About Adoptee Rage

Statistics Identify large populations of Adoptees in prisons, mental hospitals and committed suicide.
Fifty years of scientific studies on child adoption resulting in psychological harm to the child and
poor outcomes for a child's future.
Medical and psychological attempts to heal the broken bonds of adoption, promote reunions of biological parents and adult children. The other half of attempting to repair a severed Identity is counselling therapy to rebuild the self.

Tuesday, September 30, 2014

The Socially Invalidated, Traumatized, Lifelong Suffering and Psychologically Discarded Biological Mother


The Socially Invalidated, Traumatized, Lifelong Suffering and Psychologically Discarded Biological Mother

This Great Source of Valid, Publicly Published and Truthful Scientific Studies and Non-Fiction Adoption Information.


Adoption Trauma: The Damage to Relinquishing Mothers

These are studies detailing the long-term consequences to natural mothers (“birthmothers”) of surrendering a baby for adoption. This is information that is in standard and widely-known social work and psychology articles and research reports. Adoption “professionals” are familiar with these studies — the findings are common knowledge.
To give informed consent to adoption, mothers need to be informed of these risks. Adoption “professionals” have an obligation to provide mothers with this information. Often they only provide information from studies that show short-term positive educational and financial “outcomes” from surrender (and these “positive outcomes” are debatable in the long-term*).
If you are a mother who surrendered your baby since 1978 and you were not informed of these risks (below), then you did not give informed consent to the adoption, as this information was deliberately withheld from you.
Pannor, R., Baran, A., & Sorosky, A. (1978)
  • Half of mothers surveyed said they have continued to feel loss, pain, and mourning over the child they lost to adoption (even many years later — this included mothers who had surrendered up to 33 years prior).
  • Only 30% expressed “comfort” about the adoption (thus 70% were not comfortable with the adoption and/or felt it was not the outcome they wanted)
Rynearson, E. K. (1982)
  • Eight of the 20 mothers were so traumatized by signing the papers that they were amnesiac of it.
  • All reported recurring dreams of the loss of the baby, with contrasting themes of traumatic separation and joyful reunion.
  • All had unresolved grief, continuing to experience symptoms of mourning at the anniversary of the relinquishment.
Winkler, Dr. R.; and Van Keppel, M. (1984)
  • 45% of mothers surveyed stated that their sense of loss had intensified over the period since surrender and 6.4% stated it had remained the same. For the sample as a whole, this loss remains constant for up to 30 years.
  • Compared to a carefully-matched control group, mothers who had lost a child to adoption had significantly greater psychological impairment afterwards.
  • 53% of the Western Australia respondents and 58.8% of the National Survey respondents stated the surrender of their babies was the most stressful thing they had ever experienced.
Condon, Dr. J. T.(1986)
  • “over half of these women are suffering from severe and disabling grief reactions which are not resolving with the passage of time and which manifest predominantly as depression and psychosomatic symptoms” (p. 118)
  • Over half had used alcohol or sedative medication to help them cope after relinquishment. (p. 118)
  • Feelings of sadness and depression at the time of the surrender were rated on average as between “intense” and “the moist intense ever experienced.”
  • For 67%, these feelings either stayed the same or intensified in the years since surrender, they did not diminish.
Blanton, T., & Deschner, J. (1990)
  • Natural mothers registered significantly stronger symptoms than mothers whose babies had died in 8 of the 14 bereavement subscales.
  • Comparing natural mothers in both open and closed adoptions with parents whose babies had died shows that natural mothers suffer more denial, atypical responses, despair, anger, depersonalization, sleep disturbance, somaticizing, physical symptoms, optimism vs despair, dependency,and vigor. (pp. 532-533)
  • “Relinquishing mothers have more grief symptoms than women who have lost a child to death, including more denial; despair, atypical responses; and disturbances in sleep, appetite, and vigor.”
Weinreb, M. (1991)
    • Mothers’ scores averaged in the mild to moderate range of depression at the time of the study, which was done a number of years post-surrender, significantly higher than the population average.. Indicates that surrender can lead to long-lasting depression.
    • 40% were still experiencing at least moderate acute grief.
    Wells, Sue (1993a and b)
    • 136 out of 262 mothers (52%) found that thoughts about their children increased rather than decreased over the years. Unlike a normal loss or bereavement the child is living elsewhere. Many liken it to a “living death.”
    • Half stated that the trauma has affected their physical health.
    • Many experience symptoms of PTSD.
    • 207 out of 262 (79%) indicated that depression and anxiety, as well as difficulties with relationships and trust, as prolonged and profound consequences of surrender.
    Edwards, D. S. (1995)
    • … found a range of poor psychological outcomes. The women studied frequently described the experience of placing their children for adoption as the most traumatic event of their lives; and related multiple symptoms of posttraumatic stress
    Logan, J. (1996)
    • 21% of mothers had made attempts on their lives
    • 82% reported significant depression as a result of surrender
    • 68% described themselves as having a significant mental health problem.
    • 32% had been referred to specialized psychiatric treatment on an out-patient or in-patient basis and 18% had received treatment for a continuous period of 5 years or longer. This compares to a normative statistic of 3% of all women in the U.K. who were referred in 1993 to the same treatment service.
    Kelly, J. (1999)
    • 89% of mothers answered “Extremely true” to the statement “Relinquishing my child was a traumatic experience. 96% answered either “Extremely true” or “Very true.”
    • 95% selected the “most frequent” or “most severe” response to one or more items measuring unresolved grief.
    • In response to items concerning depression, 51% reported experiencing severe depression since the relinquishment, with 97% reporting some degree of depression (mild, moderate, or severe).
    • 63% have had thoughts about killing themselves.
    • 85% stated it was extremely true that “I was either misled or not informed of the effects that relinquishment would have on me”
    Askren, H., & Bloom, K. (1999)
    • “A grief reaction unique to the relinquishing mother was identified. Although this reaction consists of features characteristic of the normal grief reaction, these features persist and often lead to chronic, unresolved grief. CONCLUSIONS: The relinquishing mother is at risk for long-term physical, psychologic, and social repercussions. Although interventions have been proposed, little is known about their effectiveness in preventing or alleviating these repercussions.” (p. 395)
    • “comparable to losing an infant through death, it is a very stressful event for the relinquishing mother. This stress, combined with a powerful grief reaction, can predisopose these women to a number of long-term adverse effects” (p. 395)
    • “A woman who goes through the birth process and then relinquishes her child is a risk for the additional emotional stress of lifelong grief” (p. 395)
    • “The reaction of relinquishing mothers to the loss of their children have profound effects that can last for the lifetime of each woman.” (p. 396)
    Carr, M. J. (2000)
    • “all were traumatized by the act of relinquishing their child for adoption” (p. 341).
    Crowell (2007)
    • 82% of mothers suffered depression after the surrender
    • 80% had feelings of inadequacy
    • 68% trust issues
    • 57% anger
    *The outcome of a longitudinal comparison study of mothers who surrendered vs. those who kept their children, thus putting into doubt the common adoption agency promise to expectant mothers that they will ‘benefit’ (socially, financially, and educationally) if they surrender their children:
    “The results from our 5 year follow-up lead us to the conclusion that … relinquishment is not a panacea for the problems of adolescent childbearing. Although parenters give birth sooner than relinquishers, almost half of the relinquishers continue to bear children. therefore, many relinquishers assumed the same parental responsibilities as the parenters in this study. “The educational difference between the two groups is small, and few from either group attend college. Earnings for both groups remain depressed.” — Winges, Barnes, Rader, Grady, and Manninen: “Long-Term Consequences for Adolescent Mothers Who Decide to Either Parent or Relinquish their Firstborn Child” (June 30, 1998). Downloadable for free from SSRN: (http://ssrn.com) or DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.104348


