As an adoptive parent of three I very much appreciate this. It’s a hard balance to strike: being open to the pervasive flaws in our system of adoption without accepting them as inherent in adoption, understanding and accepting the pain of some adoptees and birth parents without being defensive, and looking for ways to improve decency and kindness.
I’m so glad you appreciated the piece. I hoped it would resonate with adoptees and adoptive parents. You’re right that’s it’s a delicate balance, and that’s definitely why I tried to focus on the bad/dangerous ideas rather than paint the adoptees who are against adoption as all bad.
Means a lot for this to connect with you and anyone who’s been on one side or another of the adoption process.
In Mesopotamia, a large number of legal contracts and codified laws had to do with adoption. There were strong economic reasons for this practice: "adoption" was often used as a way to designate inheritance of property, particularly land; adoptees, in turn, had some obligations to care for the "parents" as they aged. "Adoptions" might, in fact, involve an older adult and a younger adult. I haven't looked into this very deeply, but I would imagine that Mesopotamia was hardly unique in this practice.
Today, we focus on the emotional side of the adoption process, for good reasons. But there are important economic equities involved, and these are the MOST TRADITIONAL of justifications for liberal adoption laws.
Yeah I didn’t get into earlier historical examples, but you raise a good point. It’s a very old, truly ancient, practice with a lot of contextual factors shaping how it was done in any given place and culture at any point in time.
Pro tip to those not familiar with extensive research on evolutionary biology and why parental favoritism to genetically related kin is observed in nearly all living things, especially in our species, this piece totally ignores the science of evolutionary psychology and biology. If you don't understand what this means, simply google "step-parent abuse" to find why non-genetically children are disproportionately associated with harm by non-related parents/stepparents. The issue is not that stepparents aren't bad--the issue is that they have no biological relation that predisposes them to not care as much for non-kin. (See stepparent/stepchild research by Daly and Wilson). Also, these ideas bantered about in this piece have been foundational to core public relations efforts of the US adoption system since at least the 1930s, and have little connection to the lived experience of millions of adopted persons in the United States who's views are disregarded in providing facts to the larger and fact-based story of failures in adoption as a broken practice. Also, whenever I start seeing adoptive parents weighing in their support, it sends up red flags regarding the group interests for ideas that are not connected to the system that has separated literally millions of kids from their kin around the world and has extensively been documented to be promoted via corruption and lies. Here's just one story, but there are entire books on this matter. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/climate-and-people/international-adoption-scandal/. And I'm here to confirm 100 percent that yes, science is clear: blood truly is thicker than water, and it always will be. Thanks.
As an adoptive parent of three I very much appreciate this. It’s a hard balance to strike: being open to the pervasive flaws in our system of adoption without accepting them as inherent in adoption, understanding and accepting the pain of some adoptees and birth parents without being defensive, and looking for ways to improve decency and kindness.
I’m so glad you appreciated the piece. I hoped it would resonate with adoptees and adoptive parents. You’re right that’s it’s a delicate balance, and that’s definitely why I tried to focus on the bad/dangerous ideas rather than paint the adoptees who are against adoption as all bad.
Means a lot for this to connect with you and anyone who’s been on one side or another of the adoption process.
Here's an interesting factoid to add to the pile:
In Mesopotamia, a large number of legal contracts and codified laws had to do with adoption. There were strong economic reasons for this practice: "adoption" was often used as a way to designate inheritance of property, particularly land; adoptees, in turn, had some obligations to care for the "parents" as they aged. "Adoptions" might, in fact, involve an older adult and a younger adult. I haven't looked into this very deeply, but I would imagine that Mesopotamia was hardly unique in this practice.
Today, we focus on the emotional side of the adoption process, for good reasons. But there are important economic equities involved, and these are the MOST TRADITIONAL of justifications for liberal adoption laws.
Yeah I didn’t get into earlier historical examples, but you raise a good point. It’s a very old, truly ancient, practice with a lot of contextual factors shaping how it was done in any given place and culture at any point in time.
Pro tip to those not familiar with extensive research on evolutionary biology and why parental favoritism to genetically related kin is observed in nearly all living things, especially in our species, this piece totally ignores the science of evolutionary psychology and biology. If you don't understand what this means, simply google "step-parent abuse" to find why non-genetically children are disproportionately associated with harm by non-related parents/stepparents. The issue is not that stepparents aren't bad--the issue is that they have no biological relation that predisposes them to not care as much for non-kin. (See stepparent/stepchild research by Daly and Wilson). Also, these ideas bantered about in this piece have been foundational to core public relations efforts of the US adoption system since at least the 1930s, and have little connection to the lived experience of millions of adopted persons in the United States who's views are disregarded in providing facts to the larger and fact-based story of failures in adoption as a broken practice. Also, whenever I start seeing adoptive parents weighing in their support, it sends up red flags regarding the group interests for ideas that are not connected to the system that has separated literally millions of kids from their kin around the world and has extensively been documented to be promoted via corruption and lies. Here's just one story, but there are entire books on this matter. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/climate-and-people/international-adoption-scandal/. And I'm here to confirm 100 percent that yes, science is clear: blood truly is thicker than water, and it always will be. Thanks.