?dangerous advice for emoms from a blog

Terrible advice. I held onto Kiddo being mine until the minute he was transported to the other hospital, then I started to disassociate a little, but not overly. I'm really of the opinion that all that kind of thinking does is delay the pain, and then it will hit like a ton of bricks when it does. Could you pm me the link too? Thanks!

I'll PM the link although if you google the phrase about the vessel for the adoptive parent's child, you will find it. TGM, I can understand that an emom might feel that way, I am just not sure it is good advice from an agency. Also, they are squarely placing a third party in the decision.

Well, after reading all of the questions on that law firm's blog, I now see why so many aparents and PAPs are referring to expectant mothers as "our birth mother." When speaking to PAPs, the professionals are calling pregnant women who are considering adoption "your birth mother" in their literature. Jeesh...how do you fight this stuff? In fact, this specific law firm kind of treats expectant moms as concubines, if you ask me. This kind of language is another reason I disapprove of independent adoption lawyers and facilitators. I'd much rather an emom go through a full-service adoption agency...complete with counseling and postadoption services.

I do agree that full service adoption agencies are better than law firm agencies. I still tend to think that agencies in which adoption is merely one of the services rather than the reason d'etre are even better.

OMG! Have we made no headway in the adoption movement. The quote that got me was... "we are on pace to exceed our goal this year". They have a goal? Is that like a quota? The goal should be ZERO. Ideally, there should be NO NEED for adoption. That should be the GOAL.

I've deleted and edited a few posts here that are violating our agency discussion guidelines. You cannot pull specific quotes and by googling everything it becomes so crystal clear what "blog" is being discussed. It must be done in GENERAL terms or PM'd. You can have a discussion without full on quotes and identifying information.

From an adoptive mom's viewpoint, I now am so happy that S did not disassociate herself from DS. I know it made relinquishment extremely painful for her. BUT S and I can both tell DS about how she talked to him, read to him cared about him and loved him during her pregnancy and for the 10 days that she was his only mommy. I am hopeful that knowing this will help him feel more secure and loved as an adopted person. I also think (and I could be wrong about this) that S was able to "move forward" with her life because she deeply grieved DS's loss and was completely emotionally open when he was born. I am not suggesting that I think she is "over it" or that the wounds won't re-open again at a later time. but she has told me that she is in a very good place regarding the adoption at this time. I wish agencies, etc would let PAPs know that the things you THINK you want the emom to do before relinquishment (not get "too attached" to the baby because you are afraid the match will fail) are not true indicators of whether the adoption will happen. I also wish PAPs could understand that once you adopt a child you want him or her to know that every single hard thing that was done was done out of love, and that their first mother was not a mere incubator.

When I placed my first son, it was done through a private family practice attorney. I have no idea what he and the adoptive family referred to me as. I was desperately trying to find a way to keep my son until I was about 7 months along. I named him, talked to him, sang to him, all that. When I went into labor with him, I labored at home for as long as possible because I knew they were going to take him from me. Giving him up was the most painful thing that I have ever had to endure. Even so, I would never tell a girl considering adoption to think of herself as a vessel for someone else. That is crazy advice in my opinion. When we were waiting to adopt my second son, both the agencies we worked with referred to the e-moms as "your birthmom". I think adoption professionals use that language to make the e-moms and the PAPs see the e-mom as merely a vessel. That phrase needs to be changed in my opinion.

I'm in agreement with everyone - dissociation is unhealthy, and it interferes with the natural cycle of grief, healing, and acceptance of loss.I also think there's another issue, too: A mother who is thinking this way is less likely to feel comfortable changing her mind. She is less likely to feel she has a right to decide to parent her own baby, because she's not thinking of the child as "hers." She is more likely to feel she owes the baby to the prospective adoptive parents.If the mother realizes at the last minute that she's making a huge mistake, or feels differently about what's right once she has given birth, I think she needs to know the truth... which is that she's the parent, and she is under no obligation to place if she has changed her mind.As well as being psychologically unhealthy, I think that following this suggestion could lead to parents going through relinquishments they already know are not necessary and not something they want, because it would make it harder to see another option... or to realize they have a right to take that option.

A vessel for the aparents' child? Can anyone say "Handmaiden's Tale"? I find this positively revolting. It galls me that those giving this advice have NO IDEA what it is like to relinquish a child and are actually causing more damage by making this suggestion under the guise of "professional counsel." My son has always been my son. I surrendered my legal right to parent him, but the the spiritual and emotional bond between natural mother and child has never been severed. One thing I cannot stand about adoption practice to this day is the notion that your child is not your child. Your child will always be your child. I will never understand the need to eradicate someone's motherhood in order for another woman to be a mother. Both are mothers of the same child, period. I don't pretend to be my son's parent who raised him, but I will not deny my motherhood or ever think of myself as some vessel for my son's mom.

Well, that explains it. Concubine, incubator, rented womb--what's the difference really? Tho I still like Paige's Wonder Womb.

This is the sort of thing that I think of when I hear that women are now "counseled" before placement. Counseled how? Counseled on how to dissociate? I think people are lulled into believing everything is ethical and on the up and up because there's an opportunity for counseling to be provided. But what kind of couseling is paramount to the discussion.This kind? Is disgusting.

I think you are exactly right on that TG. There are definitely some place that provide "counseling" that is more along the lines of coercion.

No doubt many of you have read this "delightful" document about how to encourage mothers to "consider adoption". [url]http://www.heartbeatinternational.org/pdf/missing_piece.pdf[/url] They might have needed a thesaurus. I counted the number of times the words "selfish", "unselfish" and selfless were used and it added up to about 30. [url=http://thesaurus.com/browse/selfless]Selfless Synonyms, Selfless Antonyms | Thesaurus.com[/url] Some of the synonyms in themselves are quite interesting in themselves. There is another document called "Birthmother, Good mother" which isn't online but looks "interesting".

I meant to say that as an adoptee, I would feel rather hurt if my bmother had always thought of me as being someone elses. I think I could understand if she had disassociated, i.e. found it hard to think of her baby as being her baby (she was actually looking after someon'e else's baby at the time (arranged through agency) so there is the possibility that she may have been able to transfer feelings to that child - she stayed with them 6 months after my birth), but to actually feel that her baby already belonged to someone else whilst still pregnant, that would have been one step too far. To me when it comes to relinquishment/adoption, the order of importance should be: Baby, emom, PAP When an emom starts to think of her not yet born baby as belonging to the PAPs, then the order seems to become: PAP, baby, emom. Baty should always be no. 1.