As long as I’ve been writing about adoption, I have occasionally suffered pangs of … well, not guilt, per se, but an almost guilty relief for the fact that my kids came to me undamaged.
Following blogs of parents whose children live with an alphabet soup of lifelong and often life-shattering issues — RAD, FAS, FAE, PTSD — flings me to my knees in gratitude for the circumstances that allowed my children to be born reasonably healthy and pass the thirteen weeks between that miracle and the one that put them in my arms without any horrors.
It’s those 13 weeks I’m thinking of today, and although I will always regret and resent every minute I didn’t have with Sam and Cj, it seems amazing now that they had only a little more than three months of orphanage life.
That three-month time period is dictated by law in Cambodia to allow birth parents to reclaim children if they changed their minds about surrender. Fair enough for the birth parents, but does that sort of consideration for adults justify the setting of a term a child must serve? And if the time allowed would be six months? A year? Longer?
Aside from some in domestic private infant adoptions, adopted children are all sentenced to some duration in what is at best limbo, and at worst hell. As the focus on adoption skews ever more toward concerns about birth families and processes, the length of the sentences stretches out, and with the increase, now often years in the case of international adoptions from many countries, the children are ever more likely to be negatively impacted. Some countries forbid even referral before a child is six-months-old which all but guarantees a year or more of interim, stopgap living.
I am always surprised by the fact that there has not been a huge uproar over increased wait times, not because of the torture months of anticipation, stress and worry bring to hopeful adoptive parents, but on behalf of the children … our children … that are forced to pass month after month in temporary care.
If the care is top notch, safe and loving, the longer the child spends in those caring arms, the more wrenching and damaging the loss will be when the parents claim the child, and the more difficult the adjustment. If it is not wonderful … well, we know what can happen to children neglected and abused as infants.
It seems parents, agencies and governments are so concerned about the process, and so careful to thoroughly and precisely navigate an ever-growing list of ins and outs, that the fact the children are languishing, often dangerously, is chalked up to an inevitability that can’t even be mentioned, much less addressed.
Of course, precautions must be taken and checks made, but it seems there must be a way to alter the process so that children can come home before enough time passes for wounds to be created and scars to form.
It is, after all, all about the children. Right?
A collection of my short stories:
I'm in this one, too ...
And I'm in here, as well ...
Paradise Preoccupied 
I think a lot of people do feel that long wait times are inevitable. Plus, adoptive parents are often viciously criticized for wanting a very young child or an infant (by other adoptive parents, by the “antis”, even by some uninvolved parties). It seems to be considered a failing on the part of the hopeful parent, as if they are selfish to want a young child. I guess parents are supposed to be “desperate” and therefore grateful for whatever age child we get, even if it means more challenges for the child (and parent), and even if there’s no good reason for the extended limbo state.
I wanted to adopt a child in part for altruistic reasons, but on a practical basis, we can’t take on the risk of adopting an older child – so I guess my altruism only goes so far. I’m sure it’s the same for many others – it’s not that people are so selfish, it’s that they are realistic.
It’s too bad that certain countries (I’m talking to you, Korea!) and certain individuals don’t fully take into account the importance of putting a child into a permanent home as soon as possible – I say, by 6 months old.
Great point!!
We could alternatively put our energy into finding out WHY parents are having to relinquish in the first place and set about with solutions for that.
Rather than finding ways to get the babiesout to the wealthier countries more quickly, we could work out how to keep them with their families.
I am stunned that you didn’t even think of this yourself! You strike me as a very sophisticated and bright woman, not to mention you have a wonderful quirky way of looking at things (reminding you of your adoptive father breastfeeding suggestions….)
In all honesty, I don’t think it IS always about the child. I think it’s about the adults involved in adoption (aparent, bparent or adoptee) arguing ferociously to get their agenda passed with little to no concern for the children that get dropped between the cracks of their programs or during the literally years and decades that those programs would take to implement. The talk is always about how THEIR idea will result in less forced adoptions, better ethics, more accountability, etc, etc, but the time frame is always “someday”. I never hear anyone say “and until we make adoption perfect, here’s how we’ll take care of the kids in the interm”.
kimkim,
Sorry, but I’ve made some assumptions that I shouldn’t have, and those include thinking that readers are familiar with my writings going back further a way.
