I was walking through Queens’ K-Town yesterday, the second largest Korean community in the US- I feel a connection to Korean culture since that is the country my parents bought my older sister from, before they knew about sperm donation…
I came across this table filled with brochures and horrific images set up by a small group of concerned citizens attempting to educate and spread awareness about an alarming human rights violation in China: government sponsored organ harvesting against the Falun Gong practitioners of mainland China.
On poster-board, they displayed a large image of a skinny young man sprawled lifeless on a cot- three, long, thick sutures branched out from where his heart would be- like the inner-filling of a peace sign, though peace was farthest from the conjured sentiment of the image. He was a Chinese Falun Gong practitioner, an officially de-humanized demographic- a voiceless, non-member of mainstream China.
The front page of the brochure I picked up illustrates the human body and displays the price point associated with each body part, if one is in the market for a particular type of human tissue…
Cornea: $30,000. Lung: $150-170,000. Kidney: $62,000. Liver: $98-130,000. Pancreas: $150,000. Heart: $130-160,ooo. The tag-line above the menu read, “Is the value of a human life… equal only to the sum of its parts?”
Do we do anything like that here in America?
I realize that my mom and her husband didn’t physically kill my father to exploit his “tissue” when creating me. And even though it hurt like hell when I sold my eggs, I did it consciously and voluntarily and I’m still here to talk about it. But violence or no violence, voluntarily or involuntarily, indeed what is the value of a human life? And if we don’t hold such a thing sacred, is there anything left at all to spare from the choke of capitalism?
Organ harvesting is an intense brand of human exploitation. In honor of that dead man on the table, may redemption come quick.
Categories: General
Comments (30)
And if we don’t hold such a thing sacred, is there anything left at all to spare from the choke of capitalism?
Since you describe adoption as “baby buying,” I assume you also oppose adoption when money changes hands and capitalism takes place?
I think you raise some legitimate question about the market for sperm and egg purchasing, which you have been a willing participant. They have circulated through the surrogate industry for a long time and the market for sperm raises similar–although not really equivalent–concerns about exploitation.
Where you and others lose me is when it comes to the human trafficking of babies through the international and domestic adoption industry. Isn’t that an even more egregious moral wrong than the uncoerced sale of sperms and eggs?
Yes Peter, I think its really weird to pay for children. Adopted or otherwise.
It’s especially weird that babies from certain countries are less expensive or more expensive than babies from other countries- for example it’s very strange to me that my mom decided on a Korean kid (my sister) instead of an American or European kid because they sell ‘em cheaper over there.
The reason adoption is often cited as a good thing is because there are legitimately unwanted children who need a home and adoption is an institution that benefits those children.
But I think most people within family scholars recognize human trafficking and the international/domestic adoption market as a network of people that need some consistent observation:
http://familyscholars.org/2010/05/25/more-news-on-baby-selling-vs-adoption-in-guatemala/
Alana, you are making a lot of outrageous assumptions about people who adopt children. I think you need to apologize to thousands of people who have given homes to children who would otherwise languish in institutions or abandoned to the streets.
Actually, aren’t Korean adoptions MORE expensive than domestic adoptions?
I don’t doubt that some adoptions *may* involve human trafficking, especially by couples who cannot qualify as adopters in this country, but it is highly offensive to refer to people who adopt children as “buyers” of children.
I suspect that Alana causes a lot of grief for her parents.
Korean adoptions were definitely cheaper 30 years ago.
Jay, I appreciate you keeping me on my toes, requiring sensitive language of me. It helps me be a better writer and I’m glad you speak up when you think I’m out of line.
There is a moral line out there that we need to find.
When you write a check in exchange for a little human, at any stage of development from embryo to high-school-aged, you are, in fact, buying a child. We have different names for different forms of that: sperm/egg “donation”, adoption, human trafficking… Each fall into different categories based off the method of purchase and paperwork/bureaucracy involved.
Sometimes, that child will greatly benefit from being placed into the new environment and separated from its biological parents.
I’m here to argue that it is often not to the child’s benefit. And let’s explore that.
You can suspect that I’m a nightmare child all you want.
