So now even India, struggling with overpopulation, has a baby
shortage. Those Indian women are getting pretty damned uppity, taking
control of their fertility. More are keeping their babies (no
surprise there), and some who choose adoption for their babies are
doing so for monetary compensation. Sounds very like our situation
here in the U.S.

Years ago, an adopter and member of Gladney's board of directors
voiced his concern to a friend of mine that his agency's inventory was
down due to all the women who were selling their babies into open
adoptions. As he so rightly pointed out, adoption's a business. B.P.
later chastised me for asking him how many babies Gladney had sold
that year. He claimed my question wasn't professional in tone.
Apparently, it is more professional to refer to babies as "inventory"
and accuse their mothers of selling them.

Babybrokers and other adoption facilitators are anxious. They thought
they'd cornered the baby market, and had made themselves
indispensable. In their arrogance and greed, they forgot they were
nothing but retailers. As a diamond factory owner with outlets in the
D.C. area advertises, "Nobody pays retail anymore - why should you?"
Natural parents are sitting on virtual diamond mines and now
understand that, thanks to this whining about a baby shortage, and the
willingness of paps to pay huge sums for healthy newborns.

It's no surprise that women in poorer countries are learning from our
shining example of American capitalism. Why should they go through
pregnancy and labor for nothing when people are paying big bucks for
newborn infants?

American women already legally sell their children in surrogacy
arrangements, and their ova for use in artificial reproduction.
What's the difference if they sell their babies into conventional
adoptions? The LDS, the Catholic Church and other religious
organizations shamelessly advertise for HWI's and collect fees from
adopters and pay lobbyists to defend such practices. These same
groups deplore the idea of mothers capitalizing on their fertility.
Why is it acceptable in the U.S. to devalue natural motherhood and
accept fees, donations and bribes for placing babies for adoption when
the Church and other middlemen benefit financially, but not when they
don't?

Some years ago, Judge Richard Posner of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals opined that infant adoption in America should be turned over
to free market enterprise. He sees nothing wrong with mothers selling
their children on the open market. He believes this would make
everyone happy, and provide paps with the children they deserve.

I wrote Judge Posner agreeing that this was an idea whose time had
come. I explained that adopters would then be perfectly matched with
biological parents in terms of character and intelligence. Because
heredity is a significant influence in shaping who we are, parents,
paps and adoptees involved in such babyselling arrangements would most
likely be moronic sociopaths who shared a similar outlook on life.

Seems an honest, equitable arrangement to me: Adopters demand a
product, and fertile women are willing to supply that product.
Research has confirmed that infertile people will die unless they are
supplied with HWI's, and that women will kill their babies unless the
taxpayers finance their high-dollar lifestyles and snot-nosed litters.
If women could make $20,000-30,000 or more for carrying unwanted
pregnancies to term and selling their babies to adopters, imagine how
many abortions and infertility fatalities would be prevented. Imagine
how much money taxpayers would save on welfare costs.

Why shouldn't women be allowed to capitalize on their fertility, just
as adoption intermediaries do? Are legislators and others afraid
mothers will profit from selling their children? If so, why? They
don't fear anyone else will profit from it. Why are poor American
mothers thrown in prison for selling their newborns for $1000 when
babybrokers can make ten or twenty times as much selling the same
children. This hardly seems fair.

If there's nothing unique or special about natural motherhood, nothing
a natural mother can give her child that adopters can't, nothing a
child loses by being separated from his or her genetic kin, who gets
hurt? If everyone's so happy with adoption, what have we to lose by
allowing mothers to sell their children? I see such deep concern
expressed here by adopters for the feelings of adoptees, yet their
professed love and respect for children hasn't prevented them from
plunking down money for them. Most adoptees eventually grow up and
discover that their adopters purchased parental rights to them, but
this isn't believed to cause them any deep or lasting trauma. Given
this, how could it traumatize adoptees to learn their natural mothers
sold them?

Natural mothers in adoption are held to a far higher standard of
morality than are people who adopt children, and intermediaries who
supply them with babies. Why is that, in a society that spits on
mothers who surrender their babies, and allows children to be graded
and sold like produce?


Further reading:

Posner, R.A. (1987) "The Regulation of the Market in Adoptions.''
Boston University Law Review 67 (January): 59-72.