I’ve written extensively on support for families, aid to developing nations, specific programs that work to allow mothers to raise their children and more.
I am also enough of a realist to understand that, although it’s a wonderful thought that the world could become a place where all is right and world peace reigns and there is no hunger on the planet, that ain’t the one we live on.
Pie-in-the-sky doesn’t feed anyone, and wishes aren’t horses. That being the case, getting babies out of institutions faster would be a good idea.
[…] 13, 2007 by Sandra Hanks Benoiton Writing yesterday, as I was, about how young my kids were when we brought them home from Cambodia had me waxing all […]
This book called Becoming Attached comes to mind.
It took people so long to realize that babies are better off with one on one care and attaching to a caregiver than being in institutions.
It’s not pie in the sky, are you being patronising? It seems that way. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt because that is always kinder.
Getting babies home with their mothers is a better idea than having them in institutions and then in other people’s homes (and countries) It’s not such a crazy notion.
If organisations have already begun providing support and solutions then it means that the wheels are in motion. Of course until that takes place we don’t want children to suffer, I think we can both agree on that, BUT, the focus really needs to be on adoption prevention rather than making it faster and easier.
It doesn’t make sense to use adoption as a solution to economic and social problems in poorer countries.
Taking the babies away and leaving the rest to flounder is not a very practical idea. It creates a whole set of other problems.
Besides, it’s not very humane to keep taking children away from their mothers, I’d rather that we focused on solutions to that.
Wishes are wishes and we are not wishing for something that is impossible here.
I’m a first mother so I know the other side of adoption. Unlike the mothers from the developing countries, I know where my daughter is, we speak the same language and we understand each other culturally.
I also started the big sister project last year, we adopted a mother in Kansas, at one point 60 women were involved, adoptive mothers, adoptees, first mothers and my daughter too. I recently adopted a mother in Ukraine as well and am doing a little bit there, we have been able to send her son to school for a year and are committed to be ongoing with that support.
This wish is a pony that is trotting along quite well, it makes a big difference to two mothers, so I have been told.
Kim,
While you give me the benefit of the doubt, I’ll do the same and assume that you aren’t being intentionally obtuse. With a busy day ahead and very little time this morning, I may come across as a bit brusque in my response. Forgive that, please.
We are so far from solving these issues that for millions of children in the world your offering is precisely pie in the sky, and to pretend otherwise is unhelpful, at best.
“Taking babies away and leaving the rest to flounder” is more often a case of leaving the rest more resources making it likely that more will live.
I support mothers in India, but that certainly doesn’t mean there are no abandoned babies, no female infanticide, no starvation or disease.
And what would be your solution for the millions who have lost both parents to AIDS, malaria, war, starvation? Should those children be sentenced to whatever short life they may be able to carve out on their own because it sounds nicer to leave them where they are?
This world is not Kansas.
We’re talking millions here, Kim, and with adoption available there is at least some hope for a few. When your pony pulls a cart that full, we can talk about the difference it makes.
Not talking of international adoption specifially now, I must also add that it is sometimes very humane to take children away from their mothers. Motherhood does not automatically sanctify.
I had a busy day too, a jazz gig for a business event, a vocal workshop straight afterwards as well as cleaning the house and getting it ready for my husband to come home. Today was also crazy, I gave three singing lessons, did the shopping, walked the dog and picked my husband up from the hospital. If the Gods allow it I will go to the gym tonight.
Stopping people from adopting can also be very humane, some people just shouldn’t adopt. Having money and passing a homestudy does not automatically sanctify either.
I don’t do obtuse, so your benefit of the doubt is not wasted here.
I’m glad Bob Geldof wasn’t surrounded by people like you before he got Live Aid off the ground. He was talking millions too.
My solution for the genuine orphans would be to give aid and support to extended families, if that wasn’t an option then I’d want the children to be adopted within their own countries ensuring that they wouldn’t be losing their culture and language. You could set up a loans system for the families or assist them in becoming more self sufficient. Sometimes it’s something as simple as a cow or a sewing machine, other times it’s more complex.
Adoption does not Kansas make either!