That is baiting in an attempt at character assassination- I think that’s a bit of bad taste, Jay. Most of my free time goes to singing and telling stories. I was healthy. I was interested in my parent’s well-being (and my own as well). I think my mom got just the *kid* she was looking for- it’s just the adult I’ve developed into that is more stressful.
If requiring my parent’s attention for benefit of my emotional development qualifies me as a kid that caused my parents a lot of grief. Well… I don’t think I’m unique in that regard and don’t deserve an assault for that.
But like I said, that is baiting.
You don’t want to be a baiter, do ya Jay?
Alana, you don’t seem to be able to make any kind of useful distinctions. You apparently think that anyone who adopts a child “buys” a child. That is dangerous nonsense. And it is deeply offensive.
I am prepared to be convinced that lots of shady dealings may be go on in adoptions arranged by lawyers or unethical agencies, both here and abroad. If there are, they need to be stopped.
But it is libelous to suggest that most couples and individuals who adopt children are “buying” them.
Most people who adopt children are rescuing them from horrible situations, institutionalization, poverty, and neglect.
If you don’t see this, you have no moral discrimination.
I do see that, and I made that distinction.
adoption can be a really positive institution.
I should research adoption more before I speak with authority about it.
But I do not think that all couples that adopt do so primarily because they want to help an impoverished or needy child.
I think for a grand number of couples, infertility is discovered, next comes a series of decisions and considered methods for starting their family. Adoption is usually the first choice considered, and the fact that it is helping a needy child is a major upside.
and then if adoption isn’t possible, different means of child procurement are considered afterwards… like egg and sperm donation… or reproductive tourism… last on the list may be kidnapping. As the scaled social intolerance for each method increases, more and more infertile couples drop off as candidates for that particular method of starting their family. Complicity decreases as social intolerance increases.
I know “buy” is a dirty word and it may leave out a bit of love and affection in its connotative power, but it does describe a transaction, and I don’t think I’m entirely off base for using such a word.
i think its more morally egregious to call sperm and egg donors, well, donors. Take out the payment, then you can call it donation.
and i know women who are put in the difficult circumstances of putting their children up for adoption are not paid to do so.
but often there is a lot of pressure from the “intended” parents, the infertile couple, for the woman to give up her child, if her ability to take care of her own child is ambiguous.
it’s really curious to me why so many people are invested in separating children from their biological parents and not more interested in supporting moms and dads in taking care of their own.
it confuses me.
Jay, I’m surprised if this is really the first time you’ve heard a radical critique of adoption. You’re a smart guy; start doing some googling or visit a library.
Alana’s critique of adoption is a radical one but she is hardly the only one making it.
Meanwhile, speculating about her parents’ feelings about their relationship with her is just lousy on your part. Look up at the ceiling when you get in bed tonight and ask yourself if that was the right thing to do.
Elizabeth, I don’t doubt that there are other people making “radical” critiques of adoption, and they may even be as irresponsible and ill-informed as Alana, but that hardly excuses the absurdity and cruelty and plain ignorance of Alana’s comments. I do not regret at all my speculating about her relationship with her family: she has certainly posted enough about her family and in doing so she has demonstrated the emotional maturity of a 14 year old.
Most people who adopt children do so for the very same reasons that most biological parents “responsibly” reproduce (and far better reasons than the “irresponsible” procreators that the defendants in the Perry trial said somehow would be encouraged if same-sex marriage were legal across the country).
The motives of all parents–adoptive or biological–are mixed. (Why anyone would think that the motives of biological parents are somehow “purer” than the motives of adoptive parents escapes me. Even David Blankenhorn had to admit under oath that adoptive parents may be better parents than biological parents because of the thoughtfulness they have to devote to the decision to have a family.)
Adoptive parents do not “buy” children. And if people did not adopt, there would be far more misery in the world than there is now.
Alana’s attack on adoptive parents confirms what a friend told me when I mentioned that I was monitoring this site: “Oh, those family values people claim to love families, but they only like the idea of a family; they hate real families.”
In any case, when I look up at the ceiling and ask if I did the right thing in pushing back against the defamatory comments of Alana, I smile in satisfaction, hoping that this pushback might open her eyes to how ignorant and dangerous her gross generalizations are.
Where you and others lose me is when it comes to the human trafficking of babies through the international and domestic adoption industry. Isn’t that an even more egregious moral wrong than the uncoerced sale of sperms and eggs?
