2/3/04 3:24 am:> Robin karakoram@postadoption.info> Date: 3/1/2004 5:04 AM Eastern Standard Time> Message-id: <BC68BB44.36164%karakoram@postadoption.info>> (snip rest to shorten reading time)>> Dydd Gwyl Dewi hapus>> Is that Welsh?Happy (St) David's day.Our national saint's day. Traditionally celebrated on the first day ofMarch.I say "our" simply because my birth mother chose to name me Gareth DafyddCurle (though she and/or the English registrar had some difficulty with
thespelling of Dafydd or Daffydd whichever she intended and left out the
finald and perhaps middle f, on the OBC). I do rather think she was trying totell me something despite the known Scottish connections on her side.I think St David's day should now be worth celebrating now that Wales hasstarted for the first time in many years to distil a Penderyn Single MaltWisgi, along with the already established, Brecon Premium Vodka, Brecon
DryGin and Merlyn Welsh Cream Liqueur.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/3520409.stmRobin(or for those of a Welsh inclination Rhobyn)Lean more about the government people of Wales (Cymru)http://www.cymru.gov.uk/index.htm Damn those religious types taking away good booze. Anyway, I've decided. I'm coming to visit you. I'm sure you won't mind. kj

The Reeeses and the Bowens are Welsh and I suspect that my bgrandfather's
family had Welsh stock as well. Before I knew all this, I attended the
annual Welsh picnic here in town. Well! It was all about fried chicken,
mashed potatoes, and a Welsh church choir sang Protestant hymns--the kind I
really hate. Gee, I could stay home and watch Sunday morning television for
that. I was really, well, disappointed. But then I went to Wales and
thought it was a great place

Marley

patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote in message news:<9a095db9.0403020915.2605e68b@posting.google.com>... sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote in message news:<dafc70.0403011713.12b6980e@posting.google.com>... And your point is? > > Since you now see fit to address it below, why're you asking? It might have been more seemly to do so in the first place, (rather than simply screeching 'Liar!' ) > > That might have posed some difficulty given that you said nothing more than "So she says." at the time of my response. The "seemly" thing to do is to ask the question before expecting the reply.



What question?
Given that you've not infrequently said that all women love and want
their children (and often done so without qualification) I think that
'So she says' was rather more more 'seemly' than 'Liar!'
However, I apologise for not being more specific. I was wrong, and I
can see how it would bug you.



At any rate, I'm glad that you do agree that, under certain
circumstances, it's 'natural' for some women not to love and want
their children. Which is not to say that I think those circumstances
should be encouraged or exploited.
I think that it is important and emancipating to acknowledge that
diversity in behavior is what evolution is based upon, and that some
of the very things we consider to be 'natural' are simply what we're
habituated to regard as the norm.


Rh.














. Of course there would be parents who are incapable of loving their child and who don't want to parent. And yes it is unnatural not to feel anything for a child you've given birth to unless other forces are at play. We are mammals, afterall. So what percentage of nmothers who relinquiish would you say constitute mothers felt nothing for their child - 1%?, 10%?, 50%?, 100%? > > Miniscule (closer to 1% than any of those other figures). But the fact is that they do exist. As I've already said, it begs the question 'What is natural?' A growing number of scientists and psychologists are challenging the assumption that it is natural for mothers to love and care for their children. Most, IMO, do, but it may be just as natural for them, under certain circumstances, not to. > > Do you believe that most parents who abuse or neglect their children do so because they don't love or want their child as Dadassumes is the case, and if so why don't they all just leave the kids in care and be done with them, instead of fighting through the courts for their return as the majority of them do? Why don't they just sign over their kids for adoption instead of the Court having to go to the bother ofdispensing with their parental rights years after the children have been removed? > > Why d'you assume that I (or Dad, for that matter) think that? I believe most do love their children. However, all of those that don't or who are indifferent, are not necessarily damaged, though some might be. > > Or is it that you need to believe that the vast number of parents who relinquish or lose their children due to bad parenting simply didn't want their child anyway? If that's the case, what's all this crap about adoption being a loving decision if they didn't want their children in the first place? > > I've never said that adoption is 'the loving option' (Cite me if I have!) In fact, I think that adoption is only ever good (and even then not in an unqualified way) for those in desperate enough straits to need it. Of those there are few, IMO. I suppose that makes me 'pro-adoption' by your 'If your not with us, you're against us' standards. However, I'd consider myself to be more anti than pro. Whatever. > > > And, no, I can't cite, because I don't print out stuff with an eye to > using it in the future (and you should know that) > It is you who have a hard time facing the truth. In fact, IMO, you > expend much of your energy avoiding it. > > > I avoid nothing. You seem to need to dehumanise nparents as being incapable of loving and wanting their own children. > > It is not *I* who accuses other mothers who have relinquished of indifference or lack of feeling (it seems that you, however, feel the need to do so quite frequently), and I'm confident that you'll not find any instance where I have. > > Whereas I believe they would be in the minority, that it is circumstances that are the deciding factor. > > I believe they'd be in the minority too, and when they are, in most (though I would never say all) cases, it would be as a *natural* response to circumstances. Rh. Di > > > > > > > > > > > > I expect the back-up singer will be along soon. > > > > > > You've certainly said that normal women under normal circumstances > > > want their children. > > > Which, of course, begs the question of what is normal behavior, and > > > what are normal circumstances. > > > > > > > > > Rh. > > > > > > > > > > > > Di > > > > > > > > > > > > Dad

>Marley Greiner" maddogmarley@worldnet.att.netDate: 3/2/2004 7:59 PM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <o5a1c.134261$hR.2536262@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>"kj" <kjs668@aol.comeek> wrote in messagenews:20040302191434.01855.00000725@mb-m22.aol.com...Robin karakoram@postadoption.infoDate: 3/2/2004 9:50 AM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <BC6A4F9C.3640B%karakoram@postadoption.info>in article 20040301222410.25073.00000597@mb-m07.aol.com, kj atkjs668@aol.comeek wrote on 2/3/04 3:24 am:>>>> Robin karakoram@postadoption.info>> Date: 3/1/2004 5:04 AM Eastern Standard Time>> Message-id: <BC68BB44.36164%karakoram@postadoption.info>>> (snip rest to shorten reading time)>>>> Dydd Gwyl Dewi hapus>>>>>> Is that Welsh?Happy (St) David's day.Our national saint's day. Traditionally celebrated on the first day ofMarch.I say "our" simply because my birth mother chose to name me Gareth DafyddCurle (though she and/or the English registrar had some difficulty withthespelling of Dafydd or Daffydd whichever she intended and left out thefinald and perhaps middle f, on the OBC). I do rather think she was trying totell me something despite the known Scottish connections on her side.I think St David's day should now be worth celebrating now that Wales hasstarted for the first time in many years to distil a Penderyn Single MaltWisgi, along with the already established, Brecon Premium Vodka, BreconDryGin and Merlyn Welsh Cream Liqueur.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/3520409.stmRobin(or for those of a Welsh inclination Rhobyn)Lean more about the government people of Wales (Cymru)http://www.cymru.gov.uk/index.htm Damn those religious types taking away good booze. Anyway, I've decided. I'm coming to visit you. I'm sure you won't mind. kjThe Reeeses and the Bowens are Welsh and I suspect that my bgrandfather'sfamily had Welsh stock as well. Before I knew all this, I attended theannual Welsh picnic here in town. Well! It was all about fried chicken,mashed potatoes, and a Welsh church choir sang Protestant hymns--the kind Ireally hate. Gee, I could stay home and watch Sunday morning television forthat. I was really, well, disappointed. But then I went to Wales andthought it was a great placeMarley

I'm currently watching a special on PBS about "England from Above."
(helicopter) It's so beautiful. I want to go. Damn that biological family
for not bestowing the millions of dollars to me that I so richly deserve.




kj

in article o5a1c.134261$hR.2536262@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net,
Marley Greiner at maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net wrote on 3/3/04 12:59 am:
"kj" <kjs668@aol.comeek> wrote in message news:20040302191434.01855.00000725@mb-m22.aol.com... Robin karakoram@postadoption.info Date: 3/2/2004 9:50 AM Eastern Standard Time Message-id: <BC6A4F9C.3640B%karakoram@postadoption.info> in article 20040301222410.25073.00000597@mb-m07.aol.com, kj at kjs668@aol.comeek wrote on 2/3/04 3:24 am:>>>> Robin karakoram@postadoption.info>> Date: 3/1/2004 5:04 AM Eastern Standard Time>> Message-id: <BC68BB44.36164%karakoram@postadoption.info>>> (snip rest to shorten reading time)>>>> Dydd Gwyl Dewi hapus>>>>>> Is that Welsh? Happy (St) David's day. Our national saint's day. Traditionally celebrated on the first day of March. I say "our" simply because my birth mother chose to name me Gareth Dafydd Curle (though she and/or the English registrar had some difficulty with the spelling of Dafydd or Daffydd whichever she intended and left out the final d and perhaps middle f, on the OBC). I do rather think she was trying to tell me something despite the known Scottish connections on her side. I think St David's day should now be worth celebrating now that Wales has started for the first time in many years to distil a Penderyn Single Malt Wisgi, along with the already established, Brecon Premium Vodka, Brecon Dry Gin and Merlyn Welsh Cream Liqueur. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/3520409.stm Robin (or for those of a Welsh inclination Rhobyn) Lean more about the government people of Wales (Cymru) http://www.cymru.gov.uk/index.htm Damn those religious types taking away good booze. Anyway, I've decided. I'm coming to visit you. I'm sure you won't mind. kj

The Reeeses and the Bowens are Welsh and I suspect that my bgrandfather's family had Welsh stock as well.



Are you by any chance related to the Rees's as in Sophie Rees-Jones aka Mrs
Prince Edward Windsor, our Brenda's newest daughter in law, then Marley?


Before I knew all this, I attended the annual Welsh picnic here in town. Well! It was all about fried chicken, mashed potatoes, and a Welsh church choir sang Protestant hymns--the kind I really hate. Gee, I could stay home and watch Sunday morning television for that. I was really, well, disappointed. But then I went to Wales and thought it was a great place Marley



Fried chicken and mashed potatoes at a Welsh picnic, shouldn't that have
been leek soup and roast Welsh lamb with larva bread? I'm afraid when in
Wales you have to put up with the odd Sankey & Moody often sung in the
native tongue, so although Wales may have given little to America, at least
America gave something to Wales.

Robin

On 02 Mar 2004 15:53:05 GMT, meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote:

Di very wisely wrote..If you do believe that, why say what you said? I don't understand whyyouneed to promote this perception that many parents who relinquish orabuse do sobecause their children were simply unwanted and unloved, when you doknow that is rarely the reason. I understand it even less coming fromboth Lisa and Kathy.Hey lil Ms. twinkle toes, keep building those strawmen arguments.Maybe you are projecting again or are trying to purge yourself of your ownguilt, trying to convince the reader that bmoms, such as yourself, wanted,loved, and would have been a caring parent to her child?

And maybe you are projecting you own scenario.. Your husband abused
you and you may have abused the child... Is this correct?
Is this why you needto make the eagle scream?

The eagle should send you a message.. That is for sure..
Why continue to be the crusader for all nmoms, Di? Why not just speak for yourfeelings about your experience with relinquishment? Why is this so hard foryou?

People like you help to put forth the information that babies should
be taken from 'certain' people because they *may* abuse.. IMO

"Those people".. to quote you..
Nobody here has promoted the idea that all relinquishing parents would becomeabusive parents.

Then why target them..
Nobody here has said that all those that relinquish do sobecause they don't want or love their children. Where are you yanking this crapfrom?It is you that keeps making these absurd arguments up in your head, Di. Youhave gone on record stating numerous times both here and on Origins, that allwomen want their children unless they've been brainwashed, or they're mentallyincapacitated.

How about the argument that women should receive support from others
in times of need.. They should not be forced to give their child away
because of lack of funds..

And that giving away should not be justified by saying "Well she may
abuse the child". (physically or mentally)

Don't deny it. LOL, it is you,Di, that has made cartoon characters of an entire class of people;relinquishing mothers.

And you paint them with a brush that says.. Look out for that one..
She may hurt that baby.. Get that baby off her now before it is
abused..

Who decides Kathy?


Jackie

On 02 Mar 2004 16:02:56 GMT, meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote:
Subject: Re: Such A Piece Of S..TFrom: Jackie forgetit@me.comDate: 3/1/04 5:03 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <p1d6409oeicds7bnra2oaj0vdj02enqhrr@4ax.com>On 29 Feb 2004 19:57:16 GMT, meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote:The numbers of children waiting for homes in foster care should convince youofthe realities that the choice of newborn adoption is a viable and lovingoptionfor THOSE kinds of parents...Those kind of parents?And too bad for you that you are unwilling toadmit because of your own sick ego/sad experience with being a birthmother,that children deserve that their parents make better choices for them.Wow..JackieWow, indeed.Yes, ma'am... *THOSE* kind of parents that use their kids to inflate their ownsick egos; those kinds of parents that treat their child as nothing more thanchattel.

Adoption is alive and well and living in the US.
THOSE kinds of parents that have no business being entrusted with aprecious child.

Shall we sterilize the ones who are suspect?
THOSE kind of dysfunctional parents that drink and drug makingtheir children suffer from their neglect or abuse.

Shun those people.. Get their children and shun them...
THOSE kinds of parents that haven't dealt with their own crap, and think that achild will solve their problems.

Condemnation prior to investigation.. Right Kathy?

I have hundreds more examples I could writeabout, Jackie...but if you really want to know about THOSE kind ofparents....take a good, hard look at how many of their children are lingeringin foster care in YOUR country,.....and then, you get back to me.

Right and any kind of abuse to 'those' people is okay..
Get the baby any which way you can.

Don't help them.. Don't work on the sickness of a society..
Just take the kids from the ones who are suspect..

Give them to the ones who are good.. Who have money.. Who say the
right words to the right people..

Jackie

On 2 Mar 2004 13:32:14 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)
wrote:

You wrote to Rupa.I know what you mean. I don't believe I could have accepted mandatorycounselling, on the aforesaid principle among other reasons. There'sno guarantee it would have been any good anyway, and I'm sure thatlousy counselling just compounds a person's problems, and is worsethan none at all.

What I would have liked it the truth..
Like you have a right to see your baby..
However, it would have been nice to have had a wise discreet personthere *in the flesh*, who could be objective, was familiar with theissues, and knew what they were talking about. The web's great, butthere's much room for misunderstanding, and if you are dealing withheavily charged emotional issues you need to be pretty tough to mineits gold.

Even today women are told half truths when relinquishing.. Open
adoption is a good example. IMO

Half truths that manipulate her into relinquishing..

Not right..


Jackie

In article <o5a1c.134261$hR.2536262@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, Marley
Greiner says..."kj" <kjs668@aol.comeek> wrote in messagenews:20040302191434.01855.00000725@mb-m22.aol.com...Robin karakoram@postadoption.infoDate: 3/2/2004 9:50 AM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <BC6A4F9C.3640B%karakoram@postadoption.info>in article 20040301222410.25073.00000597@mb-m07.aol.com, kj atkjs668@aol.comeek wrote on 2/3/04 3:24 am:>>>> Robin karakoram@postadoption.info>> Date: 3/1/2004 5:04 AM Eastern Standard Time>> Message-id: <BC68BB44.36164%karakoram@postadoption.info>>> (snip rest to shorten reading time)>>>> Dydd Gwyl Dewi hapus>>>>>> Is that Welsh?Happy (St) David's day.Our national saint's day. Traditionally celebrated on the first day ofMarch.I say "our" simply because my birth mother chose to name me Gareth DafyddCurle (though she and/or the English registrar had some difficulty withthespelling of Dafydd or Daffydd whichever she intended and left out thefinald and perhaps middle f, on the OBC). I do rather think she was trying totell me something despite the known Scottish connections on her side.I think St David's day should now be worth celebrating now that Wales hasstarted for the first time in many years to distil a Penderyn Single MaltWisgi, along with the already established, Brecon Premium Vodka, BreconDryGin and Merlyn Welsh Cream Liqueur.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/3520409.stmRobin(or for those of a Welsh inclination Rhobyn)Lean more about the government people of Wales (Cymru)http://www.cymru.gov.uk/index.htm Damn those religious types taking away good booze. Anyway, I've decided. I'm coming to visit you. I'm sure you won't mind. kjThe Reeeses and the Bowens are Welsh and I suspect that my bgrandfather'sfamily had Welsh stock as well. Before I knew all this, I attended theannual Welsh picnic here in town. Well! It was all about fried chicken,mashed potatoes, and a Welsh church choir sang Protestant hymns--the kind Ireally hate. Gee, I could stay home and watch Sunday morning television forthat. I was really, well, disappointed. But then I went to Wales andthought it was a great place

Actually, I found out recently through conversations with my bmom that I have a
little Welsh blood in me also.

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

"Robin" <karakoram@postadoption.info> wrote in message
news:BC6B574C.36674%karakoram@postadoption.info... in article o5a1c.134261$hR.2536262@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net, Marley Greiner at maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net wrote on 3/3/04 12:59 am: "kj" <kjs668@aol.comeek> wrote in message news:20040302191434.01855.00000725@mb-m22.aol.com...> Robin karakoram@postadoption.info> Date: 3/2/2004 9:50 AM Eastern Standard Time> Message-id: <BC6A4F9C.3640B%karakoram@postadoption.info>>> in article 20040301222410.25073.00000597@mb-m07.aol.com, kj at> kjs668@aol.comeek wrote on 2/3/04 3:24 am:>>>>>>>> Robin karakoram@postadoption.info>>> Date: 3/1/2004 5:04 AM Eastern Standard Time>>> Message-id: <BC68BB44.36164%karakoram@postadoption.info>>>> (snip rest to shorten reading time)>>>>>> Dydd Gwyl Dewi hapus>>>>>>>>>> Is that Welsh?>> Happy (St) David's day.>> Our national saint's day. Traditionally celebrated on the first day of> March.>> I say "our" simply because my birth mother chose to name me Gareth
Dafydd> Curle (though she and/or the English registrar had some difficulty
with the> spelling of Dafydd or Daffydd whichever she intended and left out the final> d and perhaps middle f, on the OBC). I do rather think she was trying
to> tell me something despite the known Scottish connections on her side.>> I think St David's day should now be worth celebrating now that Wales
has> started for the first time in many years to distil a Penderyn Single
Malt> Wisgi, along with the already established, Brecon Premium Vodka,
Brecon Dry> Gin and Merlyn Welsh Cream Liqueur.> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/3520409.stm>> Robin>> (or for those of a Welsh inclination Rhobyn)>> Lean more about the government people of Wales (Cymru)> http://www.cymru.gov.uk/index.htm> Damn those religious types taking away good booze. Anyway, I've decided. I'm coming to visit you. I'm sure you won't
mind. kj The Reeeses and the Bowens are Welsh and I suspect that my
bgrandfather's family had Welsh stock as well. Are you by any chance related to the Rees's as in Sophie Rees-Jones aka
Mrs Prince Edward Windsor, our Brenda's newest daughter in law, then Marley?

I don't know, but I must be. Being realted it, if not actually marrying
royalty, is my destiny. Before I knew all this, I attended the annual Welsh picnic here in town. Well! It was all about fried chicken, mashed potatoes, and a Welsh
church choir sang Protestant hymns--the kind I really hate. Gee, I could stay
home and watch Sunday morning television for that. I was really, well, disappointed. But then I went to Wales and thought it was a great place Marley Fried chicken and mashed potatoes at a Welsh picnic, shouldn't that have been leek soup and roast Welsh lamb with larva bread?

Of course, but we talking abou Cow Town. Perhaps . There may be some
unknown Welsh enclave in Idaho or Mississippi that would offer that.
I'm afraid when in Wales you have to put up with the odd Sankey & Moody often sung in the native tongue, so although Wales may have given little to America, at
least America gave something to Wales. Robin

BTW, my mentor at Durham University is England's foremost authority on Ohio
History. The British Museum has a huge Ohio History collection and within
that collection there is a substantial section on Ohio history all written
in Welsh. Sounds lovely.

Marley

>Subject: Re: Such A Piece Of S..TFrom: Jackie forgetit@me.comDate: 3/3/04 5:58 AM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <05lb40991b5o3ohcduilm8uvqdkpj17q0g@4ax.com>
Yes, ma'am... *THOSE* kind of parents that use their kids to inflate theirownsick egos; those kinds of parents that treat their child as nothing morethanchattel.Adoption is alive and well and living in the US.

And in Canada.


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

>Subject: Re: Such A Piece Of S..TFrom: Jackie forgetit@me.comDate: 3/3/04 5:50 AM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <lakb405e91k3upjv3s8uhqu7e36ioadqlk@4ax.com>On 02 Mar 2004 15:53:05 GMT, meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote:Di very wisely wrote..If you do believe that, why say what you said? I don't understand whyyouneed to promote this perception that many parents who relinquish orabuse do sobecause their children were simply unwanted and unloved, when you doknow that is rarely the reason. I understand it even less coming fromboth Lisa and Kathy.Hey lil Ms. twinkle toes, keep building those strawmen arguments.Maybe you are projecting again or are trying to purge yourself of your ownguilt, trying to convince the reader that bmoms, such as yourself, wanted,loved, and would have been a caring parent to her child?And maybe you are projecting you own scenario.. Your husband abusedyou and you may have abused the child... Is this correct?

Methinks you pulled that one out of your ***.


