' [Birth Mother] First Mother Forum: Is there a universal right to know one's heritage? Part 2

Friday, July 8, 2011

Is there a universal right to know one's heritage? Part 2

Whether or not there is a universal "need" to know one's specific origins, or an inborn natural curiosity that we all carry within our breast, has been the subject of an ongoing debate at the previous blog,* The universal need to know who you are. 

Little children--before they know they are not supposed to ask--all ask the question about the beginning of their lives. How did I get here? Where did I
come from? Mommy points to her stomach and says, "You came from my tummy" and that's at age three, four, five. If a mother has to say, you came from "some lady's tummy," what child is not going to immediately think: Whose tummy? What happened to that lady? Where is she? What am I doing here?

But time passes and for some of those who cannot readily answer that question--the adopted--the quest for the truth of one's origins becomes clouded with doubt about the basic desire to know the answer. One can tell oneself there is no desire or need to know; that life is fine as it is and any change from incoming data is unwelcome. Ergo, these adoptees have "no curiosity." When something is completely cut off from you, like an amputated arm, you do have to lose the desire to not use that arm.

My granddaughter Kimberly once said something to me once about the movie, Sisterhood of Traveling Pants--about how she didn't want to see it. I knew that at the time her peer group would have been totally into it. I asked why she felt that way. She admitted that all the other kids at school had seen it, but since she knew that she was not going to see it, so she made herself stop wanting it. "If I can never have it, what's the point of wanting it?" I volunteered to get it for her that summer, but the moment had passed.

Many years ago, Robert Jay Lifton, Florence Fisher, and I testified in a court case for a woman named Ann Smith, who was asking Spence-Chapin Adoption Services to release her adoption records with the name of her mother. When I wrote about this experience in my memoir, Birthmark, I used the trial transcript, and I quote here from that chapter. Dr. Lifton is a noted psychiatrist, writer, thinker and husband of the late adoptee-rights advocate and author, Betty Jean Lifton. He was asked by the Spence-Chapin attorney:

Journey Of The Adopted Self: A Quest For Wholeness

"[Is] the need for historical connectedness important for any adolescent or adult, or only for those with specific problems or conflicts?"

Lifton: "One's sense of relationship to one's own history is very important to all of us. It is by no means in any way to somebody only in conflict or somebody particularly disturbed, nor is it limited to the adopted person. It is general."

Attorney: "Would you consider it sufficient for the adult adoptee to identify with the historical background of this adoptive family?"

Lifton: "It is the most natural and desirable aspect of any adolescent to have curiosity about his forebears, about his biological heritage and the sequence of his general connectedness. Incidentally, that curiosity is immediately stimulated by the very announcement that he or she is adopted. It is inevitable."

...Attorney: "Does this need for complete information of the adult adoptee or adolescent include knowledge of his original name?"

Being Adopted: The Lifelong Search for Self

Lifton: "Very much so. A name is an enormously important element of identity over the generations and over the course of one's individual life. By learning the name, by learning about the person--one's mother and father--he or she becomes an actual vibrant human being rather than fragmented bits of information. Such its and pieces, ethnic or social characteristics, medical background, only become further stimulants to curiosity.

"From my experience with adopted people and from the literature, it apparently seems as though every single adopted person has significant curiosity about this. Some are blocked from further effort by that layer of guilt; others make no effort. But the desire to find out is probably universal. When it is blocked, one remains locked in more extreme fantasies.... [A] gap in one's sense of identity will always remain is one cannot find out this information about one's heritage....One's sense of identity comes closer to reality."
If there is no universal need or desire to know where one came from--which can be thwarted by a number of factors and so seemingly not exist--then there is no universal right to know.

If not everyone, at some level needs or desires to know his particular story, then certainly not everyone, as a basic right, is entitled to the right to know. If we do not all need to know where we in particular came from, then we have set up the logical basis for the first/birth/biological mother's right to anonymity. If the need to know is not universal, there is no need to not allow birth parent vetoes in the legislation we work so hard to pass to open sealed records.

