Saturday, March 10, 2007
UNICEF Gets it RIGHT!
.
Adoption should always be the last resort, says UNICEF rep
UNICEF representative in Nepal, Gillian Mellsop, has called upon the participants of the International Conference on Inter-country Adoption being held in Kathmandu 11-13 March to consider seriously the rights of the child and advocate for child adoption mechanisms that are strictly in line with the Convention of the Rights of the Child (CRC) and The Hague Convention.
"Adoption should always be the last resort for the child. The CRC which guides UNICEF's work, states very clearly that every child has the right to know and to be cared for by his or her own parents, whenever possible,” a press statement issued by the UNICEF on the eve of the adoption conference quoted Mellsop as saying.
“UNCIEF believes that families needing support to care for their children should receive it, and that alternative means of caring for a child should only be considered when, despite this assistance, a child’s family is unavailable, unable or unwilling to care for her or him,” she said and called upon the participants of the Inter-country Adoption Conference to advocate for mechanisms that are transparent and in line with the CRC and The Hague Convention.
The UNICEF said it was hopeful that the international conference would lead to the ratification of the Hague Convention on Inter-Country Adoption and the adoption of national laws and mechanisms to regulate in-country and inter-country adoption.
“The Hague Convention is designed to put into action the principles regarding inter-country adoption which are contained the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) which Nepal has ratified," Mellsop reminded, adding, “These principles include ensuring that adoption is authorised only by competent authorities, and that inter-country adoption does not result in improper financial gain for those involved in it."
According to the UNICEF, these provisions are meant first and foremost to protect children, and also have the positive effect of providing assurance to prospective adoptive parents that their child has not been the subject of illegal and detrimental practices.
Referring to the increasing trend of families from wealthy countries wanting to adopt children from other countries, Mellsop said, "Lack of education and oversight, particularly in the countries of origin, coupled with the potential for financial gain, has spurred the unfortunate growth of an industry around adoption."
"This means that profit, rather than the best interests of the children, takes centre stage. Abuses include the sale and abduction of children, coercion of parents, and bribery, as well as trafficking to individuals whose intentions are to exploit rather than care for children," she added.
The UNICEF’s concern came amidst media reports that many agencies working for children in Nepal have been involved in illegal activities in the name of facilitating adoption, especially inter-country adoption. Source:nepalnews, peacejournalism.com.Nepal.
These are quotes we should keep and use, folks!!!
Adoption should always be the last resort, says UNICEF rep
UNICEF representative in Nepal, Gillian Mellsop, has called upon the participants of the International Conference on Inter-country Adoption being held in Kathmandu 11-13 March to consider seriously the rights of the child and advocate for child adoption mechanisms that are strictly in line with the Convention of the Rights of the Child (CRC) and The Hague Convention.
"Adoption should always be the last resort for the child. The CRC which guides UNICEF's work, states very clearly that every child has the right to know and to be cared for by his or her own parents, whenever possible,” a press statement issued by the UNICEF on the eve of the adoption conference quoted Mellsop as saying.
“UNCIEF believes that families needing support to care for their children should receive it, and that alternative means of caring for a child should only be considered when, despite this assistance, a child’s family is unavailable, unable or unwilling to care for her or him,” she said and called upon the participants of the Inter-country Adoption Conference to advocate for mechanisms that are transparent and in line with the CRC and The Hague Convention.
The UNICEF said it was hopeful that the international conference would lead to the ratification of the Hague Convention on Inter-Country Adoption and the adoption of national laws and mechanisms to regulate in-country and inter-country adoption.
“The Hague Convention is designed to put into action the principles regarding inter-country adoption which are contained the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) which Nepal has ratified," Mellsop reminded, adding, “These principles include ensuring that adoption is authorised only by competent authorities, and that inter-country adoption does not result in improper financial gain for those involved in it."
According to the UNICEF, these provisions are meant first and foremost to protect children, and also have the positive effect of providing assurance to prospective adoptive parents that their child has not been the subject of illegal and detrimental practices.
Referring to the increasing trend of families from wealthy countries wanting to adopt children from other countries, Mellsop said, "Lack of education and oversight, particularly in the countries of origin, coupled with the potential for financial gain, has spurred the unfortunate growth of an industry around adoption."
"This means that profit, rather than the best interests of the children, takes centre stage. Abuses include the sale and abduction of children, coercion of parents, and bribery, as well as trafficking to individuals whose intentions are to exploit rather than care for children," she added.
The UNICEF’s concern came amidst media reports that many agencies working for children in Nepal have been involved in illegal activities in the name of facilitating adoption, especially inter-country adoption. Source:nepalnews, peacejournalism.com.Nepal.
These are quotes we should keep and use, folks!!!
# posted by Senior Mom @ 7:33 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
RE UNICEF Gets it RIGHT!
Amen, amen & AMEN, all the way around. Hope this message gets heard loud and clear at that conference AND AROUND THE WORLD.
Amen, amen & AMEN, all the way around. Hope this message gets heard loud and clear at that conference AND AROUND THE WORLD.
# posted by 
: 6:52 AM
: 6:52 AM
Yes, everywhere but in the US...
WE are one of only two countries who has not ratified the CRC or the Haugue!
WE are one of only two countries who has not ratified the CRC or the Haugue!
And please note that these are the rights of CHILDREN not adults that CRC and UNICEF are talking about. That's what the C is UNICEF is for and that's whose rights the CRF is all about.
They do not suggest that these children should have these rights WHEN THEY ARE ADULTS!!!
UNICEF states very clearly that every child has the right to know and to be cared for by his or her own parents, whenever possible.
They do not suggest that these children should have these rights WHEN THEY ARE ADULTS!!!