Boudreaux, Donald J. (1995) "A Modest Proposal to Deregulate Infant
Adoptions," The Cato Journal, 15:1.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj15n1-7.html



Laura





lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam (LilMtnCbn) wrote in message news:<20040312093145.15038.00001144@mb-m18.aol.com>...
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/555283.cms

Adoption agencies faced with shortage of children
ROLI SRIVASTAVA

TIMES NEWS NETWORK[ FRIDAY, MARCH 12, 2004 02:29:22 AM ]

MUMBAI: The list of parents in queue to adopt a child has grown at adoption
agencies even as the number of children available has dropped. And the reasons
are both good and bad.




Kaumudi Telang of the Indian Association of Adoptive Families says that earlier
an average of 60 parents adopted kids from the agency every year, but the
figure has now dropped sharply to around 24. "The number of adoptive parents
has not gone down but the number of children available for adoption
has,''Ms Telang notes.



Adoption statistics with the Indian Council of Social Welfare —from 348
adoptions in Mumbai in 1994 to 453 in 2003— perhaps give an impression that
adoption rates have remained constant. But experts point out that the
insignificant increase in adoptions is because agencies do not have enough
children.



Bal Asha, an adoption agency in Mahalaxmi, placed 55 children in 2003 as
against 73 in 2002. "That was because wehad fewer children last year,''
says Sunil Arora, administrator of Bal Asha. He adds that finding a home for
children with medical problems or special needs continues to be a problem but
healthy babies are able to find homes inMumbai itself.



The main reason for fewer children available for adoption, say experts, is the
decline in the number of unwed mothers thus resulting in fewer abandoned
babies. Experts attribute this decline to the popularity of birth control
measures among women. Even among women who go ahead with their pregnancies,
fewer give up their children now, they say.



Adoption expert Nilima Mehta points out that even though an institution could
be bursting at its seams, only some children would be ‘legally free' for
adoption. But a more disturbing explanation for the falling number of children
is the alleged malpractice of some doctors and adoption agencies.



Gaurang Mehta of National Association of Adoptive Families says that "baby
trafficking'' is on the rise. "In fact, a Mahim-based doctor advertised
‘healthy Indian babies available' in US publications and was later
arrested.



Couples tell us about certain agencies promising to "simplify
procedures'' at a price,'' Mr Mehta says. Perhaps this explains why
despite the paucity of children, some agencies have a steady flow of babies
through the year.



Questions Shalini Bharat, former chairperson of Voluntary Coordination Agency
and sociologist with TISS, "Where are these agencies getting so many babies
from?'' According to experts, agencies have been known to offer monetary
benefits to unwed mothers to get their babies. While there still needs to be
more awareness about adoption, experts note an attitudinal change.



At Bal Asha, the number of couples making enquiries has increased from 15 to an
encouraging 25 per month now. Also, childless couples in their early 30s are
looking at adoption as an alternative.




