I posted this originally at alt.adoption.issues, and it was suggested I post it
here as well. Here goes:

Hello.

We have recently adopted a beautiful baby boy. I don't know how to say this
without sounding like an ungrateful jerk, so I'll just spit it right out: We
feel the agency has taken too much money and we want it accounted for. For
example, we recently found out that we paid them a certain amount of money for
the baby's hospital stay, yet were billed directly from the hospital and paid
the bill. Only when I questioned the agency (who btw is supossed to be one of
the largest in the country), did they tell me we should submit the bills to
them for payment. Another example is that they charged $10,000 for counseling.
We were never counseled, and when we met the birth mother, she said she was
never counceled, or at least not directly. She said they answered her
questions, but never offered formal pre or post adoption counseling.

My question is - does anyone know what our rights are, who we can ask, or a
group we can join?

We are expecting to finalize the adoption within the next three months, and
will be asking the agency for itemized receipts for every penney we paid to
them.

Thank you!

In article <20040315221326.08817.00001654@mb-m13.aol.com>,
rtsub34@aol.comspamfree (RTsub34) writes:
I posted this originally at alt.adoption.issues, and it was suggested I postithere as well. Here goes:Hello.We have recently adopted a beautiful baby boy. I don't know how to say thiswithout sounding like an ungrateful jerk, so I'll just spit it right out: Wefeel the agency has taken too much money and we want it accounted for. Forexample, we recently found out that we paid them a certain amount of moneyforthe baby's hospital stay, yet were billed directly from the hospital and paidthe bill. Only when I questioned the agency (who btw is supossed to be oneofthe largest in the country), did they tell me we should submit the bills tothem for payment. Another example is that they charged $10,000 forcounseling. We were never counseled, and when we met the birth mother, she said she wasnever counceled, or at least not directly. She said they answered herquestions, but never offered formal pre or post adoption counseling.My question is - does anyone know what our rights are, who we can ask, or agroup we can join?We are expecting to finalize the adoption within the next three months, andwill be asking the agency for itemized receipts for every penney we paid tothem.Thank you!

You could begin by contacting the state department which licenses this agency,
to obtain information on your rights and obligations, including what expenses
may be paid by adoptive parents and what information agencies are required to
maintain in connection with those expenses. You might then want to consult an
attorney, depending upon what you learn and the complexity of the agreement you
signed with the agency, or file a complaint with the regulating body along with
demanding an accounting from the agency. Btw, there's no reason not to ask for
an accounting now, IMO. Just do it politely and calmly.

J.







Reply to jmhjmd at aol.

>Wefeel the agency has taken too much money and we want it accounted for. >>

rtsub, did you pay a set, flat fee to the agency when you first signed up? Or,
are you saying they tacked on expenses as you went along? Ten thousand dollars
for "counseling" is outrageous. Something definitely seems wrong with that
number. Where did you see an itemization of charges that showed $10,000 for
counseling?

I am not an attorney, but it seems to me this is a business matter that rests
on the original contract you signed with the agency. Do you have legal counsel
independent of the agency who could look over that contract and advise you of
your rights?

In most states an accounting report, which does itemize each expense, is
submitted to the court at the time of the finalization hearing and which
becomes a permanent part of the adoption file. That is what you need to look
at, in my opinion, before the date of the finalization hearing.

Good luck with this.






P2P

rtsub34@aol.comspamfree (RTsub34) wrote in message news:<20040315221326.08817.00001654@mb-m13.aol.com>... I posted this originally at alt.adoption.issues, and it was suggested I post it here as well. Here goes: Hello. We have recently adopted a beautiful baby boy. I don't know how to say this without sounding like an ungrateful jerk, so I'll just spit it right out: We feel the agency has taken too much money and we want it accounted for. For example, we recently found out that we paid them a certain amount of money for the baby's hospital stay, yet were billed directly from the hospital and paid the bill. Only when I questioned the agency (who btw is supossed to be one of the largest in the country), did they tell me we should submit the bills to them for payment. Another example is that they charged $10,000 for counseling. We were never counseled, and when we met the birth mother, she said she was never counceled, or at least not directly. She said they answered her questions, but never offered formal pre or post adoption counseling. My question is - does anyone know what our rights are, who we can ask, or a group we can join? We are expecting to finalize the adoption within the next three months, and will be asking the agency for itemized receipts for every penney we paid to them. Thank you!

Never mind about your rights think of the rights of the baby you have
just purchased. How is he/she going to feel later on when they find
out that the age of slavery is still alive and well and the buyers are
moaning about the price they paid for him/her. God I hope he lives up
to his part of the bargain and remains a good and loyal adoptee

"Hippiechic" <lily.fair@angelfire.com> wrote in message
news:7f0dd552.0403180507.4cd4720c@posting.google.c om... rtsub34@aol.comspamfree (RTsub34) wrote in message
news:<20040315221326.08817.00001654@mb-m13.aol.com>... I posted this originally at alt.adoption.issues, and it was suggested I
post it here as well. Here goes: Hello. We have recently adopted a beautiful baby boy. I don't know how to say
this without sounding like an ungrateful jerk, so I'll just spit it right
out: We feel the agency has taken too much money and we want it accounted for.
For example, we recently found out that we paid them a certain amount of
money for the baby's hospital stay, yet were billed directly from the hospital and
paid the bill. Only when I questioned the agency (who btw is supossed to be
one of the largest in the country), did they tell me we should submit the bills
to them for payment. Another example is that they charged $10,000 for
counseling. We were never counseled, and when we met the birth mother, she said she
was never counceled, or at least not directly. She said they answered her questions, but never offered formal pre or post adoption counseling. My question is - does anyone know what our rights are, who we can ask,
or a group we can join? We are expecting to finalize the adoption within the next three months,
and will be asking the agency for itemized receipts for every penney we paid
to them. Thank you! Never mind about your rights think of the rights of the baby you have just purchased. How is he/she going to feel later on when they find out that the age of slavery is still alive and well and the buyers are moaning about the price they paid for him/her. God I hope he lives up to his part of the bargain and remains a good and loyal adoptee

No doubt the kid will be in the cotton field any day now. Thanks for
insulting every person of slave lineage.

Marley

>Subject: Re: Adopted a Baby and Have Questions About Our RightsFrom: lily.fair@angelfire.com (Hippiechic)Date: 3/18/2004 8:07 AM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <7f0dd552.0403180507.4cd4720c@posting.google.com>rtsub34@aol.comspamfree (RTsub34) wrote in messagenews:<20040315221326.08817.00001654@mb-m13.aol.com>... I posted this originally at alt.adoption.issues, and it was suggested Ipost it here as well. Here goes: Hello. We have recently adopted a beautiful baby boy. I don't know how to saythis without sounding like an ungrateful jerk, so I'll just spit it right out:We feel the agency has taken too much money and we want it accounted for. For example, we recently found out that we paid them a certain amount of moneyfor the baby's hospital stay, yet were billed directly from the hospital andpaid the bill. Only when I questioned the agency (who btw is supossed to be oneof the largest in the country), did they tell me we should submit the bills to them for payment. Another example is that they charged $10,000 forcounseling. We were never counseled, and when we met the birth mother, she said shewas never counceled, or at least not directly. She said they answered her questions, but never offered formal pre or post adoption counseling. My question is - does anyone know what our rights are, who we can ask, or a group we can join? We are expecting to finalize the adoption within the next three months, and will be asking the agency for itemized receipts for every penney we paid to them. Thank you!Never mind about your rights think of the rights of the baby you havejust purchased. How is he/she going to feel later on when they findout that the age of slavery is still alive and well and the buyers aremoaning about the price they paid for him/her. God I hope he lives upto his part of the bargain and remains a good and loyal adoptee


I appreciate your reading and replying to my post, however, I'm not here to
debate the politics of adoption or moral issues you seem to have with it,
especially when you do not know me, our situation, the birth mother's
situation, or what we have gone through for our wonderful son whom we love with
all our hearts.

The bottom line is that the adoption agency is taking advantage of our
desparately wanting a child, and willing to do anything for him...and it's not
right. This is not at all about money, it is about being taken advantage of by
people who should know better!

TOP POST:

How does it go?

Quelle Surprise?

KL

"Spieler100" <spieler100@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040318162945.20639.00001703@mb-m24.aol.com...Subject: Re: Adopted a Baby and Have Questions About Our RightsFrom: lily.fair@angelfire.com (Hippiechic)Date: 3/18/2004 8:07 AM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <7f0dd552.0403180507.4cd4720c@posting.google.com>rtsub34@aol.comspamfree (RTsub34) wrote in messagenews:<20040315221326.08817.00001654@mb-m13.aol.com>... I posted this originally at alt.adoption.issues, and it was suggested Ipost it here as well. Here goes: Hello. We have recently adopted a beautiful baby boy. I don't know how to saythis without sounding like an ungrateful jerk, so I'll just spit it right
out:We feel the agency has taken too much money and we want it accounted for.
For example, we recently found out that we paid them a certain amount of
moneyfor the baby's hospital stay, yet were billed directly from the hospital
andpaid the bill. Only when I questioned the agency (who btw is supossed to be
oneof the largest in the country), did they tell me we should submit the
bills to them for payment. Another example is that they charged $10,000 forcounseling. We were never counseled, and when we met the birth mother, she said
shewas never counceled, or at least not directly. She said they answered her questions, but never offered formal pre or post adoption counseling. My question is - does anyone know what our rights are, who we can ask,
or a group we can join? We are expecting to finalize the adoption within the next three months,
and will be asking the agency for itemized receipts for every penney we
paid to them. Thank you!Never mind about your rights think of the rights of the baby you havejust purchased. How is he/she going to feel later on when they findout that the age of slavery is still alive and well and the buyers aremoaning about the price they paid for him/her. God I hope he lives upto his part of the bargain and remains a good and loyal adoptee I appreciate your reading and replying to my post, however, I'm not here
to debate the politics of adoption or moral issues you seem to have with it, especially when you do not know me, our situation, the birth mother's situation, or what we have gone through for our wonderful son whom we love
with all our hearts. The bottom line is that the adoption agency is taking advantage of our desparately wanting a child, and willing to do anything for him...and it's
not right. This is not at all about money, it is about being taken advantage
of by people who should know better!

On 18 Mar 2004 21:29:45 GMT, spieler100@aol.com (Spieler100) wrote:
The bottom line is that the adoption agency is taking advantage of ourdesparately wanting a child, and willing to do anything for him...and it's notright. This is not at all about money, it is about being taken advantage of bypeople who should know better!


Trust me its about money..


Jackie

>Trust me its about money..Jackie

Trust me, it's not. I'm not going to fight with you...but it's truly not about
the money.

In article <7f0dd552.0403180507.4cd4720c@posting.google.com>,
lily.fair@angelfire.com (Hippiechic) wrote:

Never mind about your rights think of the rights of the baby you have just purchased. How is he/she going to feel later on when they find out that the age of slavery is still alive and well and the buyers are moaning about the price they paid for him/her.


Hippochic! Long time no hear.

Somehow I don't think 'rtsub' is going to pay much attention to your
droplets of advice. :-)




steve

In article <20040318162945.20639.00001703@mb-m24.aol.com>,
spieler100@aol.com (Spieler100) wrote:

I appreciate your reading and replying to my post, however, I'm not here to debate the politics of adoption or moral issues you seem to have with it, especially when you do not know me, our situation, the birth mother's situation, or what we have gone through for our wonderful son whom we love with all our hearts. The bottom line is that the adoption agency is taking advantage of our desparately wanting a child, and willing to do anything for him...and it's not right. This is not at all about money, it is about being taken advantage of by people who should know better!


You have to pardon hippochic, she's a nasty, bitter one from Down Under
who alleges that her child was taken from her.

About expenses: first of all, the agency should have given you estimates
up front of 1) what services are required under the law 2) what
additional services you would need and 3) what all this is going to cost.

Agencies have to eat too -- they have employees and bills to pay. They
frequently help with birthmother expenses, and there's a fair bit of
counseling that comes with adoption. Families that adopt get to pay the
tab. That's just how it is.

Hospital bill: if the agency agreed to cover it (did it clarify that up
front?), then they need to reimburse what you paid the hospital.

Counseling: maybe you didn't need it, but the birthmother might have.
The agency has to cover that somehow, and you're the one with the money.
That's just how it is. If she didn't get counseling, then it's fair to
ask the agency where the money went.

Another thing to consider is that adoptions can fall through, and do so
frequently. It's the birthmother's right to change her mind, and in some
states she can revocate her consent. If she does back out, all funds the
agency has spent so far on her expenses, counseling, etc. have to come
from somewhere. Agencies have to spread these costs out over the
successful adoptions in order to keep the lights on and the doors open.
You're the one with the money. That's just how it is.

So even the best, most reputable, most ethical agency has expenses to
cover.

You ask what your rights are. Talk to your lawyer -- you DO have an
adoption lawyer, correct? You need one to handle the legal end of the
adoption, and he/she is a good person to ask about agency expenses. The
lawyer is the one who submits a statement about all monies spent to the
judge at the time of finalization.

So --

1) start with the agency
2) ask your lawyer
3) find a local support group and join in

Good luck.



steve (an adoptive parent)

"Steve White" <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message
news:steve-4D598B.00494419032004@netnews.comcast.net... In article <20040318162945.20639.00001703@mb-m24.aol.com>, spieler100@aol.com (Spieler100) wrote: I appreciate your reading and replying to my post, however, I'm not here to debate the politics of adoption or moral issues you seem to have with it, especially when you do not know me, our situation, the birth mother's situation, or what we have gone through for our wonderful son whom we love with all our hearts. The bottom line is that the adoption agency is taking advantage of our desparately wanting a child, and willing to do anything for him...and it's not right. This is not at all about money, it is about being taken advantage of by people who should know better! You have to pardon hippochic, she's a nasty, bitter one from Down Under who alleges that her child was taken from her. About expenses: first of all, the agency should have given you estimates up front of 1) what services are required under the law 2) what additional services you would need and 3) what all this is going to cost. Agencies have to eat too -- they have employees and bills to pay. They frequently help with birthmother expenses, and there's a fair bit of counseling that comes with adoption. Families that adopt get to pay the tab. That's just how it is. Hospital bill: if the agency agreed to cover it (did it clarify that up front?), then they need to reimburse what you paid the hospital. Counseling: maybe you didn't need it, but the birthmother might have. The agency has to cover that somehow, and you're the one with the money. That's just how it is. If she didn't get counseling, then it's fair to ask the agency where the money went. Another thing to consider is that adoptions can fall through, and do so frequently. It's the birthmother's right to change her mind, and in some states she can revocate her consent. If she does back out, all funds the agency has spent so far on her expenses, counseling, etc. have to come from somewhere. Agencies have to spread these costs out over the successful adoptions in order to keep the lights on and the doors open. You're the one with the money. That's just how it is. So even the best, most reputable, most ethical agency has expenses to cover. You ask what your rights are. Talk to your lawyer -- you DO have an adoption lawyer, correct? You need one to handle the legal end of the adoption, and he/she is a good person to ask about agency expenses. The lawyer is the one who submits a statement about all monies spent to the judge at the time of finalization. So -- 1) start with the agency 2) ask your lawyer 3) find a local support group and join in Good luck. steve (an adoptive parent)

What country is this? America?
In New Zealand, childbirth in a public hospital is free, and Social Welfare
arranges the adoption (the name may have changed, Government departments
change their names all the time here).
The Salvation Army home, Bethany, still arranges adoptions, though most
girls there keep the babies, but I don't think they would charge much, if
anything.
It is illegal here to buy a baby or offer one for sale.
Some couples without much money but plenty of love make wonderful adoptive
parents, but how would they afford those very high costs?

Geopelia

Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message news:<steve-5D43A6.00395819032004@netnews.comcast.net>... In article <7f0dd552.0403180507.4cd4720c@posting.google.com>, lily.fair@angelfire.com (Hippiechic) wrote: Never mind about your rights think of the rights of the baby you have just purchased. How is he/she going to feel later on when they find out that the age of slavery is still alive and well and the buyers are moaning about the price they paid for him/her. Hippochic! Long time no hear. Somehow I don't think 'rtsub' is going to pay much attention to your droplets of advice. :-)
I'm sure I must have been missed B-MUMS are a dying breed on this
forum and thank for your compliments about being bitter and twisted steve

"Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<3%l6c.46808$H44.857241@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... "Hippiechic" <lily.fair@angelfire.com> wrote in message news:7f0dd552.0403180507.4cd4720c@posting.google.c om... rtsub34@aol.comspamfree (RTsub34) wrote in message news:<20040315221326.08817.00001654@mb-m13.aol.com>... I posted this originally at alt.adoption.issues, and it was suggested I post it here as well. Here goes: Hello. We have recently adopted a beautiful baby boy. I don't know how to say this without sounding like an ungrateful jerk, so I'll just spit it right out: We feel the agency has taken too much money and we want it accounted for. For example, we recently found out that we paid them a certain amount of money for the baby's hospital stay, yet were billed directly from the hospital and paid the bill. Only when I questioned the agency (who btw is supossed to be one of the largest in the country), did they tell me we should submit the bills to them for payment. Another example is that they charged $10,000 for counseling. We were never counseled, and when we met the birth mother, she said she was never counceled, or at least not directly. She said they answered her questions, but never offered formal pre or post adoption counseling. My question is - does anyone know what our rights are, who we can ask, or a group we can join? We are expecting to finalize the adoption within the next three months, and will be asking the agency for itemized receipts for every penney we paid to them. Thank you! Never mind about your rights think of the rights of the baby you have just purchased. How is he/she going to feel later on when they find out that the age of slavery is still alive and well and the buyers are moaning about the price they paid for him/her. God I hope he lives up to his part of the bargain and remains a good and loyal adoptee No doubt the kid will be in the cotton field any day now. Thanks for insulting every person of slave lineage.
Did I insult every person of slave lineage? I would have thought that
it would be more insuling for them to know that children are still
being bought and sold in the US.

Lily

Marley

in article 7f0dd552.0403190439.6a955846@posting.google.com, Hippiechic at
lily.fair@angelfire.com wrote on 19/3/04 12:39 pm:
"Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<3%l6c.46808$H44.857241@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
No doubt the kid will be in the cotton field any day now. Thanks for insulting every person of slave lineage.
Did I insult every person of slave lineage? I would have thought that it would be more insuling for them to know that children are still being bought and sold in the US. Lily


What bought and sold into *slavery*? In the US? Now? Do you have any proof
of this, bearing in mind the actual meaning of the terms slave and slavery?

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

Slave \Slave\, n.

1. A person who is held in bondage to another; one who is
wholly subject to the will of another; one who is held as
a chattel; one who has no freedom of action, but whose
person and services are wholly under the control of
another.

Slavery \Slav"er*y\, n.; pl. {Slaveries}. [See 2d {Slave}.]

1. The condition of a slave; the state of entire subjection
of one person to the will of another.

2. A condition of subjection or submission characterized by
lack of freedom of action or of will.

3. The holding of slaves.

Syn: Bondage; servitude; inthrallment; enslavement;
captivity; bond service; vassalage.


You might claim human trafficking and still be accused of a rather
ridiculous hyperbole. You're obviously as big a loony as Jackie, who no
doubt will along any minute now accompanied by her puppet master Di, to lend
you support in this lunacy.

Robin

"Robin Harritt" <karakoram@postadoption.info> wrote in message
news:BC80A239.3836F%karakoram@postadoption.info... in article 7f0dd552.0403190439.6a955846@posting.google.com, Hippiechic at lily.fair@angelfire.com wrote on 19/3/04 12:39 pm: "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<3%l6c.46808$H44.857241@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... No doubt the kid will be in the cotton field any day now. Thanks for insulting every person of slave lineage. Did I insult every person of slave lineage? I would have thought that it would be more insuling for them to know that children are still being bought and sold in the US. Lily What bought and sold into *slavery*? In the US? Now? Do you have any proof of this, bearing in mind the actual meaning of the terms slave and
slavery? From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]: Slave \Slave\, n. 1. A person who is held in bondage to another; one who is wholly subject to the will of another; one who is held as a chattel; one who has no freedom of action, but whose person and services are wholly under the control of another. Slavery \Slav"er*y\, n.; pl. {Slaveries}. [See 2d {Slave}.] 1. The condition of a slave; the state of entire subjection of one person to the will of another. 2. A condition of subjection or submission characterized by lack of freedom of action or of will. 3. The holding of slaves. Syn: Bondage; servitude; inthrallment; enslavement; captivity; bond service; vassalage. You might claim human trafficking and still be accused of a rather ridiculous hyperbole. You're obviously as big a loony as Jackie, who no doubt will along any minute now accompanied by her puppet master Di, to
lend you support in this lunacy. Robin

They are like the three stooges when the adoption=slavery issue comes up.

Kathy 1

In article <c3f0sh$26cos8$1@ID-203097.news.uni-berlin.de>, kat says..."Robin Harritt" <karakoram@postadoption.info> wrote in messagenews:BC80A239.3836F%karakoram@postadoption. info... in article 7f0dd552.0403190439.6a955846@posting.google.com, Hippiechic at lily.fair@angelfire.com wrote on 19/3/04 12:39 pm: "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<3%l6c.46808$H44.857241@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...>> No doubt the kid will be in the cotton field any day now. Thanks for> insulting every person of slave lineage. Did I insult every person of slave lineage? I would have thought that it would be more insuling for them to know that children are still being bought and sold in the US. Lily What bought and sold into *slavery*? In the US? Now? Do you have any proof of this, bearing in mind the actual meaning of the terms slave andslavery? From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]: Slave \Slave\, n. 1. A person who is held in bondage to another; one who is wholly subject to the will of another; one who is held as a chattel; one who has no freedom of action, but whose person and services are wholly under the control of another. Slavery \Slav"er*y\, n.; pl. {Slaveries}. [See 2d {Slave}.] 1. The condition of a slave; the state of entire subjection of one person to the will of another. 2. A condition of subjection or submission characterized by lack of freedom of action or of will. 3. The holding of slaves. Syn: Bondage; servitude; inthrallment; enslavement; captivity; bond service; vassalage. You might claim human trafficking and still be accused of a rather ridiculous hyperbole. You're obviously as big a loony as Jackie, who no doubt will along any minute now accompanied by her puppet master Di, tolend you support in this lunacy. RobinThey are like the three stooges when the adoption=slavery issue comes up.

Ah, whoopwhoopwhoopwhoopwhoop!!!

Why, soitenly! ;D

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

>Subject: Re: Adopted a Baby and Have Questions About Our RightsFrom: spieler100@aol.com (Spieler100)Date: 3/18/2004 4:29 PM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <20040318162945.20639.00001703@mb-m24.aol.com>

< snip >
I appreciate your reading and replying to my post, however, I'm not here todebate the politics of adoption or moral issues you seem to have with it,especially when you do not know me, our situation, the birth mother'ssituation, or what we have gone through for our wonderful son whom we lovewith all our hearts.

But that's what we do here. If you stick around long enough, you'll get
sucked in just like the rest of us.
The bottom line is that the adoption agency is taking advantage of ourdesparately wanting a child,

"Desperate" too many times equals stoopid. It's not the adoption agency's
fault you were...
willing to do anything for him...

Anything? I can think of scores of unethical behaviors you should never
consider in order to adopt a child, many of them legal. One of them is paying
exhorbitant fees without checking into them.
and it's not right.

What's "not right" about it? If you believe the agency behaved unethically,
then you should have addressed those issues during the adoption process, not
whine about them after your adoption is finalized.

I think Steve gave you some solid advice. Sorry, you won't get a lot of
sympathy from me.
This is not at all about money, it is about being taken advantage ofby people who should know better!

My momma used to say, "If you don't want people walking all over you, don't
volunteer to be a doormat." You are one of those people who should have known
better.

Dad

Stoopid is as stoopid does. ~ Forrest Gump

Thank you Steve.

We were told about "all" of the expenses, and we don't have a problem with what
we paid, with the exception of what I mentioned in my posting.

.. >Theyfrequently help with birthmother expenses,

We paid these, and wish we had even more to give her than what we gave. We
adore her!
and there's a fair bit ofcounseling that comes with adoption.

The birth mother told us she had not been counseled - unless a few minutes was
considered counseling. The agency charged us $10,000 for counseling. We have
not yet finalized, so we are going to ask for an itemized accounting of this in
particular. We want to know who was counseled, by whom, on what dates, for how
long, and the fee per hour.
Hospital bill: if the agency agreed to cover it (did it clarify that upfront?), then they need to reimburse what you paid the hospital.

Medicaid paid the hospital bill. The bill in question is the doctor's bill for
services in the hospital. I have since spoke with the agency again, and
they're going to take care of it.
You ask what your rights are. Talk to your lawyer -- you DO have anadoption lawyer, correct?

Of course...but his answer was "what does the contract say?" Of course if it
was outlined in the contract, I wouldn't be asking these questions!

Thank you again. Your reply is most appreciated.

>Some couples without much money but plenty of love make wonderful adoptiveparents, but how would they afford those very high costs?

Some adoptions don't cost anything. Those wonderful to-be parents should look
into these types of adoptions.

>I'm sure I must have been missed B-MUMS are a dying breed on thisforum and thank for your compliments about being bitter and twisted>>

Ow. My head.


P2P

spieler100@aol.com (Spieler100) wrote in message news:<20040319122146.29778.00000019@mb-m14.aol.com>... Thank you Steve. We were told about "all" of the expenses, and we don't have a problem with what we paid, with the exception of what I mentioned in my posting. . >Theyfrequently help with birthmother expenses, We paid these, and wish we had even more to give her than what we gave. We adore her!

I'm sure you do.
and there's a fair bit ofcounseling that comes with adoption. The birth mother told us she had not been counseled - unless a few minutes was considered counseling.

Colour me surprised.

The agency charged us $10,000 for counseling.

Another surprise. Not.

We have not yet finalized, so we are going to ask for an itemized accounting of this in particular. We want to know who was counseled, by whom, on what dates, for how long, and the fee per hour.Hospital bill: if the agency agreed to cover it (did it clarify that upfront?), then they need to reimburse what you paid the hospital. Medicaid paid the hospital bill.


Interesting.


The bill in question is the doctor's bill for services in the hospital. I have since spoke with the agency again, and they're going to take care of it.

Smart move on your part. Their mistake was getting caught with their
hand in the cookie jar. Should happen more often.
You ask what your rights are. Talk to your lawyer -- you DO have anadoption lawyer, correct? Of course...but his answer was "what does the contract say?" Of course if it was outlined in the contract, I wouldn't be asking these questions! Thank you again. Your reply is most appreciated.

"Robibnikoff" <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:l9E6c.6726$_4.257@www.newsranger.com... In article <c3f0sh$26cos8$1@ID-203097.news.uni-berlin.de>, kat says..."Robin Harritt" <karakoram@postadoption.info> wrote in messagenews:BC80A239.3836F%karakoram@postadoption. info... in article 7f0dd552.0403190439.6a955846@posting.google.com, Hippiechic
at lily.fair@angelfire.com wrote on 19/3/04 12:39 pm: > "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message > news:<3%l6c.46808$H44.857241@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... >> >> No doubt the kid will be in the cotton field any day now. Thanks
for >> insulting every person of slave lineage. > Did I insult every person of slave lineage? I would have thought that > it would be more insuling for them to know that children are still > being bought and sold in the US. > > Lily What bought and sold into *slavery*? In the US? Now? Do you have any
proof of this, bearing in mind the actual meaning of the terms slave andslavery? From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]: Slave \Slave\, n. 1. A person who is held in bondage to another; one who is wholly subject to the will of another; one who is held as a chattel; one who has no freedom of action, but whose person and services are wholly under the control of another. Slavery \Slav"er*y\, n.; pl. {Slaveries}. [See 2d {Slave}.] 1. The condition of a slave; the state of entire subjection of one person to the will of another. 2. A condition of subjection or submission characterized by lack of freedom of action or of will. 3. The holding of slaves. Syn: Bondage; servitude; inthrallment; enslavement; captivity; bond service; vassalage. You might claim human trafficking and still be accused of a rather ridiculous hyperbole. You're obviously as big a loony as Jackie, who no doubt will along any minute now accompanied by her puppet master Di, tolend you support in this lunacy. RobinThey are like the three stooges when the adoption=slavery issue comes up. Ah, whoopwhoopwhoopwhoopwhoop!!! Why, soitenly! ;D

LOL!

Kathy 1

In article <7f0dd552.0403190428.56c1c22e@posting.google.com>,
lily.fair@angelfire.com (Hippiechic) wrote:

Hippochic! Long time no hear. Somehow I don't think 'rtsub' is going to pay much attention to your droplets of advice. :-) I'm sure I must have been missed B-MUMS are a dying breed on this forum and thank for your compliments about being bitter and twisted


Did I miss something? My bad :-)




steve

spieler100@aol.com (Spieler100) wrote in message news:<20040319122248.29778.00000020@mb-m14.aol.com>...Some couples without much money but plenty of love make wonderful adoptiveparents, but how would they afford those very high costs? Some adoptions don't cost anything. Those wonderful to-be parents should look into these types of adoptions.

Some adoptions by "wonderful" would be parents cost everything.
http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=alt.adoption&selm=20040319110539.28997.00000027%40mb-m25.aol.com

Di

"Hippiechic" <lily.fair@angelfire.com> wrote in message
news:7f0dd552.0403201454.1bafb8a0@posting.google.c om...


Abe Lincoln would be turning in his grave


Abe Lincoln, for lack of a better term, was an adoptee lite. He referred to
Sally Bush Lincoln as his "angel mother."


Jack

"Jack Bernhard" <jcbernhard@deletethisprodigy.net> wrote in message
news:vc47c.27264$VW.6609@newssvr31.news.prodigy.co m... "Hippiechic" <lily.fair@angelfire.com> wrote in message news:7f0dd552.0403201454.1bafb8a0@posting.google.c om... Abe Lincoln would be turning in his grave Abe Lincoln, for lack of a better term, was an adoptee lite. He referred
to Sally Bush Lincoln as his "angel mother." Jack
And he also believed he was a bastard, that Nancy Hanks had been taken
advantage of when she was a servant. He did not exactly admire Tom
Lincoln's great intellect and believe it came from elsewhere. Reportedly,
he was trying to investigate the circumstances surrounding his birth when he
visited the theatre one night, and.... .

See what great lengths the industry will go to to keep it's secrets!

Marley

>Subject: Re: Adopted a Baby and Have Questions About Our RightsFrom: "Marley Greiner" maddogmarley@worldnet.att.netDate: 3/20/04 3:23 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <jo47c.6581$PY1.174070@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>"Jack Bernhard" <jcbernhard@deletethisprodigy.net> wrote in messagenews:vc47c.27264$VW.6609@newssvr31.news.pro digy.com... "Hippiechic" <lily.fair@angelfire.com> wrote in message news:7f0dd552.0403201454.1bafb8a0@posting.google.c om... Abe Lincoln would be turning in his grave Abe Lincoln, for lack of a better term, was an adoptee lite. He referredto Sally Bush Lincoln as his "angel mother." JackAnd he also believed he was a bastard, that Nancy Hanks had been takenadvantage of when she was a servant. He did not exactly admire TomLincoln's great intellect and believe it came from elsewhere. Reportedly,he was trying to investigate the circumstances surrounding his birth when hevisited the theatre one night, and.... .See what great lengths the industry will go to to keep it's secrets!Marley

You and Jack are great US historians....what would this ng. do without you
both? *That's* a sincere compliment, in case you doubted my word. :-)






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

"Kathy" <meagan787@aol.comsthesun> wrote in message
news:20040320214026.23388.00000110@mb-m15.aol.com...Subject: Re: Adopted a Baby and Have Questions About Our RightsFrom: "Marley Greiner" maddogmarley@worldnet.att.netDate: 3/20/04 3:23 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <jo47c.6581$PY1.174070@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>"Jack Bernhard" <jcbernhard@deletethisprodigy.net> wrote in messagenews:vc47c.27264$VW.6609@newssvr31.news.pro digy.com... "Hippiechic" <lily.fair@angelfire.com> wrote in message news:7f0dd552.0403201454.1bafb8a0@posting.google.c om... Abe > Lincoln would be turning in his grave Abe Lincoln, for lack of a better term, was an adoptee lite. He
referredto Sally Bush Lincoln as his "angel mother." JackAnd he also believed he was a bastard, that Nancy Hanks had been takenadvantage of when she was a servant. He did not exactly admire TomLincoln's great intellect and believe it came from elsewhere.
Reportedly,he was trying to investigate the circumstances surrounding his birth when
hevisited the theatre one night, and.... .See what great lengths the industry will go to to keep it's secrets!Marley You and Jack are great US historians....what would this ng. do without you both? *That's* a sincere compliment, in case you doubted my word. :-)

Well, thank you. I can't say I discovered this one by myself. It came from
Fr Tom Brosnan--who let me wear his collar at Mary Hunt's wedding. (Mary
used to post here).

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

In article <9a095db9.0403201441.4b4dd53e@posting.google.com>,
patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote:

Adoption is the purchase and official ownership of one human being by another, through an act of Govt legislation, just as slavery was.


That's absolutely stupid. Adoption is not a purchase, nor is it
ownership of a human being. It's a transfer in a legal status so as to
have a child raised in another family with all the legal rights of being
in that family.

It's no wonder that you have little success in anything you try to do in
Oz. And I'm going to make sure your equation of adoption to slavery, and
your definition of adoption, makes it to folks in Oz who can use it.

It's not the treatment of a person that make him a slave. It's the ownership and control of one person by another, and the denial of his own autnomomy and human rights that does.


No adoptee is denied autonomy. No adoptee is denied human rights (open
records is a civil rights issue, not a human rights issue). That's just
idiotic on your part.

I don't need to have sustained interactions with people whose histories date back to slavery to form the view that adoption, as it is played out in the US (which sees nothing wrong with people profiteering from the selling of children under the guise of adoption administrative costs) is a remnant of that same slave-mentality culture. It is a trade in children as commodities that many people uninvolved in adoption, also see as reprehensible.


Once again, that's insulting to every person who has slaves as
ancestors. Just you come to the US and try to push that nonsense.

Or let me put it another way. Ask yourself why is can cost a mere $300.00 to adoption a child from state care, but private adoption agencies and attorney's charge $20,000, $30,000 $50,000 $60,000 per child for the very same administrative process.


Because the costs are different, you bint. The state is underwriting all
the costs of a state adoption, but isn't underwriting the costs of an
agency or private adoption. Idiot.




steve

Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote: Adoption is the purchase and official ownership of one human being by another, through an act of Govt legislation, just as slavery was. That's absolutely stupid. Adoption is not a purchase, nor is it ownership of a human being. It's a transfer in a legal status so as to have a child raised in another family with all the legal rights of being in that family.

Quite so. And, further: It is a transfer of the *responsibility* for
raising a child. Which means financial and social and legal
responsibility.

I think everyone recognizes that in modern Western societies, children
are an emotional positive, but a financial liability -- both in terms
of direct costs, and opportunity costs. If I want someone to care for
my child, I have to pay that person to do it. The sheer joy of
spending time with my children (who, incidentally, are delightful to
spend time with, in my obviously unbiased opinion) doesn't seem to cut
it. Every nanny or daycare they've had has demanded payment.

So what a-parents *buy* is the right to spend time, energy, and money
on raising a kid. Obviously, people tend to do this only for their own
children -- bio or adopted. Even with step-kids, most step-parents
expect the bio-parent to provide child support at the very least.

The kid is enslaved precisely as much as any minor child, whether bio
or non-bio -- and as much as it would be enslaved had it never been
relinquished. It has the same rights and responsibilities, only to a
different set of people.

The difference between adoption and guardianship is that adoption
gives a child *permanent* rights in its new family. And it makes the
child a *permanent* responsibility of the new family, until the
adoptee attains majority. Guardians could, if they wished, decide they
no longer wanted to be responsible for a child, and revoke the
guardianship. Or they could have the guardianship revoked. The kid
would have no inheritance rights, unless specifically willed; if
something happened to the parents, their estate could go to a distant
cousin while the child, their ward, became a ward of the State.

Whether children are property or not is a separate issue. In some
ways, they *are* treated as property, in that parents have a final say
in decisions regarding minor children. OTOH, the state intervenes to
the extent of providing guidelines that cannot be violated, regarding
safety and education and so on. The state has an interest in its
citizens, even the youngest of them, that supercedes parental rights.

The slavery analogy just doesn't work in the context of
slavery-for-profit that existed in America. It might have some
similarity to slaves-as-household that existed in some parts of Africa
-- where there was little difference between the rights and
responsibilities of slaves, women, children, and young members of the
household.

Rupa

>Subject: Re: Adopted a Baby and Have Questions About Our RightsFrom: patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian)Date: 3/19/2004 11:00 PM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <9a095db9.0403192000.28f0d1ed@posting.google.com>spieler100@aol.com (Spieler100) wrote in messagenews:<20040319122248.29778.00000020@mb-m14.aol.com>...Some couples without much money but plenty of love make wonderful adoptiveparents, but how would they afford those very high costs? Some adoptions don't cost anything. Those wonderful to-be parents shouldlook into these types of adoptions.Some adoptions by "wonderful" would be parents cost everything.http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=alt.adoption
&selm=20040319110539.28997.00000027%40mb-m25.aol.comDi


Has nothing to do with what I'm talking about, but good try.

Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message news:<steve-1F13FE.22105720032004@netnews.comcast.net>... In article <9a095db9.0403201441.4b4dd53e@posting.google.com>, patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote: Adoption is the purchase and official ownership of one human being by another, through an act of Govt legislation, just as slavery was. That's absolutely stupid. Adoption is not a purchase, nor is it ownership of a human being.

It certainly is. The child doesn't belong to you until you have handed
over money.


It's a transfer in a legal status so as to have a child raised in another family with all the legal rights of being in that family.
Call it what you will but it is the purchase of a human being if money
is exchanged in return for that child. And as I said, the child is
not yours until you pay up.

It's no wonder that you have little success in anything you try to do in Oz. And I'm going to make sure your equation of adoption to slavery, and your definition of adoption, makes it to folks in Oz who can use it.
By all means, please do. And read our adoption legislation while
you're at it. Especially the part that declares that no profit is to
be made in exchange for adopting a child.

It's not the treatment of a person that make him a slave. It's the ownership and control of one person by another, and the denial of his own autnomomy and human rights that does. No adoptee is denied autonomy.

No. They are only denied their own identity, access to their own
families and medical history. No big deal in your eyes.


No adoptee is denied human rights (open records is a civil rights issue, not a human rights issue). That's just idiotic on your part.
Open records is a human rights issue. Every human being is entitled to
know their true identity I except for adoptees.
I don't need to have sustained interactions with people whose histories date back to slavery to form the view that adoption, as it is played out in the US (which sees nothing wrong with people profiteering from the selling of children under the guise of adoption administrative costs) is a remnant of that same slave-mentality culture. It is a trade in children as commodities that many people uninvolved in adoption, also see as reprehensible. Once again, that's insulting to every person who has slaves as ancestors. Just you come to the US and try to push that nonsense.

Get out more, Steve. As much as you believe it to be true, the world
doesn't revolve around the US, especially for those of us who don't
live there.
Or let me put it another way. Ask yourself why is can cost a mere $300.00 to adoption a child from state care, but private adoption agencies and attorney's charge $20,000, $30,000 $50,000 $60,000 per child for the very same administrative process. Because the costs are different, you bint. The state is underwriting all the costs of a state adoption, but isn't underwriting the costs of an agency or private adoption. Idiot.
You have yourself said that adoption agencies work like any other
business. And like it or not, that means profiteering through the sale
of children.

Di



steve

rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote in message news:<e5619372.0403210952.2d6e57ed@posting.google.com>... Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote: Adoption is the purchase and official ownership of one human being by another, through an act of Govt legislation, just as slavery was. That's absolutely stupid. Adoption is not a purchase, nor is it ownership of a human being. It's a transfer in a legal status so as to have a child raised in another family with all the legal rights of being in that family. Quite so. And, further: It is a transfer of the *responsibility* for raising a child. Which means financial and social and legal responsibility. I think everyone recognizes that in modern Western societies, children are an emotional positive, but a financial liability -- both in terms of direct costs, and opportunity costs. If I want someone to care for my child, I have to pay that person to do it. The sheer joy of spending time with my children (who, incidentally, are delightful to spend time with, in my obviously unbiased opinion) doesn't seem to cut it. Every nanny or daycare they've had has demanded payment. So what a-parents *buy* is the right to spend time, energy, and money on raising a kid. Obviously, people tend to do this only for their own children -- bio or adopted. Even with step-kids, most step-parents expect the bio-parent to provide child support at the very least. The kid is enslaved precisely as much as any minor child, whether bio or non-bio -- and as much as it would be enslaved had it never been relinquished. It has the same rights and responsibilities, only to a different set of people. The difference between adoption and guardianship is that adoption gives a child *permanent* rights in its new family. And it makes the child a *permanent* responsibility of the new family, until the adoptee attains majority. Guardians could, if they wished, decide they no longer wanted to be responsible for a child, and revoke the guardianship. Or they could have the guardianship revoked. The kid would have no inheritance rights, unless specifically willed; if something happened to the parents, their estate could go to a distant cousin while the child, their ward, became a ward of the State. Whether children are property or not is a separate issue. In some ways, they *are* treated as property, in that parents have a final say in decisions regarding minor children. OTOH, the state intervenes to the extent of providing guidelines that cannot be violated, regarding safety and education and so on. The state has an interest in its citizens, even the youngest of them, that supercedes parental rights. The slavery analogy just doesn't work in the context of slavery-for-profit that existed in America. It might have some similarity to slaves-as-household that existed in some parts of Africa -- where there was little difference between the rights and responsibilities of slaves, women, children, and young members of the household. Rupa

If adoptees are not the property of their adopters explain to me why
they are forbidden by law to reclaim their original identity and
re-establish themselves as legal members of their natural families is
they so wish, upon reaching adulthood. They signed nothing and had no
say in the matter of their displacement from their families of origin
so why should they be forced by law to abide by decisions made for
them before they were capable of making thier own? Even their own
children are born into adoption (like generational slavery)
and are forbidden to reclaim their own heritage and family history or
original identity. Why are they denied that freedom of choice?
Afterall,, adoption is only a legal transaction, not a right by birth.

>Subject: Re: Adopted a Baby and Have Questions About Our RightsFrom: patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian)Date: 3/21/04 4:12 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <9a095db9.0403211612.871879c@posting.google.com>Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in messagenews:<steve-1F13FE.22105720032004@netnews.comcast.net>... In article <9a095db9.0403201441.4b4dd53e@posting.google.com>, patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote: Adoption is the purchase and official ownership of one human being by another, through an act of Govt legislation, just as slavery was. That's absolutely stupid. Adoption is not a purchase, nor is it ownership of a human being.It certainly is. The child doesn't belong to you until you have handedover money.

Oh so you took money for your son...

Who knew?




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: Adopted a Baby and Have Questions About Our RightsFrom: spieler100@aol.com (Spieler100)Date: 3/21/04 3:30 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <20040321183026.01301.00000128@mb-m13.aol.com>Subject: Re: Adopted a Baby and Have Questions About Our RightsFrom: patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian)Date: 3/19/2004 11:00 PM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <9a095db9.0403192000.28f0d1ed@posting.google.com>spieler100@aol.com (Spieler100) wrote in messagenews:<20040319122248.29778.00000020@mb-m14.aol.com>... >Some couples without much money but plenty of love make wonderfuladoptive >parents, but how would they afford those very high costs? > Some adoptions don't cost anything. Those wonderful to-be parents shouldlook into these types of adoptions.Some adoptions by "wonderful" would be parents cost everything.http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=alt.adoption&selm=20040319110539.28997.00000027%40mb-m25.aol.comDiHas nothing to do with what I'm talking about, but good try.

