Have a lot to do today, but I am still making these goals. Edit 2 chapters. Begin writing short story.
For the week, I would like to write this whole short story, but it hasn't fully come to me yet, so it depends on creativity. Creativity has been missing since my last bout of depression. I would also like to get much more of this book edited.
The parts that go in between these lines are as follows, but a little backwards.
I finished my first book a decade ago. I had decided in high school that I am not creative or smart, so I decided not to be a writer. After that, I read a high percentage of non-fiction, but also some fiction. The way my friends read now (2-5 books a week) is how I used to read, but I forget that and feel inadequate now because I feel good of I finish 2 in a month. I was also in college so reading text books and assigned literature. Additionally, I dabbled a little in writing and honestly only minored in English so I could take upper division creative writing classes which. While I continued to feel inadequate because the teachers thought I did will, technically, but never praised me even slightly, I knew it was an excuse to write. After college, I wrote, but kept it secret from everyone. Well, if you decide you are going to quit writing, you can't lie to yourself, but I tried. I look back and some poems and short ideas I wrote out sporadically, lots of starts and spurts, but no conclusions, and laugh at myself because I thought I wasn't writing. Years late I found some floppy disks with notes about what is on them. I could not retrieve them and have since thrown them out, but I read the scribbles on them or with them explaining what was on those disks and remember that I wasn't a writer at that point. Hilarious.
In the next transition of my life, I got caught up in fan fiction. I will never bash on fanfic, I hope, but I will say that having the characters already there for you to use is a little easier than writing novels. This was perfect because I had married and moved to another state. In the course of those fanfic years, I did not work and we adopted out daughter. I can't decide if it was a perfect transition back into writing or the curse of the plot bunnies which brought me back to writing fiction. Ideas flooded my brain.
So I wrote. I wrote my first book in no time at all and it felt great. Soon I started my second, but then I got slowed down. We moved back and I felt like writing was not a legitimate reason not to spend my days doing everything everyone else asked of me. I still feel that way, but the requests have slowed down. I fill up my time with cleaning, selling Avon, doing things for those who still ask, and being there for my family, but this does still give me time to write. I've written a couple other novels, edited them (I hate the editing part!) and prepped them to certain degrees, but I keep coming back to the first and changing it, making it better, I feel certain, but never quite done. It seems like in these years I should have been able to write a dozen novels, but the problem then becomes my mood and leads to the other part mentioned at the beginning.
I read authors who say you have to dedicate certain time each day or week; it's a job. Yes, that is excellent advice and I do try to do that. It's not like I can only write when the mood strikes me or that it is not important to me, but there are times where pushing myself to write just makes things worse. I have ups and downs and sometimes the ups just don't let me focus enough to write and then the downs don't let me care about writing which is normally the most important thing to me. I'm loathe to use terms to describe myself since I haven't seen a professional therapist since I was 15, so I will just say that these problems have always existed in aspects of my life. I would get a job, be high, and then get so low I would quit. I might regret it later, but I just did not know how to survive through the depressed periods and maintain my jobs which means I had many jobs in my life.
So, as much as I try to make it my job so I can churn out a book a year, I just don't think that plan is realistic for everyone. Then I have friends and family who know I write and feel compelled to tell me about authors who put out two books a year or who have published 80 in their lifetime, etc. This kills me. I wish I could be this prolific, but I just can't. Does that make me a failure? Does that make me less of an artist or less worthy of the title 'author'? I hope not. I have hopes of being published someday, but right now what I imagine as the perfect end goal is a finished story, not a book contract so just writing works for me. This is enough.
Which brings me to the now. I am back to editing that first book again (many times later) and I am convinced this is THE ONE, if I can get through to the end, but I have many chapters to go. I also have an idea for a short story novel and am hoping a minimum of ten stories so I'd like to do about one a month so I can have a collection soon. I do have one finished that needs tweaking. I only have two other ideas. Must keep mind open for more.
Monday, February 25, 2013
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Ouch, more guns and mental health....
Because it's been all over the place again.
Where it all starts, mainly, is the 2nd amendment right. People quote pieces here and there and bungle the words, then tell how whichever half of it they have quoted supports their position.
It's actually my feeling that people should sit down and read the constitution on its own without and bias, point of view, articles, or research at least once every 10 years. It's quite an enlightening experience. Even taking one bill of rights by itself feels out of context when you read through the whole thing, but here I will begin by quoting the bill (as ratified by the states):
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
We know this came about so American could defend themselves against the British, right? It, of course, because useful almost immediately, but that was the initial purpose. Now people want the right to have guns to be about any number of things.
First, it makes sense that they want to be prepared or feared by their own government, but let's face it, that's unrealistic because the government NOW will always have bigger and badder weapons. They own us. It sucks, but we are going to have to be way more creative than weaponry to defend ourselves in an upheaval. Besides, this requires an organized militia which we haven't seen since the days of limited weaponry like the Civil War. Right or wrong, the South had complete right to form a militia and defend their beliefs. That is what, I believe, the amendment is about; not about the right to have an arsenal.
Second, some just want to defend themselves against criminals, but there are as many stories about people pulling a gun on a robber and getting shot as there are stories of people actually defending themselves.
I could go on and on and frankly I do think that people do have the right to bear arms, but here is a very enlightening article about the NRA. The gist is that the NRA was originally a group to support gun control in a way that would allow people to own guns, but force it to be in a very responsible way. (At least, that's my watered down, quick interpretation). Now, I believe the NRA could care less about responsibility. They feed the comments like "If you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns" and "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" into the mouths of all those who follow them, but whenever I hear those, I don't think the person is defending their right to have guns, I think they are followers who don't think for themselves. It's rather silly.
I addressed the former quote last time, but really I keep thinking that, by a similar line of thought, I believe that the only reason for a person to own a gun would be to kill someone. Not protection, not hunting purposes, nothing other than to KILL. Now, I don't believe this which is why I also don't believe the line about criminals. It's silly.
Speaking of silly, I want to address the latter now. A post has gone around FB a little where a guy tells the story of how he put his rifle in a wheelchair (so it could get around) and left it at the front door. The day went as usual. The gun killed no one. Proof, of course, that guns don't kill people.
