' [Birth Mother] First Mother Forum: Banned by Adoptionvoices.com!

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Banned by Adoptionvoices.com!

More news on Adoptionvoices.com (from which I have been gloriously banned!) and adoption.com. which has a zillion forums, but all designed to promote the happy-giving children-away/surrendering/relinquishing of babies to complete other people's families. Cedar Trees from Vancouver and a blogger worth her words says that the person (Nathan@gwilliam.com) who sent me the email saying that Lorraine Dusky is banned from adoptionvoices was the owner of a "thousand" domain names and is based in Provo, Utah. Duh. Provo, as in Utah as in the base of Church of the Latter Days Saints.

Until otherwise informed, I am going to assume that he is a LDS paid blog administrator , which as we have written about earlier (Mormon Opposition to Open Records) and also here (An Inconvenient Appendage), and that Mr. Nathan G. William is very very pro take-away-the-babies-from-single-women and promote how incredibly happy and relieved the mothers are to have given their children to some other family, and will go on in that vein all their lives.

Right. They must be lobotomized first.

When I wrote on adoptionvoices.com that adoption was not so friggen' blissful for the adopted people involved, and that first/birth mothers suffered quite tramatic pain and sorrow that lingers on, the happy birth mothers writing found me oh-so-offensive. The one that really got to me was a woman named katie shelly or something like that who said she relinquished at 26, when she owned a home and was a lawyer....yes, she said all that. I wanted to barf.

Well, folks, I invite you all --birth mothers and adopted people--who have not been banned to take a run at these sites and inject some reality into their bubbles. Don't swear and do not personally attack anyone because you won't make it past a post if you do that. Adoption.com has a long list of no-nos at their register page.

And do let us know what happens. Inquiring minds want to know. --lorraine

PS: Cedar Trees has up at her blog an explanation of the term: Birth mother. Or birthmother. Since I use the word so that newbies looking for information about adoption from our point of view, I prefer it as two words...as I don't see adoptive parents saying or writing...adoptiveparents every time they refer to themselves. Apparently they hate the term natural mother because it makes them the unnatural mother. Well, they said it. That would not have occurred to me.

I still smart when I see the woman who insisted on calling my daughter...my "birth daughter." But I don't have the nerve to refer to her adopted daughter as her adopted daughter. I simply try to avoid her.


  1. Lorraine,

    Don't you know there is "correct" adoption language.

    That's why I refuse to call my b @#$%^ it isn't going to happen. I am mother, natural mother, but prefer mother that's what I am to ALL the babies I bore. NOT even adoption or adopting can take that from me. The faux birth certificate lies, it says someone else gave birth to my son at the same moment I did same hospital same baby. Lies, and altered records that are supposed to fool who those who adopt, the adoptees certainly not mothers who give birth.

    NO tampering, altering of LEGAL documents which is against the law! ONLY in adoption are lies created to protect, lets see me the mother, like I have always said to my son I KNOW who I am your mother. He knows who he is too thanks to an adoptee who found him within three days time.


    ps I even had to explain this to an 80 year old woman I said if I am b @#$%^ so are you as you gave birth too! Bet that got her thinking, Oh, and she has a sil in who adopted and told me on Mother's Day they just loved the baby her sil adopted WELL I hate to pop your bubble more than likely her mother loved her too. Probably more but was forced into adoption she did tell me they paid all expenses, did that make a difference to me it just confirms one buys a baby. The adoptee is now 40 something time is ticking and not sure if she is searching. Oh and by the way her adopter daddy was a lawyer so it was a nice tidy adoption with no
    strings attached.

  2. Nathan Gwilliam

  3. thanks to Kippa:


    * President at Gwilliam, LLC (Internet Consulting)


    * CEO at Adoption Media
    * President at More Good Foundation
    * CEO at In-Source

    * CEO at In-source Connection Pvt Ltd
    * CEO at Families.com
    * CEO & Chairman at Today.com

    see less...

    3 more...

