"Telling" and the emergence of the ARM
Pierceforhimself
>From: Toff Philipppo cphi...@NYCAP.rr.com
>Date: 09/03/2000 6:30 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id:
>I posed this question in one of my other posts. I was curiosu to know more
>about
>what common ground we might have. Do you at least believe that adoptees have
>the
>right to know that they were adopted?
My personal opinion is that adoptive parents, except for rare exceptions that
they make for reasons that have to do with the best interests of the adopted
person -- and I do not mean the word "rare" to be understood as a loophole --
should tell the adopted person that she or he is adopted and should do so in a
developmentally sensitive and appropriate manner. There are, of course, at
least four different theories that I know of about the matter of "telling."
To the issue of whether there was searching in pre WWII days, I agree that
there was. My point is that it was not common, not organized and was not a
consideration that people in adoption gave any thought to. Paton, for all of
her efforts, was not an organizer. Florence of ALMA was and so were the people
with CUB. That was when the ARM really got its start, IMO.
Pierceforhimself
Toff Philipppo
Pierceforhimself wrote:
> My personal opinion is that adoptive parents, except for rare exceptions that
> they make for reasons that have to do with the best interests of the adopted
> person -- and I do not mean the word "rare" to be understood as a loophole --
> should tell the adopted person that she or he is adopted and should do so in a
> developmentally sensitive and appropriate manner. There are, of course, at
> least four different theories that I know of about the matter of "telling."
Thanks for responding. I guess I can conceive of certain rare circumstances too,
perhaps if the adopted person were mentally retarded in such a way that they
wouldn't really understand what being adopted means.
> To the issue of whether there was searching in pre WWII days, I agree that
> there was. My point is that it was not common, not organized and was not a
> consideration that people in adoption gave any thought to. Paton, for all of
> her efforts, was not an organizer. Florence of ALMA was and so were the people
> with CUB. That was when the ARM really got its start, IMO.
I don't know that it wasn't common. As the quote I posted from the Erie County
Clerk stated, adoptees "usually" returned to the court for identifying
information. Even if we were to judge that to be hyperbole, it would seem to
indicate at least that searching was not rare, at least in that county. See also
below.
As to it not being organized (by which I think you mean there were not search and
support group for adoptees {or birthparents}), I suspect and am almost certain
that you're right.
As to it not being a consideration that people in adoption gave any thought to,
there, again, I don't agree. I think there is at least some evidence that it was
considered. I have, for example, a 1930s memorandum of the New York Foundling
Hospital (!) stating that the right of a person born out of wedlock “to know the
actual facts of his birth” is an “inalienable right.” See also the 1930s
memorandum from Catholic Charities (!)
http://www.bastards.org/activism/local/ny/hollymemo.htm where they write of the
"distress and heartache" that "the mere fact of being unable to trace family"
would cause (highlighting mine). I also have a 1944 study done by the New York
Department of Social Welfare, done, in part, in response to "adopted children
themselves, now grown, come for information about their natural background."
See also the numerous quotes in CARP regarding "people in adoption" recognizing
the existence of searching adoptees and acknowledging their right to do so. For
example, from 1919 "‘curious tendency on the part of young persons to dwell upon
their parentage. [...] persons have spent large sums of meny and much time in the
vain endeavor to learn of their parents.’" CARP, at 49.
Toff
Pierceforhimself
>From: Toff Philipppo cphi...@NYCAP.rr.com
>Date: 09/09/2000 12:34 PM Pac
> I have, for example, a 1930s memorandum of the New York Foundling
>Hospital (!) stating that the right of a person born out of wedlock “to know
>the
>actual facts of his birth” is an “inalienable right.” See also the
1930s
>memorandum from Catholic Charities (!)
>http://www.bastards.org/activism/local/ny/hollymemo.htm where they write of
>the
>"distress and heartache" that "the mere fact of being unable to trace family"
>would cause (highlighting mine). I also have a 1944 study done by the New
>York
>Department of Social Welfare, done, in part, in response to "adopted children
>themselves, now grown, come for information about their natural background."
>
>See also the numerous quotes in CARP regarding "people in adoption"
>recognizing
>the existence of searching adoptees and acknowledging their right to do so.
>For
>example, from 1919 "‘curious tendency on the part of young persons to dwell
>upon
>their parentage. [...] persons have spent large sums of meny and much time in
>the
>vain endeavor to learn of their parents.’" CARP, at 49.
>
>Toff
I am aware, largely from Carp, of the fact that the social workers were not all
that keen on offering privacy and that the reason they started doing so was
because they wanted to compete with the lawyers, who were offering privacy and
who were getting most of the clients.
Nor do I doubt the distress that some felt at being denied the opportunity to
learn identifying information.
Pierceforhimself
Lainie Petersen
Pierceforhimself wrote:
> I am aware, largely from Carp, of the fact that the social workers were not all
> that keen on offering privacy and that the reason they started doing so was
> because they wanted to compete with the lawyers, who were offering privacy and
> who were getting most of the clients.
I haven't read Carp's book, but would put forth the assertion that the reason that
many women have gone through attorneys (rather than agencies) is because they did
not want to be "social worked".
Lainie
SusanDyne
>Date: 9/9/00 4:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20000909160716...@ng-df1.aol.com>
>
>
>Nor do I doubt the distress that some felt at being denied the opportunity to
>learn identifying information.
>
>Pierceforhimself
>
Isn't that a bit simplistic? I think it is more than a little distressing NOT
knowing your genetic/medical/social history -- all in the name of privacy for
the bmom.
The bmom relinquished her rights to this child after birth. With that
relinquishment went the child's civil rights. But that child grows into
adulthood where their right to know should automatically be reinstated.
Personally, I never understood why adoptive parents didn't insist upon knowing
more.
>
>
>
>
Susan
Fanaticism consists of redoubling your efforts when you have
forgotten your aim.
-- George Santayana
Pierceforhimself
>Date: 09/09/2000 1:16 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>I haven't read Carp's book, but would put forth the assertion that the reason
>that
>many women have gone through attorneys (rather than agencies) is because they
>did
>not want to be "social worked".
>
>Lainie
You are right. I have talked to many, many women who have told me that.
Perhaps most adult women (those in their 20s for sure) resent the sort of
socialworking they are subjected to if they consult some agencies. Carp is very
good on this because he points out that social work has a long history of
telling women that they should not choose adoption as part of their own spin on
family preservation.
On the other hand, although being "socialworked" is something none of us would
want to be subjected to if we could avoid it, there certainly is a role, IMO,
for sound social work. The problem is that there is so little of it taught in
today's schools of social work. The child welfare content, let alone the
adoption content, in the core curriculum of most schools of social work is
absent or miniscule.
"Socialworked" needs to be changed from a dis-spiriting experience to something
beneficial. But that will take a whole new approach and one that I, for one,
do not see emerging from the current curricula.
But then, one of my mentors was Joseph H. Reid, the late Executive Director of
the Child Welfare League of America, and Joe had little fondness for NASW and
the social work profession as he experienced it. Joe didn't even belong to
NASW. My sense is that at least 20% of those who do belong do so because they
have no alternative, given licensing and other requirements.
As my concluding piece in Adoption Factbook III clearly indicates, reform of
social work is one of the things I think should be on the agenda for the 21st
century.
Pierceforhimself
Pierceforhimself
>Date: 09/09/2000 1:23 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Isn't that a bit simplistic? I think it is more than a little distressing NOT
>knowing your genetic/medical/social history -- all in the name of privacy for
>the bmom.
I strongly support having non-identifying information collected and shared.
The conflict lies in the needs of the woman for privacy as against sharing
information. And since the woman has the life and death decision in her hands,
she is the one who, whether one likes it or not, decides what level of
disclosure she is comfortable with. IMO, and I have said this on many
occasions, that's why one must come down to the point where one either grants
the woman anonymity or she will terminate the pregnancy. And I prefer a live
baby to the alternative.
>Personally, I never understood why adoptive parents didn't insist upon
>knowing
>more.
Again, some parents do insist on knowing more and these are the people who
either spend their efforts with assisted reproduction, or who go the surrogate
parenting route, or insist on a fully-disclosed adoption where they can (they
hope) get full information. But some other adoptive parents, looking at the
options and alternatives, say that they will adopt a child with lots of
challenges and with no reliable background information of any kind, such as a
foundling from China or India or the Republic of Korea.
In adoption, as in all other things, there is a great amount of diversity.
Pierceforhimself
SusanDyne
>Date: 9/10/00 8:04 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20000910080425...@ng-cv1.aol.com>
>
>And since the woman has the life and death decision in her hands,
>she is the one who, whether one likes it or not, decides what level of
>disclosure she is comfortable with. IMO, and I have said this on many
>occasions, that's why one must come down to the point where one either grants
>the woman anonymity or she will terminate the pregnancy. And I prefer a live
>baby to the alternative.
In the present day, I do not think it is a matter of life and death in the
majority of cases. I think if a woman choose to terminate an unplanned pg. it
has virtually nothing to do with what will happen 18 years from now. Nobody in
crisis looks that far ahead. I doubt you will find a pbmom who will say, I'd
rather abort than place a child for adoption and have them find me. They abort
for different reasons, mostly based in the here and now. JMO
That Damn Boo Kid
<snip>
>To the issue of whether there was searching in pre WWII days, I agree that
there was. My point is that it was not common, not organized and was not a
consideration that people in adoption gave any thought to.>
Well, there wasn't any need for an organized search movement in the era before
sealed records, was there? As to how common it was or was not, I couldn't say
but I'd like to know why you feel it was *not* common nor a consideration for
triadians.
>Paton, for all of her efforts, was not an organizer. Florence of ALMA was and
so were the people with CUB. That was when the ARM really got its start, IMO>
Yes, but ALMA in particular was formed directly as a result of sealing records
and the general paradigm shift towards secrecy in adoption.
Knifchick
Con te patiro
su navi per mari
che io lo so
no, no, non esistono piu
con te io li vivro
Jackie C
(Pierceforhimself) wrote:
>I strongly support having non-identifying information collected and shared.
>The conflict lies in the needs of the woman for privacy as against sharing
>information. And since the woman has the life and death decision in her hands,
>she is the one who, whether one likes it or not, decides what level of
>disclosure she is comfortable with. IMO, and I have said this on many
>occasions, that's why one must come down to the point where one either grants
>the woman anonymity or she will terminate the pregnancy. And I prefer a live
>baby to the alternative.
When I decided to *not* terminate my pregnancy in 1965, I did not, for
one second, think of my anonymity.. from my bson..
One does not follow the other.. Not in my thinking..
