thinkingmama (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} thinkingmama) wrote,@ 2006-12-25 21:42:00 |
|
More Adoption Propaganda
If it weren't so sad, it would almost be humorous as to how our supposedly "fair and balanced" media give us such one-sided views of things. For instance, this article in today's News and Observer portrays the adopters as nothing but heroes. Where's the natural mother of the child? Well, it doesn't really matter, does it? After all, the baby was left at a fire station; under the guise of saving infants from being dumped in a trash can, so-called "Safe Haven" legislation makes those sweet and wonderful firemen, who are so brave, take the place of social workers who are evidently too cowardly to witness the separation of a mother and her newborn. The firemen are not supposed to ask questions, not supposed to help the mom or tell her how important breastfeeding is, not supposed to "judge." The fire fighters are supposed to simply take the infant and call the social worker, seemingly alleviating the social worker's responsibility in separating mother and child. The fire fighter is merely serving his or her community by taking the child, right? And the social worker merely has to pick up the supposedly abandoned child. What a nice racket to find children for desperate adopters, as these people in the story seemed to be. While I am not understating the devastation that the adopters must have been through, having been through eight miscarriages and the tragedy of losing twins further along in a pregnancy, the solution for such a tragic situation, if indeed there is one, shouldn't be in taking someone else's child.
The adopters were so desperate for a child that they would have taken a "polka-dot" one. It is sad indeed that such desperation exists and sad that such infertility exists. I do not mean to downplay the tragedy of the adopters' inability to produce a live child--that is tragic in and of itself. But the tragedy is not cured or helped by taking someone else's baby, even if it was one that was supposedly abandoned and supposedly saved from the trash dump. I'm dubious that the mom had either of those things in mind, but we'll probably never know. This little guy will never have the ability to do what I was able to do--find his natural parents. Such legal abandonment at fire stations, as is all the rage in adoption circles these days, requires no identifying information from mother or father, encouraging the most tragic of all adoptees--the foundling. Foundlings, in most cases, are doomed to be lost from their natural families forever.
What disappoints me more than anything is the supposedly Christian response, for the adopters and not for the mother herself: The church of the adopters raised $6,000 so that this adoptee's birth certificate could be falsified and the child can be "completely theirs," as if we adoptees are products to be bought and sold. Imagine how far the child's natural mother could have gone on $6,000. Where was a church in helping the mother to keep her child? Churches seem often to support adopters, but I don't often read stories of support for mothers who are thinking about giving their child away and decide, instead, to keep it. Shouldn't the churches be supporting natural families? Such issues are rarely if ever brought up in mainstream media adoption propaganda; the natural parents are either vilified or forgotten. I have been reading more and more, however, about adopters being helped financially. What makes the adopters superior to the natural mother, especially if the adopters don't have the money needed to adopt a child?
As an antidote to this one-sided story, I will place this link that encourages moms to keep their babies. What a shame that this little boy's real mom failed to see the site, or to heed its advice. What a shame that the firemen who took this child from his mother's arms was probably not allowed to suggest this site or one like it:
www.keepyourbaby.com
If it weren't so sad, it would almost be humorous as to how our supposedly "fair and balanced" media give us such one-sided views of things. For instance, this article in today's News and Observer portrays the adopters as nothing but heroes. Where's the natural mother of the child? Well, it doesn't really matter, does it? After all, the baby was left at a fire station; under the guise of saving infants from being dumped in a trash can, so-called "Safe Haven" legislation makes those sweet and wonderful firemen, who are so brave, take the place of social workers who are evidently too cowardly to witness the separation of a mother and her newborn. The firemen are not supposed to ask questions, not supposed to help the mom or tell her how important breastfeeding is, not supposed to "judge." The fire fighters are supposed to simply take the infant and call the social worker, seemingly alleviating the social worker's responsibility in separating mother and child. The fire fighter is merely serving his or her community by taking the child, right? And the social worker merely has to pick up the supposedly abandoned child. What a nice racket to find children for desperate adopters, as these people in the story seemed to be. While I am not understating the devastation that the adopters must have been through, having been through eight miscarriages and the tragedy of losing twins further along in a pregnancy, the solution for such a tragic situation, if indeed there is one, shouldn't be in taking someone else's child.
The adopters were so desperate for a child that they would have taken a "polka-dot" one. It is sad indeed that such desperation exists and sad that such infertility exists. I do not mean to downplay the tragedy of the adopters' inability to produce a live child--that is tragic in and of itself. But the tragedy is not cured or helped by taking someone else's baby, even if it was one that was supposedly abandoned and supposedly saved from the trash dump. I'm dubious that the mom had either of those things in mind, but we'll probably never know. This little guy will never have the ability to do what I was able to do--find his natural parents. Such legal abandonment at fire stations, as is all the rage in adoption circles these days, requires no identifying information from mother or father, encouraging the most tragic of all adoptees--the foundling. Foundlings, in most cases, are doomed to be lost from their natural families forever.
What disappoints me more than anything is the supposedly Christian response, for the adopters and not for the mother herself: The church of the adopters raised $6,000 so that this adoptee's birth certificate could be falsified and the child can be "completely theirs," as if we adoptees are products to be bought and sold. Imagine how far the child's natural mother could have gone on $6,000. Where was a church in helping the mother to keep her child? Churches seem often to support adopters, but I don't often read stories of support for mothers who are thinking about giving their child away and decide, instead, to keep it. Shouldn't the churches be supporting natural families? Such issues are rarely if ever brought up in mainstream media adoption propaganda; the natural parents are either vilified or forgotten. I have been reading more and more, however, about adopters being helped financially. What makes the adopters superior to the natural mother, especially if the adopters don't have the money needed to adopt a child?
As an antidote to this one-sided story, I will place this link that encourages moms to keep their babies. What a shame that this little boy's real mom failed to see the site, or to heed its advice. What a shame that the firemen who took this child from his mother's arms was probably not allowed to suggest this site or one like it:
www.keepyourbaby.com