    * Brigham Young University
    * Brigham Young University
    * Marcos de Niza High School

    see less...
    500+ connections

  4. Adoption Voices is even scarier than Adoption.com. There is a mother (Danielle) over there who appears to post in EVERY group, singing the praises of adoption. I quote her, "I never learned anything about adoption until I moved away to a maternity home where we had to take classes about it every week. I think it's such a vital piece of information & it should be discussed in child development classes & be mandatory!"

    Yeah, let's pimp for adoption everywhere! God forbid mothers should keep their babies. Hmm, do you think they'll include unresolved grief and abandonment issues in those classes?

    There's another scary person who is an "adoption liason" in a hospital - she thinks every hospital should have one.

    Gross to the nth degree.

  5. I was banned. It is a creepy site. I told Katie that her story was chilling and I think that sealed my fate. I tried to behave, but simply could not.

    The adoptee forum was totally lame too. People would post things like, "I was adopted in the fifties, my parents also adopted a little girl, but she was taken back to the orphanage as she was slow"

    Then the moderator would come on and say, "Thanks for sharing your inspiring stories!"

  6. I find that you have the adoption.com site down to a nth of perfection. I have been and am a member there, for many years. I used to go to learn and soon discovered that mothers are not the ones they want there. They want adopters, adoptees (they love stories of rejection by mother) and that is it. The only reason mothers are included is to show how truly pitiful we are.

    I have heard things - figuratively - said their that offend my very being.

    Once I was reading posts about adoption in the United States and the statement was made and seconded "why adopt broken children when you can get them brand new with no baggage"! I was furious!

    Having been one of those "broken children" I told the woman off. For approximately 4 months I was banned for making a personal attack on an adopter of all things! An adopter that treated adoption like a shopping trip!

    I have given up with people that think that babies are a commoditie on the stock exchange.

  7. I am an adoptionvoices.com newbie. I just joined after receiving an invite by an adoptive mom I have a great respect for.

    Yep, it didn't take me long to learn, through the members and the group posts I read that anything that isn't "happy, happy, joy, joy" is very much frowned upon.

    Infact, I am guessing the same Joy who commented here was the one who took a beating in the pregnant and considering options group when she dared to speak out about the other side of adoption.

    As of today, I have yet to do anything outside of create my profile and have not yet decided how far I will dwell into the different groups and such. I won't walk away until I'm kicked away but just not sure how much "stamina" I have to jump right in at the moment with two other different forums I belong to and speak out in on almost a daily basis. And I have a feeling, since "roses and sunshine" is all they seem to want there that this might be one of those forums where I am going to have to be prepared fully before going in with all my bitter, angry, negative mumbo jumbo. You know how us beemommies can be.

    I will say though, that the adoptive mom who invited me and others are at least there speaking out about open records and adoptee rights through a group Margie over at Third Mom created. So even though the site doesn't impress me, I am glad that there are adoptive moms who are doing some good over there.

  8. [I was banned. It is a creepy site.]

    I'm going back there to check it out again. I HAVE to see what type of discussion was brought up!

    And yes, I am a member.

  9. I was banned on a couple of adoption la-la land forums. It seems the rainbow-farters don't want any REALITY in their f'd up, self-centered worlds. The "fog" works for them but it is incredibly damaging for their victims, I mean adopted children.

    Lorraine, if someone(s) has censored you, it's because you touched a nerve. You go, girly!!!! Truth grenades are fun to toss.

  10. I'm also a member, for the reason you mention. Voices are needed in forums like these to tell a different and more realistic story. If the only thing the people in this forum hear is what Nathan Gwilliam vets for them, they'll march out into the world and proclaim it truth.

    I'll stay to monitor the Adoptive Parents for Open Records group and to add at least one voice that's saying something different.

    Has anyone been able to figure out if he is on the board of any adoption agencies? I've always wondered that.

  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

  12. Not part of your world in any meaningful way, but your stories ring truer to me than that happy-slappy nonsense. I'm tired of women who feel so entitled to children that they will get them any way they can and be d----d. I just thought I'd try and shake things up over there.