So, is the point of gamete donation to find a less egregious method of human trafficing, then?
I think the decision on whether to buy gametes or an existing human is very personal, and probably depends on whether you want to use the human for fieldwork and labor, or for entertainment and personal enjoyment. Obviously, if one of the things you want to use the human for is to experience pregnancy and giving birth, then an adult human isn’t going to be any value at all, you want an embryo for that (you might even be able to use your own genes). But if you can’t or don’t want to experience birth, then you’ll need an existing human. If one of the things you want is to dress and play and train and mold a human, then you want a younger one. If you aren’t interested in that and want a human that can perform adult tasks right away, then you’ll need an older minor or an adult. Since 1865, though, adults can only be purchased voluntarily, and usually must be paid hourly or day rates.
The pro-slavery arguments before the 13th Amendment were strikingly similar to the pro-adoption arguments. “Slavery, it was argued, also protected slaves from the harshness of the emerging market economy and prevented them from suffering the fate of “Northern wage slavery” alongside period immigrants.[citation needed] Moreover, many Southerners felt that the paternalistic master-slave relationship provided slaves with a source of care and stability in their old age.”
I just saw The Kids Are All Right, and was struck by how master-slave the relationship seemed with Annette Benning’s character saying things like “this is MY family, get your own” and asserting her authority over the kids and the daughter getting her freedom when she turned 18.
And Jay, there is a big difference when a couple accepts and welcomes new life that came to them through their sex, and a couple purposefully procreating, even through sex. I think all intentional attempts to create life are wrong, certainly if technology and energy is employed but also even just having sex in order to get pregnant. I think sex should be to express commitment to the marriage and to the concept of children with each other, but not in order to procreate, that is using the other spouse and using the person being conceived. But people can still desire children and have a right to marry and procreate and we approve of people doing so, in part because we value the labor and other things that people bring to society and to the family, but mainly just because it’s considered a basic human right to marry and have sex even if it wasn’t going to be any value added. But people should not think of their children as their possessions that they created because they wanted them, according to their desired specifications.
Way to be a cyber bully Jay.
I’ve known a lot of adopted kids. I’ve lived under the same roof as one. I’ve been a close friend to several.
You’re right. Most adoptive parents are very much ready and prepared to be great parents. There’s no discounting that.
But for most of them, adopting was not their first choice. Most of them tried their hardest to have a kid naturally first, and they pursued the healthiest route possible to start their family after dealing with infertility.
I know some amazingly well adjusted, successful, sane people who were adopted. Fact is… Being separated from their biological parent is still a painful thing. Read Polly’s testimonial on my Birthdays blog:
http://familyscholars.org/2010/07/19/birthdays/
It sucks being separated by your biological parent.
Sometimes, it has to happen. Sometimes, the biological parent can’t or won’t care for their own child and someone needs to step in, and we should be completely thankful for those couples who are willing to do so.
But going down the route of adoption does not prove first-choice altruism.
No one is an automatic saint just because they’re raising someone else’s unwanted kid.
Alana, anyone who casually refers to her sister being “bought” or who blithely equates donor insemination with harvesting organs or who asserts as though it were self-evident that adopting children is human trafficing ought not call anyone else a cyber bully.
Your obliviousness to moral distinctions is amazing and is itself a form of moral corruption.
Your inability to see anything beyond your narcissistic preoccuption with the great injustice you believe to have been visited upon you makes any insight you might have into family issues pretty limited. At the very least, it should preclude your commenting on anyone else’s family, including my own.
For your information, I am not raising “someone else’s unwanted child”: my husband and I (and our extended families) are raising our child.
You seem to be a very unhappy person; and perhaps there is nothing that can be done about that. More dubiously, however, you think it appropriate to trade on that unhappiness; and I suspect that you are enabled in that enterprise by people who have their own agendas.
I feel sad for anyone who self-identifies as “first-person afficted,” perhaps the ultimate sobriquet in our age of victimhood.
But my interest goes beyond your self-absorption, which you apparently believe authorizes you to make these gross and inaccurate generalizations. I want to know whether it is the position of the Institute for American Values that people who adopt children are in business of buying children? If that is so, I wonder how many supporters and associates of the Institute are aware of this “American value”?