My flesh and blood.. My son.. Who I did not want to abort.. is a
person I loved from the very beginning..
To say.. I do not want him to know about me.. is just not on..
If I was running from my past.. okay.. But that must be sorted..
Jackie
Lainie Petersen
Pierceforhimself wrote:
>
> You are right. I have talked to many, many women who have told me that.
> Perhaps most adult women (those in their 20s for sure) resent the sort of
> socialworking they are subjected to if they consult some agencies. Carp is very
> good on this because he points out that social work has a long history of
> telling women that they should not choose adoption as part of their own spin on
> family preservation.
I don't think this is true at most *adoption agencies* (women who use other social
services may have different experiences). What I think *is* true is that a lot of
women and girls who consider adoption are in a state of denial about their
pregnancy. Oh, they know they are pregnant, but they would like to believe is that
this will "all go away", and that adoption will facilitate this. If they actually
have to sit through counseling, they may have to come to terms with their
situation, which they don't want to do.
Obviously, I think this sort of behavior is a bad idea. While I don't accept the
notion that relinquishment routinely ruins the lives of birthmothers, I do believe
that it is a difficult, painful, and (in many ways) soul killing experience. I
also think that it can be in the best interest of both mother and child, but that
doesn't take away the gravity of the choice. I also believe that lawyers are not
particularly qualified to handle adoptions, and that the decision making proces
merits some professional assistance.
Lainie
Lainie Petersen
Pierceforhimself wrote:
> I strongly support having non-identifying information collected and shared.
> The conflict lies in the needs of the woman for privacy as against sharing
> information. And since the woman has the life and death decision in her hands,
> she is the one who, whether one likes it or not, decides what level of
> disclosure she is comfortable with. IMO, and I have said this on many
> occasions, that's why one must come down to the point where one either grants
> the woman anonymity or she will terminate the pregnancy. And I prefer a live
> baby to the alternative.
See, I don' t that women are this fragile. If a woman chooses to not have an
abortion out of a moral concern for the life of her child, I see no reason why she
wouldn't be able to understand that treating adoptees like second-class citizens
is also reprehensible. I have no problem with a woman or girl expressing a
*preference* regarding future contact, but I believe they ought to be made to
understand that the best interest of their child may *include* the need for future
contact or additional information.
Lainie
GR
>>Nor do I doubt the distress that some felt at being denied the opportunity to
>>learn identifying information.
>>
>>Pierceforhimself
>>
>Isn't that a bit simplistic?
Simplistic? Yep. How about disingenuous, marginalizing, dismissive
and just plain torturing the language? Works for me. It's a very
*interesting* sentence, though, didn't you think? It says so much
while trying, desperately, to say so little.
>I think it is more than a little distressing NOT
>knowing your genetic/medical/social history -- all in the name of privacy for
>the bmom.
As far as I can tell, privacy for the nmom wasn't the main point it
was a side-issue, if even that. It's not as if nmoms somehow became
valued and protected all of a sudden. On what planet did this happen?
I mean, protected from what, from whom? Their parents - nope, still
there, still pushing. The agencies - nope there and fucking with
nmoms big-time. The church - nope big players in the adoption game
and more like designated shamers. Those who didn't want people to
know still had to be sent away, protection from community disapproval
isn't the answer either.
Follow the money - that's the way of things.
>The bmom relinquished her rights to this child after birth. With that
>relinquishment went the child's civil rights. But that child grows into
>adulthood where their right to know should automatically be reinstated.
Yep. Logical, reasonable, respectful.. naah, they'll never go for it.
>Personally, I never understood why adoptive parents didn't insist upon knowing
>more.
Yep. I wondered the same and I asked my mom about it once. She said
that they were just grateful to get a child so they took what they
were given for information and kept their mouths shut. Beyond that,
there was, and sometimes still is, a stigma connected to infertility
and being relinquished. It's not as if my parents were going to go
making waves with anybody. It was all supposed to be confidential and
very quiet for the adoptive parents and adoptees, according to my mom.
I think that had a lot more to do with closing records than any claim
to "protection" for natural parents.
If they were all about protecting natural parents, they would have
done so in other ways as well and they sure didn't.
GR
rkbose
GR wrote:
>
> On 09 Sep 2000 20:23:10 GMT, susa...@aol.com (SusanDyne) wrote:
>
> >Personally, I never understood why adoptive parents didn't insist upon knowing
> >more.
>
> Yep. I wondered the same and I asked my mom about it once. She said
> that they were just grateful to get a child so they took what they
> were given for information and kept their mouths shut. Beyond that,
> there was, and sometimes still is, a stigma connected to infertility
> and being relinquished.
There's also the realistic issue of how much you *can* demand.
I wrote down a whole list of questions I wanted answered about medical
history of the birthparents and birth grandparents. Did I get it? No.
They were under no obligation to provide it, and they didn't. They just
said no one wanted to fill in replies.
And this was in India, where babies are many, adoptive parents few, and
very little money is involved.
What could I have done? Say, Sorry, not having the kid unless it comes
with a properly filled in questionaire?
Rupa
SusanDyne
>Date: 9/9/00 10:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <39BAF254...@pacific.net.sg>
give the info. It is considered non-id info. I NEEDED to know and have an
ongoing open dialogue with both bparents. I NEED to know if things crop up
medically now that everyone in the bfamilies are getting older. It's their
health. I'm not asking a zillion questions for the fun of it.
K Workman
>If adoption is in the best interest of the child, why wouldn't the bparents
>give the info. It is considered non-id info. I NEEDED to know and have an
>ongoing open dialogue with both bparents. I NEED to know if things crop up
>medically now that everyone in the bfamilies are getting older. It's their
>health. I'm not asking a zillion questions for the fun of it.
That's the HUGE benefit of an open adoption. Both of my adaughter's maternal
grandparents were deaf. Her bmom is not. Her bsiblings are not. She is deaf
in one ear. Don't know yet if it's progressive, but we've been testing her
hearing very carefully for years, just in case - and caught it as soon as it
showed up. Maybe we would have anyway, but who knows?
Kate Workman
If you're going to email me: KHWor...@aol.com
Jackie C
>In the present day, I do not think it is a matter of life and death in the
>majority of cases. I think if a woman choose to terminate an unplanned pg. it
>has virtually nothing to do with what will happen 18 years from now. Nobody in
>crisis looks that far ahead.
Yes.. Exactly.. the train of thought on this does not jell..
It takes to many turns.. When I said no to the abortion solution my
mind never went to hiding from my bson..
>I doubt you will find a pbmom who will say, I'd
>rather abort than place a child for adoption and have them find me. They abort
>for different reasons, mostly based in the here and now. JMO
Well said.
Jackie
SusanDyne
>Date: 9/11/00 6:32 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <39bcb5e6...@news1.news.adelphia.net>
monitor this early. It might save her life.
damse...@my-deja.com
>
> > I strongly support having non-identifying information collected and
shared.
> > The conflict lies in the needs of the woman for privacy as against
sharing
> > information. And since the woman has the life and death decision
in her hands,
> > she is the one who, whether one likes it or not, decides what level
of
> > disclosure she is comfortable with. IMO, and I have said this on
many
> > occasions, that's why one must come down to the point where one
either grants
> > the woman anonymity or she will terminate the pregnancy.
Why kill the child? Are you really equating birthmothers with baby-
killers? That's incredibly unfair. Since time immemorial child
abandoners have been leaving children in baskets in various places
where they thought the child would be safe. True, I think it's a less
loving, less responsible manner of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy,
than adoption, but I certainly consider it preferable to infanticide.
Making a comparison between birthmothers and baby-killers is
inappropriate in the extreme imo and doesn't belong in the arena of
civil discourse about adoption. If a birthmother wants to give birth
anonymously <shudder>, she should do so in a hospital bathroom imo.
To suggest that this is even a singificant proportion of potential
birthmothers is also way off base.
> See, I don' t that women are this fragile. If a woman chooses to not
have an
> abortion out of a moral concern for the life of her child, I see no
reason why she
> wouldn't be able to understand that treating adoptees like second-
class citizens
> is also reprehensible. I have no problem with a woman or girl
expressing a
> *preference* regarding future contact, but I believe they ought to be
made to
> understand that the best interest of their child may *include* the
need for future
> contact or additional information.
You said it, Lainie.
Damsel
http://www.plumsite.com/damsel.htm
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Kathy
>Date: 9/12/00 3:16 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <8pm9vm$kl4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>
>In article <39BBE06E...@clapper.com>, Pierceforhimself wrote:
>>
>> > I strongly support having non-identifying information collected and
>shared.
>> > The conflict lies in the needs of the woman for privacy as against
>sharing
>> > information. And since the woman has the life and death decision
>in her hands,
>> > she is the one who, whether one likes it or not, decides what level
>of
>> > disclosure she is comfortable with. IMO, and I have said this on
>many
>> > occasions, that's why one must come down to the point where one
>either grants
>> > the woman anonymity or she will terminate the pregnancy.
>
>
>Why kill the child? Are you really equating birthmothers with baby-
>killers?
Sure he is, read between the lines.
<snip>
> That's incredibly unfair.
NO respect, we get NO respect at all...go ask Rodney.....;)
<snip>
>
>Damsel
>http://www.plumsite.com/damsel.htm
>
Kathy,~~ Reunited and it Feels Sooo Good!
Pierceforhimself
>Why kill the child? Are you really equating birthmothers with baby-
>killers?
I believe that abortion kills a child. I am not equating birthmothers with
baby-killers nor am I saying that women who choose to have an abortion are
baby-killers. Please don't put words in my mouth, or my posts.
I am sure that I say quite enough on my own to get me flamed without anyone
doing anything to draw unnecessary wrath.
Pierceforhimself
Pierceforhimself
>Date: 09/12/2000 3:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>Why kill the child? Are you really equating birthmothers with baby-
>>killers?
>
>Sure he is, read between the lines.
>
><snip>
>
>> That's incredibly unfair.
>
>NO respect, we get NO respect at all...go ask Rodney.....;)
>
><snip>
>
>>
>>Damsel
>>http://www.plumsite.com/damsel.htm
>>
>
>
>Kathy,~~ Reunited and it Feels Sooo Good!
>
What I said to Damsel goes for you, too, Kathy. Kindly do not put words into
my mouth or assert that you can somehow read between the lines and insert your
own take on things.
Pierceforhimself
fiend
piercefo...@aol.com (Pierceforhimself) wrote:
>To the issue of whether there was searching in pre WWII days, I agree that
>there was. My point is that it was not common, not organized and was not
>a consideration that people in adoption gave any thought to.
So why did you say that records were closed in response to the organized search
movement?
whoever
-------------------
It is by caffeine alone that I set my mind in motion.
