Family or care? I want to explore this question.

Please chime in on this discussion with your perspective, particularly if you grew up in foster care/institutional setting, are an adoptee, and/or work/have worked in a social work or institutional setting. It's a worthy & complex discussion that demands insight from all parties involved. I, myself, am very interested to hear what you all have to say regarding Margie's question.

It's easy to be a heretic

My little rant for the day: It irks the snot out of me when folks conclude that adoptees and original mothers have no right to think critically about adoption. It's indicative once again of how others often view first moms and adoptees in a condescending and patronizing way, completely ignoring the emotional and social complexities of our situations. Even more maddening is when it's our own fellow adoptees and first moms that do this.

The above "rant" was inspired by an insightful observation (and the discussion that ensued in the comments section) made by Ashleigh at her blog, Not Just A Birth Mom. Ashleigh wrote:

People recommend that you do not separate a puppy from it's mother for at least six weeks.... This is for the overall physical and emotional health of the mother and the puppy..... So why is it that when it comes to human infant adoption, we try to remove the babe from its mother as he is drawing his first breath? Why is it that we can't extend the same courtesy to a MOTHER and her CHILD that we do to a DOG? Just a thought.

One of the readers, another birth mom ironically enough, responded to Ashleigh's observation with the following:

I used to have quite a bit of respect for you. Now I am finding your posts to be frustrating. You are sitting here bashing on the same thing you did TWICE! If you didn't support it why did you carry the same thing out twice?? Just wondering.

First of all, Ashleigh was not bashing adoption, but rather offering an honest and valid inquiry. Second of all, why does her status as a "birth mom" prohibit her from thinking critically about the practice of adoption? Again, it's the whole, what I call, "gratitude gospel of adoption." Adoptees and birth moms if not completely neglected in the first place are resigned to only being allowed to feel nothing but gratitude and unequivocal warm fuzzies for adoption. Anything else is treated as heresy. But the "plight" of adoptive parents is generally met not only with understanding and compassion but is also lauded as a noble, living martyrdom.

I'm not bashing adoptive parents nor am I saying that they've got it easy. Being an adoptive parent certainly comes with its own set of issues. But I've said it before, and I'll say it again--the current status quo is one that favors and upholds adoptive parents as the unquestionable heroes while it ignores, at best, and demeans, at worst, adult adoptees and original moms that question past and current adoption practices.

As I stated in response to the referenced reader's comment:

Lordy, people, there's nothing wrong with healthy, constructive criticism or asking questions based on honest observation. And the last time I checked nothing in this world is perfect, especially the practice of adoption.

My adoption situation is good overall but that doesn't mean I don't have a right to analyze and criticize it honestly, not to be a poopyhead, but for the sake of reform and positive change...

Thank you, Ashleigh for making this observation. It's a very insightful point. If we show a mother dog & her babies that much consideration & sensitivity, it stands to reason we should show even more to our fellow human beings.

And as Amanda (The Declassified Adoptee) responded, "What in the world is wrong with what she [Ashleigh] wrote? Why is it so heinous to discuss what might be healthier for mother and child that might not be currently suggested and respected in adoption."

Exactly, Amanda, what's so heretical about wanting to consider what might be best for a mother and her child? Apparently, everything BUT a mother giving her child up to be raised by a set of complete strangers.

Now, if that's not irony, I don't know what is.

Adoption & Choice: God's Plan or Man's Plan?

A reader left the below comment in response to my most recent post, Not Luck But Choice, at the adoption website, Grown in My Heart (I suggest reading the original post for context):

How do you explain choice to so many who do not even believe in choice to begin with? A lot of people in the adoption world view what happened to you as pre-ordained. I think that is one of the saddest things and one of the most damaging to adopted children.

The following is how I replied to her comment:

Very good point, Yoli, and one that I was trying to, although somewhat superficially, address.

For those who claim a faith in a loving, biblical God, it makes no sense to me to basically say, “Oh but it was God’s plan for you to be adopted." Such a statement and presumption inevitably and logically translate to adoptees like myself as "It was God's plan for you to be abandoned” (read "What not to say to an adoptee") or “God pre-ordained that your mother would be so poverty-stricken and hopeless and alone that she would feel no other choice than to give you away to strangers…” or “God allowed you to be abandoned and to suffer such loss and grief so that WE could adopt you.”

In my mind, that's pretty twisted, not to mention very egocentric thinking. That is not my impression of the God in the Bible or otherwise. Rather I understand a God who gives people free will even though he is often pained and grieved by their choices in how they exercise that free will (Genesis 6: The Lord saw how great man’s wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of his heart was only evil all the time. The Lord was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain…).