UNICEF states very clearly that every child has the right to know and to be cared for by his or her own parents, whenever possible.
I find it really humorous that I and others have been called radical anti-adoptionsists for saying THE EXACT SAME THINGS and having the identical goals as UNICEF!
These quotes could have been the foreword to my book! It is EXACTLY everything that I recommend:
- Family preservation: no seprations unless all mean of assisting families to remain intact have tried and failed
-When a separation is absolutely necessary it needs to be done openly and honestly
- Remove the moneyed interests to remove the eploitation, corruption and commodification
Far, far more than open records for adults needs to be done!! That is barely a band-aid for those who are now adults. Even for many it of them it is far too little and far too late. And how is that working - open records. Four states in 50 years???
I think we can put our efforts into something fare more worthwhile. Something will help CHILDREN, not adults! Isn't that what adoption is supposed to be about - the best interests of the CHILD? There is no way I can condone a system that harms children, only to try to feebly rectify the harm done tot hem all of their lives when they are adults.
To my way of thinking that would make as much sense as supporting legislation that instead of outlawing child abuse would allow adults who were physically and sexually abused as children to sue their parents WHEN THEY WERE ADULTS!
A few birthmothers seem to identify
closely with adult adoptees such as those in BN, trying to be 'the good birthmother' - to make amends for the abdonment they feel and blame us for because it is what they wish they could do for their own adult child. Some sublimate this need on other adoptees and become one with their cause to make penance for having caused them a painful life, by continuing to be totally selfless and devoted only to THEIR needs and wishes.
I instead, see my own child in every child born today to be torn from his/her mother and live a life of lies. I feel the only way to right the wrongs done to me and my daughter is to prevent others from undergoing the same harm.
I suppose there is room for all of us and of course each of us must follow our own hearts. Some mothers and loved ones of someone brutally killed might devote their life to educating and helping prisoners on death row; or fighting for or against the death penalty; helping crime victims. Others devote their lives to get legislation passed to PREVENT other such atrocities.
These quotes could have been the foreword to my book! It is EXACTLY everything that I recommend:
- Family preservation: no seprations unless all mean of assisting families to remain intact have tried and failed
-When a separation is absolutely necessary it needs to be done openly and honestly
- Remove the moneyed interests to remove the eploitation, corruption and commodification
Far, far more than open records for adults needs to be done!! That is barely a band-aid for those who are now adults. Even for many it of them it is far too little and far too late. And how is that working - open records. Four states in 50 years???
I think we can put our efforts into something fare more worthwhile. Something will help CHILDREN, not adults! Isn't that what adoption is supposed to be about - the best interests of the CHILD? There is no way I can condone a system that harms children, only to try to feebly rectify the harm done tot hem all of their lives when they are adults.
To my way of thinking that would make as much sense as supporting legislation that instead of outlawing child abuse would allow adults who were physically and sexually abused as children to sue their parents WHEN THEY WERE ADULTS!
A few birthmothers seem to identify
closely with adult adoptees such as those in BN, trying to be 'the good birthmother' - to make amends for the abdonment they feel and blame us for because it is what they wish they could do for their own adult child. Some sublimate this need on other adoptees and become one with their cause to make penance for having caused them a painful life, by continuing to be totally selfless and devoted only to THEIR needs and wishes.
I instead, see my own child in every child born today to be torn from his/her mother and live a life of lies. I feel the only way to right the wrongs done to me and my daughter is to prevent others from undergoing the same harm.
I suppose there is room for all of us and of course each of us must follow our own hearts. Some mothers and loved ones of someone brutally killed might devote their life to educating and helping prisoners on death row; or fighting for or against the death penalty; helping crime victims. Others devote their lives to get legislation passed to PREVENT other such atrocities.
Mirah wrote:A few birthmothers seem to identify
closely with adult adoptees such as those in BN, trying to be 'the good birthmother' - to make amends for the abdonment they feel and blame us for because it is what they wish they could do for their own adult child. Some sublimate this need on other adoptees and become one with their cause to make penance for having caused them a painful life, by continuing to be totally selfless and devoted only to THEIR needs and wishes.
Wow, that is quite an unwarranted analysis of the motives of those of us who are birthmothers who are members of BN and working for adoptee rights. Did it ever occur to you that we are not "doing penance" but doing what we feel is right and feasible, just as you are?
What I do for my adult child I do FOR him....like send him Christmas and birthday presents. He has no interest in adoptee rights or issues. My adult friends in BN are not substitute children and I do not associate with them out of guilt but out of shared interests and friendship.
The sense you convey in your writings is that everyone not supporting YOUR causes in your way is in some way defective, does not really care about children, whatever. That is not going to win you new friends and supporters among those of us so pitiful we are still working for open records for adoptees instead of getting with your far superior program.
Yes, this all plays to your cheering section, but it is really insulting to some of us.
closely with adult adoptees such as those in BN, trying to be 'the good birthmother' - to make amends for the abdonment they feel and blame us for because it is what they wish they could do for their own adult child. Some sublimate this need on other adoptees and become one with their cause to make penance for having caused them a painful life, by continuing to be totally selfless and devoted only to THEIR needs and wishes.
Wow, that is quite an unwarranted analysis of the motives of those of us who are birthmothers who are members of BN and working for adoptee rights. Did it ever occur to you that we are not "doing penance" but doing what we feel is right and feasible, just as you are?
What I do for my adult child I do FOR him....like send him Christmas and birthday presents. He has no interest in adoptee rights or issues. My adult friends in BN are not substitute children and I do not associate with them out of guilt but out of shared interests and friendship.