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

On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 09:35:08 +0000, Robin
<karakoram@postadoption.info> wrote:
in article o5a1c.134261$hR.2536262@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net,Marley Greiner at maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net wrote on 3/3/04 12:59 am: "kj" <kjs668@aol.comeek> wrote in message news:20040302191434.01855.00000725@mb-m22.aol.com...> Robin karakoram@postadoption.info> Date: 3/2/2004 9:50 AM Eastern Standard Time> Message-id: <BC6A4F9C.3640B%karakoram@postadoption.info>>> in article 20040301222410.25073.00000597@mb-m07.aol.com, kj at> kjs668@aol.comeek wrote on 2/3/04 3:24 am:>>>>>>>> Robin karakoram@postadoption.info>>> Date: 3/1/2004 5:04 AM Eastern Standard Time>>> Message-id: <BC68BB44.36164%karakoram@postadoption.info>>>> (snip rest to shorten reading time)>>>>>> Dydd Gwyl Dewi hapus>>>>>>>>>> Is that Welsh?>> Happy (St) David's day.>> Our national saint's day. Traditionally celebrated on the first day of> March.>> I say "our" simply because my birth mother chose to name me Gareth Dafydd> Curle (though she and/or the English registrar had some difficulty with the> spelling of Dafydd or Daffydd whichever she intended and left out the final> d and perhaps middle f, on the OBC). I do rather think she was trying to> tell me something despite the known Scottish connections on her side.>> I think St David's day should now be worth celebrating now that Wales has> started for the first time in many years to distil a Penderyn Single Malt> Wisgi, along with the already established, Brecon Premium Vodka, Brecon Dry> Gin and Merlyn Welsh Cream Liqueur.> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/3520409.stm>> Robin>> (or for those of a Welsh inclination Rhobyn)>> Lean more about the government people of Wales (Cymru)> http://www.cymru.gov.uk/index.htm> Damn those religious types taking away good booze. Anyway, I've decided. I'm coming to visit you. I'm sure you won't mind. kj The Reeeses and the Bowens are Welsh and I suspect that my bgrandfather's family had Welsh stock as well.Are you by any chance related to the Rees's as in Sophie Rees-Jones aka MrsPrince Edward Windsor, our Brenda's newest daughter in law, then Marley? Before I knew all this, I attended the annual Welsh picnic here in town. Well! It was all about fried chicken, mashed potatoes, and a Welsh church choir sang Protestant hymns--the kind I really hate. Gee, I could stay home and watch Sunday morning television for that. I was really, well, disappointed. But then I went to Wales and thought it was a great place MarleyFried chicken and mashed potatoes at a Welsh picnic, shouldn't that havebeen leek soup and roast Welsh lamb with larva bread? I'm afraid when inWales you have to put up with the odd Sankey & Moody often sung in thenative tongue, so although Wales may have given little to America, at leastAmerica gave something to Wales.Robin

Um... Larva bread?

Nancy [suddenly somewhat uncomfortable with my Jones,
Morris, and Rhys ancestry]

in article 5mpb409jt8bj3n472h9qg1k6ll6ptefgd4@4ax.com, nancy at
me@privacy.net wrote on 3/3/04 2:17 pm:
On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 09:35:08 +0000, Robin <karakoram@postadoption.info> wrote: in article o5a1c.134261$hR.2536262@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net, Marley Greiner at maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net wrote on 3/3/04 12:59 am: "kj" <kjs668@aol.comeek> wrote in message news:20040302191434.01855.00000725@mb-m22.aol.com...>>> Robin karakoram@postadoption.info>> Date: 3/2/2004 9:50 AM Eastern Standard Time>> Message-id: <BC6A4F9C.3640B%karakoram@postadoption.info>>>>> in article 20040301222410.25073.00000597@mb-m07.aol.com, kj at>> kjs668@aol.comeek wrote on 2/3/04 3:24 am:>>>>>>>>>>>> Robin karakoram@postadoption.info>>>> Date: 3/1/2004 5:04 AM Eastern Standard Time>>>> Message-id: <BC68BB44.36164%karakoram@postadoption.info>>>>>>> (snip rest to shorten reading time)>>>>>>>>> Dydd Gwyl Dewi hapus>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is that Welsh?>>>> Happy (St) David's day.>>>> Our national saint's day. Traditionally celebrated on the first day of>> March.>>>> I say "our" simply because my birth mother chose to name me Gareth Dafydd>> Curle (though she and/or the English registrar had some difficulty with the>> spelling of Dafydd or Daffydd whichever she intended and left out the final>> d and perhaps middle f, on the OBC). I do rather think she was trying to>> tell me something despite the known Scottish connections on her side.>>>> I think St David's day should now be worth celebrating now that Wales has>> started for the first time in many years to distil a Penderyn Single Malt>> Wisgi, along with the already established, Brecon Premium Vodka, Brecon Dry>> Gin and Merlyn Welsh Cream Liqueur.>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/3520409.stm>>>> Robin>>>> (or for those of a Welsh inclination Rhobyn)>>>> Lean more about the government people of Wales (Cymru)>> http://www.cymru.gov.uk/index.htm>>>> Damn those religious types taking away good booze.>> Anyway, I've decided. I'm coming to visit you. I'm sure you won't mind.> kj The Reeeses and the Bowens are Welsh and I suspect that my bgrandfather's family had Welsh stock as well. Are you by any chance related to the Rees's as in Sophie Rees-Jones aka Mrs Prince Edward Windsor, our Brenda's newest daughter in law, then Marley? Before I knew all this, I attended the annual Welsh picnic here in town. Well! It was all about fried chicken, mashed potatoes, and a Welsh church choir sang Protestant hymns--the kind I really hate. Gee, I could stay home and watch Sunday morning television for that. I was really, well, disappointed. But then I went to Wales and thought it was a great place Marley Fried chicken and mashed potatoes at a Welsh picnic, shouldn't that have been leek soup and roast Welsh lamb with larva bread? I'm afraid when in Wales you have to put up with the odd Sankey & Moody often sung in the native tongue, so although Wales may have given little to America, at least America gave something to Wales. Robin Um... Larva bread?

Or Lava bread there seems not to be a definitive spelling, according to one
source "similar to Irish soda bread but whose main ingredient is seaweed",
according to another "not bread at all but a kind of gritty fried seaweed".
Nancy [suddenly somewhat uncomfortable with my Jones, Morris, and Rhys ancestry]


Cockle & lava bread quiche...yummy.

Or how about this bit of imaginary culinary usage from the menu of the The
Talbot at Knightwick

Loin of Lamb

Lamb from Quarry Farm Leominster, stuffed and roasted with crab meat, lava
bread, rice and spinach, cooked with some ginger wine, sliced onto some mung
bean dahl served with it's own lightly concentrated juice and a scattering
of pickled nasturtium seeds.

Of course no 'Full Welsh Breakfast' would be complete without a choice of:
bacon, sausage, black pudding, lava bread, tomatoes, baked beans, mushrooms,
fried bread and egg.

If I've wetted your appetite and you fancy trying lava bread, do make sure
it wasn¹t harvested anywhere near Sellafield in Cumbria
http://www.theecologist.org/archive_article.html?article=114&category=58 or
risk radiation poisoning.

Robin

On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 14:53:40 +0000, Robin
<karakoram@postadoption.info> wrote:
in article 5mpb409jt8bj3n472h9qg1k6ll6ptefgd4@4ax.com, nancy atme@privacy.net wrote on 3/3/04 2:17 pm: On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 09:35:08 +0000, Robin <karakoram@postadoption.info> wrote: in article o5a1c.134261$hR.2536262@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net, Marley Greiner at maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net wrote on 3/3/04 12:59 am:>> "kj" <kjs668@aol.comeek> wrote in message> news:20040302191434.01855.00000725@mb-m22.aol.com...>>>>> Robin karakoram@postadoption.info>>> Date: 3/2/2004 9:50 AM Eastern Standard Time>>> Message-id: <BC6A4F9C.3640B%karakoram@postadoption.info>>>>>>> in article 20040301222410.25073.00000597@mb-m07.aol.com, kj at>>> kjs668@aol.comeek wrote on 2/3/04 3:24 am:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Robin karakoram@postadoption.info>>>>> Date: 3/1/2004 5:04 AM Eastern Standard Time>>>>> Message-id: <BC68BB44.36164%karakoram@postadoption.info>>>>>>>>>> (snip rest to shorten reading time)>>>>>>>>>>>> Dydd Gwyl Dewi hapus>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is that Welsh?>>>>>> Happy (St) David's day.>>>>>> Our national saint's day. Traditionally celebrated on the first day of>>> March.>>>>>> I say "our" simply because my birth mother chose to name me Gareth Dafydd>>> Curle (though she and/or the English registrar had some difficulty with> the>>> spelling of Dafydd or Daffydd whichever she intended and left out the> final>>> d and perhaps middle f, on the OBC). I do rather think she was trying to>>> tell me something despite the known Scottish connections on her side.>>>>>> I think St David's day should now be worth celebrating now that Wales has>>> started for the first time in many years to distil a Penderyn Single Malt>>> Wisgi, along with the already established, Brecon Premium Vodka, Brecon> Dry>>> Gin and Merlyn Welsh Cream Liqueur.>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/3520409.stm>>>>>> Robin>>>>>> (or for those of a Welsh inclination Rhobyn)>>>>>> Lean more about the government people of Wales (Cymru)>>> http://www.cymru.gov.uk/index.htm>>>>>>> Damn those religious types taking away good booze.>>>> Anyway, I've decided. I'm coming to visit you. I'm sure you won't mind.>> kj> The Reeeses and the Bowens are Welsh and I suspect that my bgrandfather's> family had Welsh stock as well. Are you by any chance related to the Rees's as in Sophie Rees-Jones aka Mrs Prince Edward Windsor, our Brenda's newest daughter in law, then Marley?> Before I knew all this, I attended the annual Welsh picnic here in town.> Well! It was all about fried chicken, mashed potatoes, and a Welsh church> choir sang Protestant hymns--the kind I really hate. Gee, I could stay home> and watch Sunday morning television for that. I was really, well,> disappointed. But then I went to Wales and thought it was a great place>> Marley Fried chicken and mashed potatoes at a Welsh picnic, shouldn't that have been leek soup and roast Welsh lamb with larva bread? I'm afraid when in Wales you have to put up with the odd Sankey & Moody often sung in the native tongue, so although Wales may have given little to America, at least America gave something to Wales. Robin Um... Larva bread?Or Lava bread there seems not to be a definitive spelling, according to onesource "similar to Irish soda bread but whose main ingredient is seaweed",according to another "not bread at all but a kind of gritty fried seaweed".

Well that's a relief. Sounds like some of the stuff they
fed me in Japan, and I survived. It was the possibility of
eating larvae (intentionally) that grossed me out--although
the "gritty" part isn't terribly appealing either.
Nancy [suddenly somewhat uncomfortable with my Jones, Morris, and Rhys ancestry]Cockle & lava bread quiche...yummy.

Hmmm... I dunno... Maybe if taken with large quantities of
room temperature Merlot...
Or how about this bit of imaginary culinary usage from the menu of the TheTalbot at KnightwickLoin of LambLamb from Quarry Farm Leominster, stuffed and roasted with crab meat, lavabread, rice and spinach, cooked with some ginger wine, sliced onto some mungbean dahl served with it's own lightly concentrated juice and a scatteringof pickled nasturtium seeds.

This sounds like it might have had some possibilities
without the seaweed and mung beans.
Of course no 'Full Welsh Breakfast' would be complete without a choice of:bacon, sausage, black pudding, lava bread, tomatoes, baked beans, mushrooms,fried bread and egg.

What is with the Celts and black pudding anyway? Of course,
I actually love haggis, so I guess I'm in no position to
question this.
If I've wetted your appetite and you fancy trying lava bread, do make sureit wasn¹t harvested anywhere near Sellafield in Cumbriahttp://www.theecologist.org/archive_article.html?article=114&category=58 orrisk radiation poisoning.

I'm tending to believe that might be merciful...

Nancy
Robin

>Subject: Re: Such A Piece Of S..TFrom: Jackie forgetit@me.comDate: 3/3/04 4:50 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <lakb405e91k3upjv3s8uhqu7e36ioadqlk@4ax.com>On 02 Mar 2004 15:53:05 GMT, meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote:Di very wisely wrote..If you do believe that, why say what you said? I don't understand whyyouneed to promote this perception that many parents who relinquish orabuse do sobecause their children were simply unwanted and unloved, when you doknow that is rarely the reason. I understand it even less coming fromboth Lisa and Kathy.Hey lil Ms. twinkle toes, keep building those strawmen arguments.Maybe you are projecting again or are trying to purge yourself of your ownguilt, trying to convince the reader that bmoms, such as yourself, wanted,loved, and would have been a caring parent to her child?And maybe you are projecting you own scenario.. Your husband abusedyou and you may have abused the child... Is this correct? Is this why you needto make the eagle scream?The eagle should send you a message.. That is for sure..Why continue to be the crusader for all nmoms, Di? Why not just speak foryourfeelings about your experience with relinquishment? Why is this so hard foryou?People like you help to put forth the information that babies shouldbe taken from 'certain' people because they *may* abuse.. IMO"Those people".. to quote you..Nobody here has promoted the idea that all relinquishing parents wouldbecomeabusive parents.Then why target them..Nobody here has said that all those that relinquish do sobecause they don't want or love their children. Where are you yanking thiscrapfrom?It is you that keeps making these absurd arguments up in your head, Di. Youhave gone on record stating numerous times both here and on Origins, thatallwomen want their children unless they've been brainwashed, or they'rementallyincapacitated.How about the argument that women should receive support from othersin times of need.. They should not be forced to give their child awaybecause of lack of funds..And that giving away should not be justified by saying "Well she mayabuse the child". (physically or mentally) Don't deny it. LOL, it is you,Di, that has made cartoon characters of an entire class of people;relinquishing mothers.And you paint them with a brush that says.. Look out for that one..She may hurt that baby.. Get that baby off her now before it isabused..Who decides Kathy?Jackie

Makes me wonder if you are using again. Your allegations and ASSumptions are
just whacko, jack-O.




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: Such A Piece Of S..TFrom: Jackie forgetit@me.comDate: 3/3/04 4:58 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <05lb40991b5o3ohcduilm8uvqdkpj17q0g@4ax.com>On 02 Mar 2004 16:02:56 GMT, meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote:Subject: Re: Such A Piece Of S..TFrom: Jackie forgetit@me.comDate: 3/1/04 5:03 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <p1d6409oeicds7bnra2oaj0vdj02enqhrr@4ax.com>On 29 Feb 2004 19:57:16 GMT, meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote:>>The numbers of children waiting for homes in foster care should convinceyouof>the realities that the choice of newborn adoption is a viable and lovingoption>for THOSE kinds of parents...Those kind of parents?>And too bad for you that you are unwilling to>admit because of your own sick ego/sad experience with being abirthmother,>that children deserve that their parents make better choices for them.Wow..JackieWow, indeed.Yes, ma'am... *THOSE* kind of parents that use their kids to inflate theirownsick egos; those kinds of parents that treat their child as nothing morethanchattel.Adoption is alive and well and living in the US. THOSE kinds of parents that have no business being entrusted with aprecious child.Shall we sterilize the ones who are suspect?THOSE kind of dysfunctional parents that drink and drug makingtheir children suffer from their neglect or abuse.Shun those people.. Get their children and shun them...

Oh boo hoo. Druggin' & drinkin' biological parents that abuse or neglect their
children and refuse to get their acts together, and lose their children to the
system, deserve no breaks.




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: Such A Piece Of S..TFrom: lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam (LilMtnCbn)Date: 3/3/04 6:14 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <20040303091401.09952.00000784@mb-m17.aol.com>Subject: Re: Such A Piece Of S..TFrom: Jackie forgetit@me.comDate: 3/3/04 5:58 AM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <05lb40991b5o3ohcduilm8uvqdkpj17q0g@4ax.com>Yes, ma'am... *THOSE* kind of parents that use their kids to inflate theirownsick egos; those kinds of parents that treat their child as nothing morethanchattel.Adoption is alive and well and living in the US.And in Canada.

And so are abusive and neglectful Canadian parents that don't follow their case
plans, hence, deservingly lose their children to foster care.



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




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: Such A Piece Of S..TFrom: Jackie forgetit@me.comDate: 3/3/04 5:05 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <1qlb40963pdg3448t4re0vol8u2fve93co@4ax.com>On 2 Mar 2004 13:32:14 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)wrote:You wrote to Rupa.I know what you mean. I don't believe I could have accepted mandatorycounselling, on the aforesaid principle among other reasons. There'sno guarantee it would have been any good anyway, and I'm sure thatlousy counselling just compounds a person's problems, and is worsethan none at all.What I would have liked it the truth..Like you have a right to see your baby..However, it would have been nice to have had a wise discreet personthere *in the flesh*, who could be objective, was familiar with theissues, and knew what they were talking about. The web's great, butthere's much room for misunderstanding, and if you are dealing withheavily charged emotional issues you need to be pretty tough to mineits gold.Even today women are told half truths when relinquishing.. Openadoption is a good example. IMOHalf truths that manipulate her into relinquishing..Not right..Jackie

So what are you doing other than flapping your jaws complaining about it? I'm
sure there are plenty of expectant women in Canada that will allow you to make
their choices for them. Just get on the bus, and goferit.








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

Di writes:
If you do believe that, why say what you said? I don't understand whyyouneed to promote this perception that many parents who relinquish orabuse do sobecause their children were simply unwanted and unloved, when you doknow that is rarely the reason. I understand it even less coming fromboth Lisa and Kathy.


While you do seem to be making progress in your thinking, Di, acknowledging
that some parents sincerely do not wish to parent, what you continue to fail to
build into the equasion is that parents/mothers sincerely do sometimes opt to
place children for adoption for reasons that are private but valid. A person
can love a child, in no way be "inadequate", in no way be abnormal, in no way
be abusive or uncaring and *still* opt to place. Being a normal, healthy person
and being a voluntary birthparent are NOT mutually exclusive.


P2P

In article <0jl1c.68101$aH3.2082698@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
Marley Greiner <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote: Wales you have to put up with the odd Sankey & Moody often sung in the native tongue,

Kindly explain Sankey and Moody, someone, anyone, Robin one!
BTW, my mentor at Durham University is England's foremost authority on OhioHistory.

Something tells me that there isn't a whole lot of competition for the
title. Once you get beyond the Battle of Fallen Timbers, Ohio history is
pretty much of a snore, with the possible exception of the border war
between Michigan and Ohio over Toledo. Ohio lost.




The British Museum has a huge Ohio History collection and withinthat collection there is a substantial section on Ohio history all writtenin Welsh. Sounds lovely.

Why? For the love of God WHY? In Welsh. Marly, are you making this up?


Almost all libraries have some kind of quirky collection because someone
on the staff or one of the profs had an obsession. As a matter of fact my
library has a much bigger collection of Welsh history than it has British
History. Turns out that a prof once upon a time made friends with a
librarian and she bought him tons of stuff to help him write his
dissertation.

Linda

in article c252s3$hj8@marlowe.umd.edu, Linda Fortney at lfortney@dc.umd.edu
wrote on 3/3/04 4:58 pm:
In article <0jl1c.68101$aH3.2082698@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, Marley Greiner <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote: Wales you have to put up with the odd Sankey & Moody often sung in the native tongue, Kindly explain Sankey and Moody, someone, anyone, Robin one!

Hymn music writer (mostly with Fanny Crosby who wrote the lyrics) Ira David
Sankey and spiritualist singer Dwight Lyman Moody the purveyors of those
works that no Welsh Evangelical Methodist home would ever be without 'Sacred
Songs and Solos' and 'The Sankey and Moody Hymn Book', gave their name to a
particular type of hymn. Apparently they had become very religious after
barely escaping the great fire of Chicago in 1871. Sankey had previously
been in the employ of the IRS and the YMCA, guess he must have had a thing
about initials. They ended up doing many tours of the British Isles where
they were popular in working class Christian areas.

For your delectation http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/b/e/beholdwl.htm

My adoptive family were Congregationalists (one cousin himself a vicar and
prize winning hymn writer) I've heard a great deal of Sankey and Moody in my
time, in fact a great deal more than I really cared to, they may even hold
much of the blame for my atheism.

Robin




BTW, my mentor at Durham University is England's foremost authority on Ohio History.

Something tells me that there isn't a whole lot of competition for the title. Once you get beyond the Battle of Fallen Timbers, Ohio history is pretty much of a snore, with the possible exception of the border war between Michigan and Ohio over Toledo. Ohio lost. The British Museum has a huge Ohio History collection and within that collection there is a substantial section on Ohio history all written in Welsh. Sounds lovely. Why? For the love of God WHY? In Welsh. Marly, are you making this up? Almost all libraries have some kind of quirky collection because someone on the staff or one of the profs had an obsession. As a matter of fact my library has a much bigger collection of Welsh history than it has British History. Turns out that a prof once upon a time made friends with a librarian and she bought him tons of stuff to help him write his dissertation. Linda

"Linda Fortney" <lfortney@dc.umd.edu> wrote in message
news:c252s3$hj8@marlowe.umd.edu... In article <0jl1c.68101$aH3.2082698@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, Marley Greiner <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote: Wales you have to put up with the odd Sankey & Moody often sung in the native tongue, Kindly explain Sankey and Moody, someone, anyone, Robin one!BTW, my mentor at Durham University is England's foremost authority on
OhioHistory. Something tells me that there isn't a whole lot of competition for the title. Once you get beyond the Battle of Fallen Timbers, Ohio history is pretty much of a snore, with the possible exception of the border war between Michigan and Ohio over Toledo. Ohio lost.

Oh, Ohio history is big in England for some reason. My mentor wrote his
opus magnum on Gov. Sinclair. He even acknowledged me. I spent a day up
there in 1986 copy editing the book along with his wife. He laughed at it
the whole time. Not that it's not a good piece of scholarship--but who
cares? Donald never met a sentence that couldn't be made longer with
semi-colons. He was worse than Foucault. He's also a big scholar on
Jacksonoinan democracy and the second party system. Now that's a snore,
though he does have the good taste to say if he had to be share an abandoned
island with somebody it would be Martin Van Buren. When I studied with him
he'd go off on tangents in class about All Things...well, I forget the name
of the show--about the British vet. He also vented over the Royals, which
was fine with me. I'd rather talk about Prince Charles than Franklin
Pierce. The British Museum has a huge Ohio History collection and withinthat collection there is a substantial section on Ohio history all
writtenin Welsh. Sounds lovely. Why? For the love of God WHY? In Welsh. Marly, are you making this up?

It's what he told me. I have no idea. Supposedly there were some early
Welsh settlers here who liked to write and write and write and then write
some more. Almost all libraries have some kind of quirky collection because someone on the staff or one of the profs had an obsession. As a matter of fact my library has a much bigger collection of Welsh history than it has British History. Turns out that a prof once upon a time made friends with a librarian and she bought him tons of stuff to help him write his dissertation.

So, you need to get a big government grant now to develop the Center for
Welsh Studies with you as at least the librarian, but I think you should go
for Director.

Marley Linda

Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message news:<1qlb40963pdg3448t4re0vol8u2fve93co@4ax.com>... On 2 Mar 2004 13:32:14 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote: You wrote to Rupa.I know what you mean. I don't believe I could have accepted mandatorycounselling, on the aforesaid principle among other reasons. There'sno guarantee it would have been any good anyway, and I'm sure thatlousy counselling just compounds a person's problems, and is worsethan none at all. What I would have liked it the truth.. Like you have a right to see your baby..However, it would have been nice to have had a wise discreet personthere *in the flesh*, who could be objective, was familiar with theissues, and knew what they were talking about. The web's great, butthere's much room for misunderstanding, and if you are dealing withheavily charged emotional issues you need to be pretty tough to mineits gold. Even today women are told half truths when relinquishing.. Open adoption is a good example. IMO Half truths that manipulate her into relinquishing.. Not right.