  13. I expect this to be my swan-song over there, as I was admonished for my snide attitude. A woman there went to fairly great lengths to describe how her niece was considering placing her unborn child with the woman's family, but how she was now considering keeping her child. The woman was plainly unset that this little caper might not go down the way she wanted it to. I had asked if the question was the niece's behavior or the fact that the woman wanted the baby. Post smackdown, this was my response:

    It is a simple question. Many women these days feel entitled to children whether or not they are capable of bearing them. I want to know if this woman is truly concerned that her niece is biting off more than she can chew or if she wants to be first in line for placement because she feels more capable. The strangest people step up to motherhood when they are finally faced with the reality of it.

    Questions about adoption should be provoking. This is not all a matter of playing happy families. For everyone who takes a child home there is a tragedy playing out somewhere else, behind closed doors. There is a woman, probably young, possibly alone, who is trying to make herself believe that she has done the right thing. She felt her child in a way nobody ever will. That child listened to her heartbeat, her voice. There is a physical bond that cannot be broken.

    The foreign adoptions can be even sketchier, with small children, adoptable children literally being taken off the streets by procurers. They are then sold to a middleman, who brings in the agency, who brings in the adoptive family. Can you be sure the child you adopted overseas was truly abandoned, or would you prefer not to think about the alternative? Madonna, anyone? Proof that enough money and perseverance are all it takes.

    Ban me if you want, but I don't believe anything as life-altering as this should be approached without an examination of both sides of the question.

  14. Baska, whoever you are, HOORAY!

    That was a beautiful post.


  15. Gwilliam is more than likely a happy, Mormon who has adopted or at least owns or invests in some type of adoption agency.

    VERY lucrative business here and overseas. Money is everywhere when those who want a baby even to the extent of refinancing their homes.

    That tells me way to much money involved. Now that economy is down bet the adoption business has also
    slowed. But not to the degree other businesses have maybe just in refinancing homes for adopting for sure.

    I hate everything there is about adoption and the slimy people involved! Godly, as they think they are.


  16. You know, reading your posts and these comments.. I am not sure what to think. Everyone here seems to think adoption is such a bad thing. I am considering adoption, because after many miscarriages, it is just not in the cards for me to be able to give birth. According to all of your attitudes, then, too bad so sad, I am S.O.L. when it comes to having kids.

    I have 2 sisters who have children and BOTH of them had their children removed from the home because their children suffered abuse and they will not be getting their children back. But that life is much more preferable, growing up in foster care, being tossed from house to house, than if they had given their children up for adoption at birth?

    Furthermore, that makes them much more entitled to have children simply because their baby boxes work?

    Adoption can be a beautiful thing. I have seen it in my life. My cousin was adopted and is extremely well adjusted, with a great husband and 3 beautiful children of her own.

    My best friend's husband was adopted, was valedictorian in high school, graduated with honors from college, got his law degree and is at a very prestigious firm. Happily married for almost 20 years.

    They both knew from day 1 that they were adopted.

    As much as you are so down on the AdoptionVoices.com website as being so "happy-slappy" you are WAY on the other side of the spectrum here with the negativity.

    Yes, not every adoption situation is ideal. And there are people out there with a twisted sense of "baby buying" or that as one commenter said that people have the attitude of children being commodities. I understand that. But that doesn't mean that the majority of people who adopt have that attitude.

    It was also stated in a post on your blog that a lot of kids from broken homes and adoptees have behavior issues. Have you done any research at all into single parent homes? I am not talking from divorce. I am talking about a woman getting pregnant and her boyfriend/lover/partner splits and she is left to raise a child or children alone.

    AND YES, there are kids who come out fine in those situations, but there are many who don't. The prisons are full of them.

    So, just because someone chooses to place their baby for adoption, doesn't mean they fart rainbows or are Mormon. Maybe they want a life for their child better than what they feel they can offer.

    And I am sure you or the people who read your blog will try to rip apart what I have to say, being that I am pro adoption, (if my comment even gets published). Go ahead. You won't change my mind.

