Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Comic Satire Comment
...
Anon says: "That's hardly comic satire. It's an offence (sic) to all mothers. It's an indication of what has occurred in consequences of our rightful title being tampered with by those who altered our identites."
All of those terms: Lifemother, first mother, exiled mothers, etc. are terms that were created in relatively recent years by pople like YOU. YOU are the ones TAMPERING with your own identity and your "rightful title" - no one else. If there was a coordinated move to fight against the "b" word, it might have been a good idea to get together and decide on a replacement first, without confusing everyone. Anytime you are against something, you need to present an alternative. You came out in a big rush to put down everything that came before without a clear plan of action, IMO. Thus the confusion the SATIRE correctly points out.
In regards to when and how our rightful title of mother was taken from us, it was NOT with introduction of the term "birthmother" because, as has been pointed out many times over, women - including the vast majority of us - have been exploited for our babies long before that term came into use.
Illegit is right! On the original birth certificate we are all our children's mothers. On the surrender papers we are STILL our children's mothers. It is not until after we relinquish our right to parent that we become nothing...a non-relative with no rights whatsoever. Some of us may have pressured to do so, but for the most part that was done within the law.
It is the state committed FRAUD of FALSIFICATION of the birth certificate that strips of us our rightous title of mother and gives it to someone else. I have my daughters original birth certificate and her falsified one. One says she was born to me and I am her mother; the other says that she was BORN TO a stranger who was never even in the city or hospital in which she was born!
The state commits FRAUD when they issue these FALSIFIED birth certificates. They then call it an "amended" birth certificate.
Amend means: to change for the better; improve: to amend one's ways.
to remove or correct faults in; rectify.
Get angry! Get really angry - but direct that anger were it belongs!
They call removing our names making things "better."
If mothers - and adoptees - want their dignity left intact, they need to join forces and fight the removal of their dignity. Instead, BN asks for CRUMBS, IMO...to get to see their original birth certificate when they are ADULTS! Yet they can spend all their life, well into adulthood, not even knowing they are adopted. So they don't even know there is another birth certificate or family to look for.
We need to stop seeing things from our own narrow perspective and see the bigger picture. Mothers seeing only the harm done to them and adoptees seeing only the violation of their rights. Then instead of fighting with one another - we could focus our energies on the real enemy: the state committed fraud that violated all of us.
Open adoption is not open when it begins with a falsified birth certificate, as it does.
We don't need to be called anti-adopton. All we need to do is to ask for adoption to be done HONESTLY....with the issuance of a certificate of adoption, which lists the names of the adoptive parents. To that should be attached the original certificate or cross referenced in a way that at any time the child is old enough to ask for it, he or she can get it. PERIOD.
But instead of trying to make adoption more humane, we are each hung up in getting restitution for our wounds. BN people care about themselves NOW as adults and could care less that the practice continues to do the same to others every day; and the same for mothers who are concerned only with what ahppened to them 30 years ago.
And in the meantime - we waste time and energy arguing over what we are called, as if that is going to change anything. NONSENSE. Utter nonsense. No one becomes a "birthmother" unles and until their rights are stripped from them. It's the effect - the end result - NOT THE CAUSE!
Anon says: "That's hardly comic satire. It's an offence (sic) to all mothers. It's an indication of what has occurred in consequences of our rightful title being tampered with by those who altered our identites."
All of those terms: Lifemother, first mother, exiled mothers, etc. are terms that were created in relatively recent years by pople like YOU. YOU are the ones TAMPERING with your own identity and your "rightful title" - no one else. If there was a coordinated move to fight against the "b" word, it might have been a good idea to get together and decide on a replacement first, without confusing everyone. Anytime you are against something, you need to present an alternative. You came out in a big rush to put down everything that came before without a clear plan of action, IMO. Thus the confusion the SATIRE correctly points out.
In regards to when and how our rightful title of mother was taken from us, it was NOT with introduction of the term "birthmother" because, as has been pointed out many times over, women - including the vast majority of us - have been exploited for our babies long before that term came into use.