    • Askren, H., & Bloom, K. (1999) Post-adoptive reactions of the relinquishing mother: A review.Journal of Obstetric, Gynecological and Neonatal Nursing, 1999 Jul-Aug; 28(4):395-400
    • Blanton, T., & Deschner, J. (1990). Biological mothers’ grief: The postadoptive experience in open versus confidential adoption. Child Welfare, 69, 525-35.
    • Carr, M. J. (2000). Birthmothers and subsequent children: The role of personality traits and attachment history. Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, 9, 339-348.
    • Condon, J. (1986). Psychological disability in women who relinquish a baby for adoption. The Medical Journal of Australia, 144, 117-119.
    • Crowell, G. (2007). Sisters from the society of secrets and lies: Why Women Chose Adoption between 1950 and 1979. Honors Thesis, University of Texas at Arlington.
    • Edwards, D. S. (1995). Transformation of motherhood in adoption: The experiences of relinquishing mothers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of North Florida, Jacksonville.
    • Kelly, J. (1999). The trauma of relinquishment: The long-term impact of relinquishment on birthmothers who lost their infants to adoption during the years 1965-1972. (Master’s thesis, Goddard College, 1999).
    • Logan, J. (1996). Birth mothers and their mental health: Uncharted territory. British Journal of
    •  Social Work, 26(5), 609-625.
    • Rynearson, E. (1982). Relinquishment and its maternal complications: A preliminary study.American Journal of Psychiatry, 139(3), 338–340.
    • Weinreb, M. (1991).  The psychological experience of women who surrender babies for adoption. Dissertation Abstracts International, 52(6-A).
    • Wells, S. (1993a). Post-traumatic stress disorder in birthmothers. Adoption and Fostering, 17(2), 30-32.
    • Wells, S. (1993b). What do birthmothers want? Adoption and Fostering, 17(4), 22-26.
    • Winkler, R. & van Keppel, M. (1984). Relinquishing mothers in adoption: Their long-term adjustment. Institute of Family Studies Monograph No. 3. Melbourne, Australia.
    Copyright Origins Canada Inc. 2010