While I found this amusing and clever, I heard Eddie Izzard in the back of my head... "Yeah, but the guns help." I addressed this last time, too, but poisons and knives are things used by people committing a personal, targeted crime. Guns are really the only easily available weapons used to kill strangers on massive scales.
No one is saying a gun is a criminal. What I am saying is that when someone with a repeating rifle can walk into a school or movie theater and kill a dozen people before anyone has time to react, we have a problem. WE CLEARLY HAVE A PROBLEM. People are scrambling to feel safe and fix it, but gun owners could care less about other people wanting to feel safe or stopping these things from happening again, right? The perception they leave is that they are heartless beasts who just want their guns and protect them like we're trying to euthanize household pets who have never attacked anyone.
Curses - I have lost the article and cannot find it, but this week in our local paper, our (not so) wonderful representatives got together and talked about guns and mental health. Their stance is that mental health gets pulled into the gun debate unfairly.
Well, I can see it is unfair in the sense that labeling these murderers and mentally ill makes people who have mental illness and are not violent feel like they are being labeled a threat, but are we not, as a society, beyond that? Do we not, for the most part, defend mentally ill people who have not shown signs of danger? I mean we no longer throw them into sanitariums or deny the fact that they have mental issues at all. I think for the most part we are enlightened and if we focus on that, we will become even more so. That's what we need.
I also wonder how they can say that. I mean, if it's true that the majority of people who have committed this enormous crimes have been on anti-psychotic, anti-depressant, or other mental health drugs, can we really say it's NOT related? If they were on these drugs and were not mentally unstable, then the problem lies in prescribing these drugs (which I will reiterated, I do believe they are OVER prescribed and UNDER monitored).
I'm not trying to create an unfair stigma of mental health here. What I really hope for is a push for better understanding by the public as well as extension in research. I want to help people and I think there are people who need help and don't seek it. I want it to be seen as seriously as heart disease. What I see is that if people keep saying "I'm mentally ill and if you blame these crimes on mental illness, you're hurting me" or otherwise taking things personally, then we'll never see it as seriously as heart disease. It's time to recognize that people have problems and have the right to get help for it, but that sometimes it goes awry and we should fix it any way we can even if that means managing the mental health industry more.
And there is a modicum of truth, I suppose, to the stigma. I mean, people tend to think all sociopaths and schizophrenics are violent ticking time bombs. Thousands upon thousands of people suffer from these serious problems, but the mental health industry can only prescribe meds and send them home. Some of them don't like what the meds do, so they stop taking them. This cannot be put on the psychiatrist, but the majority of those who don't take them never commit a crime or hurt other people. Yes, we should not think that these people are ticking time bombs, but at the same time, they need help. They deserve help. That help should be easy to get and plentiful without locking them up in some facility. They may never commit a crime, but they could hurt themselves and is that any better? Even if they never hurt themselves physically, there are certain symptoms that come with it that you cannot deny are mentally hurtful to those around which is enough reason to need help. Any way you look at it, it need to be a better system - related to the gun argument or not.
Where it all starts, mainly, is the 2nd amendment right. People quote pieces here and there and bungle the words, then tell how whichever half of it they have quoted supports their position.
It's actually my feeling that people should sit down and read the constitution on its own without and bias, point of view, articles, or research at least once every 10 years. It's quite an enlightening experience. Even taking one bill of rights by itself feels out of context when you read through the whole thing, but here I will begin by quoting the bill (as ratified by the states):
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
We know this came about so American could defend themselves against the British, right? It, of course, because useful almost immediately, but that was the initial purpose. Now people want the right to have guns to be about any number of things.
First, it makes sense that they want to be prepared or feared by their own government, but let's face it, that's unrealistic because the government NOW will always have bigger and badder weapons. They own us. It sucks, but we are going to have to be way more creative than weaponry to defend ourselves in an upheaval. Besides, this requires an organized militia which we haven't seen since the days of limited weaponry like the Civil War. Right or wrong, the South had complete right to form a militia and defend their beliefs. That is what, I believe, the amendment is about; not about the right to have an arsenal.
Second, some just want to defend themselves against criminals, but there are as many stories about people pulling a gun on a robber and getting shot as there are stories of people actually defending themselves.
I could go on and on and frankly I do think that people do have the right to bear arms, but here is a very enlightening article about the NRA. The gist is that the NRA was originally a group to support gun control in a way that would allow people to own guns, but force it to be in a very responsible way. (At least, that's my watered down, quick interpretation). Now, I believe the NRA could care less about responsibility. They feed the comments like "If you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns" and "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" into the mouths of all those who follow them, but whenever I hear those, I don't think the person is defending their right to have guns, I think they are followers who don't think for themselves. It's rather silly.
I addressed the former quote last time, but really I keep thinking that, by a similar line of thought, I believe that the only reason for a person to own a gun would be to kill someone. Not protection, not hunting purposes, nothing other than to KILL. Now, I don't believe this which is why I also don't believe the line about criminals. It's silly.
Speaking of silly, I want to address the latter now. A post has gone around FB a little where a guy tells the story of how he put his rifle in a wheelchair (so it could get around) and left it at the front door. The day went as usual. The gun killed no one. Proof, of course, that guns don't kill people.
While I found this amusing and clever, I heard Eddie Izzard in the back of my head... "Yeah, but the guns help." I addressed this last time, too, but poisons and knives are things used by people committing a personal, targeted crime. Guns are really the only easily available weapons used to kill strangers on massive scales.
No one is saying a gun is a criminal. What I am saying is that when someone with a repeating rifle can walk into a school or movie theater and kill a dozen people before anyone has time to react, we have a problem. WE CLEARLY HAVE A PROBLEM. People are scrambling to feel safe and fix it, but gun owners could care less about other people wanting to feel safe or stopping these things from happening again, right? The perception they leave is that they are heartless beasts who just want their guns and protect them like we're trying to euthanize household pets who have never attacked anyone.
Curses - I have lost the article and cannot find it, but this week in our local paper, our (not so) wonderful representatives got together and talked about guns and mental health. Their stance is that mental health gets pulled into the gun debate unfairly.