Please excuse me if I don’t come back for a while, December is a busy month for us.
Nice to dialougue with you!
But you see, Kim, Bob Geldof had people exactly like me around when he was getting Live Aid going … people with a practical appreciation for the realities faced by the millions he was striving to help. Those thinking cows or sewing machines are going to make any real difference in countries devastated by AIDS, famine and war are missing the point so completely that their contributions, although collectively valuable, have a tendency to only muddy waters rather than provide clear paths to aid to people who need it.
As always, when I come across points of view like yours I have to wonder about the motivation for insisting children be condemned to their birth countries … and that is too often what the “extended families” and “adopted within their own countries” amounts to. We are one species on one planet, and cultures and languages can be retained as others are taken on.
No one in my house lives in the country they were born in, and to assume that this is a bad thing is to ignore the fact that the world is small. We speak three languages here and honor four cultures.
Kansas does not have to be the ideal.
Not even going to enter the family preservation vs. faster adoption debate today.
Just wanted to say: It’s PTSD, not PSTD.
Thanks for the heads up on the typo, Nicole.
“….Condemmed to their “birth” countries…..” interesting perspective.
I don’t live in my “birth” country either, I speak two languages and can function in three, I honour ALL cultures. In our household four languages can be spoken, five if you include the language of music and seven if you want to include the woofs and the miaows….
Sometimes a sewing machine can stabilize a family, a small loan, a cow, a small plot of land. It really doesn’t take much to make the difference between independance and devastation. There are already organizations doing this, sadly I didn’t come up with the idea myself.
As for AIDS, it’s a simple matter of making free medication available in those countries and continuing with the education, fortunately there are people committed to doing that.
You seem to think that adopting babies is a good solution rather than working on the problem that is causing the abandonment of babies? Is that right or have I misunderstood you? You seem to think that I am deluded to think that it’s better to focus energy on what is causing the problem rather than just adopt the babies and ship them overseas? Or again have I not understood you?
Taking the babies away and leaving the rest i.e. the adults to flounder is not a practical solution, it might be a practical solution for infertile couples but it’s robbing the country of it’s children.
If every single person donated just the homestudy money to the families that would be a great start, we are talking millions of dollars here, you do realize that adoption is a billion dollar industry?
Somewhere this madness has to stop and we need to give real help to these countries rather than just help ourselves to their children.
You say that languages and cultures are retained as others are taken on but that’s just not true. If you don’t grow up in your culture you have lost it, same goes for language. I don’t understand why you don’t see that, perhaps you are too busy to think that one through. A young Chinese woman who has just found her family in Taiwan is busy learning Mandarin, she knows she has lost her Chinese culture and will never really get it back.
It’s been interesting dialoguing with you Sandra, you’re not too stupid. All the best.
Kim
Kim,
It’s good to note that two “not too stupid” women rooted in a world wider than one nation can dialogue, and interesting that we come to this conversation from such very different directions. We will never agree, that’s certain, but the points you make and the way you make them do go far to validate my views, so the conversation has merit.
Yes, Kim, word has it that adoption is a ‘billion dollar industry’, but no matter how often that popular buzz phrase is trotted out and parked at the curb marked ‘be all/end all” the fact is that it is not only a billion dollar industry. Adoption is also a lovely way to build a family, a precious hope for children, a viable option for birth mothers who choose not to parent … and as unwilling as so many birth mothers are to admit this, there most certainly are birth mothers who choose not to parent … and has been responsible for many, many happyeverafters … once again contrary to popular belief in some circles.
Famine and disaster relief are also billion dollar industries, but I doubt you’re suggesting they be done away with, and that every single person donate money they would spend on food as a “great start” to taking on the burden.
You well know my stance is not ” … that adopting babies is a good solution rather than working on the problem that is causing the abandonment of babies”, but that adoption and work on the bigger issues leading to abandonment go hand-in-hand. There is no “rather than” in my world, even if yours seems very black-or-white.
Once again, I have to point out that your take is either pitifully naive or disingenuous.
Just one example:
“As for AIDS, it’s a simple matter of making free medication available in those countries and continuing with the education, fortunately there are people committed to doing that.”
