Aspie with Attitude

Sure, I'm just another Southern Recovering Alcoholic NPR- and Sweet-Tea Addicted Comic Mom with Asperger's in the SFV, but I can tell you now that I don't necessarily fit the stereotype.

Monday, May 6, 2013

The "Risks of Open Adoption," for Whom?!?

I should be going to bed about now, around 5:00 a.m., but I was trying to read the newspaper and came across this review of "The Mothers" by adoptress Jennifer Gilmore. I'd be disappointed in the adoption industry if she, with the L.A. Times blessing, didn't use the word "birth mother," as all of us  true mothers are called these days. I say that without really knowing what those who use egg donation, giving birth without passing along genetic information, are called. Not that their sort-of children are going to be less effed up than most adoptees. Natural mothers give birth and pass along genetic information to their children. But the adoption industry, now combined with the egg donation industry, is trying hard to make motherhood into something that relates more to a legal document than to nature.

It shouldn't really surprise me, then, that yet another adoptress has written a book about an adopter's struggle to obtain a child. Or maybe I should say adopters, being that the main character's husband seems to be in on the heist. Yes, in this fictional novel, there is great emphasis on how important it is for the potential adoptress to get that child. At all costs. As someone raised in North Carolina (although born in Virginia, being that my own natural mother was sentenced to a maternity home there), I had to admire the reviewer's note that "Jesse," the main character, talks her husband into a "drive to North Carolina to register with a Southern agency," being that they were rejected, evidently, by a Yankee agency because the potential adoptress had cancer at one point.

I need to tell you here that I didn't read this book. Lord, no. I long ago gave up reading most stuff from the adopter's point of view. It's simply so very out of touch with the realities of adoption that reading this kind of thing really makes me want to barf. It's not as though I'm going to write an actual review of the book. That's not what I'm here for. Another review I found when I looked up Adoptress Gilmore on the Internet says that after her book was finished, Gilmore did indeed eventually find a mother to take a baby away from, a baby boy.

This is not to say that Gilmore does not have insight into the whole baby process. Teaching at Princeton, which Gilmore does, should require that your writing have some insight, and evidently, Gilmore does with her writing. And so, I'm really complaining, as I so often do, about the mainstream media (MSM)'s love affair with adopters and adoption, a love affair most likely brought about by the $1.5 billion U.S. adoption industry. I really don't see people from other countries coming over here searching for children to take back home, the way that Western women do in Asian and African countries.

I'll also include a disclaimer here and say that the sadness of Gilmore's inability to conceive, perhaps due to cancer treatments, is indeed a sad thing. It's more than sad--it's tragic not to be able to have a child if you really want one. Usually, it is the female adopter who drives the adoption vehicle, bringing her husband along for the ride. I have a friend in North Carolina, for instance, whose barren wife kept insisting "I want a baby." How sad and tragic is this. However, nothing is ever solved by taking someone else's child. The husband in North Carolina, as most husbands do, felt awful about the whole thing and tried to make his wife happy by wrestling a baby away from his mom. I'm guessing Gilmore's husband, as with her main character's husband, just goes along with the ride, as most men do. As in most adoption cases, nothing is resolved. Infertility is not reversed. But a baby and mother's life will be altered for generations because a baby was coveted. It would have sure been nice if Gilmore, and her main character, were able to resolve things without taking someone else's child.

Oh, and as a side note, the review states that Gilmore had a "emotional and morally terrifying experience of choosing not to adopt a baby born with Down syndrome." Ah, poor baby. And by that, I mean poor Gilmore. While natural moms have to take whatever we get, adoptresses can pick and choose. Bless her greedy, covetous heart. I'm guessing that the boy she eventually obtained is a bit closer to Gilmore's idea of perfection than a baby with Down's syndrome.

The victors tend to be the ones who write history and so many adoptresses are out there writing and blogging and getting published that it's easy to see why their reviews are the ones we read in the newspaper. It becomes really easy to see how most people think that adoption is wonderful. In the case of my N.C. acquaintance, at one point, the natural mom wanted her child back. My acquaintance told me how heartbreaking this was for him and Wifey, without giving a single thought, evidently, to how the mother must have felt to lose her child. Only a society brainwashed in adoption myths could produce such a biased creature as my acquaintance.