Since I have found no other statement on this site equating artificial insemination with murdering someone to harvest their organs or equating adoption with human trafficking and the buying and selling of children, I am going to assume that this is not the official position of familyscholars.org. Indeed, David Blankenhorn has spoken positively of adoption and so does the publication on the future of parenthood, which also endorses second parent adoption for same-sex couples.
It is a relief to know that this conservative organization hasn’t taken such extreme stands. Of course, these may be nevertheless be widespread around the offices here, even though “unofficial.” I doubt, however, that most good conservatives would want to insult their favorite Chief Justice by telling John Roberts that he and his wife engage in human trafficking and that they are not real parents, but are just “raising someone else’s unwanted child.”
Elizabeth, on another thread, you corrected my impression that Dale Carpenter was on the Board of the AVI, and explained that he was a “guest blogger” here. Have I missed something, or has he actually blogged here? Will he be doing so in the future?
Lindsay on the same thread remarked that since she is donor-conceived she has every right to be involved in this discussion. Well, yes, she does. I said nothing that could be interpreted as saying that she shouldn’t be involved. The issue was whether the views of Wendy Kramer should be discounted because she is an “activist” not a “scholar.” I am not in favor of discounting her views (or Lindsay’s either).
It is Elizabeth who wants to dismiss Wendy’s views on the grounds that she is allegedly not a scholar.
Jay, many of your questions can be answered if you would spend two minutes looking for the answers on your own.
In this case, you can find the posts that Dale Carpenter or others have written by clicking “archives” at the top of this page, and then searching by blogger.
Thanks, Elizabeth. But part of the problem is the peculiar nature of your site. I looked through the archives, hitting the the “older entries” link at the bottom of each page. Using that method neither of the two posts by Carpenter came up. It didn’t occur to me that there was a search mechanism by that allowed searching by blogger and that it would yield entries that apparently cannot be found by simply scanning the archives, which it seems you can do only for the current month.
I want to apologize to you Jay and anyone else reading this if my comments on adoption felt like an attack or gross under-appreciation of the tough job of pursuing adoption and raising a child.
You are correct in calling me out on this.
However, you are not helpful in your tone and personal attack style of confronting me on this view.
Elizabeth, David and others involved in family scholars may feel protective of me and feel torn on getting involved on this debate thread. I take responsibility for my own words.
A little personal history to help you understand where I’m coming from:
My mom’s first husband was infertile. Mom was devastated and took it upon herself to create a family despite this set back. My older sister was adopted. When artificial insemination presented itself as an option my mom pursued it to have me. And then when the marriage didn’t work out she married another man, whom she is still married to, and had my little brother naturally.
I’ve observed the emotional development of all three of us- my sister, myself, and my brother. And I feel confident that my comparisons between the three of us hold strong truths.
My parents are average on everything. Average salaries. Average political views. They’ve spent equal time in the Mid West and liberal states. They are Agnostic. They are so average it hurts. I can predict everything about the course of political change in this country by asking my parents what they think about a topic.
Which is why its important for me to expose the truths in motivation for these unresolved topics. I know adoption wasn’t my parent’s first choice for starting their family. As soon as they had a biological-link option they took it. And then again, when my mom remarried and she had an option for a mutually biologically-linked child she took it, because thats their first choice and the child they *really* wanted. I don’t mean to be hurtful, it’s just the truth. I’m being honest. I know my parents. And I know they are representative of a majority of America on almost every other big issue.
It really bothered me growing up when I would introduce my adopted sister as “my sister”, and a lot of adults would do the “oh good for you!” thing… Like we were an angelic, altruistic do-good family for saving this poor girl from a life of poverty and bringing her into our nice, safe, American home.
The ethnocentrism disgusted me. And the false praise disgusted me more.
For those parents who adopt who really believe that they are greatly improving the quality of life for their adopted child, that is awesome. Power to them.
But I stand by my earlier comments when I assert that Adoption as a concept and institution needs watch dogs, checks, and balances.
On organ harvesting:
I wish you’d have a more developed sense of scale and analogy.
I was not “equating” organ harvesting with sperm and egg donation.