Actually, If you'd bothered to follow the thread, you'd have know that
Robin, Rupa and I were discussing counselling in the context of
reunion and *not* relinquishment.



Rh.


Jackie

meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in message news:<20040303104119.10232.00000704@mb-m03.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Such A Piece Of S..TFrom: Jackie forgetit@me.comDate: 3/3/04 5:05 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <1qlb40963pdg3448t4re0vol8u2fve93co@4ax.com>On 2 Mar 2004 13:32:14 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)wrote:You wrote to Rupa.I know what you mean. I don't believe I could have accepted mandatorycounselling, on the aforesaid principle among other reasons. There'sno guarantee it would have been any good anyway, and I'm sure thatlousy counselling just compounds a person's problems, and is worsethan none at all.What I would have liked it the truth..Like you have a right to see your baby..However, it would have been nice to have had a wise discreet personthere *in the flesh*, who could be objective, was familiar with theissues, and knew what they were talking about. The web's great, butthere's much room for misunderstanding, and if you are dealing withheavily charged emotional issues you need to be pretty tough to mineits gold.Even today women are told half truths when relinquishing.. Openadoption is a good example. IMOHalf truths that manipulate her into relinquishing..Not right..Jackie So what are you doing other than flapping your jaws complaining about it? I'm sure there are plenty of expectant women in Canada that will allow you to make their choices for them. Just get on the bus, and goferit.


Oh, don't encourage her ;-)
They've got enough on their plates. They don't need Jackie to further
confuse things.

Jackie's flapping her jaws in reponse to something that comes entirely
from her own imagination.
My post was never about counselling in the context of relinquishment,
but about minimizing 'damage' at the time or reunion.



Rh 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 writes:

<snip>
I think that it is important and emancipating to acknowledge thatdiversity in behavior is what evolution is based upon, and that someof the very things we consider to be 'natural' are simply what we'rehabituated to regard as the norm.Rh.

Whew. You said a mouthful. And, if I am understanding you correctly, I agree.


P2P

In article <c252s3$hj8@marlowe.umd.edu>,
lfortney@dc.umd.edu (Linda Fortney) wrote:
Once you get beyond the Battle of Fallen Timbers, Ohio history is pretty much of a snore, with the possible exception of the border war between Michigan and Ohio over Toledo. Ohio lost.


Toledo now is part of Michigan?





steve
--
--
Steven White <stevewhitemd@earthlink.net>

In article <dafc70.0403031103.1345982e@posting.google.com>,
sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) writes:
Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote in messagenews:<1qlb40963pdg3448t4re0vol8u2fve93co@4ax.com>... On 2 Mar 2004 13:32:14 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote: You wrote to Rupa.I know what you mean. I don't believe I could have accepted mandatorycounselling, on the aforesaid principle among other reasons. There'sno guarantee it would have been any good anyway, and I'm sure thatlousy counselling just compounds a person's problems, and is worsethan none at all. What I would have liked it the truth.. Like you have a right to see your baby..However, it would have been nice to have had a wise discreet personthere *in the flesh*, who could be objective, was familiar with theissues, and knew what they were talking about. The web's great, butthere's much room for misunderstanding, and if you are dealing withheavily charged emotional issues you need to be pretty tough to mineits gold. Even today women are told half truths when relinquishing.. Open adoption is a good example. IMO Half truths that manipulate her into relinquishing.. Not right.Actually, If you'd bothered to follow the thread, you'd have know thatRobin, Rupa and I were discussing counselling in the context ofreunion and *not* relinquishment.Rh.

HELLO???? Jackie doesn't care about reunion, so she doesn't read it as
reunion. She sees the r and jumps right to the conclusion it is about
relinquishment. Didn't you get the memo?? ;-)

KL

>Subject: Re: Such A Piece Of SO..TFrom: Steve White stevewhitemd@earthlink.netDate: 3/3/04 6:22 PM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <stevewhitemd-3E68D1.17224103032004@news.uchicago.edu>In article <c252s3$hj8@marlowe.umd.edu>, lfortney@dc.umd.edu (Linda Fortney) wrote: Once you get beyond the Battle of Fallen Timbers, Ohio history is pretty much of a snore, with the possible exception of the border war between Michigan and Ohio over Toledo. Ohio lost.Toledo now is part of Michigan?


No, the *loser* ended up with Toledo. Glad I could clear that up

Dad

"Steve White" <stevewhitemd@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:stevewhitemd-3E68D1.17224103032004@news.uchicago.edu... In article <c252s3$hj8@marlowe.umd.edu>, lfortney@dc.umd.edu (Linda Fortney) wrote: Once you get beyond the Battle of Fallen Timbers, Ohio history is pretty much of a snore, with the possible exception of the border war between Michigan and Ohio over Toledo. Ohio lost. Toledo now is part of Michigan? steve

Last time I was there it looked like Pontiac where even Kinkos was boarded
up.

Marley -- -- Steven White <stevewhitemd@earthlink.net>

In article <20040303195503.24952.00000849@mb-m26.aol.com>,
adoptadad@aol.com (AdoptaDad) wrote:
Subject: Re: Such A Piece Of SO..TFrom: Steve White stevewhitemd@earthlink.netDate: 3/3/04 6:22 PM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <stevewhitemd-3E68D1.17224103032004@news.uchicago.edu>In article <c252s3$hj8@marlowe.umd.edu>, lfortney@dc.umd.edu (Linda Fortney) wrote: Once you get beyond the Battle of Fallen Timbers, Ohio history is pretty much of a snore, with the possible exception of the border war between Michigan and Ohio over Toledo. Ohio lost.Toledo now is part of Michigan? No, the *loser* ended up with Toledo. Glad I could clear that up


You were raised in Cleveland, right? :-)





steve

palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message news:<20040303142420.18203.00000684@mb-m06.aol.com>... sarallewellyn writes: <snip>I think that it is important and emancipating to acknowledge thatdiversity in behavior is what evolution is based upon, and that someof the very things we consider to be 'natural' are simply what we'rehabituated to regard as the norm.Rh. Whew. You said a mouthful. And, if I am understanding you correctly, I agree.



Thank God for the proviso.



Rh. P2P

klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL) wrote in message news:<20040303183905.11022.00004462@mb-m14.aol.com>... In article <dafc70.0403031103.1345982e@posting.google.com>, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) writes:Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote in messagenews:<1qlb40963pdg3448t4re0vol8u2fve93co@4ax.com>... On 2 Mar 2004 13:32:14 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote: You wrote to Rupa. >I know what you mean. I don't believe I could have accepted mandatory >counselling, on the aforesaid principle among other reasons. There's >no guarantee it would have been any good anyway, and I'm sure that >lousy counselling just compounds a person's problems, and is worse >than none at all. What I would have liked it the truth.. Like you have a right to see your baby.. >However, it would have been nice to have had a wise discreet person >there *in the flesh*, who could be objective, was familiar with the >issues, and knew what they were talking about. The web's great, but >there's much room for misunderstanding, and if you are dealing with >heavily charged emotional issues you need to be pretty tough to mine >its gold. Even today women are told half truths when relinquishing.. Open adoption is a good example. IMO Half truths that manipulate her into relinquishing.. Not right. > >Actually, If you'd bothered to follow the thread, you'd have know thatRobin, Rupa and I were discussing counselling in the context ofreunion and *not* relinquishment.Rh. HELLO???? Jackie doesn't care about reunion, so she doesn't read it as reunion. She sees the r and jumps right to the conclusion it is about relinquishment. Didn't you get the memo?? ;-)


No. I'm stupid.



Rh. KL

On 3 Mar 2004 11:03:33 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)
wrote:
Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message news:<1qlb40963pdg3448t4re0vol8u2fve93co@4ax.com>... On 2 Mar 2004 13:32:14 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote: You wrote to Rupa.I know what you mean. I don't believe I could have accepted mandatorycounselling, on the aforesaid principle among other reasons. There'sno guarantee it would have been any good anyway, and I'm sure thatlousy counselling just compounds a person's problems, and is worsethan none at all. What I would have liked it the truth.. Like you have a right to see your baby..However, it would have been nice to have had a wise discreet personthere *in the flesh*, who could be objective, was familiar with theissues, and knew what they were talking about. The web's great, butthere's much room for misunderstanding, and if you are dealing withheavily charged emotional issues you need to be pretty tough to mineits gold. Even today women are told half truths when relinquishing.. Open adoption is a good example. IMO Half truths that manipulate her into relinquishing.. Not right.Actually, If you'd bothered to follow the thread, you'd have know thatRobin, Rupa and I were discussing counselling in the context ofreunion and *not* relinquishment.


And truth has nothing to do with it.. Correct?


Jackie

sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote in message news:<dafc70.0403021754.44d4a143@posting.google.com>... patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote in message news:<9a095db9.0403020915.2605e68b@posting.google.com>... sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote in message news:<dafc70.0403011713.12b6980e@posting.google.com>... > > And your point is? > > > > > > > Since you now see fit to address it below, why're you asking? It might have been more seemly to do so in the first place, (rather than simply screeching 'Liar!' ) > > > > That might have posed some difficulty given that you said nothing more than "So she says." at the time of my response. The "seemly" thing to do is to ask the question before expecting the reply. What question?
The commentary you berated me for not replying to before you had post
it.
Given that you've not infrequently said that all women love and want their children (and often done so without qualification) I think that 'So she says' was rather more more 'seemly' than 'Liar!' However, I apologise for not being more specific. I was wrong, and I can see how it would bug you.

I never use the term "ALL mothers." That's your own interpretation.

At any rate, I'm glad that you do agree that, under certain circumstances, it's 'natural' for some women not to love and want their children.

I didn't say it was "natural" not to want or love one's child. I have
acknowledged that in rare circumstances and for whatever reasons,
there are mothers who don't.

Which is not to say that I think those circumstances should be encouraged or exploited. I think that it is important and emancipating to acknowledge that diversity in behavior is what evolution is based upon, and that some of the very things we consider to be 'natural' are simply what we're habituated to regard as the norm.
I will not normalise the unnatural for the sake of justifying infant
adoption.
Nor will I lend credence to the myths perpetuated by the adoption
industry's promotion of it. It is circumstances, not nature, which
brings a mother to the point where she considers relinquishing her
child. I certainly acknowledge that some mothers need help in the
task of raising their child but to have one's child permanently taken
and hidden from them on the baisis of a lack of support is an
unconscionable expectation to impose on any mother.


http://www.netaxs.com/~sparky/adoption/intermediary.html
In order to bring the issues surrounding the intermediary
question into clear focus, it is necessary to examine the myths and
motives that surround the adoption experience. Outsiders need to
realize that social agencies not only control adoption procedures, but
also control the information about the institution which is provided
to the courts, the legislatures, and the public. It is the child
welfare establishment that has provided the picture of birthmothers as
indifferent--as mothers who abandon their unwanted children
with a wish to remain forever hidden from them. They know that this is
seldom true, but it helps to facilitate their work for the public to
believe this. Society does not dismiss the importance of the natural
family as readily as the social planners, and so it is useful to
portray relinquishing parents as different from caring parents. The
birthmother must be different, an aberration, for if it were true that
she had the same degree of love for her child as all other mothers,
the good of adoption would be overwhelmed by the tragedy of it.


Di


Rh.

Di acknowledges:
I didn't say it was "natural" not to want or love one's child. I haveacknowledged that in rare circumstances and for whatever reasons,there are mothers who don't.>>

And they don't necessarily place them for adoption. On the other hand, some
mothers who love and want their children very much do place.


P2P

Di writes:
I certainly acknowledge that some mothers need help in thetask of raising their child but to have one's child permanently takenand hidden from them on the baisis of a lack of support is anunconscionable expectation to impose on any mother.>>

And rarely are children "taken". Only in instances of incarceration, habitual
child abuse and illegal drug use.

Rarely are children placed for adoption "hidden" from anyone, typically only in
cases that involve dangerous birth relatives.

You are writing of your own experiences again, Di.


P2P

>Subject: Re: Such A Piece Of S..TFrom: palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines)Date: 3/4/04 7:57 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <20040304105755.28475.00000814@mb-m29.aol.com>Di acknowledges:I didn't say it was "natural" not to want or love one's child. I haveacknowledged that in rare circumstances and for whatever reasons,there are mothers who don't.>>And they don't necessarily place them for adoption.

I'd like to hear what Di thinks those kinds of mothers should do with their
babies that they don't want or do not love. Should they be forced to parent or
should they be forced to hand over to other biological family members that are
about as ill equipped as they are to parent.




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

patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote in message news:<9a095db9.0403040743.54f1fec5@posting.google.com>... sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote in message news:<dafc70.0403021754.44d4a143@posting.google.com>... I didn't say it was "natural" not to want or love one's child. I have acknowledged that in rare circumstances and for whatever reasons, there are mothers who don't.



And that under the right circumstances, 'all', without exception,
would?
That's my problem with your take.



Which is not to say that I think those circumstances should be encouraged or exploited. I think that it is important and emancipating to acknowledge that diversity in behavior is what evolution is based upon, and that some of the very things we consider to be 'natural' are simply what we're habituated to regard as the norm. I will not normalise the unnatural for the sake of justifying infant adoption.


Bravely said on your part.
Nor do I. But I don't expect you to accept that.
It is not 'normalizing the unnatural' to recognise that there are more
things in nature than previously dreamed, and that anomalies aren't
necessarily 'unnatural'.
Nature and circumstance are inseparable.
The challenge is to create the optimum circumstances for natural
families to thrive, as opposed to exploiting the fragile situations
many find themselves in.


Nor will I lend credence to the myths perpetuated by the adoption industry's promotion of it. It is circumstances, not nature, which brings a mother to the point where she considers relinquishing her child. I certainly acknowledge that some mothers need help in the task of raising their child but to have one's child permanently taken and hidden from them on the baisis of a lack of support is an unconscionable expectation to impose on any mother. http://www.netaxs.com/~sparky/adoption/intermediary.html In order to bring the issues surrounding the intermediary question into clear focus, it is necessary to examine the myths and motives that surround the adoption experience. Outsiders need to realize that social agencies not only control adoption procedures, but also control the information about the institution which is provided to the courts, the legislatures, and the public. It is the child welfare establishment that has provided the picture of birthmothers as indifferent--as mothers who abandon their unwanted children with a wish to remain forever hidden from them. They know that this is seldom true, but it helps to facilitate their work for the public to believe this. Society does not dismiss the importance of the natural family as readily as the social planners, and so it is useful to portray relinquishing parents as different from caring parents. The birthmother must be different, an aberration, for if it were true that she had the same degree of love for her child as all other mothers, the good of adoption would be overwhelmed by the tragedy of it.



I completely agree.



Rh. Di Rh.

palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message news:<20040304105755.28475.00000814@mb-m29.aol.com>... Di acknowledges:I didn't say it was "natural" not to want or love one's child. I haveacknowledged that in rare circumstances and for whatever reasons,there are mothers who don't.>> And they don't necessarily place them for adoption.




Right enough.
And because they're in 'good circumstances' they get to retain ownership.


On the other hand, some mothers who love and want their children very much do place.


This is true.
And if there was adequate support they wouldn't have to do so.



Rh.
P2P

>Subject: Re: Such A Piece Of S..TFrom: sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)Date: 3/4/04 11:40 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <dafc70.0403041140.6aae706f@posting.google.com>patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote in messagenews:<9a095db9.0403040743.54f1fec5@posting.google.com>... sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote in messagenews:<dafc70.0403021754.44d4a143@posting.google.com>... I didn't say it was "natural" not to want or love one's child. I have acknowledged that in rare circumstances and for whatever reasons, there are mothers who don't.And that under the right circumstances, 'all', without exception,would?That's my problem with your take. Which is not to say that I think those circumstances should be encouraged or exploited. I think that it is important and emancipating to acknowledge that diversity in behavior is what evolution is based upon, and that some of the very things we consider to be 'natural' are simply what we're habituated to regard as the norm. I will not normalise the unnatural for the sake of justifying infant adoption.Bravely said on your part.Nor do I. But I don't expect you to accept that.It is not 'normalizing the unnatural' to recognise that there are morethings in nature than previously dreamed, and that anomalies aren'tnecessarily 'unnatural'.Nature and circumstance are inseparable.The challenge is to create the optimum circumstances for naturalfamilies to thrive, as opposed to exploiting the fragile situationsmany find themselves in. Nor will I lend credence to the myths perpetuated by the adoption industry's promotion of it. It is circumstances, not nature, which brings a mother to the point where she considers relinquishing her child. I certainly acknowledge that some mothers need help in the task of raising their child but to have one's child permanently taken and hidden from them on the baisis of a lack of support is an unconscionable expectation to impose on any mother. http://www.netaxs.com/~sparky/adoption/intermediary.html In order to bring the issues surrounding the intermediary question into clear focus, it is necessary to examine the myths and motives that surround the adoption experience. Outsiders need to realize that social agencies not only control adoption procedures, but also control the information about the institution which is provided to the courts, the legislatures, and the public. It is the child welfare establishment that has provided the picture of birthmothers as indifferent--as mothers who abandon their unwanted children with a wish to remain forever hidden from them. They know that this is seldom true, but it helps to facilitate their work for the public to believe this. Society does not dismiss the importance of the natural family as readily as the social planners, and so it is useful to portray relinquishing parents as different from caring parents. The birthmother must be different, an aberration, for if it were true that she had the same degree of love for her child as all other mothers, the good of adoption would be overwhelmed by the tragedy of it.I completely agree.Rh.

Di won't believe me....but so do I, ...agree.

Every time we've tried to discuss this though, I grow weary of being accused of
being a pro-adoptionist by Di. I don't mind if someone labels me a realist, and
in this case for those that don't love or want their children, adoption should
be encouraged.

I don't care who disagrees with me,....my pov is unlikely to alter. The numbers
of children waiting in care in every country has convinced me that not all
parents love nor want 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: Such A Piece Of S..TFrom: sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)Date: 3/3/04 11:12 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <dafc70.0403031112.1e45c1ec@posting.google.com>meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in messagenews:<20040303104119.10232.00000704@mb-m03.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Such A Piece Of S..TFrom: Jackie forgetit@me.comDate: 3/3/04 5:05 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <1qlb40963pdg3448t4re0vol8u2fve93co@4ax.com>On 2 Mar 2004 13:32:14 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)wrote:You wrote to Rupa.>I know what you mean. I don't believe I could have accepted mandatory>counselling, on the aforesaid principle among other reasons. There's>no guarantee it would have been any good anyway, and I'm sure that>lousy counselling just compounds a person's problems, and is worse>than none at all.What I would have liked it the truth..Like you have a right to see your baby..>However, it would have been nice to have had a wise discreet person>there *in the flesh*, who could be objective, was familiar with the>issues, and knew what they were talking about. The web's great, but>there's much room for misunderstanding, and if you are dealing with>heavily charged emotional issues you need to be pretty tough to mine>its gold.Even today women are told half truths when relinquishing.. Openadoption is a good example. IMOHalf truths that manipulate her into relinquishing..Not right..Jackie So what are you doing other than flapping your jaws complaining about it?I'm sure there are plenty of expectant women in Canada that will allow you tomake their choices for them. Just get on the bus, and goferit.Oh, don't encourage her ;-)They've got enough on their plates. They don't need Jackie to furtherconfuse things.

Ain't that the truth? :-)
Jackie's flapping her jaws in reponse to something that comes entirelyfrom her own imagination.

No, really? (how many posts are in this stooopid thread now?)
My post was never about counselling in the context of relinquishment,but about minimizing 'damage' at the time or reunion.

Oooooo, but dontcha' know, you're supposed to think out of the box, sara? ;-p

(Jackie's new words for today....@@)
Rh




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:<a47e40li3gdaa56smsjcuugjqiqua6nfcd@4ax.com>... On 3 Mar 2004 11:03:33 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote:Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message news:<1qlb40963pdg3448t4re0vol8u2fve93co@4ax.com>... On 2 Mar 2004 13:32:14 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote: You wrote to Rupa. >I know what you mean. I don't believe I could have accepted mandatory >counselling, on the aforesaid principle among other reasons. There's >no guarantee it would have been any good anyway, and I'm sure that >lousy counselling just compounds a person's problems, and is worse >than none at all. What I would have liked it the truth.. Like you have a right to see your baby.. >However, it would have been nice to have had a wise discreet person >there *in the flesh*, who could be objective, was familiar with the >issues, and knew what they were talking about. The web's great, but >there's much room for misunderstanding, and if you are dealing with >heavily charged emotional issues you need to be pretty tough to mine >its gold. Even today women are told half truths when relinquishing.. Open adoption is a good example. IMO Half truths that manipulate her into relinquishing.. Not right. > >Actually, If you'd bothered to follow the thread, you'd have know thatRobin, Rupa and I were discussing counselling in the context ofreunion and *not* relinquishment. And truth has nothing to do with it.. Correct?


The way you phrased the above shows you've already answered your own
question to suit yourself, so I won't be so cruel as to disturb your
complacency by contradicting you.


Rh. Jackie

>> On the other hand, some mothers who love and want their children very much do place.This is true.And if there was adequate support they wouldn't have to do so.Rh.


Depends on your definition of "adequate support". In some circumstances, there
are no forms of support that would reverse the decision to place a child for
adoption. Your statement suggests lack of support is always the reason "normal"
and loving women place children for adoption.


P2P

>Subject: Re: Such A Piece Of S..TFrom: sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)Date: 3/4/04 11:51 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <dafc70.0403041151.4f26a7e6@posting.google.com>
On the other hand, some mothers who love and want their children very much do place.
This is true.And if there was adequate support they wouldn't have to do so.
Rh

That may very well be true, but not always is the case. Some mothers that love
and want their children, just are not in that place in their lives where they
want to take on the job of parenting for various reasons. I'm not sure
'adequate support' would help those like this.






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: Such A Piece Of S..TFrom: sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)Date: 3/4/2004 2:40 PM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <dafc70.0403041140.6aae706f@posting.google.com>patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote in messagenews:<9a095db9.0403040743.54f1fec5@posting.google.com>... sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote in messagenews:<dafc70.0403021754.44d4a143@posting.google.com>... I didn't say it was "natural" not to want or love one's child. I have acknowledged that in rare circumstances and for whatever reasons, there are mothers who don't.And that under the right circumstances, 'all', without exception,would?That's my problem with your take. Which is not to say that I think those circumstances should be encouraged or exploited. I think that it is important and emancipating to acknowledge that diversity in behavior is what evolution is based upon, and that some of the very things we consider to be 'natural' are simply what we're habituated to regard as the norm. I will not normalise the unnatural for the sake of justifying infant adoption.Bravely said on your part.Nor do I. But I don't expect you to accept that.It is not 'normalizing the unnatural' to recognise that there are morethings in nature than previously dreamed, and that anomalies aren'tnecessarily 'unnatural'.


