New Topic---Posner---Sue T? Marley?
LilMtnCbn
I've been catching up on some of my reading while getting rid of all the
dang holiday catalogs. LOL I just got done with the Dec. 10th issue of the
New Yorker, and there is an article about Judge Richard Posner who is on the
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
I don't know if this has been discussed in here before, but has anyone
read his book _Sex And Reason_? He advocated replacing the current adoption
system with a "free market in babies"---not the selling of babies, actually (as
in slavery or organ donation), but the selling of parental rights.
Of course, the article only brushed upon this topic, so I was wondering if
anyone had read it, and thought it might be an interesting discussion. He
certainly seems to be a very colorful character. LOL
Marley Greiner
"LilMtnCbn" <lilm...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011224115008...@mb-mr.aol.com...
I've not read the book, but I have an article back home on this topic, I
think from the Heritage Foundation. It may have been discused here at the
time, but it would have been years ago.
Marley
fiend
(LilMtnCbn) wrote:
>He advocated replacing the current adoption
>system with a "free market in babies"---not the selling of babies,
>actually (as in slavery or organ donation), but the selling of parental
>rights.
What's the difference?
whoever
-------------------
slurping up coffee rights
LilMtnCbn
>From: rev...@aol.compromise (fiend)
>Date: 12/24/01 12:05 PM Mountain Standard Time
>Message-id: <20011224140555...@mb-fi.aol.com>
>
>In article <20011224115008...@mb-mr.aol.com>, lilm...@aol.com
>(LilMtnCbn) wrote:
>
>>He advocated replacing the current adoption
>>system with a "free market in babies"---not the selling of babies,
>>actually (as in slavery or organ donation), but the selling of parental
>>rights.
>
>What's the difference?
>
>whoever
LOL I don't know really. I was just quoting/paraphrasing from the article.
I'm hoping someone has read it and can tell if he actually had a *plan* or was
just pulling the idea out of his butt.
Ron Morgan
> I've been catching up on some of my reading while getting rid of all
the
> dang holiday catalogs. LOL I just got done with the Dec. 10th issue of
the
> New Yorker, and there is an article about Judge Richard Posner who is on
the
> Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
> I don't know if this has been discussed in here before, but has
anyone
> read his book _Sex And Reason_? He advocated replacing the current
adoption
> system with a "free market in babies"---not the selling of babies,
actually (as
> in slavery or organ donation), but the selling of parental rights.
He's gotten a lot of mileage from this modest proposal; in the current legal
climate we could probably throw the rights to habeas corpus, due process,
and free speech on the auction block as well...
Ron
LilMtnCbn
>Date: 12/24/01 9:24 PM Mountain Standard Time
>Message-id: <CbTV7.1100$Bf.4...@ord-read.news.verio.net>
>
>
>"LilMtnCbn" <lilm...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20011224115008...@mb-mr.aol.com...
>> Hi,
>> I've been catching up on some of my reading while getting rid of all
>the
>> dang holiday catalogs. LOL I just got done with the Dec. 10th issue of
>the
>> New Yorker, and there is an article about Judge Richard Posner who is on
>the
>> Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
>> I don't know if this has been discussed in here before, but has
>anyone
>> read his book _Sex And Reason_? He advocated replacing the current
>adoption
>> system with a "free market in babies"---not the selling of babies,
>actually (as
>> in slavery or organ donation), but the selling of parental rights.
>
>He's gotten a lot of mileage from this modest proposal; in the current legal
>climate we could probably throw the rights to habeas corpus, due process,
>and free speech on the auction block as well...
Well, like I said, he does seem to be a colorful character, and I'm wondering
if he just proposes stuff or pulls them out of his butt. His opinion on fat
black women is surely extreme IMO, and I'm wondering how in the world that he
has gotten in the professional position that he is in.
Sue Tretter
answer. I'm glad to see that Marley and Ron have
added their thoughts, and I tend to agree with Ron
re: the current milieu, not just legal but socio-political, etc.
But given a certain Bush appointee ...
LilMtnCbn quoted Ron Morgan who wrote:
> <snip>
> >He's gotten a lot of mileage from this modest proposal; in the current legal
> >climate we could probably throw the rights to habeas corpus, due process,
> >and free speech on the auction block as well...
>
> Well, like I said, he does seem to be a colorful character, and I'm wondering
> if he just proposes stuff or pulls them out of his butt.
I wish I knew or had the time to follow-up on this. I'll stick around for a
while and see if anyone has anything enlightening to add.
In the meantime, thanks for changing the subject and asking the question.
> His opinion on fat
> black women is surely extreme IMO, and I'm wondering how in the
> world that he
> has gotten in the professional position that he is in.
I LIKE the appellation, Provocateur. How 'bout you?
Best wishes. Sue
T.
"Human kindness can be found in all groups, even those which as a
whole it would be easy to condemn. The boundaries between groups
overlapped and we must not try to simplify matters by saying that
these men were angels and those were devils."
Source: p 143, WHEN LIFE CALLS OUT TO US (bio of Viktor
Frankl) by Klingberg.
Jackie C
> I don't know if this has been discussed in here before, but has anyone
>read his book _Sex And Reason_? He advocated replacing the current adoption
>system with a "free market in babies"---not the selling of babies, actually (as
>in slavery or organ donation), but the selling of parental rights.
> Of course, the article only brushed upon this topic, so I was wondering if
>anyone had read it, and thought it might be an interesting discussion. He
>certainly seems to be a very colorful character. LOL
http://adoption.about.com/library/weekly/aa013100a.htm
>Competitive Baby Market
>
>In 1978, Federal Judge Richard A. Posner co-authored an article with Elisabeth Landes called "The Economics of the Baby Shortage." The article suggested that if parents were given financial incentives to place their children for adoption - selling their parental rights instead of raising their children themselves or choosing abortion - the supply of white children available for adoption would increase. Posner restated similar views in his 1992 book, Sex and Reason.
>
>Posner argued that the law of supply-and-demand would rule the day, a competitive market would push prices down, and adopting a baby would cost no more than buying a car.
I did a small google search and learned some amazing things..
Thank you so much for posting about this.
Below is very interesting..
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj15n1-7.html
A MODEST PROPOSAL TO DEREGULATE
INFANT ADOPTIONS
Donald J. Boudreaux
snipped some..
>..............The proposal is modest because it merely extends to birth mothers a liberty now enjoyed by many adoption agencies: the liberty to sell parental rights to adoptive parents at mutually agreeable prices. The proposal is worthwhile because it promises gains to all relevant parties to adoptions--birth mothers, couples wishing to adopt infants, and children.
>
>Opposition to birth mothers' voluntary sales of parental rights is founded on faulty reasoning. I use basic economics to highlight the benefits of liberalized adoption and to address some of the most common objections raised by those who insist that children or society would be harmed by the free exchange of parental rights in infants.
>
>Some preliminaries are in order. First, I refer throughout to the "sale of parental rights'' rather than to "baby selling.'' When a birth mother gives a child up for adoption, she legally transfers her parental rights to the adoptive parents; the adoptive parents gain all those rights, but only those rights, that the birth mother possessed before the adoption. Such rights are those that all non-derelict parents have in their children.
I hope this becomes a good thread.
I am fascinated with this topic.
Jackie
Marley Greiner
"Jackie C" <jda...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:vjhk2u8d0blh62emh...@4ax.com...
Thanks, Jackie. This is the article I mentioned, but I thought it came out
of the Heritage Foundation. I like the Cato for some things, but this
isn't one of them.
Marley
Jackie C
>JACK TURNER
>ECONOMIC NATURE
>(1994)
(a paragraph in a long article)
>The redescription of everything with economic language is characteristic of those who sit in the shade of the Chicago school of economics. Thus Richard Posner's The Economic Aspects of Law colonizes legal issues with economic vocabulary. Here is Posner on children: "The baby shortage and black market are the result of legal restrictions that prevent the market from operating as freely in the sale of babies as of other goods. This suggests as a possible reform simply eliminating the restriction." John Bunker, Benjamin Barnes, and Frederick Mosteller's Costs, Risks, and Benefits of Surgery does the same for medical practice.
This was written by a man who attended a conference.
>In the winter of 1992 I flew to Seattle at the generous invitation of the Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment to attend a conference held to acquaint environmental writers with the ideas of New Resource Economics. The conference was held amid a mise-en-scčne of assurance and power-subdued, isolated buildings, lovely meals, good wine. I felt like a barbarian invited to Rome to confirm its splendor.
>
He said about the conference..
>Art, emotion, and biophilia were absent. A sense of humor about economics and economists was absent. They were Eric Hoffer's true believers, folks who have seen the light and are frustrated and angry that others fail to see their light.
end of quoting.
I wonder if this man (Posner) will succed with his baby selling
ideas..
Jackie
Marley Greiner
I don't think it has flown at all. Even the most blatant free market
capitalist gets squicky about babies with some Randian exceptions.
Malrey
>
Jackie C
>1800
>PARENT AND
>CHILD
>Margaret F. Brinig
>Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law
>© Copyright 1999 Margaret F. Brinig
>Page 4
>1800
>Parent and Child
>233
snipped some
>Richard Posner suggested that a market in babies would rectify many of the
>problems of the adoption system (Landes and Posner, 1978; Posner, 1987).
>Posner's critics proclaimed that sales of children reduced the children, or their
>mothers, to commodities. Further, unscrupulous but wealthy parents might
>purchase children to abuse them. Ultimately baby-selling became code for the
>foolish extreme to which its proponents could carry law and economics
>(Donohue and Ayres, 1987).
>Posner's articles suggest that legalization of compensation would benefit
>most of the players in the adoption market. In the market he describes, the
>supply of adoptable babies would increase, given a legal market price. Adoptive
>parents would acquire the children they so badly desired. Natural mothers
>would suffer less because they would be compensated for bearing the children
>(Prichard, 1984, p. 346). The market would provide incentives for the pregnant
>women to take better care of themselves so the children would be healthier
>(Landes and Posner, 1978, pp. 329-330). Arguably fewer women would
>terminate unplanned pregnancies by abortion. Finally, the children would go
>to the parents who valued them most, as evidenced by their willingness to pay
>the contract price and the mother's willingness to forego it should she decide
>to keep the child.
end of quoting.
(above)
"Natural mothers would suffer less because they would be compensated
for bearing the children."
How can anyone consider this statement of any value..
Jackie
Michelle
In hopes that it'll make you feel better, I don't think he's looking to
succeed with any baby selling ideas. He's a judge (a very well-respected
legal mind, though IMO he's out in left field on this one). Most likely
this was more in the nature of a theory, an academic discussion, rather than
something he was actually advocating for. 'Course, I could be wrong. But
I'm pretty sure a federal judge would be precluded from actively promoting
the selling of parental rights--they're supposed to stay out of the
political arena, and I'm not sure you could avoid the political arena if
you're going around encouraging people to buy and sell parental rights.
Michelle
>
>
Michelle
>
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:AILZKaZppnM:allserv.rug.ac.be/~gdegeest
I don't agree with the entire idea. But if we're talking about the kind of
woman who would be willing to sell her parental rights, it follows that
having sold them she would probably be happy (somewhat) with the cash she
got. Of course, IMO, *most* women wouldn't be willing to sell their
parental rights, so the money-buys-happiness idea is a rather whacked-out
rationale. For me, it's another one of those ropes with too much
slack--everyone'll get hung in the end.
Can you imagine telling your adopted child when they turn 18 that you bought
the right to parent them from their bmom? <shudder> I wouldn't even want
to be a fly on the wall for *that* family meeting.
Michelle
>
Michelle
"Michelle" <666cel...@earthlink.netH20(to reply I'm between the devil
and the deep blue sea)> wrote in message
news:CbwW7.19948$Cw3.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
My bad, Posner *was* a federal judge; appears that he retired in 2000. He
was and is a "big dawg" in the field of law and economics, and this
rights-selling theory is just IMO so much academic brainstorming by someone
who probably has no experience with any side of the triad, and has a
tendency (IMO) to reduce such things into purely economic terms. Which, of
course, would work great, if human beings weren't involved. Economics only
goes so far...if anyone's interested in Posner, see the link below. Whether
he's a current or retired federal judge, I don't see him starting up a
sell-your-rights campaign anytime soon. Seems like an academic discussion
to me.
http://www.src.uchicago.edu/users/gsb1/Rational/posnerbio.html
Michelle
>
> >
> >
>
>
>
Jackie C
<maddog...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> I wonder if this man (Posner) will succed with his baby selling
>> ideas..
>>
>>
>> Jackie
>
>I don't think it has flown at all. Even the most blatant free market
>capitalist gets squicky about babies with some Randian exceptions.
Instead we have pretend baby selling..so they can all rest easy at
nite..