Well, I can see it is unfair in the sense that labeling these murderers and mentally ill makes people who have mental illness and are not violent feel like they are being labeled a threat, but are we not, as a society, beyond that? Do we not, for the most part, defend mentally ill people who have not shown signs of danger? I mean we no longer throw them into sanitariums or deny the fact that they have mental issues at all. I think for the most part we are enlightened and if we focus on that, we will become even more so. That's what we need.
I also wonder how they can say that. I mean, if it's true that the majority of people who have committed this enormous crimes have been on anti-psychotic, anti-depressant, or other mental health drugs, can we really say it's NOT related? If they were on these drugs and were not mentally unstable, then the problem lies in prescribing these drugs (which I will reiterated, I do believe they are OVER prescribed and UNDER monitored).
I'm not trying to create an unfair stigma of mental health here. What I really hope for is a push for better understanding by the public as well as extension in research. I want to help people and I think there are people who need help and don't seek it. I want it to be seen as seriously as heart disease. What I see is that if people keep saying "I'm mentally ill and if you blame these crimes on mental illness, you're hurting me" or otherwise taking things personally, then we'll never see it as seriously as heart disease. It's time to recognize that people have problems and have the right to get help for it, but that sometimes it goes awry and we should fix it any way we can even if that means managing the mental health industry more.
And there is a modicum of truth, I suppose, to the stigma. I mean, people tend to think all sociopaths and schizophrenics are violent ticking time bombs. Thousands upon thousands of people suffer from these serious problems, but the mental health industry can only prescribe meds and send them home. Some of them don't like what the meds do, so they stop taking them. This cannot be put on the psychiatrist, but the majority of those who don't take them never commit a crime or hurt other people. Yes, we should not think that these people are ticking time bombs, but at the same time, they need help. They deserve help. That help should be easy to get and plentiful without locking them up in some facility. They may never commit a crime, but they could hurt themselves and is that any better? Even if they never hurt themselves physically, there are certain symptoms that come with it that you cannot deny are mentally hurtful to those around which is enough reason to need help. Any way you look at it, it need to be a better system - related to the gun argument or not.
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Enough is enough
Today I am sad. More shootings. More dead people. Kids. Young adults. Drug runners. No matter. Humans. They are all dead humans.
When Sandy Hook Elementary's incident became public, I felt so sad for all those kids, the ones who died and the ones who saw, heard, and experienced far more than any 5-12 year old should. I hurt for the victims, their families, employees. The world hurt like they did when two boys went into Columbine and the guy went into the Amish school - not to mention the guy at the mall, the sharp shooter on the tower, the kids who went on a killing spree in the 50s.
At what point is it enough?
The first thing out of the mouths (and trickling off the fingers) of certain Americans is "gun control." Yes, this is first. Why? Because the NRA is smart enough to wait about 2 weeks... just long enough for the emotions to settle... before bringing up their second amendment rights. I swear, if an hour after a huge, nationally covered incident, the NRA put out ANY public statement, people would realize how broken that group is, but alas, they are smart-broken because they don't speak up right away. I'm convinced they know that if they spoke too soon, they would lose some of their followers; specifically the few who are not as ignorant as the blind followers.
This is not about the NRA or gun control, though. For a few brief hours, the words on the lips of educated humans was "Mental Health". This worked for a minute or two until extremists started pointing out how many murderers have been committed by people on medications or just coming off of medications.
Yes. They were on medications because they had mental health issues. You can see it as the medications leading to the problems. I see it as someone knew there was a problem, but we didn't have the resources or knowledge to monitor them and intervene before the killings.
I do think most mental health drugs are over-prescribed and under-monitored. This does not mean that prescribing them to people who eventually murder was a mistake.
I will say that it is incredibly naive to read the articles and information on natural solutions to mental health problems and say that the chemical drugs are the problem. Supporters are, in my perception, people who have never had a serious mental health complication or seen one in a loved one. Maybe they have and that person used chemical solutions which did not work perfectly. What I know for certain is that the herbal/natural side focuses highly on success and blames failure completely on the mistakes of the individual. It blames them and says it's their fault for not doing enough, but I have known for a fact that you can eat the way they suggest, exercise, and take their herbal solutions and still it might not be enough. The natural community would simply find something new to blame. At least the psychological field would say "Let's try to help." That feels like hope. When you have followed the herbalists suggestions, you run out of hope.
But it is never cut and dry, is it? I'm huge on herbs and natural solutions to problems. I avoid taking over the counter medications, am not on any prescription medications, but when I feel ill, the first thing I check is what I'm eating and what herbs I can take to get through it. OTC is what I go to when I need more and prescription is only when the two others just aren't cutting it (which means practically never in my life). I know the insane amounts of information out there supporting herbal/natural solutions. I know the claims that if you hit on just the prefect combination, you'll cure cancer, never get the common cold, and avoid depression. The problem is that just like the "success" of Zoloft, the information is biased, tainted, and incomplete. Despite that, Zoloft people will always want their Zoloft and St. John's Wort people will always want their St. John's Wort.
The world is full of grey. Opinionated people, imo, generally seem to take the information presented, stick it in their box, and think it's black and white. The way I see it, there is too much evidence to both support and doubt every issue that it's no wonder opinionated people argue back and forth. They're both right and they are both wrong.
After the shootings, I made the mistake of mentioning the need for better mental health and was bombarded with completely one-sided information about why the prescription meds are the cause of the problem (just listing what meds these violent people are on is NOT evidence that the meds are the problem, btw) which I felt completely discounted the actual point. Yes, they are and have been on these medications. They also are or have been diagnosed with a mental health issue which hasn't been handled properly. Maybe they need yoga. Maybe they need herbs. Maybe they just need therapy to be more readily available and considered important.
In the line of only talking about the evidence YOU want to point out, other countries have better health care coverage (100% covered in the UK, Canada, etc) and they have hardly any spree killings. Not non-existent, though, but far fewer per capita. They also have gun control laws in those countries. Of course, there are a thousand other factors that could account for the differences so just like I think the fact that these killers have been on meds or drugs is about as relevant as the gun control laws in other countries (which is semi-relevant, but by no means the complete story)
Aside from the medication argument, the coverage for mental health is lacking in this country. We do not offer coverage as completely or simply as medical assistance. Sometimes people don't know where to go. Sometimes people can't afford the co-pay. Sometimes there is no coverage at all and often people don't know how to find the professional to help them.
