<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Adoption is Under Attack</title>
	<atom:link href="http://adoptee.adoptionblogs.com/weblogs/adoption-is-under-attack/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://adoptee.adoptionblogs.com/weblogs/adoption-is-under-attack</link>
	<description>Provides information, resources, and thoughts concerning adoptees and their journey of adoption.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Nov 2009 00:38:41 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Chromesthesia</title>
		<link>http://adoptee.adoptionblogs.com/weblogs/adoption-is-under-attack/comment-page-1#comment-125</link>
		<dc:creator>Chromesthesia</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 16 Jun 2007 22:27:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://adoptee.www.adoptionblogs.com/2007/06/13/adoption-is-under-attack#comment-125</guid>
		<description>So true.&lt;br /&gt;
Those anti-adoption people BOTHER me. It&#039;s just like all of the other things out there that are not totally logical, that use half truths and lies to support their positions instead of looking at the middle ground which is what I&#039;m interested in.&lt;br /&gt;
I&#039;m interested in what helps children the most. If children are not taken care of while they are still young they grow up into the troubled, to put it mildly, adults I&#039;ve encountered my whole life. They suffer from eating disorders, they cut themselves, they have a whole host of problems because of abuse in the past.&lt;br /&gt;
So when these so-called Family Preservation people come along, it drives me insane because they put too much store in biology. A statement like &quot;they are not the parents&quot; when these folks are dooing what parents do? Is a person whose abusive more or a parent just because of biology than an adoptive parent that isn&#039;t?&lt;br /&gt;
I&#039;m rambling too much, but it bothers me so much...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also don&#039;t see how guardian ship is a better option that adoption...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So true.<br />
Those anti-adoption people BOTHER me. It&#8217;s just like all of the other things out there that are not totally logical, that use half truths and lies to support their positions instead of looking at the middle ground which is what I&#8217;m interested in.<br />
I&#8217;m interested in what helps children the most. If children are not taken care of while they are still young they grow up into the troubled, to put it mildly, adults I&#8217;ve encountered my whole life. They suffer from eating disorders, they cut themselves, they have a whole host of problems because of abuse in the past.<br />
So when these so-called Family Preservation people come along, it drives me insane because they put too much store in biology. A statement like &#8220;they are not the parents&#8221; when these folks are dooing what parents do? Is a person whose abusive more or a parent just because of biology than an adoptive parent that isn&#8217;t?<br />
I&#8217;m rambling too much, but it bothers me so much&#8230;</p>
<p>I also don&#8217;t see how guardian ship is a better option that adoption&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: romee_1101</title>
		<link>http://adoptee.adoptionblogs.com/weblogs/adoption-is-under-attack/comment-page-1#comment-124</link>
		<dc:creator>romee_1101</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Jun 2007 20:25:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://adoptee.www.adoptionblogs.com/2007/06/13/adoption-is-under-attack#comment-124</guid>
		<description>Another interesting (but not hijacked) conversation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just a few things:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One: I do have an agenda and that is that I do everything in my power to ensure that my son grows up healthy, happy and loved.  That entails that I look at all sides of the adoption triad and defend myself (and him) and countless other children if needed.  It also means that if reform is needed AND it truly is in the best interest of the children, than I am behind it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Two:  I keep hearing about &quot;the hard truths&quot; of adoption and &quot;what no one wants to look at,&quot; etc. (and yes, a wealth of statistics purporting the evils of adoption), and I get frustrated.  I DO look at the issues, and often I am hurt and taken aback by some of the stuff people say or imply, especially in relation to adoptive parents. I think I feel my second head beginning to grow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, in regards to the family preservation movement.  Where I live, and when I was involved in social services, keeping children with their birth parents was the paramount philosophy and one, for the most part, I supported.  Unfortunately, like any law or policy, it created not a few too many problems - like children continually sent home until they were dead (two cases just in the last year).  