Di. The Pastor Fred Phelps of the anti-adoption movement.

Dad

In article <20040304110034.28475.00000815@mb-m29.aol.com>,
palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote:
Rarely are children placed for adoption "hidden" from anyone, typicallyonly in cases that involve dangerous birth relatives.

I was hidden from my birth family for nearly thirty years, and in the
imagination of the state, I'm still hidden.

whoever
---------------------------------------
clandestine caffeinator

In article <20040304120632.19374.00000747@mb-m16.aol.com>,
meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote:
I'd like to hear what Di thinks those kinds of mothers should do with theirbabies that they don't want or do not love. Should they be forced to parentor should they be forced to hand over to other biological family members thatare about as ill equipped as they are to parent.

Are those the only two choices? Have you stopped beating your wife?

whoever
---------------------------------------------
sounds like a Sanka dilemma to me

In article <20040304151357.19374.00000762@mb-m16.aol.com>,
meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote:
Some mothers that love and want their children, just are not in thatplace in their lives where they want to take on the job of parenting forvarious reasons. I'm not sure 'adequate support' would help those like this.

In that case, they love their children but don't want them, it seems to me. And
if the various reasons boiled down to something like not being able to complete
their education while caring for a child, then truly adequate support would
enable them to do so. But that would be communism, I suppose.

whoever
---------------------------------------
free, free, free! coffee

In article <BC6BCDC4.366D3%karakoram@postadoption.info>,
Robin <karakoram@postadoption.info> wrote:
For your delectation http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/b/e/beholdwl.htm

Thank you. I will certainly check it out.

My adoptive family were Congregationalists (one cousin himself a vicar andprize winning hymn writer) I've heard a great deal of Sankey and Moody in mytime, in fact a great deal more than I really cared to, they may even holdmuch of the blame for my atheism.Robin

I'll see you two Sankey and Moodys and raise you three sappy Catholic
hymns as a cause for atheism.

I imagine Sankey and Moody have lots in common with such sappy sentimental
crap as "Mother Dear Oh Pray for Me" and "Tis the Month of Our Mother"
or the lamentable "Sons of God" You see, we never got to hear the good
stuff like Palestrina, but rather sappy 19th century sentimentality.
After Vatican II we got a bunch of hideous "folk" hymns.


Linda

>(Palms2pines) wrote:Rarely are children placed for adoption "hidden" from anyone, typicallyonly in cases that involve dangerous birth relatives.

I was hidden from my birth family for nearly thirty years, and in theimagination of the state, I'm still hidden.whoever


With the operative words being "nearly thirty years".


P2P

In article <20040304175603.28475.00000832@mb-m29.aol.com>,
palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote:
(Palms2pines) wrote:Rarely are children placed for adoption "hidden" from anyone, typicallyonly in cases that involve dangerous birth relatives.I was hidden from my birth family for nearly thirty years, and in theimagination of the state, I'm still hidden.whoeverWith the operative words being "nearly thirty years".

Excuse me? Your argument seemed to be that the little girl's being hidden from
her mother had no parallel in adoption. But every adoptee in a closed adoption
is hidden from his birth family. The kidnap victim was hidden for five years,
and I was hidden for nearly thirty. If the state had its way, I'd be hidden
still. Seems pretty similar to me, with the operative word being "hidden".

whoever
---------------------------------------
coffee operative

"fiend" <reveohw@aol.compromise> wrote in message
news:20040304171049.08626.00003436@mb-m27.aol.com... In article <20040304110034.28475.00000815@mb-m29.aol.com>, palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote:Rarely are children placed for adoption "hidden" from anyone, typicallyonly in cases that involve dangerous birth relatives. I was hidden from my birth family for nearly thirty years, and in the imagination of the state, I'm still hidden. whoever --------------------------------------- clandestine caffeinator

Isn't that the purpose of sealed records and closed adoptions?

Marley

"fiend" <reveohw@aol.compromise> wrote in message
news:20040304172138.01692.00000931@mb-m18.aol.com... In article <20040304151357.19374.00000762@mb-m16.aol.com>, meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote:Some mothers that love and want their children, just are not in thatplace in their lives where they want to take on the job of parenting forvarious reasons. I'm not sure 'adequate support' would help those like
this. In that case, they love their children but don't want them, it seems to
me. And if the various reasons boiled down to something like not being able to
complete their education while caring for a child, then truly adequate support
would enable them to do so. But that would be communism, I suppose. whoever --------------------------------------- free, free, free! coffee

Or even worse: Europeanism!

Marley

"Linda Fortney" <lfortney@dc.umd.edu> wrote in message
news:c28a9a$e98@marlowe.umd.edu... In article <BC6BCDC4.366D3%karakoram@postadoption.info>, Robin <karakoram@postadoption.info> wrote:For your delectation http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/b/e/beholdwl.htm Thank you. I will certainly check it out.My adoptive family were Congregationalists (one cousin himself a vicar
andprize winning hymn writer) I've heard a great deal of Sankey and Moody in
mytime, in fact a great deal more than I really cared to, they may even
holdmuch of the blame for my atheism.Robin I'll see you two Sankey and Moodys and raise you three sappy Catholic hymns as a cause for atheism. I imagine Sankey and Moody have lots in common with such sappy sentimental crap as "Mother Dear Oh Pray for Me" and "Tis the Month of Our Mother" or the lamentable "Sons of God" You see, we never got to hear the good stuff like Palestrina, but rather sappy 19th century sentimentality. After Vatican II we got a bunch of hideous "folk" hymns. Linda

And hand-shaking and hugging.

Marley

In article <R3Q1c.73590$aH3.2255499@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Or even worse: Europeanism!

Aren't they all commies? Or at least pinkos. Or maybe mauvists?

whoever
---------------------------------
coffee fauvist

In article <73Q1c.73586$aH3.2255125@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

(me:) I was hidden from my birth family for nearly thirty years, and in the imagination of the state, I'm still hidden.Isn't that the purpose of sealed records and closed adoptions?

As far as I can tell. Not that it has anything to do with anything, of course.

whoever
--------------------------------------
drinking irrelevant coffee

palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message news:<20040304110034.28475.00000815@mb-m29.aol.com>... Di writes: I certainly acknowledge that some mothers need help in thetask of raising their child but to have one's child permanently takenand hidden from them on the baisis of a lack of support is anunconscionable expectation to impose on any mother.>> And rarely are children "taken". Only in instances of incarceration, habitual child abuse and illegal drug use. Rarely are children placed for adoption "hidden" from anyone, typically only in cases that involve dangerous birth relatives. You are writing of your own experiences again, Di. P2P

Okay then let me put it this way. I acknowledge that some mothers may
need at least temporary help in the task of raising their child, but
that should not
be at the expense of permanently losing their child or their
relationship with their child, as in the case of adoption. The cost to
both is too high.

Di

"fiend" <reveohw@aol.compromise> wrote in message
news:20040304204735.12631.00005350@mb-m28.aol.com... In article <R3Q1c.73590$aH3.2255499@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote:Or even worse: Europeanism! Aren't they all commies? Or at least pinkos. Or maybe mauvists? whoever --------------------------------- coffee fauvist

Mauvists? I love it. I have a mauve room in my house, in tribute to the
late German woman.

Marley

sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote in message news:<dafc70.0403041140.6aae706f@posting.google.com>... patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote in message news:<9a095db9.0403040743.54f1fec5@posting.google.com>... sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote in message news:<dafc70.0403021754.44d4a143@posting.google.com>... I didn't say it was "natural" not to want or love one's child. I have acknowledged that in rare circumstances and for whatever reasons, there are mothers who don't. And that under the right circumstances, 'all', without exception, would? That's my problem with your take.

You only need to look at the statistics of countries that provide
decent support services to see that all, save those whose
circumstances are threatening, or their cultural norm is to promote
adoption relinquishment, do keep their children. F'rinstance, of the
88 adoptions that too place in Oz in 2001, aside from the steparent
adoptions, those who relinquished were parents whose male cultures did
not accept exnuptual or disabled children. Those parents include Uni
students who cannot take their child back to thier country and those
where the father sees it as an afront to his manhood to have produced
a disabled child or parents overwhelmed by the responsibility of
raising a disabled child. Countries such as Sweden never promoted
infant
adoption after the mid 60's but instead provided adequate support
provisions and accomodation for such mothers to allow them to keep.
Local adoption in the Netherlands is almost unheard of.

Which is not to say that I think those circumstances should be encouraged or exploited. I think that it is important and emancipating to acknowledge that diversity in behavior is what evolution is based upon, and that some of the very things we consider to be 'natural' are simply what we're habituated to regard as the norm. I will not normalise the unnatural for the sake of justifying infant adoption. Bravely said on your part. Nor do I. But I don't expect you to accept that.


I do accept that. What I don't accept is the use of that miniscule 1%
who may not want/love their child (if that is the figure) as an
argument that
insinuates that the greater majority of nmothers feel/felt the same
way, as a mean of justifying the promotion of adoption. To do so is to
perpetuate the myths.

It is not 'normalizing the unnatural' to recognise that there are more things in nature than previously dreamed, and that anomalies aren't necessarily 'unnatural'. Nature and circumstance are inseparable.

I don't agree.
The challenge is to create the optimum circumstances for natural families to thrive, as opposed to exploiting the fragile situations many find themselves in.

Agreed. Nor will I lend credence to the myths perpetuated by the adoption industry's promotion of it. It is circumstances, not nature, which brings a mother to the point where she considers relinquishing her child. I certainly acknowledge that some mothers need help in the task of raising their child but to have one's child permanently taken and hidden from them on the baisis of a lack of support is an unconscionable expectation to impose on any mother. http://www.netaxs.com/~sparky/adoption/intermediary.html In order to bring the issues surrounding the intermediary question into clear focus, it is necessary to examine the myths and motives that surround the adoption experience. Outsiders need to realize that social agencies not only control adoption procedures, but also control the information about the institution which is provided to the courts, the legislatures, and the public. It is the child welfare establishment that has provided the picture of birthmothers as indifferent--as mothers who abandon their unwanted children with a wish to remain forever hidden from them. They know that this is seldom true, but it helps to facilitate their work for the public to believe this. Society does not dismiss the importance of the natural family as readily as the social planners, and so it is useful to portray relinquishing parents as different from caring parents. The birthmother must be different, an aberration, for if it were true that she had the same degree of love for her child as all other mothers, the good of adoption would be overwhelmed by the tragedy of it. I completely agree. Rh. Di Rh.

meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in message news:<20040304151357.19374.00000762@mb-m16.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Such A Piece Of S..TFrom: sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)Date: 3/4/04 11:51 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <dafc70.0403041151.4f26a7e6@posting.google.com> On the other hand, some mothers who love and want their children very much do place.This is true.And if there was adequate support they wouldn't have to do so.Rh That may very well be true, but not always is the case. Some mothers that love and want their children, just are not in that place in their lives where they want to take on the job of parenting for various reasons. I'm not sure 'adequate support' would help those like this.


Fiend's already answered this, and I don't really have anything to
add.
Except perhaps to say that truly 'adequate support' should take care
of those 'various reasons' for them.


Rh. 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

"Rhiannon" <sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:dafc70.0403042056.334069b9@posting.google.com ... meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in message
news:<20040304151357.19374.00000762@mb-m16.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Such A Piece Of S..TFrom: sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)Date: 3/4/04 11:51 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <dafc70.0403041151.4f26a7e6@posting.google.com>> On the other hand, some mothers who love and want their children very> much do place.This is true.And if there was adequate support they wouldn't have to do so.Rh That may very well be true, but not always is the case. Some mothers
that love and want their children, just are not in that place in their lives
where they want to take on the job of parenting for various reasons. I'm not sure 'adequate support' would help those like this. Fiend's already answered this, and I don't really have anything to add. Except perhaps to say that truly 'adequate support' should take care of those 'various reasons' for them. Rh.

Unless they don't want to parent?

Marley

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

palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message news:<20040304151053.16190.00000801@mb-m11.aol.com>... On the other hand, some mothers who love and want their children very much do place. > >This is true.And if there was adequate support they wouldn't have to do so.Rh. Depends on your definition of "adequate support". In some circumstances, there are no forms of support that would reverse the decision to place a child for adoption. Your statement suggests lack of support is always the reason "normal" and loving women place children for adoption.


I'm not sure why you are talking about reversing a decision to
relinquish.
I haven't suggested this. Maybe I've missed out on a post.

If the conditions for keeping are there from the get-go, I believe
that what I say is true, that 'normal' women who *love and want* their
children would most certainly keep if adequate (financial, emotional
and practical) support was available to them.
Hey, maybe even some normally incompetent ones would too ;-)
If there was 'adequate support', there'd be no reason for such women
not to keep their children.







Rh. P2P

In article <9a095db9.0403041856.59f13fb3@posting.google.com>,
patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote:

I acknowledge that some mothers may need at least temporary help in the task of raising their child, but that should not be at the expense of permanently losing their child or their relationship with their child, as in the case of adoption. The cost to both is too high.


What if that "temporary" need lasts for 18 years?




steve

On 4 Mar 2004 20:29:10 -0800, patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote:
What I don't accept is the use of that miniscule 1%who may not want/love their child (if that is the figure) as anargument thatinsinuates that the greater majority of nmothers feel/felt the sameway, as a mean of justifying the promotion of adoption. To do so is toperpetuate the myths.


Now we have Safe Haven and the myth of women killing their children..


Jackie

"Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<lUT1c.148800$hR.2779006@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... "Rhiannon" <sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca> wrote in message news:dafc70.0403042056.334069b9@posting.google.com ... meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in message news:<20040304151357.19374.00000762@mb-m16.aol.com>... >Subject: Re: Such A Piece Of S..T >From: sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) >Date: 3/4/04 11:51 AM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <dafc70.0403041151.4f26a7e6@posting.google.com> >> On the other hand, some mothers who love and want their children very >> much do place. >This is true. >And if there was adequate support they wouldn't have to do so. >Rh That may very well be true, but not always is the case. Some mothers that love and want their children, just are not in that place in their lives where they want to take on the job of parenting for various reasons. I'm not sure 'adequate support' would help those like this. > > Fiend's already answered this, and I don't really have anything to add. Except perhaps to say that truly 'adequate support' should take care of those 'various reasons' for them. Rh. Unless they don't want to parent?


Exactly.
Some will not.
But the phrase was, I think, 'love and *want* their children'.
Maybe I'm mistaken in thinking that *wanting* one's child presupposes
a desire to parent. But I don't think so.
A person may love their child, but if they don't want to parent it,
then they don't want it. Certainly not enough to keep.




Rh. Marley 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

Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message news:<steve-C13E60.00094105032004@netnews.comcast.net>... In article <9a095db9.0403041856.59f13fb3@posting.google.com>, patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote: I acknowledge that some mothers may need at least temporary help in the task of raising their child, but that should not be at the expense of permanently losing their child or their relationship with their child, as in the case of adoption. The cost to both is too high. What if that "temporary" need lasts for 18 years?
So what if it does? Parents can and do have familiy tragedies and
crippling
accidents which cause lifelong disabling consequences. Do their
children get removed from them? No they don't. They are offered
support. Adoptive parents should be no more than aunts and uncles to
other people's children if they need support. They should not be
allowed to take over the identity of a child's actual parents.

Di
steve

meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in message news:<20040304145549.19374.00000760@mb-m16.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Such A Piece Of S..TFrom: sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)Date: 3/4/04 11:40 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <dafc70.0403041140.6aae706f@posting.google.com>patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote in messagenews:<9a095db9.0403040743.54f1fec5@posting.google.com>... sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote in message news:<dafc70.0403021754.44d4a143@posting.google.com>... I didn't say it was "natural" not to want or love one's child. I have acknowledged that in rare circumstances and for whatever reasons, there are mothers who don't. > >And that under the right circumstances, 'all', without exception,would?That's my problem with your take. > > > Which is not to say that I think those circumstances > should be encouraged or exploited. > I think that it is important and emancipating to acknowledge that > diversity in behavior is what evolution is based upon, and that some > of the very things we consider to be 'natural' are simply what we're > habituated to regard as the norm. > I will not normalise the unnatural for the sake of justifying infant adoption. > > >Bravely said on your part.Nor do I. But I don't expect you to accept that.It is not 'normalizing the unnatural' to recognise that there are morethings in nature than previously dreamed, and that anomalies aren'tnecessarily 'unnatural'.Nature and circumstance are inseparable.The challenge is to create the optimum circumstances for naturalfamilies to thrive, as opposed to exploiting the fragile situationsmany find themselves in. > > Nor will I lend credence to the myths perpetuated by the adoption industry's promotion of it. It is circumstances, not nature, which brings a mother to the point where she considers relinquishing her child. I certainly acknowledge that some mothers need help in the task of raising their child but to have one's child permanently taken and hidden from them on the baisis of a lack of support is an unconscionable expectation to impose on any mother. > http://www.netaxs.com/~sparky/adoption/intermediary.html In order to bring the issues surrounding the intermediary question into clear focus, it is necessary to examine the myths and motives that surround the adoption experience. Outsiders need to realize that social agencies not only control adoption procedures, but also control the information about the institution which is provided to the courts, the legislatures, and the public. It is the child welfare establishment that has provided the picture of birthmothers as indifferent--as mothers who abandon their unwanted children with a wish to remain forever hidden from them. They know that this is seldom true, but it helps to facilitate their work for the public to believe this. Society does not dismiss the importance of the natural family as readily as the social planners, and so it is useful to portray relinquishing parents as different from caring parents. The birthmother must be different, an aberration, for if it were true that she had the same degree of love for her child as all other mothers, the good of adoption would be overwhelmed by the tragedy of it. > >I completely agree.Rh. Di won't believe me....but so do I, ...agree. Every time we've tried to discuss this though, I grow weary of being accused of being a pro-adoptionist by Di. I don't mind if someone labels me a realist, and in this case for those that don't love or want their children, adoption should be encouraged.


Yeah, but we don't agree sufficiently on enough issues.
Given we've lost children though adoption, it seems that she can't
understand why we haven't reached the same conclusions about adoption
as herself.
It has to be us who're wrong.
Like I've said before, I'm more anti than pro, and I continue to
believe that there are alternatives to adoption which are
insufficiciently explored, and which, in many cases, would better
serve. The main problem, as I see it, is one of general public
attitude - too many readily accept without question that adoption is
invariably harmless, easy and good. The 'other side' seems to have
trouble seeing that adoption may sometimes be a 'necessary evil', out
of which good can come.


I don't care who disagrees with me,....my pov is unlikely to alter. The numbers of children waiting in care in every country has convinced me that not all parents love nor want their children.



I don't expect people to agree with me either (in fact I get rather
alarmed when they do. It's probably my adolescent streak)
I expect my POV to alter somewhat, but not radically.
As far as 'loving and wanting' is concerned, I think there are all
kinds of permutations . The majority of parents love and want. Others
may love but not want. I even know a few who seem to want but not love
(talking to one yesterday. A woman I like, too. Very bothersome)


Rh. 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:jpug40hdond2goibbig4man2uq52hemo8r@4ax.com... On 4 Mar 2004 20:29:10 -0800, patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote: What I don't accept is the use of that miniscule 1%who may not want/love their child (if that is the figure) as anargument thatinsinuates that the greater majority of nmothers feel/felt the sameway, as a mean of justifying the promotion of adoption. To do so is toperpetuate the myths. Now we have Safe Haven and the myth of women killing their children..

Not exactly a myth. There are, for sure, women who do kill their offspring.
However, I see the percentage as being far more miniscule that 1% floated
above. The press has a tendency to blow these things way out of
proportion. It's good for ratings and circulation. Sensationalism sells.

The real myth is that SH law addresses the problem solely because of its
promise of total anonymity. So far, not one advocate for baby dumps has
been able to show any correlation between anonymity and the reduction of
infanticide. It's all theory.


Jack

>Subject: Re: Such A Piece Of S..TFrom: patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian)Date: 3/5/04 8:42 AM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <9a095db9.0403050542.5af825a4@posting.google.com>Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in messagenews:<steve-C13E60.00094105032004@netnews.comcast.net>... In article <9a095db9.0403041856.59f13fb3@posting.google.com>, patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote: I acknowledge that some mothers may need at least temporary help in the task of raising their child, but that should not be at the expense of permanently losing their child or their relationship with their child, as in the case of adoption. The cost to both is too high. What if that "temporary" need lasts for 18 years?So what if it does?

Well, that about says it all.
Parents can and do have familiy tragedies and cripplingaccidents which cause lifelong disabling consequences.

Sometimes parents suffer tragedies or illnesses through no fault of their
own. Most of the kids in foster care are there for other reasons.
Do their children get removed from them? No they don't.

Yes, in the most severe of circumstances, sometimes they do.
They are offered support. Adoptive parents should be no morethan aunts and uncles to other people's children if they needsupport. They should not be allowed to take over the identityof a child's actual parents.

I see. So I can pretend to be my son's Uncle as long as he doesn't call me
his Dad. That's an interesting line you draw there.

Besides, we have to protect the legal standing of the Father named on his
Original Birth Certificate. No matter that he's never once seen his own son.

Oh wait, it's not even his child - he tested negative for paternity. I'm
so confused.

Real Dad

>Subject: Re: Such A Piece Of S..TFrom: reveohw@aol.compromise (fiend)Date: 3/4/04 2:10 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <20040304171050.08626.00003437@mb-m27.aol.com>In article <20040304120632.19374.00000747@mb-m16.aol.com>,meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote:I'd like to hear what Di thinks those kinds of mothers should do with theirbabies that they don't want or do not love. Should they be forced to parentor should they be forced to hand over to other biological family membersthatare about as ill equipped as they are to parent.

Are those the only two choices?

They are most often two of the choices that Di prattles on about when having
these discussions about those kinds of mothers.

Anyway, they are the two particular choices that I mentioned.

Should you happen to need more....feel free to start the clock now.
Have you stopped beating your wife?

Tick, tick, tick.....
whoever




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: Such A Piece Of S..TFrom: reveohw@aol.compromise (fiend)Date: 3/4/04 2:21 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <20040304172138.01692.00000931@mb-m18.aol.com>In article <20040304151357.19374.00000762@mb-m16.aol.com>,meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote:Some mothers that love and want their children, just are not in thatplace in their lives where they want to take on the job of parenting forvarious reasons. I'm not sure 'adequate support' would help those like this.In that case, they love their children but don't want them, it seems to me.

I don't necessarily think it means that they
don't want them. It could mean a lot of things that adequate support will not
help.

Maybe it was incest, or rape...or maybe she is to young to parent as a single
mother at age 10.