If the need to know is not universal, then there is no inherent right to know.  Universal rights can only arise out of universal needs.--lorraine


  1. Part of the difficulty with this area of adoption is the use of the word 'curiosity'.It seems to me not nearly a strong enough word to convey how it is to be an adoptee who needs to know who they are and where they came from, who their people are and possible their mothertongue and motherland.

  2. You almost seem to be talking the language of the natural or inalienable rights. I guess those rights arose from the perception of “universal needs”. But that was really just a matter of how the philosophers who proposed those rights saw the human condition at that time. In another time and place, those rights might not be recognized or different rights might be recognized.

    In any event, civil rights—which the “right to know” falls under—are granted by governments as basic rights of citizens. They are not about emotional needs. They are about your status as a citizen and the state's guarantee to protect you, the citizen.

    You might be interested in the following from Psychology Today online:

    A right

    Submitted by Marley Greiner on April 5, 2011 - 10:00am.

    Adoptees as a class do not "need" to find their bios. It's an individual decision fueled by any number of desires. I am definitely not opposed to search and reunion, but I know enough adoptees who do not feel a need for relationship.

    What we do need, however, is our right to our original birth certificates restored, and to be treated legally the same as the not adopted. Psychological need, while very real for some people, should not be used to promote political rights. Need-based arguments lead to bad legislation which continues to ghettoize adopted people with OBC restrictions such as disclosure and contact vetos. And while a medical history is desirable for anyone, an OBC won't give you that. No one has a right to some one else's medical history or records. By diluting rights as a medical need, very very bad legislation can be passed such as anonymous medical registries which permit some parents to communicate medical histories while keeping secret adoption in place. Once that kind of law is in place in a state, unsealing
    in that state is a dead issue for decades.


  3. People who argue that the innate desire to know one's roots is not a need (to sustain life) are right. People can get by with water and food and very little human contact.

    But is that a world any of us want to live in?

    If people don't need to be free, they can be enslaved. If people don't "need" to know where they came from, their parents can rationally argue for anonymity. Your argument supports the baby-dump laws that allow for dropping off any inconvenient baby at someone's doorstep. Good luck with your so-called "life."

  4. Viktoria says:

    “But is that a world any of us want to live in?”
    I want to live in a world where people have rights independent of what some people claim to need.

    “If people don't need to be free, they can be enslaved.”
    No they can't. That's the point. Not if there is a guaranteed right to be free.

    “If people don't 'need' to know where they came from, their parents can rationally argue for anonymity.”
    No they can't, because needs are generally not universal but rights are guaranteed to everyone. If there is a right to know then there can be no anonymity.

    “Your argument supports the baby-dump laws that allow for dropping off any inconvenient baby at someone's doorstep. Good luck with your so-called "life”.
    I don't know whom you're addressing but Bastard Nation has been at the forefront of the fight against illegal baby dumps for years. You should check them out. The quoted comment comes from them.

    Have a nice one.

  5. @Jess:

    While of course I agree and spend a great deal of time and effort promoting the unsealing of our own records and unfettered access, I am not thrilling over the arugment. That there is "no psychological need"

    Personally, I believe bad bills get passed because of lobbyists with money who want to protect the industry.

    The clear rebuttal of that argument would be what do you need your OBC for? Housing, employment, education, voting? Not going to help with any of that.

    We should have access to our OBCs because they are ours, that being denied them is discrimination. Discrimination is psychologically harmful and to discriminate against us because we were acquired as children is inhumane.

    I am really not sure what you are trying to get at with your comment.

  6. "If the need to know is not universal, then there is no inherent right to know. Universal rights can only arise out of universal needs.--lorraine

    I don't get this. There are many civil rights in our country that do not arise out of universal needs, but perhaps out of universal justice. If there are no rights that do not rise out of universal need, we are in big trouble with many of our laws and rights.