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

LauraLewis1@msn.com (Laura Lewis) wrote in message news:<1a4c2bd3.0403161052.1934d3c6@posting.google.com>... So now even India, struggling with overpopulation, has a baby shortage. Those Indian women are getting pretty damned uppity, taking control of their fertility. More are keeping their babies (no surprise there), and some who choose adoption for their babies are doing so for monetary compensation. Sounds very like our situation here in the U.S. Years ago, an adopter and member of Gladney's board of directors voiced his concern to a friend of mine that his agency's inventory was down due to all the women who were selling their babies into open adoptions. As he so rightly pointed out, adoption's a business. B.P. later chastised me for asking him how many babies Gladney had sold that year. He claimed my question wasn't professional in tone. Apparently, it is more professional to refer to babies as "inventory" and accuse their mothers of selling them. Babybrokers and other adoption facilitators are anxious. They thought they'd cornered the baby market, and had made themselves indispensable. In their arrogance and greed, they forgot they were nothing but retailers. As a diamond factory owner with outlets in the D.C. area advertises, "Nobody pays retail anymore - why should you?" Natural parents are sitting on virtual diamond mines and now understand that, thanks to this whining about a baby shortage, and the willingness of paps to pay huge sums for healthy newborns. It's no surprise that women in poorer countries are learning from our shining example of American capitalism. Why should they go through pregnancy and labor for nothing when people are paying big bucks for newborn infants? American women already legally sell their children in surrogacy arrangements, and their ova for use in artificial reproduction. What's the difference if they sell their babies into conventional adoptions? The LDS, the Catholic Church and other religious organizations shamelessly advertise for HWI's and collect fees from adopters and pay lobbyists to defend such practices. These same groups deplore the idea of mothers capitalizing on their fertility. Why is it acceptable in the U.S. to devalue natural motherhood and accept fees, donations and bribes for placing babies for adoption when the Church and other middlemen benefit financially, but not when they don't? Some years ago, Judge Richard Posner of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals opined that infant adoption in America should be turned over to free market enterprise. He sees nothing wrong with mothers selling their children on the open market. He believes this would make everyone happy, and provide paps with the children they deserve. I wrote Judge Posner agreeing that this was an idea whose time had come. I explained that adopters would then be perfectly matched with biological parents in terms of character and intelligence. Because heredity is a significant influence in shaping who we are, parents, paps and adoptees involved in such babyselling arrangements would most likely be moronic sociopaths who shared a similar outlook on life. Seems an honest, equitable arrangement to me: Adopters demand a product, and fertile women are willing to supply that product. Research has confirmed that infertile people will die unless they are supplied with HWI's, and that women will kill their babies unless the taxpayers finance their high-dollar lifestyles and snot-nosed litters. If women could make $20,000-30,000 or more for carrying unwanted pregnancies to term and selling their babies to adopters, imagine how many abortions and infertility fatalities would be prevented. Imagine how much money taxpayers would save on welfare costs. Why shouldn't women be allowed to capitalize on their fertility, just as adoption intermediaries do? Are legislators and others afraid mothers will profit from selling their children? If so, why? They don't fear anyone else will profit from it. Why are poor American mothers thrown in prison for selling their newborns for $1000 when babybrokers can make ten or twenty times as much selling the same children. This hardly seems fair. If there's nothing unique or special about natural motherhood, nothing a natural mother can give her child that adopters can't, nothing a child loses by being separated from his or her genetic kin, who gets hurt? If everyone's so happy with adoption, what have we to lose by allowing mothers to sell their children? I see such deep concern expressed here by adopters for the feelings of adoptees, yet their professed love and respect for children hasn't prevented them from plunking down money for them. Most adoptees eventually grow up and discover that their adopters purchased parental rights to them, but this isn't believed to cause them any deep or lasting trauma. Given this, how could it traumatize adoptees to learn their natural mothers sold them? Natural mothers in adoption are held to a far higher standard of morality than are people who adopt children, and intermediaries who supply them with babies. Why is that, in a society that spits on mothers who surrender their babies, and allows children to be graded and sold like produce? Further reading: Posner, R.A. (1987) "The Regulation of the Market in Adoptions.'' Boston University Law Review 67 (January): 59-72. Boudreaux, Donald J. (1995) "A Modest Proposal to Deregulate Infant Adoptions," The Cato Journal, 15:1. http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj15n1-7.html Laura
Standing clapping and cheering.

Laura, take a bow. You're brilliant. This post deserves much wider exposure.
Permission to distribute?

Di

In article <1a4c2bd3.0403161052.1934d3c6@posting.google.com>,
LauraLewis1@msn.com (Laura Lewis) wrote:

Why shouldn't women be allowed to capitalize on their fertility, just as adoption intermediaries do?


Regurgitating an old proposal, Laura? Must be a slow news week,
adoption-wise.





steve

Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message news:<steve-C1423F.20495116032004@netnews.comcast.net>... In article <1a4c2bd3.0403161052.1934d3c6@posting.google.com>, LauraLewis1@msn.com (Laura Lewis) wrote: Why shouldn't women be allowed to capitalize on their fertility, just as adoption intermediaries do? Regurgitating an old proposal, Laura? Must be a slow news week, adoption-wise.
I think we're on to something here. Care to share your own opinion on
mothers cutting out the middle man, Steve?

Di
steve

Laura Lewis embellishes or, perhaps, fabricates:

<snip>
Years ago, an adopter and member of Gladney's board of directors voiced his concern to a friend of mine that his agency's inventory was down due to all the women who were selling their babies into open adoptions.

Doubt this conversation ever occurred!