Now I see the pendulum swinging back.  Somewhere in the middle is the happy medium.  I would not wish for it to swing all the way back to the far side where children are taken no matter what. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My other experience with the &quot;biological family&quot; as preferred model?  Months of counseling and hard work on the part of disturbed children destroyed in an afternoon of a state mandated family visit.  Highly frustrating.  AND, I would not wish my stepsister on any child.  I know her four avoid her at all costs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, I will continue to support adoption as viable alternative for children - not the worst possible choice (as a few people believe) of all choices because frankly, I have seen many of those (fostering, group homes, guardianship, bouncing between home and foster care, the streets, prostitution, death, etc.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ALL of this is JMHO.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Romee</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Another interesting (but not hijacked) conversation.</p>
<p>Just a few things:</p>
<p>One: I do have an agenda and that is that I do everything in my power to ensure that my son grows up healthy, happy and loved.  That entails that I look at all sides of the adoption triad and defend myself (and him) and countless other children if needed.  It also means that if reform is needed AND it truly is in the best interest of the children, than I am behind it.</p>
<p>Two:  I keep hearing about &#8220;the hard truths&#8221; of adoption and &#8220;what no one wants to look at,&#8221; etc. (and yes, a wealth of statistics purporting the evils of adoption), and I get frustrated.  I DO look at the issues, and often I am hurt and taken aback by some of the stuff people say or imply, especially in relation to adoptive parents. I think I feel my second head beginning to grow.</p>
<p>Finally, in regards to the family preservation movement.  Where I live, and when I was involved in social services, keeping children with their birth parents was the paramount philosophy and one, for the most part, I supported.  Unfortunately, like any law or policy, it created not a few too many problems &#8211; like children continually sent home until they were dead (two cases just in the last year).  Now I see the pendulum swinging back.  Somewhere in the middle is the happy medium.  I would not wish for it to swing all the way back to the far side where children are taken no matter what. </p>
<p>My other experience with the &#8220;biological family&#8221; as preferred model?  Months of counseling and hard work on the part of disturbed children destroyed in an afternoon of a state mandated family visit.  Highly frustrating.  AND, I would not wish my stepsister on any child.  I know her four avoid her at all costs.</p>
<p>So, I will continue to support adoption as viable alternative for children &#8211; not the worst possible choice (as a few people believe) of all choices because frankly, I have seen many of those (fostering, group homes, guardianship, bouncing between home and foster care, the streets, prostitution, death, etc.)</p>
<p>ALL of this is JMHO.</p>
<p>Romee</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: soblessed</title>
		<link>http://adoptee.adoptionblogs.com/weblogs/adoption-is-under-attack/comment-page-1#comment-123</link>
		<dc:creator>soblessed</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Jun 2007 17:30:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://adoptee.www.adoptionblogs.com/2007/06/13/adoption-is-under-attack#comment-123</guid>
		<description>&quot;Having an agenda&quot; ... yes, we all have one, even you. (Yours is to promote adoption.) &quot;Having an agenda&quot; is not as sinister as it sounds&quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I beg to differ, Heather.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Defending a position (which is what I feel like many of us who support adoption end up doing in SO MANY &quot;dialogues&quot;) allows you to consider other points of view and give credit and consideration to valid points.  I have seen many bloggers here do that.  Deb, Jan, Abby, Heather and Sandra all come to mind.  I have seen them agree that reform IS needed, that the complaints re:  coercion, pressure, &quot;baby-selling&quot; DO occur, that these things are wrong and harmful.  I seen them recognize and validate, publically, each of these points made from &quot;the other side&quot;, as well as provide reasonable solutions (none are perfect solutions, of course) to attempt to work through those problems.  They are not telling people that adoption is the ONLY ethical choice.  Their focus is to keep an option OPEN for families facing a crisis pregnacy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Having an agenda means you are only interested in cutting the options down to those that directly support your point of view.  