I know the title of this article may be disconcerting to some. But don't let it scare you off or intimidate you. The article was actually written by an adoptive mother (who happens to be a professional writer) and deals quite maturely, compassionately, and candidly with the complexities that surround adoption disruption and dissolution. I found it enlightening and honest, and an important read for anyone connected to or interested in adoption.
I hope you'll take the time to read it.
4 comments:
Very sad. I'm sure there is a lot of pain and growth in situations like this, and I wouldn't presume to say I can relate. I would like to point out that the idea of the "perfection" of the biological parent/child relationship is just as much a myth as the adoptive parent/child relationship. As an adoptive parent from birth, I cannot imagine loving my daughter any more had I carried her for 9 months. I AM one of those people who wonder about the motives of those described in the interview, who call our children "adopted children" as opposed to just "children." I feel that parenting is a privilege, not a right - everyone should be subject to proving that they are cut out to be parents, not just adoptive parents. Those same people who make a point of calling Angelina's kids her "adoped kids" would be in an uproar at the suggestion they should have home studies before they are allowed to bear kids - but if such were the case, we wouldn't have the damaged kids we now wonder how to heal. Just a thought.
"I would like to point out that the idea of the "perfection" of the biological parent/child relationship is just as much a myth"
I don't think anyone believes it's a "perfection."
I do think there is a privilege in being blood-related, and I do think the biological connection is severely underestimated in the context of adoption.
The author is certainly endorsing the privileging of blood-relations, and the nature vs. nurture question is hardly "solved." What's more, her simplifying nod to the whole complex question of nurture vs. nature is used to justify a label of "sex offender" applied to a child in what is surely a very questionable context. How would she have treated such behavior in her biological child? This question is one she will have to face some day, if she has not already; I'm sure the reverberations of this event will only get greater in time, and I hope her remaining children will not have distorted ideas about adoption as a result. As to whether biology is severely underestimated in adoption, I would venture to believe that it is not really the majority of cases in which such a position is taken - doubtless biology is sometimes overestimated as well, e.g. in holding the blanket assumption that the biological parents are always the best choice.
"As to whether biology is severely underestimated in adoption, I would venture to believe that it is not really the majority of cases in which such a position is taken"
Yes. It is. How many times do you witness online blog discussions about "well, adoption was the best thing, and the child will bond eventually" or "blood is important, but it's the memories which REALLY count" or "just because the mother carried a baby for 9 months in-utero doesn't mean the bond cannot or will not be stronger between the new mom and baby." Etc.
"...doubtless biology is sometimes overestimated as well, e.g. in holding the blanket assumption that the biological parents are always the best choice."
Hm. I see what you're saying here. There are some out there who are truly against all forms of adoption, except for foster adoption. But since that's not my viewpoint, I won't vouch for them.
I don't believe that biological parents are the best choice in all situations - no doubt there are parents who really aren't parenting, who don't give a crap about the child they birthed, who objectify their children to do abuse.
Where I differ in my thinking is not to ASSUME a parent will be abusive. The problem is that, undoubtedly, the child who is adopted will have their biological parents judged - the label "adoption" allows people to assume the worst would have happened - and therefore adoption really was the only way to solve the problem.
I'm adopted. People will always give me comments such as "Your mother shouldn't have opened her legs" or "At least she didn't abort you" or "She COULD HAVE abused you!"
Yes, because I'm adopted, people will continue to assume that. It doesn't matter if she raised two other healthy, well-loved, productive blood siblings who have led good lives. People will assume she would have specifically been a bad mother to me BECAUSE I'M ADOPTED.
So then, people will assume I think of her as the Perfect Mother Who Can Do No Wrong and automatically assume I think my adoptive mom is shit, which is totally not true either and actually really pisses me off, because it implies a comparison when there was never one to begin with.
I don't believe my biological mother would have been perfect. I believe I would have sulked while eating my vegetables and argued about doing homework and lied so I wouldn't have to do my homework (just like my adoptive life) and I would have attempted to extend my curfew, would have pissed off my bio parents from time to time, fought with my blood siblings, and taken it all for granted. I am 100% sure it would have been like that.
And still, I wish it had been that way. Because if it had, at least I wouldn't have been able to fathom living between two families, two cultures, and barely having a ghostly capacity of a language which will forever barricade me from truly integrating into that country.
And I would have NEVER been told to be glad I wasn't aborted, neglected, abused, unloved, unplanned - and that hey, not all biological relationships are perfect.
No, they are not. And that is how it should have been.
Post a Comment