abuser, adoption reform, adoption reunions, being downright nasty, birth/adoptive families, browbeating people over adoption, bullying, call to arms, change your life, choice to adopt, co-dependency, confrontations with Joan Wheeler, cyberbullying, false child abuse reporting, how not to be a social-worker, interfering with parental authority, intimidation, libelous book, narcissistic, right to choose adoption, sins of omission and suppress of one's own misdeeds, violation of parent/child relationship, violation of parental rights
The Right to choose ADOPTION; who has the right to DENY another’s right and choice? Certainly not Joan Wheeler!
But I’m jumping the gun here, just a bit.
and I must offer this before proceeding to the subject matter of this post…
UPDATE January 2016; as older posts are being seen I’m updating with links to my second blog and a Facebook page wherein I expose AGAIN the lies, fabrications and hate that Joan M Wheeler says about me and family. After the first book was pulled from publication by the publisher, May 2011, she has ‘self-published’ yet again, her ‘story’, NOW called ‘duped by adoption’. There is NOTHING in it for adoption reform, for she is totally against adoption and her two families. To learn more see…
Now to continue …
For the love of the Gods! Some people just have way too much time on their hands to argue and dissect a total NON-ISSUE to death! There are so many variables in any course of action that a human takes, or doesn’t take, that there shall never be a ONE SOLUTION to anything! Each human makes their own decisions according to the current circumstances. And there never has been nor never will be any PERFECT solution to anything humans do.
I am NOT authorized to post any opposing viewpoint on certain sites, even if it directly refers to me and family. Well okay, that’s the right of any individual blog owner. I have that right as well. I don’t have to allow any opposing viewpoint on my blog either. But, I do own a blog and therefore I shall state my opinions and opposing viewpoint to a recent post I saw.
My reason, for the need to state my opposing view, is because it points to precisely what I have been saying ever since I made the CHOICE TO ADOPT; namely it’s my right, my decision, my choice, my business! To adopt or not to adopt is a personal CHOICE. That choice, like other personal choices I make, are NOT any one else’s business, including the child I choose to adopt! My personal choices are not subjected to another’s actions to prevent me from exercising my right.
The link to the post, I’m addressing, as well as the post itself and comments (so far) are below my own ‘thoughts’ on this issue.
In 1980 my sacred parental rights, to adopt, my own son, were violated by Joan Wheeler. She happens to be my birth sibling, placed INTO adoption due to the death of our mother. Upon reunion with her in 1974 the entire birth family was subjected to Joan’s militant views and actions regarding anything related to adoption. She is totally 200 percent anti-adoption.
Joan upset my step-mother and father when they were in the adoption process to adopt my father’s step-daughter and his wife’s own daughter. Joan went after me and my husband when we were in the adoption process of adopting my own son.
I was vilified and condemned, by Joan, because I adopted, not only once, when she did it, but many times in print and on the internet. I have been libeled and slandered because I dared to oppose Joan’s violations to my rights to CHOOSE ADOPTION. And if that wasn’t enough, Joan then retaliated with falsely reporting me as a child abuser! Then, Joan wrote, in a book, libelous statements about my and my husband’s characters, misrepresented and fabricated events, to PROVE her position for WHY she OPPOSED my choice for adopting AND for her to report child abuse upon me, twice!
Joan wrote a book of lies called Forbidden Family which was against both birth and adopted families. When birth sisters fought back, by getting the book proved to be libelous and pulled from publication, Joan gets indignate because her VICTIMS are outraged! Joan further enlisted a whole range of other angry adoptees and friends to shut us down! Joan goes out of her way, on the internet, to browbeat and condemn others for their choice to adopt.
Joan Wheeler’s views and actions are akin to those extreme measures that anti-ABORTION people use!