The sense you convey in your writings is that everyone not supporting YOUR causes in your way is in some way defective, does not really care about children, whatever. That is not going to win you new friends and supporters among those of us so pitiful we are still working for open records for adoptees instead of getting with your far superior program.
Yes, this all plays to your cheering section, but it is really insulting to some of us.
# posted by : 2:28 PM
: 2:28 PM
MaryAnne,
Where did this quote come from? I don't see it in my post that you are commenting on.
In any event, I am very sorry that you took my comments as personally offensive. I said "a few" which is less even than saying "some." I in no way mean all BN members who are birth mothers, no more than I inferred it to mean all birth mothers who are BN members. OF COURSE NOT, as I myself am a lifetime BN member!!
I, and every mother I know supports open records (although some support the openness for both adoptee and mother).
Conversely, BN firmly sees open records as an issue that effects and is the business of adoptees ONLY.
In a previous post I wrote about the sharp edges of the adoption triangle. There is a strong undercurrent from many adoptees in BN that birthmother's gum up the works rather than help.
Where did this quote come from? I don't see it in my post that you are commenting on.
In any event, I am very sorry that you took my comments as personally offensive. I said "a few" which is less even than saying "some." I in no way mean all BN members who are birth mothers, no more than I inferred it to mean all birth mothers who are BN members. OF COURSE NOT, as I myself am a lifetime BN member!!
I, and every mother I know supports open records (although some support the openness for both adoptee and mother).
Conversely, BN firmly sees open records as an issue that effects and is the business of adoptees ONLY.
In a previous post I wrote about the sharp edges of the adoption triangle. There is a strong undercurrent from many adoptees in BN that birthmother's gum up the works rather than help.
Your comment that I quoted is right there in a comment previous to mine, posted at 1PM. Don't see how you could miss it! Nobody in BN has ever said I "gummed up" things with anything I wrote or said.
# posted by : 5:51 PM
: 5:51 PM
ooops. My bad, I was looking in the post about UNICEF, not the comments.
But you are still taking this as having been written about YOU personally. It is nOT. It is not about you, or your son, or what was or wasn't said to you.
They never said it to me, either BTW...it is a FEELING I get from them and from reading Joann Small's book, especially. It is IMPLIED, not said. CLEARLY implied in Small's book...when she says the interests of birth mothers and adoptees are disparate, calls us unwed mothers, and gives us no credit for supporting open records.
It is the way "I" - and other mothers I have spoken to - feel.
But you are still taking this as having been written about YOU personally. It is nOT. It is not about you, or your son, or what was or wasn't said to you.
They never said it to me, either BTW...it is a FEELING I get from them and from reading Joann Small's book, especially. It is IMPLIED, not said. CLEARLY implied in Small's book...when she says the interests of birth mothers and adoptees are disparate, calls us unwed mothers, and gives us no credit for supporting open records.
It is the way "I" - and other mothers I have spoken to - feel.
I re-reading my comments here and the reply to my comments, I once again regret the we/they divisiveness.
I said: "Isn't that what adoption is supposed to be about - the best interests of the CHILD? There is no way I can condone a system that harms children, only to try to feebly rectify the harm done to them all of their lives when they are adults."
I stand firmly by this statement as MY FEELINGS and what "I" want to do, and what I do not condone.
HOWEVER...I also follow this, and end that comment with a paragraph that begins:
"I suppose there is room for all of us and of course each of us must follow our own hearts."
So I cannot help but wonder, WHY it is, that a post about UNICEF's desire to help CHILDREN, and my agreement with their statement... leads to hard feelings.
I began my activism first and foremost to find my own daughter and be assured that she was in fact alive; to determine of in fact she had been adopted or remained in foster care; to see if she or her parents needed any information from me; to try and let her know as best I could that she was loved to help assuage any feelings of abandonment she might have. My daughter was 12 when I found her.
She would be 40 this year. Perhaps it is because she is not a 40 year old adult. I'm not sure. But adoption is about the best interests of the CHILD, not about the rights of adults. There is nothing shocking or unusual in that statement.
As a parent, and as a human being, I always advocate for the rights of all children above the rights of adults in ALL situations, not just adoption.
I personally do not agree with any policies that make the rights mothers, adult adoptees, or adoptive parents preeminent over that of young children who cannot speak for themselves.
I said: "Isn't that what adoption is supposed to be about - the best interests of the CHILD? There is no way I can condone a system that harms children, only to try to feebly rectify the harm done to them all of their lives when they are adults."
I stand firmly by this statement as MY FEELINGS and what "I" want to do, and what I do not condone.
HOWEVER...I also follow this, and end that comment with a paragraph that begins:
"I suppose there is room for all of us and of course each of us must follow our own hearts."
So I cannot help but wonder, WHY it is, that a post about UNICEF's desire to help CHILDREN, and my agreement with their statement... leads to hard feelings.
I began my activism first and foremost to find my own daughter and be assured that she was in fact alive; to determine of in fact she had been adopted or remained in foster care; to see if she or her parents needed any information from me; to try and let her know as best I could that she was loved to help assuage any feelings of abandonment she might have. My daughter was 12 when I found her.
She would be 40 this year. Perhaps it is because she is not a 40 year old adult. I'm not sure. But adoption is about the best interests of the CHILD, not about the rights of adults. There is nothing shocking or unusual in that statement.
As a parent, and as a human being, I always advocate for the rights of all children above the rights of adults in ALL situations, not just adoption.
I personally do not agree with any policies that make the rights mothers, adult adoptees, or adoptive parents preeminent over that of young children who cannot speak for themselves.
In re-reading my comments here and the reply to my comments, I once again find we/they divisiveness, that I regret.
I said: "Isn't that what adoption is supposed to be about - the best interests of the CHILD? There is no way I can condone a system that harms children, only to try to feebly rectify the harm done to them all of their lives when they are adults."