And yet he can still bring good out of suffering…although his ability to bring “good” out of suffering does NOT therefore imply that he therefore WANTED such suffering to take place…and that again is where free will comes in…

Why could it not be suggested that perhaps God would hope that folks would use their free will to help BOTH the mother and child in distress? Why is it automatically assumed that “helping the poor” means adopting their children? Why is the conventional wisdom, “Oh, this occurred so that WE could adopt” and not “This occurred as a result of living in a broken world, and we should feel compelled to do all that we can to empower these mothers & families to stay together and give them the chance for the same opportunities to succeed as have been given to us…?”

Yes, the Bible and Jesus say that true religion is to help the orphans & widows and the poor in general (James 1; Matthew 25, etc.), but back then, within the context, orphans were truly orphans (parents & often extended family were deceased)–they were not the children of poor, neglected, and oppressed women.

Folks often identify the stories of Moses and Esther and such to rationalize that it is God’s idea, plan, goal for adoptees like myself to be relinquished and subsequently adopted. I find this a gross and absolutely misguided misinterpretation. (Also, keep in mind that Esther was adopted by her blood relative, her Uncle Mordecai, and even Moses remained in contact with his original family…his own mother was able to nurse him and obviously his brother, Aaron, and sister, Miriam, remained in his life…)That’s like using the examples of incest in the Bible to suggest that it was God’s plan for a woman to be sexually abused. Completely out of context and completely disturbing…as well as NOT the original purpose or reason that such stories are included in the Bible. The stories of Moses and others are not in the Bible to justify adoption–-they’re there to tell the story of how the Israelites came to be, to give a spiritual and historical explanation and account of their origins…but so often, people twist and turn the Bible to fit what they already want to believe rather than understanding it at its face value, for its plain meaning within the appropriate context…

I know many would find the above comparisons offensive…but I find it so myopic and self-serving to take the stories in the Bible out of context to serve one’s own agenda.

Again, referring to “luck” or “God’s plan” is such a cop-out to me that frees people from taking personal responsibility for their actions and their role, not only in adoption, but in life. It’s the easy way out to say that my adoption was pre-ordained. It oversimplifies the matter, and it stunts growth, reform, and change from happening today. As long as adoption is “God’s work” or “God’s plan” people will not feel compelled to reform it or to address the root causes of poverty and social and economic injustice that often serve as its substrate. Although I am at peace with what has happened in my own life, I think it is crucial that we learn from adoptees’ stories, so that current practices can be ameliorated, ultimately resulting in less families being separated…

And how many nut jobs have claimed the same thing–-that they were God’s tool to execute God’s plan or have used the Bible or other religious texts to justify heinous and unjust acts? The Crusades are a perfect example. American slavery is another example (talk about twisting the Bible!), or opposition to interracial marriages (which still happens today). Or the existence of the KKK (which is still alive and active in the town that my husband and I reside). Or more presently, Islamic terrorism.

I’m not saying adoption is therefore comparable to the Crusades or American slavery, but I am saying that people can think something is perfectly and only good, to the point that they are deceived and miss completely the reality of a practice’s inherent flaws and misconceptions.

It’s easy for us to look back on slavery or the Crusades and scoff and say, of course those were bad. But at the time, they were viewed as good and justifiable–they were popular and supported, in general, by the masses. No one saw anything wrong with these activities.

In the same way, adoption is often seen as purely good, an act of God, and hence, people choose to ignore, dig their heads into the sand, regarding the often preventable “behind the scenes” that leads to adoption, that results in adoption…

In taking care of the poor, it does not mean, take care of only the children and those whom you deem worthy…

Adoption is a CHOICE. It is not some mythical, religious experience designed to bring you closer to God and bless you with the child YOU always wanted…I’m not saying that God cannot work through adoption, but I am saying that there are CHOICES that transpire that could have been DIFFERENT choices that God would perhaps approve of just as readily, and even perhaps identify as of a more noble and selfless nature…

Not Luck But Choice

Here's the link to my monthly contribution to the adoption website, Grown in My Heart. The title of this month's article, Not Luck But Choice, addresses the common misassumption and aura that I'm a "lucky girl," not only because of being adopted but also because of being in reunion with my original family. Here's an excerpt:

To the outsider, it may appear a fairy tale, a dream—those who were lost from one another have now found one another. What a lucky girl she is—to have the best of both worlds—to have both her American family and now her Korean family.

But that’s just the trouble—it is two worlds—two worlds that do not readily or willingly merge. Rather it is more comparable to a collision.

And luck has nothing to do with it all. Luck had nothing to do with me being relinquished and adopted in the first place. Luck had nothing to do with me finding my Korean parents and family...

[Click here for the entire post.]