It is by the beans of java that thoughts acquire speed,
The hands develop shaking,
The shaking becomes a warning;
It is by caffeine alone that I set my mind in motion.
fiend
piercefo...@aol.com (Pierceforhimself) wrote:
>And since the woman has the life and death decision in her hands,
>she is the one who, whether one likes it or not, decides what level of
>disclosure she is comfortable with. IMO, and I have said this on many
>occasions, that's why one must come down to the point where one either
>grants the woman anonymity or she will terminate the pregnancy.
That's ridiculous. I'm sure there are a great many things that pregnant women
want. Lucky for us they don't know they need only threaten to abort their
pregnancies for all their wishes to be granted. All hell would break loose.
Your attempt to link open records with abortion has been tried here before with
no success. The numbers don't support it.
fiend
piercefo...@aol.com (Pierceforhimself) wrote:
>What I said to Damsel goes for you, too, Kathy. Kindly do not put words
>into my mouth or assert that you can somehow read between the lines
>and insert your own take on things.
So, let's not say that you equate birthmothers with baby-killers. Let us
instead say that you equate birthmothers with women who'd abort a pregnancy
(because you claimed that some birthmothers, if denied permanent secrecy in
adoption, would choose abortion)... and then let's say that you equate abortion
and "killing a child" (because you said so, in your post to Damsel Plum)... so
if A equals B and B equals C... you equate birthmothers with child-killers.
Your words, not mine.
This connection you keep trying to draw between open records and abortion can't
be supported either with reason or with facts. I suggest you hang it up.
Jackie C
>In article <20000912230906...@ng-cv1.aol.com>,
>piercefo...@aol.com (Pierceforhimself) wrote:
>
>>What I said to Damsel goes for you, too, Kathy. Kindly do not put words
>>into my mouth or assert that you can somehow read between the lines
>>and insert your own take on things.
>
>So, let's not say that you equate birthmothers with baby-killers. Let us
>instead say that you equate birthmothers with women who'd abort a pregnancy
>(because you claimed that some birthmothers, if denied permanent secrecy in
>adoption, would choose abortion)...
Why was this baby dumping thing conceived?
My take is that they assume that if a woman can not/is not able to,
relinquish a child properly, she will let it die..
Isn't that what this is all about.. Saving babies from these baby
killers.. These women that do not want to make responsible choices for
the baby. Do not want to get medical care.. Do not want to contact a
reputable agency..
Jackie
SusanDyne
>Date: 9/12/00 11:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20000912230713...@ng-cv1.aol.com>
fetus -- which btw is not a baby. Details, details.
Kat
Pierceforhimself <piercefo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000912230713...@ng-cv1.aol.com...
> >Subject: Re: "Telling" and the emergence of the ARM
> >From: damse...@my-deja.com
> >Date: 09/12/2000 3:16 PM Pacific Day
>
> >Why kill the child? Are you really equating birthmothers with baby-
> >killers?
>
> I believe that abortion kills a child.
So if abortion kills a child, a woman who has an abortion is killing a
child, hence she is a babykiller, iyo.
nor am I saying that women who choose to have an abortion are
> baby-killers.
You most certainly *are* unless in *your* world 2+2=5
Kathy
Pierceforhimself
>Date: 09/13/2000 9:20 AM Pacific
>Why was this baby dumping thing conceived?
The move to create new laws to address the problem of babies dying in dumpsters
is discussed in substantial detail at the web site for The Baby Moses Project,
which is www.babymoses.org.
Pierceforhimself
Marley Greiner
Pierceforhimself <piercefo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000917211944...@ng-cs1.aol.com...
Sorry, Bill. I can't resist. Bastard Nation's position paper on these
laws and other baby abandonment material can be found at:
http://www.bastards.org./aactivism/legalized-abandonment.htm
Marley
Lainie Petersen
Pierceforhimself wrote:
>
> OK, both of us have posted the web sites that we think give the arguments we
> agree with, Marley.
>
> I have spoken to those who believe that the new laws simply provide an avenue
> for nonbureaucratic placement. What if you were pregnant and the fellow had
> taken off, and you didn't choose to terminate the pregnancy, and you ended up
> with a baby being delivered that you didn't feel ready or willing to parent?
> What would be so wrong with avoiding the not-so-tender embraces of the
> therapeutic state?
>
Nothing, providing that you decided to place your child for adoption in a moral,
legal, and ethical manner.
The newspapers are rife with ads by would-be adoptive parents who are working
with non-theraputic lawyers. Why can't the woman give them a call? What is so
difficult about telling an agency social worker that you don't want counseling
and that you just want to sign the damn papers?
These options exist. But a very tiny minority of women just choose not to use
them. While I am pro-adoption, I am not
pro-adoption-without-any-accountablity-sound-policy-ethics-morals-or-consideration-for-the-best-interest-of-the-child.
Lainie
Ron
> >Subject: Re: "Telling" and the emergence of the ARM
> >Date: 09/17/2000 8:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> I have spoken to those who believe that the new laws simply provide an
avenue
> for nonbureaucratic placement. What if you were pregnant and the fellow
had
> taken off, and you didn't choose to terminate the pregnancy, and you ended
up
> with a baby being delivered that you didn't feel ready or willing to
parent?
> What would be so wrong with avoiding the not-so-tender embraces of the
> therapeutic state?
>
Adoption completely devoid of accountibility and transparency? I suppose
that's the natural evolutionary step in secret adoptions. Third party
anonymous abandonment, counseled abandonments, "non-bureaucratic
placement... Oh brave new world that has such creatures in it. Or, more
apropos perhaps, the sleep of reason breeds monsters...
Ron
> Yours in harmony,
>
> Pierceforhimself
Pierceforhimself
>Date: 09/17/2000 8:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>> >Why was this baby dumping thing conceived?
>>
>> The move to create new laws to address the problem of babies dying in
>dumpsters
>> is discussed in substantial detail at the web site for The Baby Moses
>Project,
>> which is www.babymoses.org.
>>
>> Pierceforhimself
>
>Sorry, Bill. I can't resist. Bastard Nation's position paper on these
>laws and other baby abandonment material can be found at:
>http://www.bastards.org./aactivism/legalized-abandonment.htm
>
>Marley
>
OK, both of us have posted the web sites that we think give the arguments we
agree with, Marley.
I have spoken to those who believe that the new laws simply provide an avenue
for nonbureaucratic placement. What if you were pregnant and the fellow had
taken off, and you didn't choose to terminate the pregnancy, and you ended up
with a baby being delivered that you didn't feel ready or willing to parent?
What would be so wrong with avoiding the not-so-tender embraces of the
therapeutic state?
Yours in harmony,
Pierceforhimself
Marley Greiner
Pierceforhimself <piercefo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000920221127...@ng-df1.aol.com...
> >Subject: Re: "Telling" and the emergence of the ARM
> >From: "Marley Greiner" maddog...@worldnet.att.net
> >Date: 09/17/2000 8:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>
> >> >Why was this baby dumping thing conceived?
> >>
> >> The move to create new laws to address the problem of babies dying in
> >dumpsters
> >> is discussed in substantial detail at the web site for The Baby Moses
> >Project,
> >> which is www.babymoses.org.
> >>
> >> Pierceforhimself
> >
> >Sorry, Bill. I can't resist. Bastard Nation's position paper on these
> >laws and other baby abandonment material can be found at:
> >http://www.bastards.org./aactivism/legalized-abandonment.htm
> >
> >Marley
> >
> OK, both of us have posted the web sites that we think give the arguments
we
> agree with, Marley.
>
> I have spoken to those who believe that the new laws simply provide an
avenue
> for nonbureaucratic placement. What if you were pregnant and the fellow
had
> taken off, and you didn't choose to terminate the pregnancy, and you ended
up
> with a baby being delivered that you didn't feel ready or willing to
parent?
> What would be so wrong with avoiding the not-so-tender embraces of the
> therapeutic state?
>
> Yours in harmony,
>
> Pierceforhimself
Well, Bill, as you probably know, I wouldn't be in that situation, but just
in case I was, I'd choose the lesser of two evils: relinquish it the legal
way, and get it out of the hands of the state ASAP, rather than leave it in
the clutches of the diddling theraputocracy of social workers, doctors,
and hangers who would put it in foster care and drag it to hearings.
How's that for Piercian run-on sentence? Start it out right as a
non-bureaucratocian.
Glad to see you back!
Marley
Toff Philipppo
Pierceforhimself wrote:
> I have spoken to those who believe that the new laws simply provide an avenue
> for nonbureaucratic placement. What if you were pregnant and the fellow had
> taken off, and you didn't choose to terminate the pregnancy, and you ended up
> with a baby being delivered that you didn't feel ready or willing to parent?
> What would be so wrong with avoiding the not-so-tender embraces of the
> therapeutic state?
I think the vast majority of women would have made their minds up regarding what
they were going to do with a child they'd already decided to deliver. Such a
woman could either keep the child, or surrender it for adoption. The reason why
a woman would abandon a child is, you appear to suggest, that she finds the
"therapeutic state" to be "not-so-tender" (I don't believe this is the actual
reason). Were that really the case, then the solution would be to make the
therapeutic state tender, rather than encourage child abandonment. That, and to
work to prevent unwanted pregnancies from occurring in the first place.
Toff
Mary Hunt
>
> I have spoken to those who believe that the new laws simply provide an
avenue
> for nonbureaucratic placement. What if you were pregnant and the fellow
had
> taken off, and you didn't choose to terminate the pregnancy, and you ended
up
> with a baby being delivered that you didn't feel ready or willing to
parent?
> What would be so wrong with avoiding the not-so-tender embraces of the
> therapeutic state?
>
a responsibility. The vast majority of women giving birth recognize that
and act appropriately. There are so many avenues of choice for a woman who
does not want to parent that removing all forms of procedure and all avenues
of information for her offspring makes no sense. There are agency
adoptions. There are private adoptions. There are black market adoptions.
Creating an environment where babies can be dumped willy-nilly and
anonymously is just plain wrong. The worst thing about it is that I
strongly suspect the babies that will be abandoned into this system are not
babies who were ever in the slightest danger of being "dumped" anyway. The
difference between a woman who would kill her child or dump it in a
dangerous place and a woman who would abandon anonymously is vast. The
former are not likely to even admit they are pregnant in the first place -
the baby is not a "baby," it is evidence to be destroyed. This is easily
evidenced by the number of infants abandoned to death in Texas, outside of
the "Safe Havens," since the enaction of that legislation. The latter have
been leaving babies on hospital doorsteps and in public places where they
might easily be found for centuries. The new laws make no difference to
these kinds of women.
