Some Thoughts

Adoptive mothers breastfeeding their adopted baby is a controversial topic. Even though it took assisted reproduction for me to give birth to my two sons, I was a devoted breast feeder – I fed each of them on the breast for over a year. So, I appreciated the perspective from one woman in my all things adoption group –

I grew up, and later lived with my breastfeeding babies in non privileged countries where formula was not a dependable option. Breastfeeding babies that weren’t related was common practice to keep babies fed. When I first read the outrage in this group over adoptive mothers breastfeeding, I felt personally attacked. I have breastfed other mother’s children and it really did feel natural. I didn’t engage in those conversations then because of my feelings.

I have taken the time to process what was said in those threads and it boils down to an understanding that adoptive mothers choosing to breastfeed is a selfish act. It is not child centered in any way. They are trying to force a bond that isn’t there. There is no way to steal a baby from their mother, then claim you are doing anything solely for the child’s well-being.

Another woman also pointed out the history of wet nurses with this comment – it was common in the past to have wet nurses, and more recently donated breast milk. I know a lot of people have feelings about breast milk and breastfeeding, but it truly is such a natural and amazing thing. I wish it wasn’t such a controversy.

Another woman noted – in response to an assertion that there is no nutritional value in medically induced breast feeding, which is what adoptive mothers do – “I’m a breastfeeding medicine doctor, and all breastmilk is nutritionally and immunologically superior to formula milks.”

Another person noted – there’s a difference between wet nursing for necessity and forcing a grieving infant to suckle you in order to fabricate some “as if born to” delusion. We’re talking about psychological abuse. If someone is being child centered, they should be pumping and feeding from a bottle plus this – the “first rule of lactation support” is: Feed the baby!

Someone questioned – wtf is a breast feeding medicine doctor? Where does one acquire that degree? And received this answer – I am a Certified Breastfeeding Specialist, on Pathway 3 to becoming an International Board Certified Lactation Consultant, and a Breastfeeding Medicine Physician is exactly what it sounds like— trained doctor at the base, who specializes in lactation management. They are rare and even more medically qualified than International Board Certified Lactation Consultants (who don’t have to become a doctor first, but do specialize in lactation through intensive study and mentorship). And yet another agreed – I’m an MD practicing family medicine and I specialize in prenatal through lactation. When treating for lactation, it’s referred to as breastfeeding medicine. Just like there’s no degree for a “cardiologist” or a “pediatrician.” It’s a specialty you choose as a medical doctor (MD).

Someone else noted – And not only that, this is the most common medication, LINK>Domperidone, to induce lactation— which is rare to access in the US to begin with (as it is off-label use). Human milk can also be induced with herbs, diet, and/or just stimulation, without medication. As someone qualified in lactation support, the amount of misinformation I see spread in this group about lactation hurts. And I’m NOT talking about the ethics of feeding a baby who is not your own, which I’m so thankful about the perspectives on. We don’t have to throw out the proverbial baby (human milk) with the bathwater (direct feeding an adopted baby).

The Whys and What Ifs

This was posted in my all things adoption group creating a bit of outrage and controversy. Some people here have such negative opinions about adoption or trying to find a family member to take them. What if the parents are messed up and sometimes it goes back generations? What if the other family members don’t want the kids? Adoption is not a bad word and helps many kids find stability. I have 6 adopted children with 3 different mothers involved and we all get along. I don’t judge them or bring up their past and they may not like the fact that they have to go through me to be in their children lives. I will tell you it works. I share everything with them about their children and even let them come to events. I deal with grandma’s and aunts and uncles and it works. They thank me for standing up, when relatives sat down and refused to take part. In a world where it takes a village, you are extremely naive to believe one person can get it done. I get it things don’t always work out as planned and the path you are on may all the sudden change. Foster and adoptive parents are heroes who take on challenges and many times don’t see the results of their labor. The situation is not perfect because you place people together with hopes, dreams and expectations and it never works out the way you’ve planned. Let’s face it though – that’s life.

Unsurprisingly, there were a lot of comments (188) and I won’t be sharing all of them but will selectively share a few. This person’s perspective on adoption and the need for it is not uncommon in adoptionland or among adoptive parents. No one wants to know that any child is abused or neglected. That should go without saying but sometimes it still must be said.

One said – you don’t think my messed up family loves their children??? These people need to stop taking children, they’re not saving them.