  17. No, the people who relinquish their babies are NOT the rainbow-farters, but YOU are.

    There is probably a GOOD reason your baby box doesn't work. You're telling people WHO HAVE LIVED ADOPTION, AS ADOPTED PEOPLE, AND AS PEOPLE WHO RELINQUISHED THAT IT'S NOT ALL BAD? It's not all bad for the adopting PARENTS. They are the only ones gaining EVERYTHING. An adopted child and it's natural parents LOSE each other in a very damaging process called ADOPTION.

    Before you start lecturing US on how life really is, maybe you ought to step back and educate yourself. Try reading books written by adoptees and relinquishing mothers. "Primal Wound" and "The Girls Who Went Away" come to mind.

    If you don't like the negativity here, go, buh-bye. IT'S REALITY, BABY. AP'S CAN'T DEAL WITH REALITY SO THEY FART RAINBOWS.

  18. Anonymous, aka Adoption Can Be Beautiful, you are not a mother or an adoptee, which makes you singularly unqualified to comment on behalf of those who are. You have NO IDEA how your adoptee friends truly feel inside since it is socially unacceptable to speak negatively about adoption. Just as you have NO IDEA have mothers feel about losing a baby to adoption.

    Are you suggesting the mothers commenting here would have become abusers if we had kept our children? How disgusting to imply such a thing.

    Suggested reading of you:
    "The Girls Who Went Away"
    "The Stork Market"

    I'm sure there are many other materials that may open your eyes if you are willing to venture into the dark side of adoption.

    Also, kudos to Baska for braving the Adoption Voices flesh fair.

  19. Anonymous said "Everyone here seems to think adoption is such a bad thing."

    Not so. I'm an adoptive parent as well as a mother who surrendered my eldest child to adoption 47 years ago. So, no, while I think it's not the optimum situation to be adopted, I don't think it's *always* the worst possible scenario.

    However, I do think it's a bad thing when adoptive parents use adoption as a panacea for their own pain, and don't take into account the loss to both child and mother (parents) on which is is founded.
    I do think it's a bad thing when agencies and/or prospective adoptive parents solicit vulnerable poor or unmarried pregnant women and court them with for their children. And I do think it's a very bad thing that people pay money to get babies from women who would, with a little help, be able to parent when there are other babies and children who really do need permanent homes, who can be adopted through social services.

    I also believe that adoptive parents have an obligation to their adopted children and their original families to make their voices heard for open adoption records, so that the children they adopt will have the same access to their original birth certificates as non-adopted people.

  20. This comment has been removed by the author.

  21. Ah, yes, I always love it when the abuse theory gets thrown around in the world of adoption. As if we all would have done such a thing to our children if we had kept them.

    Anon, just as much as you are judging the women here who have suffered the terrible loss and grief from surrendering their child through adoption, I could turn that same judgement around and believe, because of my own personal experiences as well, that you will abuse any child you might adopt.

    Everything you said in your comment is everything we have already heard, over and over again, from those who either wanted our child or wanted to profit from the adoption of our child. It's straight from the adoption industry's script of how best to convince a woman to surrender her child.

    I understand, when you are so desperate to have a child, you want only to believe the good but I would highly suggest reading the books that others listed as well as traveling around and reading others blog, their personal stories and getting an idea of some of the other truths in adoption that don't match the "sunshine and roses" the adoption industry pores into society.

  22. This comment has been removed by the author.

  23. Just as adoption isn't a gift from God, neither is infertility *ever* a punishment from God, regardless of what The Improper Adoptee seems to think.

    It's this kind of irrational remark that turns people way from thinking seriously about the negative side of adoption.

  24. The Improper Adoptee has claimed for some time that infertility is a punishment from God. Improper, I'm curious. Do you make this remark to stir the pot or do you really believe it?

  25. What is making me incredibly uneasy is that as I look more into Mr. Gwilliam's adoption-related activities, it seems the line between his "mission" and his businesses is terribly blurred. I found a blog he writes for occasionally here http://gwilliam.com/nathan/, and in reading a few of the posts tagged "adoption," find that he sees the internet as the tool to further his mission, which is to in turn further adoption, no questions asked.