Illegit is right! On the original birth certificate we are all our children's mothers. On the surrender papers we are STILL our children's mothers. It is not until after we relinquish our right to parent that we become nothing...a non-relative with no rights whatsoever. Some of us may have pressured to do so, but for the most part that was done within the law.
It is the state committed FRAUD of FALSIFICATION of the birth certificate that strips of us our rightous title of mother and gives it to someone else. I have my daughters original birth certificate and her falsified one. One says she was born to me and I am her mother; the other says that she was BORN TO a stranger who was never even in the city or hospital in which she was born!
The state commits FRAUD when they issue these FALSIFIED birth certificates. They then call it an "amended" birth certificate.
Amend means: to change for the better; improve: to amend one's ways.
to remove or correct faults in; rectify.
Get angry! Get really angry - but direct that anger were it belongs!
They call removing our names making things "better."
If mothers - and adoptees - want their dignity left intact, they need to join forces and fight the removal of their dignity. Instead, BN asks for CRUMBS, IMO...to get to see their original birth certificate when they are ADULTS! Yet they can spend all their life, well into adulthood, not even knowing they are adopted. So they don't even know there is another birth certificate or family to look for.
We need to stop seeing things from our own narrow perspective and see the bigger picture. Mothers seeing only the harm done to them and adoptees seeing only the violation of their rights. Then instead of fighting with one another - we could focus our energies on the real enemy: the state committed fraud that violated all of us.
Open adoption is not open when it begins with a falsified birth certificate, as it does.
We don't need to be called anti-adopton. All we need to do is to ask for adoption to be done HONESTLY....with the issuance of a certificate of adoption, which lists the names of the adoptive parents. To that should be attached the original certificate or cross referenced in a way that at any time the child is old enough to ask for it, he or she can get it. PERIOD.
But instead of trying to make adoption more humane, we are each hung up in getting restitution for our wounds. BN people care about themselves NOW as adults and could care less that the practice continues to do the same to others every day; and the same for mothers who are concerned only with what ahppened to them 30 years ago.
And in the meantime - we waste time and energy arguing over what we are called, as if that is going to change anything. NONSENSE. Utter nonsense. No one becomes a "birthmother" unles and until their rights are stripped from them. It's the effect - the end result - NOT THE CAUSE!
# posted by Senior Mom @ 7:26 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
Mirah: All of those terms: Lifemother, first mother, exiled mothers, etc. are terms that were created in relatively recent years by pople (sic) like YOU. YOU are the ones TAMPERING with your own identity and your "rightful title" - no one else.
Not so. I have only ever identified myself as the mother of my child. My identity was tampered with when BJ et al altered my identity from mother to birthmother. Adoption didn't alter my identity. All it did was to remove my right to parent my child. According to the Law I am, and always will be my child's mother - even if I was not allowed to be his parent.
Mirah said: Anytime you are against something, you need to present an alternative.
I don't need to find an alternative. The title of mother belongs to me and always has.
BJ et al attempted to steal my identity by reframing it with the 'birth' prefix attached for the purpose of political gain. This little black duck isn't falling for it.
Not so. I have only ever identified myself as the mother of my child. My identity was tampered with when BJ et al altered my identity from mother to birthmother. Adoption didn't alter my identity. All it did was to remove my right to parent my child. According to the Law I am, and always will be my child's mother - even if I was not allowed to be his parent.
Mirah said: Anytime you are against something, you need to present an alternative.
I don't need to find an alternative. The title of mother belongs to me and always has.
BJ et al attempted to steal my identity by reframing it with the 'birth' prefix attached for the purpose of political gain. This little black duck isn't falling for it.
# posted by 
: 5:12 PM
: 5:12 PM
You said: Some of us may have pressured to do so, but for the most part that was done within the law.
Well, no it wasnt. We were the legal parents of our children until we signed the consent or until an adoption order was made depending on the Act and the common law.
Those practices which denied us access to our children or restricted that access before we had surrendered our parental rights by signing a consent were in breach of both, our parental rights, and the Adoption Statutes.
Denying us all knowledge of the options available to us by way of financial and other support, AND denying us knowledge of the KNOWN psychological implications of permanently surrendering our children, denied us our right to make a free and informed decision and instead railroaded us into the only avenue being made available to us...adoption.
