An adoptee asks – I wonder if it would make a difference if instead of ‘giving up for adoption’, it was changed to ‘giving your child away’? One person noted – “A pig wearing lipstick is still a pig.”

A mother of loss writes – The language is controlled by those who have the power, ie the adoption industry… That’s why everything is a euphemism and double speak. Of course, if it was called “giving your child away to strangers and causing them trauma” – we would never be able to be convinced it was the best for them.

Another adoptee writes – I was not “given up for adoption”…. I was “abandoned.” Nobody would’ve cared to find out what happened to me. In response, someone else writes – “There’s active trauma and inactive trauma. At before the active trauma of adoptee occurs, there’s the inactive trauma of abandonment.. I was removed as a teen and it makes me wonder if I had told earlier then I might have a different label. I’m not a former foster care youth or an adoptee because the system never found me a new home. ‘Abandoned and at risk for homelessness’ [I was homeless]. I tell myself it’s a blessing in disguise, but I feel abandoned twice – by both my mother and again by the system.”

Another mother of loss due to coercion writes – I think depending on the way it is said is what allows people to understand circumstances… I could say “my child was stolen/taken” that relates to coercion/manipulation or kidnapping that CPS (Child Protective Services/Div of Child and Family Services) likes to partake in (which is what happened to me, I was coerced). I could say “I gave my child up for adoption” that relates to willingly having my child adopted for whatever reason. I could say “my child was adopted” that could mean anything. like neglect, CPS involvement, kinship adoption, regular private adoption, foster to adopt situation without CPS involvement, anything…

A former foster care youth shares – I don’t know for sure if it would. I always said I was thrown away because my parents willingly signed me over when I was 14. Whenever I approach them about what they put me through, they brush me off and avoid the subject. I think a lot of people knew exactly what they were doing, and just didn’t care. Even so, there are circumstances where it’s an understandable decision, don’t get me wrong.

One person notes – In most jurisdiction, “abandonment” of a child is a crime. Relinquishment procedures legalize this crime. It would change a lot if we do away with the relinquishment process.

One adoptee writes – I always tell people I was sold and then people get all hurt about it. It’s really not far off…. my aunt offered to take me in, my biological mom agreed but then, ran off. Next thing my aunt heard is I was adopted and my biological mom got a lot out of it.

Another mother of loss shares – I tell people “I was not allowed to parent my child and lost her to adoption”.

A birth mother admits – Every situation is so different. I think the phrases that are used aren’t accurately interchangeable. In my case, I feel the phrase “sacrificed motherhood” is most accurate. However I know other first/birth mothers that “giving up” is more accurate. I’m positive that some would fall under that category… “giving your child away” would be most appropriate. In my experience with connecting with mothers like myself, I find that the most predominant issues that lead to adoption is fear, low self esteem, religious intolerance (groomed from religious indoctrination that is adoptive agency predatory), outright manipulation, and early childhood abuse that leads to the adoption paradigm.

One adoptee shares – I was not given up for adoption. I was taken by my grandmother against my mother’s will and given away to punish her for getting pregnant at 14. Oh, and she made her birth me vaginally without medication for the same reason. And my brother (trans-racial South Korean adoptee) was straight up fucking kidnapped and sold across the world by his pos biological dad. He found his birth mother 3 years ago through a 30 year old missing child poster. Another person replied to that – “I wouldn’t even call myself an adoptee. I would say human trafficking survivor, because that is insane… reminds me of another person I know who had something illegal and similar happen to them.”

One adoptee suggested the sentence – “Letting your child be raised by strangers”. Yet another adoptee writes – I tell people I was sold to the highest bidder. Essentially how it feels. I spent years being told that I was rescued from a life of poverty, and I should have been grateful. As an adult, I realized I was raised by a person who had more money but didn’t love me. My birth parents had a modest living and lots of love for me.

A first mom notes –  I did not give my son away – he was taken from me without my consent!

To which another first mom (NM) really gets into it all – we don’t “give” our children away freely. Our child is also not a “gift”. “Give up” is another way of saying “surrender”. Surrender is the final, hopeless act of “the defeated enemy” who has been relentlessly attacked during warfare. “The defeated enemy” surrenders by raising a white flag to beg for mercy, to signal their hopeless defeat with dejected humiliation and a hung head. Make no mistake: birth mothers are treated as the enemy. They are told in no uncertain terms that they are “the enemy” to their own child and that strangers will be “better” for the child. Single moms, especially BIPOC moms are policed by foster care and society in a truly heartless and relentless way. Infant adoption agency “social workers” are paid handsomely to covertly wage war on a vulnerable mom. They present themselves as compassionate help, while secretly and tactically convincing her to “freely relinquish” her rights. Maybe change the language to “Adoptive Parents” (AP) pay people to “shake down” and “intimidate” vulnerable, young, poor women in crisis, and they “extort” a baby from her in exchange for its “protection”. Agencies have tactical manuals that have been developed over years of trial and error and are filled with marketing language that helps them wage this war. The primary objective of an agency is separation and destruction of the first family— for their own financial gain. They are mercenaries, paid by adoptive parents. Sometimes these agents believe their own lies— they see the birth mom as a dangerous enemy to her own child, and they imagine themselves as a savior to that child. Usually, APs never see how their dollars fuel this attack, this warfare, on the first family. They just thank the lord that somehow “fate” delivers them an “abandoned baby” who was “destined” to be theirs. And no one addresses the hallow, rubble of a mess left after the NM holds her baby in the air and says “Stop – Please for the sake of the baby – please make them safe.” Once a mother is stripped of her child, there is literally nothing left in her life. I left the hospital and felt like a bag full of crushed glass. Every step I took, I felt like people could surely hear the noise of broken shards shaking around inside of me. I was shattered, and hallow, and utterly alone in the rubble of my defeat. I did give up. I didn’t fight hard enough. I was alone in the aftermath; but many many many people walked alongside me to bully me into that outcome. I say it over and over and over again: it takes a village to raise a child… but it also takes an entire village to separate a mother from her child. Judges, lawyers, doctors, nurses, my own family, my friends all contributed to the final outcome: my surrender. Are there moms who literally abandon their children? Yes. But they are a rare exception. Most birth moms who “give” our baby to another family via domestic infant adoption (DIA) are victims of strategic warfare that extracts a “valuable resource” and coerces a vulnerable person to “freely surrender” that resource, so they can turn around and sell it for a very high price. The entire DIA Adoption industry is built around selling children to the highest bidder (APs). Maybe change the language to: NMs “lose their child” to heartless grifters and child traffickers disguised as “social servants”. And start calling APs what they are: purchasers who fuel a “blood diamonds” of baby trafficking. And start calling adoption agencies what they are: the morphia, grifters, child traffickers.