There are many things to consider here. How often does the family say they had no idea? What's to account for this? Slight possibility, they know that if they answer the questions of media in any way saying that the shooter had problems, the public will turn on them quickly because if the shooter has died in the incident, who is there to yell at? The family will do in a pinch, right?
More likely I think it might be genetics. If a person is, say, bipolar, it is likely their parents are bipolar and their siblings are bipolar. It becomes normal to deal with those things in that house and since it didn't lead to murder or suicide within the family, how are we supposed to know the person needed help? Exactly why there should be periodic checkups for mental health.
Once a year, insurance covers a visit to your physician for a physical. It covers me going to my GYN annually which, if I had, might have prevented me getting a hysterectomy at age 36. Point being, you can't force anyone to go, but perhaps if the encouragement is there...not just the option, but the encouragement and pressure, then more people could get the help they need. Even that won't stop it completely, but how many problems might it solve? Aside from serious violence related to these shootings, I know a percentage of the population skips therapy and self medicates with alcohol, illegal drugs, etc. Don't look at it like this will solve all of our problems, but in a world where the problems continue to grow and increase in intensity, I'll take weeding out a few problems just to deal with the rest and if we had better health coverage, maybe we would see less of this self medicating and the drug dealing industry would not be quite so heated up.
Once a year, a therapist can decide if more treatment is needed and if so, the insurance should cover it as followup or perhaps a monthly copay. Sometimes a person who needs therapy goes once a week or more. In contrast, let's say your physician finds out you have diabetes. He gives you a treatment, sends you home, and follows up in 6 weeks, 3 months, then 6 months (depending). Even if you have to pay a copay of $30, that's $30 every few months. A therapist sees you weekly and it's $120 a month. Perhaps they see something serious and for the first month they want to see you twice a week. $240. I don't know anyone whose financial situation is secure enough that $240 isn't going to add to the stress (or $120 for that matter). That is, of course, if your insurance company recognized psychology at all. Yes, evil Obama care is requiring better coverage for mental health. Clearly he's out to screw us, huh? Yeah, sarcasm probably not called for in this argument, but people are already blaming Obama for care that hasn't even kicked in yet so really I'm just mocking the uneducated or blind-trusting republicans who, again, just want to think it's easy and don't actually take in ALL the facts; just the biased reports of their side. (I am, for the record UNhappy with some of the aspect we know of Obama, care, too, but I'm willing to see how it shakes out in the wash)
Of course, then we have the problem of testing. Therapists can ask questions, but can't be held accountable for this sort of thing. You take blood or urine from a patient as a physician and you know with confidence the person they are testing can't learn how to fake it and you can know that the numbers mean certain very specific things.
The psychiatric industry has a much more difficult job. Yes and no questions aren't enough to determine a person's mental health. More research is needed here, but instead we keep sending people to the moon and looking at psychology as a "soft" science. Is it soft because it's less important or is it soft because it isn't completely understood?
And guns. It's a hard subject to breach. I know why we have the right to bear arms, but it's also obvious why guns are behind these huge shootings. Psychologically if a mentally ill person did not have access to guns, they would not automatically pick up a knife. research shows that it's so often a gun used in these crimes because it is impersonal. Yes, stabbing happen, but they are almost always personal attacks. Passing laws that limit guns and require better screening is not taking away any rights. It's just making things safer. Without getting huge, I just have one last comment.
"If you criminalize guns, then only criminal will have guns." And for the most part, they want to use them on each other. Maybe we should just let the problem solve itself.
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Adoptee rights?
Woman finds birth mother through viral Facebook photo
When I first saw the photo, honestly, my first thought was "Oh no. If this works, my facebook wall is going to be bombarded with similar posts." My second thought was "And if a lot of them are about adoption, someone is going to say something to piss me off."
Well, it worked and there are plenty of people perpetuating the photo-with-message-on-posterboard problem, but so far, they haven't really upset me. I mean, in this case it was okay because the birth mother had the choice to not contact this young woman. No choices were taken away.
I know some adoptees don't ever seek out their parents. I wish I knew the secret formula for that. I know many who do search for them say they feel incomplete and I wish I knew how to make them feel complete without searching for their birth parents. To me, that's the ideal world.
I also know some birth parents have expressed regret or guilt over their decision. I wish I knew how to help them too.
On a very small scale, I do believe that part of those emotions come from the world. As a society, we still have not accepted adoptive parents as complete parents and we still put pressure on birth parents to make them feel they are selfish for their decision. Obviously, in a perfect world, no one would have to give up (or feel the need to abort) a child and no one would need or want to adopt. WE DO NOT LIVE IN A PERFECT WORLD.
What got my husband riled up enough to send me the article was the comments. Frankly, he doesn't know that I've read much harsher comments on other articles and in newsgroups than these, but I admit, I'm frustrated too.
Several people are taking the opportunity to post information about themselves and who they seek. Good for them (but be careful. You don't want enough information for the nefarious element to use against you.)
A few comments down: (I am totally using these without permission, but don't care at the moment.)
"If the adoptive mother had sent her natural mother pictures then why was
she unable to tell her about her natural mom?? I think it shows how far
adopters will go to hide the truth. I'm so happy that the search went
smoothly for her though! Everyone deserves to know their natural family
and have the right to their original birth certificate....even if
adopters and the money makers of the adoption industry will do any and
everything to conceal the truth. "
A) How far adopters will go to hide the truth? How do you know that is the situation? Adoptive parents and birth parents decide how much contact there will be. Perhaps the birth mother only wanted to send pictures!
B) Everyone deserves to seek out their birth parents, but to know them? How will they ever really know them? They can't know the situation that led to adoption or the road to becoming the person they are. It's very easy for a young person who has no money, prospects, or education to give up the child, then get their life together, graduate high school, get a job, get promoted, have a future, then look back and wish they had kept the child, but the road would not have been the same with the tiny companion. Who they become is different than who they would have become if they had kept the child just like the child is different than who they would have been.