Jackie
Jackie C
<666cel...@earthlink.netH20(to reply I'm between the devil and the
>In hopes that it'll make you feel better, I don't think he's looking to
>succeed with any baby selling ideas. He's a judge (a very well-respected
>legal mind, though IMO he's out in left field on this one). Most likely
>this was more in the nature of a theory, an academic discussion, rather than
>something he was actually advocating for. 'Course, I could be wrong. But
>I'm pretty sure a federal judge would be precluded from actively promoting
>the selling of parental rights--they're supposed to stay out of the
>political arena, and I'm not sure you could avoid the political arena if
>you're going around encouraging people to buy and sell parental rights.
>
>Michelle
My husband and son watched sports all day yesterday so I spent some
time searching for more info..
I think he was advocating for it.. but hey..
I know that some (on the net) are using his words, and he is a
respected judge..
Jackie
Jackie C
<666cel...@earthlink.netH20(to reply I'm between the devil and the
deep blue sea)> wrote:
(Quoted from article cause I hate scrolling)
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:AILZKaZppnM:allserv.rug.ac.be/~gdegeest/1800book.pdf+1800+Richard+Posner&hl=en
>> "Natural mothers would suffer less because they would be compensated
>> for bearing the children."
>>
>> How can anyone consider this statement of any value..
>>
>> Jackie
>
>I don't agree with the entire idea. But if we're talking about the kind of
>woman who would be willing to sell her parental rights, it follows that
>having sold them she would probably be happy (somewhat) with the cash she
>got.
But what if the woman is not thinking that maybe she is (really)
selling her baby.. Maybe (some) people will dress it up in such pretty
colors that she will miss what she is actually doing.
And how does she deal with this later on in life..
Her University education in exchange for her child as an example..
> Of course, IMO, *most* women wouldn't be willing to sell their
>parental rights, so the money-buys-happiness idea is a rather whacked-out
>rationale.
I think of it as a very cold idea.. No understanding of the human
condition.
>For me, it's another one of those ropes with too much
>slack--everyone'll get hung in the end.
I find the idea horrible..
In one of the articles I read (I think Posner) said that there would
have to be an age limit.. cause you can not sell your children..
Soo you can sell an unborn infant but not a child..
>Can you imagine telling your adopted child when they turn 18 that you bought
>the right to parent them from their bmom? <shudder> I wouldn't even want
>to be a fly on the wall for *that* family meeting.
And so I bet they will never say that this is what went down..
IMO this kind of thing should never be allowed to happen..
Jackie
Marley Greiner
> On Thu, 27 Dec 2001 03:06:40 GMT, "Michelle"
> <666cel...@earthlink.netH20(to reply I'm between the devil and the
> deep blue sea)> wrote:
>
> (Quoted from article cause I hate scrolling)
>
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:AILZKaZppnM:allserv.rug.ac.be/~gdegeest
/1800book.pdf+1800+Richard+Posner&hl=en
>
> >> "Natural mothers would suffer less because they would be compensated
> >> for bearing the children."
> >>
> >> How can anyone consider this statement of any value..
> >>
> >> Jackie
> >
> >I don't agree with the entire idea. But if we're talking about the kind
of
> >woman who would be willing to sell her parental rights, it follows that
> >having sold them she would probably be happy (somewhat) with the cash she
> >got.
>
> But what if the woman is not thinking that maybe she is (really)
> selling her baby.. Maybe (some) people will dress it up in such pretty
> colors that she will miss what she is actually doing.
If they weren't sentimentalizing the baby and motherhood none of this would
happen.
>
> And how does she deal with this later on in life..
> Her University education in exchange for her child as an example..
Sounds like a good deal to me, but that's just me. One should be practical
and being bogged down with a baby is not a practical solution for anything
unless you can pick up ome serious change from the father.
>
>
> > Of course, IMO, *most* women wouldn't be willing to sell their
> >parental rights, so the money-buys-happiness idea is a rather whacked-out
> >rationale.
>
> I think of it as a very cold idea.. No understanding of the human
> condition.
I think it's wacked, too, but that's waht free market capitalism is all
about.
>
> >For me, it's another one of those ropes with too much
> >slack--everyone'll get hung in the end.
>
> I find the idea horrible..
>
> In one of the articles I read (I think Posner) said that there would
> have to be an age limit.. cause you can not sell your children..
>
> Soo you can sell an unborn infant but not a child..
Oh damn. I wish my neighbors back home would sell some of theirs.
>
> >Can you imagine telling your adopted child when they turn 18 that you
bought
> >the right to parent them from their bmom? <shudder> I wouldn't even
want
> >to be a fly on the wall for *that* family meeting.
>
> And so I bet they will never say that this is what went down..
>
> IMO this kind of thing should never be allowed to happen..
I agree, but it's the American way.
Marley
>
>
> Jackie
Michelle
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant advocating in an active sense, as opposed to
within the context of an article written for academic purposes, as above.
Michelle
>
>
Michelle
> On Thu, 27 Dec 2001 03:06:40 GMT, "Michelle"
> <666cel...@earthlink.netH20(to reply I'm between the devil and the
> deep blue sea)> wrote:
>
> (Quoted from article cause I hate scrolling)
>
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:AILZKaZppnM:allserv.rug.ac.be/~gdegeest
/1800book.pdf+1800+Richard+Posner&hl=en
>
> >> "Natural mothers would suffer less because they would be compensated
> >> for bearing the children."
> >>
> >> How can anyone consider this statement of any value..
> >>
> >> Jackie
> >
> >I don't agree with the entire idea. But if we're talking about the kind
of
> >woman who would be willing to sell her parental rights, it follows that
> >having sold them she would probably be happy (somewhat) with the cash she
> >got.
>
> But what if the woman is not thinking that maybe she is (really)
> selling her baby.. Maybe (some) people will dress it up in such pretty
> colors that she will miss what she is actually doing.
I guess I tend to give people more credit for intelligence--I'm not sure how
you could dress up I-give-you-money-I-get-your-baby in colors pretty enough
to obscure exactly what is going on.
> And how does she deal with this later on in life..
> Her University education in exchange for her child as an example..
This is one of many problems I have with the whole idea. I suppose, to
people who support it, she can go buy herself the right to therapy with the
money she got for her right to parent?
>
>
> > Of course, IMO, *most* women wouldn't be willing to sell their
> >parental rights, so the money-buys-happiness idea is a rather whacked-out
> >rationale.
>
> I think of it as a very cold idea.. No understanding of the human
> condition.
Well, it's supposed to be cold. It's a purely economic analysis. People
don't factor in. I don't consider Posner to be the most sensitive guy in
the world, but I *do* think that in IRL he would recognize that the
buying/selling of parental rights is far more complicated than a simple
economic supply-and-demand analysis would tend to suggest, which is why I
said I can't see him advocating (actively) for this scenario. 'Course, I've
been wrong before...
> >For me, it's another one of those ropes with too much
> >slack--everyone'll get hung in the end.
>
> I find the idea horrible..
>
> In one of the articles I read (I think Posner) said that there would
> have to be an age limit.. cause you can not sell your children..
>
> Soo you can sell an unborn infant but not a child..
Certainly an odd statement, in view of the economic analysis they're doing.
I suppose that's why it's best kept as an economic theory rather than a
social experiment. That crazy Constitution thing probably tends to get in
the way of all that good old buying and selling.
> >Can you imagine telling your adopted child when they turn 18 that you
bought
> >the right to parent them from their bmom? <shudder> I wouldn't even
want
> >to be a fly on the wall for *that* family meeting.
>
> And so I bet they will never say that this is what went down..
>
Depends on how realistic they are. IMO it's not as though there wouldn't be
a record of such a transaction somewhere, and hardly as though that's the
kind of thing that can be kept secret forever.
> IMO this kind of thing should never be allowed to happen..
ITA.
Michelle
>
>
> Jackie
>
Rupa Bose
>
> Thank you so much for posting about this.
>
> Below is very interesting..
>
>
> http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj15n1-7.html
>
> A MODEST PROPOSAL TO DEREGULATE
> INFANT ADOPTIONS
>
> Donald J. Boudreaux
>
> snipped some..
>
>
> >..............The proposal is modest because it merely extends to birth mothers a liberty now enjoyed by many adoption agencies: the liberty to sell parental rights to adoptive parents at mutually agreeable prices. The proposal is worthwhile because it promises gains to all relevant parties to adoptions--birth mothers, couples wishing to adopt infants, and children.
> >
>
of an essay proposing the breeding and sale of babies for meat.
Rupa
Jackie C
But someone reads his missives and says to themselves..
"What a wonderful idea.. and hey.. a very important man is writing
these words."
And then some other people.. with a lot of money and a 'lobby' have
the rules/laws changed.. "Cause we got to save those babies from being
aborted or abused.. don't you know."
Now we have pre-birth agreements happening in restaurants..
What next?
Jackie
Jackie C
<maddog...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> IMO this kind of thing should never be allowed to happen..
>
>I agree, but it's the American way.
I think a line has been crossed..
Jackie
Jackie C
wrote:
>> >..............The proposal is modest because it merely extends to birth mothers a liberty now enjoyed by many adoption agencies: the liberty to sell parental rights to adoptive parents at mutually agreeable prices. The proposal is worthwhile because it promises gains to all relevant parties to adoptions--birth mothers, couples wishing to adopt infants, and children.
>> >
>> I am fascinated with this topic.
>>
>I suspect it's very tongue-in-cheek. "A Modest Proposal" was the title
>of an essay proposing the breeding and sale of babies for meat.
>
>Rupa
I honestly believe some of these folks are serious Rupa..
I spent an afternoon following these web pages..
Jackie
Michelle
wrote:
<snip>
Michelle:
>>Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant advocating in an active sense, as opposed to
>>within the context of an article written for academic purposes, as above.
>
Jackie:
>But someone reads his missives and says to themselves..
>"What a wonderful idea.. and hey.. a very important man is writing
>these words."
>
>And then some other people.. with a lot of money and a 'lobby' have
>the rules/laws changed.. "Cause we got to save those babies from being
>aborted or abused.. don't you know."
>
>Now we have pre-birth agreements happening in restaurants..
>What next?
>
>
>Jackie
I highly doubt the vast majority of people who read Posner's articles
in an academic journal consider them a blueprint for adoption policy,
either current of prospective. Academic journals are just that;
academic journals. Until you see it in print, in a *law*, I wouldn't
worry too much about people trying to sell parental rights just
because they read an article by Posner.
Nor do I think that such an article could or would be used as a basis
for changing adoption law. For one thing, there are too many
problems, constitutional and legal, with the actual selling of
parental rights. For another, and perhaps more significantly, the
line between selling parental rights and selling babies is far too
thin for the average legislator, IMO, to be willing to dance on. Too
likely to be misinterpreted/disliked by the voting public.
Michelle
Courage is found in unlikely places.
-J.R.R. Tolkien, "The Fellowship of the Ring"
LilMtnCbn
>Date: 12/26/01 3:16 PM Mountain Standard Time
>Message-id: <vjhk2u8d0blh62emh...@4ax.com>
Thanks for looking all this up Jackie.
Jackie C
>>Subject: Re: New Topic---Posner---Sue T? Marley?
>>From: Jackie C jda...@newsguy.com
>>Date: 12/26/01 3:16 PM Mountain Standard Time
>>Message-id: <vjhk2u8d0blh62emh...@4ax.com>
>>
>>On 24 Dec 2001 16:50:08 GMT, lilm...@aol.com (LilMtnCbn) wrote:
>
>
>Thanks for looking all this up Jackie.
I can see a scenario in the future.. a girl like Tarin wants her baby
back.. papers were signed before and hours after the birth..
They say to her.. "But you sold your baby"..
"The goods will not be returned."
Jackie
Sue Tretter
Jackie C wrote:
> <snip>
>
> I can see a scenario in the future.. a girl like Tarin wants her baby
> back.. papers were signed before and hours after the birth..
>
> They say to her.. "But you sold your baby"..
> "The goods will not be returned."
It's possible.
So what's your solution, Jackie? Shall we teach the younger generation
to take responsibility for their actions, to think before they act, to
consider all possible outcomes ... or shall we be content to concentrate
on creating a myriad lassos to toss when they flounder in the quicksand
of life?
I've been reading THE MOST WANTED and there's a line in an
early chapter which applauds a Texas woman for creating a
foundation dedicated to "defending the sacred right of women to
make piss-poor life choices". Reminded me of you, Jackie.
While, I'm all for placing the proverbial ambulance at the bottom
of cliffs, I also want there to be warning signs and road blocks at
the top so that some of us can avoid falling off each and every cliff
that exists. I've seen too many lives ended (or worse, imo, maimed
but not ended) at the cliff bottoms to think it's a good idea for the
human race to continue, leming-like, to follow those who excell at
making the most outrageous of piss-poor life choices.
Best wishes. Sue T.
Jackie C
wrote:
Jackie wrote..
>> I can see a scenario in the future.. a girl like Tarin wants her baby
>> back.. papers were signed before and hours after the birth..
>>
>> They say to her.. "But you sold your baby"..
>> "The goods will not be returned."
>
>It's possible.
>So what's your solution, Jackie?
I think this woman Margaret F. Brinig says it well.