Another one notes (and I have seen this more times than I have a number for) – my adoptive parents were messed up.

Someone else said what must be said – All children deserve to be raised in a safe and loving home with parents who want them and are equipped to raise them. The issues arise when there are barriers to that happening and society prioritizes giving the child away over removing the barriers. Describing adoptive parents as ‘heroes’ feeds into that mistaken prioritization.

One noted – pretty sure my family has a book on surviving fucked up!!!! We still fought to keep our family together!! I will always, always argue family is best!!

The current activist/reformist perspective is – Stewardship or Guardianship. Then there is no need for “adoption” AT ALL.

One asked the hard questions – Why does helping families in crisis include owning their children? You said it yourself, “it takes a village” – so why does the one with most resources get to own the children? Why is it such a hard concept that the whole family should be lifted up out of crisis? Why does a child have to lose everything just to receive care?

An adoptive parent writes – the reality is that adoption is not all joy and perfection. The trauma that adopted children face is a reality, there are many different factors behind the trauma but there is no denying that taking a child from their mother is trauma. Are you able to set aside how amazing you think you are, in fact can you take off the superhero cape that you wear from long enough to try and understand the words of adult adoptees? Adoptive parents are not saviors, we are not hero’s. All of our stories and experiences are different but we can learn so much from adult adoptees and try to do better.

Someone else notes – We aren’t saying that adoption is evil, we are just saying it is mostly evil (today as things are). It is a corrupted system where children are the fodder for the selfish. We are trying to make changes so there is more help for families to stay together and less child trafficking. Children, should only be removed from their natural parents in the most dire of circumstances (Rape, Murder, Incest, etc.) And even then, being adopted is and will be traumatizing. The children suffer for it and will need life long access to therapy. If it is safe enough for children to visit with and see their parents, then it is safe enough for total reunification. It is a sick world we live in, where stealing a baby is commended but helping someone through the struggles of human life, so they can parent their own kids is rarely brought up.

Blogger’s Note – No wonder I spend time nearly every day trying to be part of the answer to what is wrong about adoption.

A Different Kind of Love

It’s Valentine’s Day and the mind and heart turn naturally to discussions about love. So I went looking for adoption related articles (having slept late today and having a long day away from home today) to create a blog for such a special holiday. I found this 2007 The Guardian piece – LINK>A different kind of love by Kate Hilpern.

It begins with a question that I often see come up in my all things adoption group. Does a mother love a child she has adopted in the same way as she might love a birth child? And why is it such a taboo to ask?

One adoptive mother answers – ‘If something tragic happened to my adopted daughter I’d be devastated, but I wouldn’t die. If something happened to either of my two boys who I gave birth to, I feel I would die,” says Tina Pattie. “I don’t love my daughter any less, but it’s a different kind of love. With my sons, my love is set in stone. It’s that ‘die for you love’ that would never change, no matter what. With Cheri, it’s a love that develops and grows. It’s more of a process than an absolute.” And to my own thinking, that might be why a love for the child too often fails in an adoptive situation.

The article goes on to note – Ask most adopters whether they think their love for their children is any different than it would be if they had their own offspring, and you can generally expect a resounding no. Very likely, they’ll be offended it even crossed your mind. But in families such as Tina Pattie’s – where there are both biological and non-biological children – it’s a question that is put to the test. It’s a question that gets to the very heart of what it means to be a parent.

“I don’t care how close you are to your adopted son or beloved stepdaughter, the love you have for your non-biological child isn’t the same as the love you have for your own flesh and blood,” wrote Rebecca Walker in her recent book, Baby Love. “Yes, I would do anything for my first [non-biological] son, within reason. But I would do anything at all for my second [biological] child without reason, without a doubt,” added the estranged daughter of the renowned author Alice Walker. Understandably, her comment has attracted a lot of controversy.

Tina had always wanted three children, so when she was told it could jeopardize her health to have a third baby naturally, she persuaded her husband to adopt. Her preference was for a baby, but there were none available and they were offered a little girl five weeks off her fourth birthday. “I was totally and absolutely shocked to find that in the early years, I felt no love at all for her,” recalls Tina. “It didn’t even feel right to say she was my daughter. The word ‘daughter’ describes a relationship, a connection – things we didn’t have.” There was no one point at which Tina began to love Cheri, now 17. “It was a drip, drip, drip kind of process. Now, I love her a lot. I’m really proud of her and close to her, but it has taken time,” she says.