I stand firmly by this statement as MY FEELINGS and what "I" want to do, and what I do not condone.
HOWEVER...I also follow this, and end that comment with a paragraph that begins:
"I suppose there is room for all of us and of course each of us must follow our own hearts."
So I cannot help but wonder, WHY it is, that a post about UNICEF's desire to help CHILDREN, and my agreement with their statement... leads to hard feelings.
I began my activism first and foremost to find my own daughter and be assured that she was in fact alive; to determine of in fact she had been adopted or remained in foster care; to see if she or her parents needed any information from me; to try and let her know as best I could that she was loved to help assuage any feelings of abandonment she might have. My daughter was 12 when I found her.
She would be 40 this year. Perhaps it is because she is not a 40 year old adult. I'm not sure. But adoption is about the best interests of the CHILD, not about the rights of adults. There is nothing shocking or unusual in that statement.
As a parent, and as a human being, I always advocate for the rights of all children above the rights of adults in ALL situations, not just adoption.
I personally do not agree with any policies that make the rights mothers, adult adoptees, or adoptive parents preeminent over that of young children who cannot speak for themselves.
I said: "Isn't that what adoption is supposed to be about - the best interests of the CHILD? There is no way I can condone a system that harms children, only to try to feebly rectify the harm done to them all of their lives when they are adults."
I stand firmly by this statement as MY FEELINGS and what "I" want to do, and what I do not condone.
HOWEVER...I also follow this, and end that comment with a paragraph that begins:
"I suppose there is room for all of us and of course each of us must follow our own hearts."
So I cannot help but wonder, WHY it is, that a post about UNICEF's desire to help CHILDREN, and my agreement with their statement... leads to hard feelings.
I began my activism first and foremost to find my own daughter and be assured that she was in fact alive; to determine of in fact she had been adopted or remained in foster care; to see if she or her parents needed any information from me; to try and let her know as best I could that she was loved to help assuage any feelings of abandonment she might have. My daughter was 12 when I found her.
She would be 40 this year. Perhaps it is because she is not a 40 year old adult. I'm not sure. But adoption is about the best interests of the CHILD, not about the rights of adults. There is nothing shocking or unusual in that statement.
As a parent, and as a human being, I always advocate for the rights of all children above the rights of adults in ALL situations, not just adoption.
I personally do not agree with any policies that make the rights mothers, adult adoptees, or adoptive parents preeminent over that of young children who cannot speak for themselves.
Geez, Adoptalk, you have quite a talent for casting aspersions, don't you?
As well as a bizarre confidence in your ability to understand the motives of those who take a different perspective from your own.
BTW, "a few" and "some" are pretty pathetic disclaimers. Just a way of pretending that you're playing nice, it seems to me.
As well as a bizarre confidence in your ability to understand the motives of those who take a different perspective from your own.
BTW, "a few" and "some" are pretty pathetic disclaimers. Just a way of pretending that you're playing nice, it seems to me.
# posted by : 7:05 PM
: 7:05 PM
I claim no ability whatsoever to understand what motives anyone to do anything.
I have no idea why there are people who go to blogs ONLY when there is something they disagree with. When there is an entire post about UNICEF's proposal to help prevent children being SOLD in the name of adoption...what on earth motivates motivates people to find fault with some OPINION of mine...??
I have no idea why there is post after here - and on other blogs - that no one comments about...or why there are people who never comment here, except to find fault and pick an argument.
No idea...though it's human nature to try to find a theory to explain behavior that seems odd. All of us do it all the time.
Many people throw theories around and some of us agree with some and some with others. Some people agree with primal wound theory, others do not. Some believe in ACS; some do not. I have my theories too. So what?
This is, after all, MY blog - thus my place to speculate, theorize, think out loud, brainstorm, throw out ideas...
I sometimes take wild guesses, and in this case my guess would be this: some of the time the guesses I take - the sheer SPECULATIONS I make - seem to push the buttons.
All I know is what i said: that I put the rights of children above the rights of any adults. I disagree with mothers (birth or adoptive) who think their needs, their pain, their loss, their suffering is the biggest problem id adoption...and I EQUALLY with adult adoptees - and their supporters - who think the rights of adult adoptees are the biggest problem in adoption today.
That makes me as popular in th adoption movement as a lawyer who takes legal malpractice cases. So be it. I am not here to win a popularity contest. I have a conscience and my one personal internal moral compass that guides me. I believe we all do. Some of our compasses point one way, and some another and we each have to follow the path our heart, our soul, and our mind tell us to go.
I TRULY apologize if some of theories are offensive or hurtful to anyone. They are not intended to be.
I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell. ~ Harry Truman
All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. ~ Schoepenhauer
This is NOT to say that there is only one truth - each of us must find our own.
I have no idea why there are people who go to blogs ONLY when there is something they disagree with. When there is an entire post about UNICEF's proposal to help prevent children being SOLD in the name of adoption...what on earth motivates motivates people to find fault with some OPINION of mine...??
I have no idea why there is post after here - and on other blogs - that no one comments about...or why there are people who never comment here, except to find fault and pick an argument.
No idea...though it's human nature to try to find a theory to explain behavior that seems odd. All of us do it all the time.
Many people throw theories around and some of us agree with some and some with others. Some people agree with primal wound theory, others do not. Some believe in ACS; some do not. I have my theories too. So what?
This is, after all, MY blog - thus my place to speculate, theorize, think out loud, brainstorm, throw out ideas...
I sometimes take wild guesses, and in this case my guess would be this: some of the time the guesses I take - the sheer SPECULATIONS I make - seem to push the buttons.