    We have a right to vote, but not everyone needs it or uses it. We have a right to bear arms, but not everyone needs or wants to own a gun.

    The point is not that it is a universal need, but that it is right given to citizens that they can exercise or not as they see fit.

    Adoptees should absolutely have the right to their own OBC as a civil right, whether it is universally wanted or needed, or needed only by some. Every adoptee who wants to should be able to request and get their OBC as easily as we non-adoptees can. That's justice.

    Many of our civil rights laws are to protect minorities, not to impose majority rule. An example would be freedom of religion which protects small and unpopular denominations as well as accepted ones.

    That knowing one's roots is psychologically healthy and of interest to most people, perhaps even universal in some sense, is a different issue than general rights and laws.

  7. It's insulting when some Dopey Dan asks, "Why do you want/need your original birth certificate?"

    isn't it sufficient to say, "Because you have yours, blankety-blank!"

    [See! And you thought I couldn't write a short comment.]

  8. Joy said:

    "I am really not sure what you are trying to get at with your comment."

    That rights are not parallel to needs. Needs should not dictate rights. Rights can be guaranteed without needs. Someone may personally feel no need to vote. However, their perceived lack of need does not endanger the right to vote. Same goes for OBCs.

  9. All adoptees should have the right to unfettered access to their OBCs but we all know there are many who don't feel the need to have it. There are even some especially pesky ones who feel that since they don't feel the need for theirs that no adoptees should be able to access them. Ugh!

  10. This is excellent to discuss!

    I wish I knew how to answer the question affirmatively because NY State needs some powerful arguments to get beyond the Judiciary Committee. So do many other states that think that this sort of information is important only so far as an older generation says it is important. And this information doesn't just matter to adopted persons, but to donor conceived persons too...and their siblings and extended (biological and non-biological) families.

    I don't think that 'needs' are the best sort of 'good' to ground the right to know one's heritage unless one can show that society has a duty to meet that need.

    I've heard courts argue that society has a duty to support the institution of adoption, therefore, (they say) confidentiality needs to be upheld for the relinquishing parent(s). Arguing that the practice of adoption causes harm has not countered the duty to maintain the practice of adoption. The argument of harm caused by adoption practice has affected details in the practice, but the big item, the so-called confidentiality of the relinquishing parent(s) has stuck. It sticks in many states. The duty to protect adoptions is seen to hinge on the practice of regulating information.

    The thought that society has a duty to preserve knowledge of heritage is a thought that hasn't taken root.

    My two cents!

  11. Robin, thanks for differentiating between adoptees who personally choose not to obtain their OBC or search but have no problem with others doing so, and those who actively oppose OBC access. The former are no threat to anyone and should not be denigrated for their personal choice, but the latter are stepping on the rights of others to have free choice, and must be opposed.

  12. I would say yes to both issues, that is if adoptees have a right to their OBC and to if they have a right to their heritage.

    The OBC is a civil right, heritage is a human right. Whether an adoptee chooses to access or search for either of these really has nothing to do with it, I think.

  13. @ Jess,

    Thanks for your follow up, that makes sense. Your first comment, not so much.

    Did Marley really post that to psychology today as if they are steeped in the adoption blogosphere? A lot of adoptoland people do that, forget that we are not the center of the universe and not everyone is steeped in our politics/issues.

    It reminds me of the whole Primal Wound hurting our cause thing, so lolable, as someone who has talked to 100s of legislators about this issue can assure everyone that the Primal Wound has never come up, as if legislators are reading it, Good Lord the narcissism.

    As they say, Only YOU can do something about narcissism


  14. "as someone who has talked to 100s of legislators about this issue can assure everyone that the Primal Wound has never come up, as if legislators are reading it, Good Lord the narcissism. "

    Huh? Transference, anyone?

