k punk on adoption

D7_bohs

Well-known member
Whilke looking for the original piece that sparked the discussion on k- punk and dope i was struck by the end of the piece above it - on overpopulation - where he says 'the ethical choice is to adopt or foster'; surprised at that; thought someone that acute could fail to see adoption as the perfect example of the extension of the logic of capitalism into the supposedly extra- economic.

Look at the way it used to work; poor women forced to give up their children to middle- class 'respectable' families, and, further, expected to feel grateful; exactly analogous to the way the working classes in general were expected to be defrauded of the fruits of their labour and feel grateful for a pittance in return - and all reinforced by 'morals'. And then you tell that child that 'she's as good as' a 'real' son or daughter; the lie of equivalence inserted exactly where it can do most damage...

And look now; like most other things, we've exported the exploitation to other countries; childless couples here in the west straightforwardly buy the product of peasant wombs, and again the expectation of gratitude is forced on the child for being rescued from the one thing that should be irreplaceable and unsubstitutable - the sum of one's identity.

Odd that the expression 'identity theft' is reserved for having your credit card stolen, while this insertion of the lie of equivalence into the centre of a childs being is considered laudable.
 

SIZZLE

gasoline for haters
I'd say it's not completely as one-sided as this, considering things like forced abortion, killing of unborn female children etc being situations where the alternative is identity loss in death and adoption is by far the lesser of two evils. I do thing that there are some good points here though and that some women are forced by economics and related factors to give up or sell their children is one of the most terrible injustices going. I don't know if I would go so far as to blame those who adopt however, there are many children forced out of families by abuse and criminal or negligent parents for whom adoption is an important option.
 

DigitalDjigit

Honky Tonk Woman
I don't buy your implication that the only identity those children can have is that of their motherland. Their identity isn't formed yet if they are young enough. Many people adopt and really love their adopted children. The alternative is being raised in an orphanage which are terrible places.
 

D7_bohs

Well-known member
I'm not objecting to adoption if the only alternative is an orphanage, obviously; I object to the idea that transcultural/ trans- national adoption is somehow better for the child - the 'all the advantages' argument - than a solution within her own country, and I'm objecting to the creation of an industry whereby children are effectively produced for export. Children are not Tabulae Rasae, objects like new phones or computers to be personalised by the consumer, and any text on the psychology of adoption (Brodinsky/ Schechter 1990 is a good place to start) will tell you that the logic of exchange just doesn't work with people - an ineradicable primal wound is inscribed and the importation of 'lucky orphans' from poorer countries to fill an aching void in a middle class western home is not the win/ win piece of commerce it looks.
 

neupunk

Active member
D7_bohs said:
..the importation of 'lucky orphans' from poorer countries to fill an aching void in a middle class western home is not the win/ win piece of commerce it looks.

I'd agree if women in southeast Asia were being obviously paid to have children for export, but isn't it more a case of children with no home being adopted by adults who want a child? I think there are some cynical elements here, but I have trouble trying to justify wanting to care for and raise a child as a cynical or bad thing. I wish more people would be interested in adopting or at least being foster families for older children, though.

I don't know if I agree at all with the idea that a child, through virtue of being born somewhere, has an intrinsic bond to the environment and climate. Are you arguing that the parents may want these babies and that we'd be better off providing economic support so that the children may stay with their parents? I think that's a separate issue from adoption in itself. You're forgetting that the other option may not be an orphanage -- it might be overpopulation and lack of food or sanitary housing. Ideally all of these factors would be addressed but lining up one party's need with another's want exists outside of capitalism.
 

D7_bohs

Well-known member
The point I'm trying to make has to do with the structure of the arrangement, not the motives of the actors; we don't but new Nikes in order to prolong the exploitation of child labour in Vietnam, but it is a fact that countless such acts do have this effect. Similarly, I don't think people in the west adopt children from eastern Europe or SE asia in order to provide a safety valve such that the demand for just treatment of poor women might be stymied, but that is the effect.

Let me explain; in the heyday of adoption here in Ireland (and in Britain and N. America) from the 40s to the early 70s, the 'producer' was typically an unmarried, poor, often very young,mother, denied access to legal abortion and,who, if she chose to keep her child, facing social ostracism. In such circumstances, adoption was the only practicable solution offered. On the other side, 'respectable' women, unable to procreate themselves were offered the chance to do their womanly duty by an unfortunate child, and also to fulfil their 'natural' vocation as mothers. Now this arrangement had the effect of prolonging social injustice, of stigmatising the poor, and of rewarding the virtuously married; which is not to say that anyone promoted adoption as a solution to the problem of unruly fecundity for these reasons; nevertheless, as abortion rights were recognised, and as the stranglehold of the churches lessened, the effect was a drying up of the product.

The effect of this has been - as I said in my first post - that , analogously with the globalisation of capitalism, the net has been cast wider for eligible babies, only this time, instead of those children being the innocent victims of the immorality of their mothers, they are the victims of poverty, or intolerance; poverty and intolerance which is sustained by a global economic system, because it profits from it.