    One post in particular caught my eye, here: nathan/the-mother-teresa-principle-looking-at-the-one/. He quotes Mother Teresa, of course picking a quote that serves his particular view of adoption promotion. He clearly believes he owns the adoption internet, and will continue to establish forums that he can use as his mouthpiece by ensuring all voices that disagree are banned.

    I left a respectful comment with another point of view, and it was, of course, not posted. No profanity, no snark - just another perspective. Not allowed. He will manipulate the media to serve his purposes, no question about it.

    What I would love to see is some criticism of his sites by reputable adoption organizations - AAC, Evan B. Donaldson, etc. As I write this, I know that there's no single group that everyone supports, but some carry more clout in the media and in public opinion. I'd like to see organizations like that start to debunk peer support that culls the victims of adoption from the group to silence their voices.

    Gee, sorry I went on so long, Lorraine!

  26. The comment about infertility being a so-called punishment from God is just as bad as those who insist that us adoptees were put on this earth JUST to be adopted and teach our life experiences.

  27. In case anyone is curious about where I got my information about the "1000 domain names". It is in a legal transcript here.

    "The Adoption.com partnership retained the software used by the websites transferred to
    the LLCs, and also retained more than 1000 domain names, the operating website, the
    Adopting.org website, and other associated assets."


  28. "He will manipulate the media to serve his purposes, no question about it."
    I quite agree, Margie.
    He's a zealot who understands the techniques of persuasion - in fact he seems besotted with them - and has no scruples about using them to achieve his ends.

  29. Cedar: Egads. I just looked at the legal papers. So Nathan G. Willam also doesn't allow gay domestic partners to post on his sites. What is freaking scary is that he grabbed so many domain names. Well, I still think the best policy is to try to freak out some of his gaga readers...and like Margie, try to post non-threatening, respectful voices but still tell the truth.

    Thank you all for discussing this subject.

  30. Well, BethGo, what happened? when you asked th4e question...about what kind of negativity is allowed...please come back and tell us.

  31. "So Nathan G. Willam also doesn't allow gay domestic partners to post on his sites."
    Remember the brouhaha about this a few of years ago on adoption.com?

  32. This comment has been removed by the author.

  33. "Apparently they hate the term natural mother because it makes them the unnatural mother."
    I wouldn't have occurred to me either.

    It's amazing - if people want to find fault with something, they'll invariably find a way. An a-mother I once knew said to me that the term "birth mother" made her feel sad because it reminded her that she hadn't given birth to her adopted daughter. Some people are just plain weird.

    I don't mind "natural", though I think it's rather archaic. I always understood it to to be synonymous with base-born or illegitimate, as on baptismal certificates in church registries. You know, like "the natural born son of so-and-so".
    Stigma's probably the reason the term went out of common usage in the first place.
    But I guess everything old is new again.

  34. I'm really glad we're talking about this. If there is one thing I hate more than the corruption in adoption, it's censorship. I think what Kippa said is right on. Things may sound negative in some forums (I have been told that about my own blog), but the fact is that adoption begins with loss, and that loss is not always acknowledged by adoptive parents whereas it IS highly felt and experienced by both adoptees and (natural/birth/first/whatever) mothers. It's very difficult to understand that without standing in our shoes. Too many people who adopt do so for their own satisfaction without truly opening their minds to other viewpoints. I have a big problem with a forum like AdoptionVoices that insists upon only the happy and censors the not-so-happy. That IMHO is a large part of the problem with the way adoption is practiced today.

  35. **I don't know what actually went down over there word for word. Everything had been deleted.**

    Surprise, surprise, part of what happened occured in the birthparents group. I'm pretty sure they deleted some comments over there but not all of them.

    Some of what I read actually was pretty sad. Not because those viewed as "negative" said anything but the truth but because, there are so many there in that group who are just like I used to be. They have to believe they did the right thing. They cling, almost desperately to being so good, so great for "GIVING UP" (I will not used placed as they insist in that group)their child. And so when someone else comes in who has lived the loss for so much longer and has hit the realization of how much adoption has affected their life, they are quick to do whatever they can to silence them because they can't hear that. They have to stay in the mode of being happy and grateful because that is their mechanism to survive the loss and grief buried beneath it all.