P2P

Palms2pines wrote:
Laura Lewis embellishes or, perhaps, fabricates: <snip>Years ago, an adopter and member of Gladney's board of directorsvoiced his concern to a friend of mine that his agency's inventory wasdown due to all the women who were selling their babies into openadoptions. Doubt this conversation ever occurred! P2P


Knowing what I know of Gladney and their behind the scenes activity,
I don't doubt it at all! I'd be happy to steer you toward several
*former* prospective adopting parents who sought out Gladney but
excused themselves when they learned what was expected of them...
and none of it would guarantee their receipt of a child.

pb...

"Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in message
news:20040317171209.19482.00001729@mb-m16.aol.com... Laura Lewis embellishes or, perhaps, fabricates: <snip> Years ago, an adopter and member of Gladney's board of directors voiced his concern to a friend of mine that his agency's inventory was down due to all the women who were selling their babies into open adoptions. Doubt this conversation ever occurred! P2P

I don't, except I doubt they used the world "selling." Gladney, the founder
of NCFA, now does open adoption , though it maintains a stranglehold over
records access and is still the flagship of NCFA. Gladney also places US
babies internationally,. despite the waiting lists. Now, I wonder why they
would do that? I brought this ups specifically in my Hague comments to
State.

A couple years ago Gladney held a reunion for the Gladney Girls (shoulds
like a TV show!) , and one of the bigwigs got up there and told the bmoms
who for some perverse reason attended, that if it weren't for them they
wouldn't be here today. The event was covered by the BQ. And you haven't
lived until you've visited the Gladney Adoption Museum. Or, and then
there's the brochure, Fun Facts about Gladney. I'm not kidding.

Marley

palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message news:<20040317171209.19482.00001729@mb-m16.aol.com>... Laura Lewis embellishes or, perhaps, fabricates: <snip> Years ago, an adopter and member of Gladney's board of directors voiced his concern to a friend of mine that his agency's inventory was down due to all the women who were selling their babies into open adoptions. Doubt this conversation ever occurred! P2P

Oh, it did occur. The friend who initiated the conversation was
seated next to this Gladney guy in the first class section on a flight
to Dallas. She was going to visit her daughter there.

Apparently, it never entered this nitwit's mind that a mother
exploited in adoption might be his seatmate in the first class
section. We are everywhere, and there's no stopping us and no way to
identify us, given that we aren't (yet) physically branded with
identification marks that allow adoptionists to distinguish us from
other women.

She noticed the Edna Gladney logo on the papers he was reading and
mentioned to him that she was involved in adoption and interested in
what the Gladney Home was doing. He was sucked right in and started
expounding on the wonders of Gladney, and bemoaning its shaky
financial status.

My friend just sat and listened. The only time she interrupted him was
to question his use of the term "inventory." She asked him if he was
referring to babies and he replied that of course he was, that
adoption was a business and Gladney's inventory was low because so
many girls were selling their babies into open adoptions.


Laura

Laura Lewis writes:

<snip>
The only time she interrupted him wasto question his use of the term "inventory." She asked him if he wasreferring to babies and he replied that of course he was, thatadoption was a business and Gladney's inventory was low because somany girls were selling their babies into open adoptions.Laura


I am skeptical but not so much about whether the conversation took place. I am
skeptical that anyone who works in the field of adoption would make use of the
phrase "selling their babies into open adoption". I am sure Gladney adoptions
are open these days, just as most newborn adoptions are in the US. The man
might have lamented that women no longer feel compelled to hide plans to place
newborns, camp out at homes for unwed mothers during pregnancy, and hide behind
an agency that works as a go-between for birth parents and adoptive parents.
The fact that more and more people see no reason to shield their identities
when participating in adoption does, indeed, lessen the demand for those big
go-between organizations who helped hide everyone from each other and hide
unmarried pregnant women from society. However, not using unwed mothers' homes
and big agencies does not equate to "selling babies into open adoption".