For starters.
Well, no it wasnt. We were the legal parents of our children until we signed the consent or until an adoption order was made depending on the Act and the common law.
Those practices which denied us access to our children or restricted that access before we had surrendered our parental rights by signing a consent were in breach of both, our parental rights, and the Adoption Statutes.
Denying us all knowledge of the options available to us by way of financial and other support, AND denying us knowledge of the KNOWN psychological implications of permanently surrendering our children, denied us our right to make a free and informed decision and instead railroaded us into the only avenue being made available to us...adoption.
For starters.
# posted by : 7:12 PM
: 7:12 PM
Maybe you, personally, never used those terms. I do not know you personally personally. But the members of Exiled Mothers and OUSA have used all of those terms. I meant YOU plurally, not you personally.
I do not know AU laws, but in most states in the US there were no specific laws stating they could or could not deny us access to our children prior to the adoption. I myself visited my child in foster care for six months.
I wish you guys could lighten up and have a bit of a sense of humor about some of this. Laughter is a great thing -- some of the best laughs I have has have been times I was able to laugh at myself!
Lighten up! Espcieally if you have never used those terms - you should see a bit of the humor in the confusion all those terms popping up in just a few years has caused...
I do not know AU laws, but in most states in the US there were no specific laws stating they could or could not deny us access to our children prior to the adoption. I myself visited my child in foster care for six months.
I wish you guys could lighten up and have a bit of a sense of humor about some of this. Laughter is a great thing -- some of the best laughs I have has have been times I was able to laugh at myself!
Lighten up! Espcieally if you have never used those terms - you should see a bit of the humor in the confusion all those terms popping up in just a few years has caused...
Illegit - you and are agreeing more and more...
"And the Amended Birth Certificate is the biggest legalized lie going, that I most assuredly can agree with you."
Only please let's call it "amended" - that's euphanism and it means to make better. It is FALSIFIED.
I have both my daughter's original and falsified BC's. I do not have however my surrdner papers and was never able to get them.
"Can we not just agree that some mothers have chosen not to identify themselves with the term birth before the word mother? Why is this such a big deal for others that prefer the term birth?"
I agree again - except that it;s the other way around. Those of us from CUB whi hav ebeen used to the terms and it never bothered us say - clal yourself whatever you want! It is the those who are "traumitize" by the "b" word that have rejected anyone from anyone form metioning it and stopped speakers at their conferences etc, I agree it's boring and a total waste of time and effort.
Just call yourself whatever you want. It is the RESULT of our names being taken from us by the falsified BC! It is not the CAUSE of it happening. As long as BCs are falsified to make others our child's mother than we will legally be NOTHING to our children no matter we call ourslves!
Are you aware that mothers have not been allowed at murder trials for the children because they were told they were not related! We are certainly not allowed to know of an adoption fails or if our child dies. We are NOTHING to that child in the eyes of the law! We go form being our child's mother to being a NOTHING - all with the falsification of a birth certificate.
Was pressuring us illegal - NO! Social workers believed they were "helping " us and our kids! The legal line for cooercion is a very hard one to prove. And even when proved, you still don't get your kid back!
"And the Amended Birth Certificate is the biggest legalized lie going, that I most assuredly can agree with you."
Only please let's call it "amended" - that's euphanism and it means to make better. It is FALSIFIED.
I have both my daughter's original and falsified BC's. I do not have however my surrdner papers and was never able to get them.
"Can we not just agree that some mothers have chosen not to identify themselves with the term birth before the word mother? Why is this such a big deal for others that prefer the term birth?"
I agree again - except that it;s the other way around. Those of us from CUB whi hav ebeen used to the terms and it never bothered us say - clal yourself whatever you want! It is the those who are "traumitize" by the "b" word that have rejected anyone from anyone form metioning it and stopped speakers at their conferences etc, I agree it's boring and a total waste of time and effort.
Just call yourself whatever you want. It is the RESULT of our names being taken from us by the falsified BC! It is not the CAUSE of it happening. As long as BCs are falsified to make others our child's mother than we will legally be NOTHING to our children no matter we call ourslves!