    Friday, September 26, 2014

    Adopted Children's Second Class Citizen Status


    The Second Class Citizen Status of
    Adopted Children

    In the United States, adopted children are legally barred from the factual evidence of their true Identity. The adoption Industry insure's this wrong by retaining highly paid lobbyists to influence lawmakers, political ties and congressional members voting against challenges to current laws that may give any human rights to adult adoptees, that perpetuate the secrecy by keep the existing secrecy laws in place to the detriment of the adopted child.  The adoption secrecy law hangs on the distorted principle of the right to privacy of the biological parent.
    Yet the law was not reciprocal to the privacy of the adoptee.
    The Adoption Industry's profits depend on the secrecy principle as adopting parent's do not want adopted children to have or acknowledge any history that can potentially threaten the adoptive parent's custodial rights to the child. As open adoption has erupted in the U.S., causing tracking and accountability of each adopted child as a safety net, American adopters seek third world children because of the unlikeliness of tracing the child's past or the child's biological parent's finding them in the U.S. would be next to impossible when exploiting third world poor parents lacking financial resources to find or recover their stolen offspring children. The Adoption Industry's Lobby has enacted laws of disregard and inaction for stolen foreign children trafficked into the United States. Although the U.S. is one of three countries that fails to sign and enact the international community's anti child trafficking and rights of the child statutes, if a child is stolen and found in the U.S., the country of origin must be current and up to date on the international child rights convention in order to be acknowledged in a court of law, yet no such trafficked children have been removed from any U.S. adoptive home to be returned to the country of origin as of yet.
    The United States plays a dangerous game to support such a disreputable child selling and buying industry that ruins the lives of children and their parent's from foreign and domestic country's due to the lucrative nature of buying and selling childhoods in the U.S.  
    What we as U.S. citizens allow to continue, has no honor, Is a hypocrisy and  international disgrace of human dignity of enlightenment. We should be ashamed of our 4th world arrogance, behavior and actions of exploitation.
    link: www.en.wikipedia.org/second_class_Citizen/

    second-class citizen is a person who is systematically discriminated against within a state or other political jurisdiction, despite their nominal status as a citizen or legal resident there. While not necessarily slaves, outlaws or criminals, second-class citizens have limited legal rights, civil rights and socioeconomic opportunities, and are often subject to mistreatment or neglect at the hands of their putative superiors. Instead of being protected by the law, the law disregards a second-class citizen, or it may actually be used to harass them (see police misconduct and racial profiling). Systems with de facto second-class citizenry are generally regarded as violating human rights. Typical impediments facing second-class citizens include, but are not limited to, disenfranchisement (a lack or loss of voting rights), limitations on civil or military service (not including conscription in every case), as well as restrictions on language, education, religion, freedom of movement and association, weapons ownership, marriage, gender identity, adopted child's false Identity, expression, housing and property ownership. 
    The category is normally unofficial, and the term itself is generally used as a  pejorative  and governments will typically deny the existence of a second class within the polity. As an informal category, second-class citizenship is not objectively measured; however, cases such as the South American under segregation apartheid in South Africa, and Roman Catholics in Northern Ireland during the parliamentary era are all examples of groups that have been historically described as having second-class citizenry.
    By contrast, a resident alien or foreign national, and children in general, may have limited rights within a jurisdiction (such as not being able to vote, and having to register with the government), but is also given the law's protection and is usually accepted by the local population. A naturalized citizen carries essentially the same rights and responsibilities as any other citizen (a possible exception being ineligibility for certain public offices), and is also legally protected. 
    Adopted people, in most states, have their original birth certificate sealed for 99 years at the time of their adoption and cannot access it without a court order for medical necessity.

    Defining Choice, Non-Existent In the Adopted Child's Foundation


    Defining What Is "Choice", Unknown to the
    Forced Adopted Child

    The human being that is forced into compliance without conscious choice is a victim to the circumstances of the forced situation. The adopted child's forced consequences of being adopted effect his entire psychological existence due to the fact he is forced to live under the yolk of a false identity. The infant's foundation in cognitive awareness is a paradox of consequences by the decisions forced on him by other people. He can not develop identity as he can not master the stages of psychosocial development to develop the normal phases of growth that are seen in the biological offspring population of children that have normal development by the truth of their identity that is seen in the physical characteristics of family and extended family members, that constitutes his place and connection to the world.   

    Choice consists of a mental decision, of judging the merits of multiple options and selecting one or more of them. A choice can be made between imagined options ("what would I do if ...?") or a choice is made between real options and followed by the corresponding action. For example, a route for a journey might be chosen based on the preference of arriving at a given destination as soon as possible. The preferred (and therefore chosen) route is then derived from information, ie. how long each of the possible routes, traffic, etc. If the arrival at a choice includes more complex motivators, cognition, instinct and feeling, are more intertwined.
    Simple choices might include what to eat for dinner or what to wear on a Saturday morning, choices that have relatively low-impact on the chooser's life overall. More complex choices might include what candidate to vote for, what profession to pursue, a life partner, etc, choices that multiple influences and that have larger ramifications.
    Most people regard having choices as a good thing, though a severely limited or artificially restricted choice can lead to discomfort with choosing and possibly, an unsatisfactory outcome. In contrast, a choice with excessively numerous options may lead to confusion, regret of the alternatives not taken, and indifference in an unstructured existence; and the illusion that choosing an object or a course leads necessarily to control of that object or course can cause psychological problems.