Mary
Jackie C
(Pierceforhimself) wrote:
>I have spoken to those who believe that the new laws simply provide an avenue
>for nonbureaucratic placement. What if you were pregnant and the fellow had
>taken off, and you didn't choose to terminate the pregnancy, and you ended up
>with a baby being delivered that you didn't feel ready or willing to parent?
>What would be so wrong with avoiding the not-so-tender embraces of the
>therapeutic state?
Because it makes a person sick..
No man is an island.. and relinquishing a child is a major issue to
deal with..
Process..
I spent years just talking with myself on this very important part of
my life.. It got toxic.. I ended up hiding in my house.. house bound..
wearing black all the time..
not speaking..
I went for therapy. and I did not tell the woman I was a birth mother.
I could not sort why I was house bound..
In the third session I said.. "By the way I am a birth mother"..
She said "you have not grieved the loss of your child."
This was well over twenty years after I relinquished..
When you grieve you talk about it.
Important thing to do..
Jackie
Pierceforhimself
>How's that for Piercian run-on sentence?
I sure hope I don't do that much, but it was pretty impressive to me in its
near-unintelligibility.
>Glad to see you back!
The comments, sometimes, just can't be ignored. Wish I could.
>Marley
Pierceforhimself
Pierceforhimself
>of the ARM
>Date: 09/21/2000 8:23 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>
>When you grieve you talk about it.
>
>Important thing to do..
>
>Jackie
>
I agree. As part of grieving it is important to talk about it, as you did, to
a counselor who would keep your confidences. Where we may disagree is that I
believe that a good bit of the post-adoption counseling is not helpful to women
who have planned adoption for their babies and need sound, professional help in
getting through the greiving.
Pierceforhimself
JudithR2
piercefo...@aol.com wrote:
>I agree. As part of grieving it is important to talk about it, as you did,
>to
>a counselor who would keep your confidences.
Yes, but a big part of that therapy, IMO is working through the shame, facing
it head on and then discarding it -- not continuing to hide it. I maintain
that hiding shame and guilt is toxic not only to the birthparent; and that that
toxicity can and very likely will spill over into her relationships.
>Where we may disagree is that I
>believe that a good bit of the post-adoption counseling is not helpful to
>women
>who have planned adoption for their babies and need sound, professional help
>in
>getting through the greiving.
Are you speaking of post-adoption counseling available through the agencies?
It's not something I was afforded, so I'm not all that familiar. Why do you
believe that it's not helpful?
Judy
It is better to light one candle than to curse the darkness.
Marley Greiner
What I meant to say was that "nonbureaucratic placement" sounds like "the
lazy woman's guide to adoption."
Marley
Jackie C
(Pierceforhimself) wrote:
>>Subject: Re: Nonbureaucratic placement (Was Re: "Telling" and the emergence
>>of the ARM
>>From: Jackie C jda...@newsguy.com
>>Date: 09/21/2000 8:23 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>
>>
>>When you grieve you talk about it.
>>
>>Important thing to do..
>>
>>Jackie
>>
>I agree. As part of grieving it is important to talk about it, as you did, to
>a counselor who would keep your confidences.
Agree
> Where we may disagree is that I
>believe that a good bit of the post-adoption counseling is not helpful to women
>who have planned adoption for their babies and need sound, professional help in
>getting through the greiving.
I think we all deal with what is in front of us.. if we get a bad
counselor we must look for another one..
The counselor/therapist I had helped me a great deal.. She had me
write a letter to my bson.. Expressing my pain..
I did that.. thinking that it was private.. I have not read that
letter since.. btw..
The next visit she asked me to read it to her..
I declined..
I knew in my heart of hearts that if I was to get better I had better
read that letter.. I read it to her.. and when I looked up.. she was
crying.. Finally someone saw my pain..
Finally it was out in the open..
That is why I disagree with the birth mothers from my time wanting
privacy from the son or daughter they gave up..
We need to face our dragons..
Jackie
GR
(Pierceforhimself) wrote:
>>Subject: Re: "Telling" and the emergence of the ARM
>>From: "Marley Greiner" maddog...@worldnet.att.net
>>Date: 09/17/2000 8:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>
>>> >Why was this baby dumping thing conceived?
>>>
>>> The move to create new laws to address the problem of babies dying in
>>dumpsters
>>> is discussed in substantial detail at the web site for The Baby Moses
>>Project,
>>> which is www.babymoses.org.
>>>
>>> Pierceforhimself
>>
>>Sorry, Bill. I can't resist. Bastard Nation's position paper on these
>>laws and other baby abandonment material can be found at:
>>http://www.bastards.org./aactivism/legalized-abandonment.htm
>>
>>Marley
>>
>OK, both of us have posted the web sites that we think give the arguments we
>agree with, Marley.
>
>I have spoken to those who believe that the new laws simply provide an avenue
>for nonbureaucratic placement. What if you were pregnant and the fellow had
>taken off, and you didn't choose to terminate the pregnancy, and you ended up
>with a baby being delivered that you didn't feel ready or willing to parent?
>What would be so wrong with avoiding the not-so-tender embraces of the
>therapeutic state?
Uh, as we've explained to you several times, Billy, it's a lack of
responsibility, a lack of awareness about the nature of adoption, the
lives of adoptees and, for that matter, the lives of nparents. See -
anonymous abandonment sucks. Most of the nparents here were in just
the position you describe above. They made adoption plans, like
decent, caring people. We're not laying grade A eggs here, people -
these are human beings and they have a right to knowledge about their
families of origin.
Being an adoptee was tough, sometimes. Being an nparent is often
tougher but I can't imagine dealing with either reality within the
context of either having been anonymously left somewhere or having
anonymously left my child somewhere. They both suck, the answer is
no, no, a thousand times no and your determined lack of insight won't
make it yes.
How can you possibly have been involved in adoption issues for all
these years and not have the slightest clue about this basic shit? Do
you drink to excess or something? It's rather shocking, you know.
>Yours in harmony,
Save it for the barber-shop quartet, sweetie.
>Pierceforhimself
Fucking G Fucking R
GR
<lpet...@clapper.com> wrote:
>
>
>Pierceforhimself wrote:
>
>>
>> OK, both of us have posted the web sites that we think give the arguments we
>> agree with, Marley.
>>
>> I have spoken to those who believe that the new laws simply provide an avenue
>> for nonbureaucratic placement. What if you were pregnant and the fellow had
>> taken off, and you didn't choose to terminate the pregnancy, and you ended up
>> with a baby being delivered that you didn't feel ready or willing to parent?
>> What would be so wrong with avoiding the not-so-tender embraces of the
>> therapeutic state?
>>
>
>Nothing, providing that you decided to place your child for adoption in a moral,
>legal, and ethical manner.
>
>The newspapers are rife with ads by would-be adoptive parents who are working
>with non-theraputic lawyers. Why can't the woman give them a call? What is so
>difficult about telling an agency social worker that you don't want counseling
>and that you just want to sign the damn papers?
>
>
>These options exist. But a very tiny minority of women just choose not to use
>them. While I am pro-adoption, I am not
>pro-adoption-without-any-accountablity-sound-policy-ethics-morals-or-consideration-for-the-best-interest-of-the-child.
Oh sure, nit-pick! <g>
Fucking G Fucking R
Pierceforhimself
>of the ARM
>From: din...@pacbell.net (GR)
>Date: 09/22/2000 5:47 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Do
>you drink to excess or something?
F***ing G F***ing R
It's "or something," o person with the very creative sig.
Pierceforhimself
GR
Pierceforhimself
>of the ARM
>Date: 09/21/2000 7:43 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Are you speaking of post-adoption counseling available through the agencies?
Yes.
>It's not something I was afforded, so I'm not all that familiar. Why do you
>believe that it's not helpful?
Because post-adoption counseling, like every other professional service, varies
in quality for many reasons, not the least of which is the training the
professional receives (and many are young, have limited life experience and
rely on the pseudoscience they learned in their particular school of social
work). There is, in addition, plain old incompetence ... and laziness ... and
bias. All of these can come into play as well. Take a look at some of the
curricula out there aimed at those who provide this service and you will see an
underlying approach which neatly fits Carp's "pseudoscientific psychoanalytic"
description.
>
>Judy
>
Pierceforhimself
Pierceforhimself
>of the ARM
>Date: 09/22/2000 9:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>We need to face our dragons..
>
>Jackie
>
From your post, it would appear that facing your dragons helped you. I found
your post very moving. Unfortunately, facing your dragons is not the
prescription for every birth mother. There are no panaceas in this complex
area, IMO, of course.
Pierceforhimself
Pierceforhimself
>of the ARM
>Date: 09/21/2000 9:21 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>I'm practicing for getting a job at the Statehouse writing legislation.
>
>What I meant to say was that "nonbureaucratic placement" sounds like "the
>lazy woman's guide to adoption."
>
>Marley
>
Some of us men are lazy and I expect some women are too or we wouldn't have
Sloth as one of the Seven Deadly Sins. If you wrote an article for most
popular magazines and put "Lazy Woman's Guide to Adoption" as the title, I
would bet you a month's AOL subscription fee that it would get read by lots of
women.
Seriously, I don't think it has to do with lazy. I think it has to do with not
wanting to put up with a lot of nosy bureaucrats. If you are old enough to
remember how nonresponsive the old AT&T was in monopoly days, or if you have
ever tried to deal with the IRS, or if you ever got ticked off by infernal
voicemail systems and such, you have some idea why a woman may shy away from
the bureaucracies that are there to ostensibly help her.
Pierceforhimself
SusanDyne
>"Telling" and the emergence of the ARM
>Date: 9/26/00 10:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20000926220620...@ng-cs1.aol.com>
be against counseling.
There seems to be a logic leak. I don't understand how you reach the
conclusions you reach -- especially at your age and having been in the adopting
arena for so long.
Jackie C
(Pierceforhimself) wrote:
Have you read 'Care of the Soul'.. by Thomas Moore?
What I got from that book is that we need to connect with our soul
self.. Feel the pain.. and accept..
Some bmoms do not care.. they do not give a hoot about the baby.. they
just walk away.. and probably continue to have more babies.. that are
neglected and all that..
But those women or men need not be protected, do they..
They can face a person that was relinquished by them.. and give the
medical information and shut the door.. and forget the next second..
But the ones that were sent into trauma.. those are the ones you
protect.. Am I right?
The ones that need the secrecy..
Marley told me she was speaking with a lawyer that represented a birth
mother in Oregon.. a raped bmom..
Marley told me the man said she is afraid to answer the phone..
Ever been there Bill?
I have.. Journey and descent.. Hiding behind the drapes not able to
cope..