All I know is what i said: that I put the rights of children above the rights of any adults. I disagree with mothers (birth or adoptive) who think their needs, their pain, their loss, their suffering is the biggest problem id adoption...and I EQUALLY with adult adoptees - and their supporters - who think the rights of adult adoptees are the biggest problem in adoption today.
That makes me as popular in th adoption movement as a lawyer who takes legal malpractice cases. So be it. I am not here to win a popularity contest. I have a conscience and my one personal internal moral compass that guides me. I believe we all do. Some of our compasses point one way, and some another and we each have to follow the path our heart, our soul, and our mind tell us to go.
I TRULY apologize if some of theories are offensive or hurtful to anyone. They are not intended to be.
I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell. ~ Harry Truman
All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. ~ Schoepenhauer
This is NOT to say that there is only one truth - each of us must find our own.
"I claim no ability whatsoever to understand what motives anyone to do anything. "
No?
"Some sublimate this need on other adoptees and become one with their cause to make penance for having caused them a painful life, by continuing to be totally selfless and devoted only to THEIR needs and wishes."
So if you claim no ability to understand the motivation of others, what's the above supposed to be about? It's not presented as just a hypothesis, but as an unequivocal statement of fact.
"I have no idea why there are people who go to blogs ONLY when there is something they disagree with."
I know I've posted positively on your blog at least once.
There's no way what you wrote under comments to the UNICEF blog entry could be construed as anything other than an unprovoked and gratuitous insult. There it was, straight out of what seemed to be a clear blue sky. I was quite shocked, honestly.
"When there is an entire post about UNICEF's proposal to help prevent children being SOLD in the name of adoption...what on earth motivates motivates people to find fault with some OPINION of mine...?? "
Maybe, like I said, because your OPINION was not just an opinion but a gratuitous insult deliberately lobbed in the direction of people with whom you disagree.
Besides, your OPINION of "some birthmothers" had nothing at all to do with the original post, with which nobody with any sense would disagree.
You just couldn't resist using it to put the knife in.
Anyway, that's my OPINION.
No?
"Some sublimate this need on other adoptees and become one with their cause to make penance for having caused them a painful life, by continuing to be totally selfless and devoted only to THEIR needs and wishes."
So if you claim no ability to understand the motivation of others, what's the above supposed to be about? It's not presented as just a hypothesis, but as an unequivocal statement of fact.
"I have no idea why there are people who go to blogs ONLY when there is something they disagree with."
I know I've posted positively on your blog at least once.
There's no way what you wrote under comments to the UNICEF blog entry could be construed as anything other than an unprovoked and gratuitous insult. There it was, straight out of what seemed to be a clear blue sky. I was quite shocked, honestly.
"When there is an entire post about UNICEF's proposal to help prevent children being SOLD in the name of adoption...what on earth motivates motivates people to find fault with some OPINION of mine...?? "
Maybe, like I said, because your OPINION was not just an opinion but a gratuitous insult deliberately lobbed in the direction of people with whom you disagree.
Besides, your OPINION of "some birthmothers" had nothing at all to do with the original post, with which nobody with any sense would disagree.
You just couldn't resist using it to put the knife in.
Anyway, that's my OPINION.
# posted by : 6:52 AM
: 6:52 AM
In the US, parents have the right to the custody and care of their children. They have the right to make decisions(parenting decisions) for their children. These include housing, schooling(within the parameters of the education laws)nutrition, medical care, clothing choices, religious choices,recreation, and other decisions that parents make.Children are protected, by law, from criminal behavior against them, and are entitled to be cared for by their custodians(who may or may not be their biological parents).
Minor children do not have the right, nor even the ability, to make "parental decisions', so I am not sure what "rights" of children, in "all situations even outside of adoption", would come before the rights of parents.
Perhaps you are simply speaking about the obvious....when a person has custody of a child, the child's safety and care come before the parent's freedom to seek their own entertainment, for example.A parent cannot simply leave a child to fend for itself....welll, we know that some do, but that is neglect, and sometimes criminal abandonment.
Children are minors and as minors, they don't have the same rights as adults.
Minor children do not have the right, nor even the ability, to make "parental decisions', so I am not sure what "rights" of children, in "all situations even outside of adoption", would come before the rights of parents.
Perhaps you are simply speaking about the obvious....when a person has custody of a child, the child's safety and care come before the parent's freedom to seek their own entertainment, for example.A parent cannot simply leave a child to fend for itself....welll, we know that some do, but that is neglect, and sometimes criminal abandonment.
Children are minors and as minors, they don't have the same rights as adults.
# posted by : 6:59 PM
: 6:59 PM
Each of the "rights" of parents you list - schooling, nutrition etc. - also imply an obligation of the parent.
The rights of children I am speaking about are those, and the all the ones spelled out by UNICEF such as the right to live in peace, to have medical care, not to abused...
When I speak of adults not putting their rights or needs before those of children I speak of children being prostituted, used for pornography - or simply used as pawns in a divorce. Not just in the US, but children everywhere.
Did you happen to see Blood Diamond? There are approx. 250,000 child soldiers. In Thailand, it's estimated that up to a third of prostitutes are children under 18.
Now, I obviously have no delusions of personally trying to stop all abuses against children. But I do whatever I cna to speak out against all such atrocities and support organizations that try to stop them and to help children the world over.
I concentrate on adoption abuse because i have more personal experience with that and is a bit more manageable than trying to save all the world's child. :-)
But it is important to recognize there is overlap. Adoption abuse is not isolated: human trafficking and children used for pornography have occurred because of, and as a result of, adoption.
I believe it is advantageous to view adoption abuses in this larger context. I believe that it will gain more concern and support for adoption issues when they are presented in this way as part of child welfare in general.