She doesn't even know what she's talking about, so don't worry. ;-)




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:9a095db9.0403211629.3a32ef18@posting.google.c om... rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote in message
news:<e5619372.0403210952.2d6e57ed@posting.google.com>... Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote: > Adoption is the purchase and official ownership of one human being
by > another, through an act of Govt legislation, just as slavery was. That's absolutely stupid. Adoption is not a purchase, nor is it ownership of a human being. It's a transfer in a legal status so as to have a child raised in another family with all the legal rights of
being in that family. Quite so. And, further: It is a transfer of the *responsibility* for raising a child. Which means financial and social and legal responsibility. I think everyone recognizes that in modern Western societies, children are an emotional positive, but a financial liability -- both in terms of direct costs, and opportunity costs. If I want someone to care for my child, I have to pay that person to do it. The sheer joy of spending time with my children (who, incidentally, are delightful to spend time with, in my obviously unbiased opinion) doesn't seem to cut it. Every nanny or daycare they've had has demanded payment. So what a-parents *buy* is the right to spend time, energy, and money on raising a kid. Obviously, people tend to do this only for their own children -- bio or adopted. Even with step-kids, most step-parents expect the bio-parent to provide child support at the very least. The kid is enslaved precisely as much as any minor child, whether bio or non-bio -- and as much as it would be enslaved had it never been relinquished. It has the same rights and responsibilities, only to a different set of people. The difference between adoption and guardianship is that adoption gives a child *permanent* rights in its new family. And it makes the child a *permanent* responsibility of the new family, until the adoptee attains majority. Guardians could, if they wished, decide they no longer wanted to be responsible for a child, and revoke the guardianship. Or they could have the guardianship revoked. The kid would have no inheritance rights, unless specifically willed; if something happened to the parents, their estate could go to a distant cousin while the child, their ward, became a ward of the State. Whether children are property or not is a separate issue. In some ways, they *are* treated as property, in that parents have a final say in decisions regarding minor children. OTOH, the state intervenes to the extent of providing guidelines that cannot be violated, regarding safety and education and so on. The state has an interest in its citizens, even the youngest of them, that supercedes parental rights. The slavery analogy just doesn't work in the context of slavery-for-profit that existed in America. It might have some similarity to slaves-as-household that existed in some parts of Africa -- where there was little difference between the rights and responsibilities of slaves, women, children, and young members of the household. Rupa If adoptees are not the property of their adopters explain to me why they are forbidden by law to reclaim their original identity and re-establish themselves as legal members of their natural families is they so wish, upon reaching adulthood. They signed nothing and had no say in the matter of their displacement from their families of origin so why should they be forced by law to abide by decisions made for them before they were capable of making thier own? Even their own children are born into adoption (like generational slavery) and are forbidden to reclaim their own heritage and family history or original identity. Why are they denied that freedom of choice? Afterall,, adoption is only a legal transaction, not a right by birth.

Adoptees and everyone else are the property of the state . The state can
tell you who you were born to, how to drive your car, who you can and cannot
associate with, what you can say, who you can hire and fire, what's in your
food (or not in it), what you can watch and listen on TV and radio, and how
you can die. Everybody has a large part of them stolen by the state. For
adoptees it's identity. For women it's their wombs. For the working class
its their time and money. For soldiers it's their lives. It goes on and
on. As long as people bow to the authority of the state, then they will all
be slaves.

Marley

In article <9a095db9.0403211629.3a32ef18@posting.google.com>,
patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote:

If adoptees are not the property of their adopters explain to me why they are forbidden by law to reclaim their original identity and re-establish themselves as legal members of their natural families is they so wish, upon reaching adulthood.


You slurped deeply from Jackie's drink last night, didn't you?

For someone who holds herself out as an "expert" in adoption [1], you're
getting rather asinine.

The law is frequently written to forbid one group of people or another
of doing certain things, and nothing in such laws (whether you like them
or not) confers or designates a person as the property of another. The
state has the power to write such laws within the constitution of that
state. If you don't like it, you work to change the law, or change the
state.




steve


[1] Note the use of BBC-style "sarcasm" quotes.

In article <9a095db9.0403211612.871879c@posting.google.com>,
patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote:

It certainly is. The child doesn't belong to you until you have handed over money.


That's just rubbish and you know it. You're acting like an ***, frankly,
to provoke a reaction here.

Adoption is a legal proceeding. The money involved pays for services
related to ensuring a proper adoption. Lawyers, agencies, social
workers, they all have to eat. One is buying services, not a child.

But you know that, this is an old discussion, we've had it several times
on this board alone.

Again, you're acting like an ***. Time for you to be treated like one.




steve

In article <20040321183026.01301.00000128@mb-m13.aol.com>,
spieler100@aol.com (Spieler100) wrote:

Has nothing to do with what I'm talking about, but good try.


Di's an *** right now, I think it's safe for you to ignore her.




steve

"Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:9a095db9.0403211629.3a32ef18@posting.google.c om...
If adoptees are not the property of their adopters explain to me why they are forbidden by law to reclaim their original identity and re-establish themselves as legal members of their natural families is they so wish, upon reaching adulthood.

They can. It's an ardous process and relies on a number of factors, but
it's certainly possible. Interestingly enough, if the adoptee is of the age
of majority, his a/pars have no say in the process. Slaves, OTOH, would
have to anwer to their masters for life.



They signed nothing and had no say in the matter of their displacement from their families of origin so why should they be forced by law to abide by decisions made for them before they were capable of making thier own?


Because life is a *****. Get used to it. Some things turn out like ****,
others stink of anise. There are no guarantees.


Even their own children are born into adoption (like generational slavery) and are forbidden to reclaim their own heritage and family history or original identity.

Patently untrue. My son is well aware of his biological roots and is free
to reclaim them. Try again. No law against it, per se, only interference.


Why are they denied that freedom of choice? Afterall,, adoption is only a legal transaction, not a right by birth.


Well there's the question. I can't tell you why folks are so afraid of
adopted people having full and free access to their heritage. Here, we wave
arms and propose theories, but my best guess is that most people are simply
unwilling to rock the boat on what appears to be, at least on the surface,
as a sound practice.

I'm well aware of your views regarding the aforementioned soundness, and in
some respects, agree with you. For example, I'm with you on the fact the
adopted family is one created solely by state intervention. It is a legal
transaction, as you say. That said, your lame attempts to tie it to
slavery, are as weak as always. Legally speaking, there is no age of
emancipation in the slave trade, nor is there any requirement for a monetary
transaction to take place for one to obtain a slave. It's a different
animal altogether. Love it, hate it, whatever. There's a lot of things a
person can say truthfully about the institution of adoption, pro and con,
calling it the modern day slave trade, ain't one of 'em. In fact, that kind
of hyperbole only works against reform.


Jack

"Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:9a095db9.0403211612.871879c@posting.google.co m...
Open records is a human rights issue.


I disagree. It's strictly a civil rights issue.



Every human being is entitled to know their true identity I except for adoptees.


Untrue. There are plenty of non adopted humans in this world who've no more
idea of their genetic identity than your run of the mill bastard. It'll do
you good to remember this.

Jack

In article <ODt7c.62192$VQ5.16070@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>, Jack Bernhard
says..."Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in messagenews:9a095db9.0403211612.871879c@posting.go ogle.com... Open records is a human rights issue.I disagree. It's strictly a civil rights issue. Every human being is entitled to know their true identity I except for adoptees.Untrue. There are plenty of non adopted humans in this world who've no moreidea of their genetic identity than your run of the mill bastard. It'll doyou good to remember this.

I had a long conversation with a coworker the other day who knows very little of
her family history due to records being destroyed during WWII. Ironically, I,
the adoptee, have over 200 years worth of family history due to my
behind-my-bmom's-back probing and searching.

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote:
It certainly is. The child doesn't belong to you until you have handedover money.

While this is true in some instances, it's not true in all. There are many
types of adoptions that do not include the exchange of money at all, and are
just a matter of paperwork. Unfortunately these adoptions are typically of
older children and "minority" children, and not newborns and infants.

"Jack Bernhard" <jcbernhard@deletethisprodigy.net> wrote
"Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote Open records is a human rights issue. I disagree. It's strictly a civil rights issue. Every human being is entitled to know their true identity I except for adoptees. Untrue. There are plenty of non adopted humans in this world who've no more idea of their genetic identity than your run of the mill bastard.

And plenty more who think they know their genetic identity, but are
wrong. I think there was a study somewhere that showed something like
20% (10? 15?) of people have genetic fathers other than their legal
ones.

And then there's the (presumably much smaller) number of hospital
mix-ups.

Rupa

patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote If adoptees are not the property of their adopters explain to me why they are forbidden by law to reclaim their original identity and re-establish themselves as legal members of their natural families is they so wish, upon reaching adulthood.

They can. In countries where adult adoption is permitted, as it is in
the US, they can be adopted back by their birth parents. Otherwise,
they canlegally change their names, repudiate their inheritance from
their adopted kin, and be legally made the heirs of their birth-kin.

Afterall,, adoption is only a legal transaction, not a right by birth.

Legal transactions supercede "rights by birth" in Western
jurisprudence, AFAIK. That's why people have wills, for instance.
(It's not true of Islamic law, for instance, where the division of
property after death is specified; and this adoption is disallowed.)

But this one can be superceded by another legal transaction, adoption
by the birth-parents.

Rupa

In article <e5619372.0403220856.2043102a@posting.google.com>,
rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) writes:
"Jack Bernhard" <jcbernhard@deletethisprodigy.net> wrote "Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote > Open records is a human rights issue. I disagree. It's strictly a civil rights issue. Every human being is entitled to know their true identity I except for adoptees. Untrue. There are plenty of non adopted humans in this world who've nomore idea of their genetic identity than your run of the mill bastard.And plenty more who think they know their genetic identity, but arewrong. I think there was a study somewhere that showed something like20% (10? 15?) of people have genetic fathers other than their legalones.

The last number I read was 10%.

J.
And then there's the (presumably much smaller) number of hospitalmix-ups.Rupa





Reply to jmhjmd at aol.

In article <steve-1F13FE.22105720032004@netnews.comcast.net>,
Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote:In article <9a095db9.0403201441.4b4dd53e@posting.google.com>, patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote: Adoption is the purchase and official ownership of one human being by another, through an act of Govt legislation, just as slavery was.That's absolutely stupid. Adoption is not a purchase, nor is itownership of a human being. It's a transfer in a legal status so as tohave a child raised in another family with all the legal rights of beingin that family.


Nicely put, Steverino. We've been through this adoption=slavery debate so
often. Di has been unable to learn, despite the mountains of electrons
sent to her that such a comparision is ludicrous. Nor has she been able
to convince anyone who isn't a disciple of hers that adoption=slavery.

We need to invent a subcategory of Godwin's Law. If anyone who refers to
the Holocaust as a simile or metaphor automatically loses the argument,
than anyone who uses slavery in a similar capacity also loses.


Linda

PS I can figure out what "bint" means from context; I suppose it is
similar to one of my favorite perjorative terms "git," but does anyone
have a working definition of "bint?"

In article <7f0dd552.0403220520.181ef177@posting.google.com>,
Hippiechic <lily.fair@angelfire.com> wrote:
You are the idiot you the one who does not the know the concept ofslavery and adoption is slavery I will say it one more time thebuying and selling of people and the buyer having absolute power overthe person who is bought amounts to slavery.

As you have been told repeatedly, adoption fees pay for services.
Lawyers, Social Workers et. al. have bills to pay, so they don't work for
free.

As for "absolute power" any parent of a child has "absolute power" over
the child. By your "logic" every child is a slave.

Linda
It is easy for people like you to pay lip-service to blacks etc whohave been abused by white superiorty because you find them inferiorthus you can be more benevolent towards them.


Now there is a stunning leap of logic. Have you any solid evidence to
back up this bizzare assertion? I thought not.

Racists like you, and you have proved this by your treatment towardthe women who have lost children to pigs like you, do not deserve tobring up children. You breed hate and intolerence and get muchsatisfaction from inflicting pain on women such as the mothers of youradopted children and god help them if ever they showed up at your door


Oh what pray tell would evil adopters do if birth mothers showed up at our
doors? Please elaborate, I am really interested in your fantasy about
this particular scenario.


Calm down, hon. Calm down. Go see the nice doctor and get a 'script for
a major tranquilizer and an anti-psychotic.


Linda

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

In article <7f0dd552.0403220520.181ef177@posting.google.com>,
lily.fair@angelfire.com (Hippiechic) wrote:

Marley called you a racist because you were spouting stupid nonsense that equated slavery to adoption. Marley, in her own way, pointed out that you are a stupid bint who knows nothing about slavery. Marley's right about both: a) you're a stupid bint b) you know nothing of slavery. You are the idiot you the one who does not the know the concept of slavery and adoption is slavery I will say it one more time the buying and selling of people and the buyer having absolute power over the person who is bought amounts to slavery.


I suggest you hold your breath til you turn blue. It'll have the same
effect.

And you are not only an idiot but also a racist idiot. It is "whites" like you who believe that they are the more superior and that the white race is in general superior and as such people like you find it hard to accept that the white race is incapable of being exploited because 'whites' dont do that to each other.


Pardon me, but I've seen a picture of you, and you're paler than I am.

You're just plain daft.

People like you dismiss this abuse by saying that people like me either deserve what they get or they are ask for it, so they ridicle and demean us because they feel they have to do that to be more superior.


You were young and stupid, and your parents didn't look after you
properly. That doesn't make me superior, but it does explain what
happened to you.

It is easy for people like you to pay lip-service to blacks etc who have been abused by white superiorty because you find them inferior thus you can be more benevolent towards them.


I think a person would read what I wrote, and read what you just wrote,
and figure out who the racist is.

Racists like you, and you have proved this by your treatment toward the women who have lost children to pigs like you, do not deserve to bring up children. You breed hate and intolerence and get much satisfaction from inflicting pain on women such as the mothers of your adopted children and god help them if ever they showed up at your door


If my child's birthmother showed up at the door, I'd invite her in for
coffee and dessert. We'd pull out the photo albums and the home movies
and have a great time. Prolly shed a few tears as well.




steve

In article <ODt7c.62192$VQ5.16070@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>,
"Jack Bernhard" <jcbernhard@deletethisprodigy.net> wrote:

Every human being is entitled to know their true identity I except for adoptees. Untrue. There are plenty of non adopted humans in this world who've no more idea of their genetic identity than your run of the mill bastard. It'll do you good to remember this.


Yep, the milkman has fathered a few kids here and there.




steve

"Rupa Bose" <rkbose@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message
news:e5619372.0403220903.18eda8a5@posting.google.c om... patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote If adoptees are not the property of their adopters explain to me why they are forbidden by law to reclaim their original identity and re-establish themselves as legal members of their natural families is they so wish, upon reaching adulthood. They can. In countries where adult adoption is permitted, as it is in the US, they can be adopted back by their birth parents. Otherwise, they canlegally change their names, repudiate their inheritance from their adopted kin, and be legally made the heirs of their birth-kin. Afterall,, adoption is only a legal transaction, not a right by birth. Legal transactions supercede "rights by birth" in Western jurisprudence, AFAIK.

Even in British common law precedents from the earliest times, birth rights
were primarily reserved for children conceived in marriage, rights of birth
didn't extend to bastards, or only in modest forms.

Ron

That's why people have wills, for instance. (It's not true of Islamic law, for instance, where the division of property after death is specified; and this adoption is disallowed.) But this one can be superceded by another legal transaction, adoption by the birth-parents. Rupa

lily.fair@angelfire.com (Hippiechic) wrote adoption is slavery I will say it one more time the buying and selling of people and the buyer having absolute power over the person who is bought amounts to slavery.

Ah. yes. I have one little slave that I bought from the hospital and
doctor. I had to provide some sweat equity on that one, too, but I
didn't get any rebate on it. The other little slave I bought from an
agency.

I like the absolute power idea. A lot.
Will someone here please inform my slaves of this?
They never did get the concept.

Rupa

In article <e5619372.0403231011.51048b97@posting.google.com>, Rupa Bose says...lily.fair@angelfire.com (Hippiechic) wrote adoption is slavery I will say it one more time the buying and selling of people and the buyer having absolute power over the person who is bought amounts to slavery.Ah. yes. I have one little slave that I bought from the hospital anddoctor. I had to provide some sweat equity on that one, too, but Ididn't get any rebate on it. The other little slave I bought from anagency.I like the absolute power idea. A lot.Will someone here please inform my slaves of this?They never did get the concept.

Ironically, it cost me more to give birth to my own slave than it did for my
adoptive parents to "buy" me.

Oh well, that's inflation for you ;)

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

>As for "absolute power" any parent of a child has "absolute power" overthe child. By your "logic" every child is a slave.Linda



But money was paid for services in adoption, services that brought the child
into the family. Oh, wait. Medical bills are paid, too, when bio parents have a
child and sometimes fertility treatments. So...okay. All children are slaves
since the parents, regardless of how the child came to the family, paid cash
for services that got them there and the parents have absolute control over the
child until a certain age.

Children are slaves.

Children are slaves.




P2P

>I like the absolute power idea. A lot.Will someone here please inform my slaves of this?They never did get the concept.Rupa


Ditto, Rupa. I have tried repeatedly to establish the slave owner/slave concept
in our household and failed. Can someone tell me how to train slaves
effectively?


P2P

"Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in message
news:20040323163855.01530.00000300@mb-m22.aol.com...I like the absolute power idea. A lot.Will someone here please inform my slaves of this?They never did get the concept.Rupa Ditto, Rupa. I have tried repeatedly to establish the slave owner/slave
concept in our household and failed. Can someone tell me how to train slaves effectively? P2P

You'll find advice on that in certain other newsgroups!

>> Ditto, Rupa. I have tried repeatedly to establish the slave owner/slaveconcept in our household and failed. Can someone tell me how to train slaves effectively? P2PYou'll find advice on that in certain other newsgroups!

What? You're going to keep me in suspense and not name them?


P2P

>Subject: Re: Adopted a Baby and Have Questions About Our RightsFrom: "geopelia" phildoran@xtra.co.nzDate: 3/23/04 2:59 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <Xo28c.14471$rw6.270569@news.xtra.co.nz>"Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in messagenews:20040323163855.01530.00000300@mb-m22.aol.com...I like the absolute power idea. A lot.Will someone here please inform my slaves of this?They never did get the concept.Rupa Ditto, Rupa. I have tried repeatedly to establish the slave owner/slaveconcept in our household and failed. Can someone tell me how to train slaves effectively? P2PYou'll find advice on that in certain other newsgroups!

Bwaaaaa!!!!


-------------------------
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: Adopted a Baby and Have Questions About Our RightsFrom: palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines)Date: 3/23/04 1:36 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <20040323163607.01530.00000299@mb-m22.aol.com>As for "absolute power" any parent of a child has "absolute power" overthe child. By your "logic" every child is a slave.LindaBut money was paid for services in adoption, services that brought the childinto the family. Oh, wait. Medical bills are paid, too, when bio parents haveachild and sometimes fertility treatments. So...okay. All children are slavessince the parents, regardless of how the child came to the family, paid cashfor services that got them there and the parents have absolute control overthechild until a certain age.


Children are slaves.Children are slaves.P2P

And Di's a victim of her own 'bint', eh I mean bent mentality.





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 <20040323163855.01530.00000300@mb-m22.aol.com>,
palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) writes:
I like the absolute power idea. A lot.Will someone here please inform my slaves of this?They never did get the concept.RupaDitto, Rupa. I have tried repeatedly to establish the slave owner/slaveconceptin our household and failed. Can someone tell me how to train slaveseffectively?P2P

The first thing you do is leave the U.S. They'll never buy the idea so long as
they're here. I suggest a country where English is not spoken and there is no
access to radio or television.

Assuming you've relocated to an appropriate country*, the next thing you need
to do is strip them of all privileges. Take it right down to the minimum
required for them to do their jobs adequately: a warm, dry place to sleep; drab
but adequate clothing; and a few thousand calories a day of some unassuming
foodstock. Ribbon Salad will do.

The third step is to assign their jobs. But don't call them that, or the first
thing you know the little buggers will unionize and start demanding better
working conditions. No, just tell them that these are the tasks they are
expected to do each day in exchange for their three hots and a cot. (The meals
don't actually have to be heated, but the use of terms from badly written
gangster movies helps set the proper tone.)

Stop all play. They have to learn that their time is your time. Waking hours
are yours, not theirs.

When you've accomplished these steps, let me know and I'll post the advanced
lessons.

J.








* Presumably not immediately north.



Reply to jmhjmd at aol.

"Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in message
news:20040323163607.01530.00000299@mb-m22.aol.com...As for "absolute power" any parent of a child has "absolute power" overthe child. By your "logic" every child is a slave.Linda But money was paid for services in adoption, services that brought the
child into the family. Oh, wait. Medical bills are paid, too, when bio parents
have a child and sometimes fertility treatments. So...okay. All children are
slaves since the parents, regardless of how the child came to the family, paid
cash for services that got them there and the parents have absolute control
over the child until a certain age. Children are slaves. Children are slaves. P2P

Actually, parenthood is equal opportunity slavery. Parents are slaves to
needy little sproggen and the sprog are slaves to needy adults.

Marley

> palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines)Date: 3/23/2004 4:38 PM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <20040323163855.01530.00000300@mb-m22.aol.com>I like the absolute power idea. A lot.Will someone here please inform my slaves of this?They never did get the concept.RupaDitto, Rupa. I have tried repeatedly to establish the slave owner/slaveconceptin our household and failed. Can someone tell me how to train slaveseffectively?

Hmmm, maybe you should talk to my mom. We're all her slaves. We can't help
but bend to her will (and that's four bios and one adoptee). My one sister we
just nicknamed slave when we were kids--we still call her that.

P2P


kj

"Linda Fortney" <lfortney@dc.umd.edu> wrote in message
news:c3no7j$uhs@wolfe.umd.edu... In article <steve-1F13FE.22105720032004@netnews.comcast.net>, Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote:In article <9a095db9.0403201441.4b4dd53e@posting.google.com>, patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote: Adoption is the purchase and official ownership of one human being by another, through an act of Govt legislation, just as slavery was.That's absolutely stupid. Adoption is not a purchase, nor is itownership of a human being. It's a transfer in a legal status so as tohave a child raised in another family with all the legal rights of beingin that family. Nicely put, Steverino. We've been through this adoption=slavery debate so often. Di has been unable to learn, despite the mountains of electrons sent to her that such a comparision is ludicrous. Nor has she been able to convince anyone who isn't a disciple of hers that adoption=slavery. We need to invent a subcategory of Godwin's Law. If anyone who refers to the Holocaust as a simile or metaphor automatically loses the argument, than anyone who uses slavery in a similar capacity also loses. Linda PS I can figure out what "bint" means from context; I suppose it is similar to one of my favorite perjorative terms "git," but does anyone have a working definition of "bint?"

"Bint" is the word we used in the Army for an Egyptian woman. I think it is
just the Arabic for woman, nothing insulting in their language. Maybe it was
meant to insult in our language if used to disparage a woman.

Geopelia

"Rupa Bose" <rkbose@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message
news:e5619372.0403231011.51048b97@posting.google.c om... lily.fair@angelfire.com (Hippiechic) wrote adoption is slavery I will say it one more time the buying and selling of people and the buyer having absolute power over the person who is bought amounts to slavery. Ah. yes. I have one little slave that I bought from the hospital and doctor. I had to provide some sweat equity on that one, too, but I didn't get any rebate on it. The other little slave I bought from an agency. I like the absolute power idea. A lot. Will someone here please inform my slaves of this? They never did get the concept.

One of my slaves ran off and got her own apartment when she turned 18, and
the cops won't so a thing when I ask them to retrieve her. My other two
slaves won't let me watch my favorite TV shows, eat all my food, and yell at
me when I suggest they go out back and pick the cotton.

Ron Rupa

"geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:xP78c.14739$rw6.277178@news.xtra.co.nz... "Linda Fortney" <lfortney@dc.umd.edu> wrote in message news:c3no7j$uhs@wolfe.umd.edu... In article <steve-1F13FE.22105720032004@netnews.comcast.net>, Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote:In article <9a095db9.0403201441.4b4dd53e@posting.google.com>, patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote:> Adoption is the purchase and official ownership of one human being by> another, through an act of Govt legislation, just as slavery was.That's absolutely stupid. Adoption is not a purchase, nor is itownership of a human being. It's a transfer in a legal status so as tohave a child raised in another family with all the legal rights of
beingin that family. Nicely put, Steverino. We've been through this adoption=slavery debate
so often. Di has been unable to learn, despite the mountains of electrons sent to her that such a comparision is ludicrous. Nor has she been able to convince anyone who isn't a disciple of hers that adoption=slavery. We need to invent a subcategory of Godwin's Law. If anyone who refers
to the Holocaust as a simile or metaphor automatically loses the argument, than anyone who uses slavery in a similar capacity also loses. Linda PS I can figure out what "bint" means from context; I suppose it is similar to one of my favorite perjorative terms "git," but does anyone have a working definition of "bint?" "Bint" is the word we used in the Army for an Egyptian woman. I think it
is just the Arabic for woman, nothing insulting in their language. Maybe it
was meant to insult in our language if used to disparage a woman.

"Chiefly British & Offensive: A woman or girl. " care of bartleby.com
I'd seen the word used but never defined. Arabic for daughter. A colonial
appropriation.

Ron

Geopelia

"Ron Morgan" <rhyzome1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:WJb8c.54493$aT1.47134@newsread1.news.pas.eart hlink.net... "geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:xP78c.14739$rw6.277178@news.xtra.co.nz... "Linda Fortney" <lfortney@dc.umd.edu> wrote in message news:c3no7j$uhs@wolfe.umd.edu... In article <steve-1F13FE.22105720032004@netnews.comcast.net>, Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote: >In article <9a095db9.0403201441.4b4dd53e@posting.google.com>, > patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote: > > >> Adoption is the purchase and official ownership of one human being
by >> another, through an act of Govt legislation, just as slavery was. > > >That's absolutely stupid. Adoption is not a purchase, nor is it >ownership of a human being. It's a transfer in a legal status so as
to >have a child raised in another family with all the legal rights of being >in that family. Nicely put, Steverino. We've been through this adoption=slavery
debate so often. Di has been unable to learn, despite the mountains of
electrons sent to her that such a comparision is ludicrous. Nor has she been
able to convince anyone who isn't a disciple of hers that adoption=slavery. We need to invent a subcategory of Godwin's Law. If anyone who refers to the Holocaust as a simile or metaphor automatically loses the
argument, than anyone who uses slavery in a similar capacity also loses. Linda PS I can figure out what "bint" means from context; I suppose it is similar to one of my favorite perjorative terms "git," but does anyone have a working definition of "bint?" "Bint" is the word we used in the Army for an Egyptian woman. I think it is just the Arabic for woman, nothing insulting in their language. Maybe it was meant to insult in our language if used to disparage a woman. "Chiefly British & Offensive: A woman or girl. " care of bartleby.com I'd seen the word used but never defined. Arabic for daughter. A colonial appropriation. Ron
I suppose it is like the Australian word "sheila" which may or may not be
insulting, depending how it is used.

There is an army song "Sayida Bint".
Geopelia

lfortney@dc.umd.edu (Linda Fortney) wrote in message news:<c3nuv7$n4r@tracy.umd.edu>... In article <7f0dd552.0403220520.181ef177@posting.google.com>, Hippiechic <lily.fair@angelfire.com> wrote: You are the idiot you the one who does not the know the concept ofslavery and adoption is slavery I will say it one more time thebuying and selling of people and the buyer having absolute power overthe person who is bought amounts to slavery. As you have been told repeatedly, adoption fees pay for services. Lawyers, Social Workers et. al. have bills to pay, so they don't work for free.

Say, Linda, was the child yours before you paid for the services? No I
thought not. So in paying for the service fees you acquired a child
you didn't own before the transaction occurred. That constitutes a
sale. Much the same as going through the check out at a supermarket.
Once you hand over your money (which covers overheads such as
manufacturing costs, services, wages, and merchandise) you own those
groceries that were not yours before the check out chick gave you your
receipt as proof of purchase (see adoption order - same thing.)

There are some things in the world that should morally never have a
price tag on them. Children are one of them.











As for "absolute power" any parent of a child has "absolute power" over the child. By your "logic" every child is a slave. LindaIt is easy for people like you to pay lip-service to blacks etc whohave been abused by white superiorty because you find them inferiorthus you can be more benevolent towards them. Now there is a stunning leap of logic. Have you any solid evidence to back up this bizzare assertion? I thought not.Racists like you, and you have proved this by your treatment towardthe women who have lost children to pigs like you, do not deserve tobring up children. You breed hate and intolerence and get muchsatisfaction from inflicting pain on women such as the mothers of youradopted children and god help them if ever they showed up at your door Oh what pray tell would evil adopters do if birth mothers showed up at our doors? Please elaborate, I am really interested in your fantasy about this particular scenario. Calm down, hon. Calm down. Go see the nice doctor and get a 'script for a major tranquilizer and an anti-psychotic. Linda .. . . . .. . . . . .

In article <9a095db9.0403241745.7024cf8f@posting.google.com>,
patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote:

As you have been told repeatedly, adoption fees pay for services. Lawyers, Social Workers et. al. have bills to pay, so they don't work for free. Say, Linda, was the child yours before you paid for the services? No I thought not. So in paying for the service fees you acquired a child you didn't own before the transaction occurred. That constitutes a sale. Much the same as going through the check out at a supermarket. Once you hand over your money (which covers overheads such as manufacturing costs, services, wages, and merchandise) you own those groceries that were not yours before the check out chick gave you your receipt as proof of purchase (see adoption order - same thing.) There are some things in the world that should morally never have a price tag on them. Children are one of them.


Do you seriously argue this position when you "debate" in Oz-land? Meet
with legislators? Offer public testimony?

Do you really push the "adoption=slavery" nonsense in places where it
might harm your cause?




steve

"Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:9a095db9.0403241745.7024cf8f@posting.google.c om... lfortney@dc.umd.edu (Linda Fortney) wrote in message
news:<c3nuv7$n4r@tracy.umd.edu>... In article <7f0dd552.0403220520.181ef177@posting.google.com>, Hippiechic <lily.fair@angelfire.com> wrote: You are the idiot you the one who does not the know the concept ofslavery and adoption is slavery I will say it one more time thebuying and selling of people and the buyer having absolute power overthe person who is bought amounts to slavery. As you have been told repeatedly, adoption fees pay for services. Lawyers, Social Workers et. al. have bills to pay, so they don't work
for free. Say, Linda, was the child yours before you paid for the services? No I thought not. So in paying for the service fees you acquired a child you didn't own before the transaction occurred. That constitutes a sale. Much the same as going through the check out at a supermarket. Once you hand over your money (which covers overheads such as manufacturing costs, services, wages, and merchandise) you own those groceries that were not yours before the check out chick gave you your receipt as proof of purchase (see adoption order - same thing.)

What about parents who use some form of medical assistance with pregnancy
(AI etc)?
They have to pay for the process. Are any children born to such proceedures
slaves?

Jason

in article 4062ac85$0$22995$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com, Jason Gorringe at
jasongorringe@XXXXhotmail.com wrote on 25/3/04 9:55 am:
"Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:9a095db9.0403241745.7024cf8f@posting.google.c om... lfortney@dc.umd.edu (Linda Fortney) wrote in message news:<c3nuv7$n4r@tracy.umd.edu>... In article <7f0dd552.0403220520.181ef177@posting.google.com>, Hippiechic <lily.fair@angelfire.com> wrote:>> You are the idiot you the one who does not the know the concept of> slavery and adoption is slavery I will say it one more time the> buying and selling of people and the buyer having absolute power over> the person who is bought amounts to slavery. As you have been told repeatedly, adoption fees pay for services. Lawyers, Social Workers et. al. have bills to pay, so they don't work for free. Say, Linda, was the child yours before you paid for the services? No I thought not. So in paying for the service fees you acquired a child you didn't own before the transaction occurred. That constitutes a sale. Much the same as going through the check out at a supermarket. Once you hand over your money (which covers overheads such as manufacturing costs, services, wages, and merchandise) you own those groceries that were not yours before the check out chick gave you your receipt as proof of purchase (see adoption order - same thing.)

What about parents who use some form of medical assistance with pregnancy (AI etc)? They have to pay for the process. Are any children born to such proceedures slaves? Jason


Particularly if one or both the gametes were donated? Maybe even a paid for
"donation"?

Robin

"Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in message
news:20040323171000.29651.00000244@mb-m19.aol.com... Ditto, Rupa. I have tried repeatedly to establish the slave owner/slaveconcept in our household and failed. Can someone tell me how to train slaves effectively? P2PYou'll find advice on that in certain other newsgroups! What? You're going to keep me in suspense and not name them? P2P

No. they are unsuitable for children, who might be watching this group.

Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message news:<steve-B7B2F9.21584024032004@netnews.comcast.net>... In article <9a095db9.0403241745.7024cf8f@posting.google.com>, patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote: As you have been told repeatedly, adoption fees pay for services. Lawyers, Social Workers et. al. have bills to pay, so they don't work for free. Say, Linda, was the child yours before you paid for the services? No I thought not. So in paying for the service fees you acquired a child you didn't own before the transaction occurred. That constitutes a sale. Much the same as going through the check out at a supermarket. Once you hand over your money (which covers overheads such as manufacturing costs, services, wages, and merchandise) you own those groceries that were not yours before the check out chick gave you your receipt as proof of purchase (see adoption order - same thing.) There are some things in the world that should morally never have a price tag on them. Children are one of them. Do you seriously argue this position when you "debate" in Oz-land? Meet with legislators? Offer public testimony?
No, didn't need to. Adoption was almost over by the time I emerged.

Do you really push the "adoption=slavery" nonsense in places where it might harm your cause?
Nope, only in the US. It's been illegal to financially profit from any
local
adoption since 1965 here. The way everyone has their fingers in the
till in the US is something no other civilised country would tolerate.
Your Govt can't even be bothered keeping stats on the number of US
children being adopted let alone regulate standards of practice. It
doesn't say much for your Govt's interest in the welfare or protection
of its children does it! Still, it keeps me fascinated.




steve

>Subject: Re: Adopted a Baby and Have Questions About Our RightsFrom: patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian)Date: 3/24/2004 8:45 PM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <9a095db9.0403241745.7024cf8f@posting.google.com>lfortney@dc.umd.edu (Linda Fortney) wrote in messagenews:<c3nuv7$n4r@tracy.umd.edu>... In article <7f0dd552.0403220520.181ef177@posting.google.com>, Hippiechic <lily.fair@angelfire.com> wrote: You are the idiot you the one who does not the know the concept ofslavery and adoption is slavery I will say it one more time thebuying and selling of people and the buyer having absolute power overthe person who is bought amounts to slavery. As you have been told repeatedly, adoption fees pay for services. Lawyers, Social Workers et. al. have bills to pay, so they don't work for free.Say, Linda, was the child yours before you paid for the services? No Ithought not. So in paying for the service fees you acquired a childyou didn't own before the transaction occurred. That constitutes asale. Much the same as going through the check out at a supermarket.

< chuckle > Some of your posts are so comical, Diane. Thanks for the laugh.
Once you hand over your money (which covers overheads such asmanufacturing costs, services, wages, and merchandise) you own thosegroceries that were not yours before the check out chick gave you yourreceipt as proof of purchase (see adoption order - same thing.)

I can draw 100 paralells between a land tortoise and a leopard, snookums.
Doesn't make them the same thing, but please continue on... I enjoy being
entertained. ;o)
There are some things in the world that should morally never have aprice tag on them. Children are one of them.

I paid a few hundred dollars in miscellaneous fees when we adopted older
children through the foster care system. A cheap slave, by your definition.

Massa Dad

>Subject: Re: Adopted a Baby and Have Questions About Our RightsFrom: Steve White steve@spam.me.neverDate: 3/24/2004 10:58 PM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <steve-B7B2F9.21584024032004@netnews.comcast.net>In article <9a095db9.0403241745.7024cf8f@posting.google.com>, patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote: As you have been told repeatedly, adoption fees pay for services. Lawyers, Social Workers et. al. have bills to pay, so they don't work for free. Say, Linda, was the child yours before you paid for the services? No I thought not. So in paying for the service fees you acquired a child you didn't own before the transaction occurred. That constitutes a sale. Much the same as going through the check out at a supermarket. Once you hand over your money (which covers overheads such as manufacturing costs, services, wages, and merchandise) you own those groceries that were not yours before the check out chick gave you your receipt as proof of purchase (see adoption order - same thing.) There are some things in the world that should morally never have a price tag on them. Children are one of them.Do you seriously argue this position when you "debate" in Oz-land? Meetwith legislators? Offer public testimony?

I suspect Diane knows better. Outside of the loonies on Origins, she'd be
laughed at and it would damage her credibility.

I'll say it again. If Diane, Hippiechic, et al cannot tell the difference
between adoption and slavery, then perhaps they're having similar difficulties
discerning the difference between words like "stolen" and "voluntarily
relinquished".
Do you really push the "adoption=slavery" nonsense in places where itmight harm your cause?

Let's hope so, Steve.

Dad

>Subject: Re: Adopted a Baby and Have Questions About Our RightsFrom: patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian)Date: 3/25/2004 8:41 AM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <9a095db9.0403250541.239fa8e1@posting.google.com>Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in messagenews:<steve-B7B2F9.21584024032004@netnews.comcast.net>... In article <9a095db9.0403241745.7024cf8f@posting.google.com>, patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote: > As you have been told repeatedly, adoption fees pay for services. > Lawyers, Social Workers et. al. have bills to pay, so they don't > work for free. > Say, Linda, was the child yours before you paid for the services? No I thought not. So in paying for the service fees you acquired a child you didn't own before the transaction occurred. That constitutes a sale. Much the same as going through the check out at a supermarket. Once you hand over your money (which covers overheads such as manufacturing costs, services, wages, and merchandise) you own those groceries that were not yours before the check out chick gave you your receipt as proof of purchase (see adoption order - same thing.) There are some things in the world that should morally never have a price tag on them. Children are one of them. Do you seriously argue this position when you "debate" in Oz-land? Meet with legislators? Offer public testimony?No, didn't need to. Adoption was almost over by the time I emerged.

Good thing. It would have brought some humor into into the inquiry
proceedings.

Dad

"AdoptaDad" <adoptadad@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040325084708.13720.00000064@mb-m10.aol.com...Subject: Re: Adopted a Baby and Have Questions About Our RightsFrom: patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian)


Once you hand over your money (which covers overheads such asmanufacturing costs, services, wages, and merchandise) you own thosegroceries that were not yours before the check out chick gave you yourreceipt as proof of purchase (see adoption order - same thing.) I can draw 100 paralells between a land tortoise and a leopard,
snookums. Doesn't make them the same thing, but please continue on... I enjoy
being entertained. ;o)

Exactly. Why is that such a hard concept for some to wrap their brains
around? Using Di's ahem "logic" I am Britney Spears. Afterall we do
share one of the same criteria (i.e we are both female).

Kathy 1

"geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:Osz8c.16159$rw6.304722@news.xtra.co.nz... "Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in message news:20040323171000.29651.00000244@mb-m19.aol.com...> Ditto, Rupa. I have tried repeatedly to establish the slave
owner/slaveconcept> in our household and failed. Can someone tell me how to train slaves> effectively?>>> P2PYou'll find advice on that in certain other newsgroups! What? You're going to keep me in suspense and not name them? P2P No. they are unsuitable for children, who might be watching this group.

You must be referring to us adopted children. No need to worry - we are
already well acquainted with such things.

Kathy 1

>Subject: Re: Adopted a Baby and Have Questions About Our RightsFrom: patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian)Date: 3/24/04 5:45 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <9a095db9.0403241745.7024cf8f@posting.google.com>lfortney@dc.umd.edu (Linda Fortney) wrote in messagenews:<c3nuv7$n4r@tracy.umd.edu>... In article <7f0dd552.0403220520.181ef177@posting.google.com>, Hippiechic <lily.fair@angelfire.com> wrote: You are the idiot you the one who does not the know the concept ofslavery and adoption is slavery I will say it one more time thebuying and selling of people and the buyer having absolute power overthe person who is bought amounts to slavery. As you have been told repeatedly, adoption fees pay for services. Lawyers, Social Workers et. al. have bills to pay, so they don't work for free.Say, Linda, was the child yours before you paid for the services? No Ithought not. So in paying for the service fees you acquired a childyou didn't own before the transaction occurred. That constitutes asale. Much the same as going through the check out at a supermarket.Once you hand over your money (which covers overheads such asmanufacturing costs, services, wages, and merchandise) you own thosegroceries that were not yours before the check out chick gave you yourreceipt as proof of purchase (see adoption order - same thing.)There are some things in the world that should morally never have aprice tag on them. Children are one of them.Di

You got a lot of nerve yammering at anyone about their morality. I bet you
don't even own a mirror. ;p






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

>Subject: Re: Adopted a Baby and Have Questions About Our RightsFrom: "kat" katlat24@hotmail.comDate: 3/25/04 6:42 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <c3ur55$2bscr2$1@ID-203097.news.uni-berlin.de>"geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in messagenews:Osz8c.16159$rw6.304722@news.xtra.co.nz ... "Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in message news:20040323171000.29651.00000244@mb-m19.aol.com... >> Ditto, Rupa. I have tried repeatedly to establish the slaveowner/slave >concept >> in our household and failed. Can someone tell me how to train slaves >> effectively? >> >> >> P2P > >You'll find advice on that in certain other newsgroups! > > What? You're going to keep me in suspense and not name them? P2P No. they are unsuitable for children, who might be watching this group.You must be referring to us adopted children. No need to worry - we arealready well acquainted with such things.Kathy 1

LMAO!


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

>There are some things in the world that should morally never have aprice tag on them. Children are one of them.

Points for Di to commit to memory.

1. It is illegal in all fifty US states to buy or sell children.

2. As good as it sounds, everything about adoption cannot be free, free, free.

3. There have always been and will always be people who bear children they
cannot or will not raise, thereby making adoption a permanent fact of life.


P2P

Steve asks Di:
Do you seriously argue this position when you "debate" in Oz-land? Meetwith legislators? Offer public testimony?Do you really push the "adoption=slavery" nonsense in places where itmight harm your cause?steve


I have often wondered these very things. The only audiences such nutty
assertions would draw would be nuts.


P2P

"Kathy" <meagan787@aol.comsthesun> wrote in message
news:20040325115010.04343.00000061@mb-m29.aol.com...Subject: Re: Adopted a Baby and Have Questions About Our RightsFrom: "kat" katlat24@hotmail.comDate: 3/25/04 6:42 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <c3ur55$2bscr2$1@ID-203097.news.uni-berlin.de>"geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in messagenews:Osz8c.16159$rw6.304722@news.xtra.co.nz ... "Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in message news:20040323171000.29651.00000244@mb-m19.aol.com... > >> Ditto, Rupa. I have tried repeatedly to establish the slaveowner/slave > >concept > >> in our household and failed. Can someone tell me how to train
slaves > >> effectively? > >> > >> > >> P2P > > > >You'll find advice on that in certain other newsgroups! > > > > > > What? You're going to keep me in suspense and not name them? > > > P2P No. they are unsuitable for children, who might be watching this group.You must be referring to us adopted children. No need to worry - we arealready well acquainted with such things.Kathy 1 LMAO! Diane Welfare, "she describes the US market as a "$US1.4 billion business
in baby trafficking". ~~121603 http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336884771.html

"Kathy" <meagan787@aol.comsthesun> wrote in message
news:20040325115010.04343.00000061@mb-m29.aol.com...Subject: Re: Adopted a Baby and Have Questions About Our RightsFrom: "kat" katlat24@hotmail.comDate: 3/25/04 6:42 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <c3ur55$2bscr2$1@ID-203097.news.uni-berlin.de>"geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in messagenews:Osz8c.16159$rw6.304722@news.xtra.co.nz ... "Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in message news:20040323171000.29651.00000244@mb-m19.aol.com... > >> Ditto, Rupa. I have tried repeatedly to establish the slaveowner/slave > >concept > >> in our household and failed. Can someone tell me how to train
slaves > >> effectively? > >> > >> > >> P2P > > > >You'll find advice on that in certain other newsgroups! > > > > > > What? You're going to keep me in suspense and not name them? > > > P2P No. they are unsuitable for children, who might be watching this group.You must be referring to us adopted children. No need to worry - we arealready well acquainted with such things.Kathy 1

Heavens, I hope not! LMAO! Diane Welfare, "she describes the US market as a "$US1.4 billion business
in baby trafficking". ~~121603 http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336884771.html

>Subject: Re: Adopted a Baby and Have Questions About Our RightsFrom: "geopelia" phildoran@xtra.co.nzDate: 3/25/04 2:17 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <wZH8c.16575$rw6.312417@news.xtra.co.nz>"Kathy" <meagan787@aol.comsthesun> wrote in messagenews:20040325115010.04343.00000061@mb-m29.aol.com...Subject: Re: Adopted a Baby and Have Questions About Our RightsFrom: "kat" katlat24@hotmail.comDate: 3/25/04 6:42 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <c3ur55$2bscr2$1@ID-203097.news.uni-berlin.de>"geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in messagenews:Osz8c.16159$rw6.304722@news.xtra.co.nz ...>> "Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in message> news:20040323171000.29651.00000244@mb-m19.aol.com...> > >> Ditto, Rupa. I have tried repeatedly to establish the slaveowner/slave> > >concept> > >> in our household and failed. Can someone tell me how to trainslaves> > >> effectively?> > >>> > >>> > >> P2P> > >> > >You'll find advice on that in certain other newsgroups!> > >> > >> >> > What? You're going to keep me in suspense and not name them?> >> >> > P2P>> No. they are unsuitable for children, who might be watching this group.>>You must be referring to us adopted children. No need to worry - we arealready well acquainted with such things.Kathy 1Heavens, I hope not!

