My Rant Against Vanity Adoptions

I’m adamantly opposed to what I call “vanity” adoptions. By “vanity” adoptions I mean the end product of throwing money at a problem. In this case the “problem” is one of obsession of well-off infertile couples’ perception of what they see would complete the decor of their lives. “Let’s go baby shopping, honey. We’ll be complete then. I know about his wonderful web site….”

I’m being a tad facetious here. True, I don’t know the agony of infertility. But I do know what it’s like not to own a forested and gated estate with servants and full health insurance, and I’m getting by somehow.

A young mother who refuses to give up her child to such “incomplete” strangers after being coerced by some baby broker into agreeing is seen as “selfish” by the machine and its clients. Chances are, she will be coaxed, then scolded, then shamed into giving up her child. Q: Why is this? A: Follow the money.

The adoption machine’s mantra is and always has been that adopting a child because its mother is “too young,” or “too irresponsible,” or “too poor,” or what have you is “for the good of the child.” This mantra is a total lie. It is total crap. The truth is that “vanity” adoption for these and similar reasons ruins lives, both of the child and his or her mother. Forever. There is no reparation for this mother-child separation. It is the most unforgivable violation of human rights ever perpetrated save for slavery and torture. And I contend that “vanity” adoption is a form of both of these, at least psychologically.

For some snarky reason I’m thinking of Sarah Palin who dumps her kids into other people’s laps on her ascendent power grab. Makes me ask, So, why did she bother having kids in the first place? Oh yeah, I forgot. She’s pro-life. Once you’re pregnant, you’ve reached a point of no return. Abortion is out of the question. You must go through with the pregnancy then continue as if you’d never had the kid. Question is, will her kids be proud or her political gains or resentful that she was never there for them?

Sorry, but for me Palin is a poster woman for all that’s fucked up with the attitude of entitlement when Jesus is on your side. Palin is part of the corporate machine, wealthy enough to keep both her kids and her job, so she never had to make an agonizing decision to hand her babies over to someone who could feed them and clothe them.

Yet I’ll bet good money that she’d have a righteous answer if someone asked her about the morality of adoption: “If you’re too poor to have kids, then tough for you,” she’d most likely say. “God wants you to go through with your pregnancy. He wants what’s best for the child, so it’s important that you hand the child to someone who can afford to raise it.” Something along those lines. It’s here that the stench of hypocrisy fills the room.

But what’s the “price” of giving up your kid(s)? What does it say about a society that encourages it, even expects it–”for the good of the child.” There are countless mothers in the world who have fallen into that trap who will never see their child again. Of if they do, they must stand at the sidelines and “mustn’t touch.”

Everyone is drilled to parrot the same mantra, “it was for the good of the child.” But the heart speaks louder than any mantra. And the emptiness that remains in the wake of giving up a child or of being sold as a child to some “worthy” (i.e., flush with money) parents is truly a wake of mourning. It is truly the death of that mother and the death of that child. Something dies inside and in its place comes a grief that can never be soothed, sometimes even after a successful reunion.

With some reunions, too much life has been lived and where a mutual history should have colored the relationship, there is nothing but a shriveled blankness. This is especially true when a child is stolen from a “third world” country, ripped not only from his or her family but also from his or her culture, although for the buyers, this is highly desirable because chances of that child ever finding his or her family again is even more problematic than the child adopted in his or her own country. Such children are seen to be “grateful” to have been “rescued” from poverty. Although I confess I can’t know the circumstances, I see these as “charity” adoptions for celebrities like Angelina Jolie.

What is charity, after all, but a means for wealthy people to ease the guilt (conscious or unconscious) caused by controlling money (this person is worthy, but this person isn’t, and so on) and at the same time to convince society of their benevolence? I used to work for a newspaper and I know the attitude of such people who sent in breathless puff-piece press releases about their generosity at Christmas time, yet if we didn’t run their stories, they’d be on the phone demanding why not, demanding to speak with the editor, and threatening to cancel their subscriptions.

But back to “vanity” adoptions. If for whatever reason the first mother genuinely did not want her child, or if she was genuinely incapable of keeping her child because of, say, drugs or insanity, or if she was killed, then adoption really is for the good of the child. In these cases, the child can often be adopted by a relative. My biological brother and sister were fortunate to be adopted by our aunt. Fortunate because they were allowed to remain inside the history of the family. But I’m not talking about adoptions of children whose mothers couldn’t or wouldn’t raise them.

I’m talking about coerced adoptions. How is it “for the good of the child” if the young mother was coerced into giving up her child because of some temporary situation such as being a minor or needing financial assistance? Adoption under these circumstances is nothing less than blatant theft.

I’m asking, How can the adoption machine and its wealthy clients play god? Who is to say what would have come into the lives of the first mother and her child if their sacred bond had been honored? If society had really been pro-life and extended a hand to the mother and given her a chance instead of judging her and brokering the child so he or she could live in a “more fortunate” situation?

I know there are plenty of adoptees out there who would scream about how much they disagree with me, but my own experience as a child adopted at birth is that regardless of my first mother’s situation, I would have absolutely preferred to remain in my blood family (even if raised by an aunt or a grandmother) than to have been raised by strangers entitled to adopt because they could afford to. All the things and privileges they gave me never added up to what my heart really yearned for: my identity. In other words, they never succeeded in buying me off.

Yet I was one of the “lucky” adoptees who wasn’t criminally abused and/or killed by adopters who didn’t share my blood and history and had no biological connection to preserve.

It’s so past time that society sees the reality of the crime against humanity that’s perpetrated with every “vanity” or “charity” adoption.

I’ll close today with the reminder that adoptees in the juvenile justice system and psychiatric treatment facilities are over-represented given the ratio of adoptees vs. non adoptees in society. And so are murderers, serial killers and other prisoners who were adopted over-represented. How can society ignore these realities? Easy. It’s called denial of something too painful to face.