(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: Such A Piece Of S..TFrom: sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)Date: 3/4/04 8:56 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <dafc70.0403042056.334069b9@posting.google.com>meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in messagenews:<20040304151357.19374.00000762@mb-m16.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Such A Piece Of S..TFrom: sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)Date: 3/4/04 11:51 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <dafc70.0403041151.4f26a7e6@posting.google.com>> On the other hand, some mothers who love and want their children very> much do place.This is true.And if there was adequate support they wouldn't have to do so.Rh That may very well be true, but not always is the case. Some mothers thatlove and want their children, just are not in that place in their lives wherethey want to take on the job of parenting for various reasons. I'm not sure 'adequate support' would help those like this.Fiend's already answered this, and I don't really have anything toadd.Except perhaps to say that truly 'adequate support' should take careof those 'various reasons' for them.Rh.

OK, whatever. I was thinking more about the mother that loves and wants her
child, but for some reason can't parent or is unwilling to parent. Adequate
support doesn't help the rape victim, etc.






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

"Jack Bernhard" <jcbernhard@deletethisprodigy.net> wrote in message news:<4o02c.32189$jG3.7767@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com>... "Jackie" <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message news:jpug40hdond2goibbig4man2uq52hemo8r@4ax.com... On 4 Mar 2004 20:29:10 -0800, patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote: What I don't accept is the use of that miniscule 1%who may not want/love their child (if that is the figure) as anargument thatinsinuates that the greater majority of nmothers feel/felt the sameway, as a mean of justifying the promotion of adoption. To do so is toperpetuate the myths. Now we have Safe Haven and the myth of women killing their children.. Not exactly a myth. There are, for sure, women who do kill their offspring. However, I see the percentage as being far more miniscule that 1% floated above. The press has a tendency to blow these things way out of proportion. It's good for ratings and circulation. Sensationalism sells.


Just to set the record straight, that 1% was never meant to be about
mothers who kill their offspring.
Di asked me, 'So what percentage of mothers who relinquish would you
say constitute mothers who feel nothing for their child - 1%?, 10%?,
50%?, 100%?'
I replied, 'Miniscule (closer to 1% than any of those other figures)'
I think Dad said something similar.


The real myth is that SH law addresses the problem solely because of its promise of total anonymity. So far, not one advocate for baby dumps has been able to show any correlation between anonymity and the reduction of infanticide. It's all theory.



Aye.




Rh. Jack

"Rhiannon" <sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:dafc70.0403051141.679c19f0@posting.google.com ... "Jack Bernhard" <jcbernhard@deletethisprodigy.net> wrote in message
news:<4o02c.32189$jG3.7767@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com>... "Jackie" <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message news:jpug40hdond2goibbig4man2uq52hemo8r@4ax.com... On 4 Mar 2004 20:29:10 -0800, patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote: > What I don't accept is the use of that miniscule 1% >who may not want/love their child (if that is the figure) as an >argument that >insinuates that the greater majority of nmothers feel/felt the same >way, as a mean of justifying the promotion of adoption. To do so is
to >perpetuate the myths. Now we have Safe Haven and the myth of women killing their children.. Not exactly a myth. There are, for sure, women who do kill their offspring. However, I see the percentage as being far more miniscule that 1% floated above. The press has a tendency to blow these things way out of proportion. It's good for ratings and circulation. Sensationalism sells. Just to set the record straight, that 1% was never meant to be about mothers who kill their offspring. Di asked me, 'So what percentage of mothers who relinquish would you say constitute mothers who feel nothing for their child - 1%?, 10%?, 50%?, 100%?' I replied, 'Miniscule (closer to 1% than any of those other figures)' I think Dad said something similar.


Yeah, I realize that. I should have done a better job qualifying my
statement. In typical fashion, I didn't realize this until after I had read
the sent post.

I'm sure you're correct that the percentage of women based on the original
conversation is closer to 1% as opposed to the other figures. In fact, I'll
go so far as to speculate that it's a fraction of a percent. In my
estimation, a fraction of that fraction, one with a large denominator and
single digit numerator, are the ones who murder their offspring.

Jack

sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote > I don't expect people to agree with me either (in fact I get rather alarmed when they do. It's probably my adolescent streak) I expect my POV to alter somewhat, but not radically. As far as 'loving and wanting' is concerned, I think there are all kinds of permutations . The majority of parents love and want. Others may love but not want. I even know a few who seem to want but not love (talking to one yesterday. A woman I like, too. Very bothersome) Rh.

You're right, that's scary. One can only hope the want is not
fulfilled, or that love follows.

Rupa

Di writes:
Okay then let me put it this way. I acknowledge that some mothers mayneed at least temporary help in the task of raising their child,>>

Who wouldn't acknowledge this?

<< butthat should notbe at the expense of permanently losing their child or theirrelationship with their child, as in the case of adoption.>>

A woman who does not want to pay this price should not opt to relinquish.
Adoption is an option, not a requirement*.

<< The cost toboth is too high.>>

In your opinion. Some might disagree and, thus, opt to place a child for
adoption rather than hope circumstances will improve so significantly they
could parent in the manner they wish.

Di


*The usual qualifiers apply. Here they are: "today" and "except in cases of
incarceration, a history of child abuse and illegal drug use".


P2P

> Adoptive parents should be no more than aunts and uncles toother people's children if they need support. >>

Oh, you are a funny one, Di. You are back to asserting biological parents
should retain all parental rights at all times but shoulder no responsibity
whatsoever for their children and adoptive parents should shoulder 100% of the
responsibility but enjoy no parental rights. Get real. In your eagerness to
slam all adoptive parents you are quick to forget where the best interests of
the children lie.

Bio family or none at all. Is that your chant of the week?


P2P

Dad says to Di:
I see. So I can pretend to be my son's Uncle as long as he doesn't call mehis Dad. That's an interesting line you draw there.


Precisely. Di is profoundly disturbed by the rewards, the joy and fulfillment
adoptive parents are likely to experience parenting their children. It is for
this reason and none other she proposes adoptive parents never be recognized by
law as more than "aunt" or "uncle". Never mind the children. Who cares what
they need? Certainly not Di.



P2P

Meagan writes of "adequate support":
OK, whatever. I was thinking more about the mother that loves and wants herchild, but for some reason can't parent or is unwilling to parent. Adequatesupport doesn't help the rape victim, etc.>>

For some, "truly adequate support" would mean miracles. However, rather than
wait for miracles, seek them or hope for them, some people recognize placing a
child for adoption might be the option that will provide "truly adequate
support" for the child.


P2P

>Subject: Re: Such A Piece Of S..TFrom: palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines)Date: 3/5/04 1:51 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <20040305165122.06733.00000843@mb-m05.aol.com>Meagan writes of "adequate support":OK, whatever. I was thinking more about the mother that loves and wants herchild, but for some reason can't parent or is unwilling to parent. Adequatesupport doesn't help the rape victim, etc.>>For some, "truly adequate support" would mean miracles. However, rather thanwait for miracles, seek them or hope for them, some people recognize placingachild for adoption might be the option that will provide "truly adequatesupport" for the child.P2P

Yeah, really. How long is a child expected to have his life remain on hold? I
doubt the situation of child born from rape or incest will change.




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 <9a095db9.0403050542.5af825a4@posting.google.com>,
patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote:
Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message news:<steve-C13E60.00094105032004@netnews.comcast.net>... In article <9a095db9.0403041856.59f13fb3@posting.google.com>, patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote: I acknowledge that some mothers may need at least temporary help in the task of raising their child, but that should not be at the expense of permanently losing their child or their relationship with their child, as in the case of adoption. The cost to both is too high. What if that "temporary" need lasts for 18 years? So what if it does?


I'm tempted to use that as a sig.

Parents can and do have familiy tragedies and crippling accidents which cause lifelong disabling consequences. Do their children get removed from them? No they don't.


That's different from parents who beat the **** out of their kids, or
who neglect their kids whilst searching for their next high. Don't know
about Australia but there's two big reasons why parents get terminated
in this country.

Should we force the kids to wait and see if Mommy can kick her heroin
habit?

Adoptive parents should be no more than aunts and uncles to other people's children if they need support. They should not be allowed to take over the identity of a child's actual parents.


In other words, to hell with the kids. Thanks for being so precise.





steve

in article adtb40h3u59uoahoe57hhvoq3lqt2376mv@4ax.com, nancy at
me@privacy.net wrote on 3/3/04 3:30 pm:

<snip>
Nancy [suddenly somewhat uncomfortable with my Jones, Morris, and Rhys ancestry] Cockle & lava bread quiche...yummy.

Hmmm... I dunno... Maybe if taken with large quantities of room temperature Merlot...


Umm... ice cold Merlot perhaps... better to anaesthetise the taste buds.

Or how about this bit of imaginary culinary usage from the menu of the The Talbot at Knightwick Loin of Lamb Lamb from Quarry Farm Leominster, stuffed and roasted with crab meat, lava bread, rice and spinach, cooked with some ginger wine, sliced onto some mung bean dahl served with it's own lightly concentrated juice and a scattering of pickled nasturtium seeds. This sounds like it might have had some possibilities without the seaweed and mung beans.



Lamb and crab meet together, are you sure that really has any possibilities
other than as an emetic? I love both separately but together??????????



Of course no 'Full Welsh Breakfast' would be complete without a choice of: bacon, sausage, black pudding, lava bread, tomatoes, baked beans, mushrooms, fried bread and egg.

What is with the Celts and black pudding anyway? Of course, I actually love haggis, so I guess I'm in no position to question this.


I really enjoy black pudding if it's done right, the Irish seem to have the
secret of perfect black pudding. Not enough (sober) experience of haggis to
comment.

Robin

in article BC6F5CE3.36E5E%karakoram@postadoption.info, Robin Harritt at
karakoram@postadoption.info wrote on 6/3/04 10:48 am:
in article adtb40h3u59uoahoe57hhvoq3lqt2376mv@4ax.com, nancy at me@privacy.net wrote on 3/3/04 3:30 pm: <snip>
This sounds like it might have had some possibilities without the seaweed and mung beans. Lamb and crab meet together, are you sure that really has any possibilities other than as an emetic? I love both separately but together??????????


Or should I have said, lamb and crab meat meet together.........?

Robin

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 14:45:20 GMT, "Jack Bernhard"
<jcbernhard@deletethisprodigy.net> wrote:
"Jackie" <forgetit@me.com> wrote in messagenews:jpug40hdond2goibbig4man2uq52hemo8r@4ax .com... On 4 Mar 2004 20:29:10 -0800, patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote: What I don't accept is the use of that miniscule 1%who may not want/love their child (if that is the figure) as anargument thatinsinuates that the greater majority of nmothers feel/felt the sameway, as a mean of justifying the promotion of adoption. To do so is toperpetuate the myths. Now we have Safe Haven and the myth of women killing their children..Not exactly a myth. There are, for sure, women who do kill their offspring.

I keep waiting to hear about a woman who killed her offspring when it
was two months old.. Killed it because Safe Haven was not available in
her state..

However, I see the percentage as being far more miniscule that 1% floatedabove. The press has a tendency to blow these things way out ofproportion. It's good for ratings and circulation. Sensationalism sells.

Thats for sure!
The real myth is that SH law addresses the problem solely because of itspromise of total anonymity. So far, not one advocate for baby dumps hasbeen able to show any correlation between anonymity and the reduction ofinfanticide. It's all theory.

You are supposed to forget about that..


Jackie

meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in message news:<20040305141721.10127.00000855@mb-m03.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Such A Piece Of S..TFrom: reveohw@aol.compromise (fiend)Date: 3/4/04 2:21 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <20040304172138.01692.00000931@mb-m18.aol.com>In article <20040304151357.19374.00000762@mb-m16.aol.com>,meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote:Some mothers that love and want their children, just are not in thatplace in their lives where they want to take on the job of parenting forvarious reasons. I'm not sure 'adequate support' would help those like this.In that case, they love their children but don't want them, it seems to me. I don't necessarily think it means that they don't want them. It could mean a lot of things that adequate support will not help. Maybe it was incest, or rape...or maybe she is to young to parent as a single mother at age 10.


I really do get your point.
I'd *like to think* that that it would be possible in at least some
cases of rape for the stigma to be overcome with proper support. After
all. it's hardly the fault of the woman or the child. It mayn't
always be possible to keep parent and child together, but maybe the
possibility of maintaining some kind of contact could be explored
where the mother wants it.


As to 10 year olds, the best solution would be abortion of course.


Rh.
(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: Such A Piece Of S..TFrom: sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)Date: 3/6/04 8:23 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <dafc70.0403060823.29885403@posting.google.com>meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in messagenews:<20040305141721.10127.00000855@mb-m03.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Such A Piece Of S..TFrom: reveohw@aol.compromise (fiend)Date: 3/4/04 2:21 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <20040304172138.01692.00000931@mb-m18.aol.com>In article <20040304151357.19374.00000762@mb-m16.aol.com>,meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote:>Some mothers that love and want their children, just are not in that>place in their lives where they want to take on the job of parenting for>various reasons. I'm not sure 'adequate support' would help those likethis.In that case, they love their children but don't want them, it seems tome. I don't necessarily think it means that they don't want them. It could mean a lot of things that adequate support willnot help. Maybe it was incest, or rape...or maybe she is to young to parent as asingle mother at age 10.I really do get your point.I'd *like to think* that that it would be possible in at least somecases of rape for the stigma to be overcome with proper support. Afterall. it's hardly the fault of the woman or the child. It mayn'talways be possible to keep parent and child together, but maybe thepossibility of maintaining some kind of contact could be exploredwhere the mother wants it.As to 10 year olds, the best solution would be abortion of course.Rh.

Agree to the latter. :-)

I guess what bothers me is the automatic assumption for those that both want
and love their children, that finding adequate support for them would be the
all-end answer.




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

palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message news:<20040305164707.06733.00000842@mb-m05.aol.com>... Dad says to Di: I see. So I can pretend to be my son's Uncle as long as he doesn't call mehis Dad. That's an interesting line you draw there. Precisely. Di is profoundly disturbed by the rewards, the joy and fulfillment adoptive parents are likely to experience parenting their children. It is for this reason and none other she proposes adoptive parents never be recognized by law as more than "aunt" or "uncle". Never mind the children. Who cares what they need?

A child calling you mommy is meeting YOUR maternal need. As long as
the child
is safe, loved and cared for, your self proclaimed title is irrelevent
to the needs of a child who already knows he has a mother. Unless he's
too young to comprehend the meaning of adoption, hasn't been told, or
is mentally disabled an adopted child knows he is being raised people
other than his his nparents. Plenty of children are raised by a loving
Nana or Aunty who meet the child's every need. They are not encouraged
to call them mommy as a condition of that
love and care. They are who they are ie an aunt or nana who is
parenting the child.


Certainly not Di.

Come now P2P, you adopted to meet YOUR needs, and any child would do.
You wanted to parent to fulfil a need in you and have said so on many
occasions. So let's not start pretending you were considering the
child's needs now. His needs were only a secondary consideration.

Di






P2P

meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in message news:<20040306141723.20524.00001053@mb-m28.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Such A Piece Of S..TFrom: sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)Date: 3/6/04 8:23 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <dafc70.0403060823.29885403@posting.google.com>meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in messagenews:<20040305141721.10127.00000855@mb-m03.aol.com>... >Subject: Re: Such A Piece Of S..T >From: reveohw@aol.compromise (fiend) >Date: 3/4/04 2:21 PM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <20040304172138.01692.00000931@mb-m18.aol.com> > >In article <20040304151357.19374.00000762@mb-m16.aol.com>, >meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote: > >>Some mothers that love and want their children, just are not in that >>place in their lives where they want to take on the job of parenting for >>various reasons. I'm not sure 'adequate support' would help those like this. > > >In that case, they love their children but don't want them, it seems to me. I don't necessarily think it means that they don't want them. It could mean a lot of things that adequate support will not help. Maybe it was incest, or rape...or maybe she is to young to parent as a single mother at age 10. > >I really do get your point.I'd *like to think* that that it would be possible in at least somecases of rape for the stigma to be overcome with proper support. Afterall. it's hardly the fault of the woman or the child. It mayn'talways be possible to keep parent and child together, but maybe thepossibility of maintaining some kind of contact could be exploredwhere the mother wants it.As to 10 year olds, the best solution would be abortion of course.Rh. Agree to the latter. :-) I guess what bothers me is the automatic assumption for those that both want and love their children, that finding adequate support for them would be the all-end answer.


Well, I guess I'm going to nit-pick again ;-)
Adequate support would, by definition, be the all-end answer.

But I'm enough of a realist to recognise that you're right. There are
situations where it would never be possible to get that ideal
'adequate support'.
Sometimes important decisions are made that are necessary in some
respects while not at all in others. I suppose it's a question of
competing 'necessities' or interests.

I hope that makes sense. I know what I'm trying to say, but don't
think I've said it very satisfactorily.



Rh. 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 writes:
Well, I guess I'm going to nit-pick again ;-)Adequate support would, by definition, be the all-end answer.But I'm enough of a realist to recognise that you're right. There aresituations where it would never be possible to get that ideal'adequate support'.Sometimes important decisions are made that are necessary in somerespects while not at all in others. I suppose it's a question ofcompeting 'necessities' or interests.I hope that makes sense. I know what I'm trying to say, but don'tthink I've said it very satisfactorily.Rh.


I think you've made perfect sense. You are saying, I think, that if whatever is
lacking in the life of a woman that causes her to feel adoption would be best
for her child could be provided, the reasons for placing would be removed from
the equation. Right again, imo, that there are things lacking that simply
cannot always be provided.


P2P

Di writes of my life:
Come now P2P, you adopted to meet YOUR needs, and any child would do.You wanted to parent to fulfil a need in you and have said so on manyoccasions. So let's not start pretending you were considering thechild's needs now. His needs were only a secondary consideration.Di


You could delete "adopted" and replace it with "had" and you'd be accurate in
addressing just about every single parent on earth. Few set out to save
children. How many have you saved, Di?

As for my particular family, my children's needs are best met today just as
they were best met on the days they were placed in our family and just as they
will be from now on. Don't lose too much sleep over it.


P2P

"Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:9a095db9.0403070212.715dda46@posting.google.c om... palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message
news:<20040305164707.06733.00000842@mb-m05.aol.com>... Dad says to Di: I see. So I can pretend to be my son's Uncle as long as he doesn't
call mehis Dad. That's an interesting line you draw there. Precisely. Di is profoundly disturbed by the rewards, the joy and
fulfillment adoptive parents are likely to experience parenting their children. It
is for this reason and none other she proposes adoptive parents never be
recognized by law as more than "aunt" or "uncle". Never mind the children. Who cares
what they need? A child calling you mommy is meeting YOUR maternal need.

It might be simultaneously meeting a *child's* need to call that person
"mommy". The two aren't mutually exclusive.

As long as the child is safe, loved and cared for, your self proclaimed title is irrelevent to the needs of a child who already knows he has a mother.

It could also be one of the child's needs to call the woman making him
"safe, loved, and cared for" mommy".

Unless he's too young to comprehend the meaning of adoption, hasn't been told, or is mentally disabled an adopted child knows he is being raised people other than his his nparents.

So. That doesn't make one bit of difference to the child in regards to what
they call the people raising them.



Plenty of children are raised by a loving Nana or Aunty who meet the child's every need. They are not encouraged

Encouraged? If they choose to, they choose to.
to call them mommy as a condition of that love and care.

Your bitterness and agenda are showing. I wouold hardly call it a
"condition of that love and care".

They are who they are ie an aunt or nana who is parenting the child.

So should an adoptee call their aparents Fred & Mary? Would that make you
happy? Too bad. It ain't gonna happen no matter how much you froth at the
mouth.

Kathy 1


Adoptive parents should be no more than aunts and uncles to other people's
children if they need support.

Di 3/5/04

In article <9a095db9.0403070212.715dda46@posting.google.com>,
patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote:

A child calling you mommy is meeting YOUR maternal need. As long as the child is safe, loved and cared for, your self proclaimed title is irrelevent to the needs of a child who already knows he has a mother.


Atta girl, Di, just ignore the accumulated history and psychology of
humans to this point in time.

Plenty of children are raised by a loving Nana or Aunty who meet the child's every need. They are not encouraged to call them mommy as a condition of that love and care. They are who they are ie an aunt or nana who is parenting the child.


Children want parents. They want a Mom and a Dad. I realize that's too
difficult for you to understand. Nana and Aunty are fine, sometimes
they're essential, but children want parents.

Who says so?

The children. You might want to listen to them.

Come now P2P, you adopted to meet YOUR needs, and any child would do. You wanted to parent to fulfil a need in you and have said so on many occasions. So let's not start pretending you were considering the child's needs now. His needs were only a secondary consideration.


Again, hard for you to understand, as it turns out adoption is a
situation in which both needs are primary. It does require a bit of
intellectual sophistication to understand this so it may be beyond you.





steve

palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message news:<20040307123134.06566.00000942@mb-m25.aol.com>... Di writes of my life:Come now P2P, you adopted to meet YOUR needs, and any child would do.You wanted to parent to fulfil a need in you and have said so on manyoccasions. So let's not start pretending you were considering thechild's needs now. His needs were only a secondary consideration.Di You could delete "adopted" and replace it with "had" and you'd be accurate in addressing just about every single parent on earth.
Few set out to save children.


You equate adopting with giving birth? I don't think so....

How many have you saved, Di?

How many have you?

As for my particular family, my children's needs are best met today just as they were best met on the days they were placed in our family and just as they will be from now on. Don't lose too much sleep over it.
You have tickets on yourself there, old girl. How do you manage to
meet their needs when you've spend all day every day on the computer?

Di



P2P

>Subject: Re: Such A Piece Of S..TFrom: patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian)Date: 3/7/04 5:12 AM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <9a095db9.0403070212.715dda46@posting.google.com>

< snip >
A child calling you mommy is meeting YOUR maternal need.

While at the same time it's meeting the child's need for a parent.
As long as the child is safe, loved and cared for, your self proclaimed >title
is irrelevent.

Then why do you care what children call their parents, Diane? Whose maternal
needs are you serving?