Yeah, I'm not too familiar with butt plugs.


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

adoptadad@aol.com (AdoptaDad) wrote in message news:<20040325091707.14438.00000070@mb-m10.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Adopted a Baby and Have Questions About Our RightsFrom: patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian)Date: 3/25/2004 8:41 AM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <9a095db9.0403250541.239fa8e1@posting.google.com>Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in messagenews:<steve-B7B2F9.21584024032004@netnews.comcast.net>... In article <9a095db9.0403241745.7024cf8f@posting.google.com>, patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote: > > As you have been told repeatedly, adoption fees pay for services. > > Lawyers, Social Workers et. al. have bills to pay, so they don't > > work for free. > > > > Say, Linda, was the child yours before you paid for the services? No > I thought not. So in paying for the service fees you acquired a child > you didn't own before the transaction occurred. That constitutes a > sale. Much the same as going through the check out at a supermarket. > Once you hand over your money (which covers overheads such as > manufacturing costs, services, wages, and merchandise) you own those > groceries that were not yours before the check out chick gave you > your receipt as proof of purchase (see adoption order - same thing.) > > There are some things in the world that should morally never have a > price tag on them. Children are one of them. Do you seriously argue this position when you "debate" in Oz-land? Meet with legislators? Offer public testimony?No, didn't need to. Adoption was almost over by the time I emerged. Good thing. It would have brought some humor into into the inquiry proceedings. Dad

You find selling children hilarious? How telling.

Di

>Subject: Re: Adopted a Baby and Have Questions About Our RightsFrom: patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian)Date: 3/25/04 6:22 PM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <9a095db9.0403251522.7c1e8c56@posting.google.com>adoptadad@aol.com (AdoptaDad) wrote in messagenews:<20040325091707.14438.00000070@mb-m10.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Adopted a Baby and Have Questions About Our RightsFrom: patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian)Date: 3/25/2004 8:41 AM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <9a095db9.0403250541.239fa8e1@posting.google.com>Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in messagenews:<steve-B7B2F9.21584024032004@netnews.comcast.net>...> In article <9a095db9.0403241745.7024cf8f@posting.google.com>,> patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote:>>> > > As you have been told repeatedly, adoption fees pay for services.> > > Lawyers, Social Workers et. al. have bills to pay, so they don't> > > work for free.> > >> >> > Say, Linda, was the child yours before you paid for the services? No> > I thought not. So in paying for the service fees you acquired a child> > you didn't own before the transaction occurred. That constitutes a> > sale. Much the same as going through the check out at a supermarket.> > Once you hand over your money (which covers overheads such as> > manufacturing costs, services, wages, and merchandise) you own those> > groceries that were not yours before the check out chick gave you> > your receipt as proof of purchase (see adoption order - same thing.)> >> > There are some things in the world that should morally never have a> > price tag on them. Children are one of them.>>> Do you seriously argue this position when you "debate" in Oz-land? Meet> with legislators? Offer public testimony?>No, didn't need to. Adoption was almost over by the time I emerged. Good thing. It would have brought some humor into into the inquiry proceedings. DadYou find selling children hilarious?

Please try to focus. I find your adoption = slavery to be quite comical.
How telling.

Is this the punch line?

Dad

In article <20040325161929.03938.00000102@mb-m05.aol.com>,
lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam (LilMtnCbn) writes:
Subject: Re: Adopted a Baby and Have Questions About Our RightsFrom: "geopelia" phildoran@xtra.co.nzDate: 3/25/04 2:17 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <wZH8c.16575$rw6.312417@news.xtra.co.nz>"Kathy" <meagan787@aol.comsthesun> wrote in messagenews:20040325115010.04343.00000061@mb-m29.aol.com... >Subject: Re: Adopted a Baby and Have Questions About Our Rights >From: "kat" katlat24@hotmail.com >Date: 3/25/04 6:42 AM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <c3ur55$2bscr2$1@ID-203097.news.uni-berlin.de> > > >"geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message >news:Osz8c.16159$rw6.304722@news.xtra.co.nz... >> >> "Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in message >> news:20040323171000.29651.00000244@mb-m19.aol.com... >> > >> Ditto, Rupa. I have tried repeatedly to establish the slave >owner/slave >> > >concept >> > >> in our household and failed. Can someone tell me how to trainslaves >> > >> effectively? >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> P2P >> > > >> > >You'll find advice on that in certain other newsgroups! >> > > >> > > >> > >> > What? You're going to keep me in suspense and not name them? >> > >> > >> > P2P >> >> No. they are unsuitable for children, who might be watching this group. >> >> > >You must be referring to us adopted children. No need to worry - we are >already well acquainted with such things. > >Kathy 1Heavens, I hope not!Yeah, I'm not too familiar with butt plugs.

With what????

;-)

KL

"LilMtnCbn" <lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20040325161929.03938.00000102@mb-m05.aol.com...Subject: Re: Adopted a Baby and Have Questions About Our RightsFrom: "geopelia" phildoran@xtra.co.nzDate: 3/25/04 2:17 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <wZH8c.16575$rw6.312417@news.xtra.co.nz>"Kathy" <meagan787@aol.comsthesun> wrote in messagenews:20040325115010.04343.00000061@mb-m29.aol.com... >Subject: Re: Adopted a Baby and Have Questions About Our Rights >From: "kat" katlat24@hotmail.com >Date: 3/25/04 6:42 AM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <c3ur55$2bscr2$1@ID-203097.news.uni-berlin.de> > > >"geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message >news:Osz8c.16159$rw6.304722@news.xtra.co.nz... >> >> "Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in message >> news:20040323171000.29651.00000244@mb-m19.aol.com... >> > >> Ditto, Rupa. I have tried repeatedly to establish the slave >owner/slave >> > >concept >> > >> in our household and failed. Can someone tell me how to trainslaves >> > >> effectively? >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> P2P >> > > >> > >You'll find advice on that in certain other newsgroups! >> > > >> > > >> > >> > What? You're going to keep me in suspense and not name them? >> > >> > >> > P2P >> >> No. they are unsuitable for children, who might be watching this
group. >> >> > >You must be referring to us adopted children. No need to worry - we
are >already well acquainted with such things. > >Kathy 1Heavens, I hope not! Yeah, I'm not too familiar with butt plugs.
A few of them might be useful around here with the number of people who talk
out of theirs.

Jason

In article <20040325161929.03938.00000102@mb-m05.aol.com>, LilMtnCbn says...Subject: Re: Adopted a Baby and Have Questions About Our RightsFrom: "geopelia" phildoran@xtra.co.nzDate: 3/25/04 2:17 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <wZH8c.16575$rw6.312417@news.xtra.co.nz>"Kathy" <meagan787@aol.comsthesun> wrote in messagenews:20040325115010.04343.00000061@mb-m29.aol.com... >Subject: Re: Adopted a Baby and Have Questions About Our Rights >From: "kat" katlat24@hotmail.com >Date: 3/25/04 6:42 AM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <c3ur55$2bscr2$1@ID-203097.news.uni-berlin.de> > > >"geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message >news:Osz8c.16159$rw6.304722@news.xtra.co.nz... >> >> "Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in message >> news:20040323171000.29651.00000244@mb-m19.aol.com... >> > >> Ditto, Rupa. I have tried repeatedly to establish the slave >owner/slave >> > >concept >> > >> in our household and failed. Can someone tell me how to trainslaves >> > >> effectively? >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> P2P >> > > >> > >You'll find advice on that in certain other newsgroups! >> > > >> > > >> > >> > What? You're going to keep me in suspense and not name them? >> > >> > >> > P2P >> >> No. they are unsuitable for children, who might be watching this group. >> >> > >You must be referring to us adopted children. No need to worry - we are >already well acquainted with such things. > >Kathy 1Heavens, I hope not!Yeah, I'm not too familiar with butt plugs.

:::SPEW!!!::: My keyboard! ;)

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

In article <9a095db9.0403241745.7024cf8f@posting.google.com>,
Dian <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote:lfortney@dc.umd.edu (Linda Fortney) wrote in message news:<c3nuv7$n4r@tracy.umd.edu>...Say, Linda, was the child yours before you paid for the services? No Ithought not. So in paying for the service fees you acquired a childyou didn't own before the transaction occurred. That constitutes asale.

Your "logic" here completely escapes me. Our wonderful adoption agency
that helped us with the paperwork charged reasonable fees. AAnd, we were
happy to give the orphanage donation. As I've mentioned before, our smart
adoption agency made sure that all of our donation went to the orphanage
and not for graft.

The biggest part of our expenses was for travel. Surely you don't expect
USAIR and China Southern Airlines to fly us halfway around the world for
free.

Anyhow, the grocery store analogy is ridiculous. But, you are so far gone
in hatred of adoptive parents you'll never realize it.

Linda

PS Would returning my daughter to a Chinese orphage make you happy?

>Anyhow, the grocery store analogy is ridiculous. But, you are so far gonein hatred of adoptive parents you'll never realize it.LindaPS Would returning my daughter to a Chinese orphage make you happy?


Only if you'd be really, really sad about it, Linda.


P2P

In article <20040326164626.20107.00000168@mb-m19.aol.com>,
Palms2pines <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote:PS Would returning my daughter to a Chinese orphage make you happy?Only if you'd be really, really sad about it, Linda.


I think you put your finger on it nicely, Palms. It would make Di
delirous with joy to know that an apar is unhappy.

Well, it won't happen, my daughter is my daughter forever. Sorry Di, I
guess you'll just have to remain in a state of rage.

Linda

lfortney@dc.umd.edu (Linda Fortney) wrote in message news:<c41jec$do2@marple.umd.edu>... In article <9a095db9.0403241745.7024cf8f@posting.google.com>, Dian <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote:lfortney@dc.umd.edu (Linda Fortney) wrote in message news:<c3nuv7$n4r@tracy.umd.edu>...Say, Linda, was the child yours before you paid for the services? No Ithought not. So in paying for the service fees you acquired a childyou didn't own before the transaction occurred. That constitutes asale. Your "logic" here completely escapes me. Our wonderful adoption agency that helped us with the paperwork charged reasonable fees. AAnd, we were happy to give the orphanage donation. As I've mentioned before, our smart adoption agency made sure that all of our donation went to the orphanage and not for graft. The biggest part of our expenses was for travel. Surely you don't expect USAIR and China Southern Airlines to fly us halfway around the world for free. Anyhow, the grocery store analogy is ridiculous. But, you are so far gone in hatred of adoptive parents you'll never realize it.

You need to get over yourself, Linda. When I am referring to system if
adoption and the exchange of monies I am referring to the system of
adoption and the exchange of monies. If you identify yourself as being
"that system" and take
offence to any criticism of it, instead of seeing yourself as a
consumer of the system, that's your problem.

Di


Linda PS Would returning my daughter to a Chinese orphage make you happy?

palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message news:<20040325151550.18128.00000043@mb-m21.aol.com>...There are some things in the world that should morally never have aprice tag on them. Children are one of them. Points for Di to commit to memory. 1. It is illegal in all fifty US states to buy or sell children.

That's the biggest larf of all. It's only illegal in all states for
the nmother 'herself' to sell her child and profit from it to cover
her costs. Get you facts straight.

If anyone else sells her child and profits from it it's called
administrative and service fees to cover overheads.

2. As good as it sounds, everything about adoption cannot be free, free, free.
Why not? Foster carers don't pay to foster. The State picks up the tab
for those children. The State also picks up the tab for disabled
children and many with special needs.
3. There have always been and will always be people who bear children they cannot or will not raise, thereby making adoption a permanent fact of life.

Of course there is. However, an adopted child should have the legal
right to revoke his own adoption as he see's fit once he becomes an
adult. If adoptees are not the permanent property of their adopters
you tell me why neither they nor their own children have that legal
right to make their own decision to do so. Is it because a piece of
paper called an adoption order denies them that freedom of choice?






P2P

"Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:9a095db9.0403261813.4c7a2626@posting.google.c om... palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message
news:<20040325151550.18128.00000043@mb-m21.aol.com>...There are some things in the world that should morally never have aprice tag on them. Children are one of them. Points for Di to commit to memory. 1. It is illegal in all fifty US states to buy or sell children. That's the biggest larf of all. It's only illegal in all states for the nmother 'herself' to sell her child and profit from it to cover her costs. Get you facts straight. If anyone else sells her child and profits from it it's called administrative and service fees to cover overheads. 2. As good as it sounds, everything about adoption cannot be free,
free, free. Why not? Foster carers don't pay to foster. The State picks up the tab for those children. The State also picks up the tab for disabled children and many with special needs.

ha! Hardly enough. Many foster parents are out big pocket big time. The
state will weasel out of any payments it can. It's got pork to spread
around, and kids aren't it. 3. There have always been and will always be people who bear children
they cannot or will not raise, thereby making adoption a permanent fact of
life. Of course there is. However, an adopted child should have the legal right to revoke his own adoption as he see's fit once he becomes an adult. If adoptees are not the permanent property of their adopters you tell me why neither they nor their own children have that legal right to make their own decision to do so. Is it because a piece of paper called an adoption order denies them that freedom of choice?

Bios should, too. It's all a social contstruct to keep law and order
anyway.

Marley

"Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<nV59c.47243$PY1.876157@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... "Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:9a095db9.0403261813.4c7a2626@posting.google.c om... palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message news:<20040325151550.18128.00000043@mb-m21.aol.com>... >There are some things in the world that should morally never have a >price tag on them. Children are one of them. > > > Points for Di to commit to memory. 1. It is illegal in all fifty US states to buy or sell children. That's the biggest larf of all. It's only illegal in all states for the nmother 'herself' to sell her child and profit from it to cover her costs. Get you facts straight. If anyone else sells her child and profits from it it's called administrative and service fees to cover overheads. 2. As good as it sounds, everything about adoption cannot be free, free, free. Why not? Foster carers don't pay to foster. The State picks up the tab for those children. The State also picks up the tab for disabled children and many with special needs. ha! Hardly enough. Many foster parents are out big pocket big time. The state will weasel out of any payments it can. It's got pork to spread around, and kids aren't it.

Ah but foster parents don't have to pay to obtain the child in the first place.
And many PAP's go this route in the hope of getting a cheapy adoption.
3. There have always been and will always be people who bear children they cannot or will not raise, thereby making adoption a permanent fact of life. Of course there is. However, an adopted child should have the legal right to revoke his own adoption as he see's fit once he becomes an adult. If adoptees are not the permanent property of their adopters you tell me why neither they nor their own children have that legal right to make their own decision to do so. Is it because a piece of paper called an adoption order denies them that freedom of choice? Bios should, too.

You're comparing adoption to birth again. Signing a cheque is not quite the
same as giving birth.

It's all a social contstruct to keep law and order anyway.

Pregnancy is hardly constructed by society. Although contraception may well be.



Marley

"Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:9a095db9.0403262334.4c5a4a2e@posting.google.c om... "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:<nV59c.47243$PY1.876157@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... "Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:9a095db9.0403261813.4c7a2626@posting.google.c om... palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message news:<20040325151550.18128.00000043@mb-m21.aol.com>... > >There are some things in the world that should morally never have a > >price tag on them. Children are one of them. > > > > > > > > Points for Di to commit to memory. > > 1. It is illegal in all fifty US states to buy or sell children. > That's the biggest larf of all. It's only illegal in all states for the nmother 'herself' to sell her child and profit from it to cover her costs. Get you facts straight. If anyone else sells her child and profits from it it's called administrative and service fees to cover overheads. > 2. As good as it sounds, everything about adoption cannot be free, free, free. > Why not? Foster carers don't pay to foster. The State picks up the tab for those children. The State also picks up the tab for disabled children and many with special needs. ha! Hardly enough. Many foster parents are out big pocket big time.
The state will weasel out of any payments it can. It's got pork to spread around, and kids aren't it. Ah but foster parents don't have to pay to obtain the child in the first
place. And many PAP's go this route in the hope of getting a cheapy adoption.

How many is many, in terms of foster placement vs adoptions. > 3. There have always been and will always be people who bear
children they > cannot or will not raise, thereby making adoption a permanent fact
of life. Of course there is. However, an adopted child should have the legal right to revoke his own adoption as he see's fit once he becomes an adult. If adoptees are not the permanent property of their adopters you tell me why neither they nor their own children have that legal right to make their own decision to do so. Is it because a piece of paper called an adoption order denies them that freedom of choice? Bios should, too. You're comparing adoption to birth again. Signing a cheque is not quite
the same as giving birth. It's all a social contstruct to keep law and order anyway. Pregnancy is hardly constructed by society. Although contraception may
well be.

The state of pregnancy socially constructed discourse. Different cultures
handles this state differently, in some pregnant women are revered, in some
they're taboo. In some women go out into the rice paddies every day until
it's time to push out the baby, in others women play Mozart to their fetuses
through special headphones designed for that purpose. Pregnancy is regulated
by society by custom and law, and has been since at least hunter/gatherer
societies formed.

Ron

Ron

Marley

"Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:9a095db9.0403262334.4c5a4a2e@posting.google.c om... "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:<nV59c.47243$PY1.876157@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... "Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:9a095db9.0403261813.4c7a2626@posting.google.c om... palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message news:<20040325151550.18128.00000043@mb-m21.aol.com>... > >There are some things in the world that should morally never have a > >price tag on them. Children are one of them. > > > > > > > > Points for Di to commit to memory. > > 1. It is illegal in all fifty US states to buy or sell children. > That's the biggest larf of all. It's only illegal in all states for the nmother 'herself' to sell her child and profit from it to cover her costs. Get you facts straight. If anyone else sells her child and profits from it it's called administrative and service fees to cover overheads. > 2. As good as it sounds, everything about adoption cannot be free, free, free. > Why not? Foster carers don't pay to foster. The State picks up the tab for those children. The State also picks up the tab for disabled children and many with special needs. ha! Hardly enough. Many foster parents are out big pocket big time.
The state will weasel out of any payments it can. It's got pork to spread around, and kids aren't it. Ah but foster parents don't have to pay to obtain the child in the first
place. And many PAP's go this route in the hope of getting a cheapy adoption. > 3. There have always been and will always be people who bear
children they > cannot or will not raise, thereby making adoption a permanent fact
of life. Of course there is. However, an adopted child should have the legal right to revoke his own adoption as he see's fit once he becomes an adult. If adoptees are not the permanent property of their adopters you tell me why neither they nor their own children have that legal right to make their own decision to do so. Is it because a piece of paper called an adoption order denies them that freedom of choice? Bios should, too. You're comparing adoption to birth again. Signing a cheque is not quite
the same as giving birth. It's all a social contstruct to keep law and order anyway. Pregnancy is hardly constructed by society. Although contraception may
well be. Marley

Parenthood, though is a social construct. In the wasted its rooted in
patriarchy;, various capitalisms, and consumerism and exemplified by
the-so-called nuclear family, which despite what traditionalists would have
you believe, is neither a constant nor an historical model. In socialistic
societies, the state acts as the parent, with the parents themselves taking
a secondary role. In communal societies the community acts as a parent.
Interestingly enough, while modern America adoption practice is capitalistic
and consumerist, it operates on the socialist system. But then so does most
other elements of modern society which is for all intents and purposes a
form of state socialism operated for the benefit of corporations.

Marley

>Subject: Re: Adopted a Baby and Have Questions About Our RightsFrom: "Marley Greiner" maddogmarley@worldnet.att.netDate: 3/26/04 9:45 PM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <nV59c.47243$PY1.876157@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>

< snip >
Why not? Foster carers don't pay to foster. The State picks up the tab for those children. The State also picks up the tab for disabled children and many with special needs.

Maybe you should parent a foster child, Diane? Have you ever thought about
it? I bet it would change you in ways you never dreamed possible. It might
even enable you to see things from a child's perspective.

Dad

>Subject: Re: Adopted a Baby and Have Questions About Our RightsFrom: patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian)Date: 3/27/04 2:34 AM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <9a095db9.0403262334.4c5a4a2e@posting.google.com>"Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in messagenews:<nV59c.47243$PY1.876157@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net

< snip >
Why not? Foster carers don't pay to foster. The State picks up the tab for those children. The State also picks up the tab for disabled children and many with special needs. ha! Hardly enough. Many foster parents are out big pocket big time. The state will weasel out of any payments it can. It's got pork to spread around, and kids aren't it.Ah but foster parents don't have to pay to obtain the child in thefirst place. And many PAP's go this route in the hope of gettinga cheapy adoption.

"A cheapy adoption"... hmm. I thought you were in favor of reducing the
high fees associated with adoption.

Cheap vs. expensive seems not to matter. Why don't you focus on your real
objections rather than arguing both sides of a peripheral issue?

Dad

>Subject: Re: Adopted a Baby and Have Questions About Our RightsFrom: patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian)Date: 3/27/04 2:34 AM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <9a095db9.0403262334.4c5a4a2e@posting.google.com>

many PAP's go this route in the hope of gettinga cheapy adoption.

Curious, but what's a 'cheapy' adoption, Di? Here, let me help. Just circle
below the response that most fits your agenda.


a) All of them

b) All of them

c) All of them

Thanks for your participation in this survey....;p






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

"geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:<eDm9c.2085$Tf3.35239@news.xtra.co.nz>... "Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:9a095db9.0403270731.1ddc88ae@posting.google.c om... "Ron Morgan" <rhyzome1@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<7Da9c.3427$lt2.1459@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.n et>... "Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:9a095db9.0403241720.73af5320@posting.google.c om... > "geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:<xP78c.14739$rw6.277178@news.xtra.co.nz>... > > "Linda Fortney" <lfortney@dc.umd.edu> wrote in message > > news:c3no7j$uhs@wolfe.umd.edu... > > > In article <steve-1F13FE.22105720032004@netnews.comcast.net>, > > > Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote: > > > >In article <9a095db9.0403201441.4b4dd53e@posting.google.com>, > > > > patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> Adoption is the purchase and official ownership of one human being by > > > >> another, through an act of Govt legislation, just as slavery was. > > > > > > > > > > > >That's absolutely stupid. Adoption is not a purchase, nor is it > > > >ownership of a human being. It's a transfer in a legal status so as to > > > >have a child raised in another family with all the legal rights of being > > > >in that family. > > > > > > > > > Nicely put, Steverino. We've been through this adoption=slavery debate so > > > often. Di has been unable to learn, despite the mountains of electrons > > > sent to her that such a comparision is ludicrous. Nor has she been able > > > to convince anyone who isn't a disciple of hers that adoption=slavery. > > > > > > We need to invent a subcategory of Godwin's Law. If anyone who refers to > > > the Holocaust as a simile or metaphor automatically loses the argument, > > > than anyone who uses slavery in a similar capacity also loses. > > > > > > > > > Linda > > > > > > PS I can figure out what "bint" means from context; I suppose it is > > > similar to one of my favorite perjorative terms "git," but does anyone > > > have a working definition of "bint?" > > > > "Bint" is the word we used in the Army for an Egyptian woman. I think it is > > just the Arabic for woman, nothing insulting in their language. Maybe it was > > meant to insult in our language if used to disparage a woman. > > > > Geopelia > > > Indeed it was. Shall I remind those who used it against both > Hippiechic and me next time they (ironically) and rather > hypocritically take the moral highground and abuse others for using > equally offensive terms such as "wetbacks" "Jews" etc? > The difference between you and me is that when someone who has better information or knowledge than I brings an offensive cultural usage to my attention I acknowledge it and move on. When folks point out the offensiveness of your analogy of US adoption and US historical slavery, you persist in digging yourself a deeper hole. Ron The difference between you and me is that you can't cope with other people's perspectives on adoption or its parallels to slavery, generally. Your opinion is just that. Your opinion. As mine is mine. Your opinion doesn't make you right, nor does it make mine wrong. And as somene who had her child stolen and sold I am equally entitled to my opinion on the matter as you are to yours. In most countries the birth mother herself must sign something when a child is adopted.


How could yours be "stolen and sold"? Did somebody forge your signature, or were you drugged or drunk when you signed? Was the child kidnapped? Or was there some kind of court order because of your age or unfitness to parent? No need to answer, just think about what actually happened.

No need to think. My child was stolen at birth and I was forbidden to
ever see him. What would you call it if not the theft of a child? He
was then sold to his adopters for a fee under the guise of adoption.
It was routine practice in most hospitals in Australia and elsewhere
and had been proven to be an illegal practice through a NSW
Parliamentary Inquiry.

http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/Committee.nsf/0/56e4e53dfa16a023ca256cfd002a63bc/$FILE/Report.PDF

Read page 122

7.61 Justice Richard Chisholm agreed that the mother remained
guardian of the child until she gave consent and that preventing her
from having access to the child prior to the consent "would not have
been authorised."

7.62 The Committee therefore believes that the practice of denying a
mother access to her child prior to the signing of consent was
unlawful. Those professionals who contributed to the process where
access was denied were clearly acting unlawfully.

7.63 Whatever the rationale for the practice, the Committee believes
that in all cases women should have been consulted about this issue
prior to the birth and that a woman should not have been denied
access to her child if she requested it. Therefore, failure to grant
access constituted an unlawful and unethical action. Releasing the
Past. Adoption Practices 1950-1998 Final Report. Page 104 [p122 on
PDF] New South Wales Parliament. Legislative Council. Standing
Committee on Social Issues: Adoption Practices 1950-1998 Final Report.
Page 104 New South Wales Parliament. Legislative Council. Standing
Committee on Social Issues (see Appendix 11) Hard copy still
available through Parliament House.

From the 2nd interim report of same Parliamentary inquiry.

The Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield Evans: Can I ask why it is not kidnapping?

Justice Chisholm: I cannot remember whether there is a separate crime
called "kidnapping" and if there is, whether it contains something
like "for gain" or something like that, but subject to that
qualification, if one wanted to describe it as kidnapping in a non
technical sense, that seems to me to be pretty right. It was certainly
an unauthorised taking of the child. Adoption Practices 1950-1998
Second Interim Report. New South Wales Parliament. Legislative
Council. Standing Committee on Social Issues: 25th October 1999. Room
814/815 Parliament House, Sydney. Richard Colin Chisholm, Judge of the
Family Court, Family Court, affirmed and examined. Page 177-188 (see
Appendix 10)


From an earlier inquiry by the Human Rights Commission.

"Adoption procedures have largely disregarded the rights of the parent
considering relinquishment to be made aware of the alternative
options to adoption, and to full and disinterested support in arriving
at a decision. The many submissions received from natural mothers
who relinquished children for adoption, describing their unresolved
grief and sense of loss, bear testimony to the failure of
bureaucratic procedures to protect their rights." Human Rights
Commission Report No 23, November 1986, page 3 (see Appendix 6)

Adoptions in Oz were illegal in every respect and our Govt is Sh***ing
itself waiting for our next move.

Would you also like the admission by the Health Commission in 1982
admitting to their practices as being illegal and having contravened
the Adoption of Children Act 1965 on mental health and legal gounds as
well as the mother common law rights as the sole legal guardian of her
child? It did the rounds of all the hospitals in Oz as a warning to
the hospitals to stop the practice or risk facing litigation.


Di

patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote in message news:<9a095db9.0403241745.7024cf8f@posting.google.com>... lfortney@dc.umd.edu (Linda Fortney) wrote in message news:<c3nuv7$n4r@tracy.umd.edu>... In article <7f0dd552.0403220520.181ef177@posting.google.com>, Hippiechic <lily.fair@angelfire.com> wrote: You are the idiot you the one who does not the know the concept ofslavery and adoption is slavery I will say it one more time thebuying and selling of people and the buyer having absolute power overthe person who is bought amounts to slavery. As you have been told repeatedly, adoption fees pay for services. Lawyers, Social Workers et. al. have bills to pay, so they don't work for free. Say, Linda, was the child yours before you paid for the services?


You are so insensitive to adopters, Di, confronting them with the
crass economics of how their children were obtained. It's not their
fault that they're rich and powerful, and that others are poor and
vulnerable. Isn't it enough that they feel guilty and defensive about
exploiting others' misery? Must you rub their noses in it?



No I thought not. So in paying for the service fees you acquired a child you didn't own before the transaction occurred. That constitutes a sale. Much the same as going through the check out at a supermarket. Once you hand over your money (which covers overheads such as manufacturing costs, services, wages, and merchandise) you own those groceries that were not yours before the check out chick gave you your receipt as proof of purchase (see adoption order - same thing.) There are some things in the world that should morally never have a price tag on them. Children are one of them.

How cynical you are! Over the years, generous and compassionate
Americans have paid millions of dollars for the opportunity to provide
food, shelter and medical care to young and poor mothers and their
babies. Now they travel thousands of miles so they can deliver these
necessities to the downtrodden inhabitants of other countries.

These folks are so dedicated to providing services to the needy that
they are taking out second mortgages on their homes. And because
babies just happen to fall into their food baskets as they go about
their charitable endeavors, you suggest they are buying children, and
that others are selling them.

How could you?


Laura

patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote in message news:<9a095db9.0403250541.239fa8e1@posting.google.com>... Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message news:<steve-B7B2F9.21584024032004@netnews.comcast.net>... In article <9a095db9.0403241745.7024cf8f@posting.google.com>, patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote: > As you have been told repeatedly, adoption fees pay for services. > Lawyers, Social Workers et. al. have bills to pay, so they don't > work for free. > Say, Linda, was the child yours before you paid for the services? No I thought not. So in paying for the service fees you acquired a child you didn't own before the transaction occurred. That constitutes a sale. Much the same as going through the check out at a supermarket. Once you hand over your money (which covers overheads such as manufacturing costs, services, wages, and merchandise) you own those groceries that were not yours before the check out chick gave you your receipt as proof of purchase (see adoption order - same thing.) There are some things in the world that should morally never have a price tag on them. Children are one of them. Do you seriously argue this position when you "debate" in Oz-land? Meet with legislators? Offer public testimony? No, didn't need to. Adoption was almost over by the time I emerged.


No doubt due to aggressive lobbying by adopters and their babybrokers,
fighting for the rights of mothers.

What of the adoptees in Oz? Do they now go around with glazed
expressions, wondering to whom they should be grateful? If adoption
ended in the U.S., it would deprive adoptees of one of the few
pastimes they are allowed to pursue without adult supervision:
Thanking their mothers for not killing them.

And what of the mothers? Are they now breeding like rabbits and
tossing their offspring into dumpsters when they tire of them,
returning to the streets to sell dope and turn tricks?

Do you really push the "adoption=slavery" nonsense in places where it might harm your cause? Nope, only in the US. It's been illegal to financially profit from any local adoption since 1965 here. The way everyone has their fingers in the till in the US is something no other civilised country would tolerate. Your Govt can't even be bothered keeping stats on the number of US children being adopted let alone regulate standards of practice. It doesn't say much for your Govt's interest in the welfare or protection of its children does it! Still, it keeps me fascinated. steve


The American government cares so much about children that it asked
citizens on our last census if they'd adopted children. It didn't ask
them if they had surrendered a child, or were adopted. Everyone here,
including our legislators, knows adopters are the only trustworthy
ones, the only ones who are genuine American citizens worth counting.

Our government is underwriting the babyselling industry now, promoting
family separation to adolescents. It's not interested in children's
welfare or protection anymore. It farmed out that job to big
business.


Laura

"Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:9a095db9.0403271947.4f120bf1@posting.google.c om... "geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:<eDm9c.2085$Tf3.35239@news.xtra.co.nz>... "Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:9a095db9.0403270731.1ddc88ae@posting.google.c om... "Ron Morgan" <rhyzome1@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<7Da9c.3427$lt2.1459@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.n et>... > "Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message > news:9a095db9.0403241720.73af5320@posting.google.c om... > > "geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:<xP78c.14739$rw6.277178@news.xtra.co.nz>... > > > "Linda Fortney" <lfortney@dc.umd.edu> wrote in message > > > news:c3no7j$uhs@wolfe.umd.edu... > > > > In article <steve-1F13FE.22105720032004@netnews.comcast.net>, > > > > Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote: > > > > >In article <9a095db9.0403201441.4b4dd53e@posting.google.com>, > > > > > patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Adoption is the purchase and official ownership of one
human being by > > > > >> another, through an act of Govt legislation, just as
slavery was. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >That's absolutely stupid. Adoption is not a purchase, nor is
it > > > > >ownership of a human being. It's a transfer in a legal status
so as to > > > > >have a child raised in another family with all the legal
rights of being > > > > >in that family. > > > > > > > > > > > > Nicely put, Steverino. We've been through this
adoption=slavery debate so > > > > often. Di has been unable to learn, despite the mountains of electrons > > > > sent to her that such a comparision is ludicrous. Nor has she been able > > > > to convince anyone who isn't a disciple of hers that adoption=slavery. > > > > > > > > We need to invent a subcategory of Godwin's Law. If anyone
who refers to > > > > the Holocaust as a simile or metaphor automatically loses the argument, > > > > than anyone who uses slavery in a similar capacity also loses. > > > > > > > > > > > > Linda > > > > > > > > PS I can figure out what "bint" means from context; I suppose
it is > > > > similar to one of my favorite perjorative terms "git," but
does anyone > > > > have a working definition of "bint?" > > > > > > "Bint" is the word we used in the Army for an Egyptian woman. I think it is > > > just the Arabic for woman, nothing insulting in their language. Maybe it was > > > meant to insult in our language if used to disparage a woman. > > > > > > Geopelia > > > > > > Indeed it was. Shall I remind those who used it against both > > Hippiechic and me next time they (ironically) and rather > > hypocritically take the moral highground and abuse others for
using > > equally offensive terms such as "wetbacks" "Jews" etc? > > > > The difference between you and me is that when someone who has
better > information or knowledge than I brings an offensive cultural usage
to my > attention I acknowledge it and move on. When folks point out the > offensiveness of your analogy of US adoption and US historical
slavery, you > persist in digging yourself a deeper hole. > > Ron The difference between you and me is that you can't cope with other people's perspectives on adoption or its parallels to slavery, generally. Your opinion is just that. Your opinion. As mine is mine. Your opinion doesn't make you right, nor does it make mine wrong. And as somene who had her child stolen and sold I am equally entitled to my opinion on the matter as you are to yours. In most countries the birth mother herself must sign something when a
child is adopted. How could yours be "stolen and sold"? Did somebody forge your signature, or were you drugged or drunk when you signed? Was the child kidnapped? Or was there some kind of court order because of your age or unfitness
to parent? No need to answer, just think about what actually happened. No need to think. My child was stolen at birth and I was forbidden to ever see him. What would you call it if not the theft of a child? He was then sold to his adopters for a fee under the guise of adoption. It was routine practice in most hospitals in Australia and elsewhere and had been proven to be an illegal practice through a NSW Parliamentary Inquiry.

In New Zealand, you would have had to sign a form before the child could be
adopted.
Was this the same in Australia?

Mothers did not have access to the child to prevent bonding taking place,
making relinquishing more difficult.

Today they may see the child if they wish, or even look after it at Bethany,
and choose who adopts it.
They can also find the child today once it is 18, unless a veto has been
passed by the child or the birth mother.
(Since 1986, the veto has not been available.)

Opinions differ on which system is best.
If you are still having difficulties with it, have you thought of
counselling?

Was the child part aboriginal, and taken without your consent?

http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/Committee.nsf/0/56e4e53dfa16a
023ca256cfd002a63bc/$FILE/Report.PDF Read page 122 7.61 Justice Richard Chisholm agreed that the mother remained guardian of the child until she gave consent and that preventing her from having access to the child prior to the consent "would not have been authorised." 7.62 The Committee therefore believes that the practice of denying a mother access to her child prior to the signing of consent was unlawful. Those professionals who contributed to the process where access was denied were clearly acting unlawfully. 7.63 Whatever the rationale for the practice, the Committee believes that in all cases women should have been consulted about this issue prior to the birth and that a woman should not have been denied access to her child if she requested it. Therefore, failure to grant access constituted an unlawful and unethical action. Releasing the Past. Adoption Practices 1950-1998 Final Report. Page 104 [p122 on PDF] New South Wales Parliament. Legislative Council. Standing Committee on Social Issues: Adoption Practices 1950-1998 Final Report. Page 104 New South Wales Parliament. Legislative Council. Standing Committee on Social Issues (see Appendix 11) Hard copy still available through Parliament House. From the 2nd interim report of same Parliamentary inquiry. The Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield Evans: Can I ask why it is not kidnapping? Justice Chisholm: I cannot remember whether there is a separate crime called "kidnapping" and if there is, whether it contains something like "for gain" or something like that, but subject to that qualification, if one wanted to describe it as kidnapping in a non technical sense, that seems to me to be pretty right. It was certainly an unauthorised taking of the child. Adoption Practices 1950-1998 Second Interim Report. New South Wales Parliament. Legislative Council. Standing Committee on Social Issues: 25th October 1999. Room 814/815 Parliament House, Sydney. Richard Colin Chisholm, Judge of the Family Court, Family Court, affirmed and examined. Page 177-188 (see Appendix 10) From an earlier inquiry by the Human Rights Commission. "Adoption procedures have largely disregarded the rights of the parent considering relinquishment to be made aware of the alternative options to adoption, and to full and disinterested support in arriving at a decision. The many submissions received from natural mothers who relinquished children for adoption, describing their unresolved grief and sense of loss, bear testimony to the failure of bureaucratic procedures to protect their rights." Human Rights Commission Report No 23, November 1986, page 3 (see Appendix 6) Adoptions in Oz were illegal in every respect and our Govt is Sh***ing itself waiting for our next move. Would you also like the admission by the Health Commission in 1982 admitting to their practices as being illegal and having contravened the Adoption of Children Act 1965 on mental health and legal gounds as well as the mother common law rights as the sole legal guardian of her child? It did the rounds of all the hospitals in Oz as a warning to the hospitals to stop the practice or risk facing litigation. Di

>Subject: Re: Adopted a Baby and Have Questions About Our RightsFrom: LauraLewis1@msn.com (Laura Lewis)Date: 3/28/04 4:42 AM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <1a4c2bd3.0403280142.14c591f@posting.google.com>



OK. Who left the barn door open, again?

Dad

>Subject: Re: Adopted a Baby and Have Questions About Our RightsFrom: "geopelia" phildoran@xtra.co.nzDate: 3/28/04 7:28 AM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <Jvz9c.2795$Tf3.43578@news.xtra.co.nz>"Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in messagenews:9a095db9.0403271947.4f120bf1@posting.g oogle.com... "geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
How could yours be "stolen and sold"?

Imagination is a wonderful thing.
Did somebody forge your signature,

So is denial.
or were you drugged or drunk when you signed?

She ignores questions like these. Besides, it doesn't matter what Di did or
did not do way back when. It's what she's says NOW that counts. Who are you
to even question her?
Was the child kidnapped?

Kidnapped, stolen, and sold. Thank God he wasn't gassed with all the other
birthmothers at Auschwitz.
Or was there some kind of court order because of your age or unfitness to parent?

Psst, Geo, don't ask about her the courts, her parents involvement, whether
she signed, etc. etc. Birthfather... don't ever go there.
No need to answer, just think about what actually happened.

What does reality have to do with Diane?

Dad

>Subject: Re: Adopted a Baby and Have Questions About Our RightsFrom: LauraLewis1@msn.com (Laura Lewis)Date: 3/28/04 1:42 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <1a4c2bd3.0403280142.14c591f@posting.google.com>

(snip)
No doubt due to aggressive lobbying by adopters and their babybrokers,fighting for the rights of mothers.
What of the adoptees in Oz? Do they now go around with glazedexpressions, wondering to whom they should be grateful? If adoptionended in the U.S., it would deprive adoptees of one of the fewpastimes they are allowed to pursue without adult supervision:
Thanking their mothers for not killing them.And what of the mothers? Are they now breeding like rabbits andtossing their offspring into dumpsters when they tire of them,returning to the streets to sell dope and turn tricks?

(snip)
The American government cares so much about children that it askedcitizens on our last census if they'd adopted children. It didn't askthem if they had surrendered a child, or were adopted. Everyone here,including our legislators, knows adopters are the only trustworthyones, the only ones who are
genuine American citizens worth counting.
Our government is underwriting the babyselling industry now, promotingfamily separation to adolescents. It's not interested in children'swelfare or protection anymore. It farmed out that job to bigbusiness.
Laura

Mooooo, go stuff some grass in it.




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" <adoptadad@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040328095247.16057.00000217@mb-m04.aol.com...Subject: Re: Adopted a Baby and Have Questions About Our RightsFrom: "geopelia" phildoran@xtra.co.nzDate: 3/28/04 7:28 AM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <Jvz9c.2795$Tf3.43578@news.xtra.co.nz>"Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in messagenews:9a095db9.0403271947.4f120bf1@posting.g oogle.com... "geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message How could yours be "stolen and sold"? Imagination is a wonderful thing. > Did somebody forge your signature, So is denial. >or were you drugged or drunk when you signed? She ignores questions like these. Besides, it doesn't matter what Di
did or did not do way back when. It's what she's says NOW that counts. Who are
you to even question her?Was the child kidnapped? Kidnapped, stolen, and sold. Thank God he wasn't gassed with all the
other birthmothers at Auschwitz. > Or was there some kind of court order because of your age or > unfitness to parent? Psst, Geo, don't ask about her the courts, her parents involvement,
whether she signed, etc. etc. Birthfather... don't ever go there. > No need to answer, just think about what actually happened. What does reality have to do with Diane? Dad

She doesn't seem to have got over it, wish there was some way to help her.
It must have been a long time ago.
Geopelia

"Laura Lewis" <LauraLewis1@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1a4c2bd3.0403280142.14c591f@posting.google.co m...
What of the adoptees in Oz? Do they now go around with glazed expressions, wondering to whom they should be grateful?

Sheesh. You've such a low opinion of adopted people. As a class, we're so
insipid.


If adoption ended in the U.S., it would deprive adoptees of one of the few pastimes they are allowed to pursue without adult supervision: Thanking their mothers for not killing them.

Well, if adoption ended in the US, after a while there wouldn't be any
adoptees left to do as you hypothesize.

I see you have a penchant for sarcasm, but do you generally feel the adopted
population is as stupid and dependant as you depict above?

Jack

>Maybe you should parent a foster child, Diane? Have you ever thought aboutit? I bet it would change you in ways you never dreamed possible. It mighteven enable you to see things from a child's perspective.Dad


:::head to toe belly laugh::::

That's a good one, Dad.


P2P

LauraLewis writes:
You are so insensitive to adopters, Di, confronting them with thecrass economics of how their children were obtained. It's not theirfault that they're rich and powerful, and that others are poor andvulnerable. >>

Rich and powerful. LOL! Everyone's a comic today.


P2P

In article <1a4c2bd3.0403280048.7cc785d4@posting.google.com>,
LauraLewis1@msn.com (Laura Lewis) wrote:

How cynical you are! Over the years, generous and compassionate Americans have paid millions of dollars for the opportunity to provide food, shelter and medical care to young and poor mothers and their babies.


Yep, we did, something about, oh, what was it called, "The Great
Society" or something like that. Food and welfare for single moms,
Medicaid, public housing, yep, I do seem to recall something about that
in a sociology class.

Now they travel thousands of miles so they can deliver these necessities to the downtrodden inhabitants of other countries.


Missionaries do wonderful work, don't they?