This is what the people who agressively support &quot;anti-adoption&quot; propoganda are doing, IMO.  They do NOT admit any flaws inherent in their philosophy that all unexpectedly pregnant families are longing to parent.  People who have a hidden agenda WILL NOT address the hard questions posed about the welfare of the child.  They avoid, equivocate and deflect. They accuse those who support adoption of &quot;keeping secrets&quot;, yet they are rarely, if ever, forthcoming with all the details of their own position. They answer direct questions with indirect statements containing suspicious statistics and quotes.  They use tactics of subterfuge to gain &quot;recruits&quot; to their &quot;side&quot; and then they disappear when their tactics are discovered.  There is deceit in a hidden agenda.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This, to me, is the difference between those defending a position and those with a hidden agenda.  Do &quot;pro-adoption&quot; people have an agenda?  Some do, I&#039;m sure...I don&#039;t know everyone who blogs on adoptionblogs.com well, but of those I read frequently (abby, jan, sandra, deb, nancy, cindy, erin h.), I don&#039;t generally see a hidden agenda although opinions differ.  Are some &quot;reform&quot; people defending a position honestly?  Sure. There are many here who are not wild about adoption, but are open and honest in their approach.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have no problem with an opposing view.  Everyone is responsible for collecting information, analyzing it and making the best decision for themselves with it.  I DO have a problem with people with hidden agendas....no good comes from it.&lt;br /&gt;
 </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Having an agenda&#8221; &#8230; yes, we all have one, even you. (Yours is to promote adoption.) &#8220;Having an agenda&#8221; is not as sinister as it sounds&#8221;</p>
<p>I beg to differ, Heather.  </p>
<p>Defending a position (which is what I feel like many of us who support adoption end up doing in SO MANY &#8220;dialogues&#8221;) allows you to consider other points of view and give credit and consideration to valid points.  I have seen many bloggers here do that.  Deb, Jan, Abby, Heather and Sandra all come to mind.  I have seen them agree that reform IS needed, that the complaints re:  coercion, pressure, &#8220;baby-selling&#8221; DO occur, that these things are wrong and harmful.  I seen them recognize and validate, publically, each of these points made from &#8220;the other side&#8221;, as well as provide reasonable solutions (none are perfect solutions, of course) to attempt to work through those problems.  They are not telling people that adoption is the ONLY ethical choice.  Their focus is to keep an option OPEN for families facing a crisis pregnacy.</p>
<p>Having an agenda means you are only interested in cutting the options down to those that directly support your point of view.  This is what the people who agressively support &#8220;anti-adoption&#8221; propoganda are doing, IMO.  They do NOT admit any flaws inherent in their philosophy that all unexpectedly pregnant families are longing to parent.  People who have a hidden agenda WILL NOT address the hard questions posed about the welfare of the child.  They avoid, equivocate and deflect. They accuse those who support adoption of &#8220;keeping secrets&#8221;, yet they are rarely, if ever, forthcoming with all the details of their own position. They answer direct questions with indirect statements containing suspicious statistics and quotes.  They use tactics of subterfuge to gain &#8220;recruits&#8221; to their &#8220;side&#8221; and then they disappear when their tactics are discovered.  There is deceit in a hidden agenda.</p>
<p>This, to me, is the difference between those defending a position and those with a hidden agenda.  Do &#8220;pro-adoption&#8221; people have an agenda?  Some do, I&#8217;m sure&#8230;I don&#8217;t know everyone who blogs on adoptionblogs.com well, but of those I read frequently (abby, jan, sandra, deb, nancy, cindy, erin h.), I don&#8217;t generally see a hidden agenda although opinions differ.  Are some &#8220;reform&#8221; people defending a position honestly?  Sure. There are many here who are not wild about adoption, but are open and honest in their approach.</p>
<p>I have no problem with an opposing view.  Everyone is responsible for collecting information, analyzing it and making the best decision for themselves with it.  I DO have a problem with people with hidden agendas&#8230;.no good comes from it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: loveajax</title>
		<link>http://adoptee.adoptionblogs.com/weblogs/adoption-is-under-attack/comment-page-1#comment-122</link>
		<dc:creator>loveajax</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:51:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://adoptee.www.adoptionblogs.com/2007/06/13/adoption-is-under-attack#comment-122</guid>