  15. Joy: Marley posted that comment to Psychology Today because they ran an article called "Why Adoptees Need to Find Their Biological Parents".

    You can find that discussion here:

    Where did "primal wound" come from? Nobody mentioned it except you.

  16. @ Jess, I got that part.

    My belief is the psychology is relevant, if it wasn't the birth certificate would be irrelevant, birth certificates themselves are a fairly recent invention.

    You are correct, I said Primal Wound in my comment, I said that reminded me of an argument I have heard about the Primal Wound. I said it in my comment. In case anyone is unclear about that, I said it.

    @ "Anonymous" very brave and almost witty ;) I see you are still making your longstanding contributions to the discussion.

  17. Why, thank you for the encouragement Ms. Joy.
    We are happy that our contributions are almost appreciated ;-)

  18. It is true that rights understood in the western democratic tradition are a relatively recent invention. However, rights were not created out of psychological need. They are declared by government to be your entitlement as a citizen whether you think you need them or not. Democracy was never proposed to bolster or ensure psychological health. It was proposed because it is only fair that people be equal under the law and equal in political life. That's why the argument for the OBC is entitlement *like everyone else* which is why I found BN's comment persuasive and why I quoted it.

  19. @ Jess,

    You may want to review the role of the "doll test" in Brown v. the Board of Education then.

    It is indeed a consideration. Legislators know that, people know that, to pretend they don't believe there is a psychological component is absolutely a farce.

    Why would they be sealed in the first place if that were the case? In fact the psychological "needs" of poor, frightened natural mother are often trotted out in defense of the sealed record.

  20. If there is a universal human right to know the truth of one's origins, perhaps everyone should have a DNA test of their parents.

    Oh, my, would there be weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth if the truth were known... even OBCs of "legitimate" births are sometimes fictitious!

  21. The problem with basing a right on a supposedly "universal" need is that as soon as one person is proven or claims not to have that need, the right is invalidated for everyone.

    That isn't a good way to govern, because one person's civil rights shouldn't be dependent on another person's emotional requirements.

    I do think the need to know about origins is there for the vast majority of adoptees. And I do think it's important and it matters. I think it's something that we need to talk about, honestly and forthrightly.

    I don't think legal decisions should be based on it, though. Adoptee rights should not depend on how people feel, any more than the civil rights of any other group should be so conditional.

    To give an example of what I'm saying here: black people should have the same rights as white people because they're human beings and citizens too, not primarily because black people feel bad when they aren't treated equally. People feel bad almost universally when they're mistreated, yes... but mistreatment is wrong even if the person being mistreated is fine with it.

    Likewise, adoptees should have rights as human beings and as citizens. Adoptees should have those rights because everyone else does.

    The rights of adoptees should not be conditional on anything - even on adoptee feelings. Adoptee rights are civil rights, period. Even if the need is universal, in my opinion that's too subjective and perception-dependent of a basis for important legislation to rest on.

  22. "It was proposed because it is only fair that people be equal under the law and equal in political life."

    ... then why are OBCs sealed? That's not equality under the law, now, is it?

  23. Joy: I wasn't talking about what people believe because people clearly believe whole bunches of things. I was describing an historic fact, the origin of rights. The fact that certain people plead "psychology" on behalf of mothers does not create a special right for them, nor does it invalidate the right of adoptees to their OBCs.

    Mei Ling: With all due respect, that is the point. Principle and practice are not the same thing. In situations of inequality, that is why people argue from principle.

  24. Z, you said it very well. Rights based on feelings could be easily invalidated. Perception is personal and subjective.

  25. No, Mei Ling, that is not equality. It is what those working for equal access are trying to rectify. Records were sealed for the most part to protect the adoptive parents from the birthparents coming back, and to protect the shady dealings of agencies. Also, sealed records were supposed to protect the adoptee from the stigma of illegitimacy, which was real many years ago but hardly an issue in Western countries now.