    Types of choices

    There are four main types of decisions, although they can be expressed in different ways. Brian Tracey breaks them down into:
    1. Command decisions, which can only be made by you, as the "Commander in Chief"; or owner of a company.
    2. Delegated decisions, which may be made by anyone, such as the color of the bike shed and should be delegated, as the decision must be made but the choice is inconsequential.
    3. Avoided decisions, where the outcome could be so severe that the choice should not be made, as the consequences can not be recovered from if the wrong choice is made. This will most likely result in negative actions, such as death.
    4. "No-brainer" decisions, where the choice is so obvious that only one choice can reasonably be made.
    5. A fifth type, however, or fourth if three and four are combined as one type, is the collaborative decision, which should be made in consultation with, and by agreement of others.  Collaborative Decision Making revolutionized air-traffic safety by not deferring to the captain when a lesser crew member becomes aware of a problem.
    Another way of looking at decisions focuses on the thought mechanism used, is the decision:
    • Rational
    • Intuitive
    • Recognition based
    • Combination
    Recognizing that "type" is an imprecise term, an alternate way to classify types of choices is to look at outcomes and the impacted entity. For example, using this approach three types of choices would be:
    • Business
    • Personal
    • Consumer
    In this approach, establishing the types of choices makes it possible to identify the related decisions that will influence and constrain a specific choice as well as be influenced and constrained by another choice.
    There are many "executive decision maker" products available, such as the decision wheels and the Magei-8-Ball, which randomly produce yes/no or other "decisions" for someone who can not make up their mind or just wants to delegate.
    A Ouija board is also a delegated decision.
    As a moral principle, decisions should be made by those most affected by the decision, but this is not normally applied to persons in jail, who might likely make a decision other than to remain in jail. Robert Gates cited this principle in allowing photographs of returning war dead.

    Number of options and the paradox of choice

    A number of research studies in economic psychology have focused on how individual behavior differs when the choice set size (the number of choices to choose from) is low versus when it is high. Of particular interest is whether individuals are more likely to purchase a product from a large versus a small choice set. Currently, the effect of choice set size on the probability of a purchase is unclear. In some cases, large choice set sizes discourage individuals from making a choice and in other cases it either encourages them or has no effect. One study compared the allure of more choice to the tyranny of too much choice. Individuals went virtual shopping in different stores that had a randomly determined set of choices ranging from 4 to 16, with some being good choices and some being bad. Researchers found a stronger effect for the allure of more choice. However, they speculate that due to random assignment of number of choices and goodness of those choices, many of the shops with fewer choices included zero or only one option that was reasonably good, which may have made it easier to make an acceptable choice when more options were available.
    There is some evidence that while greater choice has the potential to improve a person's welfare, sometimes there is such a thing as too much choice. For example, in one experiment involving a choice of free soda, individuals explicitly requested to choose from six as opposed to 24 sodas, where the only benefit from the smaller choice set would be to reduce the cognitive burden of the choice. A recent study supports this research, finding that human services workers indicated preferences for scenarios with limited options over extensive-options scenarios. As the number of choices within the extensive-options scenarios increased, the preference for limited options increased as well. Attempts to explain why choice can demotivate someone from a purchase have focuses on two factors. One assumes that perusing a larger number of choices imposes a cognitive burden on the individual. The other assumes that individuals can experience regret if they make a suboptimal choice, and sometimes avoid making a choice to avoid experiencing regret.
    Further research has expanded on choice overload, suggesting that there is a paradox of choice. As increasing options are available, three problems emerge. First, there is the issue of gaining adequate information about the choices in order to make a decision. Second, having more choices leads to an escalation of expectation. When there are increased options, people’s standards for what is an acceptable outcome rise; in other words, choice “spoils you.” Third, with many options available, people may come to believe they are to blame for an unacceptable result because with so many choices, they should have been able to pick the best one. If there is one choice available, and it ends up being disappointing, the world can be held accountable. When there are many options and the choice that one makes is disappointing, the individual is responsible.
    However, a recent meta-analysis of the literature on choice overload calls such studies into question (Scheibehenne, Greigeneder, and Todd, 2010). In many cases, researchers have found no effect of choice set size on people's beliefs, feelings, and behavior. Indeed, overall, the effect of "too many options" is minimal at best.
    While it might be expected that it is preferable to keep one’s options open, research has shown that having the opportunity to revise one’s decisions leaves people less satisfied with the decision outcome. A recent study found that participants experienced higher regret after having made a reversible decision. The results suggest that reversible decisions cause people to continue to think about the still relevant choice options, which might increase dissatisfaction with the decision and regret.
    Individual personality plays a significant role in how individuals deal with large choice set sizes. Psychologists have developed a personality test that determines where an individual lies on the satisficer-maximizer spectrum. A maximizer is one who always seeks the very best option from a choice set, and may anguish after the choice is made as to whether it was indeed the best. Satisficers may set high standards but are content with a good choice, and place less priority on making the best choice. Due to this different approach to decision-making, maximizers are more likely to avoid making a choice when the choice set size is large, probably to avoid the anguish associated with not knowing whether their choice was optimal. One study looked at whether the differences in choice satisfaction between the two are partially due to a difference in willingness to commit to one’s choices. It found that maximizers reported a stronger preference for retaining the ability to revise choices. Additionally, after making a choice to buy a poster, satisficers offered higher ratings of their chosen poster and lower ratings of the rejected alternatives. Maximizers, however, were less likely to change their impressions of the posters after making their choice which left them less satisfied with their decision.
    Maximizers are less happy in life, perhaps due to their obsession with making optimal choices in a society where people are frequently confronted with choice. One study found that maximizers reported significantly less life satisfaction, happiness, optimism, and self-esteem, and significantly more regret and depression, than did satisficers. In regards to buying products, maximizers were less satisfied with consumer decisions and were more regretful. They were also more likely to engage in social comparison, where they analyze their relative social standing among their peers, and to be more affected by social comparisons in which others appeared to be in higher standing than them. For example, maximizers who saw their peer solve puzzles faster than themselves expressed greater doubt about their own abilities and showed a larger increase in negative mood. On the other hand, people who refrain from taking better choices through drugs or other forms of escapism tend to be much happier in life.
    Others say that there is never too much choice and that there is a difference between happiness and satisfaction: a person who tries to find better decisions will often be dissatisfied, but not necessarily unhappy since his attempts at finding better choices did improve his lifestyle (even if it wasn't the best decision he will continually try to incrementally improve the decisions he takes).
    Choice Architecture is the process of encouraging people to make good choices through grouping and ordering the decisions in a way that maximizes successful choices and minimizes the number of people who become so overwhelmed by complexity that they abandon the attempt to choose. Generally, success is improved by presenting the smaller or simpler choices first, and by choosing and promoting sensible default options.