C)Money makers of the adoption industry...conceal the truth. Try not to sound like a paranoid conspiracy theorist or anything. Of course there is dishonesty like any industry, but there are also a lot of adoptions that are successful because of them.
"i'm looking for my niece"
Cruel of me to say this, I know, but that's a little distant and frankly not your business. I have no problem with this, exactly, but I do think people reach out too far desperately seeking some connection. Don't think that because you share blood, this is family you need or that they need you. The fact is, those of us who are connected biologically to our families can sometimes wish we weren't or seek out "family" in close friendships because we are treated the way we should by them and not our families. I guess what I'm trying to say can be shown with an example. If a gay young man comes out to his parents and his parents disown him, he must seek the companionship he needs elsewhere, right? So instead of seeking out your niece, seek out a connection with other real life humans around you. If none of them will have you, ask yourself why instead of forcing the unconditional love of blood relation on someone.
"Here's some advice from my own experience. My birth mother did not want to be thanked for placing me for adoption. She regretted her decision."
Wow. Sad. I'm sure this is an exception and not the rule, but this is why I advocate a national registry such as Adoptee Connection. I know there are many and it would be better if they all came together, but this is where adopted people can sign up, birth parents can sign up, and then hopefully everyone find each other. Only those who want to be found or want to find will be hooked up. Those who do not wish to to find or be found can keep their anonymity.
According to the article, which may have just skipped the information of course, the woman does not say she has tried any of these other channels. Who knows? Maybe they are successful, but Facebook photos is a newer, fresher story so of course that's the one we hear.
"One must go into a reunion with no expectations."
I think that is excellent advice. We know this can be true in many life situations, frankly.
"It is such a shame that a person has to resort to posting on facebook to find their parents-yep I said parent I do not like the term Birth Parent. I have been searching for my sister for 20 years, and still can not find her due to the fake birth certificates, and not allowing the "Adopted" adult access to the original certificates."
Ouch!
Where to begin. How about the dictionary?
Parent
A mother or father. THIS IS THE FIRST DEFINITION
--yeah, you're thinking giving birth, but let's define mother. As soon as you pass the circular arguments (a mother is a female parent) it is quickly defined as "a woman having or regarded as having the status, function, or authority of a female parent." I signed papers, she signed papers, we all signed papers legally giving me STATUS, FUNCTION, AND AUTHORITY of a parent. Read the adoption paperwork sometime. It's pretty clear that the person who raises a child is the parent and if you're going to use the piece of paper of a birth certificate as important information, you must also acknowledge the paper of adoption as important information. It's not like the Bible where you get to pick and choose. (oops, that was inappropriate)
--other definitions of mother and father include "protector", one who performs the tasks of caregiver, and my favorite, from dictionary.com (beautifully spoken) "to acknowledge oneself the author of; assume as one's own" In fact, that wording of author might be sparking some literary ideas of mine own. Oh great. Just what I need. Another plot bunny. Returning to my main point...
Of course, the dictionary next puts it coldly:
an ancestor, precursor, or progenitor.
Isn't a progenitor a mentor? Or model? So that would be the person raising the child, once again.
Definition #3 is even colder and much more about logic than instinct. It's like Sheldon's definition as opposed to Leonard and who would you rather have as Dad? Honestly?
a source, origin, or cause.
Yes, the two people who had sex caused the birth, but at the same time, if those people signed away their rights (part of the requirement for an absolutely complete adoption!) they are also the cause of the child being with their PARENTS...the one who raised them. Let's continue to FULLY DEFINE this word:
a protector or guardian.
to be or act as parent of
Do I need to specify how saying that the two people who conceived a child are not a parent without a modifier? We use words like birth and natural for a reason. If you take those away, then it's only fair to take away all modifiers. Now it's a circular argument because you take away the adjective birth parent and logically you must remove the adjective adopted child and then it's just a child. And a parent. If you aren't going to define the difference and claim that someone who gave birth to another person is all the work it takes to be a parent, then you don't understand what it is to be a parent.
Let's take adoption out altogether and look at a nuclear family. You have a kid who is a month, one year, ten years old - you choose. When you hold that baby or drive that kid to soccer are you thinking about the birth process? Or is that kid YOUR kid because you just know it, feel it, love it, and have taken care of it, made sacrifices for it, given it everything, cleaned up after it, taught it to be a wonderful beautiful person, etc, etc?
I find it telling that it is a sibling looking for another sibling. Sucks and all, but if this person doesn't have access to the original birth certificate, that was a choice made by this person's parents and it is the fault of the parents, not the system. I also know for a fact that this is not common. Calling the legal birth certificate a fake birth certificate is hot-headed, untrue, and ignorant. Example, where is my daughter's birth certificate? In my hands because none was distributed until I requested it from the state. The fact that in this person's case there may have been one previous to the legal one of the sibling is irrelevant. It does not make the legal one FAKE. If there are other fakes, again, that is the fault of those who made them, not the legal system.
Also, depending on the laws of the state, the adult can gain access to their records IF THE BIRTH PARENTS WISH IT. Why does the adoptee's rights trump the other rights? They may not have been involved in the decision, but just like non-adopted kids are stuck with the family they have (good OR bad!), so too are adopted kids. Maybe if we stop seeing it differently, it will change the face of adoption. Perhaps fewer people will regret their decisions because they will not have external pressure. I do not think people should be forced to give up a kid for adoption, but I also don't think someone who makes the decision to do so should be treated as though they made a poor choice. Ideally, once the adoption is finalized, that is the one and only family. The end. No one needs to feel bad and no one needs to seek out. Utopia, of course, does not exist.
"Why is it that adoptees aren't "supposed" to search for their birth parents, but everybody loves their reunions? Adoptees need to be provided full access to ALL their records regarding their adoption as soon as they become adults. Adults who were adopted as children cannot be bound to the adoption agreements in which they were not participants. And adoptees and their children are placed at increased risk of genetically-related diseases due to lack of medical background information. Adoptees have committed no crime to justify not being allowed to contact their birthparents. All adoption records should be opened when an adoptee becomes an adult."