A simple matter? Really? Wow. Film at 11 on that scoop. And to think I’ve been led to believe that there’s a global AIDS crisis.
Join the planet, Kim.
Sandra wrote, “That three-month time period is dictated by law in Cambodia to allow birth parents to reclaim children if they changed their minds about surrender. Fair enough for the birth parents, but does that sort of consideration for adults justify the setting of a term a child must serve?”
I think so.
What would you have?
That a child be removed permanently and irrevocably from their parents at birth or very shortly thereafter, *regardless of the circumstances that made the separation necessary*?
I think a year is too long, but three months seems right and proper, especially if attachment theorists are right and the period between about 6 months of age and 2 or 3 years is the time during which attachment to specific caregivers is most likely to occur. And *of course*, provided that they are being treated sensitively and responsively during that time, and not abused or neglected.
Infants may have no preference for their bio parents over strangers in their first few months, but that doesn’t mean that they are clean slates to be casually rewritten at another’s behest.
“If the care is top notch, safe and loving, the longer the child spends in those caring arms, the more wrenching and damaging the loss will be when the parents claim the child, and the more difficult the adjustment.”
Not so if it happens before six months or shortly thereafter. Cambodia’s three month revocation period is entirely reasonable.
*Surely* biological parents deserve leeway, especially in countries where poverty and/or illness are the most frequent reasons for families separation.
Kippa,
I agree with you completely.
I’m glad you agree with me.
“Fair enough for the birth parents, but does that sort of consideration for adults justify the setting of a term a child must serve?” led me to doubt that you would.
Personally, I’d like to see a six month revocation period, but I realise that, especially in the case of countries such as Cambodia that are deservedly under heavy scrutiny there might be bureaucratic delays that would impact negatively on the welfare of the child.
“. . . an almost guilty relief for the fact that my kids came to me undamaged.”
I don’t believe it’s possible for anyone to lose their original family and not sustain at lease some damage, regardless of how good the substitute family is.
Do you?
And to lose one’s country too – that’s a double whammy.
No matter how well a person integrates such losses, it seems to me inevitable that there’ll always be some sort of lacuna that can’t be filled.
Sandra,
I begin to worry that you are jealous because I am prettier and smarter than you.
I don’t know if she intended to, but Kippa just made a pretty convincing argument against the standard party line that adopted children suffer lifelong trauma from the experience of being removed from that “instant bond” that exists when they are born. You know, the whole primal scream bit.
But I agree, six months would be reasonable. Most parents adopting internationally would jump with joy to have their child home in that time frame. My one nephew came home from Korea at nine months–we are hoping that my other might come home from Vietnam by then, but the delays keep coming…
I wish there were easy answers. I understand the concerns driving the policy changes in Vietnam that are causing all of the delays. And it makes me furious with those that turn a blind eye and choose agencies that are placing so much faster than everyone else without questioning why (and causing people who are using ethical agencies to suffer the repercusions). At the same time, what a crappy thing to put a child through.
Kim,
Hadn’t noticed the prettier/smarter thing, but I do envy you the pug.
Kippa,
Here is where we differ.
MN,
I agree.
“I don’t know if she intended to, but Kippa just made a pretty convincing argument against the standard party line that adopted children suffer lifelong trauma from the experience of being removed from that “instant bond” that exists when they are born. ”
Actually, there’s not a “standard party line”, though it seems that those most concerned with maintaining the status quo find it useful to believe that there is.
Yes, of course there’s a bond. But the kind of bond a child has with it’s mother is hardly “instant”. I think that’s dismissive. It’s a bond that has already been developing for nine months. It’s the primary bond.
What *I don’t* believe is that the damage caused by breaking the promary bond is necessarily going to devastate or permananently cripple. There are too many variables for that to be universal truth, and among the many things that play into it are heritable disposition, and post-birth experience.
That said, I don’t think that separation from the mother is an insignificant matter, whether it happens at an early or later stage. It’s going to have an effect and how that effect plays out in life is going to depend on a variety of factors, probably most of them outside of the adopting family’s control.
JMO.
“You know, the whole primal scream bit.”
That would be “Primal Wound”, which is the title of a book by Nancy Verrier, a therapist and adoptive mother.