I was criticizing two cultures, which seem to share one common denominator: Capitalism is displacing the sacredness of the human body.
Alana, I accept your apology. But I certainly don’t retract anything I have said about the cruelty, stupidity, and falsity of your statement that my son is just someone else’s unwanted child. I am going to assume that you made that statement in anger.
I know only what you have posted about your family and I don’t doubt that you are trying to articulate what you think is your particular truth. But I think you rely too much on your personal history. You seem to believe that from it you can extrapolate and generalize about many things that you really can not.
In any case, I agree with you that people’s motives in adopting are usually not primarily altruistic. Who said they were? Not me. The only person I can remember using the term altruism is either David Blankenhorn or perhaps the publication about the future of parenthood.
Most people do not adopt in order to improve the quality of life of the adopted child, though that is usually the result, and it was dramatically so in our adoption.
In any case, my husband and I did not adopt for altruistic reasons. We adopted because we wanted to be parents for some of the same reasons most people want to be parents: to nurture a child, to connect with a future generation, to enlarge our family, to experience a cyclical connection as we watch our child mature into adulthood, etc. That we met a desperate need of a neglected and abandoned child was lagniappe, but we didn’t say, “oh that poor child needs a home, so let’s adopt him.”
We express our altruism in charitable gifts, and we have never thought of our son as the recipient of our charity. He is a marvelous and miraculous gift to us.
I doubt that anyone adopts out of altruism. Neither do biological parents procreate for altruistic reason. If they even think about it, they usually have, in addition to the reasons we had, the conscious or unconscious desire to perpetuate their own genes. That actually seems a lot more selfish to me than our desire to raise a child with no genetic connection to us.
(However, if John Howard’s obsession with same-sex procreation ever becomes a realistic option, I’d be for it, primarily because I’d love to merge my genes with those of my husband, who is the finest person I’ve ever known. That would be a selfish, but I bet we would make beautiful babies if we could.)
The other reason many parents have children is as a way to cement their love for each other. That may seem obvious with biological procreation. But, curiously enough, that also factors into our experience as parents as well. We had not thought of this as a reason to have children, but the experience of parenting has indeed deepened and intensified our relationship. That surprised me because I would not have thought that we could grow closer than we were, but there is something special about having a shared bond with a child that does that. But, I want to emphasize, that is not why we wanted to adopt.
But our son is not our “adopted son”; he is our son.
He has biological parents, but he is NOT their son. (And he will have no contact with them until he is an adult. At age 18, he will have access to his original birth certificate, and if he wishes he can contact them. That will be his decision.)
I don’t doubt that there are shady lawyers and dubious adoption agencies, and I support stringent regulation of adoption. From what I have seen, most states–certainly my state–regulates adoption pretty rigorously.
You seem to think I need a more developed sense of scale and analogy. Perhaps. But I think your propensity for over-the-top and ill-considered analogies does not help your writing.
Ralph made a comment late in another thread that deserves a response:
“Second, “an elective procedure used to treat one person’s medical or social issue, which has the most direct effects on another, entirely different person who is, at the time, unable to speak for him or herself or consent to treatment” is an excellent, if slightly ham-handed, description of *pregnancy*. To propose that it “should be held to the rigorous ethical test of asking is anyone harmed at all” would be quite a burden on most heterosexual marriages.”
The thing is, marriages have a right to have sex and conceive and give birth to offspring, that is the basic human right that we all have. That right overrides any rigorous ethical tests or asking if the unconsenting different person might be harmed.
And natural sex, which as we know often leads to what we call “unintended pregnancies” and “unwanted children” and often doesn’t result in pregnancy, is not a medical or elective “procedure” and it isn’t done for the purpose of producing children. And people have a right to be healthy and that includes a right to be fertile, including doing medical procedures to become healthy and fertile. There is some case for IVF on the basis of it being a medical procedure and helping people do what healthy people can do, but since it clearly could be avoided it is subject to the rigorous ethical tests on the basis of nonconsent.
When a sperm and egg come together, they do so at their own accord, if they want to, they aren’t forced together. It isn’t necessarily the first sperm to arrive, it’s the first to be let in, that wants to get in. They bring tiny flowers, maybe. So natural sex conception really IS consented to by the new person. And they’re doing so on the assumption that they wouldn’t be together if it wasn’t a good idea, if their parents didn’t think each other were good, that’s part of their consent to joining. Fooling them into joining in a nonconsenting or exploitative way violates their informed consent.
