Top Posting:
I returned briefly this evening to see if anyone was trying to speak
for me again and then I saw your post. If you are being sincere, I'll
give you the benefit of the doubt and think about the questions you
asked of me in the next few days or so.
I will going out of town, and don't feel like I could give you a fair
shot at your questions or participate in a positive exchange of words
with you until later next week.
Until then, hopefully, no one will try and speak for me, and we can
discuss this more.
Honestly, I am for most adoptive mothers everywhere, despite what some
here would have you believe. If you don't believe me, you'll need to
visit the adoption forum, especially the adoption debate board where an
entire triad posts together almost on a daily basis.
My dil is suffering from primary infertility and I am trying to learn
more about this disease, hence why I usually lurk. IF I see something
said about adoption, I may speak up, but I assure you, I am no troll.
But I digress, if you would like to review the last thread where my
words were taken completely out of context before I post back to you
next week, you will see that before this twit, *C* got all hysterical
and decided to twist my words, I said, ...and I will say again that
first mother does not mean second mother is any less significant. And
if you will google first mother as it relates to relinquishment today,
it is a current term. Women should be able to label themselves without
being put down or categorized a certain way.
Blech with the positive adoption language, most women who relinquish
feel they are so much more than a woman who gave birth. The child has
two mothers, one no less than the other. The sooner both mothers
recognize this, the better it will be for the child. Note I did not say
both mothers should parent. I believe once an adoption is iron clad,
the adoptive parents hold the cards.
In closing, no one can tell another what they are, and if my saying
adoptive mothers were second to first, or second best, this surely was
not my intention. In fact I wrote just the opposite, that they are both
im****tant to the adoptee.
When I said a person who puts adoption LAST is a first mother's worst
nightmare, it means the mother it does not sit right with me. While
those who suffer from infertility need to be on their own time tables
to grieve, I don't think it is a good idea to go into adoption still
longing to birth. And that is what I meant by a nightmare for the
baby's first mom. The loss has to be grieved in order for the baby's
best interests to be served.
See you next week.
Kathy
mother reunited 10-17-97
Jamie Clark wrote:
> Oh lord. Your post didn't start a flame war. You're welcome to
continue
> posting here. You haven't posted anything out of the ordinary. That
> someone else posted in the thread that you started, in an inflammatory
way
> is not your fault, nor a reflection on you.
>
> Carry on as usual.
> --
>
> Jamie
> Earth Angels:
> Taylor Marlys, 1/3/03 -- Who's got the Christmas spirit, singing all day
> long, "You put one foot in front of the other, and soon you'll be
walking
> out the doooo-oooo-ooor!
> Addison Grace, 9/30/04 -- My Little Ham, who smiles so big her eyes
> disappear and she says, "Cheese" on command. Although it sounds more
like
> "eeeeeesssshhh"!
>
> Check out the family! -- www.MyFamily.com, User ID: Clarkguest1,
Password:
> Guest
> Become a member for free - go to Add Member to set up your own User ID
and
> Password
>
> "FlowerGal74" <flowergal74@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:1138473617.434703.63040@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >I didnt know my post was going to start a flame war, and Im very sorry
> > it did. I wont be posting here any longer.
> >
> > Thanks to all the girls who helped! You know who you are.
> >
> > Vicki
> >
|
