This morning I actually finished The Silmarillion
. o.0 Actually worth the read, if you like traditional fairy tales, and/or creation stories.
We have uncut, white bread again. The proper kind, and we have to cut it two feet thick and slather it with real butter. And it is delicious.
Then we have been bitching over the utter ridiculousness of the anti-adoption movement
. Ok, fair enough, we don't live in the US, and maybe over there y'all are being forced to give up your babies, forced
to sign the adoption papers... but the movement appears to be based on the sad out-dated history of adoption
from the 1950s-1970s - during which time it was socially unacceptable to bring up a child out of wed-lock, and so adoption was very much pushed as a good solution. However, times have changed a whole lot since then. I mean, even black people have equal rights now!
Basically, the idea that adoptions come about because the birth mothers are pressured into it, and because people are making money out of it, and that adopted children are disadvantaged and severely unhappy (not because of former circumstances, but purely because they have been adopted - even if this took place before they can remember) is insulting and ridiculous.
To say that it gives the child a better chance of a more stable, privileged, happier life, is purely injurious myth is nothing but propaganda. The case of Evelyn Bennett
is a sad one, put forward in support of anti-adoption, but what stands out to me is the seeming stupidity of the mother. You and your family are receiving threats for 14 months - so instead of reporting it to the police, you pretend it isn't happening, somehow manage to conceal your pregnancy (to what end?) from the family you live with until the last few weeks and allow yourself to become worn down by it to the point of considering adoption when the baby is five months old. You then sign the adoption papers the day after mentioning the word, run away from home to give the baby away, and then QQ about how your baby was stolen from you? I just don't understand. Surely a mother would go to every lengths to protect their baby, if they wanted it? I do not understand how this case can be touted as a good one for the cause against the evils of adoption.
Surely if there was a huge social problem caused by adoption it would be more talked about? Sure, the adoption agencies are making money. So are the cigarette companies, and we all still know that smoking is very unhealthy.
I don't understand how you can be "radical" & pro-choice and
anti-adoption. Pro-choice is the support of the personal choice of the parents regarding their fetus/baby - whether they want to abort, or to adopt, or keep it.
If someone is pushed into "surrendering" their child to adoption, then are they really strong enough to be a parent in the first place?
There are plenty of people who make the decision to have their child adopted, who are sure of what they are doing, and who are of sound mind.
Anti-adoption is as baffling to me as Prop 8.
And of course, I am just some monster on the net, with no experience of life. Oh srsly, ljsecret, ... Q Q