Dad

Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message news:<steve-60673D.13264507032004@netnews.comcast.net>... In article <9a095db9.0403070212.715dda46@posting.google.com>, patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote: A child calling you mommy is meeting YOUR maternal need. As long as the child is safe, loved and cared for, your self proclaimed title is irrelevent to the needs of a child who already knows he has a mother. Atta girl, Di, just ignore the accumulated history and psychology of humans to this point in time. Plenty of children are raised by a loving Nana or Aunty who meet the child's every need. They are not encouraged to call them mommy as a condition of that love and care. They are who they are ie an aunt or nana who is parenting the child. Children want parents. They want a Mom and a Dad. I realize that's too difficult for you to understand. Nana and Aunty are fine, sometimes they're essential, but children want parents. Who says so? The children. You might want to listen to them. Come now P2P, you adopted to meet YOUR needs, and any child would do. You wanted to parent to fulfil a need in you and have said so on many occasions. So let's not start pretending you were considering the child's needs now. His needs were only a secondary consideration. Again, hard for you to understand, as it turns out adoption is a situation in which both needs are primary. It does require a bit of intellectual sophistication to understand this so it may be beyond you.
I understand perfectly and you know it. Was your achild even conceived
at the time you decided to meet its needs by saving it?


Di
steve

"kat" <katlat24@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<c2foit$1s9mme$1@ID-203097.news.uni-berlin.de>... "Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:9a095db9.0403070212.715dda46@posting.google.c om... palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message news:<20040305164707.06733.00000842@mb-m05.aol.com>... Dad says to Di: > I see. So I can pretend to be my son's Uncle as long as he doesn't > call me his Dad. That's an interesting line you draw there. > Precisely. Di is profoundly disturbed by the rewards, the joy and fulfillment adoptive parents are likely to experience parenting their children. It is for this reason and none other she proposes adoptive parents never be recognized by law as more than "aunt" or "uncle". Never mind the children. Who cares what they need? A child calling you mommy is meeting YOUR maternal need. It might be simultaneously meeting a *child's* need to call that person "mommy". The two aren't mutually exclusive.


I agree. And it doesn't necessarily mean that the child doesn't
understand the score, at his or her level of development..


As long as the child is safe, loved and cared for, your self proclaimed title is irrelevent to the needs of a child who already knows he has a mother. It could also be one of the child's needs to call the woman making him "safe, loved, and cared for" mommy". Unless he's too young to comprehend the meaning of adoption, hasn't been told, or is mentally disabled an adopted child knows he is being raised people other than his his nparents. So. That doesn't make one bit of difference to the child in regards to what they call the people raising them. Plenty of children are raised by a loving Nana or Aunty who meet the child's every need. They are not encouraged Encouraged? If they choose to, they choose to. to call them mommy as a condition of that love and care. Your bitterness and agenda are showing. I would hardly call it a "condition of that love and care".They are who they are ie an aunt or nana who is parenting the child. So should an adoptee call their aparents Fred & Mary? Would that make you happy? Too bad. It ain't gonna happen no matter how much you froth at the mouth.



True.
Here's a story.
Our ason's first word was his afather's name, and he (and his younger
'brother', our nson) called us by our first names until they went to
day care and mingled with other kids. They then started to call us mom
and dad, and because we lived in Egypt and they had Arabic as well as
English speaking friends, they also sometimes called us umm and babu.
Should we have corrected them? I don't think so (I know so)
Should we have corrected our ason, and encouraged our nson to continue
in this vein? I don't think so (I know so)
Since then they've both called us a lot of things ;-), but we've
always been at ease with whatever (respectful) names they choose to
call us (*choose* being the operative word)


Rh. Adoptive parents should be no more than aunts and uncles to other people's children if they need support. Di 3/5/04

Di asks:
You equate adopting with giving birth? I don't think so....

I equate parenting with parenting. Doesn't differ much based on how the
children arrived in the family.

I asked Di:
How many have you saved, Di?
She won't answer, but asks me:
How many have you?


Zero.

Di jumps to this:
You have tickets on yourself there, old girl. How do you manage tomeet their needs when you've spend all day every day on the computer?Di


You jumped to Tactic Four without first going through Tactics 1 - 3, Di. When
you have nothing to support your position, you are supposed to use these
tactics in this order:

1. I have nothing to support my position, so I will correct your grammar,
spelling and punctuation mistakes.

2. I have nothing to support my position, so I will accuse you of being
insecure/afraid.

3. I have nothing to support my position, so I will claim to believe you need
the help of a mental health professional.

4. I have nothing to support my position, so I will question the time you spend
online.


P2P

>So should an adoptee call their aparents Fred & Mary? Would that make youhappy? Too bad. It ain't gonna happen no matter how much you froth at themouth.Kathy 1


In DiWorld, the only acceptable arrangement would be if people who birth
children never be expected to shoulder responsibility for them but always
retain full rights and people who care for them never, never enjoy parental
rights but shoulder full responsibility for the children.
Who cares what the children need as long as no adoptive "aunt or uncle" assumes
a parental role?


P2P

Di asks of Steve:
I understand perfectly and you know it. Was your achild even conceivedat the time you decided to meet its needs by saving it?Di


Were you looking to save a child at the time you conceived yours, Di?


P2P

"Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:9a095db9.0403070212.715dda46@posting.google.c om...

Plenty of children are raised by a loving Nana or Aunty who meet the child's every need. They are not encouraged to call them mommy as a condition of that love and care. They are who they are ie an aunt or nana who is parenting the child.



I've an old friend who was raised by his grandmother. I don't believe she
actually adopted him. At any rate, he always referred to her as his mother
and even called her "mom."

Jack

>Subject: Re: Such A Piece Of S..TFrom: "Jack Bernhard" jcbernhard@deletethisprodigy.netDate: 3/8/04 6:47 AM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <t3Z2c.21988$4d4.1325@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>"Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in messagenews:9a095db9.0403070212.715dda46@posting.g oogle.com... Plenty of children are raised by a loving Nana or Aunty who meet the child's every need. They are not encouraged to call them mommy as a condition of that love and care.

They call their parents whatever they feel comfortable calling them. Nobody
puts a "condition" on them, as if they're gonna stop loving and caring for them
for calling them something else.

I mean, would you throw your son out if he called you by your first name?
Hmm - perhaps you would.
They are who they are ie an aunt or nana who is parenting the child.I've an old friend who was raised by his grandmother. I don'tbelieve she actually adopted him. At any rate, he always referredto her as his mother and even called her "mom."

Evil *****, usurping her daughter's role as his one and only true mommy. I
bet she demanded that he call her "mommy" or be thrown out on the street, eh?

Dad

palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message news:<20040307205200.20595.00000949@mb-m28.aol.com>... Di asks:You equate adopting with giving birth? I don't think so.... I equate parenting with parenting. Doesn't differ much based on how the children arrived in the family.
I asked Di:How many have you saved, Di? She won't answer, but asks me:

Here's my answer. None. And unlike you I don't profess to have saved
any.
How many have you? Zero.
Twaddle. You give yourself away with your incessant rescuer's
mentality.

Di jumps to this:You have tickets on yourself there, old girl. How do you manage tomeet their needs when you've spend all day every day on the computer?Di You jumped to Tactic Four without first going through Tactics 1 - 3, Di. When you have nothing to support your position, you are supposed to use these tactics in this order: 1. I have nothing to support my position, so I will correct your grammar, spelling and punctuation mistakes. 2. I have nothing to support my position, so I will accuse you of being insecure/afraid. 3. I have nothing to support my position, so I will claim to believe you need the help of a mental health professional. 4. I have nothing to support my position, so I will question the time you spend online. P2P

Nice sidestep, P2P. But it still doesn't answer my question, whihc is
how can you possibly be meeting your young children's every need when
you spend all day, every day on the internet?

Di

palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message news:<20040307205937.20595.00000951@mb-m28.aol.com>... Di asks of Steve:I understand perfectly and you know it. Was your achild even conceivedat the time you decided to meet its needs by saving it?Di Were you looking to save a child at the time you conceived yours, Di? P2P

There you go again, equating birth to adoption.

Di

>Subject: Re: Such A Piece Of S..TFrom: patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian)Date: 3/8/04 5:26 AM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <9a095db9.0403080426.1e6ec6c@posting.google.com>
Nice sidestep, P2P. But it still doesn't answer my question, whihc ishow can you possibly be meeting your young children's every need whenyou spend all day, every day on the internet?Di

How do you know she spends all day, every day on the computer?


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

"Jack Bernhard" <jcbernhard@deletethisprodigy.net> wrote in message
news:t3Z2c.21988$4d4.1325@newssvr31.news.prodigy.c om... "Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:9a095db9.0403070212.715dda46@posting.google.c om... Plenty of children are raised by a loving Nana or Aunty who meet the child's every need. They are not encouraged to call them mommy as a condition of that love and care. They are who they are ie an aunt or nana who is parenting the child. I've an old friend who was raised by his grandmother. I don't believe she actually adopted him. At any rate, he always referred to her as his
mother and even called her "mom." Jack

Same with a friend of mine. There were 3 brothers and sister born within
about 4 years of each other. Their parents deserted each one of them at
birth--just left them with her mother, except for the last who was left with
somebody and it took them a year to locate. Then he was covered with bed
sores and very developmentally behind. Mommie Dearest would show up
occasionally and take them out for the day, but when they got older they
refused to go. The always referred to their grandparents as Mom and Dad,
but occasionally as their grandparents (it seem to depend on the occasion.)
The grandparents never said a word against their parents believing that if
they did, they'd grow up defensive and angry, so they just let them see for
themselves what was going on. When they were all older, Mommie Dearest
expected them to pay deference to them as their mother, which included
moving her from location to location, giving her money, and bailing her or
her various husbands out of jail.. In the last few years of her life, when
she was sick with heart problems and diabetes they showed her the kindness
she never showed them and took care of her, even if they couldn't stand her.
One of the weird parts of all this was that she was a cultured woman,
well-read, and could reportedly carry on an intellectually stimulating
conversation. (I knew her and never noticed it). A friend of mine, now in
his 70s knew her when she was a teenager, and told that she was the most
beautiful and exciting woman he never knew--his first love--and he couldn't
believe she ended up the way she did. Go figure.

Marley

"Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote
Same with a friend of mine. There were 3 brothers and sister born within about 4 years of each other. Their parents deserted each one of them at birth--just left them with her mother, except for the last who was left with somebody and it took them a year to locate. Then he was covered with bed sores and very developmentally behind. Mommie Dearest would show up occasionally and take them out for the day, but when they got older they refused to go. The always referred to their grandparents as Mom and Dad, but occasionally as their grandparents (it seem to depend on the occasion.) The grandparents never said a word against their parents believing that if they did, they'd grow up defensive and angry, so they just let them see for themselves what was going on. When they were all older, Mommie Dearest expected them to pay deference to them as their mother, which included moving her from location to location, giving her money, and bailing her or her various husbands out of jail.. In the last few years of her life, when she was sick with heart problems and diabetes they showed her the kindness she never showed them and took care of her, even if they couldn't stand her. One of the weird parts of all this was that she was a cultured woman, well-read, and could reportedly carry on an intellectually stimulating conversation. (I knew her and never noticed it). A friend of mine, now in his 70s knew her when she was a teenager, and told that she was the most beautiful and exciting woman he never knew--his first love--and he couldn't believe she ended up the way she did. Go figure.

What a shame. I wonder if there was a late-onset mental illness, maybe
something like schizophrenia. I happened to someone I knew. She was a
bit fragile from her teen years, and dropped out of college after one
semester to marry a man who wasn't American and was subsequently
deported (because they didn't get round to filing his paperwork after
the marriage). It left her with a small son. However, around the time
I met her, she was getting it together again. She went to community
college, got her AA degree, kept on and got her BA...and then it hit
her. She became delusional. Her kid was in and out of foster care. I
lost touch with her after we both moved.

Rupa

"Rupa Bose" <rkbose@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message
news:e5619372.0403081034.36da7dab@posting.google.c om... "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote Same with a friend of mine. There were 3 brothers and sister born
within about 4 years of each other. Their parents deserted each one of them at birth--just left them with her mother, except for the last who was left
with somebody and it took them a year to locate. Then he was covered with
bed sores and very developmentally behind. Mommie Dearest would show up occasionally and take them out for the day, but when they got older they refused to go. The always referred to their grandparents as Mom and
Dad, but occasionally as their grandparents (it seem to depend on the
occasion.) The grandparents never said a word against their parents believing that
if they did, they'd grow up defensive and angry, so they just let them see
for themselves what was going on. When they were all older, Mommie Dearest expected them to pay deference to them as their mother, which included moving her from location to location, giving her money, and bailing her
or her various husbands out of jail.. In the last few years of her life,
when she was sick with heart problems and diabetes they showed her the
kindness she never showed them and took care of her, even if they couldn't stand
her. One of the weird parts of all this was that she was a cultured woman, well-read, and could reportedly carry on an intellectually stimulating conversation. (I knew her and never noticed it). A friend of mine,
now in his 70s knew her when she was a teenager, and told that she was the most beautiful and exciting woman he never knew--his first love--and he
couldn't believe she ended up the way she did. Go figure. What a shame. I wonder if there was a late-onset mental illness, maybe something like schizophrenia. I happened to someone I knew. She was a bit fragile from her teen years, and dropped out of college after one semester to marry a man who wasn't American and was subsequently deported (because they didn't get round to filing his paperwork after the marriage). It left her with a small son. However, around the time I met her, she was getting it together again. She went to community college, got her AA degree, kept on and got her BA...and then it hit her. She became delusional. Her kid was in and out of foster care. I lost touch with her after we both moved. Rupa

I don't think so. It's more like she had a "moral flaw.' She'd gone to a
private academy, been an honor student, and was headed for college at a time
when girls weren't expected to do that; and then she met her first
husband--the one who fathered the 4 kids, and she just drove off the road
and never came back. I'd heard about her for several years from my
ex-husband (my friend and my ex were best friends and lived across the
street from each other), and then I met her. It was Halloween, and I'm not
kidding...I thought she was dressed for a party, but this is the way she
always looked. Really obese in a flower print dress with too much makeup
(especially rouge) and dyed bright-red corkscrew curls. She looked right
out of Baby Jane! She actually referred to herself as "X's mommie." My
first thought, after I recovered from the shock was the... hmmm,...what were
called back then "beaver shots" my friend had discovered when he helped her
move one time and found packet of pictures in a lock box. She'd seen
better days...I think. Though there is no telling for taste, of course.
She once told him that she became a pro because she hurt her back and
couldn't work in a factory or an office where she'd have to sit. I always
felt that she just liked to have a good time, but then when age set in she
didn't have anything to fall back on.

That's not to saoy that there aren't' plenty of delusional people out there.
My grandmother was a delusional who spent most of her adult life in state
hospitals. I have no idea what was wrong with her. My mom wouldn't talk
about it. Though by today's standards my grana would have almost been
"normal" She went off the deep end around 1915 and was "under treatment"
most of the time until about 19591 when the state closed many of the
hospitals and let her loose.

Marley

In article <9a095db9.0403071615.4a2e0369@posting.google.com>,
patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote:

Again, hard for you to understand, as it turns out adoption is a situation in which both needs are primary. It does require a bit of intellectual sophistication to understand this so it may be beyond you. I understand perfectly and you know it. Was your achild even conceived at the time you decided to meet its needs by saving it?


Why would that matter? When a child is relinquished, or when the child
is available because parental rights have been terminated, that child
needs parents. Then.

I think your problem (one of many, of course) is that you still live in
the past. Children are now, their needs are now, their needs are primary.




steve

Steve White wrote:
In article <9a095db9.0403071615.4a2e0369@posting.google.com>, patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote:Again, hard for you to understand, as it turns out adoption is asituation in which both needs are primary. It does require a bit ofintellectual sophistication to understand this so it may be beyond you.I understand perfectly and you know it. Was your achild even conceivedat the time you decided to meet its needs by saving it? Why would that matter? When a child is relinquished, or when the child is available because parental rights have been terminated, that child needs parents. Then. I think your problem (one of many, of course) is that you still live in the past. Children are now, their needs are now, their needs are primary. steve


So very true, Steve. I will not speak for Di as I know she can manage
quite well on her own.

If you're able, try to imagine yourself in an empty hospital...all
dressed up in your long white lab coat with a name tag which tells
the world you're an MD. You have no lab, no patients, no telephone,
no computer, no car, no mass transit...hell, you might even be
sightless -- what matters is that you've got all this lovely training
and NO ONE to practice on...filled with purpose and NO PLACE to use
it...getting the picture? Good. At this point you should be feeling,
if ever so slightly, helpless...hopeless.

There are many women who become birth mothers -- yes, even the kind
where NO adoption was even given a thought (married, homemaker, etc.)
-- who are prepared by pregnancy and birth to mother/to nurture. The
baby DIES...is removed from the nursery by a stranger...regardless
the circumstance, this woman goes home having prepared for a baby,
but THERE IS NO BABY. Could you possibly appreciate that this woman
just might have some problem - either short or long term - which keeps
her from "living in the present?" The *present* means pain, it means
she must acknowledge the loss. Grief. You know the story inside out.

There is little else to be said about this -- unless you "get it" from
the beginning, nothing anyone says will help you. If you do "get it"...
then, depending on each individual woman/mother, the stories will all
have many differences -- but all will stem from the same loss.

pb...

Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message news:<steve-C12F9D.22454708032004@netnews.comcast.net>... In article <9a095db9.0403071615.4a2e0369@posting.google.com>, patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote: Again, hard for you to understand, as it turns out adoption is a situation in which both needs are primary. It does require a bit of intellectual sophistication to understand this so it may be beyond you. I understand perfectly and you know it. Was your achild even conceived at the time you decided to meet its needs by saving it? Why would that matter?

Not an answer. How pregnant was the mother of the child you adopted
when you applied for her fetus?

When a child is relinquished, or when the child is available because parental rights have been terminated, that child needs parents. Then.

Let's talk about you instead of generalising. Why did you apply to
adopt an unborn fetus instead of meeting the needs of a child who was
already relinquished/in care?
I think your problem (one of many, of course) is that you still live in the past.

Maybe that's because it where my future was stolen.
Children are now, their needs are now, their needs are primary.

The fetus you had your eagle eye on didn't need an adoptive father. It
was you who needed IT.

Di


Di

steve

>Subject: Re: Such A Piece Of S..TFrom: patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian)Date: 3/8/04 4:26 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <9a095db9.0403080426.1e6ec6c@posting.google.com>palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in messagenews:<20040307205200.20595.00000949@mb-m28.aol.com>... Di asks:You equate adopting with giving birth? I don't think so.... I equate parenting with parenting. Doesn't differ much based on how the children arrived in the family. I asked Di:>How many have you saved, Di? She won't answer, but asks me:Here's my answer. None. And unlike you I don't profess to have savedany.How many have you? Zero.Twaddle. You give yourself away with your incessant rescuer'smentality. Di jumps to this:You have tickets on yourself there, old girl. How do you manage tomeet their needs when you've spend all day every day on the computer?Di You jumped to Tactic Four without first going through Tactics 1 - 3, Di.When you have nothing to support your position, you are supposed to use these tactics in this order: 1. I have nothing to support my position, so I will correct your grammar, spelling and punctuation mistakes. 2. I have nothing to support my position, so I will accuse you of being insecure/afraid. 3. I have nothing to support my position, so I will claim to believe youneed the help of a mental health professional. 4. I have nothing to support my position, so I will question the time youspend online. P2PNice sidestep, P2P. But it still doesn't answer my question, whihc ishow can you possibly be meeting your young children's every need whenyou spend all day, every day on the internet?Di

So now you're the hall monitor? I would have thought being the head birth
mother of the universe would have been enough to keep you embellishing for
life. I guess not.




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: Such A Piece Of S..TFrom: patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian)Date: 3/9/04 6:27 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <9a095db9.0403090627.46b7eb5f@posting.google.com>Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in messagenews:<steve-C12F9D.22454708032004@netnews.comcast.net>... In article <9a095db9.0403071615.4a2e0369@posting.google.com>, patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote: > Again, hard for you to understand, as it turns out adoption is a > situation in which both needs are primary. It does require a bit of > intellectual sophistication to understand this so it may be beyond you. > > I understand perfectly and you know it. Was your achild even conceived at the time you decided to meet its needs by saving it? Why would that matter?Not an answer. How pregnant was the mother of the child you adoptedwhen you applied for her fetus?When a child is relinquished, or when the child is available because parental rights have been terminated, that child needs parents. Then.Let's talk about you instead of generalising. Why did you apply toadopt an unborn fetus instead of meeting the needs of a child who wasalready relinquished/in care? I think your problem (one of many, of course) is that you still live in the past.Maybe that's because it where my future was stolen.Children are now, their needs are now, their needs are primary.The fetus you had your eagle eye on didn't need an adoptive father. Itwas you who needed IT.Di

Keep telling yourself that.

Psst...You really should be committed, you lunatic.




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

palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message news:<20040307122406.06566.00000938@mb-m25.aol.com>... sarallewellyn writes:Well, I guess I'm going to nit-pick again ;-)Adequate support would, by definition, be the all-end answer.But I'm enough of a realist to recognise that you're right. There aresituations where it would never be possible to get that ideal'adequate support'.Sometimes important decisions are made that are necessary in somerespects while not at all in others. I suppose it's a question ofcompeting 'necessities' or interests.I hope that makes sense. I know what I'm trying to say, but don'tthink I've said it very satisfactorily.Rh. I think you've made perfect sense.


Thanks, but I dont : -)



You are saying, I think, that if whatever is lacking in the life of a woman that causes her to feel adoption would be best for her child could be provided, the reasons for placing would be removed from the equation.




I think that some 'necessities' are conveniently not recognised as
such, that there are cases where they could be provided if the will
was there, and that they are too often lacking because persuasive
reasons to relinquish drown out less obvious but equally real
arguments for keeping.
I'm sure that not all women who relinquish are entirely convinced,
even while they may accede to it, that adoption is 'best'.
For them, it's never going to be that cut-and-dried.
They may, however, feel it's the only viable option, which is
different.

Right again, imo, that there are things lacking that simply cannot always be provided.




Alas.



Rh. P2P

>>Nice sidestep, P2P. But it still doesn't answer my question, whihc ishow can you possibly be meeting your young children's every need whenyou spend all day, every day on the internet?Di


OMG! How did I miss this?

Well, if you must know, Di, I do only three fun things on the internet. They
are: check email, check certain financial markets, check alt. a. Doing *all
three* takes no more than fifteen or twenty minutes.

I work five mornings per week two to five hours per day (volunteer
positions...making a difference in the community, ya know) and my sons are both
in school week days.

There. I defended myself. If you are really keenly interested in my online
habits, Excel has some excellent spreadsheet templates. You can print a chart
and start logging the times of all my posts. I think you'll find that my time
on alt. a never exceeds about ten minutes. If I spend ten minutes on alt. a in
the afternoon, as I am doing now before I have to head to the bus stop, and ten
minutes at night before bed, that does not mean I sat and stared at a computer
screen the entire time between. Is that what you do?


P2P

In article <9a095db9.0403090627.46b7eb5f@posting.google.com>,
patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote:
Why did you apply to adopt an unborn fetus instead of meeting the needs of a child who was already relinquished/in care?