    And with so many p-aparents and aparents as members in that group as well to over and over again tell them how wonderful and brave they are for forever losing their children, it just feeds even more into that need to stay on the pedastal and avoid the pain that lurks beneath.

    And yet, if you read some of their other comments, you can hear the very emotions they are trying to avoid. The fear of having other children or the battles they face when they do have another child. Missing their child. Having no support from anyone. Wishing they had pictures or letters . . . etc . . .

    The pain is there, but I believe comments like Lorraine's and a few others, in some way, touch to close to what they don't want to feel or admit to feeling.

    Just my two cents worth.

    (And just came up with an idea for my next blog post.)

  36. "And yet, if you read some of their other comments, you can hear the very emotions they are trying to avoid. The fear of having other children or the battles they face when they do have another child. Missing their child. Having no support from anyone. Wishing they had pictures or letters . . . etc . . ."

    Well of course they are. You don't spend that much time kissing up to adopters if you are really fine with giving your child away to strangers. If they were really ok, they would be off leading the fabulous lives they were told they were going to have without their children.

  37. ***If they were really ok, they would be off leading the fabulous lives they were told they were going to have without their children.***

    Yes, I know that and agree completely. And I hope Lorraine or any others don't think I was suggesting at all that I don't agree with what they said and shared there.

    I was just sharing what I had witnessed in the groups and forums I had been reading and how hard it is, really, to sometimes even read all the oooey, gooey happiness because we know most of them are covering the true pain that hides beneath and you just have to know, for some of them, reality is going to knock them to their knees and bury them under all the grief and loss they have not allowed themselves to feel now.

  38. Thanks to Cassi for your comments about the dynamics at play in the Adoption Voices forums. I've been trying to understand the blissfully happy bee-mommy point of view.

    I think you are spot on about the need for denial combined with the constant praise from a-parents (which comes across like a brainwashing technique).

    I continue to read there, and I too have noticed the hidden grief that pops up here and there. It concerns me that the happy-dappy comments will only make the pain sink even deeper and lead to greater despair over the long-term.

  39. I belonged to adoption.com for years just to read the posts. I posted 3 times in maybe 5 years. I was banned after I used the term "adopters" in my own blog! bwwwaaaaaaa Apparently their nannies check out their posters' off-forum writings. Or maybe I'm just notorious.

    I've bogged about my banning and censorship on adoption.com 3 times I think. Maybe 4 Just go over to Bastardette and type in "adoption.com" to find the posts.


  40. Adoption is the only form of legal slavery that is practiced in every country around the world.


    When a child is born it is not the beginning of their life.


    Babies are already totally bonded to their mother by the time birth occurs.


    An infant is not even aware that they are not part of their mother for the first 9 months after birth occurs (check psychological literature - you would be surprised).


    Every child that is adopted is maladjusted. Genetic redisposition is the most important factor within the first 8 years of life.


    Only someone that is totally unfit, ie a junkie that makes no attempt to care for their child(ren), or a dead person, etc., is unfit as a parent.


    Not all women accused of child abuse/neglect are guilty of that crime - not positive - check out the blog listed below and read the beginnings.


    Social workers are paid to separate (protect) children from their parents. The government pays them to keep children in care.


    There are billions of dollars spent every year on the buying and selling of human beings.


    There are billions of dollars spent every year on trying to "fix" children/adults that were adopted.


    Children who are adopted are, as well as those in foster care, 4 times more likely to be abused or even killed than if they were left in the home that they were taken from.

    All of these things are straight out of the APA (American Psychological Association) journals. I know, I am a member.

    All you rainbow farters (I do love that term) GET A CLUE! Your friends are not "well adjusted" they are "well trained" in behaviors that are not normal for them. Psychologists get more business from adoptees and birthmothers than from the general populace.

    Don't like it - GET EDUCATED.