    The Choice Relationship to Identity

    Choices, especially choices made by consumers, may carry symbolic meaning and speak to a person's self-identity. In general, the more utilitarian an item, the less the choice says about a person's self-concept. Purely utilitarian items, such as a fire extinguisher, may be chosen solely for function, but non-utilitarian items, such as music, clothing fashions, or home decorations, represent choices made with the person's identity in mind. The identity based decisions in adulthood that enable an individual to sculpts his own reality based on his self esteem, identity and the growing changing and evolving view of the reflective self. Adopted children do not possess the solid foundation that identity truth is based on. The ability to draw on past experiences of knowing who the personal self is, that will enable them to develop identity at the age appropriate stages for identity development are stalled in young childhood, and never mastered or passing developmental stages that compel the individual to expand, enhance and build on self knowledge that is based in biological and psychological factors of self truths. 

    Thursday, September 25, 2014

    "This Is My Adopted Daughter", "She Is Adopted"


    "This Is My Adopted Daughter, She Is Adopted"

    The experience of being me in my childhood is almost like a third person account. As I have stated In many earlier posts, that a young child's everyday interaction with adopted family member that involves yelling, screaming, being struck in the face, spanked or threatened to be punished (if I don't do this or that).. Threats, fear, anxiety, dread... 
     The ordinary experience is filed in multiple places within the brain, short term memory, long term memory. The stressful encounter causes fear, dread, anticipation, shaking, The body's adrenalin response is triggered to produce the fight or flight  capability.
    But when your family is taking turns yelling and punishing  you there is no place to run away, and if the adopted child dared looked the adoptive parent in the eyes responding to the parent's confrontation, this lowly outcast adopted child would most likely get her head lopped off and used as a baseball my adopted family.  The horrible childhood memories exist as though 15 years of daily fear and dreading the next sequence of events, happened last week or yesterday in minute detail. As a failure in elementary school I couldn't read, do math or make friends, but my recall of the previous confrontation of domestic violence events were all I knew and lived in fear of tonight's family quarrel. I was never allowed to speak about, bring up or talk in any way about the yelling screaming and hitting that took place last night. As an adult I would try to forget, or visualize the toppings of a banana split when I was reminded outside of being punished. These memories haunt me today as the parent's deny and pretend nothing of the sort ever occurred and "I have a drama and exaggeration problem memory" according to adoptive mother. It was when I began jotting down things on the calender that I realized "I had validity."
    The free give-away calenders riddled with my adoptive parent's anger, hatred, simple verbal abuse to extremes of the many acts of being "Kicked out of the adoptive family again" were noted on dates in the records I kept. Each time I was told I was doing my exaggeration problem I would counter with the exact day it happened, and word for word what cruel things my adoptive parents said to me...."Daddy was only kidding" adoptive mother would say..I would counter
    and say "Dad was kidding with his closed fist when he struck me?" Of course I would be banished again for talking back with facts, isolated and then "they Pull me back In" to do it all over again.  My life is measured out in chapters of domestic violence cycles. The memories are so vivid it's like watching a video of myself doing the domestic-violence-dance.
    That ultimately ended when I realized the DV cycles were a completely predictable pattern of my adoptive mother, father and guest-starring with regularity their bad adopted child. When I stopped being the adopted child, the psychological suffering and strife ended in my life.