We didn't adopt a fetus, so your question falls apart right there. Nice
try though.



steve

Di asks Steve:
Why did you apply to adopt an unborn fetus instead of meeting the needs of a child who was already relinquished/in care?

Steve answers:


We didn't adopt a fetus, so your question falls apart right there. Nicetry though.


I cannot speak for Steve. But, I suspect Steve and his wife wished to adopt a
newborn, just as we did twice and just as many adoptive parents do. For us, it
had nothing to do with rescuing children. "Rescuing" and "saving" never crossed
my mind. It had everything to do with the desire to parent and the desire to
parent from birth or near birth. That's what we wanted. That's what we did.
That's why we sought those who wished to relinquish newborns, since that is
what we wished to adopt. That does not make us selfish. That does not make us
bad people. To those demented few who think the desire to parent turns from
something good and natural to something evil and selfish the moment people
discover bio children are not likely to arrive on the scene, I fart in your
general direction.


P2P

palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message news:<20040310151246.18312.00001006@mb-m06.aol.com>... Di asks Steve: Why did you apply to adopt an unborn fetus instead of meeting the needs of a child who was already relinquished/in care? Steve answers:We didn't adopt a fetus, so your question falls apart right there. Nicetry though. I cannot speak for Steve. But, I suspect Steve and his wife wished to adopt a newborn, just as we did twice and just as many adoptive parents do. For us, it had nothing to do with rescuing children. "Rescuing" and "saving" never crossed my mind. It had everything to do with the desire to parent and the desire to parent from birth or near birth. That's what we wanted. That's what we did. That's why we sought those who wished to relinquish newborns, since that is what we wished to adopt. That does not make us selfish. That does not make us bad people. To those demented few who think the desire to parent turns from something good and natural to something evil and selfish the moment people discover bio children are not likely to arrive on the scene, I fart in your general direction. P2P

You've just confirmed my point. You adopted to meet your own needs.
The needs and interests of the children you adopted were a secondary
consideration, if a consideration at all. I hope you are
appropriately grateful to those children
for meeting your needs.

Di

Di seems to graps the obvious:
You've just confirmed my point. You adopted to meet your own needs.>>

A little slow on the uptake there, aren't you, Di? I have said it so many
times and in so many ways. We sought to adopt because we felt the desire to
parent. In doing so, the needs of the children we adopted were met. Now, that
wasn't so hard, was it?


P2P

By the way, Di. Whether adoptive parents claim to have adopted to save children
or whether they claim to have adopted to fulfill personal desires, don't you
spew at them just the same? Is there really a *right* answer in your world?
Is there really an acceptable reason?*

P2P


*Rhetorical questions. I already know the answers.


P2P

"Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:9a095db9.0403110626.207fa311@posting.google.c om... palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message
news:<20040310151246.18312.00001006@mb-m06.aol.com>... Di asks Steve:> Why did you apply to adopt an unborn fetus instead of meeting the> needs of a child who was already relinquished/in care? Steve answers:We didn't adopt a fetus, so your question falls apart right there. Nicetry though. I cannot speak for Steve. But, I suspect Steve and his wife wished to
adopt a newborn, just as we did twice and just as many adoptive parents do. For
us, it had nothing to do with rescuing children. "Rescuing" and "saving" never
crossed my mind. It had everything to do with the desire to parent and the
desire to parent from birth or near birth. That's what we wanted. That's what we
did. That's why we sought those who wished to relinquish newborns, since that
is what we wished to adopt. That does not make us selfish. That does not
make us bad people. To those demented few who think the desire to parent turns
from something good and natural to something evil and selfish the moment
people discover bio children are not likely to arrive on the scene, I fart in
your general direction. P2P You've just confirmed my point. You adopted to meet your own needs. The needs and interests of the children you adopted were a secondary consideration, if a consideration at all. I hope you are appropriately grateful to those children for meeting your needs. Di

I think you're being a bit unfair, Di. Bio and adoptive parents both get
their kids to meet their own needs. If people really cared about kids they
wouldn't have them to start with.

Marley

>Subject: Re: Such A Piece Of S..TFrom: "Marley Greiner" maddogmarley@worldnet.att.netDate: 3/11/04 11:57 AM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <wT04c.1969$H44.36142@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>

< snip >
You've just confirmed my point. You adopted to meet your own needs. The needs and interests of the children you adopted were a secondary consideration, if a consideration at all. I hope you are appropriately grateful to those children for meeting your needs. DiI think you're being a bit unfair, Di. Bio and adoptive parents both gettheir kids to meet their own needs.

Who would've thunk it.
If people really cared about kids they wouldn't have themto start with.

I bet you were a spunky little girl.

Dad

"AdoptaDad" <adoptadad@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040311123910.12315.00001022@mb-m02.aol.com...Subject: Re: Such A Piece Of S..TFrom: "Marley Greiner" maddogmarley@worldnet.att.netDate: 3/11/04 11:57 AM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <wT04c.1969$H44.36142@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> < snip > You've just confirmed my point. You adopted to meet your own needs. The needs and interests of the children you adopted were a secondary consideration, if a consideration at all. I hope you are appropriately grateful to those children for meeting your needs. DiI think you're being a bit unfair, Di. Bio and adoptive parents both gettheir kids to meet their own needs. Who would've thunk it.If people really cared about kids they wouldn't have themto start with. I bet you were a spunky little girl. Dad

When I was 5-6 I used to call my parents Mr. and Mrs. Underpants.
Seriously! I was quite surprised to find this name show up a few years ago
in a song. I also used to call them Mr. and Mrs. Spaghetti. I also told
people I had a brother in reform school. You can guess how big that went
over. I watned to be the Ambassador to the Court of St. James when I grew
up, but unfortunately I was only offered San Marino, so I had to retire
from diplomatic life and take up bastardy full time.

Marley
Obnoxious brat

Marley writes:
I think you're being a bit unfair, Di. Bio and adoptive parents both gettheir kids to meet their own needs.>>

In cases of planned parenting, I'd say people who become parents by any means
do so to fulfill personal desires. However, many unplanned children arrive in
this world daily whose parents weren't necessarily seeking parenthood. The good
news is most parents who receive these surprises do go on to raise their
unplanned children and meet the needs of the children and themselves. Some
people also seek to provide homes for children who desperately need them. I do
believe there are parents who sought to help children in need first and
foremost. But, even those people are meeting personal needs and desires in
doing so. For some, the need to be needed is very great, which leads them to
acts which appear selfless.

It is not possible to separate whose needs are being met in parenting. Almost
without exception, if children are well cared for and happy, the parents' needs
are being met, as well.


P2P

"Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<wT04c.1969$H44.36142@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... "Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:9a095db9.0403110626.207fa311@posting.google.c om... palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message news:<20040310151246.18312.00001006@mb-m06.aol.com>... Di asks Steve: >> Why did you apply to adopt an unborn fetus instead of meeting the >> needs of a child who was already relinquished/in care? > Steve answers: >We didn't adopt a fetus, so your question falls apart right there. Nice >try though. > I cannot speak for Steve. But, I suspect Steve and his wife wished to adopt a newborn, just as we did twice and just as many adoptive parents do. For us, it had nothing to do with rescuing children. "Rescuing" and "saving" never crossed my mind. It had everything to do with the desire to parent and the desire to parent from birth or near birth. That's what we wanted. That's what we did. That's why we sought those who wished to relinquish newborns, since that is what we wished to adopt. That does not make us selfish. That does not make us bad people. To those demented few who think the desire to parent turns from something good and natural to something evil and selfish the moment people discover bio children are not likely to arrive on the scene, I fart in your general direction. P2P You've just confirmed my point. You adopted to meet your own needs. The needs and interests of the children you adopted were a secondary consideration, if a consideration at all. I hope you are appropriately grateful to those children for meeting your needs. Di I think you're being a bit unfair, Di. Bio and adoptive parents both get their kids to meet their own needs. If people really cared about kids they wouldn't have them to start with. Marley

The difference between the two is that, unlike adopters, bioparents
don't go about patting themselves on the back for meeting the needs of
children they gave birth to - as a means of justifying giving birth.
Nor are children by birth usually expected to be grateful to their
parents for having their needs met.






Di

>Subject: Re: Such A Piece Of S..TFrom: patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian)Date: 3/11/04 2:45 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <9a095db9.0403111445.50c01f91@posting.google.com>"Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in messagenews:<wT04c.1969$H44.36142@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... "Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:9a095db9.0403110626.207fa311@posting.google.c om... palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message news:<20040310151246.18312.00001006@mb-m06.aol.com>... > Di asks Steve: > > >> Why did you apply to adopt an unborn fetus instead of meeting the > >> needs of a child who was already relinquished/in care? > > > > Steve answers: > > > > >We didn't adopt a fetus, so your question falls apart right there.Nice > >try though. > > > > > I cannot speak for Steve. But, I suspect Steve and his wife wished to adopt a > newborn, just as we did twice and just as many adoptive parents do. For us, it > had nothing to do with rescuing children. "Rescuing" and "saving" never crossed > my mind. It had everything to do with the desire to parent and the desire to > parent from birth or near birth. That's what we wanted. That's what we did. > That's why we sought those who wished to relinquish newborns, sincethat is > what we wished to adopt. That does not make us selfish. That does not make us > bad people. To those demented few who think the desire to parent turns from > something good and natural to something evil and selfish the moment people > discover bio children are not likely to arrive on the scene, I fart in your > general direction. > > > P2P You've just confirmed my point. You adopted to meet your own needs. The needs and interests of the children you adopted were a secondary consideration, if a consideration at all. I hope you are appropriately grateful to those children for meeting your needs. Di I think you're being a bit unfair, Di. Bio and adoptive parents both get their kids to meet their own needs. If people really cared about kids they wouldn't have them to start with. MarleyThe difference between the two is that, unlike adopters, bioparentsdon't go about patting themselves on the back for meeting the needs ofchildren they gave birth to - as a means of justifying giving birth.Nor are children by birth usually expected to be grateful to theirparents for having their needs met.

Some are expected to do so...I lived this with my own biological parents...
Your point again, is that you take this moment to take a swipe at your enemies,
*adopters*?

Grow up, you bitter old swine. You're making an *** out of yourself.




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" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:9a095db9.0403111445.50c01f91@posting.google.c om... "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:<wT04c.1969$H44.36142@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... "Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:9a095db9.0403110626.207fa311@posting.google.c om... palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message news:<20040310151246.18312.00001006@mb-m06.aol.com>... > Di asks Steve: > > >> Why did you apply to adopt an unborn fetus instead of meeting the > >> needs of a child who was already relinquished/in care? > > > > Steve answers: > > > > >We didn't adopt a fetus, so your question falls apart right there.
Nice > >try though. > > > > > I cannot speak for Steve. But, I suspect Steve and his wife wished
to adopt a > newborn, just as we did twice and just as many adoptive parents do.
For us, it > had nothing to do with rescuing children. "Rescuing" and "saving"
never crossed > my mind. It had everything to do with the desire to parent and the desire to > parent from birth or near birth. That's what we wanted. That's what
we did. > That's why we sought those who wished to relinquish newborns, since
that is > what we wished to adopt. That does not make us selfish. That does
not make us > bad people. To those demented few who think the desire to parent
turns from > something good and natural to something evil and selfish the moment people > discover bio children are not likely to arrive on the scene, I fart
in your > general direction. > > > P2P You've just confirmed my point. You adopted to meet your own needs. The needs and interests of the children you adopted were a secondary consideration, if a consideration at all. I hope you are appropriately grateful to those children for meeting your needs. Di I think you're being a bit unfair, Di. Bio and adoptive parents both
get their kids to meet their own needs. If people really cared about kids
they wouldn't have them to start with. Marley The difference between the two is that, unlike adopters, bioparents don't go about patting themselves on the back for meeting the needs of children they gave birth to - as a means of justifying giving birth. Nor are children by birth

Oh, I don't know about that. Plenty of bio kids are told all the time they
should be grateful. My ex-husband's grandparents used to tell him he should
be grateful nobody locked him in a closet when he ws little. That was when
he was all grown up and grew his hair long and wore Wellington's and was a
disgrace to the famil, and obviously ungrateful for all the did for him..

Marley


Di

>Subject: Re: Such A Piece Of S..TFrom: patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian)Date: 3/11/04 5:45 PM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <9a095db9.0403111445.50c01f91@posting.google.com>

< snip >
I think you're being a bit unfair, Di. Bio and adoptive parents both get their kids to meet their own needs. If people really cared about kids they wouldn't have them to start with. MarleyThe difference between the two is that, unlike adopters,bioparents don't go about patting themselves on the backfor meeting the needs of children they gave birth to

Excuse me, what planet are you living on?
- as a means of justifying giving birth.

Whatever the hell that means.
Nor are children by birth usually expected to begrateful to their parents for having their needs met.

Ooh ooh.. I can speak to this one. My mother kept me, after all.

I don't know how you raise 'em Down Under, but in my neck of the woods
children are taught to be grateful for a good number of things, loving parents
who meet their needs are near the top. I mean, ask all those kids in China who
starved when we didn't finish our veggies.

But you're right in a sense. Many children don't appreciate parents who meet
their needs. They come to that realization when they're adults, often when
they have children of their own.

I'm curious, do you proofread your posts before you send them out? Because
everytime I try to rephrase your comments to grasp their meaning, they sound
just as stoopid the second time around.

Dad

meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in message news:<20040311180042.10232.00001307@mb-m03.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Such A Piece Of S..TFrom: patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian)Date: 3/11/04 2:45 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <9a095db9.0403111445.50c01f91@posting.google.com>"Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in messagenews:<wT04c.1969$H44.36142@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... "Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:9a095db9.0403110626.207fa311@posting.google.c om... > palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message news:<20040310151246.18312.00001006@mb-m06.aol.com>... > > Di asks Steve: > > > > >> Why did you apply to adopt an unborn fetus instead of meeting the > > >> needs of a child who was already relinquished/in care? > > > > > > > Steve answers: > > > > > > > > >We didn't adopt a fetus, so your question falls apart right there. Nice > > >try though. > > > > > > > > > I cannot speak for Steve. But, I suspect Steve and his wife wished to adopt a > > newborn, just as we did twice and just as many adoptive parents do. For us, it > > had nothing to do with rescuing children. "Rescuing" and "saving" never crossed > > my mind. It had everything to do with the desire to parent and the desire to > > parent from birth or near birth. That's what we wanted. That's what we did. > > That's why we sought those who wished to relinquish newborns, since that is > > what we wished to adopt. That does not make us selfish. That does not make us > > bad people. To those demented few who think the desire to parent turns from > > something good and natural to something evil and selfish the moment people > > discover bio children are not likely to arrive on the scene, I fart in your > > general direction. > > > > > > P2P > > You've just confirmed my point. You adopted to meet your own needs. > The needs and interests of the children you adopted were a secondary > consideration, if a consideration at all. I hope you are > appropriately grateful to those children > for meeting your needs. > > Di I think you're being a bit unfair, Di. Bio and adoptive parents both get their kids to meet their own needs. If people really cared about kids they wouldn't have them to start with. MarleyThe difference between the two is that, unlike adopters, bioparentsdon't go about patting themselves on the back for meeting the needs ofchildren they gave birth to - as a means of justifying giving birth.Nor are children by birth usually expected to be grateful to theirparents for having their needs met. Some are expected to do so...I lived this with my own biological parents... Your point again, is that you take this moment to take a swipe at your enemies, *adopters*? Grow up, you bitter old swine. You're making an *** out of yourself.
A word of advice. Next time you're called to star on the Jerry
Springer show do try to keep your tooth in and your clothes on.



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

"Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in message
news:20040311144904.09475.00001239@mb-m12.aol.com... Marley writes:I think you're being a bit unfair, Di. Bio and adoptive parents both gettheir kids to meet their own needs.>> In cases of planned parenting, I'd say people who become parents by any
means do so to fulfill personal desires. However, many unplanned children arrive
in this world daily whose parents weren't necessarily seeking parenthood. The
good news is most parents who receive these surprises do go on to raise their unplanned children and meet the needs of the children and themselves. Some people also seek to provide homes for children who desperately need them.
I do believe there are parents who sought to help children in need first and foremost. But, even those people are meeting personal needs and desires in doing so. For some, the need to be needed is very great, which leads them
to acts which appear selfless.

I suppose so, Palms, but to me the need to be needed is supremely selfish.
Why subject somebody to yourself? There is basically no real need for
anybody to need anybody else. It's a social construct. One may need
somebody for economic reasons in the broad sense of the word, but I see no
purpose in actually having people around you. I could be perfectly happy
never seeing another human being for the next 50 years. As you might
remember, I advocate not only a room of one's own by a house of one's own, .
There are too many more interesting things to do than to be chained to
another person who expects you to talk to the at a minimum. I finally got
rid of that pesky guy who was hanging around me a few months ago by not
talking to him any more. He finally got the message. He wanted to discuss
international bicycle races for pete's sake. Ah, perhaps it's just this
town.
It is not possible to separate whose needs are being met in parenting.
Almost without exception, if children are well cared for and happy, the parents'
needs are being met, as well.

No doubt true. You're a much nicer person than I.

Marley P2P

"Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:9a095db9.0403111445.50c01f91@posting.google.c om... "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:<wT04c.1969$H44.36142@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... "Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:9a095db9.0403110626.207fa311@posting.google.c om... palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message news:<20040310151246.18312.00001006@mb-m06.aol.com>... > Di asks Steve: > > >> Why did you apply to adopt an unborn fetus instead of meeting the > >> needs of a child who was already relinquished/in care? > > > > Steve answers: > > > > >We didn't adopt a fetus, so your question falls apart right there.
Nice > >try though. > > > > > I cannot speak for Steve. But, I suspect Steve and his wife wished
to adopt a > newborn, just as we did twice and just as many adoptive parents do.
For us, it > had nothing to do with rescuing children. "Rescuing" and "saving"
never crossed > my mind. It had everything to do with the desire to parent and the desire to > parent from birth or near birth. That's what we wanted. That's what
we did. > That's why we sought those who wished to relinquish newborns, since
that is > what we wished to adopt. That does not make us selfish. That does
not make us > bad people. To those demented few who think the desire to parent
turns from > something good and natural to something evil and selfish the moment people > discover bio children are not likely to arrive on the scene, I fart
in your > general direction. > > > P2P You've just confirmed my point. You adopted to meet your own needs. The needs and interests of the children you adopted were a secondary consideration, if a consideration at all. I hope you are appropriately grateful to those children for meeting your needs. Di I think you're being a bit unfair, Di. Bio and adoptive parents both
get their kids to meet their own needs. If people really cared about kids
they wouldn't have them to start with. Marley The difference between the two is that, unlike adopters, bioparents don't go about patting themselves on the back for meeting the needs of children they gave birth to - as a means of justifying giving birth. Nor are children by birth usually expected to be grateful to their parents for having their needs met.

You are joking right? We've seen several instances of it right here on alt.
a where various birthparents have claimed the adoptee should be grateful to
them merely for the act of bringing them into this world.

Kathy 1

In article <20040307191242.01989.00001012@mb-m22.aol.com>,
adoptadad@aol.com (AdoptaDad) wrote:
Subject: Re: Such A Piece Of S..TFrom: patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian)Date: 3/7/04 5:12 AM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <9a095db9.0403070212.715dda46@posting.google.com>

As long as the child is safe, loved and cared for, your selfproclaimed title is irrelevent. Then why do you care what children call their parents, Diane? Whose maternal needs are you serving?



I should think that's obvious.





steve

>Subject: Re: Such A Piece Of S..TFrom: Steve White steve@spam.me.neverDate: 3/13/04 1:45 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <steve-30549D.15451813032004@netnews.comcast.net>In article <20040307191242.01989.00001012@mb-m22.aol.com>, adoptadad@aol.com (AdoptaDad) wrote:Subject: Re: Such A Piece Of S..TFrom: patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian)Date: 3/7/04 5:12 AM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <9a095db9.0403070212.715dda46@posting.google.com>As long as the child is safe, loved and cared for, your selfproclaimed title is irrelevent. Then why do you care what children call their parents, Diane? Whose maternal needs are you serving?I should think that's obvious.steve

Affirmative nod. *

*(Saving you(s) guys a seat next to mine on an upcoming....Go Jer-ry!






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

A piece of Di dementia:
As long as the child is safe, loved and cared for, your selfproclaimed title is irrelevent.>>

Perhaps it is impossible for you, Di, to empathize with children. Try really
hard to imagine children whose bio parents opted not to raise them living for
their entire childhoods in arrangements with caregivers with whom they could
never share last names, never reference as "parents", never call "Mom" or
"Dad", even in times of need, never have a state of permanency or connectedness
commonly called "family". In your mind, there are no children whose bio
families are gone, disappeared, uninterested and otherwise off the radar
screen. But only in your mind. Children need families, not arrangements.
Children very much need and want parents, not foster caregivers. Children's
needs are best met by adoption, Di, *adoption* when their bio relatives are
unable or unwilling to step up to the plate to raise them. Anything less
represents additional loss to the child. Your mean spirited rantings only prove
you care nothing for the child who lost his/her bio family. Your primary focus
is your disdain for adoptive parents, your hatred for the benefits that befall
them when they commit to the child for life and adopt.

Too bad.

The good news is that no one in the US who has power to change adoption laws
would give you and your twisted views one second of serious consideration.


P2P

palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message news:<20040313202517.22770.00001304@mb-m10.aol.com>... A piece of Di dementia: >As long as the child is safe, loved and cared for, your self >proclaimed title is irrelevent.>> Perhaps it is impossible for you, Di, to empathize with children. Try really hard to imagine children whose bio parents opted not to raise them living for their entire childhoods in arrangements with caregivers with whom they could never share last names, never reference as "parents", never call "Mom" or "Dad", even in times of need, never have a state of permanency or connectedness commonly called "family".


It doesn't take much imagination to compare the scenario you describe
to the reality experienced by millions of stepfamilies. You know,
families formed when one natural parent dies or divorces the other,
and the widow(er) or divorced parent remarries?

Children raised in stepfamilies commonly refer to their step-parents
as stepfathers and stepmothers. If they please, they are free to call
their step-parents "Mom" and "Dad." But there's no pretense that
these people are their natural parents, even if they subsequently
adopt them. There's nothing to prevent them from associating with
their natural parents, except in proven cases of child abuse. To
condone anything less would be seen as dishonest and unfair to the
parents and children. It would be viewed as evidence of a
dysfunctional family.