P2P

"Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in message
news:20040318145429.08963.00001563@mb-m14.aol.com... Laura Lewis writes: <snip>The only time she interrupted him wasto question his use of the term "inventory." She asked him if he wasreferring to babies and he replied that of course he was, thatadoption was a business and Gladney's inventory was low because somany girls were selling their babies into open adoptions.Laura I am skeptical but not so much about whether the conversation took place.
I am skeptical that anyone who works in the field of adoption would make use of
the phrase "selling their babies into open adoption". I am sure Gladney
adoptions are open these days, just as most newborn adoptions are in the US. The man might have lamented that women no longer feel compelled to hide plans to
place newborns, camp out at homes for unwed mothers during pregnancy, and hide
behind an agency that works as a go-between for birth parents and adoptive
parents. The fact that more and more people see no reason to shield their
identities when participating in adoption does, indeed, lessen the demand for those
big go-between organizations who helped hide everyone from each other and hide unmarried pregnant women from society. However, not using unwed mothers'
homes and big agencies does not equate to "selling babies into open adoption". P2P

A lawyer/ amom told me about a very respected private agency here that has a
price sheet. The "darker" the baby, the lower the price. If the baby is
too "dark", the case is transferred to L-d-S since the agency won't get a
good mark-up on it. Should we be surprised that the agency is owned by an
adoption lawyer?

Marley

>And you haven'tlived until you've visited the Gladney Adoption Museum. Or, and thenthere's the brochure, Fun Facts about Gladney. I'm not kidding.Marley

Oh, please! Do tell me which artifacts are on display in the Gladney Museum.




P2P

>Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal (was "Adoption Agencies Faced with Shortage ofChildren")From: palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines)Date: 3/18/04 11:54 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <20040318145429.08963.00001563@mb-m14.aol.com>

(snip)
I am sure Gladney adoptionsare open these days, just as most newborn adoptions are in the US.

Palms, no offense, but this sounds about as corny, and unrealistic, as Laura
stating as fact that many women sell their kids into open adoptions. I don't
believe for a minute that most newborn adoptions are as open as we'd like them
to be in the US today.






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: A Modest Proposal (was "Adoption Agencies Faced with Shortage ofChildren")From: LauraLewis1@msn.com (Laura Lewis)Date: 3/18/04 11:07 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <1a4c2bd3.0403181107.4e626aa6@posting.google.com>palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in messagenews:<20040317171209.19482.00001729@mb-m16.aol.com>... Laura Lewis embellishes or, perhaps, fabricates: <snip> Years ago, an adopter and member of Gladney's board of directors> voiced his concern to a friend of mine that his agency's inventory was> down due to all the women who were selling their babies into open> adoptions. Doubt this conversation ever occurred! P2POh, it did occur.

So your moooo was there? We're supposed to take your moo(s)...eh, I mean your
barnyard pal's moos as 'udder' gospel...

....Oh that's right. Here's a moo, there's a moo, everywhere there's a moo-moo.





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 writes to me:
Palms, no offense, but this sounds about as corny, and unrealistic, as Laurastating as fact that many women sell their kids into open adoptions. I don'tbelieve for a minute that most newborn adoptions are as open as we'd likethemto be in the US today.


Kathy, I am not sure what you mean by "as open as we'd like them to be." An
adoption is either open or closed.

I can go seek stats. But, even before I do I can say with a reasonable amount
of confidence that in all fifty states newborn adoptions are largely open
today. A pregnant woman hiding out at some sort of home and reliquishing her
newborn to unknown adoptive parents is the rare exception today.

Remember, I am not talking about the extent or style of ongoing contact after
the adoption. I am talking about adoptions legally defined as "open", meaning
the birthparents and the adoptive parents reveal full identifying information.
Further, I think in the majority of newborn adoptions today the birth parents
and the adoptive parents meet at least once, usually more.

I will try to locate stats. I have seen them on this ng before. I hate to ask
Dad. But, seems to me he posted them once a long time ago.


P2P

Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message news:<steve-C1423F.20495116032004@netnews.comcast.net>... In article <1a4c2bd3.0403161052.1934d3c6@posting.google.com>, LauraLewis1@msn.com (Laura Lewis) wrote: Why shouldn't women be allowed to capitalize on their fertility, just as adoption intermediaries do? Regurgitating an old proposal, Laura? Must be a slow news week, adoption-wise. steve




I responded to a recent news article about an alleged baby shortage in
India, offered my opinion, and backed it up with facts and scholarly
articles.