    That a law has been passed and in place for years does not make it a good or just law, nor one that makes people equal or grants them rights. Bad laws, like those enforced segregation for many years, take away rights. Good people work to change these laws.

  26. @ Jess and "Z", what you are missing is this is the authors opinion.

    Also, you are not paying attention to how rights are allocated and acknowledged at least in the U.S. It is fluid and it most definetly has a relationship with the psychological.

    Perhaps you have done more work to create equality for adoptees. I would so very much like to hear about your work.

  27. The author said "If we do not all need to know where we in particular came from, then we have set up the logical basis for the first/birth/biological mother's right to anonymity."

    Not at all. Birth is both a public and a private matter, and because there are no rights without obligations, the right to relinquish the parental role does not in any way nullify a mother's obligation to suply the child with his or her historical identity .

    "If the need to know is not universal, then there is no inherent right to know. Universal rights can only arise out of universal needs."

    A person can go through life without exercising any rights whatsoever. It doesn't mean those rights shouldn't be available.

  28. If rights are fluid, they aren't rights. Some rights may be conditional, but the right to the OBC should not be.

  29. Clearly Anonymous and Jess, you do not believe that there is a human need to know one's roots.

    Whether or not one acts on that need is immaterial, but if the need to know is as iffy as you two propose, then surely there is no "right" to be able to know. If only a small number of people care whether they came out of an anonymous vial of sperm and an anonymous egg, and whose sperm and whose egg it was, or wonder who left them on a doorstep or at the agency, then surely there is no one need to bother about sealed records. What's the dif?

    You two want to have it both ways. You don't want to give fms a right to privacy but at the same time you say that since it's not a basic human need, why shouldn't those mothers have a right to be anonymous? Your logic is right in line with Catholic Charties of NJ and the rest who would keep the records sealed.

  30. @ Jess,

    mmmmm, here in the United States, our rights have changed and are stilled called "rights" before 1920 women did not have the right to vote in this country.

    Blacks were enslaved in many states before 1865. Before Brown vs. the board of education over turned Plessy v. Ferguson seaparate was considered equal. Before the 21st ammendment passed adults didn't have the right to drink alcohol. After the civil war ended states rights were inexorabley altered.

    You see? Civics and history are actually fascinating, and the Idea that "rights" what we consider them to be is static is absolutely adolescent.

    For example adoption records did not used to be sealed in California; adoptive parents wanted them sealed so that they could not be blackmailed about the shame of adoption. Shame is a psychological state, do you see how they tie together? So a law was passed sealing the records so that in California, where I live adoptive parents have a right to the records, but actual adoptees do not.

    Do you see how that is changed? i.e. fluid. I agree that everyone should have access to their OBC, what are you doing about that?

  31. Joy: Your history lesson is sweet but we're talking about the concept of a right versus a personal need and whether one dervives from the other, not whether rights have been distributed equitably. Clearly they haven't or this discussion would not be taking place.

    Viktoria: Your objection has already been addressed numerous times: the need to know is individual, not universal; the right to know should be universally guaranteed as a matter of equality, not need.

  32. " Viktoria wrote:Clearly Anonymous and Jess, you do not believe that there is a human need to know one's roots."

    That is false assumption. What anon, Jess, and others have said is that rights do not derive from needs under law. They did not say that there is no human need to know one's roots. They said rights are not and should not be dependent or based soley on needs.

    That is a very different position from the one you wrongly accuse them of holding.

  33. @ Jess, glad you liked it. You were the one that suggested the rights are not "fluid" so I thought you should know the way the world is at this moment isn't the way it has always been.

    Here is another lesson, this time in civics. Legislation isn't based on such nuance. Rights and needs are inexorably linked, what do you think civil rights relate to, the need for employment, the need for housing , the need for education.

    Does everyone need employment? Not kept ladies, but laws have been passed to ensure the rights of large classes of people.