Jay, to Alana: I know only what you have posted about your family and I don’t doubt that you are trying to articulate what you think is your particular truth. But I think you rely too much on your personal history. You seem to believe that from it you can extrapolate and generalize about many things that you really can not.
Are you willing to admit that the same is true of yourself in your remarks here, Jay?
Your attitude here is, “don’t you dare use any word which hurts my feelings. If you do, I will attack you all I feel like, and even if you apologize to me I will not apologize to you”. Sounds like an arrogant sense of superiority, and your eloquence elsewhere does not negate it.
R.K.: I don’t think it is true that I extrapolate and generalize too much from my own experience. I certainly learn from my experience and I gladly offer it when I think it illuminating.
All of Alana’s postings seem to involve her family, from which she reaches some far-fetched conclusions. She didn’t like the fact that her sister’s adoption elicited responses that she thought were inappropriate, so she concludes that adoption is equivalent to human trafficking and that her sister was “bought.” I think that is way overreaching.
I have never dissed Alana’s family. She does that herself.
I said nothing to Alana that remotely approaches the personal attack she leveled against me and my family when she said that my son was not really my son, but was just “someone else’s unwanted child.”
What I find a little weird about this site (maybe about social conservatives generally) is that people here are so free to attack others and make the most outlandish statements about them, yet display such hypersensitivity when they are attacked in return.
David Blankenhorn engages in a high-stakes, widely publicized (and likely highly remunerated) attempt to deprive gay people of equal rights, and then gets practically apoplectic when Frank Rich calls him a bigot. Methinks he protests too much.
Blankenhorn and Elizabeth Marquardt get very upset when reviewers point out that their book is not peer-reviewed and is the product of a conservative think-tank, accusing these reviewers of unfairly dissing them, judging the book not on its merits but on its association with the Institute. Yet when two published scholars review them in a scholarly publication and point out that their data is subject to a very different interpretation, Maquardt immediately attacks the scholars, dissing them for being “activists” instead of scholars and blowing way out of proportion a minor error in calling AVI a Christian organization (as though that were libelous).
Pot meet skillet.
Similarly, when I pushed back after Alana characterized adoption as human trafficking by observing–based exclusively on what Alana said about her family–that she must cause them grief, you would have thought I had assaulted her: Elizabeth not only defended Alana’s outrageous assertions by observing that other people also make “radical critiques” of adoption, and wondered if I could sleep at night.
I am just amazed at this hypersensitivity. If one is that sensitive to criticism, I think it would behoove one not to attack other people.
Or to overstate one’s position.
From one extreme to another: Alana finds an analogy between murdering someone in order to harvest their organs with someone donating sperm or ova; and Elizabeth reads a blog in which a lesbian mother points out that it would be easier if passport applications used terms like parents instead of “mother” and “father” and that becomes proof that the sky is falling: those evil homosexuals not only want to redefine marriage they want to redefine parenthood altogether.
Paranoia?
In any case, I harbor no illusions of my superiority and I can certainly engage in a respectful conversation. I do insist, however, on being treated respectfully and on my family being treated respectfully.
One more thing about your question as to whether I rely too heavily on my own experience: if I recall correctly, the most personal response I have published here was in response to a particular question you asked about whether same-sex marriages and opposite-sex marriages should be treated alike. After saying, twice I think, that yest they should be treated alike, you made it clear that the question you were really interested in was whether monogamy should be expected in gay marriages. In response, I told you in detail why monogamy works for my husband and me. Perhaps I misinterpreted your question as a personal one. As I recall, you never answered the questions I asked in response as to how you proposed to enforce the expectation of monogamy in marriages.
OK, Jay, here’s the statement of Alana’s that you are so upset about:
“No one is an automatic saint just because they’re raising someone else’s unwanted kid.”
Which you misrepresent as “…your statement that my son is just someone else’s unwanted child.”
And later, the same misrepresentation:
I said nothing to Alana that remotely approaches the personal attack she leveled against me and my family when she said that my son was not really my son, but was just “someone else’s unwanted child.”