In your mind, there are no children whose bio families are gone, disappeared, uninterested and otherwise off the radar screen. But only in your mind. Children need families, not arrangements. Children very much need and want parents, not foster caregivers. Children's needs are best met by adoption, Di, *adoption* when their bio relatives are unable or unwilling to step up to the plate to raise them. Anything less represents additional loss to the child. Your mean spirited rantings only prove you care nothing for the child who lost his/her bio family. Your primary focus is your disdain for adoptive parents, your hatred for the benefits that befall them when they commit to the child for life and adopt. Too bad.


You aren't reading Di's mind. You're revealing your own ignorance.

The good news is that no one in the US who has power to change adoption laws would give you and your twisted views one second of serious consideration. P2P


So you know everyone in the U.S. who has the power to change adoption
laws, and know all these folks would agree with you? Are we to
believe this?


Laura

>Subject: Re: Such A Piece Of S..TFrom: LauraLewis1@msn.com (Laura Lewis)Date: 3/16/04 11:18 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <1a4c2bd3.0403161118.6ece1e5f@posting.google.com>palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in messagenews:<20040313202517.22770.00001304@mb-m10.aol.com>... A piece of Di dementia:> >As long as the child is safe, loved and cared for, your self> >proclaimed title is irrelevent.>> Perhaps it is impossible for you, Di, to empathize with children. Tryreally hard to imagine children whose bio parents opted not to raise them livingfor their entire childhoods in arrangements with caregivers with whom theycould never share last names, never reference as "parents", never call "Mom" or "Dad", even in times of need, never have a state of permanency orconnectedness commonly called "family".It doesn't take much imagination to compare the scenario you describeto the reality experienced by millions of stepfamilies. You know,families formed when one natural parent dies or divorces the other,and the widow(er) or divorced parent remarries?Children raised in stepfamilies commonly refer to their step-parentsas stepfathers and stepmothers. If they please, they are free to calltheir step-parents "Mom" and "Dad." But there's no pretense thatthese people are their natural parents, even if they subsequentlyadopt them. There's nothing to prevent them from associating withtheir natural parents, except in proven cases of child abuse. Tocondone anything less would be seen as dishonest and unfair to theparents and children. It would be viewed as evidence of adysfunctional family. In your mind, there are no children whose bio families are gone, disappeared, uninterested and otherwise off the radar screen. But only in your mind. Children need families, not arrangements. Children very much need and want parents, not foster caregivers. Children's needs are best met by adoption, Di, *adoption* when their bio relatives are unable or unwilling to step up to the plate to raise them. Anything less represents additional loss to the child. Your mean spirited rantings onlyprove you care nothing for the child who lost his/her bio family. Your primaryfocus is your disdain for adoptive parents, your hatred for the benefits thatbefall them when they commit to the child for life and adopt. Too bad.You aren't reading Di's mind. You're revealing your own ignorance. The good news is that no one in the US who has power to change adoptionlaws would give you and your twisted views one second of serious consideration. P2PSo you know everyone in the U.S. who has the power to change adoptionlaws, and know all these folks would agree with you? Are we tobelieve this?Laura

Cow poop. Palm's point swoooosh'd right by your big brown eyes and out thru
your mad little utters.

I can see that both you and Di suffer from the same mad mooooo disease; all
about biology.


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

LauraLewis states:
It doesn't take much imagination to compare the scenario you describeto the reality experienced by millions of stepfamilies. You know,families formed when one natural parent dies or divorces the other,and the widow(er) or divorced parent remarries?>>

No comparison, LauraLewis. In step families children remain in the custody of
one bio parent and, typically, remain connnected to the non-custodial bio
parent. Not in any way similar to the circumstances of children who have been
placed for adoption.

Does it bug you that people who adopt children are called "adoptive parents"?
Would you like to see laws in the US that would prohibit children who are
adopted calling their adoptive parents "Mom" or "Dad"?

I wrote:
The good news is that no one in the US who has power to change adoptionlaws would give you and your twisted views one second of serious consideration.


You responded:
So you know everyone in the U.S. who has the power to change adoptionlaws, and know all these folks would agree with you? Are we tobelieve this?


Yep. I know beyond the shadow of a doubt legislators will never pass laws that
prohibit people who adopt being called "parents" and never pass laws that make
children calling their adoptive parents "Mom" or "Dad". Do you believe
otherwise? Or just wish?


P2P

LauraLewis1@msn.com (Laura Lewis) wrote Children raised in stepfamilies commonly refer to their step-parents as stepfathers and stepmothers. If they please, they are free to call their step-parents "Mom" and "Dad." But there's no pretense that these people are their natural parents, even if they subsequently adopt them. There's nothing to prevent them from associating with their natural parents, except in proven cases of child abuse. To condone anything less would be seen as dishonest and unfair to the parents and children. It would be viewed as evidence of a dysfunctional family.

I think there are some important parallels between step and adoptive
families. However, I'm not sure whether increasing the parallelism
would be entirely favorable to the child in question.

In most cases, a 'step' parent is considered second best. The
implication is that the step doesn't love you like their own. Though
of course that's not always true, it's true often enough that it gives
rise to a lot of generalizations.

The right of the child to associate with its birth-parents in divorce
cases is determined by custody arrangements. As you say, there is
usually a presumption in favor of the child retaining some connection
with the birth-parents.

And as for calling them Mom or Dad...if there is a birthparent around
in the child's life, it's usually discouraged (from what I hear). That
title is considered to belong to the parent who divorced the other
parent, not the kids.

Rupa

palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message news:<20040316175040.10267.00001599@mb-m03.aol.com>... LauraLewis states:It doesn't take much imagination to compare the scenario you describeto the reality experienced by millions of stepfamilies. You know,families formed when one natural parent dies or divorces the other,and the widow(er) or divorced parent remarries?>> No comparison, LauraLewis. In step families children remain in the custody of one bio parent and, typically, remain connnected to the non-custodial bio parent. Not in any way similar to the circumstances of children who have been placed for adoption. Does it bug you that people who adopt children are called "adoptive parents"? Would you like to see laws in the US that would prohibit children who are adopted calling their adoptive parents "Mom" or "Dad"? I wrote: The good news is that no one in the US who has power to change adoption laws would give you and your twisted views one second of serious consideration. You responded:So you know everyone in the U.S. who has the power to change adoptionlaws, and know all these folks would agree with you? Are we tobelieve this? Yep. I know beyond the shadow of a doubt legislators will never pass laws that prohibit people who adopt being called "parents" and never pass laws that make children calling their adoptive parents "Mom" or "Dad". Do you believe otherwise? Or just wish?
Thick as a brick. P2P you can't be so dumb as to assume anyone would
be vying for legislation to ban certain word usage. P2P

In article <1a4c2bd3.0403161118.6ece1e5f@posting.google.com>,
LauraLewis1@msn.com (Laura Lewis) wrote:
It doesn't take much imagination to compare the scenario you describe to the reality experienced by millions of stepfamilies. You know, families formed when one natural parent dies or divorces the other, and the widow(er) or divorced parent remarries? Children raised in stepfamilies commonly refer to their step-parents as stepfathers and stepmothers. If they please, they are free to call their step-parents "Mom" and "Dad." But there's no pretense that these people are their natural parents, even if they subsequently adopt them. There's nothing to prevent them from associating with their natural parents, except in proven cases of child abuse. To condone anything less would be seen as dishonest and unfair to the parents and children. It would be viewed as evidence of a dysfunctional family.


'course, most every sociologist around recognizes the problems of
step-families.

The good news is that no one in the US who has power to change adoption laws would give you and your twisted views one second of serious consideration. So you know everyone in the U.S. who has the power to change adoption laws, and know all these folks would agree with you? Are we to believe this?


It's an educated guess on Palms' part. You shouldn't try this at home
:-)




steve

In article <9a095db9.0403161847.7a4e628e@posting.google.com>,
patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote:

Yep. I know beyond the shadow of a doubt legislators will never pass laws that prohibit people who adopt being called "parents" and never pass laws that make children calling their adoptive parents "Mom" or "Dad". Do you believe otherwise? Or just wish? P2P you can't be so dumb as to assume anyone would be vying for legislation to ban certain word usage.


Nah, they'd save that for the word usage police -- you know, people like
you and Laura.




steve

meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in message news:<20040316171553.22733.00001460@mb-m10.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Such A Piece Of S..TFrom: LauraLewis1@msn.com (Laura Lewis)Date: 3/16/04 11:18 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <1a4c2bd3.0403161118.6ece1e5f@posting.google.com>palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in messagenews:<20040313202517.22770.00001304@mb-m10.aol.com>... A piece of Di dementia: >> >As long as the child is safe, loved and cared for, your self >> >proclaimed title is irrelevent.>> Perhaps it is impossible for you, Di, to empathize with children. Try really hard to imagine children whose bio parents opted not to raise them living for their entire childhoods in arrangements with caregivers with whom they could never share last names, never reference as "parents", never call "Mom" or "Dad", even in times of need, never have a state of permanency or connectedness commonly called "family".It doesn't take much imagination to compare the scenario you describeto the reality experienced by millions of stepfamilies. You know,families formed when one natural parent dies or divorces the other,and the widow(er) or divorced parent remarries?Children raised in stepfamilies commonly refer to their step-parentsas stepfathers and stepmothers. If they please, they are free to calltheir step-parents "Mom" and "Dad." But there's no pretense thatthese people are their natural parents, even if they subsequentlyadopt them. There's nothing to prevent them from associating withtheir natural parents, except in proven cases of child abuse. Tocondone anything less would be seen as dishonest and unfair to theparents and children. It would be viewed as evidence of adysfunctional family. In your mind, there are no children whose bio families are gone, disappeared, uninterested and otherwise off the radar screen. But only in your mind. Children need families, not arrangements. Children very much need and want parents, not foster caregivers. Children's needs are best met by adoption, Di, *adoption* when their bio relatives are unable or unwilling to step up to the plate to raise them. Anything less represents additional loss to the child. Your mean spirited rantings only prove you care nothing for the child who lost his/her bio family. Your primary focus is your disdain for adoptive parents, your hatred for the benefits that befall them when they commit to the child for life and adopt. Too bad.You aren't reading Di's mind. You're revealing your own ignorance. The good news is that no one in the US who has power to change adoption laws would give you and your twisted views one second of serious consideration. P2PSo you know everyone in the U.S. who has the power to change adoptionlaws, and know all these folks would agree with you? Are we tobelieve this?Laura Cow poop. Palm's point swoooosh'd right by your big brown eyes and out thru your mad little utters.

Utters? oh my......ROLF!
I can see that both you and Di suffer from the same mad mooooo disease; all about biology.

Heh! I never 'uddered' a word. LOL!




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: Such A Piece Of S..TFrom: patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian)Date: 3/16/04 7:00 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <9a095db9.0403161900.1b3c715@posting.google.com>meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in messagenews:<20040316171553.22733.00001460@mb-m10.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Such A Piece Of S..TFrom: LauraLewis1@msn.com (Laura Lewis)Date: 3/16/04 11:18 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <1a4c2bd3.0403161118.6ece1e5f@posting.google.com>palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in messagenews:<20040313202517.22770.00001304@mb-m10.aol.com>...> A piece of Di dementia:>> >> >As long as the child is safe, loved and cared for, your self> >> >proclaimed title is irrelevent.>>>> Perhaps it is impossible for you, Di, to empathize with children. Try really> hard to imagine children whose bio parents opted not to raise themliving for> their entire childhoods in arrangements with caregivers with whom they could> never share last names, never reference as "parents", never call "Mom"or> "Dad", even in times of need, never have a state of permanency or connectedness> commonly called "family".It doesn't take much imagination to compare the scenario you describeto the reality experienced by millions of stepfamilies. You know,families formed when one natural parent dies or divorces the other,and the widow(er) or divorced parent remarries?Children raised in stepfamilies commonly refer to their step-parentsas stepfathers and stepmothers. If they please, they are free to calltheir step-parents "Mom" and "Dad." But there's no pretense thatthese people are their natural parents, even if they subsequentlyadopt them. There's nothing to prevent them from associating withtheir natural parents, except in proven cases of child abuse. Tocondone anything less would be seen as dishonest and unfair to theparents and children. It would be viewed as evidence of adysfunctional family. In your mind, there are no children whose bio> families are gone, disappeared, uninterested and otherwise off the radar> screen. But only in your mind. Children need families, not arrangements.> Children very much need and want parents, not foster caregivers.Children's> needs are best met by adoption, Di, *adoption* when their bio relativesare> unable or unwilling to step up to the plate to raise them. Anything less> represents additional loss to the child. Your mean spirited rantingsonly prove> you care nothing for the child who lost his/her bio family. Your primary focus> is your disdain for adoptive parents, your hatred for the benefits that befall> them when they commit to the child for life and adopt.>> Too bad.You aren't reading Di's mind. You're revealing your own ignorance.>> The good news is that no one in the US who has power to change adoption laws> would give you and your twisted views one second of seriousconsideration.>>> P2PSo you know everyone in the U.S. who has the power to change adoptionlaws, and know all these folks would agree with you? Are we tobelieve this?Laura Cow poop. Palm's point swoooosh'd right by your big brown eyes and out thru your mad little utters.Utters? oh my......ROLF!

Come to think about it..nobody takes your utters seriously either. Just so you
know... Udders, like breasts are for mothers that feed their infants. Not that
you'd know a damn thing about that.






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:<20040317014155.19410.00001677@mb-m16.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Such A Piece Of S..TFrom: patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian)Date: 3/16/04 7:00 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <9a095db9.0403161900.1b3c715@posting.google.com>meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in messagenews:<20040316171553.22733.00001460@mb-m10.aol.com>... >Subject: Re: Such A Piece Of S..T >From: LauraLewis1@msn.com (Laura Lewis) >Date: 3/16/04 11:18 AM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <1a4c2bd3.0403161118.6ece1e5f@posting.google.com> > >palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message >news:<20040313202517.22770.00001304@mb-m10.aol.com>... >> A piece of Di dementia: >> >> >> >As long as the child is safe, loved and cared for, your self >> >> >proclaimed title is irrelevent.>> >> >> Perhaps it is impossible for you, Di, to empathize with children. Try really >> hard to imagine children whose bio parents opted not to raise them living for >> their entire childhoods in arrangements with caregivers with whom they could >> never share last names, never reference as "parents", never call "Mom" or >> "Dad", even in times of need, never have a state of permanency or connectedness >> commonly called "family". > > >It doesn't take much imagination to compare the scenario you describe >to the reality experienced by millions of stepfamilies. You know, >families formed when one natural parent dies or divorces the other, >and the widow(er) or divorced parent remarries? > >Children raised in stepfamilies commonly refer to their step-parents >as stepfathers and stepmothers. If they please, they are free to call >their step-parents "Mom" and "Dad." But there's no pretense that >these people are their natural parents, even if they subsequently >adopt them. There's nothing to prevent them from associating with >their natural parents, except in proven cases of child abuse. To >condone anything less would be seen as dishonest and unfair to the >parents and children. It would be viewed as evidence of a >dysfunctional family. > > > > In your mind, there are no children whose bio >> families are gone, disappeared, uninterested and otherwise off the radar >> screen. But only in your mind. Children need families, not arrangements. >> Children very much need and want parents, not foster caregivers. Children's >> needs are best met by adoption, Di, *adoption* when their bio relatives are >> unable or unwilling to step up to the plate to raise them. Anything less >> represents additional loss to the child. Your mean spirited rantings only prove >> you care nothing for the child who lost his/her bio family. Your primary focus >> is your disdain for adoptive parents, your hatred for the benefits that befall >> them when they commit to the child for life and adopt. >> >> Too bad. > > >You aren't reading Di's mind. You're revealing your own ignorance. > > >> >> The good news is that no one in the US who has power to change adoption laws >> would give you and your twisted views one second of serious consideration. >> >> >> P2P > > >So you know everyone in the U.S. who has the power to change adoption >laws, and know all these folks would agree with you? Are we to >believe this? > > >Laura Cow poop. Palm's point swoooosh'd right by your big brown eyes and out thru your mad little utters.Utters? oh my......ROLF! Come to think about it..nobody takes your utters seriously either.

That would be 'utterances.'

Just so you know... Udders, like breasts are for mothers that feed their infants.

That would be "for mothers who feed their infants."


Not that you'd know a damn thing about that.

Damnright. Nor would any other infertile or childless woman on this
forum. When you insult me you insult many. Silly 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 9a095db9.0403170456.23858ee7@posting.google.com, Dian at
patrice068@optusnet.com.au wrote on 17/3/04 12:56 pm:
meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in message news:<20040317014155.19410.00001677@mb-m16.aol.com>... Subject: Re: Such A Piece Of S..T From: patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) Date: 3/16/04 7:00 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: <9a095db9.0403161900.1b3c715@posting.google.com> meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in message news:<20040316171553.22733.00001460@mb-m10.aol.com>... Subject: Re: Such A Piece Of S..T From: LauraLewis1@msn.com (Laura Lewis) Date: 3/16/04 11:18 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: <1a4c2bd3.0403161118.6ece1e5f@posting.google.com>>> palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message>> news:<20040313202517.22770.00001304@mb-m10.aol.com>... A piece of Di>> dementia:>>>>>>>> As long as the child is safe, loved and cared for, your self>>>>>> proclaimed title is irrelevent.>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps it is impossible for you, Di, to empathize with children. Try>>> really hard to imagine children whose bio parents opted not to raise them>>> living for their entire childhoods in arrangements with caregivers with>>> whom they could never share last names, never reference as "parents",>>> never call "Mom" or "Dad", even in times of need, never have a state of>>> permanency or connectedness commonly called "family".>>>>>>> It doesn't take much imagination to compare the scenario you describe to>> the reality experienced by millions of stepfamilies. You know, families>> formed when one natural parent dies or divorces the other, and the>> widow(er) or divorced parent remarries?>>>> Children raised in stepfamilies commonly refer to their step-parents as>> stepfathers and stepmothers. If they please, they are free to call their>> step-parents "Mom" and "Dad." But there's no pretense that these people>> are their natural parents, even if they subsequently adopt them. There's>> nothing to prevent them from associating with their natural parents,>> except in proven cases of child abuse. To condone anything less would be>> seen as dishonest and unfair to the parents and children. It would be>> viewed as evidence of a dysfunctional family.>>>>>>>> In your mind, there are no children whose bio families are gone,>> disappeared, uninterested and otherwise off the radar screen. But only in>> your mind. Children need families, not arrangements. Children very much>> need and want parents, not foster caregivers. Children's needs are best>> met by adoption, Di, *adoption* when their bio relatives are unable or>> unwilling to step up to the plate to raise them. Anything less represents>> additional loss to the child. Your mean spirited rantings only prove you>> care nothing for the child who lost his/her bio family. Your primary focus>> is your disdain for adoptive parents, your hatred for the benefits that>> befall them when they commit to the child for life and adopt.>>>>> Too bad.>>>>>>> You aren't reading Di's mind. You're revealing your own ignorance.>>>>>>>>>> The good news is that no one in the US who has power to change adoption>>> laws would give you and your twisted views one second of serious>>> consideration.>>>>>>>>> P2P>>>>>>> So you know everyone in the U.S. who has the power to change adoption>> laws, and know all these folks would agree with you? Are we to believe>> this?>>>>>> Laura>>> Cow poop. Palm's point swoooosh'd right by your big brown eyes and out thru> your mad little utters.

Utters? oh my......ROLF!
Come to think about it..nobody takes your utters seriously either.
That would be 'utterances.'


It depends on what Kathy meant, it is somewhat obsolete usage but I see no
reason why 'utter' should not be simply pluralized by adding an 's' if it is
being used as a noun referring to an outer garment for instance or
something that is at the outer limits such as one of your opinions, Di.

From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]:

Utter \Ut"ter\, [OE. utter, originally the same word as
outer. See {Out}, and cf. {Outer}, {Utmost}.]

Just so you know... Udders, like breasts are for mothers that feed their infants.

That would be "for mothers who feed their infants."


Either 'that' or 'who' would be equally grammatically correct as a relative
pronoun in the above sentence, Di.


From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]:

That \That\, pron., a., conj., & adv.

3. As a relative pronoun, that is equivalent to who or which,
serving to point out, and make definite, a person or thing
spoken of, or alluded to, before, and may be either
singular or plural.


I'm not at all sure what point you were trying to make Di, or are you just
trying to establish yourself as grammar monitor for the day.



Robin

Di writes to me:
Thick as a brick. P2P you can't be so dumb as to assume anyone wouldbe vying for legislation to ban certain word usage.


I don't think you are vying for anything, Di. I think you spew, which is very
different from vying. Hoping to outlaw the usage of certain titles within the
families of others is nearly as dumb and thick as caring about them in the
first place.


P2P

"Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in message
news:20040317171845.19482.00001730@mb-m16.aol.com... Di writes to me:Thick as a brick. P2P you can't be so dumb as to assume anyone wouldbe vying for legislation to ban certain word usage. I don't think you are vying for anything, Di. I think you spew, which is
very different from vying. Hoping to outlaw the usage of certain titles within
the families of others is nearly as dumb and thick as caring about them in the first place. P2P

Well, there's always SF with it's restrictive language laws on pets. And
the FCC.

Marley

palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message news:<20040317171845.19482.00001730@mb-m16.aol.com>... Di writes to me:Thick as a brick. P2P you can't be so dumb as to assume anyone wouldbe vying for legislation to ban certain word usage. I don't think you are vying for anything, Di. I think you spew, which is very different from vying. Hoping to outlaw the usage of certain titles within the families of others is nearly as dumb and thick as caring about them in the first place. P2P

ye Gads! You are that thick. To think I'd bother trying to outlaw word
usage is downright stooopid. And paranoid.

>ye Gads! You are that thick. To think I'd bother trying to outlaw wordusage is downright stooopid. And paranoid.


Ye gads, Di! Are you actually trying to outlaw anything? Of course not.

The fact that you are annoyed that children who were adopted typically call
their adoptive parents "Mom" and "Dad" says a great deal about you. Frankly, it
sums you up entirely.


P2P

>Subject: Re: Such A Piece Of S..TFrom: patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian)Date: 3/17/04 7:21 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <9a095db9.0403171921.56f64390@posting.google.com>palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in messagenews:<20040317171845.19482.00001730@mb-m16.aol.com>... Di writes to me:Thick as a brick. P2P you can't be so dumb as to assume anyone wouldbe vying for legislation to ban certain word usage.> I don't think you are vying for anything, Di. I think you spew, which isvery different from vying. Hoping to outlaw the usage of certain titles withinthe families of others is nearly as dumb and thick as caring about them in the first place. P2Pye Gads! You are that thick. To think I'd bother trying to outlaw wordusage is downright stooopid. And paranoid.

Di be quick, Di be nimble...

Here's a refresher course...Those of us that are familar with your self-serving
outlaw adoption agenda, know the true meanings behind your words. LOL!






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