    Srsly, don't know what you are on about, for the third time I ask, what you are doing about this topic you seem so impassioned about, your need to be right about something you aren't even involved in--unless of course I am wrong, you are doing constructive things to ensure parity for adoptees?

  34. A few of you are dancing on the head of a pin and you are never going to get legislation passed with your seemingly rational arguments. I can imagine your conversation with a legislator:

    "Now, we intellectuals who have spent deep-think on this do not believe that there is a basic human 'need to know,' but so what? To call the 'need to know' a basic human emotion is wrong--we get that. But despite that, everybody naturally has the 'right' to know where they came from. So birthmothers are not allowed vetoes. Because we say so. And we are so logical and rational."

    Good luck with that one.

    You have been co-opted by an ideological intellectualism that lacks heart. Jess, how do you fit into the adoption equation? Adopted? Or adoptive parent?

    I know you all are going to come back and argue again and again, because you make the same point again and again and need to have the last word. But how about figuring out how you can use your intellectual powress towards passing legislation instead of making a case against it? Or is that for others not a smart as you to do?

  35. Viktoria wrote:"But how about figuring out how you can use your intellectual powress towards passing legislation instead of making a case against it?"

    I agree. Regardless of whether the issue is need or rights we are all basically on the same side and at this point it sounds like we are just preaching to the choir.

  36. "But how about figuring out how you can use your intellectual powress towards passing legislation instead of making a case against it?"

    How about figuring out that that some of these heartless pointy-heads have been doing just that for years, contributing time, effort and money towards achieving the same goals, but without making a song and dance about it.

    The fact that there are people who think that clarifying the distinction between needs and rights is fundamental to framing the argument in a way that makes it understandable and convincing to the general public, shouldn't be dismissed.

  37. If there was not an innate need to know, how could there possibly be a right to find out where you came from? I get your argument but you defeat your purpose. Rights must rise out of some kind of need.

    Okay, I understand, Loraine's a dolt in your mind. She just doesn't get it, does she? Too bad she's been working for reform since she obviously doesn't understand what she's talking about. Maybe she should stop.

  38. @ Anon,

    Srsly? Are you meaning the people who are posting here who have slippery knowledge of United States civics? If you are someone who talks to legislators you would know the conversations do not go like that.

    Why hide your light under a bushel? Was Jess a part of the Toronto legislation? I know someone who has talked to me a great deal about that process, who was very active in it and she has mentioned a lot of people but not her and not you.

    I have asked three times what she is constructively doing and she doesn't seem interested in that, just trying to win this conversation which will get her what? A sense of satisfaction? Why doesn't she take her argument to Alex Haley, “In all of us there is a hunger, marrow-deep, to know our heritage- to know who we are and where we have come from. Without this enriching knowledge, there is a hollow yearning. No matter what our attainments in life, there is still a vacuum, an emptiness, and the most disquieting loneliness.” - Alex Haley

    Or as she, someone who is tagentially related to this issue smarter and more aware than he is too?

    If you study United States laws that have sought to bring parity to discriminated classes, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_IX and many others, as in the landmark Brown v. The Board of Ed. which has already been mentioned you would see that the argument is invalid. It is simply not true and while I can site case after case where psychological need is considered you have not shown me one precedent where it is disregarded.

    I think Lorraine has done more than her fair share of bringing this issue into a larger arena and has withstood the outrageous slings and arrows of people much less willing to put themselves out there.

    Why they want to do this, instead of say, knit something lovely, I do not know.

  39. Thanks Joy, I just added Haley's quotes to the list of Favorite Adoption Quotes.

    And just, thanks.