> Nonetheless, the
>fact that children are the `goods' over which adults bargain, mandates some
>government intrusion on contractual freedom.
end of quoiting.
The government should make sure the children/babies are not bought and
sold..
> Shall we teach the younger generation
>to take responsibility for their actions, to think before they act, to
>consider all possible outcomes ... or shall we be content to concentrate
>on creating a myriad lassos to toss when they flounder in the quicksand
>of life?
IMO the 'state' should protect the citizens from being taken advantage
of..
A pregnant girl should be protected from the receptionist at a doctors
office.. who knows a friend who knows a friend.. who knows a lawyer.
Who knows how to promise this naive girl anything in order to get her
to relinquish her child on the day that child is born..
>I've been reading THE MOST WANTED and there's a line in an
>early chapter which applauds a Texas woman for creating a
>foundation dedicated to "defending the sacred right of women to
>make piss-poor life choices". Reminded me of you, Jackie.
I think every woman has a right to raise her child.. no matter what
her economic problems or issues are..
I think every woman has a right to 'think it over' after signing
papers on the day that child is born..
>While, I'm all for placing the proverbial ambulance at the bottom
>of cliffs, I also want there to be warning signs and road blocks at
>the top so that some of us can avoid falling off each and every cliff
>that exists. I've seen too many lives ended (or worse, imo, maimed
>but not ended) at the cliff bottoms to think it's a good idea for the
>human race to continue, leming-like, to follow those who excell at
>making the most outrageous of piss-poor life choices.
Right, the warning signs are very important..
But I also think women need protection..
Sue I know you have just read Beggars and Choosers.. and you *may*
have concluded, like I have.. that some women do not have choices..
They can not get an abortion.. They do not have enough money to raise
a child..
Yes there should be warning signs to not get pregnant.. But IMO
because some girl or woman does not take that warning.. it does not
give others the right to coerce her child from her.
Jackie
Sue Tretter
Jackie C wrote:
I think this woman Margaret F. Brinig says it well.
<snip>
I haven't looked at the url yet, but I will.
> Nonetheless, the
>fact that children are the `goods' over which adults bargain, mandates some
>government intrusion on contractual freedom.end of quoiting.
The government should make sure the children/babies are not bought and
sold..
So the government is 100% responsible for seeing that these things don't
happen, and the woman making "piss poor" decisions is totally blameless?
Is that what you desire and/or think best, Jackie?
<snip>
IMO the 'state' should protect the citizens from being taken advantage
of..
Let's talk about what you envision there ...
<snip>
I think every woman has a right to raise her child.. no matter what
her economic problems or issues are..
I'm glad you're not in a position of elective or appointed power,
Jackie.
<snip>
Right, the warning signs are very important..But I also think women need protection..
So they don't have to learn to read, and/or don't have
to read and pay attention to the signs??? And are
"saved" from their own worst enemies (themselves)
if/when they screw up???
Sue I know you have just read Beggars and Choosers..
Yup, and think it's a wonderful book which should be read by
everyone here. But I also think that some readers will get lost
in it and neglect to make a distinction between what's forest
and what's tree.
and you *may*
have concluded, like I have.. that some women do not have choices..
Yup. And the number is exceeding small.
They can not get an abortion.. They do not have enough money to raise
a child..
But they are not among those (usually) who are truly without choices.
If you would stop conflating
1. women who have NO choices
with
2. women who have few and/or undesired choices,
readers here, imo, might have more empathy for both groups.
Yes there should be warning signs to not get pregnant..
Should have been? Are you saying that you weren't told by
nearly everyone and everything in your pre-pregnant environment
that premarital sex was wrong/bad??? And that premarital pregnancy
was wronger/badder? That's the one near-universal that
I
experienced in my world as a sexually active teen. I would be
truly surprised if my peers hadn't gotten the same message.
But IMO
because some girl or woman does not take that warning.. it does not
give others the right to coerce her child from her.
Imo, it does, if the child is endangered because of the mother's
youth, inexperience, lack of education, lack of prospects, etc.
Bottom line for me: The CHILD's needs predominate.
Jackie's bottom line seems to be: The MOTHER's needs/wishes
predominate.
Best wishes.
Sue T.
Jackie C
wrote:
>
>
>Jackie C wrote:
>
>> I think this woman Margaret F. Brinig says it well.
>>
>> http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:AILZKaZppnM:allserv.rug.ac.be/~gdegeest/1800book.pdf+1800+Richard+Posner&hl=en
>
><snip>
>I haven't looked at the url yet, but I will.
>
>> > Nonetheless, the
>> >fact that children are the `goods' over which adults bargain, mandates some
>> >government intrusion on contractual freedom.
>>
>> end of quoiting.
>>
>> The government should make sure the children/babies are not bought and
>> sold..
>
>So the government is 100% responsible for seeing that these things don't
>happen, and the woman making "piss poor" decisions is totally blameless?
>Is that what you desire and/or think best, Jackie?
IMO something as final and as important as this, should be controlled
by a governing body..
It is a major life changing decision.. and should not be made before
the birth and or on the day the baby is born..
The government of the land should have some rules here..
>> <snip>
>> IMO the 'state' should protect the citizens from being taken advantage
>> of..
>
>Jackie, can you intellectually take this scenario to its logical conclusion?
>Let's talk about what you envision there ...
The agency is 'government regulated' and the government (the
representative of the people) can look at the books at any time..
There should be a watchdog..
There should be a cooling off time after the baby is born..
No papers signed till the woman who just gave birth has time to
collect her thoughts..
I am sure you know what I am saying here.. we have had many threads
about this.
>> <snip>
>
>> I think every woman has a right to raise her child.. no matter what
>> her economic problems or issues are..
>
>I'm glad you're not in a position of elective or appointed power,
>Jackie.
>> <snip>
>
>> Right, the warning signs are very important..
>>
>> But I also think women need protection..
>
>So they don't have to learn to read, and/or don't have
>to read and pay attention to the signs??? And are
>"saved" from their own worst enemies (themselves)
>if/when they screw up???
Yes.. if the consequences of not reading the sign is loosing ones
child to adoption..
>> Sue I know you have just read Beggars and Choosers..
>
>Yup, and think it's a wonderful book which should be read by
>everyone here. But I also think that some readers will get lost
>in it and neglect to make a distinction between what's forest
>and what's tree.
And this was a dig at me Sue?
>> and you *may*
>> have concluded, like I have.. that some women do not have choices..
>
>Yup. And the number is exceeding small.
Ah.. Who is lost?
>> They can not get an abortion.. They do not have enough money to raise
>> a child..
>
>But they are not among those (usually) who are truly without choices.
Who are the ones who are truly without choice then?
>If you would stop conflating
>1. women who have NO choices
>with
>2. women who have few and/or undesired choices,
>readers here, imo, might have more empathy for both groups.
If a woman can not afford to have an abortion.. she does not have
choice..
If she has to decide between paying the rent or having an abortion she
does not have choice..
IMO that is what Solinger said in her book..
>> Yes there should be warning signs to not get pregnant..
>
>Should have been? Are you saying that you weren't told by
>nearly everyone and everything in your pre-pregnant environment
>that premarital sex was wrong/bad??? And that premarital pregnancy
>was wronger/badder? That's the one near-universal that I
>experienced in my world as a sexually active teen. I would be
>truly surprised if my peers hadn't gotten the same message.
What did you mean then, in your speaking of that book?
I must have missed the point you were making..
>> But IMO
>> because some girl or woman does not take that warning.. it does not
>> give others the right to coerce her child from her.
>
>Imo, it does, if the child is endangered because of the mother's
>youth, inexperience, lack of education, lack of prospects, etc.
So she gets no help..
>Bottom line for me: The CHILD's needs predominate.
>Jackie's bottom line seems to be: The MOTHER's needs/wishes
>predominate.
We probably will always disagree on this Sue..
Jackie
Sue Tretter
Jackie C wrote:
> <snip>
> >So the government is 100% responsible for seeing that these things don't
> >happen, and the woman making "piss poor" decisions is totally blameless?
> >Is that what you desire and/or think best, Jackie?
>
> IMO something as final and as important as this, should be controlled
> by a governing body..
I don't think you answered *my* question. Do you think you did?
> It is a major life changing decision.. and should not be made before
> the birth and or on the day the baby is born..
No, the decision about having a baby should be made before it is
conceived, imo.
> The government of the land should have some rules here..
The government does have some rules, though not great ones. Imo.
> <snip>
> The agency is 'government regulated' and the government (the
> representative of the people) can look at the books at any time..
> There should be a watchdog..
Now, I'm pretty sure you didn't answer my question. Wanna
try again?
> There should be a cooling off time after the baby is born..
> No papers signed till the woman who just gave birth has time to
> collect her thoughts..
Each US mom has that ability now, except in cases of TPR, etc.
> I am sure you know what I am saying here.. we have had many threads
> about this.
Don't assume that I understand what you're about. Though I try to
ferret out your meaning, sometimes it escapes me, totally.
> <snip>
> Yes.. if the consequences of not reading the sign is loosing ones
> child to adoption..
Jackie, have you volunteered any information here about your
non-adoption-related political views? For instance, have you
stated whether you're a big-D or little d democrat, Republican,
Libertarian, Green, liberal, conservation, etc. And if you
haven't would you like to now?
> >> Sue I know you have just read Beggars and Choosers..
> >
> >Yup, and think it's a wonderful book which should be read by
> >everyone here. But I also think that some readers will get lost
> >in it and neglect to make a distinction between what's forest
> >and what's tree.
>
> And this was a dig at me Sue?
Not meant as a dig, but the "some readers" could reasonably be
seen as including you.
> Jackie wrote: >women do not have choices..
> >
> >Yup. And the number is exceeding small.
>
> Ah.. Who is lost?
Lost? Please, explain.
> <snip>
> Who are the ones who are truly without choice then?
Glad you asked.
Let's see people without choices include:
1. each child conceived and born ...
I'll begin again with respect to the adoption theme:
1. Women who were captured by the military in Argentina, et al, and
held completely incommunicado, until they had their babies, and then
killed.
2. Women who have not the mental capacity to think, plan, hope, dream
for themselves or anyone else.
3. Women who are mere children themselves without the ability and
backbone to advocate for themselves. (Most of these, imo, will outgrow
their condition.)
4. Women who live in countries where equality is an unknown concept,
where poverty consigns you to a certain role in life, with absolutely
no hope of escaping.
5. Women who live in countries where the worth of a female baby
is considered vastly inferior to the worth of a male baby.
Need more? I was just getting going, but that seems enough for now.
> <snip>
> If a woman can not afford to have an abortion.. she does not have
> choice..
Says you. I say nonsense!
However, I am of the opinion that women in my country need more and
better access to all forms of medical and social services, including
free abortion and hassle-free abortion.
> If she has to decide between paying the rent or having an abortion she
> does not have choice..
JACKIE, YOU HAVE JUST GIVEN EVIDENCE OF A CHOICE!
Do you get it now?
> IMO that is what Solinger said in her book..
Thankfully, that's not what I think Solinger said.
If I thought more than a handful of readers would get what you did out of
the book, I certainly wouldn't advocate it.
> >> Yes there should be warning signs to not get pregnant..
> >
> >Should have been? Are you saying that you weren't told by
> >nearly everyone and everything in your pre-pregnant environment
> >that premarital sex was wrong/bad??? And that premarital pregnancy
> >was wronger/badder? That's the one near-universal that I
> >experienced in my world as a sexually active teen. I would be
> >truly surprised if my peers hadn't gotten the same message.
>
> What did you mean then, in your speaking of that book?
>
> I must have missed the point you were making..
Okay, I'm confused. How about starting by answering my question
above. Are you saying that you weren't told by nearly everyone ...
that premarital sex and premarital pregnancy was to be avoided?
Now, please tell me what you meant by "What did you mean then, in
your speaking of that book?"
What book?
I expect I meant exactly what I said, but I can't know for sure until
you quote it for me.
> Sue T: >Imo, it does, if the child is endangered because of the mother's
> >youth, inexperience, lack of education, lack of prospects, etc.
>
> So she gets no help..
Nope, I believe in helping the just-delivered mom and the child, but in
separate places.
> >Bottom line for me: The CHILD's needs predominate.
> >Jackie's bottom line seems to be: The MOTHER's needs/wishes
> >predominate.
>
> We probably will always disagree on this Sue..
Don't sell yourself so short, Jackie. I'm counting on your getting it,
someday.
Best wishes. Sue T.
When are you going to address the "logical conclusions" bit?
KL
Sue, you may be counting for a REAL long time!!!!!
KL
"You don't love someone because they are beautiful, they are beautiful because
you love them." - Anon.
Sue Tretter
KL wrote:
<snip>
> Sue, you may be counting for a REAL long time!!!!!
That's okay. I have time and I'm willing to wait. Heck, just think
of the jubilation when certain people finally "get" certain things.
Were you here when Jackie was totally opposed to open adoptions?
That was a BIG turnaround. But I failed to recognize the need to
celebrate the achievement. I'll try not to make the same mistake
again.