Alana NEVER said that your son was just someone else’s unwanted child. YOU are the one who inserts that word “just” in there to make it look like an insult.
Let’s look at Alana’s statement again, though.
“No one is an automatic saint just because they’re raising someone else’s unwanted kid.”
“No one is an automatic saint just because…”. That part you’ve indicated agreement with. Adoption alone does not make you a saint. Actually, I would argue that altruism is involved to varying degrees, with some people more than others, of course.
“…they’re raising…..”
ALL parents who have custody of children are raising them, whether they are their biological children or adoptive children. So this term is accurate.
“….someone else’s…”
YES, biologically they are someone else’s, even if the biological parents are totally unfit and don’t have and shouldn’t have anything to do with the child’s upbringing. Alana was pointing out a biological fact which cannot be altered because we want to pretend it isn’t true. Apparently your anger with Alana’s use of this term is over her not agreeing that biology must be totally disregarded not just in matters of legality but in all terminology as well.
“…unwanted kid.”
Of course, you are not denying that your child and most adopted children were most likely unwanted by their biological parents. Or did you think she was implying that they are also unwanted by the adoptive parents? She was doing nothing of the sort, I think it’s fair to say.
Not to mention that she has NEVER generalized her negative statements about the motives of some onto all who adopt, and has repeatedly clarified that she is not doing this.
But you keep harping on a choice of words which, in the strict definitional sense, is correct, but which you feel was insulting, even after she apologized for it. I’m going to call that as I see it, Jay, it’s childish on your part.
What I find a little weird about this site (maybe about social conservatives generally) is that people here are so free to attack others and make the most outlandish statements about them…
Your interpretation of what is “attacking others” goes WAY overboard when you imply that institutional arguments are in some way personal attacks.
David Blankenhorn engages in a high-stakes, widely publicized (and likely highly remunerated) attempt to deprive gay people of equal rights, and then gets practically apoplectic when Frank Rich calls him a bigot.
See what I mean? Where has David called gays insulting names, or attacked their personal character? This is a false equivalency.
I am just amazed at this hypersensitivity. If one is that sensitive to criticism, I think it would behoove one not to attack other people.
Or to overstate one’s position.
As you said, pot meet skillet.
…if I recall correctly, the most personal response I have published here was in response to a particular question you asked about whether same-sex marriages and opposite-sex marriages should be treated alike. After saying, twice I think, that yest they should be treated alike, you made it clear that the question you were really interested in was whether monogamy should be expected in gay marriages.
Sorry if you didn’t understand, but the question I was getting at was whether they should be held to the same expectations if (even if just hypothetically) those expectations are not equally fair for opposite-sex and same-sex couples. You get around this question by simply denying that there could be any such disparity, at least in the case of attitudes toward monogamy, although you in fact cite a disparity in this regard (that heteros are just dishonest about their cheating) which you think is an insult on heteros but actually indicates that there is a difference in how the two types of pairings regard monogamy, which if true has obvious biological reasons (exclusive homosexuals don’t have to worry that the mate’s child isn’t biologically theirs or that the mate has other children elsewhere).
As I recall, you never answered the questions I asked in response as to how you proposed to enforce the expectation of monogamy in marriages.
No, because I don’t have exact how we should do that, and it is not relevant to the question I asked that I do have exact answers. It is something that I would discuss with others to determine the best way to do this culturally without engaging in the coercive straw man trap you are trying to get me into. If you want to deny that cultures transfer messages at all through any means other than coercion, than all I can say is that I agree with David that you need to do some research, not only on how deinstitutionalization, but how cultures disseminate values.
Typo: my last paragraph below should read:
“No, because I don’t have exact answers as to how we should do that, and it is not relevant to the question I asked that I do have exact answers. It is something that I would discuss with others to determine the best way to do this culturally without engaging in the coercive straw man trap you are trying to get me into. If you want to deny that cultures transfer messages at all through any means other than coercion, than all I can say is that I agree with David that you need to do some research, not only on how deinstitutionalization occurs, but how cultures disseminate values.”
I think your post beautifully illustrates my point about hypersensitivity to criticism.
