Comments on: An interview with the author of The Stork Market (conclusion)

By: Chromesthesia

Chromesthesia — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 23:58:43 +0000

I don’t even see why they don’t do that.
It’s not as if it is the 50s or something where people seemed ashamed to adopt… It’s still like that in other parts of the world where they really probably would lie to a child about their origins and get away with it until the child over heard something or until a deathbed confession.
Gradually, the attitude changed here, so why not be honest and open.
That’s the one thing I agree with these folks about. The rest is wrapped in so many stinging bees and wasps, even if it’s honey, I can’t touch it.

By: Heather Lowe

Heather Lowe — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 20:59:42 +0000

nicegirl phd -

I would agree with your proposal to keep all the info on one B.C.!

If we really believe that there is no shame in being adopted, then having one's adopted status listed on a B.C. should be no big deal.

By: Heather Lowe

Heather Lowe — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 20:58:20 +0000

Heather – I don’t *have* to be validated by the state – I’m managing to live without that – but yes, it was a slap in the face. I think it will also be a slap in the face to my son to have a piece of paper that says “Baby Boy Lowe” (as if I didn’t care to name him) and “Father unknown” (as if I were a total slut who didn’t know). I *also* think that he might question why, in this age of openness, the state needed to issue a piece of paper that implies his adoptive mother gave birth to him. A lie is a lie, right?

Finally, all of us in the triad should question why, when adoptive and birth parents, and the adoptee, were all in the hospital room knowing the truth, do the new documents live under lock and key?

When discussing this issue, most of us don’t bring up the sting to birthparents because A) we know people don’t care and B) the open records issue is so much bigger than that. It really is about civil rights for adoptees – that’s what’s most important. But yes, it does sting on the birthparent side of the equation. I don’t think that’s a big revelation.

By: nicegirlphd

nicegirlphd — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 14:33:21 +0000

Ragrading giving false identity - if you are talking about lying to your adopted children (eg about their race) I think that is absolutely awful and indeed may be viewed as giving false identity (because part of our identity depends one what we know and believe and embrace and research and participate in). However, if there are no lies, adoptive families are not taking away the 'original' identity of their child. A lot is genetical, as was pointed above, but they are not taking it away! (how could they?)
And I don't think anyone today is claiming that nature does not enter in the equation (I think everyone agrees that both nature and nurture do, maybe disagreeing on the degree. My understanding/opinion is that they are not even separable, but I won't get into it here).

My point is to ask, why the emphasis in the above comments on how nature is so important to one's identity and personality? Of course it is, but how does that give an adopted child a 'false identity'?

As for the birth certificate, why not just keep all the information there - both the birth info, parents, name, etc, as well as the adoptive (and legal) parents, name, etc?

By: Heather

Heather — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 14:11:26 +0000

Heather L – This is interesting to me. I have been reading these blogs for probably two years now and I recall viewpoints associated with birth certificates/open records and getting the original information couched with adoptees having the right to know. I agree with that. But in this day of more openness where that information is more readily available, is it now about birth parents being validated by the state? I am not being sarcastic when I say that, it’s that I don’t think anyone has been honest about that then. I feel like this arguement has mostly been framed in the “what’s best for the kids” and obviously there is more going on than that.

By: Jan Baker

Jan Baker — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 05:49:45 +0000

You don’t think that messes with their identity? (omitted the question mark.)

By: Jan Baker

Jan Baker — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 03:12:17 +0000

franklymydear - You should talk to a room full of adoptees who are trying to get their birth certificates if you really think a piece of paper does not matter.

Not knowing anything about your family or origin really eats at some people. The rest of us know about our roots and take it from granted. Some adoptees don't even know what race they are. You don't think that messes with their identity.

The paperwork is part of it - knowing/having the information is also a big part of it as well.

By: franklymydear

franklymydear — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 01:27:30 +0000

Margaret: I don't disagree with anything you've said.
But the piece of paper takes that identity away how, exactly?
You are who you are, regardless of what part came from nature (which provides the raw material, including innate predispositions) and what part from nurture (which forms that raw material into identity). My point is: None of it came from that piece of paper.
And my identity is not a "real" or "false" identity simply due to whether or not my parents share any of my genes. I am who I am and no piece of paper can change that.

By: franklymydear

franklymydear — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 01:00:31 +0000

“Why amend them at all?” To make paperwork easier later in life. Have you tried, recently, to prove to the Department of Homeland Security (and countless other agencies) that you really do have US citizenship when your only “original” birth certificate is from another country? Being able to order a birth certificate from the state with current name and US birth location makes life a lot simpler. Who cares if it isn’t true. It’s just a piece of paper. A legal document, no more, no less. This has nothing to do with “depriving children of their identity” and everything to do with birthparents getting emotionally tied to words on a piece of paper.
A strangely understandable emotion, giving the intensity of the situation, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the child’s “identity”

By: Margaret

Margaret — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 00:42:27 +0000

franklymydear says:
"This is absurd. No one can take away your identity. Identity forms as a result of your life experiences and your individual innate predispositions."

I think "frankly" is confusing personality with identity. Life experiences do indeed form one's personality. And I wonder where "frankly" thinks those innate predispositions come from? Not from your adoptive parents, that's for sure.

Individuals develop into themselves based both on inherant genetic predispositions and the guidance and encouragement or parents and life experiences. IT's the old debate of nature v. nurture. I believe that nurture is more significant with regard to some aspects of personality formation but it does not erase nature.

Children inherit many characteristics from their bioligical families, including race and ethnic origins. Adoption will wishing will make a child white if his natural parents are black.

If roots, bloodlines, were not important than thousands of people would not pursue genealogy as a hobby.

I am lucky that I have had a chance to meet my biological family and find out where a lot of things came from, from hair and eye color, height and bone structure to medical history. Interestingly, both my sister and cousins I have personality similarities as well as physical similarities. We had very different life experiences and therein lies the differences between us. However, I am not very much like anyone in my adoptive family -- except for my speech patterns --despite many years of shared experience. My speech patterns reflect my geography more than those of my adoptive parents.

It's still fascinating to me that I identify more with my adoptive family's ethnic identity than my own, less with their religious preferences, not at all with their tastes in food or music -- interestingly enough when I found my birth family in my 40s those things that I didn't "adopt" closely matched my biological family.

Some of it is in the genes!