Best wishes. Sue T.
Jackie C
wrote:
>
>
>Jackie C wrote:
>
>> <snip>
>> >So the government is 100% responsible for seeing that these things don't
>> >happen, and the woman making "piss poor" decisions is totally blameless?
>> >Is that what you desire and/or think best, Jackie?
>>
>> IMO something as final and as important as this, should be controlled
>> by a governing body..
>
>I don't think you answered *my* question. Do you think you did?
I do not look to blame.. A woman has an untimely pregnancy her
decisions are what happens in the panic or situations she encounters..
A good and just society should be there to help her..
Someone to teach her about parenting.. or someone to take the child
till she is ready to parent..
Hmmm what a concept..
>> It is a major life changing decision.. and should not be made before
>> the birth and or on the day the baby is born..
>
>No, the decision about having a baby should be made before it is
>conceived, imo.
Crap. IMO that is a cop out..
>> The government of the land should have some rules here..
>
>The government does have some rules, though not great ones. Imo.
Lousy ones in Kansas.. IMO
>> <snip>
>> The agency is 'government regulated' and the government (the
>> representative of the people) can look at the books at any time..
>> There should be a watchdog..
>
>Now, I'm pretty sure you didn't answer my question. Wanna
>try again?
I do not look to blaming anyone.. Sue..
Its the old you got pregnant, you made your bed, now lie in it..
Sorry it just does not cut it for me anymore.
Especially after reading Beggars and Choosers..(by Rickie Solinger)
>> There should be a cooling off time after the baby is born..
>> No papers signed till the woman who just gave birth has time to
>> collect her thoughts..
>
>Each US mom has that ability now, except in cases of TPR, etc.
Ah but what if she is told that if she signs pre birth and on the day
the baby is born.. they will all be one big happy family..
Coercion (good OA's), is used in some relinquishment in this day and
age.. IMO
>> I am sure you know what I am saying here.. we have had many threads
>> about this.
>
>Don't assume that I understand what you're about. Though I try to
>ferret out your meaning, sometimes it escapes me, totally.
I give up..
>> <snip>
>> Yes.. if the consequences of not reading the sign is loosing ones
>> child to adoption..
>
>Jackie, have you volunteered any information here about your
>non-adoption-related political views? For instance, have you
>stated whether you're a big-D or little d democrat, Republican,
>Libertarian, Green, liberal, conservation, etc. And if you
>haven't would you like to now?
I am a Canadian.. I hate NAFTA.. I hate the Progressive Conservatives
who just privatized our hydro in Ontario..
I hate that America wants our natural resources.. and I hate that
because of NAFTA we can not turn off the tap when we run out of oil or
water or energy..
I hate the capitalization of our society..
I hate that a law professor in your country puts out a paper that
suggest that it is okay that a birth mother gets money for
relinquishing her child..
>> >> Sue I know you have just read Beggars and Choosers..
>> >
>> >Yup, and think it's a wonderful book which should be read by
>> >everyone here. But I also think that some readers will get lost
>> >in it and neglect to make a distinction between what's forest
>> >and what's tree.
>>
>> And this was a dig at me Sue?
>
>Not meant as a dig, but the "some readers" could reasonably be
>seen as including you.
I am passionate about that book.. I traveled across the country,
spending a lot of Canadian money, to meet Rickie Solinger after
reading 'Wake up Little Susie'..
I will stand on a street corner and read passages from that book if I
thought someone would listen..
>> Jackie wrote: >women do not have choices..
>> >
>> >Yup. And the number is exceeding small.
>>
>> Ah.. Who is lost?
>
>Lost? Please, explain.
you said.. (see above) "But I also think that some readers will get
lost in it and neglect to make a distinction between what's forest
and what's tree."
IMO there are more trees in the forest than you choose to
acknowledge..
>> <snip>
I asked..
>> Who are the ones who are truly without choice then?
>
>Glad you asked.
>Let's see people without choices include:
>1. each child conceived and born ...
The nature of the beast.. IMO
>I'll begin again with respect to the adoption theme:
>1. Women who were captured by the military in Argentina, et al, and
>held completely incommunicado, until they had their babies, and then
>killed.
Ah the real ones .. according to you..
>2. Women who have not the mental capacity to think, plan, hope, dream
>for themselves or anyone else.
What of the emotional capacity? We cannot actually monitor that, can
we..
We can not put an IQ test on emotions..
What of the ones who do not have the emotional capacity to go against
their parents and or society?
>3. Women who are mere children themselves without the ability and
>backbone to advocate for themselves. (Most of these, imo, will outgrow
>their condition.)
>4. Women who live in countries where equality is an unknown concept,
>where poverty consigns you to a certain role in life, with absolutely
>no hope of escaping.
Ah.. are you speaking about women in America who are living below the
poverty line and can not get an abortion because they can not afford
to pay cash for said abortion?
>5. Women who live in countries where the worth of a female baby
>is considered vastly inferior to the worth of a male baby.
>Need more? I was just getting going, but that seems enough for now.
This is happening in America.. now IMO
>> <snip>
>> If a woman can not afford to have an abortion.. she does not have
>> choice..
>
>Says you. I say nonsense!
Did we read the same book?
>However, I am of the opinion that women in my country need more and
>better access to all forms of medical and social services, including
>free abortion and hassle-free abortion.
Oh goody..
>> If she has to decide between paying the rent or having an abortion she
>> does not have choice..
>
>JACKIE, YOU HAVE JUST GIVEN EVIDENCE OF A CHOICE!
>Do you get it now?
So she goes to live on the street and has an abortion..
Have you ever been on welfare Sue?
>> IMO that is what Solinger said in her book..
>
>Thankfully, that's not what I think Solinger said.
Well it is what I think she said..
>If I thought more than a handful of readers would get what you did out of
>the book, I certainly wouldn't advocate it.
I do not really care about what you think Sue..
>> >> Yes there should be warning signs to not get pregnant..
>> >
>> >Should have been? Are you saying that you weren't told by
>> >nearly everyone and everything in your pre-pregnant environment
>> >that premarital sex was wrong/bad??? And that premarital pregnancy
>> >was wronger/badder? That's the one near-universal that I
>> >experienced in my world as a sexually active teen. I would be
>> >truly surprised if my peers hadn't gotten the same message.
>>
>> What did you mean then, in your speaking of that book?
>>
>> I must have missed the point you were making..
>
>Okay, I'm confused. How about starting by answering my question
>above. Are you saying that you weren't told by nearly everyone ...
>that premarital sex and premarital pregnancy was to be avoided?
We all break the rules.. IMO the consequences should not be loosing
ones child..
A good society will help that women.. who broke the rules..
>Now, please tell me what you meant by "What did you mean then, in
>your speaking of that book?"
>What book?
>I expect I meant exactly what I said, but I can't know for sure until
>you quote it for me.
It is like talking with a librarian..
>> Sue T: >Imo, it does, if the child is endangered because of the mother's
>> >youth, inexperience, lack of education, lack of prospects, etc.
>>
>> So she gets no help..
>
>Nope, I believe in helping the just-delivered mom and the child, but in
>separate places.
Okay.. take the child from the mother, you say.. Am I correct here?
You and I absolutely disagree on this..
>> >Bottom line for me: The CHILD's needs predominate.
>> >Jackie's bottom line seems to be: The MOTHER's needs/wishes
>> >predominate.
>>
>> We probably will always disagree on this Sue..
>
>Don't sell yourself so short, Jackie. I'm counting on your getting it,
>someday.
Quit inferring that my thinking is wrong thinking Sue.. it is
insulting..
Jackie
Jackie C
wrote:
>
>
Sue I am still opposed to open adoption if the child is
uncomfortable..
That was the basis of my opposing OA a few years back, if you remember
correctly.. (please note.. I was thinking of the child)
Also IMO the recent example of OA, shown here on aa.. is another good
example of the perils of OA.. Tarin was promised openness.. Then the
minute she was unsure of relinquishing her child the OA was closed.
It all goes against human nature to me..
Jackie
AdoptaDad
Jackie wrote:
>Tarin was promised openness.. Then the minute she was unsure
>of relinquishing her child the OA was closed.
Of course, this is a complete fabrication. The adoptive parents allowed
Tarin to visit her child 9 times in the 22 days post birth.
If the open adoption was closed "the minute she was unsure of relinquishing
her child" as you insist, then Tarin didn't reconsider her decision to
relinquish until three weeks after her child was born.
Which is it, Jackie? And why do you feel the need to make this stuff up?
Dad
helicon
> >Don't sell yourself so short, Jackie. I'm counting on your getting it,
> >someday.
>
> Quit inferring that my thinking is wrong thinking Sue.. it is
> insulting..
Yet you seem to think nothing wrong in doing precisely that to Becky.
Helen
>
>
> Jackie
Becky Young
thinks she's brighter than I am.
>> Quit inferring that my thinking is wrong thinking Sue.. it is
>> insulting..
>
>Yet you seem to think nothing wrong in doing precisely that to Becky.
>
Becky Young
....Though nothing can bring back the hour of splendour in the grass, of glory
in the flower, We will grieve not; rather find strength in what remains behind
-- William Wordsworth
KL
blup...@aol.combadstuff (Becky Young) writes:
>That's because it's Jackie, Helen. It's okay when she does it because she
>thinks she's brighter than I am.
>
>
>>> Quit inferring that my thinking is wrong thinking Sue.. it is
>>> insulting..
>>
>>Yet you seem to think nothing wrong in doing precisely that to Becky.
>>
>
Yeah....it's different when Queen Jackie does it..........NOT!!!!
Sue Tretter
Jackie C wrote:
<snipping the incredible>
> A woman has an untimely pregnancy her
> decisions are what happens in the panic or situations she encounters..
If one is panic-stricken, I would assume that she responds, rather than
decides.
> A good and just society should be there to help her..
Yup. You won't get any argument from me on that point.
> Someone to teach her about parenting.. or someone to take the child
> till she is ready to parent..
I'm all for teaching people how to parent, if that's what they want to do.
And I'm all for someone adopting the child because it needs and deserves
people who are already up-to-speed on the basics of parenting.
> Hmmm what a concept..
Yup.
> <snip>
> >No, the decision about having a baby should be made before it is
> >conceived, imo.
>
> Crap. IMO that is a cop out..
*THAT* is incredible, but I'm leaving it in.
> Jackie wrote of adoption laws:
> Lousy ones in Kansas.. IMO
Lousy in my state too. I don't know of any state with perfect or near-perfect
laws. And though I'm not positive about Canada, I haven't heard that
thousands of potential first moms are flocking to any Canadian province
to have their babies born there, due to your superior laws.
> <snip>
> Its the old you got pregnant, you made your bed, now lie in it..
> Sorry it just does not cut it for me anymore.
No, it's the NEW, you made your bed, hope you don't merely lie
in it, but the state is going to see that your totally dependent child
doesn't have to wait around to see if you get your act together.
<snip>
> Ah but what if she is told that if she signs pre birth and on the day
> the baby is born.. they will all be one big happy family..
I think I said this recently but I'll repeat: gullibility isn't one of my
most-desired qualities in a new parent. Often it's a recipe for the
child's disaster.
> <snip>
>
> I give up..
You give up but persist in sending this note? Seems strange to me.
<snip>
> <snip 8 lines of what Jackie hates>
>
> <snip some more>
>
> I am passionate about that book.. I traveled across the country,
> spending a lot of Canadian money, to meet Rickie Solinger after
> reading 'Wake up Little Susie'..
> I will stand on a street corner and read passages from that book if I
> thought someone would listen..
I'd rather you didn't because I think it would result in the same thing
that happened here: your posts about the book caused people to
reject the book and possibly the author.
I want people to READ Solinger, to appreciate her scholarship, to
understand some of the dynamics -- maybe you could just purchase
a few copies of the book and donate it to libraries where others
might read it without your intervention???
> <snip>
> IMO there are more trees in the forest than you choose to
> acknowledge..
I'm not going to argue trees/forests with you, Jackie. Think what
you will on that point.
> >> <snip>
> I asked..
> >> Who are the ones who are truly without choice then?
> >
> >Glad you asked.
> >Let's see people without choices include:
> >1. each child conceived and born ...
>
> The nature of the beast.. IMO
>
> >I'll begin again with respect to the adoption theme:
> >1. Women who were captured by the military in Argentina, et al, and
> >held completely incommunicado, until they had their babies, and then
> >killed.
>
> Ah the real ones .. according to you..
You did ask who are those "truly without choice"? Didn't you want to
receive an answer? Was it a rhetorical question?
> >2. Women who have not the mental capacity to think, plan, hope, dream
> >for themselves or anyone else.
>
> What of the emotional capacity? We cannot actually monitor that, can
> we..
> We can not put an IQ test on emotions..
People lacking a minimal level of "emotional capacity" aren't good parental
candidates, Jackie.
> What of the ones who do not have the emotional capacity to go against
> their parents and or society?