Next thing you know, you’ll be telling me that Alana really did not say that her parents “bought” her older sister or referred to adopting as “human trafficking” or defended her use of the word “buy” after I told her that it was offensive and then proceeded, in a pretty pointed reference, to wonder “why so many people are invested in separating children from their biological parents and not more interested in supporting moms and dads in taking care of their own.”
No, only someone eager to find an insult would assume that she meant to insult me when she said “No one is an automatic saint just because they’re raising someone else’s unwanted kid.”
She had a lot of time to apologize for that particular insult and did not do so until sometime later and then perhaps that’s not what she meant since the apology was pretty general. As I said, I am happy to accept it, and I will assume that she said what she said in anger rather than out of a considered belief about adoption.
Your argument that no insult was meant is positively Jesuitical.
But let’s go through the statement: a) I never pretended to sainthood, but she certainly intended to insult me by saying that I was no automatic saint (if you don’t see that you are not a very good reader) just because I am an adoptive father; b) to tell an adoptive parent that “they’re raising someone else’s unwanted kid” is insulting on so many levels that only someone incredibly obtuse would defend it.
It may be consistent with Alana’s “radical” critique of adoption, but it is nevertheless insulting and was intended to be so. Your attempt to unpack it of its intended sting ignores the context and the nuance.
And then, as characteristic on this site, you turn around my criticism of her and make it a means to criticize me, even putting words in my mouth: “Apparently your anger with Alana’s use of this term is over her not agreeing that biology must be totally disregarded not just in matters of legality but in all terminology as well.”
Uh, please tell me where I have ever said anything remotely implying “that biology must be totally disregarded not just in matters of legality but in all terminology as well”? Not only did I never say such a thing, I don’t believe it.
Even Alana never accused me of saying that, notwithstanding her pointed privileging of biological parents over adoptive parents.
This kind of absurd and inaccurate misrepresentation and exaggeration is on the same level as Elizabeth Marquardt’s declaration that when someone requests the term “parent” instead of “mother” or “father” on government documents they are redefining parenthood.
Of course, I don’t like to be insulted, but I’m not going to cry over it. But I am also not going to be quiet when I am insulted. I learned a long time ago that the way to deal with bullies is to stand up to them.
One more thing: you say that I am “WAY overboard when you imply that institutional arguments are in some way personal attacks.” You say that David Blankenhorn has never called gays insulting names or attacked their personal character and therefore he should not be called a bigot.
Were I to try to invalidate YOUR marriage, I suspect you might consider that a personal attack whether I called you insulting names or attacked your personal character.
Jay, when someone argues that divorce as a whole is bad for children, is everybody who has been divorced who is raising children thus to feel that they have been personally insulted?
Were I to try to invalidate YOUR marriage, I suspect you might consider that a personal attack whether I called you insulting names or attacked your personal character.
If there were institutional reasons for it, no. Especially if there was no attempt to force me apart from anyone. But then, I wouldn’t get married if I thought the legality of it might be overturned. You knew full well that there was a possibility that SSM would be overturned when you decided to take advantage of it.
How should this couple feel? Should the law be changed for them too? If not, should they be forced apart? Or are you going to claim insult at the comparison? If so, are you not in essence insulting them?
You knew full well that there was a possibility that SSM would be overturned when you decided to take advantage of it. If it is overturned, I have no intention of forcing anyone apart, and I don’t know of any who do. I’m sure there are some who may want that, but they do not represent the majority of SSM opponents.
As for Alana’s statement, let’s take an analagous statement that could be made about biological parents:
“No one is automatically a good parent just because they had sex and fertilized an egg”.
I’m sure that many biological parents would feel offended by this statement, implying that it “reduces” the birth of the child to that. And such a statement might be insensitive. Clearly, though, when applied to the worst cases (those who have biological children and do not love them or make any effort to properly raise them) it fits; that’s all it means to them. Similarly, in the worst cases of adoption (and Alana did not say you were in that group), it’s no more than what Alana said it was. You say you understand that not all who adopt are doing it for good reasons but attack others who make that point merely because they use the wrong phrases.
Uh, please tell me where I have ever said anything remotely implying “that biology must be totally disregarded not just in matters of legality but in all terminology as well”? Not only did I never say such a thing, I don’t believe it.
But you implied that you don’t want your child to ever be referred to, in any context, as your adopted son.