They are not connected with their soul.. they are in terror..
Of their own child..
or the one that raped them..
Damn..
Don't you see that they must face it.. face the dragon..
The image of the poor woman.. the early movies showing landlord coming
to the door dressed in black.. and she is holding the baby.. getting
ready to be tossed out..
The poor woman..
I hate that image.. I hate that women are still protected from
themselves.. Hot house flowers..
Jackie
AndyM9981
you
>>believe that it's not helpful?
>
service,
>varies
>in quality for many reasons, not the least of which is the training the
>professional receives >>
Post-adoptive services is not all about counseling. Our state has a great
post-adoptive center, where parents can go for help in everything from needing
legal advice to using their extensive library to hooking up with a pedatrician
knowledgeable in adoption issues. I can't imagine what we would do without
them. We would survive, I am sure, but having resources there for the little
and big questions that pop up is irreplaceable.
For the kind of children your program would noose (a mother who abandons may
have drug and alcohol issues that show in later effects) post-adoptive services
would be most crucial.
PS: the state created the center after finding that many families found their
own doctors and HMOs had little experience with adoption. Andy
Marley Greiner
>
Marley:
> >I'm practicing for getting a job at the Statehouse writing legislation.
> >
> >What I meant to say was that "nonbureaucratic placement" sounds like "the
> >lazy woman's guide to adoption."
> >
> >Marley
> >
> Some of us men are lazy and I expect some women are too or we wouldn't
have
> Sloth as one of the Seven Deadly Sins. If you wrote an article for most
> popular magazines and put "Lazy Woman's Guide to Adoption" as the title, I
> would bet you a month's AOL subscription fee that it would get read by
lots of
> women.
Probably. There could be all sorts of takes on this" "The Lazy Woman's
Guide to Childbirth: Surrogacy and You," The Lazy Woman's Guide to Getting
Pregnant: Get to Know Your Local Sperm Bank." "The Lazy Woman's Gude to
Child Rearing: Nannies R Us."and my own fav: "The Lazy Woman's Guide to
Cooking" The Restaurant Alternative."
>
> Seriously, I don't think it has to do with lazy. I think it has to do
with not
> wanting to put up with a lot of nosy bureaucrats. If you are old enough
to
> remember how nonresponsive the old AT&T was in monopoly days, or if you
have
> ever tried to deal with the IRS, or if you ever got ticked off by infernal
> voicemail systems and such, you have some idea why a woman may shy away
from
> the bureaucracies that are there to ostensibly help her.
>
> Pierceforhimself
But dealing with an unresponsive phone company or the IRS is not the same as
making the life altering decision to relinquish a baby, and the whole
bureaucratic aspect of it (since I've never relinquished a kid I can't say
how bad it is in those terms), should impose the seriousness of the matter
upon the parent. This isn't something you do on a whim , and parents need
to know that this is indeed serious business.--something that will effect
them as well as their baby for the rest of their lives. If the
relinquishment process is so fraught with complication that women simply
prefer to dump their babies at a hospital or police station anon. than go
through the legal processes, then the legal process needs to be changed to
make it responsive to the needs of bparents. It simply can't be tossed out
the bathwater with baby drop centers for the bureaucratically challenged.
Marley
Lainie
"Marley Greiner" <maddog...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> But dealing with an unresponsive phone company or the IRS is not the
same as
> making the life altering decision to relinquish a baby, and the whole
> bureaucratic aspect of it (since I've never relinquished a kid I can't
say
> how bad it is in those terms), should impose the seriousness of the
matter
> upon the parent. This isn't something you do on a whim , and parents
need
> to know that this is indeed serious business.--something that will
effect
> them as well as their baby for the rest of their lives. If the
> relinquishment process is so fraught with complication that women
simply
> prefer to dump their babies at a hospital or police station anon.
than go
> through the legal processes, then the legal process needs to be
changed to
> make it responsive to the needs of bparents. It simply can't be tossed
out
> the bathwater with baby drop centers for the bureaucratically
challenged.
Agreed.
Relinquishing a child is not like taking a shirt to the cleaners. And
frankly, I don't recall the process as being very bureaucratic.
I saw my social worker regularly, but that was my choice. I chose the
parents of my son, but again, that was my choice.
My social worker explained to me my legal rights, and showed me copies
of all the documents that I would be signing. This wasn't complicated
and could have fit in one counseling session.
When it came time to relinquish, I went to the agency, signed two pieces
of paper and a waver regarding the fact that I chose not to name my
son's bfather.
That was it.
Not complicated, and most of the time spent in counseling, etc, was by
my choice.
Lainie
--
The Rev.Lainie Petersen
http://www.half.com/account/functions/view_seller.cfm?seller_id=46571
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/sfi30/
http://auctions.yahoo.com/booth/sfi30
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Lainie Petersen
The All-Powerful One wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Nonbureaucratic placement (Was Re: "Telling" and the emergence
> >of the ARM
> >From: Lainie lain...@my-deja.com
> >Date: Wed, Sep 27, 2000 7:09 PM
> >Message-id: <8qtumk$q84$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>
> snip
>
> >Relinquishing a child is not like taking a shirt to the cleaners.
>
> Right. When you take a shirt to the cleaners, you generally expect to get it
> back.
>
> Sorry, just had to chime in here.
>
Actually, you get a ticket or a receipt. In many places, bmoms aren't even given a
copy of the papers that they signed.
Lainie
rkbose
Jackie C wrote:
>
>
>
> The main reason I came up with is that she has not told her family
> about the child she relinquished years ago.. her husband or partner..
>
> Do you personally think this is okay..?
I do...I don't think an adult should be obliged to share this
information with anybody. Not even a husband. I would hope her marriage
and her relationship is such that she can tell, and may wish to
tell...but not all marriages are good ones, not all husbands are
understanding, and hell, even if it's a good marriage, it's her business
to decide who she wants to tell.
Rupa
Pierceforhimself
>of the ARM
>Date: 09/27/2000 7:40 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Have you read 'Care of the Soul'.. by Thomas Moore?
>
No.
>But the ones that were sent into trauma.. those are the ones you
>protect.. Am I right?
Certainly, some of those whose privacy I have tried to protect fall into that
category. But most do not.
>The ones that need the secrecy..
>
People desire to protect their personal privacy for all sorts of reasons. No
real pattern that I have seen emerges.
>Marley told me the man said she is afraid to answer the phone..
>
>Ever been there Bill?
IMO, some of the disclosures on a.a are not exactly a good idea. As I have
said, I am not part of the adoption triad. I come at these issues from
different vantage points. My initial point of departure was my concern as a
civil libertarian and that is still a strong motivating factor for me.
>Jackie
Pierceforhimself
The All-Powerful One
>of the ARM
>Date: Wed, Sep 27, 2000 7:09 PM
>Message-id: <8qtumk$q84$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
snip
>Relinquishing a child is not like taking a shirt to the cleaners.
Right. When you take a shirt to the cleaners, you generally expect to get it
back.
Sorry, just had to chime in here.
Ghoulagirl
"Laugh while you can, Monkey Boy!" - Dr. Lizardo.
The All-Powerful One
>of
>Date: Wed, Sep 27, 2000 11:15 PM
>Message-id: <39D2B7B4...@interaccess.com>
>
>
>
>The All-Powerful One wrote:
>
>> >Subject: Re: Nonbureaucratic placement (Was Re: "Telling" and the emergence
>> >of the ARM
>> >From: Lainie lain...@my-deja.com
>> >Date: Wed, Sep 27, 2000 7:09 PM
>> >Message-id: <8qtumk$q84$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>>
>> snip
>>
>> >Relinquishing a child is not like taking a shirt to the cleaners.
>>
>> Right. When you take a shirt to the cleaners, you generally expect
>to get it
>> back.
>>
>> Sorry, just had to chime in here.
>>
>
>given a
>copy of the papers that they signed.
Yeah, but even without my ticket or receipt, I can get my shirt back. Bmoms
can't get the kids back, even if they have copies of the relinquishment papers.
Jackie C
<maddog...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> If the
>relinquishment process is so fraught with complication that women simply
>prefer to dump their babies at a hospital or police station anon. than go
>through the legal processes, then the legal process needs to be changed to
>make it responsive to the needs of bparents. It simply can't be tossed out
>the bathwater with baby drop centers for the bureaucratically challenged.
>
>Marley
Also, the emotional process should be honored..
I think..
Jackie
Jackie C
(Pierceforhimself) wrote:
>>Subject: Re: Nonbureaucratic placement (Was Re: "Telling" and the emergence
>>of the ARM
>>From: jda...@newsguy.com (Jackie C)
>>Date: 09/27/2000 7:40 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>
>>Have you read 'Care of the Soul'.. by Thomas Moore?
>>
>No.
It is an amazing book.. helped me a lot..
>>But the ones that were sent into trauma.. those are the ones you
>>protect.. Am I right?
>Certainly, some of those whose privacy I have tried to protect fall into that
>category. But most do not.
Well then why do they want the state to protect them?
Why can't they just tell the adult adoptee that they do not want
contact..Tell them this themselves?
I do not understand..
>>The ones that need the secrecy..
>People desire to protect their personal privacy for all sorts of reasons. No
>real pattern that I have seen emerges.
We are talking specifically about birth mothers.. correct?
I am sitting here trying to think why a bmom would not be open to give
medical information etc..
The main reason I came up with is that she has not told her family
about the child she relinquished years ago.. her husband or partner..
Do you personally think this is okay..?
>>Marley told me the man said she is afraid to answer the phone..
>>
>>Ever been there Bill?
>IMO, some of the disclosures on a.a are not exactly a good idea. As I have
>said, I am not part of the adoption triad. I come at these issues from
>different vantage points. My initial point of departure was my concern as a
>civil libertarian and that is still a strong motivating factor for me.
What about the human beings that knows nothing about his or her
roots.. Does not know his or her original name.. the circumstances of
his or her birth?
Jackie
rkbose
Jackie C wrote:
>
> The intimacy in that marriage must be nill.. or there is very little..
>
> To have to tell a mate or a partner that you have been keeping that
> kind of secret is devastating to the relationship.. IMO..
>
> What are we intimate with people for?.... What is all this about?..
> Why do we find partners?..
Different reasons for different people?
Ideally, an intimate and loving life partner, for all sorrows, for all
joys, to help raise children if you have any, and grow old with.
Someone you don't share your intimate thoughts with, but with whom you
have a good functional working relationship, and a great physical
relationship.
Someone you can't recall liking, but you must have done, because your're
married.