Well, if those people can demonstrate to me that their parents and society
(not just the media and advertisers) ENCOURAGED them to have premarital
sex and to bear a child they aren't ready/willing/able to parent, I'll relook
at the dynamics. Until then, I suspect that most unmarried potential first
moms got a strong "Do not!" message from someone, a parent, teacher,
coach, Sunday School teacher, etc.
> <snip>
> >4. Women who live in countries where equality is an unknown concept,
> >where poverty consigns you to a certain role in life, with absolutely
> >no hope of escaping.
>
> Ah.. are you speaking about women in America who are living below the
> poverty line and can not get an abortion because they can not afford
> to pay cash for said abortion?
No. But since you brought up that issue, I'll address it. The yearly cost of
some contraceptives is, I expect, less than the cost of an abortion. Celibacy
carries an even lower cost.
> >5. Women who live in countries where the worth of a female baby
> >is considered vastly inferior to the worth of a male baby.
> >Need more? I was just getting going, but that seems enough for now.
>
> This is happening in America.. now IMO
Jackie, you do know what "vastly" means, don't you?
> <snip>
> Did we read the same book?
I assume that Solinger didn't put out two versions of the same book, but
I read mine with some objectivity.
> <snip>
>
> >> If she has to decide between paying the rent or having an abortion she
> >> does not have choice..
> >
> >JACKIE, YOU HAVE JUST GIVEN EVIDENCE OF A CHOICE!
> >Do you get it now?
>
> So she goes to live on the street and has an abortion..
More choices.
> Have you ever been on welfare Sue?
Welfare is yet another choice, if the young woman qualifies. Not a great
choice, but a choice nonetheless.
> <snip>
> I do not really care about what you think Sue..
By the length of this note, it would seem that you do. Or perhaps you
are unable to refrain from responding.
> <snip>
>
> It is like talking with a librarian..
Thanks for another compliment, Jackie.
> <snip>
> Quit inferring that my thinking is wrong thinking Sue.. it is
> insulting..
Imo, what is insulting is your disregard for children in need.
And as always I'll say what I believe needs to be said for as long
as I'm here.
Best wishes.
Sue T.
Marley Greiner
"Sue Tretter" <ses...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3C370F7A...@home.com...
>
>
> Jackie C wrote:
> <snipping the incredible>
>
> > A woman has an untimely pregnancy her
> > decisions are what happens in the panic or situations she encounters..
>
>
> > Someone to teach her about parenting.. or someone to take the child
> > till she is ready to parent..
What if sheh doesn't want to parent?
snip
>
Sue:
> I'd rather you didn't because I think it would result in the same thing
> that happened here: your posts about the book caused people to
> reject the book and possibly the author.
> I want people to READ Solinger, to appreciate her scholarship, to
> understand some of the dynamics -- maybe you could just purchase
> a few copies of the book and donate it to libraries where others
> might read it without your intervention???
RIckie's' book is one of the most important I've ever read on how adoption
operates in the US, but after you got through with it here I was nearly sick
of it. Fortunately, I know the difference between scholarship
self-victimization rhetoric.
Marley
Jackie C
Nothing is as cut and dried as you like to see it.
IMO she was unsure of her decision the day after she left the
hospital... and voiced it to a nurse.. or someone at the hospital.
And IMO those aparents offered a very open OA and she accepted the
offer and signed the day the baby was born..because of that offer..
I had three months. How much time did you have Dad.. when you adopted
your children?
Jackie
Dian
> Jackie C wrote:
>
> > I think this woman Margaret F. Brinig says it well.
> >
> > http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:AILZKaZppnM:allserv.rug.ac.be/~gdegeest/1800book.pdf+1800+Richard+Posner&hl=en
>
> <snip>
> I haven't looked at the url yet, but I will.
>
> > > Nonetheless, the
> > >fact that children are the `goods' over which adults bargain, mandates some
> > >government intrusion on contractual freedom.
> >
> > end of quoiting.
> >
> > The government should make sure the children/babies are not bought and
> > sold..
>
> So the government is 100% responsible for seeing that these things don't
> happen, and the woman making "piss poor" decisions is totally blameless?
> Is that what you desire and/or think best, Jackie?
>
> > <snip>
> > IMO the 'state' should protect the citizens from being taken advantage
> > of..
>
> Jackie, can you intellectually take this scenario to its logical conclusion?
> Let's talk about what you envision there ...
>
Let's, Sue. Unless I am mistaken the US has similar laws to most other
western countries. Have you forgotten them? Those laws include
protecting people from themselves and from exploitation, coersion etc.
Unfortunately those smae laws tend to get overlooked in the US when
it comes to preying upon the vulnerable pregnant woman who has
someone elses potential happiness in her belly. And when it coomes to
saving the taxpayers dollar.
I believe they are now spending 8 million taxpayers dollars to coerse
young mothers into relinquishing. What's up...not enough needy
children in your care system to go around, or can't they cure
infertility yet after the billions of taxpayers dollars that go into
trying to find a cure for it?
Di
Dian
I understood that Melinda asked for the baby back, on Tarins behalf,
the day after birth but was told it was too late. That it took three
weeks to
begin the actual court action. The time it takes to find a lawyer to
take up your case, also needs to be factored in the delay. As is the
level of trauma they would have been in. And shock felt. And the
crippling pain of that loss.
Under such debiltating condition I think they were quick off the
mark.
Di
Marley Greiner
"Dian" <patr...@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message
news:c599139c.02010...@posting.google.com...
I'd say its much more than 8M. And there are other programs out there to
bully women in all sorts of areas involving repro issues and rights.
Advocates for Pregnant Women, for example fights laws that target mainly
minority women whose rights are being undermined by the fetal rights
movement--maternal state conflicts. While APW does not have an adoption
policy, it has come out against baby dump laws. They are holding a
conference at Mt. Sinai Hospital in NYC later this month. I'd love to
attend but it's being held just a few days before I return to Ohio so I
can't. www.advocatesforpregnantwomen.org
Marley
Dian
Good on you, Marley.
Di
AdoptaDad
>From: patr...@bigpond.com.au (Dian)
>Date: 1/5/02 6:43 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <c599139c.02010...@posting.google.com>
>
>adop...@aol.com (AdoptaDad) wrote in message
>news:<20020103153242...@mb-fz.aol.com>...
>> Jackie wrote:
>> >Tarin was promised openness.. Then the minute she was unsure
>> >of relinquishing her child the OA was closed.
>>
>>
>>
>> Of course, this is a complete fabrication. The adoptive parents allowed
>> Tarin to visit her child 9 times in the 22 days post birth.
>>
>> If the open adoption was closed "the minute she was unsure of
>relinquishing
>> her child" as you insist, then Tarin didn't reconsider her decision to
>> relinquish until three weeks after her child was born.
>>
>> Which is it, Jackie? And why do you feel the need to make this stuff up?
>>
>> Dad
>
>I understood that Melinda asked for the baby back, on Tarins behalf,
>the day after birth but was told it was too late.
I don't dispute that - but that's not when the aparents "closed" the
adoption. Jackie claimed they closed it the "moment she was unsure of her
decision" - which is simply false. The court record clearly states she
visited her child something like 9 times over the next 23 days.
Dad
Dian
Okay. It is easy to be benevolent when you are home and hosed but they
sure shut her out when they knew she wanted her baby back and was
doing something about it.
A pox on them. I hope they live in fear of Katelyn being kidnapped
until the day they die. And they will. A befitting sentence. Call it
Karma. Now where is my voodoo doll and ten inch nails..........or
don't I even need them?
Di
Steve White
patr...@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote:
> A pox on them. I hope they live in fear of Katelyn being kidnapped
> until the day they die. And they will. A befitting sentence. Call it
> Karma. Now where is my voodoo doll and ten inch nails..........or
> don't I even need them?
I can't say for sure since I obviously don't know these folks, but I
rather suspect that if they knew of your curse towards them, they'd
probably ... snicker. Giggle. Laugh at you. I would.
steve
Sue Tretter
Dian wrote:
<snip>
> A pox on them. I hope they live in fear of Katelyn being kidnapped
> until the day they die.
<snip>
Di, when you're wishing these evil outcomes on adoptive parents,
do you EVER stop to consider what effect there might be on the child?
I hope Katelyn has to endure none of the evils you wish on her legal-
but-not-in-my-opinion-ethical parents.
Imo, Katelyn will have enough problems without your "help".
Best wishes. Sue T.
Sue Tretter
Dian wrote:
> <snip>
> Let's, Sue. Unless I am mistaken the US has similar laws to most other
> western countries.
I believe your premise is incorrect. After reading your posts, those of
Julia, Helen, and others in "western countries" I would posit that our
laws with regard to adoption and the best interests of the child are
INFERIOR to many of the laws you all have.
> Have you forgotten them? Those laws include
> protecting people from themselves and from exploitation, coersion etc.
This might be another Ben Franklin-wrote-the-Declaration type note.
To my knowledge, unless a person has been adjudged a threat to himself
or society, there are no laws which PREVENT his harming himself,
being exploited, coerced, etc. There are laws which may seek to undo
some of the damage, or to penalize the bad guys ...
I could be wrong on this. I look forward to reading what the legal
experts have to say about your point.
We do have laws against suicide so maybe those would support your
point, Di.
> Unfortunately those smae laws tend to get overlooked in the US when
> it comes to preying upon the vulnerable pregnant woman who has
> someone elses potential happiness in her belly. And when it coomes to
> saving the taxpayers dollar.
I would agree that potential first moms are unequally/unfairly treated in US
adoption schemes. That's why I advocate for more and better adoption
laws.
> I believe they are now spending 8 million taxpayers dollars to coerse
> young mothers into relinquishing.
Is "they" the US government?
> What's up...not enough needy
> children in your care system to go around, or can't they cure
> infertility yet after the billions of taxpayers dollars that go into
> trying to find a cure for it?
I doubt that you want to hear my views on US governmental policies.
Best wishes. Sue T.
Jackie C
wrote:
snipped some..cause I am very sick of scrolling..here
I wrote..
>> Someone to teach her about parenting.. or someone to take the child
>> till she is ready to parent..
>
>I'm all for teaching people how to parent, if that's what they want to do.
>And I'm all for someone adopting the child because it needs and deserves
>people who are already up-to-speed on the basics of parenting.
What do you think of taking a child on the day that child is born..
asking the woman to sign the papers knowing she has not slept for
days?
>> Hmmm what a concept..
>
>Yup.
>
>> <snip>
>> >No, the decision about having a baby should be made before it is
>> >conceived, imo.
>>
>> Crap. IMO that is a cop out..
>
>*THAT* is incredible, but I'm leaving it in.
No one is perfect Sue.. even you..
>> Jackie wrote of adoption laws:
>> Lousy ones in Kansas.. IMO
>
>Lousy in my state too. I don't know of any state with perfect or near-perfect
>laws.
Kansas is not even close to be anywhere near perfect.
It is horrible what happens to *some* women there..
> And though I'm not positive about Canada, I haven't heard that
>thousands of potential first moms are flocking to any Canadian province
>to have their babies born there, due to your superior laws.
The state should protect *all* it citizens.. and I have yet to hear
about an adoption in Canada like the one that happened recently in
Kansas..
>> <snip>
>> Its the old you got pregnant, you made your bed, now lie in it..
>> Sorry it just does not cut it for me anymore.
>
>No, it's the NEW, you made your bed, hope you don't merely lie
>in it, but the state is going to see that your totally dependent child
>doesn't have to wait around to see if you get your act together.
One friken day?
Are you saying it is okay to ask a person to sign the papers on the
day the baby is born?
><snip>
>
>> Ah but what if she is told that if she signs pre birth and on the day
>> the baby is born.. they will all be one big happy family..
>
>I think I said this recently but I'll repeat: gullibility isn't one of my
>most-desired qualities in a new parent. Often it's a recipe for the
>child's disaster.
So the gullible loose..
Nice one..
>> <snip>
>>
>> I give up..
>
>You give up but persist in sending this note? Seems strange to me.
I give up on trying to get that particular point across to you Sue..
Good little insult tho.. well handled..
><snip>
>
>> <snip 8 lines of what Jackie hates>
>>
>> <snip some more>
>>
>> I am passionate about that book.. I traveled across the country,
>> spending a lot of Canadian money, to meet Rickie Solinger after
>> reading 'Wake up Little Susie'..
>> I will stand on a street corner and read passages from that book if I
>> thought someone would listen..
>
>I'd rather you didn't because I think it would result in the same thing
>that happened here: your posts about the book caused people to
>reject the book and possibly the author.
Awe.. and we all must be intellectually distant musn't we..
We are all so clever and well read..
>I want people to READ Solinger, to appreciate her scholarship, to
>understand some of the dynamics --
My bad for spoiling this..
> maybe you could just purchase
>a few copies of the book and donate it to libraries where others
>might read it without your intervention???
No.. Sue sorry.. I am a passionate birth mother who loved that book..
and who is really upset that what happened to me is still happening..
to some..