  41. I happened to stumble accross this blog, and have to be honest that i am totally shocked at all of your comments about adoption being so evil. I was adopted, and what i would like to know is why you are all so angry and bitter at adoptive parents when YOU are the ones who chose to put your babies up for adoption in the first place. Don't try to tell me you were forced to give up your baby, because that is just a cop-out in my opinion. Adoption can be a beautiful thing just as well as it could be twisted into being very evil. There are always two sides to every story, yes, but i just dont understand how you all can be so angry with adoption when the choice was yours first and foremost.

    If anyone has a reason to be angry, its the children who have been adopted, not the mothers. How can you say abortion is better than giving your own baby life, even if it cannot be with you? How is that not less selfish?

    I was adopted when i was 2 days old, and it was a closed adoption. However, my mother (and by mother, i mean my REAL mother, the one who adopted me, the only one i ever remember, not the one who gave me up to be adopted) requested that we would be able to keep in contact with my birthmother if she was willing. Of course she was, and therefore i always knew from day 1 that i was adopted. I would write my birthmother back and forth very often as a child, and my Mom sent her pictures of me all the time. My birthmother made all kinds of things and sent me birthday cards every year, and i never felt angry towards her for allowing me to be adopted. My mom instilled in me from day one an immense gratitude for my birthmother for doing the best thing she knew how to do, even if it was the hardest thing for her. Regardless of whether i wish i could have been raised by the woman who conceived me, i will always be grateful and proud of her for placing my happiness above her own. This is true love.

    Neither do i think that any infant who is adopted does not go thru some kind of grief due to the incredible bond created while he is growing inside his mother being broken when he is taken from his mother and placed in a completely different environment with complete strangers. How horrible would this be for a baby! I think there is pain there, probably tremendous pain, and it would be naive and silly to think that there was not, but this is not to say that it cannot be healed. And even while terrible to be seperated from your own baby, knowing that it will indeed cause you both pain, how much better is it to murder that very same baby?

    Mothers who choose to give their children up to be adopted knowing, or at least hoping against hope that their baby will have a better life than they could provide for them ARE brave. They ARE selfless, they are proving that they love their baby far more than anyone else ever could, and they should be told so. This is not an attempt to brainwash the birthmothers, this is simply gratitude from mothers who have recieved the greatest gift they could ever hope to have in your baby. What else do you want them to say? Let me tell you that most adoptive mothers out there, or at least all of the ones i know, would do ANYTHING for the woman who chose to give them such a priceless gift. Children are gifts, not meant to be bought and sold, but meant to be nurtured, loved, and taken care of in the best possible way their mother knows how - even if that means someone else raising their baby.

    Anyway, explain to me why you wouldnt agree with anything i'm saying, and PLEASE, please explain to me why you are all so angry about something that was your choice in the first place.

  42. Dear anonymous:

    Adoption should be providing homes for children who need homes, not providing babies for people who can't have them. There is a difference.

  43. Wow, I am impressed at how LITTLE you know about what you're talking about. Pretty much everything you say is wrong. There are reasons you are getting banned on community websites, honey. You have some interesting assumptions. Sorry you're so angry at the world. That's something you could probably work on.

    Of course, you'll delete this message because you don't like it, but that just shows you're hypocritical about all the "censorship" happening at adoptionvoices.com.

  44. Hi. I was banned from adoption.com for "trolling". My daughter was recently adopted by her paternal grandmother against my will and I asked in the "birth mother" section if I could reverse the adoption. After getting a condescending and assuming reply, I gave a little more detail and when I went back for a response, I was banned for "trolling". I pretty much just stated facts and opinions about what happened, nothing nasty or directed at anyone personally in the forum.

  45. It didn't take long to be banned by Adoption.com...it is run by members of the LDS church, and they keep a tight rein over who can be part of their little club.
    I hope you will join us here, but as this is an old post...I am saying: COMMENTS CLOSED.



COMMENTS ARE MODERATED. Our blog, our decision whether to publish.

We cannot edit or change the comment in any way. Entire comment published is in full as written. If you wish to change a comment afterward, you must rewrite the entire comment.

We DO NOT post comments that consist of nothing more than a link and the admonition to go there.