As to whether i think a child has an intrinsic bond to environment and culture she was born in ....... it's a complicated question, but any adopted person will tell you that the realisation that, unlike other children, you do not look like, or act like, your parents or siblings is a huge thing; and this in situations where the child is the same colour and ethnicity as the parents; where you obviously aren't i can only imagine the alienation to be greater. Add to this the repeated message that you are 'lucky' because you were chosen and your mother gave you away because she loved you, and wanted you to have a better life, and the confusion between the gratitude you are supposed to feel and the shame of coming from a background from which you need to be rescued, and you have a recipe for disaster.

Finally, if you think I'm exaggerating, i suggest you google 'adoption'; all of the first few pages will be people offering to procure babies for you, with varying degrees of legality. The fact is, trans- national adoption is largely a business, and like all businesses, the social pluses or minuses are incidental; and, like all businesses where the producer is in a poor country and a consumer is in a rich one, the scales of justice are outrageously weighted. To repeat; i don't think people in the west adopt from other countries in order to prolong the poverty and oppression of women there; nevertheless, that is the net effect. I would add that a certain belief that one is entitled to have children, even if it is not biologically possible just because one is economically capable of supporting them - just as one is entitled to anything else one can buy - the 'because you're worth it' argument - may have something to do with creating the market in which this unjust exchange takes place.
 

heidi1984

New member
My baby

I am a young woman living in the US, I like punk rock,I am pro-choice.
I didn't think that I could get pregnant, but I did.
I want to raise children some day, l like kids a lot, but right now I am not ready.
I thought that if I ever would have any involvement with the process of adoption, it would be the other way around. That I would be the one getting the baby, not giving the baby.
I felt in my heart that if I ever adopted a baby, I would love that child the same as if it were a genetic child. I still know that is true.
I with much love and concern for my daughter, was able to work with an adoption agency and tell my advocate what was important to me, and then look through the profiles of couples who fit into what I wanted, and choose who I wanted to raise her. It is an open adoption.
I know they love her as much as I love her.
I can not see why somebody would see adoption as objectable. There are good and bad examples of everything.
Just because some women get raped, does that mean SEX is bad, and no one should do it?
I'm pro-choice, I made my choice.
If it is different than what you would choose, so what?
It doesnt effect you.
 

stelfox

Beast of Burden
The point I'm trying to make has to do with the structure of the arrangement, not the motives of the actors; we don't but new Nikes in order to prolong the exploitation of child labour in Vietnam, but it is a fact that countless such acts do have this effect. Similarly, I don't think people in the west adopt children from eastern Europe or SE asia in order to provide a safety valve such that the demand for just treatment of poor women might be stymied, but that is the effect.

Let me explain; in the heyday of adoption here in Ireland (and in Britain and N. America) from the 40s to the early 70s, the 'producer' was typically an unmarried, poor, often very young,mother, denied access to legal abortion and,who, if she chose to keep her child, facing social ostracism. In such circumstances, adoption was the only practicable solution offered. On the other side, 'respectable' women, unable to procreate themselves were offered the chance to do their womanly duty by an unfortunate child, and also to fulfil their 'natural' vocation as mothers. Now this arrangement had the effect of prolonging social injustice, of stigmatising the poor, and of rewarding the virtuously married; which is not to say that anyone promoted adoption as a solution to the problem of unruly fecundity for these reasons; nevertheless, as abortion rights were recognised, and as the stranglehold of the churches lessened, the effect was a drying up of the product.

The effect of this has been - as I said in my first post - that , analogously with the globalisation of capitalism, the net has been cast wider for eligible babies, only this time, instead of those children being the innocent victims of the immorality of their mothers, they are the victims of poverty, or intolerance; poverty and intolerance which is sustained by a global economic system, because it profits from it.


As to whether i think a child has an intrinsic bond to environment and culture she was born in ....... it's a complicated question, but any adopted person will tell you that the realisation that, unlike other children, you do not look like, or act like, your parents or siblings is a huge thing; and this in situations where the child is the same colour and ethnicity as the parents; where you obviously aren't i can only imagine the alienation to be greater. Add to this the repeated message that you are 'lucky' because you were chosen and your mother gave you away because she loved you, and wanted you to have a better life, and the confusion between the gratitude you are supposed to feel and the shame of coming from a background from which you need to be rescued, and you have a recipe for disaster.

Finally, if you think I'm exaggerating, i suggest you google 'adoption'; all of the first few pages will be people offering to procure babies for you, with varying degrees of legality. The fact is, trans- national adoption is largely a business, and like all businesses, the social pluses or minuses are incidental; and, like all businesses where the producer is in a poor country and a consumer is in a rich one, the scales of justice are outrageously weighted. To repeat; i don't think people in the west adopt from other countries in order to prolong the poverty and oppression of women there; nevertheless, that is the net effect. I would add that a certain belief that one is entitled to have children, even if it is not biologically possible just because one is economically capable of supporting them - just as one is entitled to anything else one can buy - the 'because you're worth it' argument - may have something to do with creating the market in which this unjust exchange takes place.

Unfortunately you are not making any point at all. No one in their right mind equates a child to a cellphone, a pair of sneakers or any other consumer durable. You are the only person doing this.