The “primal scream” comes courtesy of the psychologist and psychotherapist Arthur Janov, the pioneer of “Primal Therapy” through which, he claimed, patients would discover their real needs and feeling in the process of experiencing all their “pain”.
However, I’m glad you said that. It’s an association too many people naturally make, and I think it’s an unfortunate one. It’s one of the reasons I don’t care for the title of Verrier’s book.
Sandra said, “Here is where we differ.”
D’you mean you don’t think adoption involves any loss for the child? Or that a six months revocation period for the parents is too long?
I’m okay with the six months, Kippa, but I have trouble with the damage issue. Bio families can cause major damage that adoptive families spend a lifetime trying to repair, as can events during the time between abandonment and adoption, so, no, I don’t agree with a stance that insists adoption causes damage. In fact, just the opposite is often the case, with adoption doing the healing of damage done by others.
I also don’t don’t put much weight on the loss of country, especially for infants. Like for immigrants and refugees, a new country can be treasured, and roots and traditions can continue to be honored.
It seems likely that the emphasis on loss has become a manipulative habit that intentionally ignores the gains adoption so often provides, and there may be a double whammy in there somewhere.
“Bio families can cause major damage that adoptive families spend a lifetime trying to repair, as can events during the time between abandonment and adoption, so, no, I don’t agree with a stance that insists adoption causes damage.”
It’s not adoption itself that’s cause for damage, and I for one don’t insist that it does.
But it *always* involves loss because, by definition, there has to have been separation from the bio family prior to adoption.
And yes, abusive familes, whether biological or adoptive, cause major damage.
But when a child is removed for insufficient reason (of course opinion will differ on what that may be) because someone else who thinks themselves better equipped to do so wants to “build a family”, that in itself is damage.
“It seems likely that the emphasis on loss has become a manipulative habit that intentionally ignores the gains adoption so often provides. ”
Even if that’s the case, it doesn’t negate the fact that adoption is founded on loss.
Kippa,
You are right, I accidentally typed the wrong title. My apologies. And if I sounded a bit cynical, I suppose it is because I have been pretty riled up by some people for whom it is a standard party line–I realize it is not for everyone.
And I pretty much agree with what you said in your reply. Yes, a baby is familiar with its mother’s heartbeat, voice, etc. and those things are comforting to it when it is born. But I don’t think that the removal of those comforts results in the permanent psychological trauma that many out there claim it does (actually, I was surprised to see that argument is still used as frequently as it is, since it had been pretty much dismissed as invalid when I was researching adoption five years ago).
I just know how the bonding progressed with my oldest, who was adopted, and with his brothers, who are biological. And I was really shocked at how completely the same it was. And I know that if I bought into the rhetoric that it would be SO MUCH different, then other people out there are, too.
Hi Sandra,
I’m not sure about the emphasis on loss thing, because in my experience growing up as a Korean adoptee (who was adopted to the U.S. at about 6 months, actually) the emphasis was always on what I had *gained* through adoption, with very little mention of what I had lost. Which is why I’ve been writing (so far) mostly about things I have lost — as a kind of course correction. (And why I chose the name I did, if you happen to know any Korean.)
I do think I have gained a great many things from adoption, and perhaps someday I’ll write about those as well. In the meantime, however, it hurts to have losses that feel very real to me dismissed as unimportant. But I guess this is just two people disagreeing on something, and I’m trying not to take it personally.
I do agree that “a new country can be treasured, and roots and traditions can continue to be honored,” and I think that is very important. However, I also think that 1) the loss still exists, it just may not be felt as deeply and 2) this was not a common viewpoint a few decades ago. I’m glad that things are changing and that more people are consciously acknowledging the importance of racial, ethnic, and cultural ties. I just wish that it had been that way for me.
Kippa,
It’s refreshing to hear someone acknowledge that adoption in and of itself is not cause for damage in children, and I don’t think anyone here would argue for children being removed for insufficient reasons.
The loss/gain thing does seem to be a POV issue, however, at least as far as the emphasis goes. Most will agree that adoption involves both.
When a child who needs a family gets one, that’s a gain. Yes, the loss of family in the first place is a factor, but that being the reality for millions puts it in the “way things are” category, not filed under adoption. Adoption is a correction, a remedy. (Not the only one possible, certainly, but a darned good one, nonetheless.)