		<description>Here is another &quot;reform&quot; site...I think if you read the proposed legislation (which is hard to do because it is sort of written nonsensically, has a lot of seemingly bad statistics and has tons of misspellings), you will come away with the idea that the REAL purpose of the &quot;reform&quot; for some is,in effect, the elimination of domestic infant adoptions (or at least dang close to that).  I frankly am disturbed by that concept, not just because I am an adoptive mom, but because what the &quot;proposals&quot; do in my opinion are to limit the choices of many pregnant women who choose adoption.   Everyone knows that adoption is not an &quot;easy&quot; decision, but sometimes for the birth parents it is the one they choose and feel is right.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think a lot of adoptive parents (especially ones like me who feel &quot;guilty&quot; about being blessed by adoption, when they know it causes suffering) like to say that they support &quot;reform,&quot; without really knowing what reforms they support.   I think an underlying &quot;current&quot; in a lot of discussion is that adoption as a whole is unethical...I have a real problem with that. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.nationalinfantadoptionreformact.com/home.htm&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Good post...Thanks.  </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Here is another &#8220;reform&#8221; site&#8230;I think if you read the proposed legislation (which is hard to do because it is sort of written nonsensically, has a lot of seemingly bad statistics and has tons of misspellings), you will come away with the idea that the REAL purpose of the &#8220;reform&#8221; for some is,in effect, the elimination of domestic infant adoptions (or at least dang close to that).  I frankly am disturbed by that concept, not just because I am an adoptive mom, but because what the &#8220;proposals&#8221; do in my opinion are to limit the choices of many pregnant women who choose adoption.   Everyone knows that adoption is not an &#8220;easy&#8221; decision, but sometimes for the birth parents it is the one they choose and feel is right.  </p>
<p>I think a lot of adoptive parents (especially ones like me who feel &#8220;guilty&#8221; about being blessed by adoption, when they know it causes suffering) like to say that they support &#8220;reform,&#8221; without really knowing what reforms they support.   I think an underlying &#8220;current&#8221; in a lot of discussion is that adoption as a whole is unethical&#8230;I have a real problem with that. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.nationalinfantadoptionreformact.com/home.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.nationalinfantadoptionreformact.com/home.htm</a></p>
<p>Good post&#8230;Thanks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: AdoptionBlogs Editor</title>
		<link>http://adoptee.adoptionblogs.com/weblogs/adoption-is-under-attack/comment-page-1#comment-121</link>
		<dc:creator>AdoptionBlogs Editor</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:39:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://adoptee.www.adoptionblogs.com/2007/06/13/adoption-is-under-attack#comment-121</guid>
		<description>I think Abby brings home a very important bit of advice here: Do your research and be careful about where and in whom you put your trust.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Now, Jan, as for one person causing such a stir - it is that amazing, it is possible and she has.  It is brilliant book promotion and really helps her get her name out there.  She&#039;s been Googling all of us and cut &amp; pasting her statistics and byline on every blog or article any of us have written that she possibly can.  It is brilliant guerilla promotion (that is an industry term, not a comparison to an ape) and gives her wider name recognition.  Our bloggers could take a lesson from her promotional tactics!  </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think Abby brings home a very important bit of advice here: Do your research and be careful about where and in whom you put your trust.</p>
<p>Now, Jan, as for one person causing such a stir &#8211; it is that amazing, it is possible and she has.  It is brilliant book promotion and really helps her get her name out there.  She&#8217;s been Googling all of us and cut &amp; pasting her statistics and byline on every blog or article any of us have written that she possibly can.  It is brilliant guerilla promotion (that is an industry term, not a comparison to an ape) and gives her wider name recognition.  Our bloggers could take a lesson from her promotional tactics!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Heather Lowe</title>
		<link>http://adoptee.adoptionblogs.com/weblogs/adoption-is-under-attack/comment-page-1#comment-120</link>
		<dc:creator>Heather Lowe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Jun 2007 14:14:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://adoptee.www.adoptionblogs.com/2007/06/13/adoption-is-under-attack#comment-120</guid>