A walking wallet, or a live-in housekeeper
Company that's somewhat more talkative than a cat
A problem solver and fixer
Someone who's fine as long as things go just right, and it's your job to
make them go just right, and if that happens, the marriage is
wonderful...
I think what we call marriage is such an umbrella terms for such a wide
range of types of relationship that it's difficult to generalise.
Rupa
Jackie C
wrote:
>Jackie C wrote:
>> The main reason I came up with is that she has not told her family
>> about the child she relinquished years ago.. her husband or partner..
>>
>> Do you personally think this is okay..?
>
>I do...I don't think an adult should be obliged to share this
>information with anybody. Not even a husband. I would hope her marriage
>and her relationship is such that she can tell, and may wish to
>tell...but not all marriages are good ones, not all husbands are
>understanding, and hell, even if it's a good marriage, it's her business
>to decide who she wants to tell.
I think we are getting into the issues of how this society accepts
secrecy.. And how it gets into families and or relationships.
A woman called into Dr. Laura's radio show last year saying her bson,
now adult, was calling wanting information and she had never told her
husband..
And she wanted the problem to go away.. my interpretation..
The intimacy in that marriage must be nill.. or there is very little..
To have to tell a mate or a partner that you have been keeping that
kind of secret is devastating to the relationship.. IMO..
What are we intimate with people for?.... What is all this about?..
Why do we find partners?..
I agree everyone has the right to keep their secrets.. But the
consequences of keeping the secrets should be looked at IMO..
And a society that encourages it.. Like the ones that want to keep the
records closed.. protect the birth parents is.. wrong.. IMO..
I think a society should encourage openness..
And I also think the persons in charge of keeping the secrets for the
birth parents.. should check out their priorities..
Jackie
Jackie C
wrote:
>Jackie C wrote:
>>
>
>> The intimacy in that marriage must be nill.. or there is very little..
>>
>> To have to tell a mate or a partner that you have been keeping that
>> kind of secret is devastating to the relationship.. IMO..
>>
>> What are we intimate with people for?.... What is all this about?..
>> Why do we find partners?..
>
>
Well I do not know how some people do this.. this not telling
something as grave as this to a partner.. (that being a relinquished
child.)
>Ideally, an intimate and loving life partner, for all sorrows, for all
>joys, to help raise children if you have any, and grow old with.
Yes that is the ideal to me..
>Someone you don't share your intimate thoughts with, but with whom you
>have a good functional working relationship, and a great physical
>relationship.
I wonder if that can be done..
>Someone you can't recall liking, but you must have done, because your're
>married.
That is a major bummer to me..
>A walking wallet, or a live-in housekeeper
Horrible.. Unless you have someone outside the relationship..
>Company that's somewhat more talkative than a cat
>
>A problem solver and fixer
Yes but come up with the problem of a person you relinquished knocking
on your door.. who is going to fix this.?
>Someone who's fine as long as things go just right, and it's your job to
>make them go just right, and if that happens, the marriage is
>wonderful...
Yikes a codependent relationship..
>I think what we call marriage is such an umbrella terms for such a wide
>range of types of relationship that it's difficult to generalise.
Well an intimate relationship is that.. Intimate..
And I personally could not live without one..
be it married or not..
Jackie
Pierceforhimself
>of
>Date: 09/27/2000 5:40 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>I don't think an adult should be obliged to share this
>information with anybody. Not even a husband. I would hope her marriage
>and her relationship is such that she can tell, and may wish to
>tell...but not all marriages are good ones, not all husbands are
>understanding, and hell, even if it's a good marriage, it's her business
>to decide who she wants to tell.
>
>Rupa
>
Rupa, thank you for the dose of reality. More than one of us knows of
situations where people shared information prior to a marriage and, when things
turned sour, as they sometimes to in a marriage, the information was used
against the woman. IMO, deciding to marry someone does not oblige either the
woman or the man to provide a full and detailed description of everything that
has taken place in prior relationships. Sexual activity, or the result of
sexual activity -- whether an abortion or an adoption plan -- is not something
that anyone should be required to share, IMO. Discretion and prudence are
important values in lots of people's relationships.
If anyone on a.a wants another example, how about these: 1) should a person be
required to tell a spouse about any use of controlled substances? 2) how about
any misdemeanors or felonies, whether one was convicted or not?
I say personal privacy means that the individual makes these choices.
Pierceforhimself
Jrobnett1
piercefo...@aol.com (Pierceforhimself) writes:
>Rupa, thank you for the dose of reality. More than one of us knows of
>situations where people shared information prior to a marriage and, when
>things
>turned sour, as they sometimes to in a marriage, the information was used
>against the woman. IMO, deciding to marry someone does not oblige either the
>woman or the man to provide a full and detailed description of everything
>that
>has taken place in prior relationships. Sexual activity, or the result of
>sexual activity -- whether an abortion or an adoption plan -- is not
>something
>that anyone should be required to share, IMO. Discretion and prudence are
>important values in lots of people's relationships.
>
>If anyone on a.a wants another example, how about these: 1) should a person
>be
>required to tell a spouse about any use of controlled substances? 2) how
>about
>any misdemeanors or felonies, whether one was convicted or not?
If there's a chance it could come bite you in the ass, I say, get it out in the
open. If you don't, you risk looking more a fool than if you'd been honest in
the first place.
If someone ditches someone for something like this, then they are the fucked up
one, not the perpetrator. And said perpetrator is better off (knowing that the
person they are about to commit to is an asshole), sooner than later. JMHO
Jeannette, Bmom
There ain't no answer.
There ain't going to be
any answer. There never
has been an answer.
That's the answer.
Gertrude Stein (1874-1946)
RiverWild1970
>situations where people shared information prior to a marriage and, when
>things
>turned sour, as they sometimes to in a marriage, the information was used
>against the woman.
So then find the right person. No, no one should be obligated to "tell". No one
should be obligated to do anything out of the decent, ordinary. As for marriage
though it is or should be built on trust. My dh is the one person who knows
everything about me and I about him. No secrets. I love that I know there is
one person who knows absolutely everything about the person I am and loves me
for me. JMO
Lainie Petersen
Pierceforhimself wrote:
> >
> Rupa, thank you for the dose of reality. More than one of us knows of
> situations where people shared information prior to a marriage and, when things
> turned sour, as they sometimes to in a marriage, the information was used
> against the woman.
And what happens when the husband finds out through a doctor, friend or relative?
He finds out that his wife has either been lying to him, or has withheld some very
important information.
What is likely to be more damaging to a marriage?
> IMO, deciding to marry someone does not oblige either the
> woman or the man to provide a full and detailed description of everything that
> has taken place in prior relationships. Sexual activity, or the result of
> sexual activity -- whether an abortion or an adoption plan -- is not something
> that anyone should be required to share, IMO. Discretion and prudence are
> important values in lots of people's relationships.
Yep, but in a marriage relationship, certain information ought to be shared, not
only because it is important to know and understand the person you are married to,
but also because the information may, at some point, be made known to the other
spouse, and the witholding of this information may or m
>
>
> If anyone on a.a wants another example, how about these: 1) should a person be
> required to tell a spouse about any use of controlled substances?
I would say that if the use of controlled substances was an addiction (i.e. one
required treatment for the use of the substances), then yes, they should tell the
spouse.
> 2) how about
> any misdemeanors or felonies, whether one was convicted or not?
I would again say yes. This sort of information has a way of coming out at the
durndest times, and can have a serious affect on one's life (depending on the
crime and the circumstances involved).
>
>
> I say personal privacy means that the individual makes these choices.
And I am utterly appalled and aghast at the idea that it is appropriate to withold
such important background information from one's spouse. I am really upset that
thinking people could even suggest that it is permissable to lie to a marriage
partner about one's past in the name of "personal privacy".
This is just too much.
Lainie
Lainie Petersen
Jrobnett1 wrote:
> IIf there's a chance it could come bite you in the ass, I say, get it out in the
>
> open. If you don't, you risk looking more a fool than if you'd been honest in
> the first place.
>
> If someone ditches someone for something like this, then they are the fucked up
> one, not the perpetrator. And said perpetrator is better off (knowing that the
> person they are about to commit to is an asshole), sooner than later. JMHO
>
FYI,
I always told men that I dated about my son *very* early on in the dating
relationship. I figured that if it was a problem, I wanted to nip things in the
bud before there was a chance of hurt feelings. I wouldn't want to date anyone who
would discard the possiblity of a relationship with a bmom, anyway, so this system
always worked well.
BTW, not a single man ever expressed a serious problem with the fact that I was a
bmom.
Lainie
Lainie Petersen
rkbose wrote:
> I do...I don't think an adult should be obliged to share this
> information with anybody. Not even a husband. I would hope her marriage
> and her relationship is such that she can tell, and may wish to
> tell...but not all marriages are good ones, not all husbands are
> understanding, and hell, even if it's a good marriage, it's her business
> to decide who she wants to tell.
And what happens when he finds out, and realizes that his spouse has been
lying and/or misleading him all these years?
What does that do to a marriage?
Lainie
Steve White
piercefo...@aol.com (Pierceforhimself) wrote:
> I say personal privacy means that the individual makes these choices.
Absolutely. However, personal privacy is something that you generally
enforce yourself. The state should not have the job of enforcing the
privacy of a select group of citizens at the expense of another class of
citizens who have violated no law. It's ok for the state to protect the
privacy of all citizens, but not for the state to put some citizens
ahead of others.
Open records is not about privacy. It's about equal access under the
law. That's the issue.
steve
Lainie Petersen
Don wrote:
> In article <39D66FA5...@clapper.com>, lpet...@clapper.com
> wrote:
>
> > I always told men that I dated about my son *very* early on in the
> > dating relationship. I figured that if it was a problem, I wanted to
> > nip things in the bud before there was a chance of hurt feelings. I
> > wouldn't want to date anyone who would discard the possiblity of a
> > relationship with a bmom, anyway, so this system always worked well.
> >
> > BTW, not a single man ever expressed a serious problem with the fact
> > that I was a bmom.
>
> Yeah, they figured you were good to go!
>
Actually, more than a few of them eventually asked me to marry them.
Lainie
Ron
I'm not sure how one would "oblige" anyone to disclose personal information
such as your examples, but then the person not informing their spouse lives
under the constant threat that their past may become exposed, through a
social interaction with a friend from the past, or speaking with a relative,
or an unnannounced home visit from a parole officer. As someone with a
personal interest in the Late Discovery Adoptee issue, I'm not sure that
there is any legislative way to require that adoptive parents tell their
kids they're adopted.
>
> If anyone on a.a wants another example, how about these: 1) should a
person be
> required to tell a spouse about any use of controlled substances? 2) how
about
> any misdemeanors or felonies, whether one was convicted or not?