Adoption does not only involve American birth mothers being convinced to relinquish so they can finish college … and having been in that position myself in 1969, I understand it better than some might wish … but also real children in the real world where options and hope are impossible to come by.
So, in my eyes, no, adoption is not founded only on loss, but on gain in equal and sometimes greater measure.
Sang-Shil,
I would not dismiss your losses specifically, but neither will I assume to burden another with them, and it’s that conversation you came in on.
The changes in attitude, the easier access to information, the greater awareness, are all combining to allow adoptees to grow up in much healthier climates these days, and as more parents involve themselves in discussions with those who have been through the experience the more healthy it will grow.
As I said in my reply to Kippa, the losses are what they are. Acknowledge them … honor them, even … but letting them swamp the boat by refusing to bail with the gains can only end badly.
And for what it’s worth, It’s not only adoptees who were hurt by what we now see as poor parenting techniques in the past. “Spare the rod, and spoil the child” and “Children are to be seen and not heard” … and secrets! — oh! the secrets! — and worse … were common enough mandates during my childhood, and my generation shows all the signs of damage from growing up in a constipated society that put little value on the thoughts and personalities of kids. My mother’s generation has their own issues. Thankfully, we have a capacity for learning.
I just know how the bonding progressed with my oldest, who was adopted, and with his brothers, who are biological.”
I feel the same way as you do. But that’s from OUR point of view. It would be solipsistic to assume our children will always feel the same as us. After all, they are the ones who are growing up under circumstances that nature didn’t ordain.
Personally I can accept that there may be a ‘qualitative’ difference I am unable to discern. It should go without saying that the pre-birth experience which most certainly qualifies as bonding is absent (not to say that it hasn’t been compensated for. And who knows to what extent? Some things are not quantifiable).
While I love my adopted son quite as intensely as my other children and would instinctively fight as fiercely for him under any circumstances, I’m duty bound to recognise he is not “flesh of my flesh” and that in itself constitutes difference.
“And I know that if I bought into the rhetoric that it would be SO MUCH different, then other people out there are, too.”
I don’t think anyone’s saying it’s SO much different. At least not from the aparents POV.
“It’s refreshing to hear someone acknowledge that adoption in and of itself is not cause for damage in children.”
I know. Proper little wellspring of coolth, aren’t I?
“and I don’t think anyone here would argue for children being removed for insufficient reasons.”
In my opinion children too often *are* removed for insufficient reason.
“The loss/gain thing does seem to be a POV issue, however, at least as far as the emphasis goes. Most will agree that adoption involves both.”
It can. Sometimes (when the separation of the child from the natural family is NOT truly necessary, such as for mere convenience or because of temporary solvable short-term difficulties.) the loss outweighs the gain.
“When a child who needs a family gets one, that’s a gain. Yes, the loss of family in the first place is a factor, but that being the reality for millions puts it in the “way things are” category, not filed under adoption. Adoption is a correction, a remedy. (Not the only one possible, certainly, but a darned good one, nonetheless.)”
I think of ‘necessary’ adoption as more like a kind of compensation, inadequate but better than the alternative.
“Adoption does not only involve American birth mothers being convinced to relinquish so they can finish college … and having been in that position myself in 1969, I understand it better than some might wish … but also real children in the real world where options and hope are impossible to come by.
So, in my eyes, no, adoption is not founded only on loss, but on gain in equal and sometimes greater measure.”
I disagree.
While I do agree that sometimes it can be the better option, I cannot embrace it as an unqualified good when the base on which it rests is the separation of the child from its biological family and that family’s history.
(Suppressing urge to rant about open records here)
Any rant about open records will be welcomed, joined and high-fived. If it’s truth, it’s right in my book, even if it pinches.
Compensation/correction/remedy = mox nix.
“I cannot embrace it as an unqualified good …”
Did I say that? No. I said, “adoption is not founded only on loss, but on gain in equal and sometimes greater measure.”
Not the same as unqualified good, and I have to add that sometimes separation from bio family is a good thing. Genetic connections do not automatically convey sainthood.