A) Valid argument in the first sentence. I think adopted kids are afraid of hurting their parents, afraid of more rejection while the parents are afraid they will like the new parents more. The part where they are not supposed to look is separated from lovely reunions. No one mentions the stories like the one above where the birth parent did not want to be found. We want feel good stories, though I suspect this is going to change now that society wants the bad stuff more and more.
B)See above; why so much access? Why is that their right over the rights of those who signed away their rights as parents? They signed a piece of paper making that decision. Just because a person isn't happy with the family they have (who is?) doesn't mean they get to just throw it away and seek out a new one. If biological families want to do that, they have to seek out friends who treat them right. Why not the same for adopted kids? If they birth parents have signed away their rights, they can use resources to seek out the kid and the kid seek the parents, but if they don't want to find each other, I don't see why they have the right to those records.
C) is the reason you site for why they need full access, but for decades, states have required birth parents to provide medical history with the kid. What people don't realize is that less than one in a million cases, there is a genetic link to a problem, but in those cases, the birth parents withheld the information. BY CHOICE. Why are we so quick to take away choices of one just because of the temper tantrums of another? Scream loud enough and your choice is more important than another's? No. They have the choice not to disclose and you have the choice to GET OVER IT and accept the life you have just like everyone who is with their biological family accepts their life and deals with the reality of it.
D) Everyone gets to choose if the adoption will be opened or closed. Just like we cannot go back and change previous decisions in life without a time machine, no one person should be able go back and change that decision unless all involved parties make the decision. This is why we have services, detectives, the aforementioned webpage, and reality TV like The Locator.
That being said, a little while ago we had a birth father freaking out that his child was here in Utah and he wanted that child back. He was on the news saying that he got is girlfriend pregnant, they split, he did not know about the child. He was angry because Utah laws were making it difficult to get the child back.
A) Did the local news ever ask the parents for a reaction? No. Because the only anger that mattered was this birth father.
B) Where was he while his ex was going through the decision? No where, that's where. I mean, people break up, but don't you think she had a reason to keep it from him? Did the news try to track her down and find out? No. Perhaps he was abusive. Perhaps she tried and he was being a brat and ignoring her. Yeah, perhaps she just kept it from him because she's the beast in the situation, but we don't know that so it's highly unfair to assume.
C) Why is it okay for people to hook up, split up, then make claims on a child who is in a stable, intact home?
D) States require both biological parents to sign away their parental rights. It can only go through without those signatures if an effort is made to find the missing parent and he/she still cannot be found. Did the news mention this? Of course not. Outraged father is a much better story. It needed way way way more information for me to not raise an eyebrow at this story or to be on his side, but the news did not provide. Biased story. No shock from the media these days.
Utah laws can be tight, but they also take more time to finalize than many other states. The child must be a full six months old before an adoption can be finalized while many other states can be immediate or shorter periods like nine months. I appreciate this because it give everyone time to figure things out and think about what they've done, but when it's final, it is completely final and the parents don't spend their lives looking over their shoulders for the disgruntled parents.
Which brings me to another point I wanted to make. Why must we push so hard for these right when what it means is that it's not truly final. EVER. That life the person didn't have is always there, knocking at the back door. It's not just about adoptive parent's fear of retaliation that can make for a paranoid lifestyle (which would obviously affect the child!) it is also about an adoptive adult looking back as though seeing their past can change their future. It cannot. A psychologically sound adult can accept their past, present, and future, but arguing that they have all these rights and must know every detail, including birth parents does not allow them to move on and fully accept their reality.
Well, that's a little devil's advocate of me, honestly, because when we adopted our daughter, we did not do the standard "open for 3 years" adoption. We made the paperwork completely open as long as everyone wanted. We wrote up private paperwork with a private family attorney which everyone signed which stated that I would send a letter as long as the birth father kept me apprised of his address (the last two we sent him were returned 'addressee unknown') and in our situation, the birth mother has access to see or hear about her anytime she would like.
I have saved the letters sent by the birth father, but he did not write as often as he was able before they started being returned.
We have also always been honest with our daughter. She knows she is adopted. She knows her birth mother. She has asked about her birth father and I have told her what we know, she has seen the letters, and I have sought him out on Facebook and other webpages that offer a lot of information. I wish I had had the foresight to ask for a photo of him. She wishes she could at least see a picture of him and I feel bad that I didn't think of it, but I've been honest with her and while she is still young, she doesn't seem lost. She's curious, of course, but I am confident that when she is older, she may look out of curiosity, not out of loss. That is her right and I will not stand in her way or even try to influence her away from that, but of course there is the part of me that wonders what I could have done differently to make her not want to look. I've met adopted adults who have no desire and who can see their family as the only family they need and not even curious. Perhaps she is curious because her birth mother is so accessible. I don't know. The future may bring a lot of unsettlement in my opinions of these matters, but right now, I wish we saw things more finalized. People who adopt kids and don't treat them as they would their own should not have adopted in the first place. People ho treat adopted childen badly should be judged as harshly as anyone who mistreats their own. Certain news stories have implied in the past that it is understandable abuse when the child is adopted, but while I can see how it's "understandable" by society terms, it should NOT be seen that way.
Okay, see, now, a non-fiction book is certainly in my future on this subject. Clearly.
When I first saw the photo, honestly, my first thought was "Oh no. If this works, my facebook wall is going to be bombarded with similar posts." My second thought was "And if a lot of them are about adoption, someone is going to say something to piss me off."
Well, it worked and there are plenty of people perpetuating the photo-with-message-on-posterboard problem, but so far, they haven't really upset me. I mean, in this case it was okay because the birth mother had the choice to not contact this young woman. No choices were taken away.
I know some adoptees don't ever seek out their parents. I wish I knew the secret formula for that. I know many who do search for them say they feel incomplete and I wish I knew how to make them feel complete without searching for their birth parents. To me, that's the ideal world.
I also know some birth parents have expressed regret or guilt over their decision. I wish I knew how to help them too.
On a very small scale, I do believe that part of those emotions come from the world. As a society, we still have not accepted adoptive parents as complete parents and we still put pressure on birth parents to make them feel they are selfish for their decision. Obviously, in a perfect world, no one would have to give up (or feel the need to abort) a child and no one would need or want to adopt. WE DO NOT LIVE IN A PERFECT WORLD.