>
> I say personal privacy means that the individual makes these choices.
Yup, but the risk to the person keeping the secret is that they may be
exposed. And this risk, which carries the threat of loss of trust of their
spouse, needs to be weighed against the cost of admitting the secret
behavior in the first place.
Ron
>
> Pierceforhimself
rkbose
RiverWild1970 wrote:
>
> >More than one of us knows of
> >situations where people shared information prior to a marriage and, when
> >things
> >turned sour, as they sometimes to in a marriage, the information was used
> >against the woman.
>
> So then find the right person. No, no one should be obligated to "tell". No one
> should be obligated to do anything out of the decent, ordinary. As for marriage
> though it is or should be built on trust. My dh is the one person who knows
> everything about me and I about him. No secrets. I love that I know there is
> one person who knows absolutely everything about the person I am and loves me
> for me. JMO
That's wonderful, River, and I wish you both a terrific life together.
It sounds ideal.
Not all marriages are like that, though. I wonder if even most marriages
are like that. Realistically, not everyone's husband is their most
intimate friend. If they are, then there's no problem. (At least on that
score.)
But if they're not, then it could be a nasty surprise if he finds out
something like an unknown birthchild.
Rupa
rkbose
Ron wrote:
>
> I'm not sure how one would "oblige" anyone to disclose personal information
> such as your examples, but then the person not informing their spouse lives
> under the constant threat that their past may become exposed, through a
> social interaction with a friend from the past, or speaking with a relative,
> or an unnannounced home visit from a parole officer. As someone with a
> personal interest in the Late Discovery Adoptee issue, I'm not sure that
> there is any legislative way to require that adoptive parents tell their
> kids they're adopted.
>
... but the risk to the person keeping the secret is that they may be
> exposed. And this risk, which carries the threat of loss of trust of their
> spouse, needs to be weighed against the cost of admitting the secret
> behavior in the first place.
>
Of course this is true.
If the US (or the States) decided it was necessary to disclose this
information, it would be easy enough to pass legislation requiring, say,
a full disclosure document to be signed by both parties prior to
registration of a marriage. It could be made legally binding.
I don't think the US works that way.
Having the kind of relationship with a spouse where each has nothing to
hide from the other is ideal. IRL, the ideal does not always happen. And
it may not just be marital relationships that the woman has concerns
about.
I agree, in an age where the secret could out any time, it's perhaps not
a great policy to keep it secret. But then again, it's also a question
of how much whe wants to share with whom.
Rupa
rkbose
Possibly trashes it. Perhaps puts it on a new footing. Who knows? All
marriages are not the same marriage.
My point is that it's really for two adults involved in that situation
to decide how much they will disclose, and how they will deal with their
spouse finding out. There are even marriages where she knows, he knows,
and as long as she doesn't know he knows, he can pretend not to know.
People are complicated.
The point I was making to Jackie was that I think it's a person's right
to decide how much they want to tell their spouse. The point I was
making to Bill was that the truth can out even without open records.
Rupa
GR
<lpet...@clapper.com> wrote:
<snip - Bill's foolishness and Lainie's well-considered response>
>This is just too much.
Welcome to Bill's special corner of Bizarro World!
GR
Jackie C
(Pierceforhimself) wrote:
>>Subject: Re: Nonbureaucratic placement (Was Re: "Telling" and the emergence
>>of
>>From: rkbose rkb...@pacific.net.sg
>>Date: 09/27/2000 5:40 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>
>>I don't think an adult should be obliged to share this
>>information with anybody. Not even a husband. I would hope her marriage
>>and her relationship is such that she can tell, and may wish to
>>tell...but not all marriages are good ones, not all husbands are
>>understanding, and hell, even if it's a good marriage, it's her business
>>to decide who she wants to tell.
>>
>>Rupa
>>
>Rupa, thank you for the dose of reality. More than one of us knows of
>situations where people shared information prior to a marriage and, when things
>turned sour, as they sometimes to in a marriage, the information was used
>against the woman.
Now you are in the bedroom.. amazing..
>IMO, deciding to marry someone does not oblige either the
>woman or the man to provide a full and detailed description of everything that
>has taken place in prior relationships. Sexual activity, or the result of
>sexual activity -- whether an abortion or an adoption plan -- is not something
>that anyone should be required to share, IMO.
Relinquishing a child.. is above and beyond the issues of sexual
activity..
> Discretion and prudence are
>important values in lots of people's relationships.
On my bsons birthday.. when I finally was able to remember his
birthday.. I would go into a deep depression..
My family understood.. and accepted..
What if they knew nothing about the relinquishment?
Having an active sex life before marriage.. is one thing..
But thinking about a bson or daughter on an ongoing basis has got to
cut into the intimacy of a marriage.. and or family.. if the secret is
there..
>If anyone on a.a wants another example, how about these: 1) should a person be
>required to tell a spouse about any use of controlled substances? 2) how about
>any misdemeanors or felonies, whether one was convicted or not?
Well if a person has some hard issues from the conviction or
whatever.. and has not told... How do they communicate with their
partner on a deep level?
What kind of marriage is this?
Ohhh right one in the fifties.. Heck my mom told me to pretend I was
a virgin after I relinquished.. Magical thinking.. ?
>I say personal privacy means that the individual makes these choices.
Yes... one can end up wondering why the marriage is failing.. and end
up alone.. with her secrets..
Nice..
Jackie
K Workman
wrote:
I had no trouble with marriage proposals either, and I operated the same way.
They knew upfront, and if they didn't like it, they were nixed automatically.
Who would ever marry anyone without telling them about something like this,
and gauging their reaction? That's bizarre, IMO.
Kate Workman
If you're going to email me: KHWor...@aol.com
GR
wrote:
Agreed. I've always made a point of mentioning it early - just like I
mention being an adoptee right away and I've had my share of marriage
proposals as well as "concerned" looks and stupid questions. If they
turn out to be fucked up on either part of me - they'd better get a
clue quickly or buh-bye. (current beau is blissfully issue-free on
these matters. <g>)
GR
Lainie Petersen
GR wrote:
> Agreed. I've always made a point of mentioning it early - just like I
> mention being an adoptee right away and I've had my share of marriage
> proposals as well as "concerned" looks and stupid questions. If they
> turn out to be fucked up on either part of me - they'd better get a
> clue quickly or buh-bye. (current beau is blissfully issue-free on
> these matters. <g>)
One bmom I know was told by the Nuns at her maternity home that she should never
tell her husband about having her baby. Even at 15 she knew that this was
stupid, and informed the Nun of this fact.
Pitty that some adults don't have the sense of this 15 year old.
Lainie
GR
<lpet...@clapper.com> wrote:
>One bmom I know was told by the Nuns at her maternity home that she should never
>tell her husband about having her baby. Even at 15 she knew that this was
>stupid, and informed the Nun of this fact.
>
>Pitty that some adults don't have the sense of this 15 year old.
Yep. People have some pretty fucked up ideas.
Lainie Petersen
Pierceforhimself wrote:
>
> And I am upset that you confuse one's declining to share intimate information
> regarding one's life before one marries with lying.
Given that I regard marriage as a remarkably intimate relationship, a failure to
share information (such as the existance of a child), is to my mind a breach of
trust and smacks of dishonesty. You may not want to call it lying, but I find it
hard to conceive of it as being otherwise. I also believe that it would be
*extremely* difficult to pull off this charade for many years *without* lying:
when your spouse asks you why you started college late, or "took some time off",
how do you reply? When you go to the doctor for prenatal care when you are having
your "first" baby with your new spouse, do you then instruct the doctor, nurses,
etc, to make sure that your spouse never hears a mention of the previous
pregnancy? Do you make a special round of calls to your family and friends to
remind them never to mention your pregnancy and relinquishment? How do you explain
the stretch marks? The fact that you get irritable each year around your child's
birthday? Do you allow your spouse to suffer and wonder at your behavior? Why is
this acceptable? How is this not deceit?
I am trying very hard to understand how people who claim to be moral can excuse
(if not champion) what only seems to me a continuum of deceit: outright
abandonment of infants, denying biological fathers their rights to their child,
sealing the birth certificates of babies and then denying them access to these
birth certificates later on, refusing to admit a previous pregnancy to a future
spouse and children. All seem to reflect a denial of the basic facts of pregnancy,
childbirth, and the very important fact that children grow up into adulthood with
their own agendas and needs. None of which are served by encouraging this labrynth
of half-truths and deceit.
I find it hard to have an open dialogue when I find that terms such as "privacy",
"liberty", "truth", "lying", "abandonment", etc, are suddenly constructed to have
such different meanings. I cannot understand a mind that believes that special
laws should apply to those who are adopted, that some people are deserving of a
kind of privacy that does not exist for most citizens. I don't understand why men
should be denied the right to raise their own children when these same men can be
thrown in jail for paying child support for these children if they are not
adopted. I cannot understand why, if adoption is such a good thing, that people
should be permitted to behave unethically when they are involved in it.
To come back to the original point: Yes, I think that not telling a spouse about
the existance of a child is lying. It is dishonest, deceitful, and wrong. It is
also asking for serious marital trouble in the future. The truth often comes out,
and it often comes out at times when the truth can be most destructive and
damaging. I respect marriage far too much to excuse this sort of behavior, and I
am not going to try and pretty up this activity by using the euphamism "declining
to share". So shoot me.
Lainie
Lainie Petersen
Pierceforhimself wrote:
>
> Pity, also, that no one but you is, like the 15 year old, gifted with
> infallibility. There is no chance, of course, that there is any context in
> which the Nun might have been right? Sure. The 15 year old and you have
> perfect knowledge of all possible contingencies, i.e., "One size solutions fit
> all birthmothers."
>
I am hardly infallible, given that I am a birthmother myself.
But it is true. . .I cannot imagine a situation under which it is acceptable to
not tell a prospective spouse about a child. . .whether the child died at birth,
was relinquished, or is being cared for by relatives.
Lainie
Ron
hand, "Secrecy" and "Lying", in which she tackles both subjects.
Keeping a secret and lying are often intimately connected. The former
implies a lack of action, an omission; simply not telling. For instance, a
woman declines to state to her partner that she relinquished a child
previous to her betrothal and marriage. A lie; no. But then, everytime she
is asked if she has had a child she must decide whether to actively maintain
the fiction she's created by her omission or tell the truth. The secret
becomes a lie. If she has no other children she maintains a fiction that she
is childless. If she has more children she maintains a fiction that these
are her only children. The maintenance of these fictions requires at best
passive acquiessence to the unwitting lies of others, or the active creation
of lies of ones own.