		<description>Ok, so what is *your* agenda in highlighting the LEAST credible family preservation site, and ignorning those such as Ethica, among most credible? Ethica makes some really valid points about family preservation. Do you think they&#039;re full of it, too?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&quot;Having an agenda&quot; ... yes, we all have one, even you. (Yours is to promote adoption.) &quot;Having an agenda&quot; is not as sinister as it sounds.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ok, so what is *your* agenda in highlighting the LEAST credible family preservation site, and ignorning those such as Ethica, among most credible? Ethica makes some really valid points about family preservation. Do you think they&#8217;re full of it, too?</p>
<p>&#8220;Having an agenda&#8221; &#8230; yes, we all have one, even you. (Yours is to promote adoption.) &#8220;Having an agenda&#8221; is not as sinister as it sounds.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jan Baker</title>
		<link>http://adoptee.adoptionblogs.com/weblogs/adoption-is-under-attack/comment-page-1#comment-119</link>
		<dc:creator>Jan Baker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Jun 2007 06:42:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://adoptee.www.adoptionblogs.com/2007/06/13/adoption-is-under-attack#comment-119</guid>
		<description>&quot;So, Jan I am sorry it does come from a family prevervation site. My stand is to encourage everyone to investigate who they put their trust in and don&#039;t believe all the warm and fuzzy statements they use to draw people in.&quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Both of those sites you referenced are from the same one person who has recently been to the blogs and caused such an uproar. Amazing that one person could cause such a stir. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;So, Jan I am sorry it does come from a family prevervation site. My stand is to encourage everyone to investigate who they put their trust in and don&#8217;t believe all the warm and fuzzy statements they use to draw people in.&#8221;</p>
<p>Both of those sites you referenced are from the same one person who has recently been to the blogs and caused such an uproar. Amazing that one person could cause such a stir.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Abby</title>
		<link>http://adoptee.adoptionblogs.com/weblogs/adoption-is-under-attack/comment-page-1#comment-118</link>
		<dc:creator>Abby</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Jun 2007 03:57:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://adoptee.www.adoptionblogs.com/2007/06/13/adoption-is-under-attack#comment-118</guid>
		<description>Deb,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You are correct about people trying to end adoption. People can not fight against something they do not know is out there. The most important thing is arming people with the truth, so they can make informed choices. Thanks:)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abby</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Deb,</p>
<p>You are correct about people trying to end adoption. People can not fight against something they do not know is out there. The most important thing is arming people with the truth, so they can make informed choices. Thanks:)</p>
<p>Abby</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Abby</title>
		<link>http://adoptee.adoptionblogs.com/weblogs/adoption-is-under-attack/comment-page-1#comment-117</link>
		<dc:creator>Abby</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Jun 2007 03:41:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://adoptee.www.adoptionblogs.com/2007/06/13/adoption-is-under-attack#comment-117</guid>
		<description>Romee, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks, you totally understood what I was saying. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abby</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Romee, </p>
<p>Thanks, you totally understood what I was saying. </p>
<p>Abby</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Abby</title>
		<link>http://adoptee.adoptionblogs.com/weblogs/adoption-is-under-attack/comment-page-1#comment-116</link>
		<dc:creator>Abby</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Jun 2007 03:39:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://adoptee.www.adoptionblogs.com/2007/06/13/adoption-is-under-attack#comment-116</guid>
		<description>Sandra,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Girl &quot;they&quot; are after you but keep up the good work. You can come hide at my house if &quot;they&quot; find you:)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abby</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sandra,</p>
<p>Girl &#8220;they&#8221; are after you but keep up the good work. You can come hide at my house if &#8220;they&#8221; find you:)</p>
<p>Abby</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