Yer outta yer league 'round here, Laura :-)





steve

"geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:<Jvz9c.2795$Tf3.43578@news.xtra.co.nz>... "Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:9a095db9.0403271947.4f120bf1@posting.google.c om... "geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:<eDm9c.2085$Tf3.35239@news.xtra.co.nz>... "Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:9a095db9.0403270731.1ddc88ae@posting.google.c om... > "Ron Morgan" <rhyzome1@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<7Da9c.3427$lt2.1459@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.n et>... > > "Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message > > news:9a095db9.0403241720.73af5320@posting.google.c om... > > > "geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:<xP78c.14739$rw6.277178@news.xtra.co.nz>... > > > > "Linda Fortney" <lfortney@dc.umd.edu> wrote in message > > > > news:c3no7j$uhs@wolfe.umd.edu... > > > > > In article <steve-1F13FE.22105720032004@netnews.comcast.net>, > > > > > Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote: > > > > > >In article <9a095db9.0403201441.4b4dd53e@posting.google.com>, > > > > > > patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Adoption is the purchase and official ownership of one human being by > > > > > >> another, through an act of Govt legislation, just as slavery was. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >That's absolutely stupid. Adoption is not a purchase, nor is it > > > > > >ownership of a human being. It's a transfer in a legal status so as to > > > > > >have a child raised in another family with all the legal rights of being > > > > > >in that family. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nicely put, Steverino. We've been through this adoption=slavery debate so > > > > > often. Di has been unable to learn, despite the mountains of electrons > > > > > sent to her that such a comparision is ludicrous. Nor has she been able > > > > > to convince anyone who isn't a disciple of hers that adoption=slavery. > > > > > > > > > > We need to invent a subcategory of Godwin's Law. If anyone who refers to > > > > > the Holocaust as a simile or metaphor automatically loses the argument, > > > > > than anyone who uses slavery in a similar capacity also loses. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Linda > > > > > > > > > > PS I can figure out what "bint" means from context; I suppose it is > > > > > similar to one of my favorite perjorative terms "git," but does anyone > > > > > have a working definition of "bint?" > > > > > > > > "Bint" is the word we used in the Army for an Egyptian woman. I think it is > > > > just the Arabic for woman, nothing insulting in their language. Maybe it was > > > > meant to insult in our language if used to disparage a woman. > > > > > > > > Geopelia > > > > > > > > > Indeed it was. Shall I remind those who used it against both > > > Hippiechic and me next time they (ironically) and rather > > > hypocritically take the moral highground and abuse others for using > > > equally offensive terms such as "wetbacks" "Jews" etc? > > > > > > > The difference between you and me is that when someone who has better > > information or knowledge than I brings an offensive cultural usage to my > > attention I acknowledge it and move on. When folks point out the > > offensiveness of your analogy of US adoption and US historical slavery, you > > persist in digging yourself a deeper hole. > > > > Ron > > The difference between you and me is that you can't cope with other > people's > perspectives on adoption or its parallels to slavery, generally. Your > opinion is just that. Your opinion. As mine is mine. Your opinion > doesn't make you right, nor does it make mine wrong. And as somene who > had her child stolen and sold I am equally entitled to my opinion on > the matter as you are to yours. > In most countries the birth mother herself must sign something when a child is adopted. How could yours be "stolen and sold"? Did somebody forge your signature, or were you drugged or drunk when you signed? Was the child kidnapped? Or was there some kind of court order because of your age or unfitness to parent? No need to answer, just think about what actually happened. No need to think. My child was stolen at birth and I was forbidden to ever see him. What would you call it if not the theft of a child? He was then sold to his adopters for a fee under the guise of adoption. It was routine practice in most hospitals in Australia and elsewhere and had been proven to be an illegal practice through a NSW Parliamentary Inquiry. In New Zealand, you would have had to sign a form before the child could be adopted. Was this the same in Australia?

The children had already been stolen and hidden a week before the
mother signed. We were not allowed to leave the hospital until we
signed and we were FORBIDDEN to see our own children. That constitute
theft of a child by our laws which would be the same in NZ.

Mothers did not have access to the child to prevent bonding taking place, making relinquishing more difficult.
That makes it illegal unless the mother made the decision not to see
her own child herself. In Oz it was ROUTINE practice as part of our
ILLEGAL OZ WIDE
Departmental policy. It took until the early 1980s' for the
profession to question the illegality of the practice and put a stop
to it.

Today they may see the child if they wish, or even look after it at Bethany, and choose who adopts it. They can also find the child today once it is 18, unless a veto has been passed by the child or the birth mother. (Since 1986, the veto has not been available.) Opinions differ on which system is best.

Stuff professional opinions. They broke the friggin law and they will
pay for their crimes.

If you are still having difficulties with it, have you thought of counselling?

Are you serious?

Was the child part aboriginal, and taken without your consent?

Totally white. These crimes were committed against white mothers and
their children. 80,000 in NSW alone. And it's only recently been
exposed in the past few years.

Why didn't you read the quotes I've posted below?

Di

http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/Committee.nsf/0/56e4e53dfa16a 023ca256cfd002a63bc/$FILE/Report.PDF Read page 122 7.61 Justice Richard Chisholm agreed that the mother remained guardian of the child until she gave consent and that preventing her from having access to the child prior to the consent "would not have been authorised." 7.62 The Committee therefore believes that the practice of denying a mother access to her child prior to the signing of consent was unlawful. Those professionals who contributed to the process where access was denied were clearly acting unlawfully. 7.63 Whatever the rationale for the practice, the Committee believes that in all cases women should have been consulted about this issue prior to the birth and that a woman should not have been denied access to her child if she requested it. Therefore, failure to grant access constituted an unlawful and unethical action. Releasing the Past. Adoption Practices 1950-1998 Final Report. Page 104 [p122 on PDF] New South Wales Parliament. Legislative Council. Standing Committee on Social Issues: Adoption Practices 1950-1998 Final Report. Page 104 New South Wales Parliament. Legislative Council. Standing Committee on Social Issues (see Appendix 11) Hard copy still available through Parliament House. From the 2nd interim report of same Parliamentary inquiry. The Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield Evans: Can I ask why it is not kidnapping? Justice Chisholm: I cannot remember whether there is a separate crime called "kidnapping" and if there is, whether it contains something like "for gain" or something like that, but subject to that qualification, if one wanted to describe it as kidnapping in a non technical sense, that seems to me to be pretty right. It was certainly an unauthorised taking of the child. Adoption Practices 1950-1998 Second Interim Report. New South Wales Parliament. Legislative Council. Standing Committee on Social Issues: 25th October 1999. Room 814/815 Parliament House, Sydney. Richard Colin Chisholm, Judge of the Family Court, Family Court, affirmed and examined. Page 177-188 (see Appendix 10) From an earlier inquiry by the Human Rights Commission. "Adoption procedures have largely disregarded the rights of the parent considering relinquishment to be made aware of the alternative options to adoption, and to full and disinterested support in arriving at a decision. The many submissions received from natural mothers who relinquished children for adoption, describing their unresolved grief and sense of loss, bear testimony to the failure of bureaucratic procedures to protect their rights." Human Rights Commission Report No 23, November 1986, page 3 (see Appendix 6) Adoptions in Oz were illegal in every respect and our Govt is Sh***ing itself waiting for our next move. Would you also like the admission by the Health Commission in 1982 admitting to their practices as being illegal and having contravened the Adoption of Children Act 1965 on mental health and legal gounds as well as the mother common law rights as the sole legal guardian of her child? It did the rounds of all the hospitals in Oz as a warning to the hospitals to stop the practice or risk facing litigation. Di

meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in message news:<20040328130829.29433.00000221@mb-m11.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Adopted a Baby and Have Questions About Our RightsFrom: LauraLewis1@msn.com (Laura Lewis)Date: 3/28/04 1:42 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <1a4c2bd3.0403280142.14c591f@posting.google.com> (snip)No doubt due to aggressive lobbying by adopters and their babybrokers,fighting for the rights of mothers.What of the adoptees in Oz? Do they now go around with glazedexpressions, wondering to whom they should be grateful? If adoptionended in the U.S., it would deprive adoptees of one of the fewpastimes they are allowed to pursue without adult supervision:Thanking their mothers for not killing them.And what of the mothers? Are they now breeding like rabbits andtossing their offspring into dumpsters when they tire of them,returning to the streets to sell dope and turn tricks? (snip)The American government cares so much about children that it askedcitizens on our last census if they'd adopted children. It didn't askthem if they had surrendered a child, or were adopted. Everyone here,including our legislators, knows adopters are the only trustworthyones, the only ones who aregenuine American citizens worth counting.Our government is underwriting the babyselling industry now, promotingfamily separation to adolescents. It's not interested in children'swelfare or protection anymore. It farmed out that job to bigbusiness.Laura Mooooo, go stuff some grass in it.


Another scathing comeback from the birthdoggie...

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:<20040328095247.16057.00000217@mb-m04.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Adopted a Baby and Have Questions About Our RightsFrom: "geopelia" phildoran@xtra.co.nzDate: 3/28/04 7:28 AM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <Jvz9c.2795$Tf3.43578@news.xtra.co.nz>"Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in messagenews:9a095db9.0403271947.4f120bf1@posting.g oogle.com... "geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message How could yours be "stolen and sold"? Imagination is a wonderful thing. > Did somebody forge your signature, So is denial. >or were you drugged or drunk when you signed? She ignores questions like these. Besides, it doesn't matter what Di did or did not do way back when. It's what she's says NOW that counts. Who are you to even question her?Was the child kidnapped? Kidnapped, stolen, and sold. Thank God he wasn't gassed with all the other birthmothers at Auschwitz. > Or was there some kind of court order because of your age or > unfitness to parent? Psst, Geo, don't ask about her the courts, her parents involvement, whether she signed, etc. etc. Birthfather... don't ever go there. > No need to answer, just think about what actually happened. What does reality have to do with Diane? Dad

By all means do mock, ridicule, and poke fun at my loss of my family
through the theft of my child, Dad. As long as you understand that
that gives me carte blanche to mock, ridicule, and poke fun as your
sterility and non-functioning pecker as well as your wife's barren
womb. Deal?

Di

>Subject: Re: Adopted a Baby and Have Questions About Our RightsFrom: patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian)Date: 3/28/04 9:08 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <9a095db9.0403282108.53fa2a93@posting.google.com>adoptadad@aol.com (AdoptaDad) wrote in messagenews:<20040328095247.16057.00000217@mb-m04.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Adopted a Baby and Have Questions About Our RightsFrom: "geopelia" phildoran@xtra.co.nzDate: 3/28/04 7:28 AM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <Jvz9c.2795$Tf3.43578@news.xtra.co.nz>"Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in messagenews:9a095db9.0403271947.4f120bf1@posting.g oogle.com...> "geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message> How could yours be "stolen and sold"? Imagination is a wonderful thing.> > Did somebody forge your signature, So is denial.> >or were you drugged or drunk when you signed? She ignores questions like these. Besides, it doesn't matter what Di didor did not do way back when. It's what she's says NOW that counts. Who areyou to even question her?Was the child kidnapped? Kidnapped, stolen, and sold. Thank God he wasn't gassed with all theother birthmothers at Auschwitz.> > Or was there some kind of court order because of your age or> > unfitness to parent? Psst, Geo, don't ask about her the courts, her parents involvement,whether she signed, etc. etc. Birthfather... don't ever go there.> > No need to answer, just think about what actually happened. What does reality have to do with Diane? DadBy all means do mock, ridicule, and poke fun at my loss of my familythrough the theft of my child, Dad. As long as you understand thatthat gives me carte blanche to mock, ridicule, and poke fun as yoursterility and non-functioning pecker as well as your wife's barrenwomb. Deal?Di
You'd have probably done it anyhow. This 3rd grade, playground, he started it
first crap is very unbecoming Di.
Kathy, born Renee Karyn Racine

Permanent good can never be the outcome of untruth and violence.
--Mahatma Gandhi
Peace is not merely a distant goal that we seek, but a means by which we arrive
at that goal.
--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

LauraLewis1@msn.com (Laura Lewis) wrote These folks are so dedicated to providing services to the needy that they are taking out second mortgages on their homes. And because babies just happen to fall into their food baskets as they go about their charitable endeavors, you suggest they are buying children, and that others are selling them. How could you?

Quite clearly, Laura, these people have got it all wrong. These babies
from overseas, they should be left overseas to enjoy the comforts of
their own families and culture. If they don't have families to give
them access to the culture? One word. Omelettes. (Or should that be
omelets?)

Don't be deceived by all the stories about orphanages. Everyone knows
that it's far better for a child to be raised in an orphanage than be
raised by a wealthy American family. Or any American family,
especially one that actually wants a child.

And what's so bad about orphanages, anyway?
So what if some kids die? Doesn't everyone, sooner or later? It's not
like adoption is going to save all the needy children in the world,
why should we save any?

What is important is to live out one's own destiny, and everyone knows
how disruptive of destiny adoption is. Anyway, all that happens to
these saved kids is that they become rich, snotty Americans. With
ponies. Or Lexus cars.

Drop that kid! Now! Just put it down and walk away slowly.

Rupa

LauraLewis1@msn.com (Laura Lewis) wrote These folks are so dedicated to providing services to the needy that they are taking out second mortgages on their homes. And because babies just happen to fall into their food baskets as they go about their charitable endeavors, you suggest they are buying children, and that others are selling them. How could you?

Quite clearly, Laura, these people have got it all wrong. These babies
from overseas, they should be left overseas to enjoy the comforts of
their own families and culture. If they don't have families to give
them access to the culture? One word. Omelettes. (Or should that be
omelets?)

Don't be deceived by all the stories about orphanages. Everyone knows
that it's far better for a child to be raised in an orphanage than be
raised by a wealthy American family. Or any American family,
especially one that actually wants a child.

And what's so bad about orphanages, anyway?
So what if some kids die? Doesn't everyone, sooner or later? It's not
like adoption is going to save all the needy children in the world,
why should we save any?

What is important is to live out one's own destiny, and everyone knows
how disruptive of destiny adoption is. Anyway, all that happens to
these saved kids is that they become rich, snotty Americans. With
ponies. Or Lexus cars.

Drop that kid! Now! Just put it down and walk away slowly.

Rupa

LauraLewis1@msn.com (Laura Lewis) wrote in message news:<1a4c2bd3.0403280048.7cc785d4@posting.google.com>... patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote in message news:<9a095db9.0403241745.7024cf8f@posting.google.com>... lfortney@dc.umd.edu (Linda Fortney) wrote in message news:<c3nuv7$n4r@tracy.umd.edu>... In article <7f0dd552.0403220520.181ef177@posting.google.com>, Hippiechic <lily.fair@angelfire.com> wrote: > > You are the idiot you the one who does not the know the concept of >slavery and adoption is slavery I will say it one more time the >buying and selling of people and the buyer having absolute power over >the person who is bought amounts to slavery. As you have been told repeatedly, adoption fees pay for services. Lawyers, Social Workers et. al. have bills to pay, so they don't work for free. Say, Linda, was the child yours before you paid for the services? You are so insensitive to adopters, Di, confronting them with the crass economics of how their children were obtained. It's not their fault that they're rich and powerful, and that others are poor and vulnerable. Isn't it enough that they feel guilty and defensive about exploiting others' misery? Must you rub their noses in it? No I thought not. So in paying for the service fees you acquired a child you didn't own before the transaction occurred. That constitutes a sale. Much the same as going through the check out at a supermarket. Once you hand over your money (which covers overheads such as manufacturing costs, services, wages, and merchandise) you own those groceries that were not yours before the check out chick gave you your receipt as proof of purchase (see adoption order - same thing.) There are some things in the world that should morally never have a price tag on them. Children are one of them. How cynical you are! Over the years, generous and compassionate Americans have paid millions of dollars for the opportunity to provide food, shelter and medical care to young and poor mothers and their babies. Now they travel thousands of miles so they can deliver these necessities to the downtrodden inhabitants of other countries. These folks are so dedicated to providing services to the needy that they are taking out second mortgages on their homes. And because babies just happen to fall into their food baskets as they go about their charitable endeavors, you suggest they are buying children, and that others are selling them. How could you?

Is this a serious post or a wind-up?
Laura

"Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:9a095db9.0403282108.53fa2a93@posting.google.c om... adoptadad@aol.com (AdoptaDad) wrote in message
news:<20040328095247.16057.00000217@mb-m04.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Adopted a Baby and Have Questions About Our RightsFrom: "geopelia" phildoran@xtra.co.nzDate: 3/28/04 7:28 AM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <Jvz9c.2795$Tf3.43578@news.xtra.co.nz>"Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in messagenews:9a095db9.0403271947.4f120bf1@posting.g oogle.com...> "geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message> How could yours be "stolen and sold"? Imagination is a wonderful thing.> > Did somebody forge your signature, So is denial.> >or were you drugged or drunk when you signed? She ignores questions like these. Besides, it doesn't matter what Di
did or did not do way back when. It's what she's says NOW that counts. Who
are you to even question her?Was the child kidnapped? Kidnapped, stolen, and sold. Thank God he wasn't gassed with all the
other birthmothers at Auschwitz.

German Aryan women were encouraged to breed under Hitler, whether married or
single. Single women could go to the Lebensborn homes where they were found
male partners to conceive children by, and were looked after
during pregnancy and birth. This system was extended to the occupied
countries for women of the required type.
One of the ABBA pop group girls was a Lebensborn baby.

Unfortunately, after the war these half German children met with a great
deal of discrimination and, often, abuse, especially in Norway, although it
was in no way their fault.

Birthmothers would not have been gassed except as part of a blanket genocide
of racial "undesirables".> > Or was there some kind of court order because of your age or> > unfitness to parent? Psst, Geo, don't ask about her the courts, her parents involvement,
whether she signed, etc. etc. Birthfather... don't ever go there.> > No need to answer, just think about what actually happened. What does reality have to do with Diane? Dad By all means do mock, ridicule, and poke fun at my loss of my family through the theft of my child, Dad. As long as you understand that that gives me carte blanche to mock, ridicule, and poke fun as your sterility and non-functioning pecker as well as your wife's barren womb. Deal? Di

"Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:9a095db9.0403282036.7d4a66b3@posting.google.c om... "geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:<Jvz9c.2795$Tf3.43578@news.xtra.co.nz>... "Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:9a095db9.0403271947.4f120bf1@posting.google.c om... "geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:<eDm9c.2085$Tf3.35239@news.xtra.co.nz>... > "Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message > news:9a095db9.0403270731.1ddc88ae@posting.google.c om... > > "Ron Morgan" <rhyzome1@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<7Da9c.3427$lt2.1459@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.n et>... > > > "Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message > > > news:9a095db9.0403241720.73af5320@posting.google.c om... > > > > "geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:<xP78c.14739$rw6.277178@news.xtra.co.nz>... > > > > > "Linda Fortney" <lfortney@dc.umd.edu> wrote in message > > > > > news:c3no7j$uhs@wolfe.umd.edu... > > > > > > In article
<steve-1F13FE.22105720032004@netnews.comcast.net>, > > > > > > Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote: > > > > > > >In article
<9a095db9.0403201441.4b4dd53e@posting.google.com>, > > > > > > > patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Adoption is the purchase and official ownership of one human > being > by > > > > > > >> another, through an act of Govt legislation, just as slavery was. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >That's absolutely stupid. Adoption is not a purchase, nor
is it > > > > > > >ownership of a human being. It's a transfer in a legal
status so > as > to > > > > > > >have a child raised in another family with all the legal rights > of > being > > > > > > >in that family. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nicely put, Steverino. We've been through this adoption=slavery debate so > > > > > > often. Di has been unable to learn, despite the mountains
of electrons > > > > > > sent to her that such a comparision is ludicrous. Nor has
she > been > able > > > > > > to convince anyone who isn't a disciple of hers that adoption=slavery. > > > > > > > > > > > > We need to invent a subcategory of Godwin's Law. If
anyone who > refers > to > > > > > > the Holocaust as a simile or metaphor automatically loses
the argument, > > > > > > than anyone who uses slavery in a similar capacity also
loses. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Linda > > > > > > > > > > > > PS I can figure out what "bint" means from context; I
suppose it is > > > > > > similar to one of my favorite perjorative terms "git," but does anyone > > > > > > have a working definition of "bint?" > > > > > > > > > > "Bint" is the word we used in the Army for an Egyptian
woman. I > think it > is > > > > > just the Arabic for woman, nothing insulting in their
language. > Maybe it > was > > > > > meant to insult in our language if used to disparage a
woman. > > > > > > > > > > Geopelia > > > > > > > > > > > > Indeed it was. Shall I remind those who used it against both > > > > Hippiechic and me next time they (ironically) and rather > > > > hypocritically take the moral highground and abuse others for using > > > > equally offensive terms such as "wetbacks" "Jews" etc? > > > > > > > > > > The difference between you and me is that when someone who has better > > > information or knowledge than I brings an offensive cultural
usage to my > > > attention I acknowledge it and move on. When folks point out the > > > offensiveness of your analogy of US adoption and US historical slavery, you > > > persist in digging yourself a deeper hole. > > > > > > Ron > > > > The difference between you and me is that you can't cope with
other > > people's > > perspectives on adoption or its parallels to slavery, generally.
Your > > opinion is just that. Your opinion. As mine is mine. Your opinion > > doesn't make you right, nor does it make mine wrong. And as somene
who > > had her child stolen and sold I am equally entitled to my opinion
on > > the matter as you are to yours. > > > In most countries the birth mother herself must sign something when
a child > is adopted. How could yours be "stolen and sold"? > Did somebody forge your signature, or were you drugged or drunk when
you > signed? Was the child kidnapped? > Or was there some kind of court order because of your age or
unfitness to > parent? > > No need to answer, just think about what actually happened. > No need to think. My child was stolen at birth and I was forbidden to ever see him. What would you call it if not the theft of a child? He was then sold to his adopters for a fee under the guise of adoption. It was routine practice in most hospitals in Australia and elsewhere and had been proven to be an illegal practice through a NSW Parliamentary Inquiry. In New Zealand, you would have had to sign a form before the child could
be adopted. Was this the same in Australia? The children had already been stolen and hidden a week before the mother signed. We were not allowed to leave the hospital until we signed and we were FORBIDDEN to see our own children. That constitute theft of a child by our laws which would be the same in NZ.

In New Zealand, single women could keep the child if they wanted to, but
without the DPB it would have been very difficult. The child would often end
up in foster care. They were advised to sign, but could not be forced to.
Young girls did as their parents wished, of course. Mothers did not have access to the child to prevent bonding taking
place, making relinquishing more difficult. That makes it illegal unless the mother made the decision not to see her own child herself. In Oz it was ROUTINE practice as part of our ILLEGAL OZ WIDE Departmental policy. It took until the early 1980s' for the profession to question the illegality of the practice and put a stop to it.

The problem with allowing the mother to have contact with the baby is that
she may change her mind and decide to keep it, even though she is unable to
look after it properly. The poor kid ends up shunted around various foster
homes instead of having a stable adoptive family. Today they may see the child if they wish, or even look after it at
Bethany, and choose who adopts it. They can also find the child today once it is 18, unless a veto has been passed by the child or the birth mother. (Since 1986, the veto has not been available.) Opinions differ on which system is best. Stuff professional opinions. They broke the friggin law and they will pay for their crimes. If you are still having difficulties with it, have you thought of counselling? Are you serious?

Yes, you seem to need it. You don't seem to have got over it yet, and it
must be many years ago now. Was the child part aboriginal, and taken without your consent? Totally white. These crimes were committed against white mothers and their children. 80,000 in NSW alone. And it's only recently been exposed in the past few years. Why didn't you read the quotes I've posted below? Di
I did.
All this new retrospective legislation here in New Zealand is just opening
up a can of worms. Unless mother and child both wish to meet, why not let
well alone?
They talk about the "rights" of the child and the birth mother, but what of
the people who have raised and loved the child as their own? Their rights
should have at least equal value.

Would you want to take the child you gave birth to away from the only home
it has known and the people it loves? Could you really be so selfish?
http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/Committee.nsf/0/56e4e53dfa16a 023ca256cfd002a63bc/$FILE/Report.PDF Read page 122 7.61 Justice Richard Chisholm agreed that the mother remained guardian of the child until she gave consent and that preventing her from having access to the child prior to the consent "would not have been authorised." 7.62 The Committee therefore believes that the practice of denying a mother access to her child prior to the signing of consent was unlawful. Those professionals who contributed to the process where access was denied were clearly acting unlawfully. 7.63 Whatever the rationale for the practice, the Committee believes that in all cases women should have been consulted about this issue prior to the birth and that a woman should not have been denied access to her child if she requested it. Therefore, failure to grant access constituted an unlawful and unethical action. Releasing the Past. Adoption Practices 1950-1998 Final Report. Page 104 [p122 on PDF] New South Wales Parliament. Legislative Council. Standing Committee on Social Issues: Adoption Practices 1950-1998 Final Report. Page 104 New South Wales Parliament. Legislative Council. Standing Committee on Social Issues (see Appendix 11) Hard copy still available through Parliament House. From the 2nd interim report of same Parliamentary inquiry. The Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield Evans: Can I ask why it is not kidnapping? Justice Chisholm: I cannot remember whether there is a separate crime called "kidnapping" and if there is, whether it contains something like "for gain" or something like that, but subject to that qualification, if one wanted to describe it as kidnapping in a non technical sense, that seems to me to be pretty right. It was certainly an unauthorised taking of the child. Adoption Practices 1950-1998 Second Interim Report. New South Wales Parliament. Legislative Council. Standing Committee on Social Issues: 25th October 1999. Room 814/815 Parliament House, Sydney. Richard Colin Chisholm, Judge of the Family Court, Family Court, affirmed and examined. Page 177-188 (see Appendix 10) From an earlier inquiry by the Human Rights Commission. "Adoption procedures have largely disregarded the rights of the parent considering relinquishment to be made aware of the alternative options to adoption, and to full and disinterested support in arriving at a decision. The many submissions received from natural mothers who relinquished children for adoption, describing their unresolved grief and sense of loss, bear testimony to the failure of bureaucratic procedures to protect their rights." Human Rights Commission Report No 23, November 1986, page 3 (see Appendix 6) Adoptions in Oz were illegal in every respect and our Govt is Sh***ing itself waiting for our next move. Would you also like the admission by the Health Commission in 1982 admitting to their practices as being illegal and having contravened the Adoption of Children Act 1965 on mental health and legal gounds as well as the mother common law rights as the sole legal guardian of her child? It did the rounds of all the hospitals in Oz as a warning to the hospitals to stop the practice or risk facing litigation. Di

>Subject: Re: Adopted a Baby and Have Questions About Our RightsFrom: patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian)Date: 3/29/04 12:08 AM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <9a095db9.0403282108.53fa2a93@posting.google.com>adoptadad@aol.com (AdoptaDad) wrote in messagenews:<20040328095247.16057.00000217@mb-m04.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Adopted a Baby and Have Questions About Our RightsFrom: "geopelia" phildoran@xtra.co.nzDate: 3/28/04 7:28 AM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <Jvz9c.2795$Tf3.43578@news.xtra.co.nz>"Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in messagenews:9a095db9.0403271947.4f120bf1@posting.g oogle.com...> "geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message> How could yours be "stolen and sold"? Imagination is a wonderful thing.> > Did somebody forge your signature, So is denial.> >or were you drugged or drunk when you signed? She ignores questions like these. Besides, it doesn't matter what Di didor did not do way back when. It's what she's says NOW that counts. Who areyou to even question her?Was the child kidnapped? Kidnapped, stolen, and sold. Thank God he wasn't gassed with all theother birthmothers at Auschwitz.> > Or was there some kind of court order because of your age or> > unfitness to parent? Psst, Geo, don't ask about her the courts, her parents involvement,whether she signed, etc. etc. Birthfather... don't ever go there.> > No need to answer, just think about what actually happened. What does reality have to do with Diane? DadBy all means do mock, ridicule, and poke fun at my lossof my family through the theft of my child, Dad.

Oh boo-hoo, Diane. You mock, ridicule, and demean families formed by
adoption with every post you author. You didn't start with me, and it won't
end with me.
As long as you understand that that gives me carte blancheto mock, ridicule, and poke fun as your sterility and non-functioning >pecker
as well as your wife's barren womb. Deal?

Hmm... must have hit a nerve. What was it? The questions about your
parents... or about your son's biofather?

I was just asking for clarification, given your trouble with the generally
accepted meaning of words like "kidnap", "stolen", or even "slavery".

Dad

reneekarynracine@aol.comhomesafe (Kathy T) wrote in message news:<20040329002949.05541.00000214@mb-m25.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Adopted a Baby and Have Questions About Our RightsFrom: patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian)Date: 3/28/04 9:08 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <9a095db9.0403282108.53fa2a93@posting.google.com>adoptadad@aol.com (AdoptaDad) wrote in messagenews:<20040328095247.16057.00000217@mb-m04.aol.com>... >Subject: Re: Adopted a Baby and Have Questions About Our Rights >From: "geopelia" phildoran@xtra.co.nz >Date: 3/28/04 7:28 AM Eastern Standard Time >Message-id: <Jvz9c.2795$Tf3.43578@news.xtra.co.nz> > > >"Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message >news:9a095db9.0403271947.4f120bf1@posting.google.c om... >> "geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message >> How could yours be "stolen and sold"? Imagination is a wonderful thing. >> > Did somebody forge your signature, So is denial. >> >or were you drugged or drunk when you signed? She ignores questions like these. Besides, it doesn't matter what Di did or did not do way back when. It's what she's says NOW that counts. Who are you to even question her? >Was the child kidnapped? Kidnapped, stolen, and sold. Thank God he wasn't gassed with all the other birthmothers at Auschwitz. >> > Or was there some kind of court order because of your age or >> > unfitness to parent? Psst, Geo, don't ask about her the courts, her parents involvement, whether she signed, etc. etc. Birthfather... don't ever go there. >> > No need to answer, just think about what actually happened. What does reality have to do with Diane? DadBy all means do mock, ridicule, and poke fun at my loss of my familythrough the theft of my child, Dad. As long as you understand thatthat gives me carte blanche to mock, ridicule, and poke fun as yoursterility and non-functioning pecker as well as your wife's barrenwomb. Deal?Di You'd have probably done it anyhow. This 3rd grade, playground, he started it first crap is very unbecoming Di. Kathy, born Renee Karyn Racine

Your prejudice is showing. And you oppose racism you say? Sure.

Di









Permanent good can never be the outcome of untruth and violence. --Mahatma Gandhi Peace is not merely a distant goal that we seek, but a means by which we arrive at that goal. --Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

>Subject: Re: Adopted a Baby and Have Questions About Our RightsFrom: patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian)Date: 3/29/2004 7:45 AM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <9a095db9.0403290445.38265a0f@posting.google.com>

< snip >
By all means do mock, ridicule, and poke fun at my loss of my familythrough the theft of my child, Dad. As long as you understand thatthat gives me carte blanche to mock, ridicule, and poke fun as yoursterility and non-functioning pecker as well as your wife's barrenwomb. Deal?Di

I always wanted a "first class prick" like Gary. Bummer.
You'd have probably done it anyhow. This 3rd grade, playground, he started it first crap is very unbecoming Di. Kathy, born Renee Karyn RacineYour prejudice is showing. And you oppose racism you say? Sure.

< chuckle >

Here, let me help you. When used in conjunction with racism, "prejudice" can
be defined as "an irrational attitude of hostility directed against a group, a
race, or their supposed characteristics."

When it comes to adoptive families (especially aparents), the word prejudice
fits you like a glove. If you're having trouble with understanding this, look
up the word "bigot", snookums.

Dad












Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Latin praejudicium previous
judgment, damage, from prae- + judicium judgment —more at JUDICIAL
Date: 13th century
1 : injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in
disregard of one's rights; especially : detriment to one's legal rights or
claims
2 a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning
formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b : an instance of
such judgment or opinion c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed
against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics

>Subject: Re: Adopted a Baby and Have Questions About Our RightsFrom: lily.fair@angelfire.com (Hippiechic)Date: 3/29/04 1:57 AM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <7f0dd552.0403290057.46d6a60b@posting.google.com>
LauraLewis1@msn.com (Laura Lewis) wrote in messagenews:<1a4c2bd3.0403280048.7cc785d4@posting.google.com>...
These folks are so dedicated to providing services to the needy that they are taking out second mortgages on their homes. And because babies just happen to fall into their food baskets as they go about their charitable endeavors, you suggest they are buying children, and that others are selling them. How could you?Is this a serious post or a wind-up?

Laura winds herself up quite frequently.


-------------------------
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: Adopted a Baby and Have Questions About Our RightsFrom: patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian)Date: 3/29/04 4:45 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <9a095db9.0403290445.38265a0f@posting.google.com>reneekarynracine@aol.comhomesafe (Kathy T) wrote in messagenews:<20040329002949.05541.00000214@mb-m25.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Adopted a Baby and Have Questions About Our RightsFrom: patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian)Date: 3/28/04 9:08 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <9a095db9.0403282108.53fa2a93@posting.google.com>adoptadad@aol.com (AdoptaDad) wrote in messagenews:<20040328095247.16057.00000217@mb-m04.aol.com>...> >Subject: Re: Adopted a Baby and Have Questions About Our Rights> >From: "geopelia" phildoran@xtra.co.nz> >Date: 3/28/04 7:28 AM Eastern Standard Time> >Message-id: <Jvz9c.2795$Tf3.43578@news.xtra.co.nz>> >> >> >"Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message> >news:9a095db9.0403271947.4f120bf1@posting.google.c om...> >> "geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message> >> How could yours be "stolen and sold"?>> Imagination is a wonderful thing.>> >> > Did somebody forge your signature,>> So is denial.>> >> >or were you drugged or drunk when you signed?>> She ignores questions like these. Besides, it doesn't matter what Didid or> did not do way back when. It's what she's says NOW that counts. Whoare you> to even question her?>> >Was the child kidnapped?>> Kidnapped, stolen, and sold. Thank God he wasn't gassed with all the other> birthmothers at Auschwitz.>> >> > Or was there some kind of court order because of your age or> >> > unfitness to parent?>> Psst, Geo, don't ask about her the courts, her parents involvement, whether> she signed, etc. etc. Birthfather... don't ever go there.>> >> > No need to answer, just think about what actually happened.>> What does reality have to do with Diane?>> DadBy all means do mock, ridicule, and poke fun at my loss of my familythrough the theft of my child, Dad. As long as you understand thatthat gives me carte blanche to mock, ridicule, and poke fun as yoursterility and non-functioning pecker as well as your wife's barrenwomb. Deal?Di You'd have probably done it anyhow. This 3rd grade, playground, he startedit first crap is very unbecoming Di. Kathy, born Renee Karyn RacineYour prejudice is showing. And you oppose racism you say? Sure.Di

Explain what I am prejudiced against, please. I could use the education. Just
because I have no respect for your blanket disdain for adoptive parents does
not make me prejudice, BTW. Then, further explain to me what a supposed
prejudice towards anyone in the adoption triad could possibly have to do with
racism?

I have a birth family, I have an adoptive family. I happen to love and care
about both. Foreign concept to you.


Permanent good can never be the outcome of untruth and violence. --Mahatma Gandhi Peace is not merely a distant goal that we seek, but a means by which wearrive at that goal. --Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Kathy, born Renee Karyn Racine

Permanent good can never be the outcome of untruth and violence.
--Mahatma Gandhi
Peace is not merely a distant goal that we seek, but a means by which we arrive
at that goal.
--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

"geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:<39U9c.3875$Tf3.62501@news.xtra.co.nz>... "Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:9a095db9.0403282036.7d4a66b3@posting.google.c om... The children had already been stolen and hidden a week before the mother signed. We were not allowed to leave the hospital until we signed and we were FORBIDDEN to see our own children. That constitute theft of a child by our laws which would be the same in NZ. In New Zealand, single women could keep the child if they wanted to, but without the DPB it would have been very difficult. The child would often end up in foster care. They were advised to sign, but could not be forced to. Young girls did as their parents wished, of course.

They also did what social workers and doctors demanded of them too.
Mothers did not have access to the child to prevent bonding taking place, making relinquishing more difficult. That makes it illegal unless the mother made the decision not to see her own child herself. In Oz it was ROUTINE practice as part of our ILLEGAL OZ WIDE Departmental policy. It took until the early 1980s' for the profession to question the illegality of the practice and put a stop to it. The problem with allowing the mother to have contact with the baby is that she may change her mind and decide to keep it,

That's right. She might have kept it had she been "allowed" to see it.
And you don't see that as the theft of her child?


even though she is unable to look after it properly.

Assumption on your part.

The poor kid ends up shunted around various foster homes instead of having a stable adoptive family.

You saviour you. Shall I worship at your shrine? Typical adopter. BTW,
there was financial support for single mothers. It amounted to the
same support widows got, less one dollar. It was people like you who
worked in the business, as you no doubt did, who made it their
business not to let them know about it.
Because that would have given then the choice of keeping and that just
wouldn't do would it? Today they may see the child if they wish, or even look after it at Bethany, and choose who adopts it. They can also find the child today once it is 18, unless a veto has been passed by the child or the birth mother. (Since 1986, the veto has not been available.) Opinions differ on which system is best. Stuff professional opinions. They broke the friggin law and they will pay for their crimes. If you are still having difficulties with it, have you thought of counselling? Are you serious? Yes, you seem to need it. You don't seem to have got over it yet, and it must be many years ago now.

I've got news for you and it's all bad. As much as you wish it weren't
so,
most mothers don't get over the forced removal and permanent loss of
their living child. Oh and by the way, while the theft of my son
began many
years ago he wasn't restored to me. So the theft is still very much in
progress as is the loss.

Was the child part aboriginal, and taken without your consent? Totally white. These crimes were committed against white mothers and their children. 80,000 in NSW alone. And it's only recently been exposed in the past few years. Why didn't you read the quotes I've posted below? Di I did. All this new retrospective legislation here in New Zealand is just opening up a can of worms. Unless mother and child both wish to meet, why not let well alone? They talk about the "rights" of the child and the birth mother, but what of the people who have raised and loved the child as their own? Their rights should have at least equal value.

What on earth did you read? None of what I posted has to do with
retrospective legislation or open records. Nor was it about taking a
child from its adopters.
It was about our Govt finally acknowledging through a Parliamentary
Inquiry
that our adoption practices (and therefore yours in NZ) were illegal
and that our children were effectively stolen off us. Are you so
blinded by the denial of reality that you are unable to even focus on
the written word let alone comprehend anything shows adoption up for
what really going on? Doe sit traumatise your senses to read the truth
that you have to shut it out?

Would you want to take the child you gave birth to away from the only home it has known and the people it loves?

I knew it. I could pick you as an adopter/babybroker a mile away. Only
adopters use those pathetic blackmail tactics. And a delusional one at
that if you believe all adoptees love their adopters.
Could you really be so selfish?

What's the matter Geo, afraid the kids might finally learn the dirty
historical truth behind their adoptions? Did you tell your adopted
kids that their mothers weren't allowed to even see them and that
society refused to support their mothers so they didn't have to be
adopted out to strangers? If not, why not? How do you think hearing
the truth would have affected those children as children?

Moreover, could you really be so selfish as to deprive a mother of her
stolen just because you, as its adopter, expect the child to be loyal
solely to you and meet your every need because you did afterall adopt
it for that purpose?

http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/Committee.nsf/0/56e4e53dfa16a 023ca256cfd002a63bc/$FILE/Report.PDF > > Read page 122 > > 7.61 Justice Richard Chisholm agreed that the mother remained > guardian of the child until she gave consent and that preventing her > from having access to the child prior to the consent "would not have > been authorised." > > 7.62 The Committee therefore believes that the practice of denying a > mother access to her child prior to the signing of consent was > unlawful. Those professionals who contributed to the process where > access was denied were clearly acting unlawfully. > > 7.63 Whatever the rationale for the practice, the Committee believes > that in all cases women should have been consulted about this issue > prior to the birth and that a woman should not have been denied > access to her child if she requested it. Therefore, failure to grant > access constituted an unlawful and unethical action. Releasing the > Past. Adoption Practices 1950-1998 Final Report. Page 104 [p122 on > PDF] New South Wales Parliament. Legislative Council. Standing > Committee on Social Issues: Adoption Practices 1950-1998 Final Report. > Page 104 New South Wales Parliament. Legislative Council. Standing > Committee on Social Issues (see Appendix 11) Hard copy still > available through Parliament House. > > From the 2nd interim report of same Parliamentary inquiry. > > The Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield Evans: Can I ask why it is not kidnapping? > > Justice Chisholm: I cannot remember whether there is a separate crime > called "kidnapping" and if there is, whether it contains something > like "for gain" or something like that, but subject to that > qualification, if one wanted to describe it as kidnapping in a non > technical sense, that seems to me to be pretty right. It was certainly > an unauthorised taking of the child. Adoption Practices 1950-1998 > Second Interim Report. New South Wales Parliament. Legislative > Council. Standing Committee on Social Issues: 25th October 1999. Room > 814/815 Parliament House, Sydney. Richard Colin Chisholm, Judge of the > Family Court, Family Court, affirmed and examined. Page 177-188 (see > Appendix 10) > > > From an earlier inquiry by the Human Rights Commission. > > "Adoption procedures have largely disregarded the rights of the parent > considering relinquishment to be made aware of the alternative > options to adoption, and to full and disinterested support in arriving > at a decision. The many submissions received from natural mothers > who relinquished children for adoption, describing their unresolved > grief and sense of loss, bear testimony to the failure of > bureaucratic procedures to protect their rights." Human Rights > Commission Report No 23, November 1986, page 3 (see Appendix 6) > > Adoptions in Oz were illegal in every respect and our Govt is Sh***ing > itself waiting for our next move. > > Would you also like the admission by the Health Commission in 1982 > admitting to their practices as being illegal and having contravened > the Adoption of Children Act 1965 on mental health and legal gounds as > well as the mother common law rights as the sole legal guardian of her > child? It did the rounds of all the hospitals in Oz as a warning to > the hospitals to stop the practice or risk facing litigation. > > > Di

LauraLewis1@msn.com (Laura Lewis) wrote in message news:<1a4c2bd3.0403280142.14c591f@posting.google.com>... patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote in message news:<9a095db9.0403250541.239fa8e1@posting.google.com>... Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message news:<steve-B7B2F9.21584024032004@netnews.comcast.net>... In article <9a095db9.0403241745.7024cf8f@posting.google.com>, patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote: > > As you have been told repeatedly, adoption fees pay for services. > > Lawyers, Social Workers et. al. have bills to pay, so they don't > > work for free. > > > > Say, Linda, was the child yours before you paid for the services? No > I thought not. So in paying for the service fees you acquired a child > you didn't own before the transaction occurred. That constitutes a > sale. Much the same as going through the check out at a supermarket. > Once you hand over your money (which covers overheads such as > manufacturing costs, services, wages, and merchandise) you own those > groceries that were not yours before the check out chick gave you > your receipt as proof of purchase (see adoption order - same thing.) > > There are some things in the world that should morally never have a > price tag on them. Children are one of them. Do you seriously argue this position when you "debate" in Oz-land? Meet with legislators? Offer public testimony? No, didn't need to. Adoption was almost over by the time I emerged. No doubt due to aggressive lobbying by adopters and their babybrokers, fighting for the rights of mothers.
of course! They simply insisted that we be brought back from the dead
so that their children could exercize their human right to know who
they were.

What of the adoptees in Oz? Do they now go around with glazed expressions, wondering to whom they should be grateful?

Well of course:-)

If adoption ended in the U.S., it would deprive adoptees of one of the few pastimes they are allowed to pursue without adult supervision: Thanking their mothers for not killing them.

Yep. It's all such a joke. I mean that in the most facetious way.









And what of the mothers? Are they now breeding like rabbits and tossing their offspring into dumpsters when they tire of them, returning to the streets to sell dope and turn tricks?
Oh all the time. We have such a constant stream of one abandoned baby
every few years it's hard to keep count.

Do you really push the "adoption=slavery" nonsense in places where it might harm your cause? Nope, only in the US. It's been illegal to financially profit from any local adoption since 1965 here. The way everyone has their fingers in the till in the US is something no other civilised country would tolerate. Your Govt can't even be bothered keeping stats on the number of US children being adopted let alone regulate standards of practice. It doesn't say much for your Govt's interest in the welfare or protection of its children does it! Still, it keeps me fascinated. steve The American government cares so much about children that it asked citizens on our last census if they'd adopted children.

So I hear. The first ever attempt at gathering figures. It must be
such an embarrassment to have to consider the children 120 years after
the horse has bolted.


It didn't ask them if they had surrendered a child, or were adopted. Everyone here, including our legislators, knows adopters are the only trustworthy ones, the only ones who are genuine American citizens worth counting.

Indeedy. They would never lie and pretend the child was born to them
would they?
Our government is underwriting the babyselling industry now, promoting family separation to adolescents.