You think the value of ideas somehow diminishes over time. Can you
explain this odd belief? Are we to assume it applies to your
professional and religious pursuits as well? Do you toss out "old
news" with the garbage, as adopters toss out mothers exploited in
adoption?

If it's time to abandon nutty old ideas, start with adoption.


Laura

"Laura Lewis" <LauraLewis1@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1a4c2bd3.0403181510.93cebd1@posting.google.co m... Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message
news:<steve-C1423F.20495116032004@netnews.comcast.net>... In article <1a4c2bd3.0403161052.1934d3c6@posting.google.com>, LauraLewis1@msn.com (Laura Lewis) wrote: Why shouldn't women be allowed to capitalize on their fertility, just as adoption intermediaries do? Regurgitating an old proposal, Laura? Must be a slow news week, adoption-wise. steve I responded to a recent news article about an alleged baby shortage in India, offered my opinion, and backed it up with facts and scholarly articles. You think the value of ideas somehow diminishes over time. Can you explain this odd belief? Are we to assume it applies to your professional and religious pursuits as well? Do you toss out "old news" with the garbage, as adopters toss out mothers exploited in adoption? If it's time to abandon nutty old ideas, start with adoption. Laura

Adopters do not toss out mothers exploited in adoption. That is a blanket
statement and not true all the time. My aparents never tossed my bmother or
bfather out. And neither of them were exploited in adoption.

KL

meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in message news:<20040318161358.20206.00001775@mb-m27.aol.com>...Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal (was "Adoption Agencies Faced with Shortage ofChildren")From: palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines)Date: 3/18/04 11:54 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <20040318145429.08963.00001563@mb-m14.aol.com> (snip)I am sure Gladney adoptionsare open these days, just as most newborn adoptions are in the US. Palms, no offense, but this sounds about as corny, and unrealistic, as Laura stating as fact that many women sell their kids into open adoptions.


Where did Laura state "as fact" that many women sell their kids into
open adoption?

Di



I don't believe for a minute that most newborn adoptions are as open as we'd like them to be in the US today. Diane Welfare, "she describes the US market as a "$US1.4 billion business in baby trafficking". ~~121603 http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336884771.html

"Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in message
news:20040318151023.08963.00001567@mb-m14.aol.com...And you haven'tlived until you've visited the Gladney Adoption Museum. Or, and thenthere's the brochure, Fun Facts about Gladney. I'm not kidding.Marley Oh, please! Do tell me which artifacts are on display in the Gladney
Museum. P2P

Well Palms, you asked for it. Here is the URL for your virtual tour of the
museum, though I fear you must visit in person to get the full affect:
http://www.adoptionsbygladney.com/html/about/visitor.html

But this is even better: your *free* dorm room--and they have openings.
You may want to consider this little vacation spot--a home away form
home--when the kids get to be too much for you, or you're treated mean by
your alt.adoption family. Just let yourself be whisked away by Dame Edna
for a vacation you'll never forget. Note the pool.
http://www.adoptionsbygladney.com/html/pregnant/dormtour.html

Here are some of the emenities:
a.. A cozy fireplace in the great room for those chilly days and nights.
a.. A fitness center.
a.. Exciting activities like shopping trips, eating out, sports events,
movies, museum trips, and other special events going on throughout the
Dallas-Fort Worth area.
You can even get your GED, Palms, which I know you'ev not had the time to
work on for years.


Finallly: Be sure to read the the adoption diaries. Here is how one begins:
Wow, a month ago I received first place in the High Point Arabian Country
English Pleasure and now I am a Gladney girl, what a big jump. Let me take
the time to catch up on some events.

www.adoptionsbygladney.com

Marley

***top***

Marley, thank you! I am so impressed with the Gladney website I cannot wait to
visit with my entire family. The accommodations, the amenities, the rich
history....what a vacation destination.

Thank you for encouraging me to complete my GED. You are correct. I have been
so busy these past few years I had to put that on a back burner.

Gladney, hail to thee!