Now I’m not unmindful of the views and feelings of ADOPTEES, including their anger! But, the fact remains…adoption is not an evil! People do evil things! And not all people who adopt are evil. There will always be a place in human society for ADOPTION and the rights and choices of people to or not to adopt is NOT any one’s business but those involved in the decision and process. It most certainly is NOT anyone’s business to VIOLATED A SACRED PARENT/CHILD RELATIONSHIP, which Joan Wheeler did!
The Right to Choose, The Right to Choose Adoption
I hope, if proposing this question re-treads material already exhausted previously, that revisiting it has also a quality of refreshing it. But also, to avoid taking up a lot of space with any sort of startled “discovery” of the issue on my part, I intend only to submit it to the collective intelligence of the people here.
Women’s inalienble right for reproductive choice implies then an inalienable right to choose adoption.
We can critique the forms of adoption available or imaginable, but this does not negate the right to choose adoption. We might insist that between adoption and abortion, it becomes a question of the lesser evil, but that doesn’t negate the right to choose either. And since a choice of one is not a choice, to say (1) abortion only, (2) motherhood only, or (3) adoption only negates the principle of choice itself and substitutes in its place coercion or what Schiller would identify as violence.
This question frames the ethics of adoption in light of only one-third of the triad and in that sense is misleading. But to the extent that sometimes (gendered) resentment by adoptees gets directed (justly or not) against the one (who may actually be two or more) who exercised an (inalienable) choice, then to focus the question in this way may shed more light on the larger structural and cultural aspect of adoption as we currently have it.
If the right to choose adoption has limits, then how would you frame those?
Lisa says: February 2, 2014 at 9:06 am
The right to choose adoption is only valid if there is also a right to refuse adoption. Given how many mothers are lied to, coerced, and manipulated into adoption simply because they made the mistake of considering it and contacting an agency, I’d say it’s merely industry attempts to define the discussion
Snow Leopard says: February 2, 2014 at 4:31 pm
Hi Lisa: you reiterate my point ” choice of one is not a choice” when you correctly assert that there must also be the right to refuse adoption. And you underscore how what we (as adoptees) can interpret as “the mother’s choice” may actually (and often does likely) hinge on multiple players (a “father”, the would-be mother’s coercive parents, a social structure actively encouraging people to sell human babies, &c)
How then might we reclaim and redefine the discussion? (I think this question might seem overly obvious.)
Because the right to refuse adoption necessarily implies (in order for it to remain a choice) the right to choose adoption, this then requires our reframing of the issue to at least demand ethical, desirable forms of adoption, if it is going to exist at all.
And that means distinct and revolutionary alternatives to what currently prevails, which is what I take your comment to be pointing to.
“If the right to choose adoption has limits, then how would you frame those?”
In order for adoption to be a choice, and not be a coercive tactic of baby trafficking, we would at least need the following:
1) Every mother who knows the consequences of placing her baby, in addition to all the positives, including the increase instances of suicide in both her and her child that she is considering placing
2) A regulatory system in place to review and ensure that there is no coercion. I believe this would need to be at a state level, a state administrative agency.
3) Independent lawyers who are not “adoption lawyers”. I’m finding that adoption law is an interesting form of law insuch as you don’t ever see, “Contract lawyers” or “foreclosure lawyers”. You can’t go to school for adoption law (that I’ve been able to find), it is under family law, and yet adoption is the exception….
An interesting aspect of the language of choice when it comes to adoption, is the theory, “you can choose an open adoption”. While that is idealistic, the reality is that while one can “choose” such a thing, it doesn’t mean that’s what they will get at the end of the day. There is no enforcement of open adoptions, in addition to being no enforcement of regulatory systems ensuring that adoptions are legal. Just some thoughts.
end of this post
bottom line – and this goes to Joan Wheeler and everybody else – YOU DON’T HAVE THE RIGHT TO DICTATE TO PEOPLE HOW THEY CHOOSE TO LIVE THEIR LIVES OR BUILD THEIR NUCLEAR FAMILY! If people want to adopt, use in-vitro fertilization, utilize a sperm donor, use a surrogate mother – THAT’ S THEIR BUSINESS NOT YOURS.