>> <snip>
>
>> IMO there are more trees in the forest than you choose to
>> acknowledge..
>
>I'm not going to argue trees/forests with you, Jackie. Think what
>you will on that point.
Okay..
But I noticed you snipped the point I was making..
Again.. good one Sue..
>> >> <snip>
>> I asked..
>> >> Who are the ones who are truly without choice then?
>> >
>> >Glad you asked.
>> >Let's see people without choices include:
>> >1. each child conceived and born ...
>>
>> The nature of the beast.. IMO
>>
>> >I'll begin again with respect to the adoption theme:
>> >1. Women who were captured by the military in Argentina, et al, and
>> >held completely incommunicado, until they had their babies, and then
>> >killed.
>>
>> Ah the real ones .. according to you..
>
>You did ask who are those "truly without choice"? Didn't you want to
>receive an answer? Was it a rhetorical question?
I know what you think of 'choice' in the US.. Sue..
IMO that is why you want to intellectualize Solingers book..
>
>> >2. Women who have not the mental capacity to think, plan, hope, dream
>> >for themselves or anyone else.
>>
>> What of the emotional capacity? We cannot actually monitor that, can
>> we..
>> We can not put an IQ test on emotions..
>
>People lacking a minimal level of "emotional capacity" aren't good parental
>candidates, Jackie.
Who are you to judge..
>> What of the ones who do not have the emotional capacity to go against
>> their parents and or society?
>
>Well, if those people can demonstrate to me that their parents and society
>(not just the media and advertisers) ENCOURAGED them to have premarital
>sex and to bear a child they aren't ready/willing/able to parent, I'll relook
>at the dynamics.
How cut and dried you are..
> Until then, I suspect that most unmarried potential first
>moms got a strong "Do not!" message from someone, a parent, teacher,
>coach, Sunday School teacher, etc.
And if they "do" it they loose the kid.. in some places.. like
Kansas..
>> <snip>
>
>> >4. Women who live in countries where equality is an unknown concept,
>> >where poverty consigns you to a certain role in life, with absolutely
>> >no hope of escaping.
>>
>> Ah.. are you speaking about women in America who are living below the
>> poverty line and can not get an abortion because they can not afford
>> to pay cash for said abortion?
>
>No. But since you brought up that issue, I'll address it. The yearly cost of
>some contraceptives is, I expect, less than the cost of an abortion. Celibacy
>carries an even lower cost.
But if a poor woman gets pregnant by mistake she is between a rock and
a hard place.. btw..I learned this in Solingers latest book.
And hey it upsets me..
My bad..
>> >5. Women who live in countries where the worth of a female baby
>> >is considered vastly inferior to the worth of a male baby.
>> >Need more? I was just getting going, but that seems enough for now.
>>
>> This is happening in America.. now IMO
>
>Jackie, you do know what "vastly" means, don't you?
Ohhhh Sue.. I went past your oh so important remark..
>> <snip>
>> Did we read the same book?
>
>I assume that Solinger didn't put out two versions of the same book, but
>I read mine with some objectivity.
LOL
>> <snip>
>>
>> >> If she has to decide between paying the rent or having an abortion she
>> >> does not have choice..
>> >
>> >JACKIE, YOU HAVE JUST GIVEN EVIDENCE OF A CHOICE!
>> >Do you get it now?
>>
>> So she goes to live on the street and has an abortion..
>
>More choices.
Again.. LOL
>> Have you ever been on welfare Sue?
>
>Welfare is yet another choice, if the young woman qualifies. Not a great
>choice, but a choice nonetheless.
You did not answer..
>> <snip>
>> I do not really care about what you think Sue..
>
>By the length of this note, it would seem that you do. Or perhaps you
>are unable to refrain from responding.
I enjoy the banter..
IMO you are totally emotionally disconnected from all this.. and it is
interesting to debate with someone such as you..
>> <snip>
>>
>> It is like talking with a librarian..
>
>Thanks for another compliment, Jackie.
>
>> <snip>
>> Quit inferring that my thinking is wrong thinking Sue.. it is
>> insulting..
>
>Imo, what is insulting is your disregard for children in need.
If the state helped women rather then spending their money elsewhere
the children would not be 'disregarded' by their mothers..
What of a womans right to keep her child even if she does not have a
lot of money..
What of a womans right to abort her child even if she does not have
'any' money..
>And as always I'll say what I believe needs to be said for as long
>as I'm here.
As do I.
Jackie
Jackie C
<maddog...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>"Sue Tretter" <ses...@home.com> wrote in message
>news:3C370F7A...@home.com...
>>
>>
>> Jackie C wrote:
>> <snipping the incredible>
>>
>Jackie:
>> > A woman has an untimely pregnancy her
>> > decisions are what happens in the panic or situations she encounters..
>> > A good and just society should be there to help her..
>>
>
>>
>> > Someone to teach her about parenting.. or someone to take the child
>> > till she is ready to parent..
>
>What if sheh doesn't want to parent?
I am addressing her human right to ask for this from her fellow man..
or woman..
>snip
>>
>Sue:
>> I'd rather you didn't because I think it would result in the same thing
>> that happened here: your posts about the book caused people to
>> reject the book and possibly the author.
>> I want people to READ Solinger, to appreciate her scholarship, to
>> understand some of the dynamics -- maybe you could just purchase
>> a few copies of the book and donate it to libraries where others
>> might read it without your intervention???
>
>RIckie's' book is one of the most important I've ever read on how adoption
>operates in the US, but after you got through with it here I was nearly sick
>of it. Fortunately, I know the difference between scholarship
>self-victimization rhetoric.
Nice put down Marley..
Well not very nice.. to put it bluntly..
Jackie
Marley Greiner
It was not meant as a putdown, Jackie. Rickie's book, as I have always
said, is one of the most important books on adoption out there. My only
problem is that you've universalized her thesis, something that Rickie as a
scholar, doesn't do. She's pointed out patterns of practice, policy,
exploitation and attitude, within a framework of feminist theory and
analysis. I think it's wonderful that her work has spoken to you and helped
you place your own experience within that pattern. It's important to know
that your experience is part of a "universal" but that doesn't mean that the
"universal" is true for everyone.
Marley
Sue Tretter
Jackie C wrote:
<snip>
> What do you think of taking a child on the day that child is born..
> asking the woman to sign the papers knowing she has not slept for
> days?
If you're sick of scrolling, why re-ask a question when you already
know the answer?
> <snip>
> No one is perfect Sue.. even you..
ESPECIALLY me.
> <snip>
> Kansas is not even close to be anywhere near perfect.
Jackie, it might be more effective if you would contribute to righting the
wrongs of your country's adoption system while those of us who actually
live in the USA and have some affection for it, seek to right the wrongs
here.
> It is horrible what happens to *some* women there..
Horrible things happen all over the world Jackie. And none of us have
the stamina to do battle on all fronts at all times. Most of us prioritize
our efforts ... that doesn't mean that what I do is more (or less) important
than what you and others work on ...
> <snip>
> The state should protect *all* it citizens..
Yes, it should. But women have some means of protecting themselves,
assuming that they aren't nearly brain dead. Infants and small children
have more limited means of protecting themselves. Further, it's not the
children who had sex and became pregnant with themselves!
<snip>
> One friken day?
I have no idea what that means. Care to explain?
> Are you saying it is okay to ask a person to sign the papers on the
> day the baby is born?
Another question that's been asked of me and which I've answered, often
AT LENGTH, uncounted times.
> <snip>
> >I think I said this recently but I'll repeat: gullibility isn't one of my
> >most-desired qualities in a new parent. Often it's a recipe for the
> >child's disaster.
>
> So the gullible loose..
Often they do. Often the children of the guillible are the losers.
> <snip>
> Awe.. and we all must be intellectually distant musn't we..
"intellectually distant"? If that means what I think it means, no, I don't
agree that anyone must be intellectually distant.
> <snip>
> Sue T: I want people to READ Solinger, to appreciate her scholarship, to
> >understand some of the dynamics --
>
> My bad for spoiling this..
I saw your open letter to R.S. And I've thanked you for it.
If you wish, we can discuss the intellectual and/or emotional abilities
of those who would allow your posts to dissaude them from reading a
book that you, Marley and I have praised. Also the honesty of those
self-reports.
> > maybe you could just purchase
> >a few copies of the book and donate it to libraries where others
> >might read it without your intervention???
>
> No.. Sue sorry.. I am a passionate birth mother who loved that book..
> and who is really upset that what happened to me is still happening..
> to some..
Exactly why I suggested that you purchase copies and place them in
libraries SO THAT A WIDER AUDIENCE CAN HAVE ACCESS
TO SOLINGER, so that her good sense, good scholarship, and good
writing can be more widely disseminated.
Without fear of their introduction to Solinger being contaminated by
your "passions".
It was a PRO-Solinger suggestion, Jackie.
> <snip>
> But if a poor woman gets pregnant by mistake she is between a rock and
> a hard place.. btw..I learned this in Solingers latest book.
> And hey it upsets me..
It upsets me too that wealthy women have access to abortion, while poor
women don't. It upsets me so much that I long ago decided to do something
to help offset the unequality. You could make the same choice. If enough
of us do "something" the inequality is likely to shift in favor of poor women.
> <snip>
> Ohhhh Sue.. I went past your oh so important remark..
I think that is a problem in your communications here, Jackie. Not
everyone means what they write and writes what they mean, but I do.
> <snip>
>
> You did not answer..
I didn't intend to. When I first entered the online scene, I felt comfortable
sharing lots of information about me, my family, my situation. I have since
learned that not everyone is a PollyAnna, not everyone is pacific, not every-
one is sane ... so I post less personal information.
> <snip>
> I enjoy the banter..
I don't.
What I enjoy is education, learning, increasing my knowledge base, and
seeing others do the same.
> <snip>
> If the state helped women rather then spending their money elsewhere
> the children would not be 'disregarded' by their mothers..
I think you actually *believe* that.
Maybe in Canada (though I doubt it) but millions of dollars have been
expended to that end. What was found was that a small number of women
and children were aided, but that the expenditure was not cost effective.
(There are a few programs in which SMALL numbers of VERY CAREFULLY
SELECTED participants were offered EXTENSIVE and EXTENDED services
and the results were good.)
> What of a womans right to keep her child even if she does not have a
> lot of money..
Such a right does not (to my knowledge) exist in the USA. And the sense
of such a right is being further eroded year by year, imo.
> What of a womans right to abort her child even if she does not have
> 'any' money..
To my knowledge, there is no such right -- and you should know that after
reading Solinger.
Best wishes. Sue T.
The All-Powerful All-Knowing One
>From: Jackie C jda...@newsguy.com
>Date: Fri, Dec 28, 2001 7:31 PM
>Message-id: <dl3q2u8mrg1qve7ch...@4ax.com>
>
>On 28 Dec 2001 12:08:59 -0800, rkb...@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose)
>wrote:
>
>>> >..............The proposal is modest because it merely extends to birth
>mothers a liberty now enjoyed by many adoption agencies: the liberty to
>sell parental rights to adoptive parents at mutually agreeable prices. The
>proposal is worthwhile because it promises gains to all relevant parties
>to adoptions--birth mothers, couples wishing to adopt infants, and children.
>
>>> >
>>> I am fascinated with this topic.
>>>
>>I suspect it's very tongue-in-cheek. "A Modest Proposal" was the title
>>of an essay proposing the breeding and sale of babies for meat.
>>
>>Rupa
>
>
>I honestly believe some of these folks are serious Rupa..
>
>I spent an afternoon following these web pages..
I thought you didn't have time to read web pages!
Ghoulagirl.
"Don't you try to out-weird me, honey; I get stranger things than you free with
my breakfast cereal."
- Zaphad Beeblebrox, "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" (Douglas Adams)
KL
ghoul...@aol.com.net (The All-Powerful All-Knowing One) writes:
>>Subject: Re: New Topic---Posner---Sue T? Marley?
>>From: Jackie C jda...@newsguy.com
>>Date: Fri, Dec 28, 2001 7:31 PM
>>Message-id: <dl3q2u8mrg1qve7ch...@4ax.com>
>>
>>On 28 Dec 2001 12:08:59 -0800, rkb...@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>> >..............The proposal is modest because it merely extends to birth
>>mothers a liberty now enjoyed by many adoption agencies: the liberty to
>>sell parental rights to adoptive parents at mutually agreeable prices. The
>>proposal is worthwhile because it promises gains to all relevant parties
>>to adoptions--birth mothers, couples wishing to adopt infants, and children.
>>
>>>> >
>>>> I am fascinated with this topic.
>>>>
>>>I suspect it's very tongue-in-cheek. "A Modest Proposal" was the title
>>>of an essay proposing the breeding and sale of babies for meat.
>>>
>>>Rupa
>>
>>
>>I honestly believe some of these folks are serious Rupa..
>>
>>I spent an afternoon following these web pages..
>
> I thought you didn't have time to read web pages!
>
>Ghoulagirl.
Not when they don't support her views, silly!