Once in a while, mainstream media will produce a mother who has lost a child to adoption. In addition to reading the review of Gilmore's book this weekend, I also happened to hear a story, twice, on National Propaganda Radio's "This American Life" in which a mother tells about giving away her son. She blatently talked about how she had just gotten $15,000 in a settlement and used that money to buy a car while giving her son to strangers. If this isn't a sign of a sick society, I don't know what is. However, NPR wouldn't have run the story, no doubt, of a mother who was hoodwinked by adopters or of a mother who was almost talked into adoption but decided to keep her baby instead. No, the MSM doesn't run many of those stories.

As I told the boys when we were listening to part of the story a second time (it was way too triggering to listen to in its entirety), this mother thought a new car was more important than keeping her son. And, of course, MSM not only runs this type of story but rather, celebrates it. No doubt, if the mother of Gilmore's adoptee can help Gilmore to sell some books, she'll probably write the mother's story one day. I'll bet that either Gilmore's adoptee's mother will either be completely out of the picture or singing the praises of giving away her child.

The title of the L.A. Times' review is "A novel about the risks of open adoption," but of course, this means the risks for the adopters. Sure, Gilmore seems to attempt to get into the minds of the potential mothers who might give their child to her, but never does she see--I will bet money on this--how her greed for a child breaks up a natural family and leaves a mother and child separated, probably for life.

All that said, I did read the following quote that an adoptee wrote on her Facebook page this weekend. Just as I had never heard of Gilmore before this weekend, I had also never heard of the guy who wrote this quote, Daniel Ibn Zayd, but I totally dig his perception and desire to tell it like it really is.

 . . . [T]hose who are adopted, or those who are convinced to give up their children and who later feel angst about it (to put it quite mildly), and who also only wish to “fill the hole” that they see as missing in their lives, are then castigated in the harshest terms as ungrateful, and spiteful, and bitter. Why does no one say to infertile couples: “Get over it?” Why does no one say to those without children “THIS is God’s plan for you, not adoption”? Who, may I ask at long last, are truly the bitter individuals?” –Daniel Ibn Zayd

Why, indeed. Gilmore could learn a lot from Zayd's quote, but my guess is that she's far too brainwashed into believing that she's a mother to hear that there are those of us who know that she is not. As I'm guessing her character does, Gilmore has finally managed to wrestle a child from his mother. I'm not rejoicing one bit about that.

Sunday, April 14, 2013

Tax Breaks for Egg Donation Divas

The adoption industry has been so very successful in separating families that now, young women are growing up thinking that adoption is better than giving birth--it's certainly more green, as the catch word goes these days. You're not creating another person to consume the earth's resources; you're merely taking a child and recycling it. Of course, this is quite contrary to what God says in the Old Testament about creating (go forth and multiply), but when have governments and the power elite ever been concerned about following anything that God says.

And so, in this week's Parade, America's Fabian Socialist mouthpiece, supposed genius Marilyn vos Savant received this odd question:

I donated eggs to a fertility clinic and have to pay taxes on my compensation. The funds were intended to offset the effort and the discomfort involved. Do you think this is right?

Ah, poor stupid bitch (SB). This dumbass has given away her family ties for some money and hates that she has to pay taxes on it. What a bummer, eh? I think that we can say here that this kind of thing is all about the money. But what about her future children?!? They will be out there, somewhere, wondering why they don't fit into what they perceive as their natural family. Or, if they know that their mother is not their actual mom, they will wonder about their mom, their grandparents, etc. But subsequent generations of SB will be forever separated from one side of their natural family. But that's okay, isn't it? I mean, guys are always going around impregnating people with sperm and so now, thanks to the bra-burning women's libbers of the 70s, women can do this with their eggs.

I somehow think that God is wondering what the hell happened with His plan and why potential mothers are so very eager to give their future generations to strangers. For money.