I think it's nearly impossible to keep a secret that is fundamental to one's
life circumstances without reinforcing that secret with lies.
The placement of these sorts of secrets and lies in an ethical context is
another matter, and needs to be judged, if at all, on an individual basis.
Not all secrets are bad, nor are all lies. But to call them other than what
they are is to obscure them from ethical consideraton.
Ron
> >
> And I am upset that you confuse one's declining to share intimate
information
> regarding one's life before one marries with lying. Kindly re-read my
post and
> then quote me as saying that I was recommending lying. I was saying that
> people have a right to keep their mouths shut about what they did before
they
> got married to or started dating a spouse. I expect to be attacked, Rev.
> Lainie, but how about attacking me for what I actually say, not for the
words
> you put in my mouth? Otherwise, there's not much hope for reasoned
discourse
> on a.a, is there?
>
> Pierceforhimself
Lainie Petersen
Pierceforhimself wrote:
> >
> >I am hardly infallible, given that I am a birthmother myself.
> With all due respect, being a birthmother has nothing to do with whether you
> are right or wrong. The fact that you decided to carry the baby to term and
> plan adoption is something I admire, given the fact that there were other
> options open to you that, IMO, were less beneficial to the baby.
>
True, but the decisions that led up to my pregnancy demonstrated a remarkable
fallibility on my part.
>
> >
> >But it is true. . .I cannot imagine a situation under which it is acceptable
> >to
> >not tell a prospective spouse about a child. . .whether the child died at
> >birth,
> >was relinquished, or is being cared for by relatives.
> And I accept that, Lainie. My objection is when no room for divergent views is
> given.
>
Well, it would be helpful if you were give me some examples of situations where it
would be acceptable to withold this information from a potential spouse. My
concern is that these historial "facts" of someone's life do not exist in a
vaccum. A failure to report a "secret" to a spouse can lead to a series of other
secrets and lies until a web of deceit exists that undermines the entire marriage.
Lainie
RiverWild1970
>turn out to be fucked up on either part of me - they'd better get a
>clue quickly or buh-bye. (current beau is blissfully issue-free on
>these matters. <g>)
>
You are lucky in that. It takes a special person to be issue free on both
matters. Dh is one of the kindest people I know in regards to me and our
family, however he was not thrilled with reunion and he had as tough a time
with it as I did.
Pierceforhimself
>of
>Date: 09/30/2000 3:53 PM Pacific
> I am really upset that
>thinking people could even suggest that it is permissable to lie to a
>marriage
>partner about one's past in the name of "personal privacy".
>
>This is just too much.
>
>Lainie
Pierceforhimself
>of
>From: Lainie Petersen lpet...@clapper.com
>Pitty that some adults don't have the sense of this 15 year old.
>
>Lainie
>
Pity, also, that no one but you is, like the 15 year old, gifted with
infallibility. There is no chance, of course, that there is any context in
which the Nun might have been right? Sure. The 15 year old and you have
perfect knowledge of all possible contingencies, i.e., "One size solutions fit
all birthmothers."
Pierceforhimself
LilMtnCbn
>of
>Date: 10/1/00 8:24 PM Mountain Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20001001222423...@ng-cs1.aol.com>
Well, Mr. P, that's kind of silly. IMO, I'd like my "future" spouse to be sure
he loves ME, warts and all. By the same token, I'd sure hate to wake up on my
honeymoon(or any time in the future), and have my hubby say, "by the way,
Sweetumms....I have AIDS, and am a convicted rapist. I didn't feel like
sharing with you, because I have a right to personal privacy".
Again, IMO, I'd rather my spouse love me, warts and all. I mean, hell, didn't
John Wayne Gacy get married in prison? Maybe way way way in the past, dark
ages, it was necessary for a woman to conceal the fact that she had a child out
of wedlock. It isn't anymore. At least in this country, in most cases,
advocating secrets and lies only benefits one entity---the adoption industry.
Marla
Ungrateful Bastard
Pierceforhimself
>of
>Date: 10/01/2000 7:43 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Not all secrets are bad, nor are all lies. But to call them other than what
>they are is to obscure them from ethical consideraton.
>
>Ron
Nicely nuanced post, Ron. Thanks for the thoughtful addition. I have read one
of Bok's books...hard sledding.
Pierceforhimself
Pierceforhimself
>of
>Date: 10/01/2000 7:52 PM Pacific
>
>I am hardly infallible, given that I am a birthmother myself.
With all due respect, being a birthmother has nothing to do with whether you
are right or wrong. The fact that you decided to carry the baby to term and
plan adoption is something I admire, given the fact that there were other
options open to you that, IMO, were less beneficial to the baby.
>
>But it is true. . .I cannot imagine a situation under which it is acceptable
>to
>not tell a prospective spouse about a child. . .whether the child died at
>birth,
>was relinquished, or is being cared for by relatives.
And I accept that, Lainie. My objection is when no room for divergent views is
given.
>
>Lainie
>
Pierceforhimself
GR
wrote:
He's fine with both, thankfully. Reunion with my nmom isn't an issue
and it never will be, she was dead before I ever knew who she was. So
far, reunion with my child isn't an issue either. I guess we'll see
how it goes, if it goes.
GR
GR
(Pierceforhimself) wrote:
>>Subject: Re: Nonbureaucratic placement (Was Re: "Telling" and the emergence
>>of
>>From: Lainie Petersen lpet...@clapper.com
>>Date: 09/30/2000 3:53 PM Pacific
>
>> I am really upset that
>>thinking people could even suggest that it is permissable to lie to a
>>marriage
>>partner about one's past in the name of "personal privacy".
>>
>>This is just too much.
>>
>>Lainie
>>
>And I am upset that you confuse one's declining to share intimate information
>regarding one's life before one marries with lying. Kindly re-read my post and
>then quote me as saying that I was recommending lying.
hmm... how about lying by omission - ever heard of it? Betcha have.
> I was saying that
>people have a right to keep their mouths shut about what they did before they
>got married to or started dating a spouse.
Uh-huh. Interesting take on the sacrament of marriage. Let me check
this out with my local diocese and I'll get back to ya. (wouldn't
want to hazard an opinion or anything)
>I expect to be attacked, Rev.
>Lainie, but how about attacking me for what I actually say, not for the words
>you put in my mouth? Otherwise, there's not much hope for reasoned discourse
>on a.a, is there?
Oh, honey, please.
GR
GR
>I'd recommend ethicist Sisela Bok's two marvelous books on the subjects at
>hand, "Secrecy" and "Lying", in which she tackles both subjects.
>
>Keeping a secret and lying are often intimately connected. The former
>implies a lack of action, an omission; simply not telling. For instance, a
>woman declines to state to her partner that she relinquished a child
>previous to her betrothal and marriage. A lie; no. But then, everytime she
>is asked if she has had a child she must decide whether to actively maintain
>the fiction she's created by her omission or tell the truth. The secret
>becomes a lie. If she has no other children she maintains a fiction that she
>is childless. If she has more children she maintains a fiction that these
>are her only children. The maintenance of these fictions requires at best
>passive acquiessence to the unwitting lies of others, or the active creation
>of lies of ones own.
>
>I think it's nearly impossible to keep a secret that is fundamental to one's
>life circumstances without reinforcing that secret with lies.
>
>The placement of these sorts of secrets and lies in an ethical context is
>another matter, and needs to be judged, if at all, on an individual basis.
>Not all secrets are bad, nor are all lies. But to call them other than what
>they are is to obscure them from ethical consideraton.
>
>Ron
This post is beyond fabulous, sweetie. Have a word with Steve White,
if you get a mo', would you please?
Thanks!
>
>> >
>> And I am upset that you confuse one's declining to share intimate
>information
>> regarding one's life before one marries with lying. Kindly re-read my
>post and
>> then quote me as saying that I was recommending lying. I was saying that
>> people have a right to keep their mouths shut about what they did before
>they
>> got married to or started dating a spouse. I expect to be attacked, Rev.
>> Lainie, but how about attacking me for what I actually say, not for the
>words
>> you put in my mouth? Otherwise, there's not much hope for reasoned
>discourse
>> on a.a, is there?
>>
>> Pierceforhimself
>
>
GR
GR
<lpet...@clapper.com> wrote:
<snip - far-reaching and excellent post on the matter at hand by the
Right Reverend Lainie>
> I am not going to try and pretty up this activity by using the euphamism "declining
>to share". So shoot me.
Oh I like it! Someone should alert Salon magazine. So, with respect
to the truth and its telling, how about "fudge" or my most recent fave
- "defer"? They're good ones, too.
GR
GR
<snip>
>>And I am upset that you confuse one's declining to share intimate information
>>regarding one's life before one marries with lying. Kindly re-read my post
>>and
>>then quote me as saying that I was recommending lying. I was saying that
>>people have a right to keep their mouths shut about what they did before they
>>got married to or started dating a spouse. I expect to be attacked, Rev.
>>Lainie, but how about attacking me for what I actually say, not for the words
>>you put in my mouth? Otherwise, there's not much hope for reasoned discourse
>>on a.a, is there?
>>
>>Pierceforhimself
>
>Well, Mr. P, that's kind of silly. IMO, I'd like my "future" spouse to be sure
>he loves ME, warts and all. By the same token, I'd sure hate to wake up on my
>honeymoon(or any time in the future), and have my hubby say, "by the way,
>Sweetumms....I have AIDS, and am a convicted rapist. I didn't feel like
>sharing with you, because I have a right to personal privacy".
Oh yeah, he'd be a keeper!
>Again, IMO, I'd rather my spouse love me, warts and all. I mean, hell, didn't
>John Wayne Gacy get married in prison?
Oh fuck. Run awaaaaaaaaay.
(Damn! It really *is* serial killer night on alt.a - I was joshin')
> Maybe way way way in the past, dark
>ages, it was necessary for a woman to conceal the fact that she had a child out
>of wedlock. It isn't anymore. At least in this country, in most cases,
>advocating secrets and lies only benefits one entity---the adoption industry.
Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding! Kewpie doll!
GR
Eldie
make clear just how that has operated in the instant case.
El
Jmmbear
piercefo...@aol.com (Pierceforhimself) writes:
>Subject: Re: Nonbureaucratic placement (Was Re: "Telling" and the
emergence
>of
>From: piercefo...@aol.com (Pierceforhimself)
>Date: 02 Oct 2000 02:24:23 GMT
Mr. Pierce I believe that Marriage is built on a foundation of trust, and
respect. If you do not tell your spouse about a relinquished child you are
building on a faulty foundation. Some day that foundation will give way and
the whole thing will collapse. Marriages that are built on lies, and deceit
are not worth a dime.JMO
Jeanne