Tina has spent a lot of time “unpacking” the disparity in her feelings for her children. “I think there are several things going on. First, she wasn’t a newborn baby, like my sons had been. There’s nothing quite like a newborn baby. Second, when you get a stranger in your house, you’re not going to love it straight away, you’re just not. Then there was the fact that Cheri was a hugely damaged and difficult child. Even now, I wonder that if she’d been sweet and easy instead of angry and violent whether it would have been different. Instead, I turned from a calm, patient mother into a monster. I’d never felt rage like that, ever. But even in the blackest moments, when there was no connection between us at all, there was never a question that I would give up.” This is not at all uncommon, adoptive children have trauma, it is unavoidable.

There is more with other stories on a related theme in The Guardian article, if you are interested.

Like A Sick Joke

Some adoptive parents want to celebrate what is generally a sad day for most adoptees. I read this comment from one adoptee – People are just out of touch with reality. Why would an adoptive parent send treats to school, so their adopted child can celebrate “Gotcha Day,” even after the child has beg them not to ?

From a mother who surrendered a child to adoption and also adopted one – This poor child. I never use that term with my daughter and honestly that is because I know the pain and trauma of being coerced into giving my baby away. In my home, we acknowledge the pain and trauma of adoption, the reasoning behind her adoption (ours was private with acquaintances) and I’m happy to give her compassion and hugs and a lot of love. I also am happy that the people who adopted my daughter never celebrated the “gotcha” day. That would be extremely painful for me as well.

On a website titled LINK> Considering Adoption, I found an article titled The Controversy of ‘Gotcha Day’.

How do you feel right now after seeing “Happy Gotcha Day” in my blog photo ? The debate is contentious, and it can get heated. Reactions vary wildly across the adoption community. For some, the language is highly problematic. For others, the entire concept is an issue. Still others have only good feelings about “gotcha day” and celebrate it annually with their children.

The goal in my blog today, is not to ignite a fiery debate, but rather to share a better understanding of the positions some hold. Gotcha Day is believed to be a celebration of the day a family adopted a child. Some families decide to mark this anniversary on the day of placement; others celebrate on the day the adoption was finalized in court. The name of this day and even the existence of the celebration has become a point of controversy for several different reasons. Let’s look at the most common positions.

The language we use when we discuss adoption must be sensitive and respectful. We’re talking about an adoptive family, the original mother and the adoptee. We have to choose our words carefully to ensure we respect the full dignity and autonomy of everyone involved in the process. Language that commodifies the adoption process is a problem. Adoption is not buying children. Children are not the product.

“The most basic aspect of it — its name — is also the disturbing aspect of it… There is also the fact that G-Day, like re-homing, has its origins in the pet rescue lexicon because it implies caught or trapped. Is this really what we want to model?” ~ author Mirah Riben

The other side of every adoption story is that an adoptee “lost everything” connected to their family of origin. From Sophie, who was born in China and adopted by an American family when she was 5 years old: “It’s been said that adoption loss is the only trauma in the world where everyone expects the victims be grateful and appreciative… Gotcha day feels like a day of fake smiles if we don’t acknowledge that it’s also about loss, not just gain.” Having a celebration intentionally denies that loss.

Adoption is acknowledged to involve loss at some level for every adoptee. The felt impact is understandably different for each. There are often confusing questions about heritage and identity for many adoptees. It is important to allow space for both any joy in general and any felt loss when it comes to an adoptee’s day of having become adopted.

Every person is inherently, and without qualification, deserving of respect. Each member of the adoption triad is living a unique story. Each has their own struggles and challenges.

One adoptee shares – I hate the phrase gotcha day. It feels patronizing and inhumane. It’s also not ok if the child is embarrassed or doesn’t want to. My adoptive parents celebrated my Adoption Birthday. Kids were jealous of me that I had 2 birthdays. I just laughed and rolled my eyes – No one wants to be adopted. I enjoyed my 2 “birthdays” and knew that other people really didn’t understand. Gotcha days and whether the adoptee consents are huge issues.

Another adoptee admits – I HATE “Gotcha-day” if you want to celebrate the day you became a family, I think that’s great, but should be family, you should discuss adoption and how the process went (similar to a mom who tells her child about their birth). It should not be a day to praise these “wonderful” people for taking in this child that “no one wanted”. And it sure as hell shouldn’t be gotcha day. That’s what they say at the animal shelter !!!