As of right now, adoption - as you well know - is set aside as a scared cow: noble and altruistic. It needs to be, IMO, shown for what it really is...part of a continuum of abuse of the weakest and most powerless and voiceless members of society.
I am glad you asked me because it helped me verbalize and coalesce my deepest most heartfelt passion and compassion.
I hope in doing so I have answered you, K.
The rights of children I am speaking about are those, and the all the ones spelled out by UNICEF such as the right to live in peace, to have medical care, not to abused...
When I speak of adults not putting their rights or needs before those of children I speak of children being prostituted, used for pornography - or simply used as pawns in a divorce. Not just in the US, but children everywhere.
Did you happen to see Blood Diamond? There are approx. 250,000 child soldiers. In Thailand, it's estimated that up to a third of prostitutes are children under 18.
Now, I obviously have no delusions of personally trying to stop all abuses against children. But I do whatever I cna to speak out against all such atrocities and support organizations that try to stop them and to help children the world over.
I concentrate on adoption abuse because i have more personal experience with that and is a bit more manageable than trying to save all the world's child. :-)
But it is important to recognize there is overlap. Adoption abuse is not isolated: human trafficking and children used for pornography have occurred because of, and as a result of, adoption.
I believe it is advantageous to view adoption abuses in this larger context. I believe that it will gain more concern and support for adoption issues when they are presented in this way as part of child welfare in general.
As of right now, adoption - as you well know - is set aside as a scared cow: noble and altruistic. It needs to be, IMO, shown for what it really is...part of a continuum of abuse of the weakest and most powerless and voiceless members of society.
I am glad you asked me because it helped me verbalize and coalesce my deepest most heartfelt passion and compassion.
I hope in doing so I have answered you, K.
adopttalk,
thank you for clarifying. I thought that was probably what you meant.
As I am sure you know, in the 19th century, child labor and child prostitution were evils that also occurred in the USA, and caused concern for early "social reformers.". Our country has never been free of guilt, and we are not free of guilt now.
And I agree that adoption is part of a bigger picture, in which children are simply being used to fulfull some kind of function for adults.
There are organizations such as World Vision which have always advocated for keeping families together and helping people in their own culture.I like what UNICEF has to say.It sounds like the same type of thing.
thank you for clarifying. I thought that was probably what you meant.
As I am sure you know, in the 19th century, child labor and child prostitution were evils that also occurred in the USA, and caused concern for early "social reformers.". Our country has never been free of guilt, and we are not free of guilt now.
And I agree that adoption is part of a bigger picture, in which children are simply being used to fulfull some kind of function for adults.
There are organizations such as World Vision which have always advocated for keeping families together and helping people in their own culture.I like what UNICEF has to say.It sounds like the same type of thing.
# posted by : 9:20 PM
: 9:20 PM
Yes. Once we hoped to get feminists to see the plight of mothers who are convinced to relinquish as a feminist issue - which it is! However, it is very hard to get their support because many feminists are part of the problem in that they are the beneficiaries of another's woman's loss and pain.
To include adoption issues under the umbrella of child protection makes it hard for anyone to ignore.
It IS a child's right issue and it is also political savvy to point that out.
To anyone who might criticize me as "using" this as a cover for what is really a mother's issue -- I find it hard to separate the two. Many issues effect both mothers and their babies, such as breastfeeding and childbirth, daycare...
To include adoption issues under the umbrella of child protection makes it hard for anyone to ignore.
It IS a child's right issue and it is also political savvy to point that out.
To anyone who might criticize me as "using" this as a cover for what is really a mother's issue -- I find it hard to separate the two. Many issues effect both mothers and their babies, such as breastfeeding and childbirth, daycare...
...and foster care - which is definitely seen as a child's issue in need of much overhauling...(and which just also happens to be a major issue for the mothers who has lost custody and had her child put into foster care for being poor)...is a great BRIDGE between issues accepted as a child's right issue and drawing focus adoption abused as the same.
I agree.I don't see issues of mothering and the connections between mothers and their children as being an adversarial situation.
Back in the 70s I called a national womens organization and told them what has happened to me when I lost my child. I wanted to know if they were doing anything to help unmarried mothers who were in danger of losing their children. The woman on the phone simply said"Well, that is why we have to make sure that abortion stays safe and legal."
Something got lost in the feminist movement...the movement lost any interest in the concerns of mothers and children.
Maybe they are doing more for mothers and children now, I don't know.
Back in the 70s I called a national womens organization and told them what has happened to me when I lost my child. I wanted to know if they were doing anything to help unmarried mothers who were in danger of losing their children. The woman on the phone simply said"Well, that is why we have to make sure that abortion stays safe and legal."
Something got lost in the feminist movement...the movement lost any interest in the concerns of mothers and children.
Maybe they are doing more for mothers and children now, I don't know.
# posted by : 10:16 PM
: 10:16 PM
I think you're quite right, K.
"Feminists" of course cannot not be painted with one brush - there are a precious few like Phyllis Chesler and Rickie Solinger who DO see our issue as a woman's issue...They are by far the minority.
Most are far more interested in issues of "reproductive rights" and see adoption from that perspective - as the end of a path to resolve infertility.
It IS very much a woman's issue - I have written about that (see articles link on advocatepublications.com). Women all over the world are being exploited for their babies. It is also a human rights issue as far as adoptees being denied the same rights as others. Yet ACLU in some states like NJ have worked AGAINST open records and on the side of protecting the alleged rights of alleged birthmothers who allegedly want to be protected.
Open records and the rights of single mothers are not of importance to any political lobby. They have no clout or power. That is why only 4 states have opened records in all the years we have been trying.