The All-Powerful All-Knowing One
>Date: Tue, Jan 8, 2002 12:37 PM
>Message-id: <20020108123751...@mb-ci.aol.com>
Oh sorry, I forgot.
Ghoulagirl.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy."
- Obi-Wan Kenobi, "Star Wars".
Jackie C
<maddog...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>It was not meant as a putdown, Jackie. Rickie's book, as I have always
>said, is one of the most important books on adoption out there. My only
>problem is that you've universalized her thesis, something that Rickie as a
>scholar, doesn't do.
I am not a scholar..
I am a person who has been greatly triggered by what that woman wrote
in that book..
I do not see the wrong in reacting emotionally to what she wrote and
or documented..
IMO that is the reason she wrote that book..
Or, I sure as hell hope that was the reason..
> She's pointed out patterns of practice, policy,
>exploitation and attitude, within a framework of feminist theory and
>analysis.
Right a scholars book.
Is it going to be a book that folks read in University?
What of the women who are actually living the lives she documents?
The uneducated one.. the ones in the front lines..
The ones that do not have a 'choice'.. The 'beggars'.
Or are the University types too good for this kind of 'front line'
thinking.. and wish to keep it as a 'scholars' book?
Telling persons like me to not interpret what she has written and or
documented..
I sure as hell am not going to comment on it any more.. here.
> I think it's wonderful that her work has spoken to you and helped
>you place your own experience within that pattern.
Bloody hell Marley..
It gave me very important information and triggered deep gut
feelings..
It happened.. I was raped in that doctors office and it did happen to
others (bless you Rickie Solinger for including that in your book)..
Don't you see Marley it made it real for me..
I can not remain 'distant' from what she wrote..
>It's important to know
>that your experience is part of a "universal" but that doesn't mean that the
>"universal" is true for everyone.
Ya.. and pigs fly..
The subject of that book is way to 'real' for the kind of distance you
speak about.. IMO.
Jackie
Marley Greiner
> On Mon, 07 Jan 2002 20:24:48 GMT, "Marley Greiner"
> <maddog...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >It was not meant as a putdown, Jackie. Rickie's book, as I have always
> >said, is one of the most important books on adoption out there. My only
> >problem is that you've universalized her thesis, something that Rickie
as a
> >scholar, doesn't do.
>
> I am not a scholar..
> I am a person who has been greatly triggered by what that woman wrote
> in that book..
>
> I do not see the wrong in reacting emotionally to what she wrote and
> or documented..
There isn't. Don DiLillo's' do it to me. John Dos Passio's USA trilogy
changed my life. The world is full of people where a book made a
difference.
>
> IMO that is the reason she wrote that book..
Well, she's a scholar and she's writing about a segment of American history.
History isn't written for emotional impact per se, unless it's nothing but
propaganda. History, of course, though it can have a true and emotional
impact on people, and that's good. History is of no use unless it means
something to those who follow it.
EP Thompson has a famous line: "history is the discipline of context." I
see history as an abyss from which fragments can be recovered and used to
explain the past, but history is illusive There's the old dictum that it's
written by the victors, which is true. 30 years ago the "loosers" had no
voice. We had top down history. Now with the emergence of social and
cultural history the voices of others are now heard, but at ER Karr wrote
there can never be a full history of everything because not all can be
known, but more importantly, everyone's experiences are different even if
the facts were known. Anyone who's ever been to a trial knows that. Five
people at the scene of an accident can see five different things, feel 5
different things. History is synthesis dictated by the compiler and the
sources available to her and out of those soures what is ichosen--a compiler
who has her or his own perjuries and limitations. There is no simple
truth, no universals. Everything is fragmented and the historian can only
try to put together a patterns, but the silences, the unknowns will always
be there. It's very difficult to be an historian--ir anything else-- in
post-modern culture..
>
> Or, I sure as hell hope that was the reason..
>
> > She's pointed out patterns of practice, policy,
> >exploitation and attitude, within a framework of feminist theory and
> >analysis.
>
> Right a scholars book.
> Is it going to be a book that folks read in University?
It will be read by some scholars in some disciplines: family history and
women's studies for instance. It will be used as reference in other works.
Scholarship is building blocks, and Rickie's work is some of the most
important out there in adoption literature. She wants people to build on
what she's done.
>
> What of the women who are actually living the lives she documents?
> The uneducated one.. the ones in the front lines..
> The ones that do not have a 'choice'.. The 'beggars'.
I doubt they. They don't read much of anything.
>
> Or are the University types too good for this kind of 'front line'
> thinking.. and wish to keep it as a 'scholars' book?
> Telling persons like me to not interpret what she has written and or
> documented..
USAians don't read books to start with. It has nothing to do with anyone
keeping something a scholar's book. It's not something a 15 year old Maury
girl would understand, though. It's not something most people even care
about In many respects it's an attack on repro "rights" people and
mainstream feminism, which is one of the big reasons I like it. Most people
read on the level of a 12-year old (probably less now than when I was
studying journalism). Nothing is going to change until policy mentality
changes, until social engineers change, until the Right gets out of the
bedroom, Republicans are thrown out of office, and the Democrats get a
spine.
>
> I sure as hell am not going to comment on it any more.. here.
>
> > I think it's wonderful that her work has spoken to you and helped
> >you place your own experience within that pattern.
>
> Bloody hell Marley..
> It gave me very important information and triggered deep gut
> feelings..
I know it did. Am I criticizing that?
>
> It happened.. I was raped in that doctors office and it did happen to
> others (bless you Rickie Solinger for including that in your book)..
> Don't you see Marley it made it real for me..
Did I say it didn't?
>
> I can not remain 'distant' from what she wrote..
Who says you said? I didn't. Books are powerful tools of self-revelation
and regeneration.
>
>
> >It's important to know
> >that your experience is part of a "universal" but that doesn't mean that
the
> >"universal" is true for everyone.
>
> Ya.. and pigs fly..
Well, PM is certainly not universal for adoptess. No one's experience is
universal There are patterns but not universalities. We have
multiplicities of experience.
>
> The subject of that book is way to 'real' for the kind of distance you
> speak about.. IMO.
I wasn't asking for distance, Jackie. Where did you get that idea?
Marley
>
>
>
>
> Jackie
>
Alex Wolfson
> John Dos Passio's USA trilogy
> changed my life.
Damn Marley, Me too.
Marley Greiner
though perjuries could be accurate too!
Marley
"Marley Greiner" <maddog...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:o_G%7.79986$fe1.1...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Marley Greiner
"Alex Wolfson" <awol...@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:3C3F40BE...@lucent.com...
I read in the summer of 1968 and it just blew me away. I never recovered.
Marley
Windforest
until social engineers change, until Right gets out of the bedroom,
Republicans are thrown out of office. and the Democrats get a spine.
Me: Awesome Marley and how true how very true.
Windforest
Dian
> Dian wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > A pox on them. I hope they live in fear of Katelyn being kidnapped
> > until the day they die.
>
> <snip>
>
> Di, when you're wishing these evil outcomes on adoptive parents,
> do you EVER stop to consider what effect there might be on the child?
>
> I hope Katelyn has to endure none of the evils you wish on her legal-
> but-not-in-my-opinion-ethical parents.
> Imo, Katelyn will have enough problems without your "help".
>
She has already been cursed without my assistance, Sue. By the time
she's at school someone is bound to tell her how the monsters she is
living with fought to deprived her of her mother. You can con children
for only so long. Poor kid.
Di
> Best wishes. Sue T.
The All-Powerful All-Knowing One
>Message-id: <c599139c.0201...@posting.google.com>
Maybe they'll even tell her that her grandmother is the one who forced her
mother to give her away!
You can con children
>for only so long. Poor kid.
Indeed.
Jackie C
<maddog...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>"Jackie C" <jda...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>news:fkvt3u8ai6v9uhj82...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 07 Jan 2002 20:24:48 GMT, "Marley Greiner"
>> <maddog...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >It was not meant as a putdown, Jackie. Rickie's book, as I have always
>> >said, is one of the most important books on adoption out there. My only
>> >problem is that you've universalized her thesis, something that Rickie
>as a
>> >scholar, doesn't do.
>>
>> I am not a scholar..
>> I am a person who has been greatly triggered by what that woman wrote
>> in that book..
>>
>> I do not see the wrong in reacting emotionally to what she wrote and
>> or documented..
>
>There isn't. Don DiLillo's' do it to me. John Dos Passio's USA trilogy
>changed my life. The world is full of people where a book made a
>difference.
After reading Wake Up Little Susie.. I spent all that money to travel
to where you guys were in SanFrancisco and meet her and listen to her
speak.
Marley that was the main reason I went..
>> IMO that is the reason she wrote that book..
>
>Well, she's a scholar and she's writing about a segment of American history.
>History isn't written for emotional impact per se, unless it's nothing but
>propaganda.
But the history she documents.. My friken history does have an
emotional impact on me.
Hence I re-act..
>History, of course, though it can have a true and emotional
>impact on people, and that's good. History is of no use unless it means
>something to those who follow it.
Exactly..
> EP Thompson has a famous line: "history is the discipline of context." I
>see history as an abyss from which fragments can be recovered and used to
>explain the past, but history is illusive There's the old dictum that it's
>written by the victors, which is true. 30 years ago the "loosers" had no
>voice. We had top down history. Now with the emergence of social and
>cultural history the voices of others are now heard, but at ER Karr wrote
>there can never be a full history of everything because not all can be
>known, but more importantly, everyone's experiences are different even if
>the facts were known.
Well I only comment on my personal experiences..
IMO that is all I can do..
>Anyone who's ever been to a trial knows that. Five
>people at the scene of an accident can see five different things, feel 5
>different things. History is synthesis dictated by the compiler and the
>sources available to her and out of those soures what is ichosen--a compiler
>who has her or his own perjuries and limitations. There is no simple
>truth, no universals.
Well when she wrote (in the back) what Bill Pierce said in a speech..
I knew that man was toast in my books..
btw.. I did quote it here..
>Everything is fragmented and the historian can only
>try to put together a patterns, but the silences, the unknowns will always
>be there. It's very difficult to be an historian--ir anything else-- in
>post-modern culture..
Well IMO she can not control what is said and done with her book..
The very last paragraph said something very important to me..
She said (*to me*) that it is up to women to see that all women in the
US or heck anywhere should make sure all women have a choice..
>> Or, I sure as hell hope that was the reason..
>>
>> > She's pointed out patterns of practice, policy,
>> >exploitation and attitude, within a framework of feminist theory and
>> >analysis.
>>
>> Right a scholars book.
>> Is it going to be a book that folks read in University?
>
>It will be read by some scholars in some disciplines: family history and
>women's studies for instance. It will be used as reference in other works.
>Scholarship is building blocks, and Rickie's work is some of the most
>important out there in adoption literature. She wants people to build on
>what she's done.
Well I am not going to be one of the persons that builds on her book
in a scholarly manner..
What I do with her book is gather the *facts* she has put out and use
them in my own personal healing..
IMO that is all I can do.
>> What of the women who are actually living the lives she documents?
>> The uneducated one.. the ones in the front lines..
>> The ones that do not have a 'choice'.. The 'beggars'.
>
>I doubt they. They don't read much of anything.
I wonder if the women in those Universities.. in those places of
'history' will reach out to their 'sisters' and help to give them the
right to either abort or keep their child.
IMO some of the women who sit in those higher learning places could
care less..
>> Or are the University types too good for this kind of 'front line'
>> thinking.. and wish to keep it as a 'scholars' book?
>> Telling persons like me to not interpret what she has written and or
>> documented..
>
>USAians don't read books to start with. It has nothing to do with anyone
>keeping something a scholar's book. It's not something a 15 year old Maury
>girl would understand, though. It's not something most people even care
>about In many respects it's an attack on repro "rights" people and
>mainstream feminism, which is one of the big reasons I like it.
I have always wondered why 'women's lib' did not encompass the women
who wanted to keep their children..
> Most people
>read on the level of a 12-year old (probably less now than when I was
>studying journalism). Nothing is going to change until policy mentality
>changes, until social engineers change, until the Right gets out of the
>bedroom, Republicans are thrown out of office, and the Democrats get a
>spine.
I have no hope for this..
But I had no problem reading the book.. and I am a grade nine drop
out..
I am a person who can not get a job at the friken post office.
The only way I can earn money is through my skills.. or my lies.. or
in the old days.. my looks..
Again.. me knowing this was part of the reason behind my not even
trying to keep my son.
>> I sure as hell am not going to comment on it any more.. here.
>>
>> > I think it's wonderful that her work has spoken to you and helped
>> >you place your own experience within that pattern.
>>
>> Bloody hell Marley..
>> It gave me very important information and triggered deep gut
>> feelings..
>
>I know it did. Am I criticizing that?
>>
>> It happened.. I was raped in that doctors office and it did happen to
>> others (bless you Rickie Solinger for including that in your book)..
>> Don't you see Marley it made it real for me..
>
>Did I say it didn't?