Marley posts:
Well Palms, you asked for it. Here is the URL for your virtual tour of themuseum, though I fear you must visit in person to get the full affect:http://www.adoptionsbygladney.com/html/about/visitor.htmlBut this is even better: your *free* dorm room--and they have openings.You may want to consider this little vacation spot--a home away formhome--when the kids get to be too much for you, or you're treated mean byyour alt.adoption family. Just let yourself be whisked away by Dame Ednafor a vacation you'll never forget. Note the pool.http://www.adoptionsbygladney.com/html/pregnant/dormtour.htmlHere are some of the emenities:a.. A cozy fireplace in the great room for those chilly days and nights.a.. A fitness center.a.. Exciting activities like shopping trips, eating out, sports events,movies, museum trips, and other special events going on throughout theDallas-Fort Worth area.You can even get your GED, Palms, which I know you'ev not had the time towork on for years.Finallly: Be sure to read the the adoption diaries. Here is how one begins:Wow, a month ago I received first place in the High Point Arabian CountryEnglish Pleasure and now I am a Gladney girl, what a big jump. Let me takethe time to catch up on some events.www.adoptionsbygladney.comMarley




P2P

"Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in message
news:20040320140312.01920.00000083@mb-m03.aol.com... ***top*** Marley, thank you! I am so impressed with the Gladney website I cannot
wait to visit with my entire family. The accommodations, the amenities, the rich history....what a vacation destination.

I just knew that it would open new horizons for you, my dear. Why visit,
Paris, Rome, Budapest, Honolulu when you can spend a peaceful yet productive
(if you're studying for your GED) time at Gladney? And you'll make
lifelong friends. That is, if you're allowed to know each other's names. Thank you for encouraging me to complete my GED. You are correct. I have
been so busy these past few years I had to put that on a back burner.

I hope you do, Palms. It's for your own good. And someday you may, with a
bit of luck and hard work, become an aluminum siding salesperson or perhaps
become a Tupperware home consultant.

One thing did bother me about Gladney, though ,but I trust it will be
remedied in time. It's a maternity home, which suggests its for girls and
women only. When you visit, you may want to suggest a paternity wing for
unwed fathers to live in, mediate on their mistakes, and learn skills such
as diaper changing, and 3 AM feedings. Why they could even learn a trade
such as telephone solicitation for non-profits to support the little tyke.
Free vascectomies might also be offered. Gladney, hail to thee!

Iindeed!

Marley Marley posts:Well Palms, you asked for it. Here is the URL for your virtual tour of
themuseum, though I fear you must visit in person to get the full affect:http://www.adoptionsbygladney.com/html/about/visitor.htmlBut this is even better: your *free* dorm room--and they have openings.You may want to consider this little vacation spot--a home away formhome--when the kids get to be too much for you, or you're treated mean byyour alt.adoption family. Just let yourself be whisked away by Dame
Ednafor a vacation you'll never forget. Note the pool.http://www.adoptionsbygladney.com/html/pregnant/dormtour.htmlHere are some of the emenities:a.. A cozy fireplace in the great room for those chilly days and nights.a.. A fitness center.a.. Exciting activities like shopping trips, eating out, sports events,movies, museum trips, and other special events going on throughout theDallas-Fort Worth area.You can even get your GED, Palms, which I know you'ev not had the time towork on for years.Finallly: Be sure to read the the adoption diaries. Here is how one
begins:Wow, a month ago I received first place in the High Point Arabian CountryEnglish Pleasure and now I am a Gladney girl, what a big jump. Let me
takethe time to catch up on some events.www.adoptionsbygladney.comMarley P2P

In article <Wf17c.6004$PY1.154652@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Marley
Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> writes:
"Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in messagenews:20040320140312.01920.00000083@mb-m03.aol.com... ***top*** Marley, thank you! I am so impressed with the Gladney website I cannotwait to visit with my entire family. The accommodations, the amenities, the rich history....what a vacation destination.I just knew that it would open new horizons for you, my dear. Why visit,Paris, Rome, Budapest, Honolulu when you can spend a peaceful yet productive(if you're studying for your GED) time at Gladney? And you'll makelifelong friends. That is, if you're allowed to know each other's names. Thank you for encouraging me to complete my GED. You are correct. I havebeen so busy these past few years I had to put that on a back burner.I hope you do, Palms. It's for your own good. And someday you may, with abit of luck and hard work, become an aluminum siding salesperson or perhapsbecome a Tupperware home consultant.One thing did bother me about Gladney, though ,but I trust it will beremedied in time. It's a maternity home, which suggests its for girls andwomen only. When you visit, you may want to suggest a paternity wing forunwed fathers to live in, mediate on their mistakes, and learn skills suchas diaper changing, and 3 AM feedings. Why they could even learn a tradesuch as telephone solicitation for non-profits to support the little tyke.Free vascectomies might also be offered.