Other countries are not being turned into baby farms for middle-class, white westerners. Yes there are economic factors at play in many adoptions, but this is not the fault of the adopters or the people handing over their children and these circumstances will not be improved by adoption being outlawed. they are actually separate issues and should not be connected too strongly.

Another important point is that you're right, having children is not an inalienable right, but the drive to look take care of someone other than yourself is an admirable human quality, one that actually brings the best out in people, not something to be torn apart and denigrated, especially not to prove a pretty bizarre pseudo-political/theoretical point. Heidi's example says a lot more than I can here, but who are you to judge, really?

I'd say from your posts that you're not even close to wanting a family of your own yet, and that's all well and good, but don't try to say that people who do but find themselves not unable and take the step of adopting are somehow mindlessly exploiting others, part of the great Kapitalist Konspiracy or some other such student hogwash.

Also, I find the idea of a child "belonging" in a certain cultural environment being predetermined by parental genes pretty troubling - a place for everyone and everyone in their place, eh?

There really is a such a vicious, judgemental cynicism to the "thought" threads here sometimes. It often makes me feel quite ill/depressed.
 
Last edited:

john eden

male pale and stale
Look at the way it used to work; poor women forced to give up their children to middle- class 'respectable' families

working class families used to adopt as well, and still do.

Nobody is going to be surprised that the inequalities in the bureaucracy of adoption are similar to those in society at large, are they.
 

D7_bohs

Well-known member
Unfortunately you are not making any point at all. No one in their right mind equates a child to a cellphone, a pair of sneakers or any other consumer durable. You are the only person doing this.

Other countries are not being turned into baby farms for middle-class, white westerners. Yes there are economic factors at play in many adoptions, but this is not the fault of the adopters or the people handing over their children and these circumstances will not be improved by adoption being outlawed. they are actually separate issues and should not be connected too strongly.

Another important point is that you're right, having children is not an inalienable right, but the drive to look take care of someone other than yourself is an admirable human quality, one that actually brings the best out in people, not something to be torn apart and denigrated, especially not to prove a pretty bizarre pseudo-political/theoretical point. Heidi's example says a lot more than I can here, but who are you to judge, really?

I'd say from your posts that you're not even close to wanting a family of your own yet, and that's all well and good, but don't try to say that people who do but find themselves not unable and take the step of adopting are somehow mindlessly exploiting others, part of the great Kapitalist Konspiracy or some other such student hogwash.

Also, I find the idea of a child "belonging" in a certain cultural environment being predetermined by parental genes pretty troubling - a place for everyone and everyone in their place, eh?

There really is a such a vicious, judgemental cynicism to the "thought" threads here sometimes. It often makes me feel quite ill/depressed.

I never said any body equated a baby with a phone or whatever - read the post again; secondly, I have a child of my own, now nearly grown up and to whom I 've been an everpresent father though separated from her mother- I'm probably a lot closer to being a grandparent, not to mind a parent, than most on here, and thirdly, I'm adopted myself and know a lot of adopted people and I defy you to find me any adopted person who doesn't have, shall we say 'issues' about it. I take John Eden's point though; working class people did adopt - I was probably drawing too sharp a line.

I'd like to come back to this later - I'm on the way out - but the argument you've presented as being mine is unrecognisable which means i haven't set it out clearly; I'd like to try again
 

oxford

New member
D7-bohs is raising very justifiable ethical concerns. The vast majority of contemporary adoptions [and many of the historical ones also] are hostile adoptions, i.e. they are inflicted by the state against the will of the mother. If you look into the issue more deeply you would be deeply shocked at the moralistic reasons for taking children, at great profit to those who make the arrangements. This business is now increasingly regarded as "child stealing." Most of the children have mothers who love them and are devastated when the children are taken on very little pretext.
 

heidi1984

New member
Very interesting post.
Please cite some actual statistics if you have the balls to say:

"The vast majority of contemporary adoptions [and many of the historical ones also] are hostile adoptions, i.e. they are inflicted by the state against the will of the mother"
 

dHarry

Well-known member
I saw a documentary recently (don't recall title) about how babies were literally stolen from young unmarried mothers by the Australian state in the 60s-70's - mothers weren't allowed to see the babies emerging from their own bodies, or see them at all after birth, and were tricked into signing adoption consent forms. All with the complicity of the Catholic "mother and baby" homes that hid the pregnant women away from civil society. Appalling stuff, but you can see the quasi-fascist appeal of systematically "dealing" with the products of sex outside the ethical/social structures of marriage.
 

D7_bohs

Well-known member
I saw a documentary recently (don't recall title) about how babies were literally stolen from young unmarried mothers by the Australian state in the 60s-70's - mothers weren't allowed to see the babies emerging from their own bodies, or see them at all after birth, and were tricked into signing adoption consent forms. All with the complicity of the Catholic "mother and baby" homes that hid the pregnant women away from civil society. Appalling stuff, but you can see the quasi-fascist appeal of systematically "dealing" with the products of sex outside the ethical/social structures of marriage.

A model pretty much imported wholesale from Ireland by religious orders.
 
Top