    Wednesday, September 24, 2014

    The Religious Gossip


    The Danger, Destructiveness and Power of Gossiping Christian Women

    Back in the dark medieval days of religiously sanctioned adoptions, average American parents could and did force their unmarried adult daughters to abandon the illegitimate bastard child to save face in the Christian community. The small town dependence on the local church was not based in religious doctrine, but popularity,
    vanity and gossip that cycled through the work weak to begin again at the Sunday church service. These church dependent family's were social police, judge and jury
    relying on second and third hand gossip of the Gospel. The disreputable behavior of the gossiping self-righteous church women is conveniently packaged as acceptable under the disguise of "concern" over small town morality. Yet the gossiping church ladies are responsible for the consequences they create by perpetuating lies, hatred against their neighboring women and families. These church lady's intentional gossip that is used to attack other women fuels their fear and jealousy that is all based on the materialistic culture of cruel vanity that is  
    alive and thriving in every church community today. The casual gossip has the power to destroy a human being's self worth, community acceptance and the  community power to banish and ostracize one of it's members, based on simple lies of mean gossip about someone that creates a community's suspicion. A simple dislike of a kid can lead an adult's to create through casual gossip serious and life threatening circumstances and consequences for a child. To condemn a stealing child, a lying teenager, loose mother or drunk father  at the slightest possibility of a real social infraction, is taken to serious lengths by the whims of an unhappy, slighted or scorned woman's retaliation. The social threat of the small town gossip is perceived as a monumental disaster to the family's honor, social acceptance and social respect of the community. The family that has managed to not offend any of the church women's hierarchy of popularity and their social control that comes with that position of popularity. The family that coexists and
    lives in a state of constant fear of being  the target of such malicious talk. The stress that comes from being dependent on being part of the social organizations within these religious communities has a price of condemnation when the family member becomes the target of the community gossip, weather true or lie, the family member always will lose as being the social deviant that dared to cast away the strictly held religious beliefs and morality values of an entire community. The pressure then comes upon the family for fast resolve of the social infraction, the constant pressure and threat of  the family's social humiliation or being virtually kicked out of the church community based on the action or inaction of the family and how that family will publicly punish or excommunicate the negligent family member and cast them out of the community forever to save face., To salvage the family's honor and respect as a part of the community and to save the vanity appearance of the self righteous group's disapproval? The family that banishes their own offspring, with an unwed pregnancy, essentially erasing their grandchild and daughter from existence to keep the status of upstanding citizen. The price people pay to give the impression of values and principles when their honor is non existent and they chose to live the life of a coward who has turned their back on their only family when they needed them most, all in the name of keeping up appearances.       

    Sunday, September 21, 2014

    Adopted Child Must See Truth to Detach From Adoption's Life Sentence


    Adopted Children Must See Truth, To Detach From Adoption's Life Sentence.

    Forming a sense of self, we must identify true regard by family.

    The Braking Point comes at some random time in the form of a personal epiphany, at that point we see all injustice as  a pattern of cruelty that our adoptive parents disregard us as illegitimate, lower class of human beings, that do not have a right to exist except in the capacity of our purpose in the adopted child's specific designated role and that role's expected function to supply the adoptive parent. Essentially fulfilling the temporary needs designed by the adoptive parent's reason in their original motivation to adopt a child. We fulfilled the adopted child role to the best of our ability, which was not to the unrealistic expectations of adoptive parent's standards. We were set up and expected to fail. We failed and are labeled as failures to the adoptive parent's disappointment, and spend our lives trying to please with substandard foundations of defense mechanisms of coping and compensating to fill the unfulfilled and unfulfillable indebtedness that can never be satisfied, or only could possibly be attempted to be satisfied by the adoptive parent's non-existent, could-have been or deceased biological child.   The perpetual state of treading water, never swimming or traveling from point a to point b, the adopted child existing to  trying to keep his head above water and frequently dipping below the surface and fighting to get to the surface, desperate to take a breath before sinking again below the waters surface.

    The unexpected epiphany that lifts the "Adoption Fog" of ignorance, allegiance, the "Indebtedness of gratefulness" and the adopted child's denial that his life does not belong to himself.  Adopted children are psychologically imprisoned forever, owned and kept in a perpetual child state of pre-adolescent-ignorance, the exact place where the adoptive parent wants us to remain forever. Cognitively ignorant where we do not understand the world and remain dependent on our adoptive parent to keep us safe and make our decisions for us, as we are under age children without knowledge of the world, ourselves and need the protection of the adoptive prison to survive. All decisions are made on our behalf for our best interests in the world that will destroy us if we venture out alone and unaccompanied by our adoptive handlers. Our parents are the adoptive prison wardens who render the punishments for thinking thoughts that are allowed, we live by the punishment and acceptance cycle. Without this cycle there will be chaos and freedom, of which we can not handle or understand due to our genetic retardation we exist to satisfy the needs of our superiors, without our superiors, we do not exist.
    We are invalid, we are nothing.  

    The stages of personal self reality Vs. Adoptive Disharmony.

    The honest hatred toward the adopted child:
    #1 Realizing the truth of the gross disconnect against me by my adoptive family handlers.
    A. Understanding the adoptive family tragedy that forced them
    into the false adoptive relationship.
    B. The pitiful offers of assistance to the adoptive mother's cruelty from her outsider friends and acquaintances.
    C. The abrupt ending friendships of adoptive mother's denial of her own shame in the way she treated her adopted child pet.
    D. The constant parental domestic violence where I was used as a pawn for a wife's demands of her husband's continued fidelity and allegiance. The alcoholism, parties and fading beauty of a narcissistic wife's fear of abandonment and scorn.
    E. The honest truth of a jealous hatred by the adoptive father who was an illegitimate bastard that was not adopted by his mother's second husband, and his detest for being financially responsible for someone else's bastard child, that was not his blood, as the blood connections with his biological sons.
    F. The biological sons that saw their mother's anger, hatred and frustrations dealing with a third female child that did not belong, that took up the mother's energy that could have been used on the biological children.
    G. The adoptive mother's constant reminder of her own child's tragedy that she was forced to look at the adopted child outsider that was not family cohesive to live in disappointment each day.
    H. The outside community's pressure on the mother to be visually and family perfect in her dependence on public appearance and perception.
    I. The extended family's pity for the family's adopted child,
    and their burden to care for the adopted child on the adoptive mother's lacking of care and compassion for the adopted child.