So I hear. No coercion there of course. No ulterior motive to snatch
more babies to replenish dwindling stock so that your local baby
traffickers may earn a living. Free trade and all that.
It's not interested in children's welfare or protection anymore.It farmed out that job to big business.

And rightly so. It's no small feat having to protect PAP's from the
crisis of a life worse than death. Someone has to save them.




Laura

>Subject: Re: Adopted a Baby and Have Questions About Our RightsFrom: LauraLewis1@msn.com (Laura Lewis)Date: 3/28/04 8:49 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <1a4c2bd3.0403282049.36f985e5@posting.google.com>meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in messagenews:<20040328130829.29433.00000221@mb-m11.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Adopted a Baby and Have Questions About Our RightsFrom: LauraLewis1@msn.com (Laura Lewis)Date: 3/28/04 1:42 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <1a4c2bd3.0403280142.14c591f@posting.google.com> (snip)No doubt due to aggressive lobbying by adopters and their babybrokers,fighting for the rights of mothers.What of the adoptees in Oz? Do they now go around with glazedexpressions, wondering to whom they should be grateful? If adoptionended in the U.S., it would deprive adoptees of one of the fewpastimes they are allowed to pursue without adult supervision:Thanking their mothers for not killing them.And what of the mothers? Are they now breeding like rabbits andtossing their offspring into dumpsters when they tire of them,returning to the streets to sell dope and turn tricks? (snip)The American government cares so much about children that it askedcitizens on our last census if they'd adopted children. It didn't askthem if they had surrendered a child, or were adopted. Everyone here,including our legislators, knows adopters are the only trustworthyones, the only ones who aregenuine American citizens worth counting.Our government is underwriting the babyselling industry now, promotingfamily separation to adolescents. It's not interested in children'swelfare or protection anymore. It farmed out that job to bigbusiness.Laura Mooooo, go stuff some grass in it.Another scathing comeback from

the birthdoggie...>

The birthdoggie? You're projecting.








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:<c4I9c.68052$WQ3.5467@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>... "Laura Lewis" <LauraLewis1@msn.com> wrote in message news:1a4c2bd3.0403280142.14c591f@posting.google.co m... What of the adoptees in Oz? Do they now go around with glazed expressions, wondering to whom they should be grateful? Sheesh. You've such a low opinion of adopted people. As a class, we're so insipid.

You asked for it, Jack, so I'm telling it as I see it.

I don't have a low opinion of adopted people. I have a low opinion of
adoption, and what it does to them. Adoptees themselves, including
psychiatrist Robert Andersen, have observed that adoptees tend to be
meek and submissive. They've taken a seat at the back of the bus.
I'm only repeating the obvious. Also, if you'll notice, my sarcasm
extends to other members of the adoption so-called triad.

Most adoptees I've met were no more or less insipid than most mothers
who surrendered children, and most adopters. That's why a relatively
small number of activists in the U.S. are still tagging along behind
our billion-dollar babyselling industry and its high-priced lobbyists.
Many are afraid to take the offensive and demand an end to all
unethical adoption practices, not just the sealing of records. When
people are willing to settle for crumbs, that's all they'll get.

Open records are a crumb thrown to starving people and a bandaid on an
amputation. Most arguments used to obtain access to records
presuppose that adoption will continue to be practiced unethically,
with no real accountability on the part of agencies and facilitators.
What does opening records to adults do to protect children from being
bought, sold and abused? What does it do to protect mothers from
being lied to and exploited?

Why do so many adoptees act as if it were radical to promote honest
counseling and family preservation over adoption separation?
Intelligent and outspoken adoptees and child welfare experts have
openly condemned this, so those who think natural mothers shouldn't
condemn it had better open their eyes. Many mothers defrauded of
their children were and are minors, younger than most activist
adoptees are now. Our outrage is justified. Our civil and human
rights were and are trammeled, but this is tolerated and viewed as a
minor concern. It is not, not for us. If our rights hadn't been
trammeled, if adoption weren't a business here, records would have
been opened decades ago as in other advanced countries.

Thousands of people are searching and having reunions, but when it
comes time to speak out and fight to change the system, most sit on
their duffs. They're passive and seem unable or unwilling to look at
the big picture, or take risks in pursuit of justice. Most are quite
short-sighted and afraid to take a stand on adoption as an
institution. They're looking out for #1, to hell with everyone else.
For example, how many adoptees or natural mothers or adopters openly
protest unethical adoption counseling, falsified vital records and the
selling of children? Not "services," children. These are fundamental
aspects of American adoption and those unwilling to take a stand
against these abuses perpetuate them by remaining silent, and by
attacking those of us who *are* willing to take a stand.

If adoption ended in the U.S., it would deprive adoptees of one of the few pastimes they are allowed to pursue without adult supervision: Thanking their mothers for not killing them. Well, if adoption ended in the US, after a while there wouldn't be any adoptees left to do as you hypothesize.

Adoption is ending here, though more slowly than in other countries.
I look forward to the day when there are no more adoptees, only
citizens with exactly the same rights as everyone else who happened to
be raised by people other than their natural parents, and then only
when necessary.

Ideally, there should be no need for adoption, or war, or any other
traumatic experience in people's lives that could be prevented if
human beings simply loved and accepted one another. Most adoptions
result from poverty, ignorance and greed. Poverty and ignorance are
fixable. Greed needn't be satisfied; it can be safely ignored.
Americans in general haven't got that one down yet.

I see you have a penchant for sarcasm, but do you generally feel the adopted population is as stupid and dependant as you depict above? Jack

I don't think they're stupid. I do think most are overly dependent
and rather timid. Adoptees have said this themselves. They're afraid
of upsetting the applecart. They "parent" their own adopters growing
up. They feel responsible for their adopters' feelings, seldom
realizing that no one is responsible for another's happiness, least of
all a child. They live as if they are treading on eggshells.
Adoption forces them to assume this burden, and many become accustomed
to carrying it. That doesn't make it healthy or right. The same
applies to many natural mothers, who are ever so grateful when
adopters are even decent to them.

Children reared by their natural parents might feel this way, too, but
most outgrow it. They have a sense of security that I believe most
adoptees do not share. I think adoption stunts people's emotional
growth, and that applies to all parties. It makes them fearful and
dishonest with themselves and others. Adoption's a symptom of a sick
society, not a cure for anything.

I feel violated when I hear adoptees thanking their mothers for not
aborting them, and claiming we signed some sort of "contract." We
American mothers hear this continually. Our children are taught that
we would have aborted them or failed as mothers had adoption not been
available and encouraged, and that we made willing, informed decisions
to abandon them. Even our legislators spew these despicable lies.
This is emotional child abuse, and cruelty to mothers. The sooner it
all ends, the better.

If adoptees want mothers who willingly signed contracts to abandon
them, who passively accept the fact that they and their children were
and are treated unjustly, who feel no disgust and outrage about this
legalized insanity, they might as well adjust to being treated like
dogs. I don't see many women like this fighting for adoptees' rights,
but I'm sure you can find some if that's what you want.

Florence Fisher once advised me that we natural mothers should "be
more ladylike." Bill Pierce once lectured me to be "more
professional." In other words, we should sit passively by and allow
adoptees, babybrokers and adopters to misrepresent us. We should
approve of adoption, and others' quick-fix solutions. We can't and we
won't. We are human beings, we love our children and have suffered
immensely for losing them. We care about all mothers and children, we
will speak our minds, and if that offends others so be it.

I do have a penchant for sarcasm. Adoption invites sarcasm. It is
not a sacred cow, nor the core of my identity. It was a bad dream,
and I woke up.


Laura

"Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:9a095db9.0403291005.143277a4@posting.google.c om... "geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:<39U9c.3875$Tf3.62501@news.xtra.co.nz>... "Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:9a095db9.0403282036.7d4a66b3@posting.google.c om... The children had already been stolen and hidden a week before the mother signed. We were not allowed to leave the hospital until we signed and we were FORBIDDEN to see our own children. That constitute theft of a child by our laws which would be the same in NZ. In New Zealand, single women could keep the child if they wanted to, but without the DPB it would have been very difficult. The child would often
end up in foster care. They were advised to sign, but could not be forced
to. Young girls did as their parents wished, of course. They also did what social workers and doctors demanded of them too. > Mothers did not have access to the child to prevent bonding taking place, > making relinquishing more difficult. > That makes it illegal unless the mother made the decision not to see her own child herself. In Oz it was ROUTINE practice as part of our ILLEGAL OZ WIDE Departmental policy. It took until the early 1980s' for the profession to question the illegality of the practice and put a stop to it. The problem with allowing the mother to have contact with the baby is
that she may change her mind and decide to keep it, That's right. She might have kept it had she been "allowed" to see it. And you don't see that as the theft of her child?

If all the arrangements had been made, maybe months before, for her to agree
to adoption and return to pick up her life unencumbered, a sudden change of
mind might not have lasted once she was trapped in poverty with a child.
Then it would be tragic for both of them, if sentimentality had changed to
resentment. even though she is unable to look after it properly. Assumption on your part. The poor kid ends up shunted around various foster homes instead of having a stable adoptive family. You saviour you. Shall I worship at your shrine? Typical adopter. BTW, there was financial support for single mothers. It amounted to the same support widows got, less one dollar. It was people like you who worked in the business, as you no doubt did, who made it their business not to let them know about it. Because that would have given then the choice of keeping and that just wouldn't do would it?

I never heard of any such support in New Zealand until recently, when the
DPB came in. She could have got the dole, but for that she would have had to
be prepared to take any job that was offered. To work, she would have needed
some kind of care for the child.
Even prostitution was illegal until just recently. > Today they may see the child if they wish, or even look after it at Bethany, > and choose who adopts it. > They can also find the child today once it is 18, unless a veto has
been > passed by the child or the birth mother. > (Since 1986, the veto has not been available.) > > Opinions differ on which system is best. Stuff professional opinions. They broke the friggin law and they will pay for their crimes. > If you are still having difficulties with it, have you thought of > counselling? Are you serious? Yes, you seem to need it. You don't seem to have got over it yet, and it must be many years ago now. I've got news for you and it's all bad. As much as you wish it weren't so, most mothers don't get over the forced removal and permanent loss of their living child. Oh and by the way, while the theft of my son began many years ago he wasn't restored to me. So the theft is still very much in progress as is the loss.

Is there no provision in Australia for you to find out where he is and
arrange a reunion, if he wants to see you?
There is in New Zealand. Some people try to find their children, some prefer
not to have any contact. Same goes for children who may or may not try to
trace their birth mothers. > Was the child part aboriginal, and taken without your consent? Totally white. These crimes were committed against white mothers and their children. 80,000 in NSW alone. And it's only recently been exposed in the past few years. Why didn't you read the quotes I've posted below? Di I did. All this new retrospective legislation here in New Zealand is just
opening up a can of worms. Unless mother and child both wish to meet, why not
let well alone? They talk about the "rights" of the child and the birth mother, but what
of the people who have raised and loved the child as their own? Their
rights should have at least equal value. What on earth did you read? None of what I posted has to do with retrospective legislation or open records. Nor was it about taking a child from its adopters. It was about our Govt finally acknowledging through a Parliamentary Inquiry that our adoption practices (and therefore yours in NZ) were illegal and that our children were effectively stolen off us. Are you so blinded by the denial of reality that you are unable to even focus on the written word let alone comprehend anything shows adoption up for what really going on? Doe sit traumatise your senses to read the truth that you have to shut it out?

Maybe it was technically illegal, but it was the general practice at the
time and people would have known the system and gone along with it.
It would be like finding homes for half aboriginal children, or bringing out
orphan children from Britain. Both of these are now thought wrong. Would you want to take the child you gave birth to away from the only
home it has known and the people it loves? I knew it. I could pick you as an adopter/babybroker a mile away. Only adopters use those pathetic blackmail tactics. And a delusional one at that if you believe all adoptees love their adopters.Could you really be so selfish? What's the matter Geo, afraid the kids might finally learn the dirty historical truth behind their adoptions? Did you tell your adopted kids that their mothers weren't allowed to even see them and that society refused to support their mothers so they didn't have to be adopted out to strangers? If not, why not? How do you think hearing the truth would have affected those children as children? Moreover, could you really be so selfish as to deprive a mother of her stolen just because you, as its adopter, expect the child to be loyal solely to you and meet your every need because you did afterall adopt it for that purpose?

I've never adopted a child myself, but a relative has, and is now a happy
grandmother of several beautiful children.
That was a successful adoption as it should be.

Perhaps there should be some way to find out during pregnancy if girls are
going to be like you, and unable to accept the situation after adoption.
Then they could be advised that abortion would be the better choice, now it
is legal.
There should also be plenty of help and counselling after the child is
adopted, instead of just turning the girls out to try to pick up the pieces
themselves.

I just wish I could help you, instead of being rude to you like some people
here.
Geopelia >
http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/Committee.nsf/0/56e4e53dfa16a > 023ca256cfd002a63bc/$FILE/Report.PDF > > > > Read page 122 > > > > 7.61 Justice Richard Chisholm agreed that the mother remained > > guardian of the child until she gave consent and that preventing
her > > from having access to the child prior to the consent "would not
have > > been authorised." > > > > 7.62 The Committee therefore believes that the practice of denying
a > > mother access to her child prior to the signing of consent was > > unlawful. Those professionals who contributed to the process
where > > access was denied were clearly acting unlawfully. > > > > 7.63 Whatever the rationale for the practice, the Committee
believes > > that in all cases women should have been consulted about this
issue > > prior to the birth and that a woman should not have been denied > > access to her child if she requested it. Therefore, failure to
grant > > access constituted an unlawful and unethical action. Releasing the > > Past. Adoption Practices 1950-1998 Final Report. Page 104 [p122 on > > PDF] New South Wales Parliament. Legislative Council. Standing > > Committee on Social Issues: Adoption Practices 1950-1998 Final
Report. > > Page 104 New South Wales Parliament. Legislative Council. Standing > > Committee on Social Issues (see Appendix 11) Hard copy still > > available through Parliament House. > > > > From the 2nd interim report of same Parliamentary inquiry. > > > > The Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield Evans: Can I ask why it is not
kidnapping? > > > > Justice Chisholm: I cannot remember whether there is a separate
crime > > called "kidnapping" and if there is, whether it contains something > > like "for gain" or something like that, but subject to that > > qualification, if one wanted to describe it as kidnapping in a non > > technical sense, that seems to me to be pretty right. It was
certainly > > an unauthorised taking of the child. Adoption Practices 1950-1998 > > Second Interim Report. New South Wales Parliament. Legislative > > Council. Standing Committee on Social Issues: 25th October 1999.
Room > > 814/815 Parliament House, Sydney. Richard Colin Chisholm, Judge of
the > > Family Court, Family Court, affirmed and examined. Page 177-188
(see > > Appendix 10) > > > > > > From an earlier inquiry by the Human Rights Commission. > > > > "Adoption procedures have largely disregarded the rights of the
parent > > considering relinquishment to be made aware of the alternative > > options to adoption, and to full and disinterested support in
arriving > > at a decision. The many submissions received from natural
mothers > > who relinquished children for adoption, describing their
unresolved > > grief and sense of loss, bear testimony to the failure of > > bureaucratic procedures to protect their rights." Human Rights > > Commission Report No 23, November 1986, page 3 (see Appendix 6) > > > > Adoptions in Oz were illegal in every respect and our Govt is
Sh***ing > > itself waiting for our next move. > > > > Would you also like the admission by the Health Commission in 1982 > > admitting to their practices as being illegal and having
contravened > > the Adoption of Children Act 1965 on mental health and legal
gounds as > > well as the mother common law rights as the sole legal guardian of
her > > child? It did the rounds of all the hospitals in Oz as a warning
to > > the hospitals to stop the practice or risk facing litigation. > > > > > > Di

In article <1a4c2bd3.0403291045.450db38d@posting.google.com>,
LauraLewis1@msn.com (Laura Lewis) wrote:

I don't have a low opinion of adopted people. I have a low opinion of adoption, and what it does to them. Adoptees themselves, including psychiatrist Robert Andersen, have observed that adoptees tend to be meek and submissive. They've taken a seat at the back of the bus.


How well do you know Dr. Anderson? I'm just asking :-)

Adoptees tend to be people like everyone else. One person's (or one
cow's) observation qualifies as anecdote, nothing more.

Why do so many adoptees act as if it were radical to promote honest counseling and family preservation over adoption separation?


Moo along with the rest of us, Laura: 99% of families are preserved. 99%
of mothers keep their babies. Most young, single mothers keep their
babies.

Many mothers defrauded of their children were and are minors, younger than most activist adoptees are now. Our outrage is justified. Our civil and human rights were and are trammeled, but this is tolerated and viewed as a minor concern.


If you want to whine about the 60's, go ahead. But so many of the
"testimonials" I read end up sounding like those of Hippochic and your
buddy, Babbles the Starving Artist. In other words, superficially
reasonable until you see the looniness underneath.

Did coercion occur? Yep. Who was responsible for a big chunk of it? --

-- the young woman's parents, that's who. Start there and answer why
that was. And then you'll finally see the difference between adoption
then and adoption now.

Thousands of people are searching and having reunions, but when it comes time to speak out and fight to change the system, most sit on their duffs.


Most people sit on their duffs regarding just about everything. Your
point?

Ideally, there should be no need for adoption, or war, or any other traumatic experience in people's lives that could be prevented if human beings simply loved and accepted one another. Most adoptions result from poverty, ignorance and greed. Poverty and ignorance are fixable. Greed needn't be satisfied; it can be safely ignored. Americans in general haven't got that one down yet.


People the world over haven't figured out greed, poverty and ignorance.

And ideally, I'd win the Irish Sweepstakes. Twice.

Adoption isn't about ideal, it's about the real world where some people
can't, or won't, be parents to their children.

Children reared by their natural parents might feel this way, too, but most outgrow it. They have a sense of security that I believe most adoptees do not share. I think adoption stunts people's emotional growth, and that applies to all parties. It makes them fearful and dishonest with themselves and others. Adoption's a symptom of a sick society, not a cure for anything.


Marvelous how Laura speaks for all the adoptees. You were saying
something about a sense of security?

Florence Fisher once advised me that we natural mothers should "be more ladylike." Bill Pierce once lectured me to be "more professional." In other words, we should sit passively by and allow adoptees, babybrokers and adopters to misrepresent us.


Oh, giggle. Bill was right -- you aren't professional at all. it has
nothing to do with being "passive." It has everything to do with getting
results. You don't play the game, you don't even see the game being
played. All you can do is kvetch.

Marley is professional. You aren't, and never will be.




steve

In article <e5619372.0403290020.7bceb101@posting.google.com>,
rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote:
LauraLewis1@msn.com (Laura Lewis) wrote These folks are so dedicated to providing services to the needy that they are taking out second mortgages on their homes. And because babies just happen to fall into their food baskets as they go about their charitable endeavors, you suggest they are buying children, and that others are selling them. How could you? Quite clearly, Laura, these people have got it all wrong. These babies from overseas, they should be left overseas to enjoy the comforts of their own families and culture. If they don't have families to give them access to the culture? One word. Omelettes. (Or should that be omelets?) Don't be deceived by all the stories about orphanages. Everyone knows that it's far better for a child to be raised in an orphanage than be raised by a wealthy American family. Or any American family, especially one that actually wants a child. And what's so bad about orphanages, anyway? So what if some kids die? Doesn't everyone, sooner or later? It's not like adoption is going to save all the needy children in the world, why should we save any? What is important is to live out one's own destiny, and everyone knows how disruptive of destiny adoption is. Anyway, all that happens to these saved kids is that they become rich, snotty Americans. With ponies. Or Lexus cars. Drop that kid! Now! Just put it down and walk away slowly.



Love it, but you DO realize, don't you, that Moo-Mom will never get the
sarcasm.




steve

"geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:<ZL2ac.4361$Tf3.71976@news.xtra.co.nz>... "Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:9a095db9.0403291005.143277a4@posting.google.c om...
You saviour you. Shall I worship at your shrine? Typical adopter. BTW, there was financial support for single mothers. It amounted to the same support widows got, less one dollar. It was people like you who worked in the business, as you no doubt did, who made it their business not to let them know about it. Because that would have given then the choice of keeping and that just wouldn't do would it? I never heard of any such support in New Zealand until recently, when the DPB came in. She could have got the dole, but for that she would have had to be prepared to take any job that was offered. To work, she would have needed some kind of care for the child. Even prostitution was illegal until just recently.

Under the Child Welfare Acts since post WW2 the unmarried mother has
bene entitled to financial support in all Commonwealth Countries. It
took until 1973 to make it public knowledge.


<Snip>

I've got news for you and it's all bad. As much as you wish it weren't so, most mothers don't get over the forced removal and permanent loss of their living child. Oh and by the way, while the theft of my son began many years ago he wasn't restored to me. So the theft is still very much in progress as is the loss. Is there no provision in Australia for you to find out where he is and arrange a reunion, if he wants to see you? There is in New Zealand. Some people try to find their children, some prefer not to have any contact. Same goes for children who may or may not try to trace their birth mothers.

I met my son 8 years ago. Reunion resolves nothing.

<snip>
What on earth did you read? None of what I posted has to do with retrospective legislation or open records. Nor was it about taking a child from its adopters. It was about our Govt finally acknowledging through a Parliamentary Inquiry that our adoption practices (and therefore yours in NZ) were illegal and that our children were effectively stolen off us. Are you so blinded by the denial of reality that you are unable to even focus on the written word let alone comprehend anything shows adoption up for what really going on? Doe sit traumatise your senses to read the truth that you have to shut it out? Maybe it was technically illegal, but it was the general practice at the time and people would have known the system and gone along with it.

It was general practice to gas the Jews as well. Does the fact that so
many were routinely murdered make the crimes against them any less
severe?

It would be like finding homes for half aboriginal children, or bringing out orphan children from Britain. Both of these are now thought wrong.

Swindling oppressed and vulnerable mothers out of their children at
birth is a crime against nature. And the difference between the
Aboriginal and British child migrant children and stealing babies at
birth is that no legislation wa passed to make baby theft legal. Which
makes everyone involved legally accountable.

Would you want to take the child you gave birth to away from the only home it has known and the people it loves? I knew it. I could pick you as an adopter/babybroker a mile away. Only adopters use those pathetic blackmail tactics. And a delusional one at that if you believe all adoptees love their adopters.Could you really be so selfish? What's the matter Geo, afraid the kids might finally learn the dirty historical truth behind their adoptions? Did you tell your adopted kids that their mothers weren't allowed to even see them and that society refused to support their mothers so they didn't have to be adopted out to strangers? If not, why not? How do you think hearing the truth would have affected those children as children? Moreover, could you really be so selfish as to deprive a mother of her stolen just because you, as its adopter, expect the child to be loyal solely to you and meet your every need because you did afterall adopt it for that purpose? I've never adopted a child myself, but a relative has, and is now a happy grandmother of several beautiful children.

Then you are/were an adoption worker. You know far too much about the
history and nuances of the adoption practices that were 'conveniently
hidden form public gaze' to be an innocent bystander. No-one outside
of the victims and perprators knew what was actually going on. It was
keep hushed up until mothers began speaking out publicly, because even
back them the general public wouldn't stand for it. They were being
made to believe mothers didn't want their babies so the truth didn't
offend the public's delicate sensibilities.

That was a successful adoption as it should be.

That how adoption's success is gauged. The adopter's happiness is all
that counts. Bugger the mothers loss that brought the adopters
happiness about, or the adoptees loss, right! Gotta wonder how some
of them live with themselves, but then only someone without a
conscience could find happiness at the expense of another's lifelong
loss. Does your relative show any semblence of possessing
a consience? Does she ever wonder about the loss all the mother's of
her achildren endured so that she could satisfy her need to obtain a
family she would otherwise not have had? I suspect if she possessed
one she would want to thank them for her happiness. Has she done so
yet? And if not, why not?

Perhaps there should be some way to find out during pregnancy if girls are going to be like you, and unable to accept the situation after adoption. Then they could be advised that abortion would be the better choice, now it is legal.

Why not help the mother keep her child instead?

There should also be plenty of help and counselling after the child is adopted, instead of just turning the girls out to try to pick up the pieces themselves.

Counselling post adoption is brainwashing - trying to convince the
mother that she should play along and pretend to get over it. They
never had and still don't have answers to how counselling helps a
mother recover from the loss of her living child to adoption. All
empty platitudes - and it is known that it only gets worse as time
passes - unlike other losses - because the child continues to live and
so there can be no real closure. Which is why no post adoption grief
counselling exists. Even the professionals feel stupid hearing
themselves mouth off the nonsense they spout. I just wish I could help you, instead of being rude to you like some people here.

Why, would it make you feel better about the part you played in these
baby thefts?

Di

Geopelia > > http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/Committee.nsf/0/56e4e53dfa16a > > 023ca256cfd002a63bc/$FILE/Report.PDF > > > > > > Read page 122 > > > > > > 7.61 Justice Richard Chisholm agreed that the mother remained > > > guardian of the child until she gave consent and that preventing her > > > from having access to the child prior to the consent "would not have > > > been authorised." > > > > > > 7.62 The Committee therefore believes that the practice of denying a > > > mother access to her child prior to the signing of consent was > > > unlawful. Those professionals who contributed to the process where > > > access was denied were clearly acting unlawfully. > > > > > > 7.63 Whatever the rationale for the practice, the Committee believes > > > that in all cases women should have been consulted about this issue > > > prior to the birth and that a woman should not have been denied > > > access to her child if she requested it. Therefore, failure to grant > > > access constituted an unlawful and unethical action. Releasing the > > > Past. Adoption Practices 1950-1998 Final Report. Page 104 [p122 on > > > PDF] New South Wales Parliament. Legislative Council. Standing > > > Committee on Social Issues: Adoption Practices 1950-1998 Final Report. > > > Page 104 New South Wales Parliament. Legislative Council. Standing > > > Committee on Social Issues (see Appendix 11) Hard copy still > > > available through Parliament House. > > > > > > From the 2nd interim report of same Parliamentary inquiry. > > > > > > The Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield Evans: Can I ask why it is not kidnapping? > > > > > > Justice Chisholm: I cannot remember whether there is a separate crime > > > called "kidnapping" and if there is, whether it contains something > > > like "for gain" or something like that, but subject to that > > > qualification, if one wanted to describe it as kidnapping in a non > > > technical sense, that seems to me to be pretty right. It was certainly > > > an unauthorised taking of the child. Adoption Practices 1950-1998 > > > Second Interim Report. New South Wales Parliament. Legislative > > > Council. Standing Committee on Social Issues: 25th October 1999. Room > > > 814/815 Parliament House, Sydney. Richard Colin Chisholm, Judge of the > > > Family Court, Family Court, affirmed and examined. Page 177-188 (see > > > Appendix 10) > > > > > > > > > From an earlier inquiry by the Human Rights Commission. > > > > > > "Adoption procedures have largely disregarded the rights of the parent > > > considering relinquishment to be made aware of the alternative > > > options to adoption, and to full and disinterested support in arriving > > > at a decision. The many submissions received from natural mothers > > > who relinquished children for adoption, describing their unresolved > > > grief and sense of loss, bear testimony to the failure of > > > bureaucratic procedures to protect their rights." Human Rights > > > Commission Report No 23, November 1986, page 3 (see Appendix 6) > > > > > > Adoptions in Oz were illegal in every respect and our Govt is Sh***ing > > > itself waiting for our next move. > > > > > > Would you also like the admission by the Health Commission in 1982 > > > admitting to their practices as being illegal and having contravened > > > the Adoption of Children Act 1965 on mental health and legal gounds as > > > well as the mother common law rights as the sole legal guardian of her > > > child? It did the rounds of all the hospitals in Oz as a warning to > > > the hospitals to stop the practice or risk facing litigation. > > > > > > > > > Di

in article 9a095db9.0403292301.51a3740d@posting.google.com, Dian at
patrice068@optusnet.com.au wrote on 30/3/04 8:01 am:
"geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:<ZL2ac.4361$Tf3.71976@news.xtra.co.nz>...
"Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:9a095db9.0403291005.143277a4@posting.google.c om... You saviour you. Shall I worship at your shrine? Typical adopter. BTW, there was financial support for single mothers. It amounted to the same support widows got, less one dollar. It was people like you who worked in the business, as you no doubt did, who made it their business not to let them know about it. Because that would have given then the choice of keeping and that just wouldn't do would it? I never heard of any such support in New Zealand until recently, when the DPB came in. She could have got the dole, but for that she would have had to be prepared to take any job that was offered. To work, she would have needed some kind of care for the child. Even prostitution was illegal until just recently. Under the Child Welfare Acts since post WW2 the unmarried mother has bene entitled to financial support in all Commonwealth Countries. It took until 1973 to make it public knowledge. <Snip>

All Commonwealth countries? Since WW2? Did WW2 drag on until nearly 1949
here in England then? The NAB benefits given to single mothers from the late
1940s to the mid 1970s in England were simply inadequate for the purpose.
Hence children's homes like Dr Barnardo's Homes were still filling up in the
fifties and sixties with kids like me, whose mothers had tried to keep them
and found it to be impossible on the money available to them. The idea that
if it had only been for mothers being told about these benefits, then they
would have somehow magically have been able to keep their children is
otiose, in England certainly, I'd be interested to know if benefits really
were adequate in other British Commonwealth countries or elsewhere in the
1940 - 1970s.

Certainly when Di speaks for "the Commonwealth Countries" I do wish she
would leave the United Kingdom countries out of it. I have a 300 page file
and an Adoption Order to say, no, mothers couldn't necessarily keep their
child on that grant, and not without want of trying, certainly not unless
they also had the support of their parents.


Robin

"Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:9a095db9.0403291006.273c2402@posting.google.c om... LauraLewis1@msn.com (Laura Lewis) wrote in message
news:<1a4c2bd3.0403280142.14c591f@posting.google.com>... patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote in message
news:<9a095db9.0403250541.239fa8e1@posting.google.com>... Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message
news:<steve-B7B2F9.21584024032004@netnews.comcast.net>... > In article <9a095db9.0403241745.7024cf8f@posting.google.com>, > patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote: > > > > > As you have been told repeatedly, adoption fees pay for
services. > > > Lawyers, Social Workers et. al. have bills to pay, so they don't > > > work for free. > > > > > > > Say, Linda, was the child yours before you paid for the services?
No > > I thought not. So in paying for the service fees you acquired a
child > > you didn't own before the transaction occurred. That constitutes a > > sale. Much the same as going through the check out at a
supermarket. > > Once you hand over your money (which covers overheads such as > > manufacturing costs, services, wages, and merchandise) you own
those > > groceries that were not yours before the check out chick gave you > > your receipt as proof of purchase (see adoption order - same
thing.) > > > > There are some things in the world that should morally never have
a > > price tag on them. Children are one of them. > > > Do you seriously argue this position when you "debate" in Oz-land?
Meet > with legislators? Offer public testimony? > No, didn't need to. Adoption was almost over by the time I emerged. No doubt due to aggressive lobbying by adopters and their babybrokers, fighting for the rights of mothers. of course! They simply insisted that we be brought back from the dead so that their children could exercize their human right to know who they were. What of the adoptees in Oz? Do they now go around with glazed expressions, wondering to whom they should be grateful? Well of course:-) If adoption ended in the U.S., it would deprive adoptees of one of the few pastimes they are allowed to pursue without adult supervision: Thanking their mothers for not killing them. Yep. It's all such a joke. I mean that in the most facetious way. And what of the mothers? Are they now breeding like rabbits and tossing their offspring into dumpsters when they tire of them, returning to the streets to sell dope and turn tricks? Oh all the time. We have such a constant stream of one abandoned baby every few years it's hard to keep count. > Do you really push the "adoption=slavery" nonsense in places where
it > might harm your cause? > > Nope, only in the US. It's been illegal to financially profit from any local adoption since 1965 here. The way everyone has their fingers in the till in the US is something no other civilised country would tolerate. Your Govt can't even be bothered keeping stats on the number of US children being adopted let alone regulate standards of practice. It doesn't say much for your Govt's interest in the welfare or protection of its children does it! Still, it keeps me fascinated. > > > steve The American government cares so much about children that it asked citizens on our last census if they'd adopted children. So I hear. The first ever attempt at gathering figures. It must be such an embarrassment to have to consider the children 120 years after the horse has bolted. It didn't ask them if they had surrendered a child, or were adopted. Everyone here, including our legislators, knows adopters are the only trustworthy ones, the only ones who are genuine American citizens worth counting. Indeedy. They would never lie and pretend the child was born to them would they? Our government is underwriting the babyselling industry now, promoting family separation to adolescents. So I hear. No coercion there of course. No ulterior motive to snatch more babies to replenish dwindling stock so that your local baby traffickers may earn a living. Free trade and all that.

Hate to interrupt the hen party, but the CPS/foster care system has nothing
to learn from the adoption industry. The foster care industry dwarfs
adoption, makes adoption look like a freelance piker. A trickle of kids
leave foster care for adoption. Kids in foster care are dependable
moneymakers year after year, why sell them off for a few thousand?

If you guys were really interested in busting up a corrupt industry that
tramples wholesale on family, civil and human rights, you're wasting your
time with adoption, which impacts a lot fewer people than the foster system.
They are related, but abolishing adoption wouldn't do much to staunch the
flow of dollars into foster care. It would probably increase it, actually.

Ron
It's not interested in children's welfare or protection anymore.It farmed out that job to big business. And rightly so. It's no small feat having to protect PAP's from the crisis of a life worse than death. Someone has to save them. Laura

"Robin Harritt" <karakoram@postadoption.info> wrote in message
news:BC8EF091.399A4%karakoram@postadoption.info... in article 9a095db9.0403292301.51a3740d@posting.google.com, Dian at patrice068@optusnet.com.au wrote on 30/3/04 8:01 am: "geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:<ZL2ac.4361$Tf3.71976@news.xtra.co.nz>... "Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:9a095db9.0403291005.143277a4@posting.google.c om...>> You saviour you. Shall I worship at your shrine? Typical adopter. BTW,> there was financial support for single mothers. It amounted to the> same support widows got, less one dollar. It was people like you who> worked in the business, as you no doubt did, who made it their> business not to let them know about it.> Because that would have given then the choice of keeping and that just> wouldn't do would it? I never heard of any such support in New Zealand until recently, when
the DPB came in. She could have got the dole, but for that she would have
had to be prepared to take any job that was offered. To work, she would have
needed some kind of care for the child. Even prostitution was illegal until just recently. Under the Child Welfare Acts since post WW2 the unmarried mother has bene entitled to financial support in all Commonwealth Countries. It took until 1973 to make it public knowledge.
In New Zealand, she had a sickness benefit for three months after the
birth if breastfeeding, or one month if not, or if the child was adopted.
After that there was only the unemployment benefit until the DPB came in.
If I'm wrong about this will somebody please say so. I never heard of any
other benefit paid to single mothers. Under 16, New Zealand's age of
consent, they got nothing at all.
<Snip> All Commonwealth countries? Since WW2? Did WW2 drag on until nearly 1949 here in England then? The NAB benefits given to single mothers from the
late 1940s to the mid 1970s in England were simply inadequate for the purpose. Hence children's homes like Dr Barnardo's Homes were still filling up in
the fifties and sixties with kids like me, whose mothers had tried to keep
them and found it to be impossible on the money available to them. The idea
that if it had only been for mothers being told about these benefits, then they would have somehow magically have been able to keep their children is otiose, in England certainly, I'd be interested to know if benefits really were adequate in other British Commonwealth countries or elsewhere in the 1940 - 1970s. Certainly when Di speaks for "the Commonwealth Countries" I do wish she would leave the United Kingdom countries out of it. I have a 300 page file and an Adoption Order to say, no, mothers couldn't necessarily keep their child on that grant, and not without want of trying, certainly not unless they also had the support of their parents. Robin

"Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:9a095db9.0403292301.51a3740d@posting.google.c om... "geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:<ZL2ac.4361$Tf3.71976@news.xtra.co.nz>... "Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:9a095db9.0403291005.143277a4@posting.google.c om... You saviour you. Shall I worship at your shrine? Typical adopter. BTW, there was financial support for single mothers. It amounted to the same support widows got, less one dollar. It was people like you who worked in the business, as you no doubt did, who made it their business not to let them know about it. Because that would have given then the choice of keeping and that just wouldn't do would it? I never heard of any such support in New Zealand until recently, when
the DPB came in. She could have got the dole, but for that she would have
had to be prepared to take any job that was offered. To work, she would have
needed some kind of care for the child. Even prostitution was illegal until just recently. Under the Child Welfare Acts since post WW2 the unmarried mother has bene entitled to financial support in all Commonwealth Countries. It took until 1973 to make it public knowledge. <Snip> I've got news for you and it's all bad. As much as you wish it weren't so, most mothers don't get over the forced removal and permanent loss of their living child. Oh and by the way, while the theft of my son began many years ago he wasn't restored to me. So the theft is still very much in progress as is the loss. Is there no provision in Australia for you to find out where he is and arrange a reunion, if he wants to see you? There is in New Zealand. Some people try to find their children, some
prefer not to have any contact. Same goes for children who may or may not try
to trace their birth mothers. I met my son 8 years ago. Reunion resolves nothing.

Why not, or shouldn't we ask? It's your own business anyway. I do think you
need help though, some kind of grief counselling, like widows who mourn
their husbands for too many years. (Queen Victoria was one).
<snip> What on earth did you read? None of what I posted has to do with retrospective legislation or open records. Nor was it about taking a child from its adopters. It was about our Govt finally acknowledging through a Parliamentary Inquiry that our adoption practices (and therefore yours in NZ) were illegal and that our children were effectively stolen off us. Are you so blinded by the denial of reality that you are unable to even focus on the written word let alone comprehend anything shows adoption up for what really going on? Doe sit traumatise your senses to read the truth that you have to shut it out? Maybe it was technically illegal, but it was the general practice at the time and people would have known the system and gone along with it. It was general practice to gas the Jews as well. Does the fact that so many were routinely murdered make the crimes against them any less severe?

That is a ridiculous comparison. It would be like finding homes for half aboriginal children, or bringing
out orphan children from Britain. Both of these are now thought wrong. Swindling oppressed and vulnerable mothers out of their children at birth is a crime against nature. And the difference between the Aboriginal and British child migrant children and stealing babies at birth is that no legislation wa passed to make baby theft legal. Which makes everyone involved legally accountable. > Would you want to take the child you gave birth to away from the
only home > it has known and the people it loves? I knew it. I could pick you as an adopter/babybroker a mile away. Only adopters use those pathetic blackmail tactics. And a delusional one at that if you believe all adoptees love their adopters. >Could you really be so selfish? What's the matter Geo, afraid the kids might finally learn the dirty historical truth behind their adoptions? Did you tell your adopted kids that their mothers weren't allowed to even see them and that society refused to support their mothers so they didn't have to be adopted out to strangers? If not, why not? How do you think hearing the truth would have affected those children as children? Moreover, could you really be so selfish as to deprive a mother of her stolen just because you, as its adopter, expect the child to be loyal solely to you and meet your every need because you did afterall adopt it for that purpose? I've never adopted a child myself, but a relative has, and is now a
happy grandmother of several beautiful children. Then you are/were an adoption worker. You know far too much about the history and nuances of the adoption practices that were 'conveniently hidden form public gaze' to be an innocent bystander. No-one outside of the victims and perprators knew what was actually going on. It was keep hushed up until mothers began speaking out publicly, because even back them the general public wouldn't stand for it. They were being made to believe mothers didn't want their babies so the truth didn't offend the public's delicate sensibilities.

You are jumping to conclusions about me. I know a lot about multiple births
too, but I am not about to produce quadruplets. That was a successful adoption as it should be. That how adoption's success is gauged. The adopter's happiness is all that counts. Bugger the mothers loss that brought the adopters happiness about, or the adoptees loss, right! Gotta wonder how some of them live with themselves, but then only someone without a conscience could find happiness at the expense of another's lifelong loss. Does your relative show any semblence of possessing a consience? Does she ever wonder about the loss all the mother's of her achildren endured so that she could satisfy her need to obtain a family she would otherwise not have had? I suspect if she possessed one she would want to thank them for her happiness. Has she done so yet? And if not, why not?

I have no idea whether she ever met them. Probably not, as she is in
Britain. Perhaps there should be some way to find out during pregnancy if girls
are going to be like you, and unable to accept the situation after adoption. Then they could be advised that abortion would be the better choice, now
it is legal. Why not help the mother keep her child instead? There should also be plenty of help and counselling after the child is adopted, instead of just turning the girls out to try to pick up the
pieces themselves. Counselling post adoption is brainwashing - trying to convince the mother that she should play along and pretend to get over it. They never had and still don't have answers to how counselling helps a mother recover from the loss of her living child to adoption. All empty platitudes - and it is known that it only gets worse as time passes - unlike other losses - because the child continues to live and so there can be no real closure. Which is why no post adoption grief counselling exists. Even the professionals feel stupid hearing themselves mouth off the nonsense they spout. I just wish I could help you, instead of being rude to you like some
people here. Why, would it make you feel better about the part you played in these baby thefts?

I was never involved. Di Geopelia > > > >
http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/Committee.nsf/0/56e4e53dfa16a > > > 023ca256cfd002a63bc/$FILE/Report.PDF > > > > > > > > Read page 122 > > > > > > > > 7.61 Justice Richard Chisholm agreed that the mother remained > > > > guardian of the child until she gave consent and that
preventing her > > > > from having access to the child prior to the consent "would
not have > > > > been authorised." > > > > > > > > 7.62 The Committee therefore believes that the practice of
denying a > > > > mother access to her child prior to the signing of consent was > > > > unlawful. Those professionals who contributed to the process where > > > > access was denied were clearly acting unlawfully. > > > > > > > > 7.63 Whatever the rationale for the practice, the Committee believes > > > > that in all cases women should have been consulted about this issue > > > > prior to the birth and that a woman should not have been
denied > > > > access to her child if she requested it. Therefore, failure
to grant > > > > access constituted an unlawful and unethical action. Releasing
the > > > > Past. Adoption Practices 1950-1998 Final Report. Page 104
[p122 on > > > > PDF] New South Wales Parliament. Legislative Council. Standing > > > > Committee on Social Issues: Adoption Practices 1950-1998 Final Report. > > > > Page 104 New South Wales Parliament. Legislative Council.
Standing > > > > Committee on Social Issues (see Appendix 11) Hard copy still > > > > available through Parliament House. > > > > > > > > From the 2nd interim report of same Parliamentary inquiry. > > > > > > > > The Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield Evans: Can I ask why it is not kidnapping? > > > > > > > > Justice Chisholm: I cannot remember whether there is a
separate crime > > > > called "kidnapping" and if there is, whether it contains
something > > > > like "for gain" or something like that, but subject to that > > > > qualification, if one wanted to describe it as kidnapping in a
non > > > > technical sense, that seems to me to be pretty right. It was certainly > > > > an unauthorised taking of the child. Adoption Practices
1950-1998 > > > > Second Interim Report. New South Wales Parliament. Legislative > > > > Council. Standing Committee on Social Issues: 25th October
1999. Room > > > > 814/815 Parliament House, Sydney. Richard Colin Chisholm,
Judge of the > > > > Family Court, Family Court, affirmed and examined. Page
177-188 (see > > > > Appendix 10) > > > > > > > > > > > > From an earlier inquiry by the Human Rights Commission. > > > > > > > > "Adoption procedures have largely disregarded the rights of
the parent > > > > considering relinquishment to be made aware of the alternative > > > > options to adoption, and to full and disinterested support in arriving > > > > at a decision. The many submissions received from natural mothers > > > > who relinquished children for adoption, describing their unresolved > > > > grief and sense of loss, bear testimony to the failure of > > > > bureaucratic procedures to protect their rights." Human Rights > > > > Commission Report No 23, November 1986, page 3 (see Appendix
6) > > > > > > > > Adoptions in Oz were illegal in every respect and our Govt is Sh***ing > > > > itself waiting for our next move. > > > > > > > > Would you also like the admission by the Health Commission in
1982 > > > > admitting to their practices as being illegal and having contravened > > > > the Adoption of Children Act 1965 on mental health and legal gounds as > > > > well as the mother common law rights as the sole legal
guardian of her > > > > child? It did the rounds of all the hospitals in Oz as a
warning to > > > > the hospitals to stop the practice or risk facing litigation. > > > > > > > > > > > > Di

in article jYcac.4899$Tf3.80367@news.xtra.co.nz, geopelia at
phildoran@xtra.co.nz wrote on 30/3/04 12:38 pm:
"Robin Harritt" <karakoram@postadoption.info> wrote in message news:BC8EF091.399A4%karakoram@postadoption.info... in article 9a095db9.0403292301.51a3740d@posting.google.com, Dian at patrice068@optusnet.com.au wrote on 30/3/04 8:01 am: "geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:<ZL2ac.4361$Tf3.71976@news.xtra.co.nz>...> "Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message> news:9a095db9.0403291005.143277a4@posting.google.c om...>>>> You saviour you. Shall I worship at your shrine? Typical adopter. BTW,>> there was financial support for single mothers. It amounted to the>> same support widows got, less one dollar. It was people like you who>> worked in the business, as you no doubt did, who made it their>> business not to let them know about it.>> Because that would have given then the choice of keeping and that just>> wouldn't do would it?>> I never heard of any such support in New Zealand until recently, when the> DPB came in. She could have got the dole, but for that she would have had to> be prepared to take any job that was offered. To work, she would have needed> some kind of care for the child.> Even prostitution was illegal until just recently. Under the Child Welfare Acts since post WW2 the unmarried mother has bene entitled to financial support in all Commonwealth Countries. It took until 1973 to make it public knowledge. In New Zealand, she had a sickness benefit for three months after the birth if breastfeeding, or one month if not, or if the child was adopted. After that there was only the unemployment benefit until the DPB came in. If I'm wrong about this will somebody please say so. I never heard of any other benefit paid to single mothers. Under 16, New Zealand's age of consent, they got nothing at all.