What got my husband riled up enough to send me the article was the comments. Frankly, he doesn't know that I've read much harsher comments on other articles and in newsgroups than these, but I admit, I'm frustrated too.
Several people are taking the opportunity to post information about themselves and who they seek. Good for them (but be careful. You don't want enough information for the nefarious element to use against you.)
A few comments down: (I am totally using these without permission, but don't care at the moment.)
"If the adoptive mother had sent her natural mother pictures then
A) How far adopters will go to hide the truth? How do you know that is the situation? Adoptive parents and birth parents decide how much contact there will be. Perhaps the birth mother only wanted to send pictures!
B) Everyone deserves to seek out their birth parents, but to know them? How will they ever really know them? They can't know the situation that led to adoption or the road to becoming the person they are. It's very easy for a young person who has no money, prospects, or education to give up the child, then get their life together, graduate high school, get a job, get promoted, have a future, then look back and wish they had kept the child, but the road would not have been the same with the tiny companion. Who they become is different than who they would have become if they had kept the child just like the child is different than who they would have been.
C)Money makers of the adoption industry...conceal the truth. Try not to sound like a paranoid conspiracy theorist or anything. Of course there is dishonesty like any industry, but there are also a lot of adoptions that are successful because of them.
"i'm looking for my niece"
Cruel of me to say this, I know, but that's a little distant and frankly not your business. I have no problem with this, exactly, but I do think people reach out too far desperately seeking some connection. Don't think that because you share blood, this is family you need or that they need you. The fact is, those of us who are connected biologically to our families can sometimes wish we weren't or seek out "family" in close friendships because we are treated the way we should by them and not our families. I guess what I'm trying to say can be shown with an example. If a gay young man comes out to his parents and his parents disown him, he must seek the companionship he needs elsewhere, right? So instead of seeking out your niece, seek out a connection with other real life humans around you. If none of them will have you, ask yourself why instead of forcing the unconditional love of blood relation on someone.
"Here's some advice from my own experience. My birth mother did not want to be thanked for placing me for adoption. She regretted her decision."
Wow. Sad. I'm sure this is an exception and not the rule, but this is why I advocate a national registry such as Adoptee Connection. I know there are many and it would be better if they all came together, but this is where adopted people can sign up, birth parents can sign up, and then hopefully everyone find each other. Only those who want to be found or want to find will be hooked up. Those who do not wish to to find or be found can keep their anonymity.
According to the article, which may have just skipped the information of course, the woman does not say she has tried any of these other channels. Who knows? Maybe they are successful, but Facebook photos is a newer, fresher story so of course that's the one we hear.
"One must go into a reunion with no expectations."
I think that is excellent advice. We know this can be true in many life situations, frankly.
"It is such a shame that a person has to resort to posting on facebook to find their parents-yep I said parent I do not like the term Birth Parent. I have been searching for my sister for 20 years, and still can not find her due to the fake birth certificates, and not allowing the "Adopted" adult access to the original certificates."
Ouch!
Where to begin. How about the dictionary?
Parent
A mother or father. THIS IS THE FIRST DEFINITION
--yeah, you're thinking giving birth, but let's define mother. As soon as you pass the circular arguments (a mother is a female parent) it is quickly defined as "a woman having or regarded as having the status, function, or authority of a female parent." I signed papers, she signed papers, we all signed papers legally giving me STATUS, FUNCTION, AND AUTHORITY of a parent. Read the adoption paperwork sometime. It's pretty clear that the person who raises a child is the parent and if you're going to use the piece of paper of a birth certificate as important information, you must also acknowledge the paper of adoption as important information. It's not like the Bible where you get to pick and choose. (oops, that was inappropriate)
--other definitions of mother and father include "protector", one who performs the tasks of caregiver, and my favorite, from dictionary.com (beautifully spoken) "to acknowledge oneself the author of; assume as one's own" In fact, that wording of author might be sparking some literary ideas of mine own. Oh great. Just what I need. Another plot bunny. Returning to my main point...
Of course, the dictionary next puts it coldly:
an ancestor, precursor, or progenitor.
Isn't a progenitor a mentor? Or model? So that would be the person raising the child, once again.
Definition #3 is even colder and much more about logic than instinct. It's like Sheldon's definition as opposed to Leonard and who would you rather have as Dad? Honestly?
a source, origin, or cause.
Yes, the two people who had sex caused the birth, but at the same time, if those people signed away their rights (part of the requirement for an absolutely complete adoption!) they are also the cause of the child being with their PARENTS...the one who raised them. Let's continue to FULLY DEFINE this word:
a protector or guardian.
to be or act as parent of
Do I need to specify how saying that the two people who conceived a child are not a parent without a modifier? We use words like birth and natural for a reason. If you take those away, then it's only fair to take away all modifiers. Now it's a circular argument because you take away the adjective birth parent and logically you must remove the adjective adopted child and then it's just a child. And a parent. If you aren't going to define the difference and claim that someone who gave birth to another person is all the work it takes to be a parent, then you don't understand what it is to be a parent.
Let's take adoption out altogether and look at a nuclear family. You have a kid who is a month, one year, ten years old - you choose. When you hold that baby or drive that kid to soccer are you thinking about the birth process? Or is that kid YOUR kid because you just know it, feel it, love it, and have taken care of it, made sacrifices for it, given it everything, cleaned up after it, taught it to be a wonderful beautiful person, etc, etc?
I find it telling that it is a sibling looking for another sibling. Sucks and all, but if this person doesn't have access to the original birth certificate, that was a choice made by this person's parents and it is the fault of the parents, not the system. I also know for a fact that this is not common. Calling the legal birth certificate a fake birth certificate is hot-headed, untrue, and ignorant. Example, where is my daughter's birth certificate? In my hands because none was distributed until I requested it from the state. The fact that in this person's case there may have been one previous to the legal one of the sibling is irrelevant. It does not make the legal one FAKE. If there are other fakes, again, that is the fault of those who made them, not the legal system.