Yet another said bluntly – I was forced to have this. It embarrassed me and I hated it.

Fertilization or Implantation

It didn’t take long for the concerns over the Supreme Court overturning Roe v Wade to leap over into In-Vitro Fertilization. Some states, including Louisiana, are already contemplating laws that would define a fertilized egg as having the same rights as a live child which will definitely have the same chilling effect on IVF clinics as the escalation of anti-abortion laws at the state level has had on clinics that perform abortions.

The Catholic Churches inconsistency regarding when life begins hasn’t helped matters. Among Catholics it is NOT clear – does life begin at fertilization or at implantation ? One Catholic said, “It’s actually not disputed. For example: the official stance of the Catholic Church is that life begins at IMPLANTATION, not fertilization. Additionally, you can’t turn a pregnancy test positive without implantation. So again, many would consider ‘conception’ to mean successful implantation.”

In 2006, under Pope Benedict (before the current Pope Francis), it was affirmed during an international congress on scientific aspects and bioethical considerations of The Human Embryo Before Implantation that embryos are “sacred and inviolable” even before they become implanted in a mother’s uterus. The Pope said the Church had always proclaimed the “sacred and inviolable character of every human life, from its conception to its natural end.” adding, “This moral judgment is valid from the start of the life of an embryo, even before it is implanted in the maternal womb.”

In 2021, Washington’s Cardinal Wilton Gregory spoke at the National Press Club, during which he fielded questions about President Joe Biden’s support for abortion. “The Catholic Church teaches and has taught that life — human life — begins at conception. So the president is not demonstrating Catholic teaching in that,” Gregory said. “Catholics should take care not to believe the myths and lies that are produced by those influential individuals and institutions that want to confuse people about the true nature of abortion or who wish to exploit the bodies and lives of unborn children. For example, the myth that ‘pregnancy begins at implantation’ is a deception that has caused misunderstandings for decades.”

Another Catholic noted – Our vicar general was very confident that when the church says “conception” they are referring to implantation, per his actual priesthood teachings. But, that most Catholics assume conception means fertilization, but that isn’t correct. My discussions on this topic with him were in 2010 for reference. I know the pope said prior to that that it’s before implantation, but the actual documented definition in church literature is apparently implantation.

At the end of the day, this is splitting hairs and I’m pro-choice. But, it’s clear even the church can’t figure out a cohesive stance, and none of this is dogma anyway. Also, just because “life” begins at conception it’s doesn’t address the bodily autonomy issue (the Church doesn’t support forced organ donation to save another adults life, but they are ok with a pregnant person being forced to give up their body?).

I don’t know anyone who would say they are trying to “conceive” and mean that they are just trying to fertilize an egg. For all practical purposes, fertilization alone just isn’t conception. And these old white men can believe otherwise, but if my egg is fertilized but doesn’t implant, I would never say I conceived because I wouldn’t even know the egg was fertilized, unless I went through IVF anyway.

Leaving aside religious arguments, Wired had an article by Sarah Zhang in 2015 titled – Why Science Can’t Say When a Baby’s Life Begins with a subtitle – If anything, science has only complicated the personhood debate. The article notes – When life begins is, of course, the central disagreement that fuels the controversy over abortion.

In the 19th century, abortion in Britain was legal—until the quickening. The “quickening” was the first time a woman felt her baby’s kick, it was the moment the baby came alive, the moment it got a soul. Ultrasound imaging made quickening, a concept that had been around since at least Aristotle, a relic. In a 2012 vice presidential debate, Paul Ryan explained that after seeing their unborn daughter on ultrasound, they nicknamed her “Bean.” My husband jokes about our youngest son being “LumpT” before he was born. Ryan actually sponsored a bill for fetal personhood, giving full legal rights to a zygote after fertilization.

After fertilization, must come implantation. The fertilized egg travels down the fallopian tube and attaches to the mother’s uterus. “There’s an incredibly high rate of fertilized eggs that don’t implant,” says Diane Horvath-Cosper, an OB-GYN in Washington, DC. Estimates run from 50 to 80 percent, and even some implanted embryos spontaneously abort later on. The woman might never know she was pregnant.

Clearly, the controversies and debates are not going away any time soon. It is going to be very messy for some time to come.