« more troops to iraq | Main | europe/usa »

Friday, February 25, 2005


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Interesting is the way the birth family/adoptive family tension plays out. In the Julie-Anne Davies story, the adoptive family enters into the article far down the page while personal accounts by the birth father/birth mother/and Daniel focus on the adoptive family earlier in their comments and more centrally.
Adoption researchers talk about how we live in a "birth culture" and point out that the most difficult thing about adoption is people's attitudes towards adoption that tend to make anxious the adopted children who are otherwise accepting. While the abortion angle is disturbing to me like it is to others...the way the adoptive family tends to drop out of the picture is also very telling. I'm an adoptive mother working on a book on my adoption: all of this research I've been reading swirls in my brain and seems to be playing itself out so inevitably in the way this article is written. Thanks for posting it. An interesting issue with an oportunist at the centre of it torquing it to suit his needs. The abortion angle -- "lucky boy" "good decision" re: birthed boy-- does veil the "bad boy" "bad decision" birth father who was absent from the birthmother's life in the last months of pregnancy etc.

Hadn't read the "Paternally yours" article when I wrote the above. In "paternally yours"...the author doesn't like the birth "father" naming, pointing out that parenting has to do with commitment and responsibility. I have no problem with the "birthfather" designation that has a biological component. It is the economy that deprivileges the adoptive family that is irritating to me.

The comments to this entry are closed.