In England, and Di seems to want to include the all the British Commonwealth
Nations in this, my mother and two children received a National Assistance
Board grant of three pounds twelve shillings and sixpence plus eight
shillings Family Allowance in 1954. The N.A.B. Grant would have been
equivalent to the absolute minimum Unemployment Benefit at that time and the
same conditions of accepting a job if one came along applied. Out of her
total of four pounds and sixpence my mother had to pay two pounds twelve and
six pence in rent for a very basic room that really was not fit for a child.
See http://robin.robin.org/records/

Di, supports the contention made by a group of ladies here in the UK that if
only they had all been told of their entitlement to another ten bob a week
or whatever, they would have been able to keep their children. Having lived
through the experience of being one of those children, and having made
rather more of a study recently, I'd need a lot more proof to convince me of
that possibility. I believe everyone was much more severely let down by
government than that. It needed a different attitude, not just a bit more
money. That came eventually in the 1990s, some say its swung too far the
other way now mothers almost forced to keep children that do not want.

In any case is was common to the whole of the British state benefits system
that it is largely up to the individual to discover what her entitlements
are and to claim them, the government doesn't and never has gone out in
search of people to give benefits to, hence there is always a huge amount of
unclaimed benefit. It is only the fact that so much remains unclaimed that
allows governments to appear as generous they do.

I would personally welcome an Enquiry in to past practises in England &
Wales, there is a lot that should be looked at and well beyond 1970 but I
don't believe intentionally hiding benefits from mothers in order to force
them to relinquish as part of some big evil conspiracy is what happened
here. That was more a crime of omission than of commission here in the UK
but I'd not want to pronounce myself qualified to speak for the rest of the
British Commonwealth Nations.

Robin

"Laura Lewis" <LauraLewis1@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1a4c2bd3.0403291045.450db38d@posting.google.c om... "Jack Bernhard" <jcbernhard@deletethisprodigy.net> wrote in message
news:<c4I9c.68052$WQ3.5467@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>... "Laura Lewis" <LauraLewis1@msn.com> wrote in message news:1a4c2bd3.0403280142.14c591f@posting.google.co m... What of the adoptees in Oz? Do they now go around with glazed expressions, wondering to whom they should be grateful? Sheesh. You've such a low opinion of adopted people. As a class, we're
so insipid. You asked for it, Jack, so I'm telling it as I see it. I don't have a low opinion of adopted people. I have a low opinion of adoption, and what it does to them. Adoptees themselves, including psychiatrist Robert Andersen, have observed that adoptees tend to be meek and submissive.


I'd be interested to see his control group and what kind of parameters he
uses to ascertain levels of meekness and submission. While he may consider
himself to be like this, I'd suggest that he is looking for an excuse to
explain his own failings.



They've taken a seat at the back of the bus. I'm only repeating the obvious. Also, if you'll notice, my sarcasm extends to other members of the adoption so-called triad.


Juxtaposing adoptees with Rosa Parks & Co. is
hyperbole on a grand scale. There are no separate water fountains,
restrooms or dining sections for bastards. The vast majority of us were
brought up in a middle class + environment. Creature comforts gnerally
breed a certain social complacency, especially when the issue at hand
is as esoteric as sealed records.


Most adoptees I've met were no more or less insipid than most mothers who surrendered children, and most adopters. That's why a relatively small number of activists in the U.S. are still tagging along behind our billion-dollar babyselling industry and its high-priced lobbyists. Many are afraid to take the offensive and demand an end to all unethical adoption practices, not just the sealing of records. When people are willing to settle for crumbs, that's all they'll get.


I don't think it's fear among the masses. Most simply don't care.

Open records are a crumb thrown to starving people and a bandaid on an amputation. Most arguments used to obtain access to records presuppose that adoption will continue to be practiced unethically, with no real accountability on the part of agencies and facilitators. What does opening records to adults do to protect children from being bought, sold and abused? What does it do to protect mothers from being lied to and exploited?


Nothing. That's not the point.

Why do so many adoptees act as if it were radical to promote honest counseling and family preservation over adoption separation? Intelligent and outspoken adoptees and child welfare experts have openly condemned this, so those who think natural mothers shouldn't condemn it had better open their eyes. Many mothers defrauded of their children were and are minors, younger than most activist adoptees are now. Our outrage is justified. Our civil and human rights were and are trammeled, but this is tolerated and viewed as a minor concern. It is not, not for us. If our rights hadn't been trammeled, if adoption weren't a business here, records would have been opened decades ago as in other advanced countries. Thousands of people are searching and having reunions, but when it comes time to speak out and fight to change the system, most sit on their duffs. They're passive and seem unable or unwilling to look at the big picture, or take risks in pursuit of justice. Most are quite short-sighted and afraid to take a stand on adoption as an institution. They're looking out for #1, to hell with everyone else.


Well, I don't think that's neccessarily a trait that can be exclusively
applied to adoptees. Here's a nugget from one bastard, though; we're not
responsible for fixing the ills of the past. The trauma that our mothers
may or may not have had to deal with is not ours. I'm sympathetic, for the
most part but I can't change what went down. As far as the institution goes
as a whole, I'm rather ambivilent about it. I wasn't harmed by it, and I
doubt I'd be much better or worse off if I hadn't been relinquished.

There are some basic changes I'd like to see in adoption practice, but I'm
unable to generate much passion about it.



For example, how many adoptees or natural mothers or adopters openly protest unethical adoption counseling, falsified vital records and the selling of children? Not "services," children. These are fundamental aspects of American adoption and those unwilling to take a stand against these abuses perpetuate them by remaining silent, and by attacking those of us who *are* willing to take a stand. If adoption ended in the U.S., it would deprive adoptees of one of the few pastimes they are allowed to pursue without adult supervision: Thanking their mothers for not killing them. Well, if adoption ended in the US, after a while there wouldn't be any adoptees left to do as you hypothesize. Adoption is ending here, though more slowly than in other countries. I look forward to the day when there are no more adoptees, only citizens with exactly the same rights as everyone else who happened to be raised by people other than their natural parents, and then only when necessary.

When does it become necessary? Death?

Ideally, there should be no need for adoption, or war, or any other traumatic experience in people's lives that could be prevented if human beings simply loved and accepted one another. Most adoptions result from poverty, ignorance and greed. Poverty and ignorance are fixable. Greed needn't be satisfied; it can be safely ignored. Americans in general haven't got that one down yet.


Utopia exists nowhere. Human nature is a constant.

I see you have a penchant for sarcasm, but do you generally feel the
adopted population is as stupid and dependant as you depict above? Jack I don't think they're stupid. I do think most are overly dependent and rather timid. Adoptees have said this themselves.

Not me. I've made my own way since I was 17.

They're afraid of upsetting the applecart. They "parent" their own adopters growing up. They feel responsible for their adopters' feelings, seldom realizing that no one is responsible for another's happiness, least of all a child. They live as if they are treading on eggshells. Adoption forces them to assume this burden, and many become accustomed to carrying it. That doesn't make it healthy or right. The same applies to many natural mothers, who are ever so grateful when adopters are even decent to them.


I wouldn't speak for mothers, but you're off base when it comes to adoptees.
What I see here is you trying to twist your obvious distaste for adopters
into some kind of pseudo-psychiatric cycle of co-dependency dementia. Yeah,
I'll be the first to admit that the adoptive family is different on a basic
level. That's not to say it can't work and be satisfactory to the adoptee.

Children reared by their natural parents might feel this way, too, but most outgrow it. They have a sense of security that I believe most adoptees do not share. I think adoption stunts people's emotional growth, and that applies to all parties. It makes them fearful and dishonest with themselves and others.

Ahhh...so we're lying, timid, insecure overgrown children. Nice. It's a
wonder that you haven't been more successful recruiting bastards to your
cause with sweet talk like that.



Adoption's a symptom of a sick society, not a cure for anything.


Nah. Adoption exists everywhere. Whether it be in a society that is
routinely dragged through the mud (read US) or as practiced by chimps in
coastal Africa. Adoption, in and of itself, isn't a symptom of anything.
It simply is.

The hows and whys can use some serious tweaking, but adoption in some form
will always be with us.

I feel violated when I hear adoptees thanking their mothers for not aborting them, and claiming we signed some sort of "contract." We American mothers hear this continually. Our children are taught that we would have aborted them or failed as mothers had adoption not been available and encouraged, and that we made willing, informed decisions to abandon them.


Ehhh....I don't know. I feel about as grateful for not be aborted as I do
being adopted. In other words it's a meaningless exercise. That **** was
outta my hands.
I could just as easily credit Martin Luther, Attila the Hun and/or George II
for setting a chain of events in motion that resulted in my eventual
existance.


Even our legislators spew these despicable lies. This is emotional child abuse, and cruelty to mothers. The sooner it all ends, the better.

Lawmakers lie. It's their job.

If adoptees want mothers who willingly signed contracts to abandon them, who passively accept the fact that they and their children were and are treated unjustly, who feel no disgust and outrage about this legalized insanity, they might as well adjust to being treated like dogs. I don't see many women like this fighting for adoptees' rights, but I'm sure you can find some if that's what you want.


Well, I feel little disgust or outrage as to my own relinquishment. It was
a classic rock vs hard place deal and my mother did what she figured was
best. We can't change that. If it had occured today, she likely would have
opted for an abortion. Big deal. Life moves on and we're moving with it.

Florence Fisher once advised me that we natural mothers should "be more ladylike." Bill Pierce once lectured me to be "more professional."

Bill told me I would burn in hell. He would also agree with you that, as an
adoptee, my development was severely arrested.


In other words, we should sit passively by and allow adoptees, babybrokers and adopters to misrepresent us. We should approve of adoption, and others' quick-fix solutions.

Nah. That's definitely not Bill. He seemed to thrive on well constructed
debate.


We can't and we won't. We are human beings, we love our children and have suffered immensely for losing them. We care about all mothers and children, we will speak our minds, and if that offends others so be it.

The only thing I find offensive is your apparent willingness to speak on
behalf of adoptees when, in fact, you have no first hand knowledge of the
dynamics of an adoptive family.

The ultimate irony here is that, while you deride any feelings of attachment
that an adoptee may feel for his adopter as unhealthy and tied to some
misplaced
feelings of gratitude, you offer that he should instead
throw off the yoke of his oppression by way of standing arm in arm with his
natural mother to seek justice for the wrongs perpetrated on her.

Seems to me to be the flip side of the same coin.

I do have a penchant for sarcasm. Adoption invites sarcasm.

Yep, it sure does.

It is not a sacred cow, nor the core of my identity. It was a bad dream, and I woke up.

No, it's not a sacred cow. However, since it's not the core of your
identity why are you disgusted with adoptees who don't define themselves by
adoption?


Jack

"Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote >
I have no idea why anybody--bio or adopted--should be thankful for not being aborted. They should be pissed off that they weren't. Who in their right mind actually enjoys their life of misery and desire?

Yo, Marley, are you Buddhist?

Rupa

"Robin Harritt" <karakoram@postadoption.info> wrote in message
news:BC8F657B.39A41%karakoram@postadoption.info... in article jYcac.4899$Tf3.80367@news.xtra.co.nz, geopelia at phildoran@xtra.co.nz wrote on 30/3/04 12:38 pm: "Robin Harritt" <karakoram@postadoption.info> wrote in message news:BC8EF091.399A4%karakoram@postadoption.info... in article 9a095db9.0403292301.51a3740d@posting.google.com, Dian at patrice068@optusnet.com.au wrote on 30/3/04 8:01 am:> "geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message> news:<ZL2ac.4361$Tf3.71976@news.xtra.co.nz>...>> "Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message>> news:9a095db9.0403291005.143277a4@posting.google.c om...>>>>>>> You saviour you. Shall I worship at your shrine? Typical adopter.
BTW,>>> there was financial support for single mothers. It amounted to the>>> same support widows got, less one dollar. It was people like you who>>> worked in the business, as you no doubt did, who made it their>>> business not to let them know about it.>>> Because that would have given then the choice of keeping and that
just>>> wouldn't do would it?>>>> I never heard of any such support in New Zealand until recently, when the>> DPB came in. She could have got the dole, but for that she would have had to>> be prepared to take any job that was offered. To work, she would have needed>> some kind of care for the child.>> Even prostitution was illegal until just recently.>> Under the Child Welfare Acts since post WW2 the unmarried mother has> bene entitled to financial support in all Commonwealth Countries. It> took until 1973 to make it public knowledge.> In New Zealand, she had a sickness benefit for three months after the birth if breastfeeding, or one month if not, or if the child was
adopted. After that there was only the unemployment benefit until the DPB came
in. If I'm wrong about this will somebody please say so. I never heard of
any other benefit paid to single mothers. Under 16, New Zealand's age of consent, they got nothing at all. In England, and Di seems to want to include the all the British
Commonwealth Nations in this, my mother and two children received a National Assistance Board grant of three pounds twelve shillings and sixpence plus eight shillings Family Allowance in 1954. The N.A.B. Grant would have been equivalent to the absolute minimum Unemployment Benefit at that time and
the same conditions of accepting a job if one came along applied. Out of her total of four pounds and sixpence my mother had to pay two pounds twelve
and six pence in rent for a very basic room that really was not fit for a
child. See http://robin.robin.org/records/

My wages as a working single woman were about the same. It isn't much for a
woman and two children to live on. Di, supports the contention made by a group of ladies here in the UK that
if only they had all been told of their entitlement to another ten bob a week or whatever, they would have been able to keep their children. Having
lived through the experience of being one of those children, and having made rather more of a study recently, I'd need a lot more proof to convince me
of that possibility. I believe everyone was much more severely let down by government than that. It needed a different attitude, not just a bit more money. That came eventually in the 1990s, some say its swung too far the other way now mothers almost forced to keep children that do not want.

It is difficult now in New Zealand too for a woman who doesn't want to keep
a child. In the old days she could simply claim economic reasons and say
that it was better for the child to be adopted. Nobody questioned that.
Now with the DPB she would have to admit the real reason and stand up to all
the pressure from well-meaning social workers to keep the child. I wonder
when a sad case comes up of a mother killing her child, whether she was
persuaded to keep it against her real wishes. Some women are just not
maternal. It is a problem if they don't realise this until they have agreed
to keep the child. In any case is was common to the whole of the British state benefits
system that it is largely up to the individual to discover what her entitlements are and to claim them, the government doesn't and never has gone out in search of people to give benefits to, hence there is always a huge amount
of unclaimed benefit. It is only the fact that so much remains unclaimed that allows governments to appear as generous they do.

It is the same in New Zealand, they have to find out these things for
themselves and insist on their right to claim various benefits. I would personally welcome an Enquiry in to past practises in England & Wales, there is a lot that should be looked at and well beyond 1970 but I don't believe intentionally hiding benefits from mothers in order to force them to relinquish as part of some big evil conspiracy is what happened here. That was more a crime of omission than of commission here in the UK but I'd not want to pronounce myself qualified to speak for the rest of
the British Commonwealth Nations. Robin

"Jack Bernhard" <jcbernhard@deletethisprodigy.net> wrote in message
news:PUiac.1346$om2.1051@newssvr15.news.prodigy.co m... "Laura Lewis" <LauraLewis1@msn.com> wrote in message news:1a4c2bd3.0403291045.450db38d@posting.google.c om... "Jack Bernhard" <jcbernhard@deletethisprodigy.net> wrote in message news:<c4I9c.68052$WQ3.5467@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>... "Laura Lewis" <LauraLewis1@msn.com> wrote in message news:1a4c2bd3.0403280142.14c591f@posting.google.co m... > > What of the adoptees in Oz? Do they now go around with glazed > expressions, wondering to whom they should be grateful? Sheesh. You've such a low opinion of adopted people. As a class,
we're so insipid. You asked for it, Jack, so I'm telling it as I see it. I don't have a low opinion of adopted people. I have a low opinion of adoption, and what it does to them. Adoptees themselves, including psychiatrist Robert Andersen, have observed that adoptees tend to be meek and submissive. I'd be interested to see his control group and what kind of parameters he uses to ascertain levels of meekness and submission. While he may
consider himself to be like this, I'd suggest that he is looking for an excuse to explain his own failings. They've taken a seat at the back of the bus. I'm only repeating the obvious. Also, if you'll notice, my sarcasm extends to other members of the adoption so-called triad. Juxtaposing adoptees with Rosa Parks & Co. is hyperbole on a grand scale. There are no separate water fountains, restrooms or dining sections for bastards. The vast majority of us were brought up in a middle class + environment. Creature comforts gnerally breed a certain social complacency, especially when the issue at hand is as esoteric as sealed records. Most adoptees I've met were no more or less insipid than most mothers who surrendered children, and most adopters. That's why a relatively small number of activists in the U.S. are still tagging along behind our billion-dollar babyselling industry and its high-priced lobbyists. Many are afraid to take the offensive and demand an end to all unethical adoption practices, not just the sealing of records. When people are willing to settle for crumbs, that's all they'll get. I don't think it's fear among the masses. Most simply don't care. Open records are a crumb thrown to starving people and a bandaid on an amputation. Most arguments used to obtain access to records presuppose that adoption will continue to be practiced unethically, with no real accountability on the part of agencies and facilitators. What does opening records to adults do to protect children from being bought, sold and abused? What does it do to protect mothers from being lied to and exploited? Nothing. That's not the point. Why do so many adoptees act as if it were radical to promote honest counseling and family preservation over adoption separation? Intelligent and outspoken adoptees and child welfare experts have openly condemned this, so those who think natural mothers shouldn't condemn it had better open their eyes. Many mothers defrauded of their children were and are minors, younger than most activist adoptees are now. Our outrage is justified. Our civil and human rights were and are trammeled, but this is tolerated and viewed as a minor concern. It is not, not for us. If our rights hadn't been trammeled, if adoption weren't a business here, records would have been opened decades ago as in other advanced countries. Thousands of people are searching and having reunions, but when it comes time to speak out and fight to change the system, most sit on their duffs. They're passive and seem unable or unwilling to look at the big picture, or take risks in pursuit of justice. Most are quite short-sighted and afraid to take a stand on adoption as an institution. They're looking out for #1, to hell with everyone else. Well, I don't think that's neccessarily a trait that can be exclusively applied to adoptees. Here's a nugget from one bastard, though; we're not responsible for fixing the ills of the past. The trauma that our mothers may or may not have had to deal with is not ours. I'm sympathetic, for
the most part but I can't change what went down. As far as the institution
goes as a whole, I'm rather ambivilent about it. I wasn't harmed by it, and I doubt I'd be much better or worse off if I hadn't been relinquished. There are some basic changes I'd like to see in adoption practice, but I'm unable to generate much passion about it. For example, how many adoptees or natural mothers or adopters openly protest unethical adoption counseling, falsified vital records and the selling of children? Not "services," children. These are fundamental aspects of American adoption and those unwilling to take a stand against these abuses perpetuate them by remaining silent, and by attacking those of us who *are* willing to take a stand. If adoption > ended in the U.S., it would deprive adoptees of one of the few > pastimes they are allowed to pursue without adult supervision: > Thanking their mothers for not killing them. > Well, if adoption ended in the US, after a while there wouldn't be any adoptees left to do as you hypothesize. Adoption is ending here, though more slowly than in other countries. I look forward to the day when there are no more adoptees, only citizens with exactly the same rights as everyone else who happened to be raised by people other than their natural parents, and then only when necessary. When does it become necessary? Death? Ideally, there should be no need for adoption, or war, or any other traumatic experience in people's lives that could be prevented if human beings simply loved and accepted one another. Most adoptions result from poverty, ignorance and greed. Poverty and ignorance are fixable. Greed needn't be satisfied; it can be safely ignored. Americans in general haven't got that one down yet. Utopia exists nowhere. Human nature is a constant. I see you have a penchant for sarcasm, but do you generally feel the adopted population is as stupid and dependant as you depict above? Jack I don't think they're stupid. I do think most are overly dependent and rather timid. Adoptees have said this themselves. Not me. I've made my own way since I was 17. They're afraid of upsetting the applecart. They "parent" their own adopters growing up. They feel responsible for their adopters' feelings, seldom realizing that no one is responsible for another's happiness, least of all a child. They live as if they are treading on eggshells. Adoption forces them to assume this burden, and many become accustomed to carrying it. That doesn't make it healthy or right. The same applies to many natural mothers, who are ever so grateful when adopters are even decent to them. I wouldn't speak for mothers, but you're off base when it comes to
adoptees. What I see here is you trying to twist your obvious distaste for adopters into some kind of pseudo-psychiatric cycle of co-dependency dementia.
Yeah, I'll be the first to admit that the adoptive family is different on a
basic level. That's not to say it can't work and be satisfactory to the
adoptee. Children reared by their natural parents might feel this way, too, but most outgrow it. They have a sense of security that I believe most adoptees do not share. I think adoption stunts people's emotional growth, and that applies to all parties. It makes them fearful and dishonest with themselves and others. Ahhh...so we're lying, timid, insecure overgrown children. Nice. It's a wonder that you haven't been more successful recruiting bastards to your cause with sweet talk like that. Adoption's a symptom of a sick society, not a cure for anything. Nah. Adoption exists everywhere. Whether it be in a society that is routinely dragged through the mud (read US) or as practiced by chimps in coastal Africa. Adoption, in and of itself, isn't a symptom of anything. It simply is. The hows and whys can use some serious tweaking, but adoption in some form will always be with us. I feel violated when I hear adoptees thanking their mothers for not aborting them, and claiming we signed some sort of "contract." We American mothers hear this continually. Our children are taught that we would have aborted them or failed as mothers had adoption not been available and encouraged, and that we made willing, informed decisions to abandon them. Ehhh....I don't know. I feel about as grateful for not be aborted as I do being adopted. In other words it's a meaningless exercise. That **** was outta my hands. I could just as easily credit Martin Luther, Attila the Hun and/or George
II for setting a chain of events in motion that resulted in my eventual existance. Even our legislators spew these despicable lies. This is emotional child abuse, and cruelty to mothers. The sooner it all ends, the better. Lawmakers lie. It's their job. If adoptees want mothers who willingly signed contracts to abandon them, who passively accept the fact that they and their children were and are treated unjustly, who feel no disgust and outrage about this legalized insanity, they might as well adjust to being treated like dogs. I don't see many women like this fighting for adoptees' rights, but I'm sure you can find some if that's what you want. Well, I feel little disgust or outrage as to my own relinquishment. It
was a classic rock vs hard place deal and my mother did what she figured was best. We can't change that. If it had occured today, she likely would
have opted for an abortion. Big deal. Life moves on and we're moving with it. Florence Fisher once advised me that we natural mothers should "be more ladylike." Bill Pierce once lectured me to be "more professional." Bill told me I would burn in hell. He would also agree with you that, as
an adoptee, my development was severely arrested. In other words, we should sit passively by and allow adoptees, babybrokers and adopters to misrepresent us. We should approve of adoption, and others' quick-fix solutions. Nah. That's definitely not Bill. He seemed to thrive on well constructed debate. We can't and we won't. We are human beings, we love our children and have suffered immensely for losing them. We care about all mothers and children, we will speak our minds, and if that offends others so be it. The only thing I find offensive is your apparent willingness to speak on behalf of adoptees when, in fact, you have no first hand knowledge of the dynamics of an adoptive family. The ultimate irony here is that, while you deride any feelings of
attachment that an adoptee may feel for his adopter as unhealthy and tied to some misplaced feelings of gratitude, you offer that he should instead throw off the yoke of his oppression by way of standing arm in arm with
his natural mother to seek justice for the wrongs perpetrated on her. Seems to me to be the flip side of the same coin. I do have a penchant for sarcasm. Adoption invites sarcasm. Yep, it sure does. It is not a sacred cow, nor the core of my identity. It was a bad dream, and I woke up. No, it's not a sacred cow. However, since it's not the core of your identity why are you disgusted with adoptees who don't define themselves
by adoption? Jack
I suppose in twenty years or so we will be having this kind of debate about
children born from surrogacy or embryo donation.

Geopelia

steve to LauraLewis:
Oh, giggle. Bill was right -- you aren't professional at all. it hasnothing to do with being "passive." It has everything to do with gettingresults. You don't play the game, you don't even see the game beingplayed. All you can do is kvetch.Marley is professional. You aren't, and never will be.


Right on.


P2P

"Rupa Bose" <rkbose@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message
news:e5619372.0403301136.55e52a88@posting.google.c om... "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote > I have no idea why anybody--bio or adopted--should be thankful for not
being aborted. They should be pissed off that they weren't. Who in their
right mind actually enjoys their life of misery and desire? Yo, Marley, are you Buddhist? Rupa

I studied Buddhism a long time ago and was influenced by it . Also by Anton
LeVay. Perhaps I'm a Satanic Buddhist. I simply don't understand how
anyone can look around them and like much enjoy what they see.

Marley

Robin Harritt <karakoram@postadoption.info> wrote in message news:<BC8EF091.399A4%karakoram@postadoption.info>... in article 9a095db9.0403292301.51a3740d@posting.google.com, Dian at patrice068@optusnet.com.au wrote on 30/3/04 8:01 am: "geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:<ZL2ac.4361$Tf3.71976@news.xtra.co.nz>... "Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:9a095db9.0403291005.143277a4@posting.google.c om...>> You saviour you. Shall I worship at your shrine? Typical adopter. BTW,> there was financial support for single mothers. It amounted to the> same support widows got, less one dollar. It was people like you who> worked in the business, as you no doubt did, who made it their> business not to let them know about it.> Because that would have given then the choice of keeping and that just> wouldn't do would it? I never heard of any such support in New Zealand until recently, when the DPB came in. She could have got the dole, but for that she would have had to be prepared to take any job that was offered. To work, she would have needed some kind of care for the child. Even prostitution was illegal until just recently. Under the Child Welfare Acts since post WW2 the unmarried mother has bene entitled to financial support in all Commonwealth Countries. It took until 1973 to make it public knowledge. <Snip> All Commonwealth countries? Since WW2? Did WW2 drag on until nearly 1949 here in England then? The NAB benefits given to single mothers from the late 1940s to the mid 1970s in England were simply inadequate for the purpose. Hence children's homes like Dr Barnardo's Homes were still filling up in the fifties and sixties with kids like me, whose mothers had tried to keep them and found it to be impossible on the money available to them. The idea that if it had only been for mothers being told about these benefits, then they would have somehow magically have been able to keep their children is otiose, in England certainly, I'd be interested to know if benefits really were adequate in other British Commonwealth countries or elsewhere in the 1940 - 1970s. Certainly when Di speaks for "the Commonwealth Countries" I do wish she would leave the United Kingdom countries out of it. I have a 300 page file and an Adoption Order to say, no, mothers couldn't necessarily keep their child on that grant, and not without want of trying, certainly not unless they also had the support of their parents. Robin

Irrespective of whether it was inadequate or otherwise, it existed and
was not being made publicly known. And that was my point. What's more,
your mother's situation was unique in that she had far more children
to raise than the general unmarried parent. So of course she would
find it more difficult to stretch the pound than the general unmarried
mother population who cared for one, sometimes two children and who
worked and ultimately married within a few years, thus acquiring a
breadwinner of their own.

Di

"geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:<87dac.4905$Tf3.80430@news.xtra.co.nz>... "Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:9a095db9.0403292301.51a3740d@posting.google.c om... "geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:<ZL2ac.4361$Tf3.71976@news.xtra.co.nz>... "Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:9a095db9.0403291005.143277a4@posting.google.c om... > > You saviour you. Shall I worship at your shrine? Typical adopter. BTW, > there was financial support for single mothers. It amounted to the > same support widows got, less one dollar. It was people like you who > worked in the business, as you no doubt did, who made it their > business not to let them know about it. > Because that would have given then the choice of keeping and that just > wouldn't do would it? I never heard of any such support in New Zealand until recently, when the DPB came in. She could have got the dole, but for that she would have had to be prepared to take any job that was offered. To work, she would have needed some kind of care for the child. Even prostitution was illegal until just recently. Under the Child Welfare Acts since post WW2 the unmarried mother has bene entitled to financial support in all Commonwealth Countries. It took until 1973 to make it public knowledge. <Snip> > I've got news for you and it's all bad. As much as you wish it weren't > so, > most mothers don't get over the forced removal and permanent loss of > their living child. Oh and by the way, while the theft of my son > began many > years ago he wasn't restored to me. So the theft is still very much in > progress as is the loss. Is there no provision in Australia for you to find out where he is and arrange a reunion, if he wants to see you? There is in New Zealand. Some people try to find their children, some prefer not to have any contact. Same goes for children who may or may not try to trace their birth mothers. I met my son 8 years ago. Reunion resolves nothing. Why not, or shouldn't we ask? It's your own business anyway. I do think you need help though, some kind of grief counselling, like widows who mourn their husbands for too many years. (Queen Victoria was one). <snip> > > What on earth did you read? None of what I posted has to do with > retrospective legislation or open records. Nor was it about taking a > child from its adopters. > It was about our Govt finally acknowledging through a Parliamentary > Inquiry > that our adoption practices (and therefore yours in NZ) were illegal > and that our children were effectively stolen off us. Are you so > blinded by the denial of reality that you are unable to even focus on > the written word let alone comprehend anything shows adoption up for > what really going on? Doe sit traumatise your senses to read the truth > that you have to shut it out? Maybe it was technically illegal, but it was the general practice at the time and people would have known the system and gone along with it. It was general practice to gas the Jews as well. Does the fact that so many were routinely murdered make the crimes against them any less severe? That is a ridiculous comparison.

On the contrary, it's a perfect comparison.


It would be like finding homes for half aboriginal children, or bringing out orphan children from Britain. Both of these are now thought wrong. > Swindling oppressed and vulnerable mothers out of their children at birth is a crime against nature. And the difference between the Aboriginal and British child migrant children and stealing babies at birth is that no legislation wa passed to make baby theft legal. Which makes everyone involved legally accountable. > > > Would you want to take the child you gave birth to away from the only home > > it has known and the people it loves? > > I knew it. I could pick you as an adopter/babybroker a mile away. Only > adopters use those pathetic blackmail tactics. And a delusional one at > that if you believe all adoptees love their adopters. > > >Could you really be so selfish? > > What's the matter Geo, afraid the kids might finally learn the dirty > historical truth behind their adoptions? Did you tell your adopted > kids that their mothers weren't allowed to even see them and that > society refused to support their mothers so they didn't have to be > adopted out to strangers? If not, why not? How do you think hearing > the truth would have affected those children as children? > > Moreover, could you really be so selfish as to deprive a mother of her > stolen just because you, as its adopter, expect the child to be loyal > solely to you and meet your every need because you did afterall adopt > it for that purpose? I've never adopted a child myself, but a relative has, and is now a happy grandmother of several beautiful children. Then you are/were an adoption worker. You know far too much about the history and nuances of the adoption practices that were 'conveniently hidden form public gaze' to be an innocent bystander. No-one outside of the victims and perprators knew what was actually going on. It was keep hushed up until mothers began speaking out publicly, because even back them the general public wouldn't stand for it. They were being made to believe mothers didn't want their babies so the truth didn't offend the public's delicate sensibilities. You are jumping to conclusions about me. I know a lot about multiple births too, but I am not about to produce quadruplets. That was a successful adoption as it should be. That how adoption's success is gauged. The adopter's happiness is all that counts. Bugger the mothers loss that brought the adopters happiness about, or the adoptees loss, right! Gotta wonder how some of them live with themselves, but then only someone without a conscience could find happiness at the expense of another's lifelong loss. Does your relative show any semblence of possessing a consience? Does she ever wonder about the loss all the mother's of her achildren endured so that she could satisfy her need to obtain a family she would otherwise not have had? I suspect if she possessed one she would want to thank them for her happiness. Has she done so yet? And if not, why not? I have no idea whether she ever met them. Probably not, as she is in Britain. Perhaps there should be some way to find out during pregnancy if girls are going to be like you, and unable to accept the situation after adoption. Then they could be advised that abortion would be the better choice, now it is legal. Why not help the mother keep her child instead? There should also be plenty of help and counselling after the child is adopted, instead of just turning the girls out to try to pick up the pieces themselves. Counselling post adoption is brainwashing - trying to convince the mother that she should play along and pretend to get over it. They never had and still don't have answers to how counselling helps a mother recover from the loss of her living child to adoption. All empty platitudes - and it is known that it only gets worse as time passes - unlike other losses - because the child continues to live and so there can be no real closure. Which is why no post adoption grief counselling exists. Even the professionals feel stupid hearing themselves mouth off the nonsense they spout. I just wish I could help you, instead of being rude to you like some people here. Why, would it make you feel better about the part you played in these baby thefts? I was never involved.

You'll forgive me if I don't believe you.

Di


Di Geopelia > > > > > > > http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/Committee.nsf/0/56e4e53dfa16a > > > > 023ca256cfd002a63bc/$FILE/Report.PDF > > > > > > > > > > Read page 122 > > > > > > > > > > 7.61 Justice Richard Chisholm agreed that the mother remained > > > > > guardian of the child until she gave consent and that preventing her > > > > > from having access to the child prior to the consent "would not have > > > > > been authorised." > > > > > > > > > > 7.62 The Committee therefore believes that the practice of denying a > > > > > mother access to her child prior to the signing of consent was > > > > > unlawful. Those professionals who contributed to the process where > > > > > access was denied were clearly acting unlawfully. > > > > > > > > > > 7.63 Whatever the rationale for the practice, the Committee believes > > > > > that in all cases women should have been consulted about this issue > > > > > prior to the birth and that a woman should not have been denied > > > > > access to her child if she requested it. Therefore, failure to grant > > > > > access constituted an unlawful and unethical action. Releasing the > > > > > Past. Adoption Practices 1950-1998 Final Report. Page 104 [p122 on > > > > > PDF] New South Wales Parliament. Legislative Council. Standing > > > > > Committee on Social Issues: Adoption Practices 1950-1998 Final Report. > > > > > Page 104 New South Wales Parliament. Legislative Council. Standing > > > > > Committee on Social Issues (see Appendix 11) Hard copy still > > > > > available through Parliament House. > > > > > > > > > > From the 2nd interim report of same Parliamentary inquiry. > > > > > > > > > > The Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield Evans: Can I ask why it is not kidnapping? > > > > > > > > > > Justice Chisholm: I cannot remember whether there is a separate crime > > > > > called "kidnapping" and if there is, whether it contains something > > > > > like "for gain" or something like that, but subject to that > > > > > qualification, if one wanted to describe it as kidnapping in a non > > > > > technical sense, that seems to me to be pretty right. It was certainly > > > > > an unauthorised taking of the child. Adoption Practices 1950-1998 > > > > > Second Interim Report. New South Wales Parliament. Legislative > > > > > Council. Standing Committee on Social Issues: 25th October 1999. Room > > > > > 814/815 Parliament House, Sydney. Richard Colin Chisholm, Judge of the > > > > > Family Court, Family Court, affirmed and examined. Page 177-188 (see > > > > > Appendix 10) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From an earlier inquiry by the Human Rights Commission. > > > > > > > > > > "Adoption procedures have largely disregarded the rights of the parent > > > > > considering relinquishment to be made aware of the alternative > > > > > options to adoption, and to full and disinterested support in arriving > > > > > at a decision. The many submissions received from natural mothers > > > > > who relinquished children for adoption, describing their unresolved > > > > > grief and sense of loss, bear testimony to the failure of > > > > > bureaucratic procedures to protect their rights." Human Rights > > > > > Commission Report No 23, November 1986, page 3 (see Appendix 6) > > > > > > > > > > Adoptions in Oz were illegal in every respect and our Govt is Sh***ing > > > > > itself waiting for our next move. > > > > > > > > > > Would you also like the admission by the Health Commission in 1982 > > > > > admitting to their practices as being illegal and having contravened > > > > > the Adoption of Children Act 1965 on mental health and legal gounds as > > > > > well as the mother common law rights as the sole legal guardian of her > > > > > child? It did the rounds of all the hospitals in Oz as a warning to > > > > > the hospitals to stop the practice or risk facing litigation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Di

>Subject: Re: Adopted a Baby and Have Questions About Our RightsFrom: rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose)Date: 3/30/04 2:36 PM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <e5619372.0403301136.55e52a88@posting.google.com>"Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote > I have no idea why anybody--bio or adopted--should be thankful for notbeing aborted. They should be pissed off that they weren't. Who in their right mind actually enjoys their life of misery and desire?Yo, Marley, are you Buddhist?

I believe she's a Quaker. Same thing, practically.

Dad

"AdoptaDad" <adoptadad@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040330195953.03813.00000355@mb-m01.aol.com...Subject: Re: Adopted a Baby and Have Questions About Our RightsFrom: rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose)Date: 3/30/04 2:36 PM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <e5619372.0403301136.55e52a88@posting.google.com>"Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote > I have no idea why anybody--bio or adopted--should be thankful for notbeing aborted. They should be pissed off that they weren't. Who in their
right mind actually enjoys their life of misery and desire?Yo, Marley, are you Buddhist? I believe she's a Quaker. Same thing, practically. Dad

Not at the Quaker school I graduated from. These people held prayer
meetings for Unitarians.

Marley

"Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:9a095db9.0403301608.110aac4b@posting.google.c om... "geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:<87dac.4905$Tf3.80430@news.xtra.co.nz>... "Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:9a095db9.0403292301.51a3740d@posting.google.c om... "geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:<ZL2ac.4361$Tf3.71976@news.xtra.co.nz>... > "Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message > news:9a095db9.0403291005.143277a4@posting.google.c om... > > > > You saviour you. Shall I worship at your shrine? Typical adopter.
BTW, > > there was financial support for single mothers. It amounted to the > > same support widows got, less one dollar. It was people like you
who > > worked in the business, as you no doubt did, who made it their > > business not to let them know about it. > > Because that would have given then the choice of keeping and that
just > > wouldn't do would it? > > I never heard of any such support in New Zealand until recently,
when the > DPB came in. She could have got the dole, but for that she would
have had to > be prepared to take any job that was offered. To work, she would
have needed > some kind of care for the child. > Even prostitution was illegal until just recently. Under the Child Welfare Acts since post WW2 the unmarried mother has bene entitled to financial support in all Commonwealth Countries. It took until 1973 to make it public knowledge. <Snip> > > I've got news for you and it's all bad. As much as you wish it
weren't > > so, > > most mothers don't get over the forced removal and permanent loss
of > > their living child. Oh and by the way, while the theft of my son > > began many > > years ago he wasn't restored to me. So the theft is still very
much in > > progress as is the loss. > > Is there no provision in Australia for you to find out where he is
and > arrange a reunion, if he wants to see you? > There is in New Zealand. Some people try to find their children,
some prefer > not to have any contact. Same goes for children who may or may not
try to > trace their birth mothers. > I met my son 8 years ago. Reunion resolves nothing. Why not, or shouldn't we ask? It's your own business anyway. I do think
you need help though, some kind of grief counselling, like widows who mourn their husbands for too many years. (Queen Victoria was one). <snip> > > > > What on earth did you read? None of what I posted has to do with > > retrospective legislation or open records. Nor was it about taking
a > > child from its adopters. > > It was about our Govt finally acknowledging through a
Parliamentary > > Inquiry > > that our adoption practices (and therefore yours in NZ) were
illegal > > and that our children were effectively stolen off us. Are you so > > blinded by the denial of reality that you are unable to even focus
on > > the written word let alone comprehend anything shows adoption up
for > > what really going on? Doe sit traumatise your senses to read the
truth > > that you have to shut it out? > > Maybe it was technically illegal, but it was the general practice at
the > time and people would have known the system and gone along with it. It was general practice to gas the Jews as well. Does the fact that so many were routinely murdered make the crimes against them any less severe? That is a ridiculous comparison. On the contrary, it's a perfect comparison. > It would be like finding homes for half aboriginal children, or
bringing out > orphan children from Britain. Both of these are now thought wrong. > > Swindling oppressed and vulnerable mothers out of their children at birth is a crime against nature. And the difference between the Aboriginal and British child migrant children and stealing babies at birth is that no legislation wa passed to make baby theft legal. Which makes everyone involved legally accountable. > > > > > Would you want to take the child you gave birth to away from the only home > > > it has known and the people it loves? > > > > I knew it. I could pick you as an adopter/babybroker a mile away.
Only > > adopters use those pathetic blackmail tactics. And a delusional
one at > > that if you believe all adoptees love their adopters. > > > > >Could you really be so selfish? > > > > What's the matter Geo, afraid the kids might finally learn the
dirty > > historical truth behind their adoptions? Did you tell your adopted > > kids that their mothers weren't allowed to even see them and that > > society refused to support their mothers so they didn't have to be > > adopted out to strangers? If not, why not? How do you think
hearing > > the truth would have affected those children as children? > > > > Moreover, could you really be so selfish as to deprive a mother of
her > > stolen just because you, as its adopter, expect the child to be
loyal > > solely to you and meet your every need because you did afterall
adopt > > it for that purpose? > > I've never adopted a child myself, but a relative has, and is now a happy > grandmother of several beautiful children. Then you are/were an adoption worker. You know far too much about the history and nuances of the adoption practices that were 'conveniently hidden form public gaze' to be an innocent bystander. No-one outside of the victims and perprators knew what was actually going on. It was keep hushed up until mothers began speaking out publicly, because even back them the general public wouldn't stand for it. They were being made to believe mothers didn't want their babies so the truth didn't offend the public's delicate sensibilities. You are jumping to conclusions about me. I know a lot about multiple
births too, but I am not about to produce quadruplets. > That was a successful adoption as it should be. That how adoption's success is gauged. The adopter's happiness is all that counts. Bugger the mothers loss that brought the adopters happiness about, or the adoptees loss, right! Gotta wonder how some of them live with themselves, but then only someone without a conscience could find happiness at the expense of another's lifelong loss. Does your relative show any semblence of possessing a consience? Does she ever wonder about the loss all the mother's of her achildren endured so that she could satisfy her need to obtain a family she would otherwise not have had? I suspect if she possessed one she would want to thank them for her happiness. Has she done so yet? And if not, why not? I have no idea whether she ever met them. Probably not, as she is in Britain. > Perhaps there should be some way to find out during pregnancy if
girls are > going to be like you, and unable to accept the situation after
adoption. > Then they could be advised that abortion would be the better choice,
now it > is legal. Why not help the mother keep her child instead? > There should also be plenty of help and counselling after the child
is > adopted, instead of just turning the girls out to try to pick up the pieces > themselves. Counselling post adoption is brainwashing - trying to convince the mother that she should play along and pretend to get over it. They never had and still don't have answers to how counselling helps a mother recover from the loss of her living child to adoption. All empty platitudes - and it is known that it only gets worse as time passes - unlike other losses - because the child continues to live and so there can be no real closure. Which is why no post adoption grief counselling exists. Even the professionals feel stupid hearing themselves mouth off the nonsense they spout. > > I just wish I could help you, instead of being rude to you like some people > here. Why, would it make you feel better about the part you played in these baby thefts? I was never involved. You'll forgive me if I don't believe you. Di

Of course I'll forgive you, nevertheless it's the truth. Di > Geopelia > > > > > > > > > > >
http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/Committee.nsf/0/56e4e53dfa16a > > > > > 023ca256cfd002a63bc/$FILE/Report.PDF > > > > > > > > > > > > Read page 122 > > > > > > > > > > > > 7.61 Justice Richard Chisholm agreed that the mother
remained > > > > > > guardian of the child until she gave consent and that preventing her > > > > > > from having access to the child prior to the consent
"would not have > > > > > > been authorised." > > > > > > > > > > > > 7.62 The Committee therefore believes that the practice of denying a > > > > > > mother access to her child prior to the signing of consent
was > > > > > > unlawful. Those professionals who contributed to the
process where > > > > > > access was denied were clearly acting unlawfully. > > > > > > > > > > > > 7.63 Whatever the rationale for the practice, the
Committee believes > > > > > > that in all cases women should have been consulted about
this issue > > > > > > prior to the birth and that a woman should not have been denied > > > > > > access to her child if she requested it. Therefore,
failure to grant > > > > > > access constituted an unlawful and unethical action.
Releasing the > > > > > > Past. Adoption Practices 1950-1998 Final Report. Page 104 [p122 on > > > > > > PDF] New South Wales Parliament. Legislative Council.
Standing > > > > > > Committee on Social Issues: Adoption Practices 1950-1998
Final Report. > > > > > > Page 104 New South Wales Parliament. Legislative Council. Standing > > > > > > Committee on Social Issues (see Appendix 11) Hard copy
still > > > > > > available through Parliament House. > > > > > > > > > > > > From the 2nd interim report of same Parliamentary inquiry. > > > > > > > > > > > > The Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield Evans: Can I ask why it is not kidnapping? > > > > > > > > > > > > Justice Chisholm: I cannot remember whether there is a separate crime > > > > > > called "kidnapping" and if there is, whether it contains something > > > > > > like "for gain" or something like that, but subject to
that > > > > > > qualification, if one wanted to describe it as kidnapping
in a non > > > > > > technical sense, that seems to me to be pretty right. It
was certainly > > > > > > an unauthorised taking of the child. Adoption Practices 1950-1998 > > > > > > Second Interim Report. New South Wales Parliament.
Legislative > > > > > > Council. Standing Committee on Social Issues: 25th October 1999. Room > > > > > > 814/815 Parliament House, Sydney. Richard Colin Chisholm, Judge of the > > > > > > Family Court, Family Court, affirmed and examined. Page 177-188 (see > > > > > > Appendix 10) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From an earlier inquiry by the Human Rights Commission. > > > > > > > > > > > > "Adoption procedures have largely disregarded the rights
of the parent > > > > > > considering relinquishment to be made aware of the
alternative > > > > > > options to adoption, and to full and disinterested support
in arriving > > > > > > at a decision. The many submissions received from
natural mothers > > > > > > who relinquished children for adoption, describing their unresolved > > > > > > grief and sense of loss, bear testimony to the failure of > > > > > > bureaucratic procedures to protect their rights." Human
Rights > > > > > > Commission Report No 23, November 1986, page 3 (see
Appendix 6) > > > > > > > > > > > > Adoptions in Oz were illegal in every respect and our Govt
is Sh***ing > > > > > > itself waiting for our next move. > > > > > > > > > > > > Would you also like the admission by the Health Commission
in 1982 > > > > > > admitting to their practices as being illegal and having contravened > > > > > > the Adoption of Children Act 1965 on mental health and
legal gounds as > > > > > > well as the mother common law rights as the sole legal guardian of her > > > > > > child? It did the rounds of all the hospitals in Oz as a warning to > > > > > > the hospitals to stop the practice or risk facing
litigation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Di

in article 9a095db9.0403301549.53f3e345@posting.google.com, Dian at
patrice068@optusnet.com.au wrote on 31/3/04 12:49 am:
Robin Harritt <karakoram@postadoption.info> wrote in message news:<BC8EF091.399A4%karakoram@postadoption.info>... in article 9a095db9.0403292301.51a3740d@posting.google.com, Dian at patrice068@optusnet.com.au wrote on 30/3/04 8:01 am: "geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:<ZL2ac.4361$Tf3.71976@news.xtra.co.nz>...> "Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message> news:9a095db9.0403291005.143277a4@posting.google.c om...>>>> You saviour you. Shall I worship at your shrine? Typical adopter. BTW,>> there was financial support for single mothers. It amounted to the>> same support widows got, less one dollar. It was people like you who>> worked in the business, as you no doubt did, who made it their>> business not to let them know about it.>> Because that would have given then the choice of keeping and that just>> wouldn't do would it?>> I never heard of any such support in New Zealand until recently, when the> DPB came in. She could have got the dole, but for that she would have had> to> be prepared to take any job that was offered. To work, she would have> needed> some kind of care for the child.> Even prostitution was illegal until just recently. Under the Child Welfare Acts since post WW2 the unmarried mother has bene entitled to financial support in all Commonwealth Countries. It took until 1973 to make it public knowledge. <Snip> All Commonwealth countries? Since WW2? Did WW2 drag on until nearly 1949 here in England then? The NAB benefits given to single mothers from the late 1940s to the mid 1970s in England were simply inadequate for the purpose. Hence children's homes like Dr Barnardo's Homes were still filling up in the fifties and sixties with kids like me, whose mothers had tried to keep them and found it to be impossible on the money available to them. The idea that if it had only been for mothers being told about these benefits, then they would have somehow magically have been able to keep their children is otiose, in England certainly, I'd be interested to know if benefits really were adequate in other British Commonwealth countries or elsewhere in the 1940 - 1970s. Certainly when Di speaks for "the Commonwealth Countries" I do wish she would leave the United Kingdom countries out of it. I have a 300 page file and an Adoption Order to say, no, mothers couldn't necessarily keep their child on that grant, and not without want of trying, certainly not unless they also had the support of their parents. Robin


Irrespective of whether it was inadequate or otherwise, it existed and was not being made publicly known.