It's time, I believe, for a new strategy. It;s foolish to keep trying something that had gotten so little, and doesn't even pretend to make a dent in getting to the ROOT of the problem.
"Feminists" of course cannot not be painted with one brush - there are a precious few like Phyllis Chesler and Rickie Solinger who DO see our issue as a woman's issue...They are by far the minority.
Most are far more interested in issues of "reproductive rights" and see adoption from that perspective - as the end of a path to resolve infertility.
It IS very much a woman's issue - I have written about that (see articles link on advocatepublications.com). Women all over the world are being exploited for their babies. It is also a human rights issue as far as adoptees being denied the same rights as others. Yet ACLU in some states like NJ have worked AGAINST open records and on the side of protecting the alleged rights of alleged birthmothers who allegedly want to be protected.
Open records and the rights of single mothers are not of importance to any political lobby. They have no clout or power. That is why only 4 states have opened records in all the years we have been trying.
It's time, I believe, for a new strategy. It;s foolish to keep trying something that had gotten so little, and doesn't even pretend to make a dent in getting to the ROOT of the problem.
Just to clear up misunderstandings, I think the UNICEF statement is excellent and just common sense, nothing especially radical. It is not anti-adoption, but pro-adoption reform, which is where I stand as well, especially as relates to the more horrific abuses in foreign and infant adoption. By adding the phrase "whenever possible" to suggestions favoring family preservation, this statement admits that what is idea is not always possible, and that strictly regulated ethical adoption does have a place in child welfare.
And of course this statement is about children which is UNICEF's mission. It says nothing about adults because it has nothing to do with adults, just as open records legislation in the USA has nothing to do with children. These are apples and oranges.
I do not understand your need to dismiss those who are working for the rights of those already adopted and in counseling those adopted adults and their birthparents rather than devoting all their efforts to children's issues as you have chosen to do.
What you are doing is good, and so is what we are doing. It is all needed and worthy.
And of course this statement is about children which is UNICEF's mission. It says nothing about adults because it has nothing to do with adults, just as open records legislation in the USA has nothing to do with children. These are apples and oranges.
I do not understand your need to dismiss those who are working for the rights of those already adopted and in counseling those adopted adults and their birthparents rather than devoting all their efforts to children's issues as you have chosen to do.
What you are doing is good, and so is what we are doing. It is all needed and worthy.
# posted by : 10:38 AM
: 10:38 AM
MaryAnne,
I could not agree more with everything you have said. I have often said on this blog and elsewhere that we each must follow our heart and do what we are best at, what we enjoy doing etc.
We can - and I believe "should" (though I dislike using that word) - each have a MAIN goal or priority within the umbrella of adoption and yet be supportive of others' goals as well.
While I often QUESTION why other groups focus their efforts as they do...I have NEVER publicly lobbied against anyone's efforts and don't intend to. I have always - and will continue to - support any and every bill for open records for adults because, as you said it's a separate issue. As I have said: just like cancer treatment and cancer research. BOTH are important and should be compatible. (Although they probably compete over the same dollars in funding and I would not be surprised at all of those working on both ends of that each see what they are doing as the more important one.)
What I do not understand or condone is organizations such as BN opposing legislation that others have busted their humps for because it doesn't go far enough...because it has a "restriction" that doesn't fit their narrow *IDEAL* of open records...especially when they themselves put their own age restriction on legislation that they initiate!
Their suggested bills and referendums and such have been narrow minded and selfish IMO compared to, say, the recent bill being introduced in Mass. that at least includes opening the records to the a-parents of minors.
BN is also opposed to the Hague, upon which the UNICEF statement (that you agree with) is based in part and would put it into action... for the same reason. It doesn't go far enough to meet THEIR needs as adults.
This is what I object to. This is putting the needs of adults over and above th needs of children. I dislike it when people adopt children to meet their own "need" or desire to be a parent in a way that overrides what is best for that child. It is why I am opposed to sealed, secretive adoptions - because it puts the needs and desires of adults who do not want to have to deal with their child's mother over the needs of their child. I am opposed to anonymous sperm and egg donation for the same reason - they are selfish. They are not thinking of the baby they are creating as a human being with its own rights, needs and desires.
IMO we need to focus attention on that end - at the beginning - where it all starts. Babies are not toys, they are human beings. They SHOULD have rights of their own to be taken care of in a way that is best for them, over and beyond whatever is best for their parents. Many cases of revoked adoptions that lead to tugs-of-war are better resolved with joint custody - as Eric Smith did - because that is best for the child, even if the parents would rather not have it that way. Eric's son will be an adult some day. But why should have to wait until then to know a father who loves him?
AND as I said before, as a side effect I also believe it is more politically "correct' and will garner more support to put adoption under that umbrella. It did after all start out - and continues to purport to be - to be a system devised to come to the aid of CHILDREN who need homes.
Orgs like BN don't have to DO anything to support any child's right causes, just NOT do some of the negative things they do to sabotage others' hard work that is related to adoption reform. It would be great if they SUPPORTED others, but if they cannot in good conscience do that, then just be silent. But they never will because they want what they want and do not care how it hurts anyone else. And there is not a damn thing I can do about but express my diastase for it. And I will continue to do so just as I express diastase, disgust and disdain for policies of the man at the helm of the US.
Differences of opinion make the world go round, as they say. But some ACTIONS, based on one's opinion, can be and are, very harmful and even deadly. Both in adoption and the world at large.
I could not agree more with everything you have said. I have often said on this blog and elsewhere that we each must follow our heart and do what we are best at, what we enjoy doing etc.
We can - and I believe "should" (though I dislike using that word) - each have a MAIN goal or priority within the umbrella of adoption and yet be supportive of others' goals as well.