Also, depending on the laws of the state, the adult can gain access to their records IF THE BIRTH PARENTS WISH IT. Why does the adoptee's rights trump the other rights? They may not have been involved in the decision, but just like non-adopted kids are stuck with the family they have (good OR bad!), so too are adopted kids. Maybe if we stop seeing it differently, it will change the face of adoption. Perhaps fewer people will regret their decisions because they will not have external pressure. I do not think people should be forced to give up a kid for adoption, but I also don't think someone who makes the decision to do so should be treated as though they made a poor choice. Ideally, once the adoption is finalized, that is the one and only family. The end. No one needs to feel bad and no one needs to seek out. Utopia, of course, does not exist.
"Why is it that adoptees aren't "supposed" to search for their birth parents, but everybody loves their reunions? Adoptees need to be provided full access to ALL their records regarding their adoption as soon as they become adults. Adults who were adopted as children cannot be bound to the adoption agreements in which they were not participants. And adoptees and their children are placed at increased risk of genetically-related diseases due to lack of medical background information. Adoptees have committed no crime to justify not being allowed to contact their birthparents. All adoption records should be opened when an adoptee becomes an adult."
A) Valid argument in the first sentence. I think adopted kids are afraid of hurting their parents, afraid of more rejection while the parents are afraid they will like the new parents more. The part where they are not supposed to look is separated from lovely reunions. No one mentions the stories like the one above where the birth parent did not want to be found. We want feel good stories, though I suspect this is going to change now that society wants the bad stuff more and more.
B)See above; why so much access? Why is that their right over the rights of those who signed away their rights as parents? They signed a piece of paper making that decision. Just because a person isn't happy with the family they have (who is?) doesn't mean they get to just throw it away and seek out a new one. If biological families want to do that, they have to seek out friends who treat them right. Why not the same for adopted kids? If they birth parents have signed away their rights, they can use resources to seek out the kid and the kid seek the parents, but if they don't want to find each other, I don't see why they have the right to those records.
C) is the reason you site for why they need full access, but for decades, states have required birth parents to provide medical history with the kid. What people don't realize is that less than one in a million cases, there is a genetic link to a problem, but in those cases, the birth parents withheld the information. BY CHOICE. Why are we so quick to take away choices of one just because of the temper tantrums of another? Scream loud enough and your choice is more important than another's? No. They have the choice not to disclose and you have the choice to GET OVER IT and accept the life you have just like everyone who is with their biological family accepts their life and deals with the reality of it.
D) Everyone gets to choose if the adoption will be opened or closed. Just like we cannot go back and change previous decisions in life without a time machine, no one person should be able go back and change that decision unless all involved parties make the decision. This is why we have services, detectives, the aforementioned webpage, and reality TV like The Locator.
That being said, a little while ago we had a birth father freaking out that his child was here in Utah and he wanted that child back. He was on the news saying that he got is girlfriend pregnant, they split, he did not know about the child. He was angry because Utah laws were making it difficult to get the child back.
A) Did the local news ever ask the parents for a reaction? No. Because the only anger that mattered was this birth father.
B) Where was he while his ex was going through the decision? No where, that's where. I mean, people break up, but don't you think she had a reason to keep it from him? Did the news try to track her down and find out? No. Perhaps he was abusive. Perhaps she tried and he was being a brat and ignoring her. Yeah, perhaps she just kept it from him because she's the beast in the situation, but we don't know that so it's highly unfair to assume.
C) Why is it okay for people to hook up, split up, then make claims on a child who is in a stable, intact home?
D) States require both biological parents to sign away their parental rights. It can only go through without those signatures if an effort is made to find the missing parent and he/she still cannot be found. Did the news mention this? Of course not. Outraged father is a much better story. It needed way way way more information for me to not raise an eyebrow at this story or to be on his side, but the news did not provide. Biased story. No shock from the media these days.
Utah laws can be tight, but they also take more time to finalize than many other states. The child must be a full six months old before an adoption can be finalized while many other states can be immediate or shorter periods like nine months. I appreciate this because it give everyone time to figure things out and think about what they've done, but when it's final, it is completely final and the parents don't spend their lives looking over their shoulders for the disgruntled parents.
Which brings me to another point I wanted to make. Why must we push so hard for these right when what it means is that it's not truly final. EVER. That life the person didn't have is always there, knocking at the back door. It's not just about adoptive parent's fear of retaliation that can make for a paranoid lifestyle (which would obviously affect the child!) it is also about an adoptive adult looking back as though seeing their past can change their future. It cannot. A psychologically sound adult can accept their past, present, and future, but arguing that they have all these rights and must know every detail, including birth parents does not allow them to move on and fully accept their reality.
Well, that's a little devil's advocate of me, honestly, because when we adopted our daughter, we did not do the standard "open for 3 years" adoption. We made the paperwork completely open as long as everyone wanted. We wrote up private paperwork with a private family attorney which everyone signed which stated that I would send a letter as long as the birth father kept me apprised of his address (the last two we sent him were returned 'addressee unknown') and in our situation, the birth mother has access to see or hear about her anytime she would like.
I have saved the letters sent by the birth father, but he did not write as often as he was able before they started being returned.
We have also always been honest with our daughter. She knows she is adopted. She knows her birth mother. She has asked about her birth father and I have told her what we know, she has seen the letters, and I have sought him out on Facebook and other webpages that offer a lot of information. I wish I had had the foresight to ask for a photo of him. She wishes she could at least see a picture of him and I feel bad that I didn't think of it, but I've been honest with her and while she is still young, she doesn't seem lost. She's curious, of course, but I am confident that when she is older, she may look out of curiosity, not out of loss. That is her right and I will not stand in her way or even try to influence her away from that, but of course there is the part of me that wonders what I could have done differently to make her not want to look. I've met adopted adults who have no desire and who can see their family as the only family they need and not even curious. Perhaps she is curious because her birth mother is so accessible. I don't know. The future may bring a lot of unsettlement in my opinions of these matters, but right now, I wish we saw things more finalized. People who adopt kids and don't treat them as they would their own should not have adopted in the first place. People ho treat adopted childen badly should be judged as harshly as anyone who mistreats their own. Certain news stories have implied in the past that it is understandable abuse when the child is adopted, but while I can see how it's "understandable" by society terms, it should NOT be seen that way.
Okay, see, now, a non-fiction book is certainly in my future on this subject. Clearly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)