What do you mean by "publicly known"? You mean the government passed a law
making these benefits available, in secret, it never made it into Hansard or
any newspapers? "The public" doesn't really think about benefits other than
those appropriate to the particular member of it doing thinking. How much
can you tell me off the top of your head about the benefits available to
miners with pneumoconiosis in the New South Wales black coal industry? In
the British state benefits system it is largely up to the individual to
discover what her entitlements are and to claim them, the government doesn't
and never has gone out in search of people in order to give benefits to
them. There never was a law here there or anywhere else to say the
government he has to send someone out to put your child welfare benefits in
your pocket for you.

Robin

in article 9a095db9.0403301549.53f3e345@posting.google.com, Dian at
patrice068@optusnet.com.au wrote on 31/3/04 12:49 am:
Robin Harritt <karakoram@postadoption.info> wrote in message news:<BC8EF091.399A4%karakoram@postadoption.info>...

<snip>

According to Di
Under the Child Welfare Acts since post WW2 the unmarried mother has bene entitled to financial support in all Commonwealth Countries. It took until 1973 to make it public knowledge. <Snip>
All Commonwealth countries? Since WW2? Did WW2 drag on until nearly 1949 here in England then? The NAB benefits given to single mothers from the late 1940s to the mid 1970s in England were simply inadequate for the purpose. Hence children's homes like Dr Barnardo's Homes were still filling up in the fifties and sixties with kids like me, whose mothers had tried to keep them and found it to be impossible on the money available to them. The idea that if it had only been for mothers being told about these benefits, then they would have somehow magically have been able to keep their children is otiose, in England certainly, I'd be interested to know if benefits really were adequate in other British Commonwealth countries or elsewhere in the 1940 - 1970s. Certainly when Di speaks for "the Commonwealth Countries" I do wish she would leave the United Kingdom countries out of it. I have a 300 page file and an Adoption Order to say, no, mothers couldn't necessarily keep their child on that grant, and not without want of trying, certainly not unless they also had the support of their parents. Robin

Irrespective of whether it was inadequate or otherwise, it existed and was not being made publicly known. And that was my point. What's more, your mother's situation was unique in that she had far more children to raise than the general unmarried parent. So of course she would find it more difficult to stretch the pound than the general unmarried mother population who cared for one, sometimes two children and who worked and ultimately married within a few years, thus acquiring a breadwinner of their own. Di


I keep putting this up so that you can understand what I'm writing about Di,
http://robin.robin.org/records My mother had 11 kids throughout her lifetime
she didn't have them all at the same time. Her situation in 1954 was exactly
the same as it was for many other single mothers. At the time of my birth
she had two children, me and a three year old. She had an affililiation
order against our father in respect of my brother, so in effect, she should
have been better off than most single mothers, if the authorities could have
been bothered to find him and make him pay up. The fact that she had had
previous children, that she had given up to adoption or care after getting
in to financial difficulty would mean that she would, one hopes, have been
wiser as to what benefits that were available. Or do you think that there
was such a conspiracy that the authorities would sooner let a child starve
than tell its mother what welfare benefits were available to her. Things
were not good, but I don't think they were that bad.

Robin

Robin Harritt <karakoram@postadoption.info> wrote in message news:<BC903807.39ABF%karakoram@postadoption.info>... in article 9a095db9.0403301549.53f3e345@posting.google.com, Dian at patrice068@optusnet.com.au wrote on 31/3/04 12:49 am: Robin Harritt <karakoram@postadoption.info> wrote in message news:<BC8EF091.399A4%karakoram@postadoption.info>... in article 9a095db9.0403292301.51a3740d@posting.google.com, Dian at patrice068@optusnet.com.au wrote on 30/3/04 8:01 am:> "geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message> news:<ZL2ac.4361$Tf3.71976@news.xtra.co.nz>...>> "Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message>> news:9a095db9.0403291005.143277a4@posting.google.c om...>>>>>> You saviour you. Shall I worship at your shrine? Typical adopter. BTW,>>> there was financial support for single mothers. It amounted to the>>> same support widows got, less one dollar. It was people like you who>>> worked in the business, as you no doubt did, who made it their>>> business not to let them know about it.>>> Because that would have given then the choice of keeping and that just>>> wouldn't do would it?>>>> I never heard of any such support in New Zealand until recently, when the>> DPB came in. She could have got the dole, but for that she would have had>> to>> be prepared to take any job that was offered. To work, she would have>> needed>> some kind of care for the child.>> Even prostitution was illegal until just recently.>> Under the Child Welfare Acts since post WW2 the unmarried mother has> bene entitled to financial support in all Commonwealth Countries. It> took until 1973 to make it public knowledge.>>> <Snip> All Commonwealth countries? Since WW2? Did WW2 drag on until nearly 1949 here in England then? The NAB benefits given to single mothers from the late 1940s to the mid 1970s in England were simply inadequate for the purpose. Hence children's homes like Dr Barnardo's Homes were still filling up in the fifties and sixties with kids like me, whose mothers had tried to keep them and found it to be impossible on the money available to them. The idea that if it had only been for mothers being told about these benefits, then they would have somehow magically have been able to keep their children is otiose, in England certainly, I'd be interested to know if benefits really were adequate in other British Commonwealth countries or elsewhere in the 1940 - 1970s. Certainly when Di speaks for "the Commonwealth Countries" I do wish she would leave the United Kingdom countries out of it. I have a 300 page file and an Adoption Order to say, no, mothers couldn't necessarily keep their child on that grant, and not without want of trying, certainly not unless they also had the support of their parents. Robin Irrespective of whether it was inadequate or otherwise, it existed and was not being made publicly known. What do you mean by "publicly known"?


It wasn't being advertised and therefore wasn't publicly known.
It became public knowledge in 1973, at least in Oz and NZ, when public
debate and outcry begun over the Labour Govt's introduction and
publication of the Sole Parent Benefit and its consequential results
which immediately caused a crisis in infant adoption numbers as
single women began defying the social mores/stigma and refused to
give up their babies now that they knew they had an alternative
option. In that one year our figures dropped by half. Why? Because
mothers were finally being given the means to keep. Read the
literature. Even today, Govt websites claim the drop in adoptions was
a direct result of the PUBLICATION OF INFORMATION about the
introduction of financial support to single women.

If a present day historian didn't know benefits were available ot sole
parents prior to 1973,

http://www.aifs.org.au/institute/afrc7/kellys.html
There are many reasons for this decrease which include: effective
birth control leading to a decrease in the number of unplanned
pregnancies; changing community attitudes towards ex-nuptial births;
the provision of income support for sole parents which was introduced
in 1973; andthe introduction of alternative legal orders which
transfer permanent guardianship and custody of a child to a person
other than the parent (such as a permanent care order in Victoria)

and if the NSW Law Reform ewviewing the Adoption Information Act in
1990 didn't know that benefits were available ot single mothers prior
to 1973

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/nswlrc/rpt69/index.html
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/nswlrc/rpt69/00121.html
5.29 Second, there was a lack of social and financial support for
unmarried mothers. The supporting mothers benefit was not introduced
until 1973. For many single mothers, it would have been difficult or
impossible for them to manage on their own with a baby unless their
own families provided a great deal of assistance.

......how do you suppose that information escaped there attention if it
wa son public record and if it was bieng made publicly known and
available to mothers prior to 1993? And if they didn't know about it
how do you suppose advised a teenage or single pregnant mother
banished form society to an unmarried mother's hime was going to find
out? And who was going to tell her? Would it have been the very people
who were telling her it was in her babies best interests to be adopted
into a married two parent family because she couldn't care ofr a child
with no husband, the priest and nuns who filled her with shame and
told her she could atone for her sins by "doing the right thing" and
giving her baby up to legitimate it, the doctors who labelled her as a
having bad blood and believed nurture (aka adoption) would spare the
child from his genetically bad blooded fate? Which one of these groups
of people put her right to know about those services above their own
political and moral agendas?

The bottom line was that it was the social workers/almoners/district
officer duty to inform the mother of her rights as part of their duty
of care otwards her. And they failed ot do so. And it was my
organization who researched and discovered it's existance and that
it's availability was well known and part
of their training as per their own training manuals and was discussed
at length at every National Child Welfare conference since the
fifties.

If I hadn't been through the experience myself to know that those
provisions were not being offered to pregnant women, like you I would
have 'assumed' it was known about and being offered, simply because it
was written in their literature. And that's why the past illegalities
have only recently been made
known. Because women like me were finally able to compare our
experiences with their professional literature to see what was
SUPPOSED to occur, and didn't.

BTW, even Geo admits that she/he wasn't aware of any benefits to
single mothers until recent years. Why didn't she know?


You mean the government passed a law making these benefits available, in secret, it never made it into Hansard or any newspapers? "The public" doesn't really think about benefits other than those appropriate to the particular member of it doing thinking. How much can you tell me off the top of your head about the benefits available to miners with pneumoconiosis in the New South Wales black coal industry? In the British state benefits system it is largely up to the individual to discover what her entitlements are and to claim them, the government doesn't and never has gone out in search of people in order to give benefits to them.

There never was a law here there or anywhere else to say the government he has to send someone out to put your child welfare benefits in your pocket for you.
WRONG!!!!!

Note the word "rights" aka legal rights. The mother had to be advised
of her option to enable her to make a LEGALLY 'informed' decision.

"Adoption procedures have largely disregarded the [rights] of the
parent considering relinquishment to be made aware of the alternative
options to adoption, and to full and disinterested support in arriving
at a decision. The many submissions received from natural mothers
who relinquished children for adoption, describing their unresolved
grief and sense of loss, bear testimony to the failure of
bureaucratic procedures to protect their [rights.]" Human Rights
Commission Report No 23, November 1986, page 3 (see Appendix 6)


From the District officers Training Manuals. The REGULATIONS they were
SUPPOSED to offer regarding the treatment and services to unmarried
mothers. Note the dates are from 1956 - 1968.

"To avoid any misunderstanding or any suggestion that the mother
was misled or uninformed, District Officers are instructed to explain
to the mother, before taking the consent, the facilities which are
available to help her keep the child. These include homes licensed
under the Child Welfare Act for the private care of children apart
from natural parents, financial assistance to unmarried mothers under
section 27 of the Child Welfare Act, admission to State control until
the mother is in a position to care for the child, and , assistance to
affiliate the child and obtain a maintenance order against the
putative father.

When all these aids have been rejected, the officer is expected to
explain to the mother the full implications of the Act of surrendering
her child. Only when the mother has considered these, and still wishes
to proceed with the surrender for adoption, should the consent be
accepted. " Children In Need. Donald McLean Chapter 4 Page 52 1956.
Prefaced and endorsed by the Honorable R J Heffron, Deputy Premier and
Minister for Education in NSW (see Appendix C15)

And

Most of the babies come from large public hospitals where the
mother has indicated that she does not desire to keep her child.
In these cases the mother is visited in hospital by a specialist
Lady District officer who explains to the mother the facilities
(assistance) which the Department can offer to affiliate the child."

These include:

1. To assist with monetary allowance (section 27 aid. Child Welfare
Act).
2. Or by admission to State control until the mother is better placed
to resume custody and control of the child.

When all of these aids have been rejected and the mother still desires
to surrender the child for adoption the full import of surrendering
her child is explained.

Only when the mother still INSISTS does the department's officer
prepare a form of surrender. This form must be witnessed by a Justice
of the Peace who in turn must furnish an affidavit to the effect that
the instrument of consent was read and explained to the mother and in
the belief of the Justice was understood by the mother."

Unmarried Mothers

A special service to unmarried mothers has been established and a lady
district officer, holding the Diploma of Social Studies, is attached
to head office to deal with this matter. Many approaches are made
direct, and others are referred by hospitals and social agencies.
Advice is tendered in many cases, before birth. Assistance is given in
regard to waiting time, arranging confinement, employment of the
mother in such capacity as will enable her to retain and care for the
child, financial assistance, admission of the child to a home or to
state control, surrender of the child for adoption, and reference to
the Affiliation Officer."

When a deserted wife, or the mother of an illegitimate child, receives
an allowance under Section 27 of the Child Welfare Act, she is
required to give control of any maintenance order against the father
of the child to the Department. If such orders are not complied with,
application is made to the Court for enforcement. At the Metropolitan
Children's Court an officer attends daily to present evidence in
support of such applications. At Courts other than the Metropolitan
Children's Court this work is undertaken by a Field Officer.
Enforcement of maintenance orders under the Deserted Wives and
Children Act. Child Welfare of NSW 1958 District Officers /Social
Work Training Manual (see appendix C16)

And

"From the Commonwealth, the unmarried mother receives the Maternity
allowance of $30.00 and thereafter child endowment of 50 cents a
week. She is entitled to special benefits until six weeks after the
birth of the baby, when it ceases unless she is considered medically
unfit. She must apply through the courts to obtain maintenance from
the putative father before she is entitled to any help from the
Department of Child and Social Welfare.
This help would vary according to circumstances but is always $1.00
below that of the Widows pension. As you know, a Class A Widows
Pension for a woman with one child who is paying rent is $23.00 a
week. So unless she returns to work, she is permanently on an income
below that of a Widow's Pension. Australian Association of Social
Workers Eleventh National Conference Proceedings Social Issues of
Today, The unmarried mother who keeps her child' - Miss Pamela
Roberts 1968 (see Appendix C17)


Di




Robin

in article 9a095db9.0403310713.642766db@posting.google.com, Dian at
patrice068@optusnet.com.au wrote on 31/3/04 4:13 pm:
Robin Harritt <karakoram@postadoption.info> wrote in message news:<BC903807.39ABF%karakoram@postadoption.info>... in article 9a095db9.0403301549.53f3e345@posting.google.com, Dian at patrice068@optusnet.com.au wrote on 31/3/04 12:49 am: Robin Harritt <karakoram@postadoption.info> wrote in message news:<BC8EF091.399A4%karakoram@postadoption.info>...> in article 9a095db9.0403292301.51a3740d@posting.google.com, Dian at> patrice068@optusnet.com.au wrote on 30/3/04 8:01 am:>>> "geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message>> news:<ZL2ac.4361$Tf3.71976@news.xtra.co.nz>...>>> "Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message>>> news:9a095db9.0403291005.143277a4@posting.google.c om...>>>>>>>> You saviour you. Shall I worship at your shrine? Typical adopter. BTW,>>>> there was financial support for single mothers. It amounted to the>>>> same support widows got, less one dollar. It was people like you who>>>> worked in the business, as you no doubt did, who made it their>>>> business not to let them know about it.>>>> Because that would have given then the choice of keeping and that just>>>> wouldn't do would it?>>>>>> I never heard of any such support in New Zealand until recently, when the>>> DPB came in. She could have got the dole, but for that she would have had>>> to>>> be prepared to take any job that was offered. To work, she would have>>> needed>>> some kind of care for the child.>>> Even prostitution was illegal until just recently.>>>> Under the Child Welfare Acts since post WW2 the unmarried mother has>> bene entitled to financial support in all Commonwealth Countries. It>> took until 1973 to make it public knowledge.>>>>>> <Snip>>> All Commonwealth countries? Since WW2? Did WW2 drag on until nearly 1949> here in England then? The NAB benefits given to single mothers from the> late> 1940s to the mid 1970s in England were simply inadequate for the purpose.> Hence children's homes like Dr Barnardo's Homes were still filling up in> the> fifties and sixties with kids like me, whose mothers had tried to keep them> and found it to be impossible on the money available to them. The idea that> if it had only been for mothers being told about these benefits, then they> would have somehow magically have been able to keep their children is> otiose, in England certainly, I'd be interested to know if benefits really> were adequate in other British Commonwealth countries or elsewhere in the> 1940 - 1970s.>> Certainly when Di speaks for "the Commonwealth Countries" I do wish she> would leave the United Kingdom countries out of it. I have a 300 page file> and an Adoption Order to say, no, mothers couldn't necessarily keep their> child on that grant, and not without want of trying, certainly not unless> they also had the support of their parents.>>> Robin Irrespective of whether it was inadequate or otherwise, it existed and was not being made publicly known. What do you mean by "publicly known"?
It wasn't being advertised and therefore wasn't publicly known. It became public knowledge in 1973, at least in Oz and NZ,


And NZ?

when public debate and outcry begun over the Labour Govt's introduction and publication of the Sole Parent Benefit and its consequential results which immediately caused a crisis in infant adoption numbers as single women began defying the social mores/stigma and refused to give up their babies now that they knew they had an alternative option. In that one year our figures dropped by half. Why? Because mothers were finally being given the means to keep. Read the literature. Even today, Govt websites claim the drop in adoptions was a direct result of the PUBLICATION OF INFORMATION about the introduction of financial support to single women. If a present day historian didn't know benefits were available to sole parents prior to 1973, http://www.aifs.org.au/institute/afrc7/kellys.html


I can't see from that what legislative basis there was for benefits prior to
1973.

There are many reasons for this decrease which include: effective birth control leading to a decrease in the number of unplanned pregnancies; changing community attitudes towards ex-nuptial births; the provision of income support for sole parents which was introduced in 1973; and the introduction of alternative legal orders which transfer permanent guardianship and custody of a child to a person other than the parent (such as a permanent care order in Victoria)



All pretty much the same reasons that adoption in the UK gradually fell from
1:30 in the late 60s to its present day level but it was only in the mid
1970s that realistic levels of benefit became available.
and if the NSW Law Reform ewviewing the Adoption Information Act in 1990 didn't know that benefits were available ot single mothers prior to 1973

How would they, I still don't have anything other than your word for it at
the moment
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/nswlrc/rpt69/index.html http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/nswlrc/rpt69/00121.html
5.29 Second, there was a lack of social and financial support for unmarried mothers. The supporting mothers benefit was not introduced until 1973. For many single mothers, it would have been difficult or impossible for them to manage on their own with a baby unless their own families provided a great deal of assistance. .....how do you suppose that information escaped there attention if it wa son public record and if it was bieng made publicly known and available to mothers prior to 1993?



Where does 1993 come in to it? So if benefits were available prior to 1973
please cite the statute under which it was introduced and any surrounding
legislation regarding how its availability was to be publicised.


And if they didn't know about it how do you suppose advised a teenage or single pregnant mother banished form society to an unmarried mother's hime was going to find out? And who was going to tell her?

Would it have been the very people who were telling her it was in her babies best interests to be adopted into a married two parent family because she couldn't care ofr a child with no husband, the priest and nuns who filled her with shame and told her she could atone for her sins by "doing the right thing" and giving her baby up to legitimate it, the doctors who labelled her as a having bad blood and believed nurture (aka adoption) would spare the child from his genetically bad blooded fate? Which one of these groups of people put her right to know about those services above their own political and moral agendas? The bottom line was that it was the social workers/almoners/district officer duty to inform the mother of her rights as part of their duty of care otwards her. And they failed ot do so. And it was my organization who researched and discovered it's existance and that it's availability was well known and part of their training as per their own training manuals and was discussed at length at every National Child Welfare conference since the fifties. If I hadn't been through the experience myself to know that those provisions were not being offered to pregnant women, like you I would have 'assumed' it was known about and being offered, simply because it was written in their literature. And that's why the past illegalities have only recently been made known. Because women like me were finally able to compare our experiences with their professional literature to see what was SUPPOSED to occur, and didn't. BTW, even Geo admits that she/he wasn't aware of any benefits to single mothers until recent years. Why didn't she know?


OK but I'm still wondering where this pre 73 benefit came from, what Act
introduced it and what did it say about its distribution.

You mean the government passed a law making these benefits available, in secret, it never made it into Hansard or any newspapers? "The public" doesn't really think about benefits other than those appropriate to the particular member of it doing thinking. How much can you tell me off the top of your head about the benefits available to miners with pneumoconiosis in the New South Wales black coal industry? In the British state benefits system it is largely up to the individual to discover what her entitlements are and to claim them, the government doesn't and never has gone out in search of people in order to give benefits to them.
There never was a law here there or anywhere else to say the government he has to send someone out to put your child welfare benefits in your pocket for you.

WRONG!!!!!
Note the word "rights"

Note the word "rights" where?
aka legal rights. The mother had to be advised of her option to enable her to make a LEGALLY 'informed' decision.


And where was this legislated for pre 1973?
"Adoption procedures have largely disregarded the [rights] of the parent considering relinquishment to be made aware of the alternative options to adoption, and to full and disinterested support in arriving at a decision. The many submissions received from natural mothers who relinquished children for adoption, describing their unresolved grief and sense of loss, bear testimony to the failure of bureaucratic procedures to protect their [rights.]" Human Rights Commission Report No 23, November 1986, page 3 (see Appendix 6)


Where would those "rights" have been defined prior to 1973?

From the District officers Training Manuals. The REGULATIONS they were SUPPOSED to offer regarding the treatment and services to unmarried mothers. Note the dates are from 1956 - 1968. "To avoid any misunderstanding or any suggestion that the mother was misled or uninformed, District Officers are instructed to explain to the mother, before taking the consent, the facilities which are available to help her keep the child. These include homes licensed under the Child Welfare Act for the private care of children apart from natural parents, financial assistance to unmarried mothers under section 27 of the Child Welfare Act, admission to State control until the mother is in a position to care for the child, and , assistance to affiliate the child and obtain a maintenance order against the putative father. When all these aids have been rejected, the officer is expected to explain to the mother the full implications of the Act of surrendering her child. Only when the mother has considered these, and still wishes to proceed with the surrender for adoption, should the consent be accepted. " Children In Need. Donald McLean Chapter 4 Page 52 1956. Prefaced and endorsed by the Honorable R J Heffron, Deputy Premier and Minister for Education in NSW (see Appendix C15)


And those were considered to be realistic alternatives? Exactly how much
money could a mother have got from the state (prior to 1973) towards the
weekly maintenances of herself and her child? How would that have compared
to the modal average weekly wage?
And Most of the babies come from large public hospitals where the mother has indicated that she does not desire to keep her child. In these cases the mother is visited in hospital by a specialist Lady District officer who explains to the mother the facilities (assistance) which the Department can offer to affiliate the child." These include: 1. To assist with monetary allowance (section 27 aid. Child Welfare Act). 2. Or by admission to State control until the mother is better placed to resume custody and control of the child. When all of these aids have been rejected and the mother still desires to surrender the child for adoption the full import of surrendering her child is explained. Only when the mother still INSISTS does the department's officer prepare a form of surrender. This form must be witnessed by a Justice of the Peace who in turn must furnish an affidavit to the effect that the instrument of consent was read and explained to the mother and in the belief of the Justice was understood by the mother." Unmarried Mothers A special service to unmarried mothers has been established and a lady district officer, holding the Diploma of Social Studies, is attached to head office to deal with this matter. Many approaches are made direct, and others are referred by hospitals and social agencies. Advice is tendered in many cases, before birth. Assistance is given in regard to waiting time, arranging confinement, employment of the mother in such capacity as will enable her to retain and care for the child, financial assistance, admission of the child to a home or to state control, surrender of the child for adoption, and reference to the Affiliation Officer." When a deserted wife, or the mother of an illegitimate child, receives an allowance under Section 27 of the Child Welfare Act, she is required to give control of any maintenance order against the father of the child to the Department. If such orders are not complied with, application is made to the Court for enforcement. At the Metropolitan Children's Court an officer attends daily to present evidence in support of such applications. At Courts other than the Metropolitan Children's Court this work is undertaken by a Field Officer. Enforcement of maintenance orders under the Deserted Wives and Children Act. Child Welfare of NSW 1958 District Officers /Social Work Training Manual (see appendix C16) And "From the Commonwealth, the unmarried mother receives the Maternity allowance of $30.00 and thereafter child endowment of 50 cents a week. She is entitled to special benefits until six weeks after the birth of the baby, when it ceases unless she is considered medically unfit. She must apply through the courts to obtain maintenance from the putative father before she is entitled to any help from the Department of Child and Social Welfare. This help would vary according to circumstances but is always $1.00 below that of the Widows pension. As you know, a Class A Widows Pension for a woman with one child who is paying rent is $23.00 a week. So unless she returns to work, she is permanently on an income below that of a Widow's Pension. Australian Association of Social Workers Eleventh National Conference Proceedings Social Issues of Today, The unmarried mother who keeps her child' - Miss Pamela Roberts 1968 (see Appendix C17)


OK that's Australia, but you said; 'Under the Child Welfare Acts since post
WW2 the unmarried mother has been entitled to financial support *in all
Commonwealth Countries*. It took until 1973 to make it public knowledge.'

Would you care to enlarge on what you meant by "all Commonwealth Countries"
and how you feel that Aus law has come to have jurisdiction over the rest of
the Commonwealth Countries?


Robin

Robin asks Di:

<snip>
Or do you think that therewas such a conspiracy that the authorities would sooner let a child starvethan tell its mother what welfare benefits were available to her.>>

<snip>

Robin, words such as "not made publicly known" are yet another attempt to avoid
responsibility. If a person claims a conspiracy exists to deny
rights/benefits/privileges/information, then the person isn't forced to accept
responsibility for *any* failures or bad decisions.

"It wasn't my fault. No one told me. No one gave me the information."

Get it?




P2P

"Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:9a095db9.0403310713.642766db@posting.google.c om... Robin Harritt <karakoram@postadoption.info> wrote in message
news:<BC903807.39ABF%karakoram@postadoption.info>... in article 9a095db9.0403301549.53f3e345@posting.google.com, Dian at patrice068@optusnet.com.au wrote on 31/3/04 12:49 am: Robin Harritt <karakoram@postadoption.info> wrote in message news:<BC8EF091.399A4%karakoram@postadoption.info>...> in article 9a095db9.0403292301.51a3740d@posting.google.com, Dian at> patrice068@optusnet.com.au wrote on 30/3/04 8:01 am:>>> "geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message>> news:<ZL2ac.4361$Tf3.71976@news.xtra.co.nz>...>>> "Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message>>> news:9a095db9.0403291005.143277a4@posting.google.c om...>>>>>>>> You saviour you. Shall I worship at your shrine? Typical adopter.
BTW,>>>> there was financial support for single mothers. It amounted to the>>>> same support widows got, less one dollar. It was people like you
who>>>> worked in the business, as you no doubt did, who made it their>>>> business not to let them know about it.>>>> Because that would have given then the choice of keeping and that
just>>>> wouldn't do would it?>>>>>> I never heard of any such support in New Zealand until recently,
when the>>> DPB came in. She could have got the dole, but for that she would
have had>>> to>>> be prepared to take any job that was offered. To work, she would
have>>> needed>>> some kind of care for the child.>>> Even prostitution was illegal until just recently.>>>> Under the Child Welfare Acts since post WW2 the unmarried mother has>> bene entitled to financial support in all Commonwealth Countries. It>> took until 1973 to make it public knowledge.>>>>>> <Snip>>> All Commonwealth countries? Since WW2? Did WW2 drag on until nearly
1949> here in England then? The NAB benefits given to single mothers from
the late> 1940s to the mid 1970s in England were simply inadequate for the
purpose.> Hence children's homes like Dr Barnardo's Homes were still filling up
in the> fifties and sixties with kids like me, whose mothers had tried to
keep them> and found it to be impossible on the money available to them. The
idea that> if it had only been for mothers being told about these benefits, then
they> would have somehow magically have been able to keep their children is> otiose, in England certainly, I'd be interested to know if benefits
really> were adequate in other British Commonwealth countries or elsewhere in
the> 1940 - 1970s.>> Certainly when Di speaks for "the Commonwealth Countries" I do wish
she> would leave the United Kingdom countries out of it. I have a 300 page
file> and an Adoption Order to say, no, mothers couldn't necessarily keep
their> child on that grant, and not without want of trying, certainly not
unless> they also had the support of their parents.>>> Robin Irrespective of whether it was inadequate or otherwise, it existed and
was not being made publicly known. What do you mean by "publicly known"? It wasn't being advertised and therefore wasn't publicly known. It became public knowledge in 1973, at least in Oz and NZ, when public debate and outcry begun over the Labour Govt's introduction and publication of the Sole Parent Benefit and its consequential results which immediately caused a crisis in infant adoption numbers as single women began defying the social mores/stigma and refused to give up their babies now that they knew they had an alternative option. In that one year our figures dropped by half. Why? Because mothers were finally being given the means to keep. Read the literature. Even today, Govt websites claim the drop in adoptions was a direct result of the PUBLICATION OF INFORMATION about the introduction of financial support to single women. If a present day historian didn't know benefits were available ot sole parents prior to 1973, http://www.aifs.org.au/institute/afrc7/kellys.html There are many reasons for this decrease which include: effective birth control leading to a decrease in the number of unplanned pregnancies; changing community attitudes towards ex-nuptial births; the provision of income support for sole parents which was introduced in 1973; andthe introduction of alternative legal orders which transfer permanent guardianship and custody of a child to a person other than the parent (such as a permanent care order in Victoria) and if the NSW Law Reform ewviewing the Adoption Information Act in 1990 didn't know that benefits were available ot single mothers prior to 1973 http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/nswlrc/rpt69/index.html http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/nswlrc/rpt69/00121.html 5.29 Second, there was a lack of social and financial support for unmarried mothers. The supporting mothers benefit was not introduced until 1973. For many single mothers, it would have been difficult or impossible for them to manage on their own with a baby unless their own families provided a great deal of assistance. .....how do you suppose that information escaped there attention if it wa son public record and if it was bieng made publicly known and available to mothers prior to 1993? And if they didn't know about it how do you suppose advised a teenage or single pregnant mother banished form society to an unmarried mother's hime was going to find out? And who was going to tell her? Would it have been the very people who were telling her it was in her babies best interests to be adopted into a married two parent family because she couldn't care ofr a child with no husband, the priest and nuns who filled her with shame and told her she could atone for her sins by "doing the right thing" and giving her baby up to legitimate it, the doctors who labelled her as a having bad blood and believed nurture (aka adoption) would spare the child from his genetically bad blooded fate? Which one of these groups of people put her right to know about those services above their own political and moral agendas? The bottom line was that it was the social workers/almoners/district officer duty to inform the mother of her rights as part of their duty of care otwards her. And they failed ot do so. And it was my organization who researched and discovered it's existance and that it's availability was well known and part of their training as per their own training manuals and was discussed at length at every National Child Welfare conference since the fifties. If I hadn't been through the experience myself to know that those provisions were not being offered to pregnant women, like you I would have 'assumed' it was known about and being offered, simply because it was written in their literature. And that's why the past illegalities have only recently been made known. Because women like me were finally able to compare our experiences with their professional literature to see what was SUPPOSED to occur, and didn't. BTW, even Geo admits that she/he wasn't aware of any benefits to single mothers until recent years. Why didn't she know?

The general public (me!) didn't know, if there really was some benefit in
New Zealand.
Of course, girls could try to get maintenance from the father, but as he
would get all his mates to swear they had also had intercourse with her this
was not a good idea!
Geopelia
You mean the government passed a law making these benefits available, in secret, it never made it into
Hansard or any newspapers? "The public" doesn't really think about benefits other
than those appropriate to the particular member of it doing thinking. How
much can you tell me off the top of your head about the benefits available to miners with pneumoconiosis in the New South Wales black coal industry?
In the British state benefits system it is largely up to the individual to discover what her entitlements are and to claim them, the government
doesn't and never has gone out in search of people in order to give benefits to them. There never was a law here there or anywhere else to say the government he has to send someone out to put your child welfare benefits
in your pocket for you. WRONG!!!!! Note the word "rights" aka legal rights. The mother had to be advised of her option to enable her to make a LEGALLY 'informed' decision. "Adoption procedures have largely disregarded the [rights] of the parent considering relinquishment to be made aware of the alternative options to adoption, and to full and disinterested support in arriving at a decision. The many submissions received from natural mothers who relinquished children for adoption, describing their unresolved grief and sense of loss, bear testimony to the failure of bureaucratic procedures to protect their [rights.]" Human Rights Commission Report No 23, November 1986, page 3 (see Appendix 6) From the District officers Training Manuals. The REGULATIONS they were SUPPOSED to offer regarding the treatment and services to unmarried mothers. Note the dates are from 1956 - 1968. "To avoid any misunderstanding or any suggestion that the mother was misled or uninformed, District Officers are instructed to explain to the mother, before taking the consent, the facilities which are available to help her keep the child. These include homes licensed under the Child Welfare Act for the private care of children apart from natural parents, financial assistance to unmarried mothers under section 27 of the Child Welfare Act, admission to State control until the mother is in a position to care for the child, and , assistance to affiliate the child and obtain a maintenance order against the putative father. When all these aids have been rejected, the officer is expected to explain to the mother the full implications of the Act of surrendering her child. Only when the mother has considered these, and still wishes to proceed with the surrender for adoption, should the consent be accepted. " Children In Need. Donald McLean Chapter 4 Page 52 1956. Prefaced and endorsed by the Honorable R J Heffron, Deputy Premier and Minister for Education in NSW (see Appendix C15) And Most of the babies come from large public hospitals where the mother has indicated that she does not desire to keep her child. In these cases the mother is visited in hospital by a specialist Lady District officer who explains to the mother the facilities (assistance) which the Department can offer to affiliate the child." These include: 1. To assist with monetary allowance (section 27 aid. Child Welfare Act). 2. Or by admission to State control until the mother is better placed to resume custody and control of the child. When all of these aids have been rejected and the mother still desires to surrender the child for adoption the full import of surrendering her child is explained. Only when the mother still INSISTS does the department's officer prepare a form of surrender. This form must be witnessed by a Justice of the Peace who in turn must furnish an affidavit to the effect that the instrument of consent was read and explained to the mother and in the belief of the Justice was understood by the mother." Unmarried Mothers A special service to unmarried mothers has been established and a lady district officer, holding the Diploma of Social Studies, is attached to head office to deal with this matter. Many approaches are made direct, and others are referred by hospitals and social agencies. Advice is tendered in many cases, before birth. Assistance is given in regard to waiting time, arranging confinement, employment of the mother in such capacity as will enable her to retain and care for the child, financial assistance, admission of the child to a home or to state control, surrender of the child for adoption, and reference to the Affiliation Officer." When a deserted wife, or the mother of an illegitimate child, receives an allowance under Section 27 of the Child Welfare Act, she is required to give control of any maintenance order against the father of the child to the Department. If such orders are not complied with, application is made to the Court for enforcement. At the Metropolitan Children's Court an officer attends daily to present evidence in support of such applications. At Courts other than the Metropolitan Children's Court this work is undertaken by a Field Officer. Enforcement of maintenance orders under the Deserted Wives and Children Act. Child Welfare of NSW 1958 District Officers /Social Work Training Manual (see appendix C16) And "From the Commonwealth, the unmarried mother receives the Maternity allowance of $30.00 and thereafter child endowment of 50 cents a week. She is entitled to special benefits until six weeks after the birth of the baby, when it ceases unless she is considered medically unfit. She must apply through the courts to obtain maintenance from the putative father before she is entitled to any help from the Department of Child and Social Welfare. This help would vary according to circumstances but is always $1.00 below that of the Widows pension. As you know, a Class A Widows Pension for a woman with one child who is paying rent is $23.00 a week. So unless she returns to work, she is permanently on an income below that of a Widow's Pension. Australian Association of Social Workers Eleventh National Conference Proceedings Social Issues of Today, The unmarried mother who keeps her child' - Miss Pamela Roberts 1968 (see Appendix C17) Di Robin

"Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:FEnac.3977$He5.85690@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... "Rupa Bose" <rkbose@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message news:e5619372.0403301136.55e52a88@posting.google.c om... "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote > I have no idea why anybody--bio or adopted--should be thankful for not being aborted. They should be pissed off that they weren't. Who in their right mind actually enjoys their life of misery and desire? Yo, Marley, are you Buddhist? Rupa I studied Buddhism a long time ago and was influenced by it . Also by
Anton LeVay. Perhaps I'm a Satanic Buddhist. I simply don't understand how anyone can look around them and like much enjoy what they see.

You're a Hinayana Buddhist, they don't much like the world. I studied
Tibetan Mahayana, they think the world is both a hell realm and a dance of
goddesses, depends on your outlook.

Ron Marley

Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message news:<steve-770B72.23422429032004@netnews.comcast.net>... In article <1a4c2bd3.0403291045.450db38d@posting.google.com>, LauraLewis1@msn.com (Laura Lewis) wrote: I don't have a low opinion of adopted people. I have a low opinion of adoption, and what it does to them. Adoptees themselves, including psychiatrist Robert Andersen, have observed that adoptees tend to be meek and submissive. They've taken a seat at the back of the bus. How well do you know Dr. Anderson? I'm just asking :-)

Why are you asking? Is this relevant to anything?

Adoptees tend to be people like everyone else. One person's (or one cow's) observation qualifies as anecdote, nothing more.

(Smacking hand on forehead) Gosh, I didn't know they were people like
everyone else. I thought adoption was perfectly healthy and normal,
and adoptees were the maladjusted bad seeds.

Why do so many adoptees act as if it were radical to promote honest counseling and family preservation over adoption separation? Moo along with the rest of us, Laura: 99% of families are preserved. 99% of mothers keep their babies. Most young, single mothers keep their babies.

Guess adoptees had better recite that lesson, too, hadn't they? Being
that adoption law and practice have changed so radically and all....
Most adoptees today can and do find their kin despite sealed records.
Why fight for open records when fewer than one percent of babies are
adopted? Oh, that's right! Adoptees want truth and justice for all,
whereas activist mothers are only out to destroy adopters. Keep
talking and do us a favor.

Many mothers defrauded of their children were and are minors, younger than most activist adoptees are now. Our outrage is justified. Our civil and human rights were and are trammeled, but this is tolerated and viewed as a minor concern. If you want to whine about the 60's, go ahead. But so many of the "testimonials" I read end up sounding like those of Hippochic and your buddy, Babbles the Starving Artist. In other words, superficially reasonable until you see the looniness underneath.

We were hoping for your approval. Thank you for permitting us to
whine. Will you permit our children to whine, too? The '60's were
such a long time ago, after all, just a faded chapter in a dusty old
book.

Did coercion occur? Yep.

Note how casually Steve dismisses coercion. A blip on his screen.
We've got ourselves a gen-u-ine professional here.

Who was responsible for a big chunk of it? --


The biggest chunk? The chunk that represents thousands of
professional types who walked away unscathed from the consequences of
their malpractice and professional negligence, who still have not
acknowledged responsibility? Or just the piddling, forgivable chunk?
Let me guess...
-- the young woman's parents, that's who. Start there and answer why that was. And then you'll finally see the difference between adoption then and adoption now.

Guess what, we did start there! So did adoptees. What an *** you
are. First you malign adoptees' mothers, then badmouth their
grandparents.

So typical. Ignore the malpractice and professional neglect in
adoption. We forgave our parents, but you obviously have not. Our
parents consulted with professionals, Steve. The professials were
dishonest and patronizing toward us and our parents. You stoop to any
sleaziness rather than admit that they were and are engaged in
unprofessional, unethical behavior, and aren't financially liable for
their botched family amputations.