Well I feel that I should not be commenting on this here..
Quoting from the book where she actually documents this information.
What I did..
And you and others have said I quoted out of context..or it was
irrelevant.. or something like that..
>>
>> I can not remain 'distant' from what she wrote..
>
>Who says you said? I didn't. Books are powerful tools of self-revelation
>and regeneration.
Ah but I must not be enthusiastic, here, about it..
That was my take on what you and others posted..
>> >It's important to know
>> >that your experience is part of a "universal" but that doesn't mean that
>the
>> >"universal" is true for everyone.
>>
>> Ya.. and pigs fly..
>
>Well, PM is certainly not universal for adoptess. No one's experience is
>universal There are patterns but not universalities. We have
>multiplicities of experience.
>>
>> The subject of that book is way to 'real' for the kind of distance you
>> speak about.. IMO.
>
>I wasn't asking for distance, Jackie. Where did you get that idea?
The comments on my quotes and their irrelevance.
Jackie
Palms2pines
>> > until the day they die.>>
The hallmark of a CB. Wishing the adoptive family misery and misfortune. Who
cares if the child is hurt! It suits the CB agenda.
P2P
Palms2pines
>mother to give her away!
>
>
Maybe the child will have a great life, be happy with herself and her family,
and be thankful, once she is an adult, things went exactly as they did! I am
sure that possibility is enough to make a CB purple with rage.
P2P
Marley Greiner
"Palms2pines" <palms...@aol.comh8spam> wrote in message
news:20020112162524...@mb-de.aol.com...
It will all work itself out in time. It's all gonna come back on the the
adopters some day.
Marley
Palms2pines
how the lives of the people involved will unfold over the years. Some here
might feel there would be *justice* in the unhappiness (or whatever) of the
people who adopted Tarin's baby. But, they might never know anything but good
health, good times, wealth, good fortune. I would not wish them an unhappy
family life for the sake of the child.
>It will all work itself out in time. It's all gonna come back on the the
>adopters some day.
>
>Marley
>
>
P2P
Marley Greiner
"Palms2pines" <palms...@aol.comh8spam> wrote in message
That's very well possible. I would not want Katelyn to grow up a miserable
child. But these things can't be hidden, they'll come out, and there will
be some explaining to do.
Marley
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> P2P
The All-Powerful All-Knowing One
>Date: Sat, Jan 12, 2002 4:25 PM
>Message-id: <20020112162524...@mb-de.aol.com>
Pay attention, Palms - this is an example of that unconditional love that, as
a mere adopter, you can never hope to mimic.
The All-Powerful All-Knowing One
>From: palms...@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines)
>Message-id: <20020112162847...@mb-de.aol.com>
I wrote:
If it had been Di and her cohorts standing in front of King Solomon, the baby
would've been cut in half for sure!
Kathy
>Date: 1/12/02 2:12 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <Bx208.350961$W8.13...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
Using the same line of thought, it's all gonna come back on the relinquishers
some day.
There's two sides of the story. Remember we've only heard one, and that's
Melinda's version. And a very slanted one at best, imo. This woman changes her
story to suit herself, again imo. Tarin actually has had Melinda do her
speaking for her. And that just sucks because I just bet Tarin KNOWS more about
her own story than anyone else does.
>Marley
Kathy
"To err is human; to forgive, divine."
The All-Powerful All-Knowing One
>Date: Sat, Jan 12, 2002 9:44 PM
>Message-id: <20020112214436...@mb-mq.aol.com>
Unfortunately, Tarin is FORBIDDEN to come to a.a. and speak for herself. I
wonder why.
Palms2pines
>wonder why.
>
>Ghoulagirl.
>
Who forbade her, heaven forbid!
P2P
The All-Powerful All-Knowing One
>Date: Sat, Jan 12, 2002 11:55 PM
>Message-id: <20020112235505...@mb-bk.aol.com>
Who do you think? HER MOMMY!
Kathy
>Date: 1/12/02 8:47 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <20020112234732...@mb-mv.aol.com>
Control freak for a mother would be my guess.
>Ghoulagirl.
>
>"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy."
>
> - Obi-Wan Kenobi, "Star Wars".
Kathy
LilMtnCbn
>Message-id: <20020112234732...@mb-mv.aol.com>
Well, uh, because she has Jackie and Melinda to tell her story. The one where
Meliinda is the savior/victim, of course.
The All-Powerful All-Knowing One
>From: meag...@aol.comsthesun (Kathy)
>Message-id: <20020113000849...@mb-cu.aol.com>
Kewpie doll?
The All-Powerful All-Knowing One
>Date: Sun, Jan 13, 2002 12:30 AM
>Message-id: <20020113003038...@mb-fz.aol.com>
Of course.
This isn't about Tarin or the baby, you know. This is all about Melinda.
LilMtnCbn
>From: ghoul...@aol.com.net (The All-Powerful All-Knowing One)
>Message-id: <20020113004313...@mb-fo.aol.com>
You mean this isn't about Jackie? Damn! I'm confused!
The All-Powerful All-Knowing One
>Message-id: <20020113004806...@mb-fz.aol.com>
Well, it's about Jackie too, but I'm not sure how. Oh, do you know what
Jackie said about me on Origins? She said, "I do not think Kim sees the pain
of others.. she does not want to see it IMO.. It's all about her, always has
been.. "
Oh the irony.
Kathy
>From: ghoul...@aol.com.net (The All-Powerful All-Knowing One)
>Message-id: <20020113004238...@mb-fo.aol.com>
Oh the humanity!
>Ghoulagirl.
>
>"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy."
>
> - Obi-Wan Kenobi, "Star Wars".
Kathy
LilMtnCbn
>From: ghoul...@aol.com.net (The All-Powerful All-Knowing One)
>Message-id: <20020113005613...@mb-fo.aol.com>
LOL! Well don't forget. Adoptees OWE their bparents, and don't you fucking
forget it.
The All-Powerful All-Knowing One
>Message-id: <20020113005817...@mb-fz.aol.com>
How on Earth COULD I forget?? We've been over it about a million times so
far!
Dian
> >Subject: Re: Jackie's thoughts ... to logical conclusion ...
> >From: "Marley Greiner" maddog...@worldnet.att.net
> >Date: 1/12/02 2:12 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <Bx208.350961$W8.13...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
> >
> >
> >"Palms2pines" <palms...@aol.comh8spam> wrote in message
> >news:20020112162524...@mb-de.aol.com...
> >> >> > A pox on them. I hope they live in fear of Katelyn being kidnapped
> >> >> > until the day they die.>>
> >>
> >> The hallmark of a CB. Wishing the adoptive family misery and misfortune.
> Who
> >> cares if the child is hurt! It suits the CB agenda.
> >>
> >>
> >> P2P
> >
> >It will all work itself out in time. It's all gonna come back on the the
> >adopters some day.
>
> Using the same line of thought, it's all gonna come back on the relinquishers
> some day.
>
But Tarin and Meinda went to court to try to get the child back. Thas'
more than we can say for any of our parents. Did yours? Is this why
you are so against Melinda, because your parents didn't do the same
for you?
They have proof positive that they didn't want to give her up but lost
her due to a court ruling. Big difference.
> There's two sides of the story.
And the adopters will never be able to say Katelyns mother gave her up
to have a better life or that she didn't want her.
Remember we've only heard one, and that's
> Melinda's version. And a very slanted one at best, imo. This woman changes her
> story to suit herself, again imo. Tarin actually has had Melinda do her
> speaking for her. And that just sucks because I just bet Tarin KNOWS more about
> her own story than anyone else does.
>
Her mother went in to bat for her. Again - did yours?
Di >
Kathy
>Date: 1/12/02 10:44 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <c599139c.02011...@posting.google.com>
>meag...@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in message
>news:<20020112214436.05471.00002
>> >It will all work itself out in time. It's all gonna come back on the the
>> >adopters some day.
>>
>> Using the same line of thought, it's all gonna come back on the
>relinquishers
>> some day.
>But Tarin and Meinda went to court to try to get the child back. Thas'
>more than we can say for any of our parents
This is true. However that doesn't negate the fact that there are two sides to
every story.
<snip>
rkbose
> meag...@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote
>
> And the adopters will never be able to say Katelyns mother gave her up
> to have a better life
Why not? It's plausible enough that she did, initially, apprehending that the child wouldn't be welcome in
her step-father's home. Beyond that, I suppose the courtcase spells it out so clearly that if the child
grows up as smart as Tarin and Melinda (and not as dull as her other 3 grandparents), then she will figure
it out for herself.
Ideally, of course, Tarin can get the open adoption re-established. Sounds unlikely now, but stranger
things have happened.
Rupa
KL
patr...@bigpond.com.au (Dian) writes:
<SNIP>
>Her mother went in to bat for her. Again - did yours?
Yes, she did....she offered me a better chance at a better life. She knew she
couldn't support me. So she relinquished me to adoption to parents who could
support me.
KL
"You don't love someone because they are beautiful, they are beautiful because
you love them." - Anon.
Dian
> Dian wrote:
>
> > meag...@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote
> >
> > And the adopters will never be able to say Katelyns mother gave her up
> > to have a better life
>
> Why not?
Given they tried to get her back through the courts, I'd say it was
clear that
that little explanation won't wash. They can always lie of course but
they will never know when Katelyn will find out the truth.
I would love to be a fly on the wall when they tell her how she came
to be adopted. I can see the sleepless nights and their noses growing
as we speak.
It's plausible enough that she did, initially, apprehending that the
child wouldn't be welcome in
> her step-father's home. Beyond that, I suppose the courtcase spells it out so clearly that if the child
> grows up as smart as Tarin and Melinda (and not as dull as her other 3 grandparents), then she will figure
> it out for herself.
You can bet on it.
>
> Ideally, of course, Tarin can get the open adoption re-established. Sounds unlikely now, but stranger
> things have happened.
>
Melinda and Tarin know who the adopters are and where they live. Their
identity is hardly a secret. They can keep an eye on them or make
contact with Katelyn at any time they see fit.
So as I said, there will be many sleepless nights and no peace for
them for as long as they live I suspect. Always looking over their
shoulders, and deservedly so. Why should the child be forced to live
their lie? Afterall,
don't they say its always best to tell the child the truth about
thier adoptions?
Di
> Rupa
Becky Young
computer.
In article <20020112235505...@mb-bk.aol.com>,
palms...@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) writes:
>Who forbade her, heaven forbid!
Becky Young
....Though nothing can bring back the hour of splendour in the grass, of glory
in the flower, We will grieve not; rather find strength in what remains behind
-- William Wordsworth
Becky Young
I'd personally wish that Katelynn have as free and happy a childhood that she
could possibly have. You want revenge on her adoptive parents at her cost.
In article <c599139c.02011...@posting.google.com>,
patr...@bigpond.com.au (Dian) writes:
>
>So as I said, there will be many sleepless nights and no peace for
>them for as long as they live I suspect. Always looking over their
>shoulders, and deservedly so.
helicon
"The All-Powerful All-Knowing One" <ghoul...@aol.com.net> wrote in message
news:20020113005613...@mb-fo.aol.com...
> Oh the irony.
Oh the eye-popping, jaw-dropping, sheer, unadulterated *condescension* of
it all. Darn.
Helen
helicon
"Dian" <patr...@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message
news:c599139c.02011...@posting.google.com...
EVEN in Kansas, are there not laws against *stalking8?
Helen
Eldie
>
>So as I said, there will be many sleepless nights and no peace for
>them for as long as they live I suspect. Always looking over their
>shoulders, and deservedly so. >>
Becky:<< It bothers me that you would want the child to live in a situation
like this.
I'd personally wish that Katelynn have as free and happy a childhood that she
could possibly have. You want revenge on her adoptive parents at her cost. >>
I don't see why it is so difficult to understand that wishing a pox on the
aparents in this case does not mean that anyone wishes bad things to happen to
K. I could be angry at someone, wish they would die and go straight to hell
without wishing that his wife be left a widow, his children fatherless, his
parents childless, his employer without a worker, his mortgage holder without
someone to pay it, his pet without someone to haul in the feed, his lawn
without someone to mow it, his car with no one to maintain it, his local
carry-out, or his barber, or his manicurist one customer short of a profit, his
union one vote short of a favorable contract, his crops with no one to harvest
them.
So, while it is always an uncertain thing to rewrite someone's post, let me
suggest that what Di means to say is that she hopes this child has a marvelous,
wonderful life with loving, kind adults to care for her, and she hopes the
aparents suffer the rigors of hell. All at the same time. So it's a
contradiction. Who cares.
eldie
helicon
"Eldie" <el...@aol.comcomcom> wrote in message
news:20020113104513...@mb-fm.aol.com...
It says a lot about you, Eldie - and about Dian. While I am not surprised at
Di's reaction, I am surprised at your tolerance of such a hateful attitude
towards other human beings.
Wishing ill on others has a habit of coming back at you. You know the saying
I'm sure "what goes round, comes round"? I suggest you might duck.
Helen
>
> eldie