Are you aware that mothers have not been allowed at murder trials for the children because they were told they were not related! We are certainly not allowed to know of an adoption fails or if our child dies. We are NOTHING to that child in the eyes of the law! We go form being our child's mother to being a NOTHING - all with the falsification of a birth certificate.
Was pressuring us illegal - NO! Social workers believed they were "helping " us and our kids! The legal line for cooercion is a very hard one to prove. And even when proved, you still don't get your kid back!
My surrender was 1967 - NYC.
We had rights, we just didn't know them and no one told us. But the courts have found that ignorance of the law is no excuse - even though none of us had atorneys representing us telling us our rights.
It was also a time when one didn't question doctors much, or clergy, or even school teachers or our parents.
Even when I gave birth subsquently in 1974. I had a planned lamaze birth. They went to put something under my tongue. I knew it was Piticon and would speed up my labor and i said I didn't want it. They told me I HAD to. I tried to argue and wound up giving in. After that I got MUCH more liberated and determined and planned a home birth!
We had rights, we just didn't know them and no one told us. But the courts have found that ignorance of the law is no excuse - even though none of us had atorneys representing us telling us our rights.
It was also a time when one didn't question doctors much, or clergy, or even school teachers or our parents.
Even when I gave birth subsquently in 1974. I had a planned lamaze birth. They went to put something under my tongue. I knew it was Piticon and would speed up my labor and i said I didn't want it. They told me I HAD to. I tried to argue and wound up giving in. After that I got MUCH more liberated and determined and planned a home birth!
My surrendered child was born 1967 - NYC.
We had rights, we just didn't know them and no one told us. But the courts have found that ignorance of the law is no excuse - even though none of us had atorneys representing us telling us our rights.
It was also a time when one didn't question doctors much, or clergy, or even school teachers or our parents.
Even when I gave birth subsquently - as a married woman - in 1974. I had a planned lamaze birth. They went to put something under my tongue. I knew it was Piticon and would speed up my labor and i said I didn't want it. They told me I HAD to. I tried to argue and wound up giving in. After that I got MUCH more liberated and determined and planned a home birth!
Prior to that women had their legs held together until doctors arrived. All kinds of awful things are done to women in labor.
And don't forget, too, during those years they also told mothers whose babies died not to see them and now they realize that you need ot say goodbye. They didn't do that to be mean to mothers whose babies died. that's what I mean by lots of things that were done to us by social workers etc was just thought at the time to be "best."
We had rights, we just didn't know them and no one told us. But the courts have found that ignorance of the law is no excuse - even though none of us had atorneys representing us telling us our rights.
It was also a time when one didn't question doctors much, or clergy, or even school teachers or our parents.
Even when I gave birth subsquently - as a married woman - in 1974. I had a planned lamaze birth. They went to put something under my tongue. I knew it was Piticon and would speed up my labor and i said I didn't want it. They told me I HAD to. I tried to argue and wound up giving in. After that I got MUCH more liberated and determined and planned a home birth!
Prior to that women had their legs held together until doctors arrived. All kinds of awful things are done to women in labor.
And don't forget, too, during those years they also told mothers whose babies died not to see them and now they realize that you need ot say goodbye. They didn't do that to be mean to mothers whose babies died. that's what I mean by lots of things that were done to us by social workers etc was just thought at the time to be "best."
I gave birth four times and studied childbirth to become a midwife and NEVER heard of an enema during labor in my life!
So much for "standard procedure" -- that is used all too often!
But it all goes to show that SOME of the "cruel and unusual" things done to those from unwed mothers homes were just standard stupdity at the times.
When I told her i didn;t want to take the piticin, she said the only way I could NOT take it is if I was registered as a Jehovas Witness or some other religion that forbid it!
Post a Comment
So much for "standard procedure" -- that is used all too often!
But it all goes to show that SOME of the "cruel and unusual" things done to those from unwed mothers homes were just standard stupdity at the times.
When I told her i didn;t want to take the piticin, she said the only way I could NOT take it is if I was registered as a Jehovas Witness or some other religion that forbid it!
<< Home