Even physicians have less legal immunity from the consequences of
their irresponsible actions. If they didn't make truly horrible
mistakes, physicians wouldn't be paying huge sums for malpractice
coverage. Adoption workers avoid liability and accountability
altogether.

Be consistent, Steve. Tell everyone that when a mother takes her
child to the doctor seeking advice, and her doctor recommends a
medication or surgery that hurts, maims or kills the child, the mother
and her child will have "a big chunk" of responsibility for that.
Thousands of people are searching and having reunions, but when it comes time to speak out and fight to change the system, most sit on their duffs. Most people sit on their duffs regarding just about everything. Your point?


You should know, having done squat to enlighten the public or deal
with your own issues. No match was ever set under your butt,
obviously, but who'd want to go there? My point was, as Ben Franklin
wrote, that those unwilling to fight for their freedom risk losing it.
If infertile paps are unwilling to fight for babies, they risk losing
them.
Ideally, there should be no need for adoption, or war, or any other traumatic experience in people's lives that could be prevented if human beings simply loved and accepted one another. Most adoptions result from poverty, ignorance and greed. Poverty and ignorance are fixable. Greed needn't be satisfied; it can be safely ignored. Americans in general haven't got that one down yet. People the world over haven't figured out greed, poverty and ignorance.


True, only adoption professionals are exploiting these effectively in
adoption. Guess we'd better ask them for their advice, they being
professionals and experts and all, and accountable for their behavior.
And ideally, I'd win the Irish Sweepstakes. Twice. G


Since, in typical adopter fashion, you believe money can buy
happiness.
Adoption isn't about ideal, it's about the real world where some people can't, or won't, be parents to their children.

Sure adoption's about the real world. That's why it's based on lies,
money, secrecy, fake birth records, and adoption Newspeak, and why
adopters claim that birth and genetic influence are no big deal, and
try to shove their milkless teats into our babies' mouths and call
this "breastfeeding." Reality's free. Real people don't get special
laws to protect them. They live by the same rules as everyone else.
Only fakes need adoption.

Children reared by their natural parents might feel this way, too, but most outgrow it. They have a sense of security that I believe most adoptees do not share. I think adoption stunts people's emotional growth, and that applies to all parties. It makes them fearful and dishonest with themselves and others. Adoption's a symptom of a sick society, not a cure for anything. Marvelous how Laura speaks for all the adoptees. You were saying something about a sense of security?

You keep changing the subject so fast...oh yes, I was talking about
adopters' dried-up teats. Please, may our children have a little suck
off your hind tit, to pacify them. They're looking pretty hungry.
Florence Fisher once advised me that we natural mothers should "be more ladylike." Bill Pierce once lectured me to be "more professional." In other words, we should sit passively by and allow adoptees, babybrokers and adopters to misrepresent us. Oh, giggle. Bill was right -- you aren't professional at all. it has nothing to do with being "passive." It has everything to do with getting results. You don't play the game, you don't even see the game being played. All you can do is kvetch.

Giggle??? Thank's for not including me in your and Bill's company.
His and your definition of "professional" and a dollar won't buy a cup
of coffee in the trenches of child welfare and adoption, nor will it
stop me from getting results when I put my mind to it. It never has
before. No surprise you align with BP, Steve. Nasty,
attention-seeking little boys are a dime a dozen. Guess what - you'll
never believe this. You can ignore them! Why do you think BP hated
activist mothers? He hated us because we realized he was nothing to
our goals, and stopped including him in our reindeer games.

Marley is professional. You aren't, and never will be. steve


I hope you've apologized to Marley for that remark, you slimy,
dysfunctional, manipulative, controlling, splitting little turd. Yep,
you're an adopter all right. The proof's in the pudding -- the turd
pudding.


Laura

"Laura Lewis" <LauraLewis1@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1a4c2bd3.0404031518.36eab983@posting.google.c om... Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message
news:<steve-770B72.23422429032004@netnews.comcast.net>... In article <1a4c2bd3.0403291045.450db38d@posting.google.com>, LauraLewis1@msn.com (Laura Lewis) wrote: I don't have a low opinion of adopted people. I have a low opinion of adoption, and what it does to them. Adoptees themselves, including psychiatrist Robert Andersen, have observed that adoptees tend to be meek and submissive. They've taken a seat at the back of the bus. How well do you know Dr. Anderson? I'm just asking :-) Why are you asking? Is this relevant to anything? Adoptees tend to be people like everyone else. One person's (or one cow's) observation qualifies as anecdote, nothing more. (Smacking hand on forehead) Gosh, I didn't know they were people like everyone else. I thought adoption was perfectly healthy and normal, and adoptees were the maladjusted bad seeds. Why do so many adoptees act as if it were radical to promote honest counseling and family preservation over adoption separation? Moo along with the rest of us, Laura: 99% of families are preserved. 99% of mothers keep their babies. Most young, single mothers keep their babies. Guess adoptees had better recite that lesson, too, hadn't they? Being that adoption law and practice have changed so radically and all.... Most adoptees today can and do find their kin despite sealed records. Why fight for open records when fewer than one percent of babies are adopted? Oh, that's right! Adoptees want truth and justice for all, whereas activist mothers are only out to destroy adopters. Keep talking and do us a favor. Many mothers defrauded of their children were and are minors, younger than most activist adoptees are now. Our outrage is justified. Our civil and human rights were and are trammeled, but this is tolerated and viewed as a minor concern. If you want to whine about the 60's, go ahead. But so many of the "testimonials" I read end up sounding like those of Hippochic and your buddy, Babbles the Starving Artist. In other words, superficially reasonable until you see the looniness underneath. We were hoping for your approval. Thank you for permitting us to whine. Will you permit our children to whine, too? The '60's were such a long time ago, after all, just a faded chapter in a dusty old book. Did coercion occur? Yep. Note how casually Steve dismisses coercion. A blip on his screen. We've got ourselves a gen-u-ine professional here. Who was responsible for a big chunk of it? -- The biggest chunk? The chunk that represents thousands of professional types who walked away unscathed from the consequences of their malpractice and professional negligence, who still have not acknowledged responsibility? Or just the piddling, forgivable chunk? Let me guess... -- the young woman's parents, that's who. Start there and answer why that was. And then you'll finally see the difference between adoption then and adoption now. Guess what, we did start there! So did adoptees. What an *** you are. First you malign adoptees' mothers, then badmouth their grandparents. So typical. Ignore the malpractice and professional neglect in adoption. We forgave our parents, but you obviously have not. Our parents consulted with professionals, Steve. The professials were dishonest and patronizing toward us and our parents.

It's always easier to place the "blame" outside the family.
(One has to continue to interact with one's family afterall)
There was enough though to go around both inside and outside of the family
structure.


You stoop to any sleaziness rather than admit that they were and are engaged in unprofessional, unethical behavior, and aren't financially liable for their botched family amputations. Even physicians have less legal immunity from the consequences of their irresponsible actions. If they didn't make truly horrible mistakes, physicians wouldn't be paying huge sums for malpractice coverage.

Lawyers also have a part in contributing to the state of malpractice
coverage today. I can see though that you can't seem to comprehend anything
as complicated as something having multiple causes. Much easier for you
apparently to find a single "villian" and place all the blame there.

Adoption workers avoid liability and accountability altogether. Be consistent, Steve. Tell everyone that when a mother takes her child to the doctor seeking advice, and her doctor recommends a medication or surgery that hurts, maims or kills the child, the mother and her child will have "a big chunk" of responsibility for that.

Your analogy falls flat in that the pbmothers and their parents didn't seek
out adoption professionals for "advice". The decision was already made and
they were there to dot the i's and cross the t's. Unless you really expect
us to be as gullible as to believe that pbmothers of the 50's & 60's were
simply "exploring their options" when they contacted those adoption
agencies.

snip rest of crap that makes me fear for your patients - hard to believe you
are a nurse! Talk about malpractice worries. If your employer was smart
they would fire you pronto. God forbid an "adopter" comes under your "care"

Kathy 1

"geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:<lkHac.1100$d%6.33739@news.xtra.co.nz>... "Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:9a095db9.0403310713.642766db@posting.google.c om... Robin Harritt <karakoram@postadoption.info> wrote in message news:<BC903807.39ABF%karakoram@postadoption.info>... in article 9a095db9.0403301549.53f3e345@posting.google.com, Dian at patrice068@optusnet.com.au wrote on 31/3/04 12:49 am: > Robin Harritt <karakoram@postadoption.info> wrote in message > news:<BC8EF091.399A4%karakoram@postadoption.info>... >> in article 9a095db9.0403292301.51a3740d@posting.google.com, Dian at >> patrice068@optusnet.com.au wrote on 30/3/04 8:01 am: >> >>> "geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message >>> news:<ZL2ac.4361$Tf3.71976@news.xtra.co.nz>... >>>> "Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message >>>> news:9a095db9.0403291005.143277a4@posting.google.c om... >>>>> >>>>> You saviour you. Shall I worship at your shrine? Typical adopter. BTW, >>>>> there was financial support for single mothers. It amounted to the >>>>> same support widows got, less one dollar. It was people like you who >>>>> worked in the business, as you no doubt did, who made it their >>>>> business not to let them know about it. >>>>> Because that would have given then the choice of keeping and that just >>>>> wouldn't do would it? >>>> >>>> I never heard of any such support in New Zealand until recently, when the >>>> DPB came in. She could have got the dole, but for that she would have had >>>> to >>>> be prepared to take any job that was offered. To work, she would have >>>> needed >>>> some kind of care for the child. >>>> Even prostitution was illegal until just recently. >>> >>> Under the Child Welfare Acts since post WW2 the unmarried mother has >>> bene entitled to financial support in all Commonwealth Countries. It >>> took until 1973 to make it public knowledge. >>> >>> >>> <Snip> >> >> All Commonwealth countries? Since WW2? Did WW2 drag on until nearly 1949 >> here in England then? The NAB benefits given to single mothers from the late >> 1940s to the mid 1970s in England were simply inadequate for the purpose. >> Hence children's homes like Dr Barnardo's Homes were still filling up in the >> fifties and sixties with kids like me, whose mothers had tried to keep them >> and found it to be impossible on the money available to them. The idea that >> if it had only been for mothers being told about these benefits, then they >> would have somehow magically have been able to keep their children is >> otiose, in England certainly, I'd be interested to know if benefits really >> were adequate in other British Commonwealth countries or elsewhere in the >> 1940 - 1970s. >> >> Certainly when Di speaks for "the Commonwealth Countries" I do wish she >> would leave the United Kingdom countries out of it. I have a 300 page file >> and an Adoption Order to say, no, mothers couldn't necessarily keep their >> child on that grant, and not without want of trying, certainly not unless >> they also had the support of their parents. >> >> >> Robin > Irrespective of whether it was inadequate or otherwise, it existed and was not > being made publicly known. What do you mean by "publicly known"? It wasn't being advertised and therefore wasn't publicly known. It became public knowledge in 1973, at least in Oz and NZ, when public debate and outcry begun over the Labour Govt's introduction and publication of the Sole Parent Benefit and its consequential results which immediately caused a crisis in infant adoption numbers as single women began defying the social mores/stigma and refused to give up their babies now that they knew they had an alternative option. In that one year our figures dropped by half. Why? Because mothers were finally being given the means to keep. Read the literature. Even today, Govt websites claim the drop in adoptions was a direct result of the PUBLICATION OF INFORMATION about the introduction of financial support to single women. If a present day historian didn't know benefits were available ot sole parents prior to 1973, http://www.aifs.org.au/institute/afrc7/kellys.html There are many reasons for this decrease which include: effective birth control leading to a decrease in the number of unplanned pregnancies; changing community attitudes towards ex-nuptial births; the provision of income support for sole parents which was introduced in 1973; andthe introduction of alternative legal orders which transfer permanent guardianship and custody of a child to a person other than the parent (such as a permanent care order in Victoria) and if the NSW Law Reform ewviewing the Adoption Information Act in 1990 didn't know that benefits were available ot single mothers prior to 1973 http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/nswlrc/rpt69/index.html http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/nswlrc/rpt69/00121.html 5.29 Second, there was a lack of social and financial support for unmarried mothers. The supporting mothers benefit was not introduced until 1973. For many single mothers, it would have been difficult or impossible for them to manage on their own with a baby unless their own families provided a great deal of assistance. .....how do you suppose that information escaped there attention if it wa son public record and if it was bieng made publicly known and available to mothers prior to 1993? And if they didn't know about it how do you suppose advised a teenage or single pregnant mother banished form society to an unmarried mother's hime was going to find out? And who was going to tell her? Would it have been the very people who were telling her it was in her babies best interests to be adopted into a married two parent family because she couldn't care ofr a child with no husband, the priest and nuns who filled her with shame and told her she could atone for her sins by "doing the right thing" and giving her baby up to legitimate it, the doctors who labelled her as a having bad blood and believed nurture (aka adoption) would spare the child from his genetically bad blooded fate? Which one of these groups of people put her right to know about those services above their own political and moral agendas? The bottom line was that it was the social workers/almoners/district officer duty to inform the mother of her rights as part of their duty of care otwards her. And they failed ot do so. And it was my organization who researched and discovered it's existance and that it's availability was well known and part of their training as per their own training manuals and was discussed at length at every National Child Welfare conference since the fifties. If I hadn't been through the experience myself to know that those provisions were not being offered to pregnant women, like you I would have 'assumed' it was known about and being offered, simply because it was written in their literature. And that's why the past illegalities have only recently been made known. Because women like me were finally able to compare our experiences with their professional literature to see what was SUPPOSED to occur, and didn't. BTW, even Geo admits that she/he wasn't aware of any benefits to single mothers until recent years. Why didn't she know? The general public (me!) didn't know, if there really was some benefit in New Zealand.


It doesn't surprise me. It was conveniently hidden from public
knowledge as part of the program to railroad single women into the
only socially acceptable option. Adoption. Take away her choices and
support systems and she'll have no choice but to comply and sign on
the dotted line.

Of course, girls could try to get maintenance from the father, but as he would get all his mates to swear they had also had intercourse with her this was not a good idea!

That in itself was yet another con told to us to ensure men weren't
required to step up to the plate and take responsibility for the
children they produced.

They would lie and tell those few mothers who did know about benefits
both before and after 1973 they had to get the father to admit
paternity and would outline precisely what you have just described.
Which would of course terrify young women into avoiding that route.
However she was entitled to the pension regardless of whether he
admitted to paternity or not. That threat was merely to do with
obtaining maintenance. It was not a prerequisite to getting State
support, as those mothers were being led to believe. In fact at every
point the regulations were being twisted and misrepresented to bring
about the socially desired outcome.


Di
Geopelia

in article 9a095db9.0404031631.7f012c1d@posting.google.com, Dian at
patrice068@optusnet.com.au wrote on 4/4/04 1:31 am:
"geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:<lkHac.1100$d%6.33739@news.xtra.co.nz>...


<snip>


BTW, even Geo admits that she/he wasn't aware of any benefits to single mothers until recent years. Why didn't she know?

The general public (me!) didn't know, if there really was some benefit in New Zealand.


It doesn't surprise me. It was conveniently hidden from public knowledge as part of the program to railroad single women into the only socially acceptable option. Adoption. Take away her choices and support systems and she'll have no choice but to comply and sign on the dotted line.

Yes Di, but I've asked before and I'll ask again, what evidence do have that
this conspiracy extended beyond the shores of Australia, or even the bounds
of New South Wales? You've stated that this happened throughout the
'Commonwealth Countries'.

Of course, girls could try to get maintenance from the father, but as he would get all his mates to swear they had also had intercourse with her this was not a good idea!
That in itself was yet another con told to us to ensure men weren't required to step up to the plate and take responsibility for the children they produced.


But it is what happened, or at least it did in this part of the
'Commonwealth'.

They would lie and tell those few mothers who did know about benefits both before and after 1973 they had to get the father to admit paternity and would outline precisely what you have just described.


Well Di, if you are trying to claim as you have elsewhere that we share much
the same laws throughout the Commonwealth, then no benefit would have been
forthcoming until the mother had shown that she had done all that was
possible to get the father to provide for the child (I believe that was the
case until the 1983 Children Act)

Which would of course terrify young women into avoiding that route.


And what evidence do you have for that assertion, both in Aus and elsewhere?

However she was entitled to the pension regardless of whether he admitted to paternity or not.

What in the whole of the British Commonwealth including NZ and the UK, not
just the Commonwealth of Australia, or even, just in New South Wales?

That threat was merely to do with obtaining maintenance. It was not a prerequisite to getting State support, as those mothers were being led to believe. In fact at every point the regulations were being twisted and misrepresented to bring about the socially desired outcome.


Again what evidence do you have that this was so beyond the borders of New
South Wales and of the shores of Australia as a whole? Cite the NZ statute
that made it so, cite the statute in English law that made it so, cite the
statute in Scottish law that made it so, cite the statute in Northern
Ireland law that made it so, cite the laws from all the other Commonwealth
Countries that mad it so there. That or state some overarching international
legislation that this legal requirement that you write of, common to the
British Commonwealth, you can't rely on the body of English common law, Aus
and NZ ceased to be colonies and became independent legal jurisdictions long
before either any adoption laws or any social benefit laws were put in place
in any of the separate parts of the Commonwealth.


Robin

On: 4/3/04 8:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time
patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote:
"geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in messagenews:<lkHac.1100$d%6.33739@news.xtra.co.nz>...

<snip>
Of course, girls could try to get maintenance from the father, but as hewould get all his mates to swear they had also had intercourse with her thiswas not a good idea!That in itself was yet another con told to us to ensure men weren'trequired to step up to the plate and take responsibility for the childrenthey produced.

<snip>

So, were all men made aware of this "con" through some super secret network,
ensuring that *we* could safely knock up unsuspecting trusting girls without
fear of having to "step up to the plate"?

Or, is this "con" another of your delusional scenarios used by you to avoid
shouldering any of the responsibility for relinquishing your son?

<snip>
They would lie and tell those few mothers who did know about benefitsboth before and after 1973 they had to get the father to admit paternity >and
would outline precisely what you have just described.

<snip>

Then how is that "those few mothers who did know about benefits" failed
to discover the "lie" about paternity? Did they research just enough to find
that benefits were available and then stop researching just as they were about
to discover that the father didn't have to admit paternity to receive those
benefits?

Or, is this "lie" another of your delusional scenarios used by you to avoid
shouldering any of the responsibility for relinquishing your son?


Gary
Prick, 1st Class
Birthfathers" Brigade

>In fact at everypoint the regulations were being twisted and misrepresented to bringabout the socially desired outcome.Di


Quite amazing (when you consider the magnitude of the conspiracy) that such a
tiny percentage of single women actually were conned out of their newborns,
huh, Di? How on earth did that overwhelming majority of single women manage to
keep and raise their children then as they do now?


P2P

LauraLewis Notables:
Sure adoption's about the real world. That's why it's based on lies,money, secrecy, fake birth records, and adoption Newspeak, and whyadopters claim that birth and genetic influence are no big deal, andtry to shove their milkless teats into our babies' mouths and callthis "breastfeeding." Reality's free. Real people don't get speciallaws to protect them. They live by the same rules as everyone else.Only fakes need adoption.


Man-oh-man. You just might soon unseat Di as the Alpha Birthmother.


P2P

LauraLewis beats her chest and declares:
Thank's for not including me in your and Bill's company.His and your definition of "professional" and a dollar won't buy a cupof coffee in the trenches of child welfare and adoption, nor will itstop me from getting results when I put my mind to it. >>

Maybe I missed your posts outlining your successes in "getting results". Could
you please outline those results again for the benefit of all readers who are
not sufficiently in awe of you?




P2P

>Subject: Re: Adopted a Baby and Have Questions About Our RightsFrom: palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines)Date: 4/4/04 4:41 PM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <20040404194116.07441.00000668@mb-m18.aol.com>LauraLewis beats her chest and declares: Thank's for not including me in your and Bill's company.His and your definition of "professional" and a dollar won't buy a cupof coffee in the trenches of child welfare and adoption, nor will itstop me from getting results when I put my mind to it. >>Maybe I missed your posts outlining your successes in "getting results".Couldyou please outline those results again for the benefit of all readers who arenot sufficiently in awe of you?P2P
What, no spew alert? U O me a keyboard ;-)
Kathy, born Renee Karyn Racine

Permanent good can never be the outcome of untruth and violence.
--Mahatma Gandhi
Peace is not merely a distant goal that we seek, but a means by which we arrive
at that goal.
--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

"Laura Lewis" <LauraLewis1@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1a4c2bd3.0404031518.36eab983@posting.google.c om... Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message
news:<steve-770B72.23422429032004@netnews.comcast.net>... In article <1a4c2bd3.0403291045.450db38d@posting.google.com>, LauraLewis1@msn.com (Laura Lewis) wrote: I don't have a low opinion of adopted people. I have a low opinion of adoption, and what it does to them. Adoptees themselves, including psychiatrist Robert Andersen, have observed that adoptees tend to be meek and submissive. They've taken a seat at the back of the bus. How well do you know Dr. Anderson? I'm just asking :-) Why are you asking? Is this relevant to anything? Adoptees tend to be people like everyone else. One person's (or one cow's) observation qualifies as anecdote, nothing more. (Smacking hand on forehead) Gosh, I didn't know they were people like everyone else. I thought adoption was perfectly healthy and normal, and adoptees were the maladjusted bad seeds. Why do so many adoptees act as if it were radical to promote honest counseling and family preservation over adoption separation? Moo along with the rest of us, Laura: 99% of families are preserved. 99% of mothers keep their babies. Most young, single mothers keep their babies. Guess adoptees had better recite that lesson, too, hadn't they? Being that adoption law and practice have changed so radically and all.... Most adoptees today can and do find their kin despite sealed records. Why fight for open records when fewer than one percent of babies are adopted? Oh, that's right! Adoptees want truth and justice for all, whereas activist mothers are only out to destroy adopters. Keep talking and do us a favor. Many mothers defrauded of their children were and are minors, younger than most activist adoptees are now. Our outrage is justified. Our civil and human rights were and are trammeled, but this is tolerated and viewed as a minor concern. If you want to whine about the 60's, go ahead. But so many of the "testimonials" I read end up sounding like those of Hippochic and your buddy, Babbles the Starving Artist. In other words, superficially reasonable until you see the looniness underneath. We were hoping for your approval. Thank you for permitting us to whine. Will you permit our children to whine, too? The '60's were such a long time ago, after all, just a faded chapter in a dusty old book. Did coercion occur? Yep. Note how casually Steve dismisses coercion. A blip on his screen. We've got ourselves a gen-u-ine professional here. Who was responsible for a big chunk of it? -- The biggest chunk? The chunk that represents thousands of professional types who walked away unscathed from the consequences of their malpractice and professional negligence, who still have not acknowledged responsibility? Or just the piddling, forgivable chunk? Let me guess... -- the young woman's parents, that's who. Start there and answer why that was. And then you'll finally see the difference between adoption then and adoption now. Guess what, we did start there! So did adoptees. What an *** you are. First you malign adoptees' mothers, then badmouth their grandparents. So typical. Ignore the malpractice and professional neglect in adoption. We forgave our parents, but you obviously have not. Our parents consulted with professionals, Steve. The professials were dishonest and patronizing toward us and our parents. You stoop to any sleaziness rather than admit that they were and are engaged in unprofessional, unethical behavior, and aren't financially liable for their botched family amputations. Even physicians have less legal immunity from the consequences of their irresponsible actions. If they didn't make truly horrible mistakes, physicians wouldn't be paying huge sums for malpractice coverage. Adoption workers avoid liability and accountability altogether. Be consistent, Steve. Tell everyone that when a mother takes her child to the doctor seeking advice, and her doctor recommends a medication or surgery that hurts, maims or kills the child, the mother and her child will have "a big chunk" of responsibility for that. Thousands of people are searching and having reunions, but when it comes time to speak out and fight to change the system, most sit on their duffs. Most people sit on their duffs regarding just about everything. Your point? You should know, having done squat to enlighten the public or deal with your own issues. No match was ever set under your butt, obviously, but who'd want to go there? My point was, as Ben Franklin wrote, that those unwilling to fight for their freedom risk losing it. If infertile paps are unwilling to fight for babies, they risk losing them. Ideally, there should be no need for adoption, or war, or any other traumatic experience in people's lives that could be prevented if human beings simply loved and accepted one another. Most adoptions result from poverty, ignorance and greed. Poverty and ignorance are fixable. Greed needn't be satisfied; it can be safely ignored. Americans in general haven't got that one down yet. People the world over haven't figured out greed, poverty and ignorance. True, only adoption professionals are exploiting these effectively in adoption. Guess we'd better ask them for their advice, they being professionals and experts and all, and accountable for their behavior. And ideally, I'd win the Irish Sweepstakes. Twice. G Since, in typical adopter fashion, you believe money can buy happiness. Adoption isn't about ideal, it's about the real world where some people can't, or won't, be parents to their children. Sure adoption's about the real world. That's why it's based on lies, money, secrecy, fake birth records, and adoption Newspeak, and why adopters claim that birth and genetic influence are no big deal, and try to shove their milkless teats into our babies' mouths and call this "breastfeeding." Reality's free. Real people don't get special laws to protect them. They live by the same rules as everyone else. Only fakes need adoption.

I've seen a picture of a woman "breastfeeding" by having a tube from the
milk bottle next to her nipple and the baby sucking on both. Is this often
done today? Does it help the baby bond to its adoptive mother?

Can hormones (oxytocin?), plus the action of the baby suckling, cause a
woman who has not given birth to produce milk?

One problem with adoption was that the baby was bottle fed and missed out on
colostrum. Mothers did not breastfeed in the old days, in case bonding took
place, but they could have expressed the milk for nurses to feed the baby. I
haven't heard of this being done anywhere.

Geipelia Children reared by their natural parents might feel this way, too, but most outgrow it. They have a sense of security that I believe most adoptees do not share. I think adoption stunts people's emotional growth, and that applies to all parties. It makes them fearful and dishonest with themselves and others. Adoption's a symptom of a sick society, not a cure for anything. Marvelous how Laura speaks for all the adoptees. You were saying something about a sense of security? You keep changing the subject so fast...oh yes, I was talking about adopters' dried-up teats. Please, may our children have a little suck off your hind tit, to pacify them. They're looking pretty hungry. Florence Fisher once advised me that we natural mothers should "be more ladylike." Bill Pierce once lectured me to be "more professional." In other words, we should sit passively by and allow adoptees, babybrokers and adopters to misrepresent us. Oh, giggle. Bill was right -- you aren't professional at all. it has nothing to do with being "passive." It has everything to do with getting results. You don't play the game, you don't even see the game being played. All you can do is kvetch. Giggle??? Thank's for not including me in your and Bill's company. His and your definition of "professional" and a dollar won't buy a cup of coffee in the trenches of child welfare and adoption, nor will it stop me from getting results when I put my mind to it. It never has before. No surprise you align with BP, Steve. Nasty, attention-seeking little boys are a dime a dozen. Guess what - you'll never believe this. You can ignore them! Why do you think BP hated activist mothers? He hated us because we realized he was nothing to our goals, and stopped including him in our reindeer games. Marley is professional. You aren't, and never will be. steve I hope you've apologized to Marley for that remark, you slimy, dysfunctional, manipulative, controlling, splitting little turd. Yep, you're an adopter all right. The proof's in the pudding -- the turd pudding. Laura

>Subject: Re: Adopted a Baby and Have Questions About Our RightsFrom: "geopelia" phildoran@xtra.co.nzDate: 4/4/04 8:06 PM Mountain Daylight TimeMessage-id: <p73cc.5529$d%6.97124@news.xtra.co.nz>
I've seen a picture of a woman "breastfeeding" by having a tube from themilk bottle next to her nipple and the baby sucking on both. Is this oftendone today? Does it help the baby bond to its adoptive mother?Can hormones (oxytocin?), plus the action of the baby suckling, cause awoman who has not given birth to produce milk?One problem with adoption was that the baby was bottle fed and missed out oncolostrum. Mothers did not breastfeed in the old days, in case bonding tookplace, but they could have expressed the milk for nurses to feed the baby. Ihaven't heard of this being done anywhere.Geipelia

Ewww. Check google. There's plenty of sites dedicated to breastfeeding (even
for amoms and in some cases dads).


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

"geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:<p73cc.5529$d%6.97124@news.xtra.co.nz>... "Laura Lewis" <LauraLewis1@msn.com> wrote in message news:1a4c2bd3.0404031518.36eab983@posting.google.c om... Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message news:<steve-770B72.23422429032004@netnews.comcast.net>... In article <1a4c2bd3.0403291045.450db38d@posting.google.com>, LauraLewis1@msn.com (Laura Lewis) wrote: > I don't have a low opinion of adopted people. I have a low opinion of > adoption, and what it does to them. Adoptees themselves, including > psychiatrist Robert Andersen, have observed that adoptees tend to be > meek and submissive. They've taken a seat at the back of the bus. How well do you know Dr. Anderson? I'm just asking :-) Why are you asking? Is this relevant to anything? Adoptees tend to be people like everyone else. One person's (or one cow's) observation qualifies as anecdote, nothing more. (Smacking hand on forehead) Gosh, I didn't know they were people like everyone else. I thought adoption was perfectly healthy and normal, and adoptees were the maladjusted bad seeds. > Why do so many adoptees act as if it were radical to promote honest > counseling and family preservation over adoption separation? Moo along with the rest of us, Laura: 99% of families are preserved. 99% of mothers keep their babies. Most young, single mothers keep their babies. Guess adoptees had better recite that lesson, too, hadn't they? Being that adoption law and practice have changed so radically and all.... Most adoptees today can and do find their kin despite sealed records. Why fight for open records when fewer than one percent of babies are adopted? Oh, that's right! Adoptees want truth and justice for all, whereas activist mothers are only out to destroy adopters. Keep talking and do us a favor. > Many mothers defrauded of their children were and are minors, younger > than most activist adoptees are now. Our outrage is justified. Our > civil and human rights were and are trammeled, but this is tolerated > and viewed as a minor concern. If you want to whine about the 60's, go ahead. But so many of the "testimonials" I read end up sounding like those of Hippochic and your buddy, Babbles the Starving Artist. In other words, superficially reasonable until you see the looniness underneath. We were hoping for your approval. Thank you for permitting us to whine. Will you permit our children to whine, too? The '60's were such a long time ago, after all, just a faded chapter in a dusty old book. Did coercion occur? Yep. Note how casually Steve dismisses coercion. A blip on his screen. We've got ourselves a gen-u-ine professional here. Who was responsible for a big chunk of it? -- The biggest chunk? The chunk that represents thousands of professional types who walked away unscathed from the consequences of their malpractice and professional negligence, who still have not acknowledged responsibility? Or just the piddling, forgivable chunk? Let me guess... -- the young woman's parents, that's who. Start there and answer why that was. And then you'll finally see the difference between adoption then and adoption now. Guess what, we did start there! So did adoptees. What an *** you are. First you malign adoptees' mothers, then badmouth their grandparents. So typical. Ignore the malpractice and professional neglect in adoption. We forgave our parents, but you obviously have not. Our parents consulted with professionals, Steve. The professials were dishonest and patronizing toward us and our parents. You stoop to any sleaziness rather than admit that they were and are engaged in unprofessional, unethical behavior, and aren't financially liable for their botched family amputations. Even physicians have less legal immunity from the consequences of their irresponsible actions. If they didn't make truly horrible mistakes, physicians wouldn't be paying huge sums for malpractice coverage. Adoption workers avoid liability and accountability altogether. Be consistent, Steve. Tell everyone that when a mother takes her child to the doctor seeking advice, and her doctor recommends a medication or surgery that hurts, maims or kills the child, the mother and her child will have "a big chunk" of responsibility for that. > Thousands of people are searching and having reunions, but when it > comes time to speak out and fight to change the system, most sit on > their duffs. Most people sit on their duffs regarding just about everything. Your point? You should know, having done squat to enlighten the public or deal with your own issues. No match was ever set under your butt, obviously, but who'd want to go there? My point was, as Ben Franklin wrote, that those unwilling to fight for their freedom risk losing it. If infertile paps are unwilling to fight for babies, they risk losing them. > Ideally, there should be no need for adoption, or war, or any other > traumatic experience in people's lives that could be prevented if > human beings simply loved and accepted one another. Most adoptions > result from poverty, ignorance and greed. Poverty and ignorance are > fixable. Greed needn't be satisfied; it can be safely ignored. > Americans in general haven't got that one down yet. People the world over haven't figured out greed, poverty and ignorance. True, only adoption professionals are exploiting these effectively in adoption. Guess we'd better ask them for their advice, they being professionals and experts and all, and accountable for their behavior. And ideally, I'd win the Irish Sweepstakes. Twice. G Since, in typical adopter fashion, you believe money can buy happiness. Adoption isn't about ideal, it's about the real world where some people can't, or won't, be parents to their children. Sure adoption's about the real world. That's why it's based on lies, money, secrecy, fake birth records, and adoption Newspeak, and why adopters claim that birth and genetic influence are no big deal, and try to shove their milkless teats into our babies' mouths and call this "breastfeeding." Reality's free. Real people don't get special laws to protect them. They live by the same rules as everyone else. Only fakes need adoption. I've seen a picture of a woman "breastfeeding" by having a tube from the milk bottle next to her nipple and the baby sucking on both. Is this often done today? Does it help the baby bond to its adoptive mother? Can hormones (oxytocin?), plus the action of the baby suckling, cause a woman who has not given birth to produce milk? One problem with adoption was that the baby was bottle fed and missed out on colostrum. Mothers did not breastfeed in the old days, in case bonding took place, but they could have expressed the milk for nurses to feed the baby. I haven't heard of this being done anywhere.
Mothers often did breast feed their infants for 2-6 weeks until the
mid/late
when at birth removals began in Oz and NZ. From then on they got
massive doses of Stilboestrol to suppress lactation. The Salvation
Army was the only place that encouraged contact post birth but only
for bottle feeding. Breast feeding was not permitted by the late 50's.
After then, babies for adoption,
especially allergic babies, were given a collection of milk extracted
from the breasts of lactating married women during their stay in
hospital and weaned onto formula before discharge from hospital. They
never got their own mother's milk.











Geipelia > Children reared by their natural parents might feel this way, too, > but most outgrow it. They have a sense of security that I believe > most adoptees do not share. I think adoption stunts people's > emotional growth, and that applies to all parties. It makes them > fearful and dishonest with themselves and others. Adoption's a > symptom of a sick society, not a cure for anything. Marvelous how Laura speaks for all the adoptees. You were saying something about a sense of security? You keep changing the subject so fast...oh yes, I was talking about adopters' dried-up teats. Please, may our children have a little suck off your hind tit, to pacify them. They're looking pretty hungry. > Florence Fisher once advised me that we natural mothers should "be > more ladylike." Bill Pierce once lectured me to be "more > professional." In other words, we should sit passively by and allow > adoptees, babybrokers and adopters to misrepresent us. Oh, giggle. Bill was right -- you aren't professional at all. it has nothing to do with being "passive." It has everything to do with getting results. You don't play the game, you don't even see the game being played. All you can do is kvetch. Giggle??? Thank's for not including me in your and Bill's company. His and your definition of "professional" and a dollar won't buy a cup of coffee in the trenches of child welfare and adoption, nor will it stop me from getting results when I put my mind to it. It never has before. No surprise you align with BP, Steve. Nasty, attention-seeking little boys are a dime a dozen. Guess what - you'll never believe this. You can ignore them! Why do you think BP hated activist mothers? He hated us because we realized he was nothing to our goals, and stopped including him in our reindeer games. Marley is professional. You aren't, and never will be. steve I hope you've apologized to Marley for that remark, you slimy, dysfunctional, manipulative, controlling, splitting little turd. Yep, you're an adopter all right. The proof's in the pudding -- the turd pudding. Laura

palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message news:<20040404193106.07441.00000666@mb-m18.aol.com>...In fact at everypoint the regulations were being twisted and misrepresented to bringabout the socially desired outcome.Di Quite amazing (when you consider the magnitude of the conspiracy) that such a tiny percentage of single women actually were conned out of their newborns, huh, Di? How on earth did that overwhelming majority of single women manage to keep and raise their children then as they do now? P2P

How would you know how many kept their kids when the US, by its own
admission
never bothered to keep stats on the number of adoptions annually, let
alone the number of unsupported single mothers who relinquished.

My figures come from the figures and research given by the unmarried
mothers homes themselves during adoptions peak era. Maybe you should
get your theory
based statisticians to read those old major studies on figures and
reason for relinquishing were being conducted at the time those
unmarried mothers homes were filled to overflowing. They might learn
something - like accurate historical figures. Oh and tell them they
can be found in a book still being sold on Amazon.

You can't even get today's figures straight with your banal
assumptions that only 1% of all unmarried mothers relinguish. Some
idiot makes a statement to that effect and you blindly believe it to
be true without ever bothering to question how it could possibly be
so. More fool you.

Di




Di

in article 9a095db9.0404042340.de8cab8@posting.google.com, Dian at
patrice068@optusnet.com.au wrote on 5/4/04 8:40 am:
"geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:<p73cc.5529$d%6.97124@news.xtra.co.nz>...


<snip>.

I've seen a picture of a woman "breastfeeding" by having a tube from the milk bottle next to her nipple and the baby sucking on both. Is this often done today? Does it help the baby bond to its adoptive mother? Can hormones (oxytocin?), plus the action of the baby suckling, cause a woman who has not given birth to produce milk? One problem with adoption was that the baby was bottle fed and missed out on colostrum. Mothers did not breastfeed in the old days, in case bonding took place, but they could have expressed the milk for nurses to feed the baby. I haven't heard of this being done anywhere.

Mothers often did breast feed their infants for 2-6 weeks until the mid/late when at birth removals began in Oz and NZ. From then on they got massive doses of Stilboestrol to suppress lactation. The Salvation Army was the only place that encouraged contact post birth but only for bottle feeding. Breast feeding was not permitted by the late 50's. After then, babies for adoption, especially allergic babies, were given a collection of milk extracted from the breasts of lactating married women during their stay in hospital and weaned onto formula before discharge from hospital. They never got their own mother's milk.


What leads you to believe that what you say happened in Australia,
necessarily also happened in New Zealand, Di?


Robin

"LilMtnCbn" <lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20040404221156.08141.00000715@mb-m02.aol.com...Subject: Re: Adopted a Baby and Have Questions About Our RightsFrom: "geopelia" phildoran@xtra.co.nzDate: 4/4/04 8:06 PM Mountain Daylight TimeMessage-id: <p73cc.5529$d%6.97124@news.xtra.co.nz>I've seen a picture of a woman "breastfeeding" by having a tube from themilk bottle next to her nipple and the baby sucking on both. Is this
oftendone today? Does it help the baby bond to its adoptive mother?Can hormones (oxytocin?), plus the action of the baby suckling, cause awoman who has not given birth to produce milk?One problem with adoption was that the baby was bottle fed and missed out
oncolostrum. Mothers did not breastfeed in the old days, in case bonding
tookplace, but they could have expressed the milk for nurses to feed the
baby. Ihaven't heard of this being done anywhere.Geipelia Ewww. Check google. There's plenty of sites dedicated to breastfeeding
(even for amoms and in some cases dads).

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

In article <9a095db9.0404042340.de8cab8@posting.google.com>, Dian says...
snipAfter then, babies for adoption,especially allergic babies, were given a collection of milk extractedfrom the breasts of lactating married women during their stay inhospital and weaned onto formula before discharge from hospital. Theynever got their own mother's milk.

Neither do a lot babies kept by their mothers. I know a lot of women that
didn't breast feed their kids (can think of 4 SILs offhand).

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

Robin Harritt <karakoram@postadoption.info> wrote in message news:<BC96F364.3A553%karakoram@postadoption.info>... in article 9a095db9.0404042340.de8cab8@posting.google.com, Dian at patrice068@optusnet.com.au wrote on 5/4/04 8:40 am: "geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:<p73cc.5529$d%6.97124@news.xtra.co.nz>... <snip>. I've seen a picture of a woman "breastfeeding" by having a tube from the milk bottle next to her nipple and the baby sucking on both. Is this often done today? Does it help the baby bond to its adoptive mother? Can hormones (oxytocin?), plus the action of the baby suckling, cause a woman who has not given birth to produce milk? One problem with adoption was that the baby was bottle fed and missed out on colostrum. Mothers did not breastfeed in the old days, in case bonding took place, but they could have expressed the milk for nurses to feed the baby. I haven't heard of this being done anywhere. Mothers often did breast feed their infants for 2-6 weeks until the mid/late when at birth removals began in Oz and NZ. From then on they got massive doses of Stilboestrol to suppress lactation. The Salvation Army was the only place that encouraged contact post birth but only for bottle feeding. Breast feeding was not permitted by the late 50's. After then, babies for adoption, especially allergic babies, were given a collection of milk extracted from the breasts of lactating married women during their stay in hospital and weaned onto formula before discharge from hospital. They never got their own mother's milk. What leads you to believe that what you say happened in Australia, necessarily also happened in New Zealand, Di? Robin


Aside from the fact that Geo has thusfar described identical practices
and attitudes to that of Australia, could it be because I happen to
know almost as many Kiwi mothers as Oz mothers, and that we do happen
to discuss these topics
between each other? Surely you have mothers in the Uk who share and
compare their experiences and treatment? Or do they? And if so, will
such discussions
be verboten by adoption's thought police if your new restrictive
counselling laws come into effect?

Di

in article 9a095db9.0404050754.3ffdd33d@posting.google.com, Dian at
patrice068@optusnet.com.au wrote on 5/4/04 4:54 pm:
Robin Harritt <karakoram@postadoption.info> wrote in message news:<BC96F364.3A553%karakoram@postadoption.info>... in article 9a095db9.0404042340.de8cab8@posting.google.com, Dian at patrice068@optusnet.com.au wrote on 5/4/04 8:40 am: "geopelia" <phildoran@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:<p73cc.5529$d%6.97124@news.xtra.co.nz>... <snip>.> I've seen a picture of a woman "breastfeeding" by having a tube from the> milk bottle next to her nipple and the baby sucking on both. Is this often> done today? Does it help the baby bond to its adoptive mother?>> Can hormones (oxytocin?), plus the action of the baby suckling, cause a> woman who has not given birth to produce milk?>> One problem with adoption was that the baby was bottle fed and missed out> on colostrum. Mothers did not breastfeed in the old days, in case bonding> took place, but they could have expressed the milk for nurses to feed the> baby. >>>> I haven't heard of this being done anywhere. Mothers often did breast feed their infants for 2-6 weeks until the mid/late when at birth removals began in Oz and NZ. From then on they got massive doses of Stilboestrol to suppress lactation. The Salvation Army was the only place that encouraged contact post birth but only for bottle feeding. Breast feeding was not permitted by the late 50's. After then, babies for adoption, especially allergic babies, were given a collection of milk extracted from the breasts of lactating married women during their stay in hospital and weaned onto formula before discharge from hospital. They never got their own mother's milk. What leads you to believe that what you say happened in Australia, necessarily also happened in New Zealand, Di? Robin

Aside from the fact that Geo has thusfar described identical practices and attitudes to that of Australia,


Actually Di, the way I read it, she's been questioning your assertion that
many of these practises were common in NZ.


could it be because I happen to know almost as many Kiwi mothers as Oz mothers, and that we do happen to discuss these topics between each other?


Yes but you've often told us that you've learned various things from
speaking with English mothers who you know. Those things have often turned
out to be absolute bollocks on closer investigation. Like the idea that
sufficient benefits were available but were conspiratorially kept a secret
from birthmothers by a wicked gang of adoption professionals throughout the
English speaking world. If only they'd known hundreds of thousands of
English mothers would have kept their children and lived a life of luxury at
the tax payers expense. Except, as those who tried it proved, it just didn't
work out that easy, did it? Non newborns often ended up in orphanages when
it all got just too difficult to cope on a few pounds per week in a society
that was in reality totally unsympathetic to single mothers.

Surely you have mothers in the Uk who share and compare their experiences and treatment? Or do they? And if so, will such discussions be verboten by adoption's thought police if your new restrictive counselling laws come into effect?


As I have to remind you almost every time the subject comes up, there is no
*UK* adoption law. I assume you mean the proposed regulations on access to
information that are due to be published in draft for discussion shortly and
which apply to England and Wales only. I don't think discussion will be
outlawed. People with no qualification whatever to do so, may no longer be
able to pass themselves off as "counsellors" but that might be good thing,