  40. No need to be nasty, Viktoria. Nobody is dismissing Lo's valuable contributions. I just don't think people should be required to submit their grade point average in order to be permitted to pass an opinion on a issue.
    Lorraine asked if there is a universal right to know one's heritage. She then proposed, citing Robert J. Lifton's testimony, that if such a right exists, it rests on a foundation of 'need'. So, presumably, that means the subject is up for discussion.
    Lifton's testimony is couched in terms such as "from my experience" and "it apparently seems" that make it clear that he is aware that even he, as an expert in his field, is not entirely free from subjectivity. Even when he says that the desire to find out is "probably" universal, he doesn't frame things in terms of 'need'. The word he chooses is 'desire', which has a very different meaning.
    Nobody is denying that such a desire, to a greater or lesser degree, exists in most people, and it seems to me more than reasonable to believe it is felt more intensely and with greater urgency by adoptees than the non-adopted population. I agree with Lifton that the desire is probably universal. And Joy's Alex Haley quote is not lost on yours sincerely.
    But a desire, no matter how strong, is not a need, and the fact that such a desire exists doesn't mean it should be recognized as a right. On that basis one might argue that people have a right to sex, since sex is generally held to be a universal desire.
    I agree with Mark, who said that " 'needs' aren't the best sort of 'good' to ground the right to know one's heritage *unless* one can show that society has a duty to meet that need". I think that is an excellent point, and the questions it raises for me are, firstly, how best to make society realize it has that obligation, and secondly, how to get it to enact that duty through legislative means.

    I don't think it's unreasonable to ask whether justice and equality are needs or values. It's a core question, and IMO it is important to be able to make the distinction in order to get the point across, both to leggies and the general public.

  41. Well actually, sex is a human "need."

    If humans didn't need to have sex, there would be no more humans. Not everybody has sex, but you know what, most do.

    Psychological needs can't be quantified like the physical needs for our bodies, but your distinction, undermines the need for any psychological rights. I can't wait for you people to start talking to legislators, or anyone in fact, and tell them that their is no "need" to know one's heritigage, but by god, there is the right!

    Why are you hiding under Anonymous? Because you have are exercising the right this blog gives you that comes our of your need to be hidden.

  42. @ anon,

    Really unbelieavable, I am starting to think people should submit their GPA or whatever. I feel like I am talking to eleven-year olds with your inane comments. No wonder you hide behind anon. I would too if I was spouting off about something I knew nothing about.

    I totally agree with Viktoria, the behavior of the regular cabal of self-taught know-it-all gal-pals is really embarrassing. I mean I am embarrassed for you.

    This is how you spend your lives, just take a minute and know that. Oh and for the 5th time, what constructive action are you taking any of you gal-pals?

    What more sounds of crickets? I thought so.

  43. To those who wonder why someone might post as "anonymous, the answer is fear, which is justified. Not fear of what might be said here on a blog moderated by Jane and Lorraine, two dedicated mothers,or on other well-moderated blogs, but fear that words and knowledge of another's personal situation and identity be taken out of context and used to fuel vicious personal attacks elsewhere, naming full names.

    The thirst for revenge went so far on one blog, that someone unknown sent horrible messages to the blog owner's estranged daughter. Some people will stop at nothing to hurt those who disagree with them. Not all anons are cowards, just cautious and protective of themselves and those they care about.

    Another Anony, not the first

  44. Victoria, people have all kinds of needs, some of which are more crucial to their individual survival than others. To quote BN, "All adoptees should be able to exercise their right to obtain the original government documents of their own birth and adoption whether they choose to search or not". This is not something that should be based on individual needs, which can be variable. It it a matter of equality and justice, and the fact that the state is denying the rights of its adopted citizens.

    "Oh and for the 5th time, what constructive action are you taking any of you gal-pals? What more sounds of crickets? I thought so."
    Sorry Joy, but neither I or anyone else who comments on this or any other blog where the moderators choose to publish their comments, is answerable to you.

  45. @ anon and p.s. there is a legally recognized right to sex, between married people that can be cause for legal action, it is called


    Loss of consortium, again my point is going on about how laws are passed when you have no legal precedent to support your ideas is def. very silly. You obviously do not know how the process works.

  46. Time to end this discussion.




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.