    The adopted child's gratefulness and dependence on the mother's perpetual abuse, and lack of love from her family., Living in fear of abuse and verbal attacks of the mother. Never to dare cross her or question her inability  to give, as the adopted child was never deserving of being loved by the family as she was born inherently a bad seed, that would only bring the adoptive family disgrace and humiliation. The only skills the adopted child possessed was the ability to remain silent and never dare express any emotional well-being. The adoptive mother needed me sick, broken and unable to attempt anything as any task would end in extreme and embarrassing failure to the family. The adopted child only knew abuse, verbal attacks and domestic violence from her perfect adoptive family. Each time the adoptive child was banished from the family, the adopted child will recreate the abuse in her outside of the family life. The outside abuse would become life threatening and the family would pull the adopted child back in temporary and the adopted child would do what the family expected. The family would again  enter the abuse cycle and the adopted child would be banished again and again. cycles of abuse in and out of the adoptive family's grasp. But outside of the adoptive family abuse the life was not as bad., When an abuse cycle would end the breathing would begin and then end again. The adopted child saw serenity in an abusive situation because the cruel adoptive mother was not there. The abuse without the adoptive mother was tolerable and livable. The adopted child believed the abuse received was deserved and acceptable as she knew no other way to live without alcoholic chaos, physical beatings, black eyes, broken arms and car crashes, to the adopted child this was normal...just like home without cruel adoptive mother's voice or strikes in the face that reduced the adopted child to non-existent silence.  Fighting made me feel alive, my voice would shriek and scream in defense of closed fist blows to my face. Any situation was better than home, even if I was killed or put into prison for killing my boyfriend, I was temporarily free of my cruel mother for the time being. I can handle the most extreme brutality of a drunk boyfriend, we will eventually make up and for a short time have temporary sanity. The cold cocked punch to my face that broke the driver's side window with my head, while I was driving was an unfair advantage, but I would get even, I always fought dirty and would get even or revenge for unfair advantages in dirty domestic violence fighting. The rage within this adopted child was created, cultivated to be suppressed and boil down inside me like a molten core waiting to erupt at any provoking moment, at any instant I am ready to take on anything or anyone, at one time I took on two grown men defending the gentlemen's (I was on a first date with) honor. I believe he was initially afraid of me, but this unbridled horse is not broken, although I do wear the straps and bit, I am inherently wild. When all you witness is violence and physical fighting, but you are warned and threatened against ever lifting a hand in anger, Expected and enforced to "act like a quiet, silent and polite young lady" the opposite of who I am and who I was trained to be by my adoptive handlers.
    Adopted children are rarely talked to, they are "talked At or Told" never conversed with. Adopted children are expected to be ideal children because we come visually intact, but not mentally intact and not whole. Adopted children are seen as dolls, temporary toys and never seen as young child individuals that are going to continue to grow into adulthood. To achieve personal autonomy and independence from their parents as normal biological children become independent and respected adults. Instead, adopted children are not born to the adoptive parent as a natural child is born. The adopted child is not allowed to ask or know about his own birth, as his beginning and origins are denied and taboo restricted knowledge. The adoptive parent does not want to admit, discuss or entertain the notion that the adopted child was actually born, that would disrupt the adoptive fantasy and the adoptive parent's denial to keep the "ready to go doll" as a forever child. As the forever child has no beginning and stays a child (Like a doll) forever. The adoptive parent refuses to believe the adopted child is a human born child, that was conceived through sexual relations, incubated and grown in his mother's uterus, until the sequences of labor and delivery at the child's birth from his mother's body.

    The Vilification of the biological mother who gave away part of herself, gave up her own biological child to satisfy the demands of the adoptive mother's inadequacy.
    The psychological disconnect by adoptive mothers is due to their inability to reproduce as the biological mother has reproduced her own signature, finger print unique offspring infant. Due to the adoptive parent's narcissistic wound of stillbirth, miscarriage or infertility as the psychological wounding of the barren female
    who is jealous of the fertility of others, especially the insult of the biological mother who gave her infant away as the desperation of a grieving biological mother who cries out and expresses milk for her biological child in vain, is extinct from   public view and public knowledge. Because the biological mother suffers in silence, suffers the greatest most significant loss a human being can suffer, grieve or imagine, but the child is not dead, the child is alive somewhere without the mother's knowledge is gut wrenching and psychologically devastating to the grieving mother. A lifetime of suffering grieving in private.

     The public has created a disconnected view to distort, Ignore, change and deny the truth of the suffering loss of the biological mother's grieving pain.
    To give a false sense of entitlement to the wealthy childless married couples that can pay to ease their infertility pain,
    and ease the terrible guilt of knowing that the stolen child's mother is on the verge of suicide from the loss of her recently born child. The social culture introduced and cast the cruel stereotype against the biological mother that complied and did what society wanted and expected her to do within the social norms of society, and the biological mother was to be spared from social stigma, humiliation, and the ability to start her life over. However the society that dictated what the unmarried woman should do, harshly judged her anyway even though she was compliant with the religious norms that dominated society.
    The unmarried birth mother was publicly chastised, stigmatized and identified as used, spoiled and heartless for abandoning her child.  Either way the unmarried pregnant woman would suffer
    under a cruel society that profited off of her misery.
    is one of the cold uncaring mother who abandoned and threw away her child, is commonly held misconception that is perpetuated to make the adoptive parent feel better. Could you live with yourself knowing that you stole the baby from his only mother and she can't go on living without her baby, Knowing that she wants her baby back and knowing that this adoption is an illegal sham, that the baby was stolen, the mother was coerced into an illegal kidnapping and you have her stolen infant. To deny the biological mother her stolen infant, the devastated mother may commit suicide if her baby is not recovered.
    The biological mother and her bastard illegitimate child      
    are never respected in any capacity beyond their purpose to serve the society that allows them to exist.