While I often QUESTION why other groups focus their efforts as they do...I have NEVER publicly lobbied against anyone's efforts and don't intend to. I have always - and will continue to - support any and every bill for open records for adults because, as you said it's a separate issue. As I have said: just like cancer treatment and cancer research. BOTH are important and should be compatible. (Although they probably compete over the same dollars in funding and I would not be surprised at all of those working on both ends of that each see what they are doing as the more important one.)
What I do not understand or condone is organizations such as BN opposing legislation that others have busted their humps for because it doesn't go far enough...because it has a "restriction" that doesn't fit their narrow *IDEAL* of open records...especially when they themselves put their own age restriction on legislation that they initiate!
Their suggested bills and referendums and such have been narrow minded and selfish IMO compared to, say, the recent bill being introduced in Mass. that at least includes opening the records to the a-parents of minors.
BN is also opposed to the Hague, upon which the UNICEF statement (that you agree with) is based in part and would put it into action... for the same reason. It doesn't go far enough to meet THEIR needs as adults.
This is what I object to. This is putting the needs of adults over and above th needs of children. I dislike it when people adopt children to meet their own "need" or desire to be a parent in a way that overrides what is best for that child. It is why I am opposed to sealed, secretive adoptions - because it puts the needs and desires of adults who do not want to have to deal with their child's mother over the needs of their child. I am opposed to anonymous sperm and egg donation for the same reason - they are selfish. They are not thinking of the baby they are creating as a human being with its own rights, needs and desires.
IMO we need to focus attention on that end - at the beginning - where it all starts. Babies are not toys, they are human beings. They SHOULD have rights of their own to be taken care of in a way that is best for them, over and beyond whatever is best for their parents. Many cases of revoked adoptions that lead to tugs-of-war are better resolved with joint custody - as Eric Smith did - because that is best for the child, even if the parents would rather not have it that way. Eric's son will be an adult some day. But why should have to wait until then to know a father who loves him?
AND as I said before, as a side effect I also believe it is more politically "correct' and will garner more support to put adoption under that umbrella. It did after all start out - and continues to purport to be - to be a system devised to come to the aid of CHILDREN who need homes.
Orgs like BN don't have to DO anything to support any child's right causes, just NOT do some of the negative things they do to sabotage others' hard work that is related to adoption reform. It would be great if they SUPPORTED others, but if they cannot in good conscience do that, then just be silent. But they never will because they want what they want and do not care how it hurts anyone else. And there is not a damn thing I can do about but express my diastase for it. And I will continue to do so just as I express diastase, disgust and disdain for policies of the man at the helm of the US.
Differences of opinion make the world go round, as they say. But some ACTIONS, based on one's opinion, can be and are, very harmful and even deadly. Both in adoption and the world at large.
Huh??? What does BN opposition of some crappy open records bills with so many restrictions they do more harm than good have to do with UNICEF or children's rights??
BN opposes these bills because they, and I, have never seen anyone go back and "Fix" this kind of legislation, as is often said will happen, nor do they or I believe that open records will come in "baby steps".
I have never heard that BN had any position on the Hague stuff. Why should they, given their mission statement? I know many individual members support it.
What you are arguing here, that BN and other adoptee rights groups ought to support legislation which is not retroactive or which does not open records to ALL adult adoptees is a very different issue from supporting the Hague or UNICEF.BN has no policies on anything but open records for adopted adults. I understand that you find that horrid and that you feel this ignores the needs of children. You have stated that again and again, but it is neither changind minds nor winning you supporters.
BN opposes these bills because they, and I, have never seen anyone go back and "Fix" this kind of legislation, as is often said will happen, nor do they or I believe that open records will come in "baby steps".
I have never heard that BN had any position on the Hague stuff. Why should they, given their mission statement? I know many individual members support it.
What you are arguing here, that BN and other adoptee rights groups ought to support legislation which is not retroactive or which does not open records to ALL adult adoptees is a very different issue from supporting the Hague or UNICEF.BN has no policies on anything but open records for adopted adults. I understand that you find that horrid and that you feel this ignores the needs of children. You have stated that again and again, but it is neither changind minds nor winning you supporters.
# posted by : 1:14 PM
: 1:14 PM
MaryAnne -
Since you seem totally unaware of:
Resolution of the Executive Committee
of Bastard Nation
on the Hague Convention in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (1998)
And since it's too long to post it all here for you, I have put it up asits own post.
Since you seem totally unaware of:
Resolution of the Executive Committee
of Bastard Nation
on the Hague Convention in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (1998)
And since it's too long to post it all here for you, I have put it up asits own post.
Kippa,
"I know I've posted positively on your blog at least once."
You are absolutely correct. Never said you didn't. There are some who seem to come here only for an argument, however. It got so bad at one point, I had to lay down the law about flaming - personal attacks vs sticking to the discussing topics, pro or con.Not that this blog is unique for that, or adoption email lists.
You were also right that there is no real difference between a few and some and to argue differently is ridiculous.
I was in fact squirming out of having a comment get out of hand and using it to play for tit-for-tat which is childish. Sometimes my buttons get pushed and I push back. My bad.
Post a Comment
"I know I've posted positively on your blog at least once."
You are absolutely correct. Never said you didn't. There are some who seem to come here only for an argument, however. It got so bad at one point, I had to lay down the law about flaming - personal attacks vs sticking to the discussing topics, pro or con.Not that this blog is unique for that, or adoption email lists.
You were also right that there is no real difference between a few and some and to argue differently is ridiculous.
I was in fact squirming out of having a comment get out of hand and using it to play for tit-for-tat which is childish. Sometimes my buttons get pushed and I push back. My bad.
<< Home