“Not the same as unqualified good, and I have to add that sometimes separation from bio family is a good thing.”
Did I say it couldn’t be?
What you said, “Adoption is not founded only on loss, but on gain in equal and sometimes greater measure.” neglects to acknowledge that it is not ALWAYS founded on gain in equal measure.
By refusing to admit to that reality, or, at the very least, consistently excluding it from what you write, you are negating the experiences of many, many people.
” Genetic connections do not automatically convey sainthood.”
Um. I said that? Not. I don’t think it either.
Kippa,
What? Refusing to admit what reality? Where was my ALWAYS in big letters? You’re really reaching here, and I’m wondering why …
Partly because of your insistence that adoption delivers “gain in equal and sometimes greater measure” to loss.
That’s not the reality for everyone.
I suggest that there are some things that can’t be quantified, and that even if they were quantifiable, it’s not for adoptive parents to do so.
Wow. Good discussion. I think ‘ALWAYS’ was to emphasize the distinction that seemed to be glossed over in “Adoption is not founded only on loss, but on gain in equal and sometimes greater measure.” Because SOMETIMES adoption is not founded on gain of equal or greater measure. Sometimes adoption is founded on loss followed by repression, confinement and even abuse.
I’m a little confused — who/what am I burdening with my losses, and how? (Or rather, who are adoptees burdening with their general feelings of loss, if they have them?) My/our parents? Other children/orphans who need homes? The practice of adoption in general? Just looking for clarification.
Also, I don’t know Kippa and don’t want to speak for her, but I’m wondering if what she’s “reaching” for is an acknowledgment that *sometimes* adoption involves more loss than it does gain. I can see how the sentence “adoption is not founded only on loss, but on gain in equal and sometimes greater measure,” without the qualification of “sometimes” or even “often,” can be read to imply “always.” In other words, that the gain is *always* equal to or greater than the loss. But I’m not sure if this is what you meant or not. (Or if this is even what Kippa means.)
Sang-Shil,
This is what I said:
There’s nothing there about you burdening anyone.
And, of course there are circumstances where adoption involves more loss than gain. The always/sometimes thing cuts both ways, as there are times when it involves more gain than loss, and it’s always about both. I don’t ignore the losses and take issue when others ignore the gains.
Kippa,
That is a stretch, and I think you know it.
And I don’t accept your admonition that would appear to translate as “Shut up”. My status as an adoptive parent does not disqualify me from the conversation.
Justice,
Of course.
“Kippa,
That is a stretch,”
It’s no stretch. The big picture (which seems, according to your latest blog entry, to be your focus: “Loss and gain may not equal out in every case or for every person involved, but in the big picture … the one that believes that every child is entitled to a family and the more that find one, the better … adoption is as much about loss as it is about gain, and vise versa.”) excludes consideration of individual experience.
“and I think you know it.”
You’re missing Justice’s point.
And I think you know it.
“My status as an adoptive parent does not disqualify me from the conversation.”
Of course not. But it doesn’t entitle you to assume on behalf of others, whose experience is not yours.
Kippa, you’re starting to not make sense.
First, Justice’s point:
I agree. That happens sometimes. It’s tragic. How is that missing the point?
Second … huh? The big picture excludes consideration of individual experience? What the hell does that mean? The big picture is the BIG picture which excludes nothing.
Third … huh? again. Assuming what on behalf of others?
“How is that missing the point?”
Justice also said that she thought ‘ALWAYS’ was to emphasize the distinction that seemed to be glossed over when you wrote “Adoption is not founded only on loss, but on gain in equal and sometimes greater measure.”
Sang-Shil also understood me correctly. “I can see how the sentence “adoption is not founded only on loss, but on gain in equal and sometimes greater measure,” without the qualification of “sometimes” or even “often,” can be read to imply “always.”
“Second … huh? The big picture excludes consideration of individual experience? What the hell does that mean? The big picture is the BIG picture which excludes nothing.”
Focusing too intently on the “big picture’ can mean missing the details, i.e the individual experiences that make up the whole.
“Assuming what on behalf of others?”
That adoption is not only founded on loss but on gain in equal and sometimes greater measure.
Surely that should be for those who are most directly impacted to decide.
And that’s not adoptive parents.