    Thursday, September 18, 2014

    The Facebook Scapegoat By Adoptive Parent's Living in Denial


    The Facebook Scapegoat By Adoptive Parent's Living In Denial and Denying the Adopted Child Human Rights of Ancestral, Biologic Family & Heritage Rights.


    Adoptive parents and adoption society scapegoat blame on social technology and associated websites such as Facebook as solely responsible for an adopted child's untimely connection to their biological family. 
    The ignorant, arrogant and angry adoptive parent's childish reactionary and blame behavior tells the outside world quite a different story about the adoptive parent's
    poor reasoning skills, obvious bad parenting skills that cause the young child so seek out alternatives to their lacking adoptive parent and family situation.

    The natural human drive toward ancestral origins that are Inherent needs to know, have or possess knowledge of who the person is and the biological family relationships and connections that are vital to identity formation, self esteem and becoming a productive member of society 
    the identity needs are essential to the human individuals life.

     Adopted children's quest for true identity is a natural need that is denied by the adoptive parent's plan and expectations.
    The adoptive parent that changes a child's identity to conceal the truth from the child creates these problems at the start. The legal standing that the child is under age is the only a time frame problem of child ownership. The child will always be looking for their biological family, in public spaces malls, events, as it is a continuous autonomic search by scanning crowds of people on the look-out for a visual match.  The great thing about social media is that the life long search actual finds possible results. The adopted child was searching for his biological parents all along throughout childhood, and the adoptive parent's simply did not know or were in denial of this because the subject is taboo.
    Even when the adoptive parents take the time to bring up this dreaded topic that humiliates the adopted child, only specific responses from the child are allowed and prompted by the parent's avoidance of the wrong answers. Remember no child ever chose to, or wanted to be an adopted child, they are forced through social systems and never by choice. The adoptive parent's arrogance and anger at the results that the child finally got some concrete answers to his life long quest to know his own identity, the identity that reveals the truth about all things that the adoption lies try to cover up. The parent's anger is that the jig is up, the secret is revealed and adoption is merely a childhood detention for 18 years of living a lie.   

    Sunday, September 14, 2014

    The Evil Motivation In Adoption's Coveting


    The Evil Motivation In Adoption's Coveting

    The ignorance of a person's intention is evil when they are not motivated by selfish desire. The selfish adoptive parent is adopting a child to fulfill their own needs by owning the offspring of another. The evil is the arrogance that the adoptive parent's insistence on their own way of happiness can only be achieved getting a child. Their refusal to see past their own denial of facts, their refusal to see truth or seek knowledge of or reveal any universal truth that might make them uncomfortable. For it is Discomfort that drives us to seek shelter from the world of the living. The population of adult adoptees that seeks all knowledge about what is wrong in our psychological issues of psychopathic compensating, the adopted child's perpetual treading water in life instead of swimming to and from the edges of the world's safety nets. We tread water in place, trying to keep our heads above water, and not drowning in the social world full of air breathing people. The treading of water is all we are trained to do, to exist and satisfy the emotional needs of our handlers. We never learn to walk upright and proud, we take a few steps forward and wait on the instructions  telling us what we are needed to do next.
    We are not allowed to walk proudly, we are ashamed, humiliated and fearful of the next verbal or physical lashing because we forgot our place as a servant, or got a spark of arrogance that was abruptly slapped off our faces. We are not the evil, we are the survivors of evil people who dominate our souls and tyrannize our intentions as sure failures. The evil that possess our freedom, holds it firm and far away from our sight, so we never quite get a good look at what we could be or could have in our small world of shame from which we peak out of on occasion. The unseen shackles that bound us to our cast or acceptable place in this uncivilized society is only a small diameter of space and movement.  When we adoptee's are cast out, ostracized and banished from the only adoption prison in life that we have known, we are rendered paralyzed to move far. Some feel the justice of freedom's fairness, yet the freedom from the prison of adoption becomes our new jail. Either in the jail or barred from going back to the prison, there is no freedom in shame's banishment. As the shame is within us, the prison is in our heart and mind. No matter how far we run from our shame, we can not escape it. Adopted children are the epitome and representation of adoption's illegitimate and bastard shame. The shame that society has given us is our stigma of what it is to be ashamed, to feel ashamed and to shine the light of shame through our eyes as we look upon other children's games and play, for we can not play with then so we watch. We are the watchers of life and observe all outside of us from a disconnected perspective. The detached forever adopted child will never participate in the world of the living. This is our designated cast by society, and like the slavery of human beings throughout history we take our place in it as we were adopted into slavery by being unwanted children, abandoned and adopted against our will. We are the last reminents of old slavery combined with the modern definitions of human slavery adoption. The principle of the owning of another human being is the evil motivations of people that covets the possession of another, especially a helpless human infant that can be trained.