I have noticed a rise in adoption related media stories. However, it is the same scenario, redundant, each showing the adopting side. I can’t help but ask myself why. Why are bio parents left out of the adoption story. Should we assume that no one truly cares about bio/birth parents when it comes to adoption? Do we believe that average folks may not be able to comprehend the grief of relinquishment? Can compassion be felt more towards adopting parents than relinquishing parents? Media doesn’t mind showing the hardships of cancer patients, hungry children, abused animals, kids/adults with disabilities, but showing the suffering of a bereaved parent after adoption is non existent. Why?
I was reading an article that had some adoption fluff. It was about a couple who after fostering a baby boy for over a year, went to court to adopt him. Their request was granted.
In the article, the following statement was positioned in the third paragraph, to help set the tone for the remainder of the article.
“Adoptive parents sometimes get to the hospital in anticipation of bringing their little one home, only to find out that the biological parents have decided to keep the baby after all.”
The part that gets me is the wording…notice how the statement has already given a title to people who should be correctly referred to as the PROPOSED adoptive parents. The statement has also already erroneously assigned ownership, saying “their little one,” when no relinquishment, no adoption or legal guardianship has taken place. From this statement, one may assume that the couple has not even held this newborn in their hands.
On the other hand, the article references the biological parent’s as “to keep the baby” instead of keep their baby, which was born to them. This is how pro-adoption folks use their words in newborn infant adoptions. They use this tactic on vulnerable expecting mothers and parents. They will allow a stranger to claim what has not even been born or freely given yet.
This statement is degrading to the infant as well. It ambiguously implies that if the newborn is adopted, he/she is fondly someone’s (their) little one. He has belonging. But if the new baby is no longer available for adoption, then the infant is reduced to “the baby” as a commodity; the dog, the couch, the table, the store, etc. He is no longer a precious little one. You see?
The article leaves out the details of how or why the infant was placed in foster care at a week old. It provides no details about the parents. What happened? I am wary of stories like this. More so now, with the migrant families being separated.
I am all for protecting children and placing them in safe homes. I know wonderful foster and adoptive parents who love their kids and have provided a good and safe home. But I am against forced adoptions, forced separations, government forced separations, coerced adoptions, migrant families separations, and any unnecessary adoptions based on ignorance and conspiracy.
When we have one-sided media stories about complex issues with incomplete information, as readers, we cannot make a fair judgement about either parent since we have only been given a partial story. Too many of these articles make it appear that the birth parents are villainous while the foster to adoptive parents are saints. That is very narcissistic. Classic, really. The adoption industry has operated on narcissistic attitudes for generations. They play on our emotions to feel sorry for the mom and dad who cannot conceive or give birth while giving the birth parents a blank slate, as if they aren’t human, they have no story, no rights, no validity. It’s good media advertising.
The adoption industry needs to have people feel sorry or root for one-side. How do they do that? Well, they take out the birth parents story or give worst-case scenarios which leaves room for average Americans to generalize birth parents and erroneously portray them as unreliable, addicts, poor, dirty, promiscuous, and possibly abusive and neglectful. Or as illegal migrants with no rights.
Birth parents can’t all or always be bad or villainous and foster/adoptive parents can’t all or always be saints. This tactic is all too common in the pro-adoption social arena.
Right now, with all the migrant separations, Americans as well as the world around us are appalled and are highly concerned about keeping families together and reuniting migrant families. Chances are all this media coverage with well-educated commentators speaking out about the impact and trauma of separation will inevitably impact how folks see family separation and how important it is for families to remain intact. Furthermore, all this information may help those faced with an unplanned pregnancy to see their role differently and help them make a more informed, educated choice. Vital information, by the way, that adoption agencies and fake crisis pregnancy centers conveniently leave out of the adoption plan talk, while giving specific details on abortion, not all based on facts, or the possible pitfalls of parenting, which is based on fear.
To combat this new mass social awareness about family separation, the pro-adoption industry feels like they are under attack. What has been kept hidden for decades to average folks has now been exposed and revealed on news channels, major newspapers, video clips, and social media memes.
Socialized and sensationalized adoption stories are being created and shared to bring folks back in. The Adoption industry needs to gain the trust and favoritism of average Americans again. Social media is their one source for getting that information out to the general masses, using people as protagonist or antagonist to help send their message of the adoption story. It is a well written script but one that can have lasting trauma and emotional impact for those involved.