There is, however, more than one stupid bitch in this story. SB #2 is the supposed smartest person on earth or whatever. Vos Savant shows that she has no respect for families and no indication of what egg donation is doing to future children. As always, this is all merely about the infertiles:

Parents everywhere give their heartfelt thanks to egg donors, and I think government should make this gesture to do this same.

Not this parent, SB2. No, this parent, who was separated from my natural family as an infant, wants no part of egg donation. It is unnatural and harmful to those children it helps to create. But they will be as grateful to their dad and stepmother (which is what those who receive the egg donation really are--they are not mothers) as adoptees are, and probably just as confused and disconnected from their identity.

But it's okay. After all, the infertiles are getting what they want. They're the ones with the money. Really, that's all that matters, isn't it?!?

Saturday, March 30, 2013

North Carolina, the Pu$$ified?!?

I first read about the Confederate flag controversy when I was skimming Earthlink news. It made the national headlines, being that Confederate flags are oh, so politically incorrect these days. I even read a mainstream article the other day that talked about how very, very about slavery the War Between the States was, that it had nothing at all to do with states' rights.

The P.C. Police have descended on what I consider to be my home state (some of you might remember that I was born in Richmond, Virginia, being that my natural mother was pretty much imprisoned there during most of her pregnancy with me). But North Carolina is where I was raised and I'm so very disappointed to see that at the old N.C. State Capitol, has decided to bow to the politically correct and deny its heritage. Oh, so much for the New South. A South in which we must forget and deny our heritage as North Carolinians because somebody from the NAACP says it offends them. Oy Vey! As the Jews would say.

Oh, but it's okay. N.C. is taking it down, proving that the men who fought so hard to retain the freedom of the South (and not just to own slaves), have morphed over just a couple of generations into a bunch of Southern pu$$ie$. You know I'd only use that term if I have to. I hate to see it happen. So many people in North Carolina have been washed in the Civil-War-Slavery-Only mentality that it's easy to see how a complaint from the NAACP (with the ACLU lurking in the background, no doubt) has reduced a state that once claimed to be "first in freedom" into a mutant of itself. All to please a politically correct crowd.

Oy Vey, indeed.

Wednesday, March 27, 2013

So This Makes Me A Homophobe?!?

No, I don't want gay people to adopt. But I don't want straight people to adopt, either. But this belief, of course, being that it goes so very contrary to mainstream media's propaganda, certainly makes me into a homophobe.

"Homophobe" is the word that so many Gay Agenda Persons (GAPs) use to describe anybody who, even in a teensy weensy way, is not totally for the GAP legislation du jour. Right now, you'd think that we were tarring and feathering those who have relationships with people of the same sex. That's what you'd think. Really, you would.

FB was about to drive me crazy today, with all the red and pink profile pics with an equal sign in pink. If you have one of these on your profile pic, you agree that the government should legislate marriage between two men or two women, changing the definition of marriage that has last for millenia. I also notice that GAPs never seem to be too concerned about polygamists, who could also use some equal rights. Of course, polygamists usually bother to have their own children. They don't go down to the local adoption agency or hire a womb or some sperm. So, I guess they're not as disenfranchised as those who choose to cohabitate in a way that naturally cannot bring a child into the world.

So, I'm traditional. And against much of the agenda that the GAPs are trying to foist upon us. And no, I don't think it's good that my children listen to NPR and hear a guy call his boyfriend a "husband." And no, I don't think it's good that children are on NPR saying that they were born the wrong sex and they need hormones and an operation to correct that supposed problem. But these are the things that are happening with the GAPs in charge of the world.

Look, I used to date women and I can tell you now that lesbians are pretty much all alike in their support of the GAPs. And they will pretty much all call me a homophobe even though I've only met a couple of gay people in my life that I truly feared. I've really met more straight people that I feared than gay people. But that kind of logic doesn't matter to GAPs. In fact, nothing matters more than changing the world, and legislation, to fit their lifestyle.

Sure glad I didn't keep dating women.