Dear Marley:

Wouldn't the purpose of the paternity wing be to re-impregnate the Gladney
girls once they'd given birth?

Signed,

Confused in Minnesota
Gladney, hail to thee!Iindeed!Marley





Reply to jmhjmd at aol.

Marley encourages me:
I hope you do, Palms. It's for your own good. And someday you may, with abit of luck and hard work, become an aluminum siding salesperson or perhapsbecome a Tupperware home consultant.>>

Thanks. You're a true friend, Marley. Sometimes all it takes is having just one
person to believe in you.




P2P

jmdjmh asks Marley:
Wouldn't the purpose of the paternity wing be to re-impregnate the Gladneygirls once they'd given birth?Signed,Confused in Minnesota


Hey. I think you're onto something.


P2P

"Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in message
news:20040320190613.27543.00000107@mb-m17.aol.com... Marley encourages me:I hope you do, Palms. It's for your own good. And someday you may, with
abit of luck and hard work, become an aluminum siding salesperson or
perhapsbecome a Tupperware home consultant.>> Thanks. You're a true friend, Marley. Sometimes all it takes is having
just one person to believe in you. P2P

And someday you will carry the message to others. No doubt you wil
establish a program to donate used Tupperware to the needy--with scholarhips
to Gladney.

Marley

"J." <jmdjmh@aol.compostible> wrote in message
news:20040320174600.15923.00004443@mb-m12.aol.com... In article <Wf17c.6004$PY1.154652@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> writes:"Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in messagenews:20040320140312.01920.00000083@mb-m03.aol.com... ***top*** Marley, thank you! I am so impressed with the Gladney website I cannotwait to visit with my entire family. The accommodations, the amenities, the
rich history....what a vacation destination.I just knew that it would open new horizons for you, my dear. Why
visit,Paris, Rome, Budapest, Honolulu when you can spend a peaceful yet
productive(if you're studying for your GED) time at Gladney? And you'll makelifelong friends. That is, if you're allowed to know each other's names. Thank you for encouraging me to complete my GED. You are correct. I
havebeen so busy these past few years I had to put that on a back burner.I hope you do, Palms. It's for your own good. And someday you may, with
abit of luck and hard work, become an aluminum siding salesperson or
perhapsbecome a Tupperware home consultant.One thing did bother me about Gladney, though ,but I trust it will beremedied in time. It's a maternity home, which suggests its for girls
andwomen only. When you visit, you may want to suggest a paternity wing forunwed fathers to live in, mediate on their mistakes, and learn skills
suchas diaper changing, and 3 AM feedings. Why they could even learn a tradesuch as telephone solicitation for non-profits to support the little
tyke.Free vascectomies might also be offered. Dear Marley: Wouldn't the purpose of the paternity wing be to re-impregnate the Gladney girls once they'd given birth? Signed, Confused in Minnesota Gladney, hail to thee!Iindeed!Marley

Dear Confused--

This is something I didn't feel was appropriate for mixed
company--especially in public, but yes. You are absolutely correct. We
feel that our Gladney Boys pososeess high standards of performance, have
proven their worthiness, and are likely to succeed in similar endeavors in
the future, which we encourage. We also believe in supporting local talent
and what is more local that the boys right here on our new luxurious campus.
How else can we replenish a guaranteed quality product for our customers?

Baybees. The other white meat.

Marley
Your friend at Gladney Reply to jmhjmd at aol.

>> Marley encourages me:I hope you do, Palms. It's for your own good. And someday you may, withabit of luck and hard work, become an aluminum siding salesperson orperhapsbecome a Tupperware home consultant.>> Thanks. You're a true friend, Marley. Sometimes all it takes is havingjust one person to believe in you. P2PAnd someday you will carry the message to others. No doubt you wilestablish a program to donate used Tupperware to the needy--with scholarhipsto Gladney.Marley


LMAO! You are on a roll, Marley.


P2P

>Baybees. The other white meat.MarleyYour friend at Gladney


LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Stop, Marley!!!


P2P