Blog #5 Option 3

Blog #5 Option 3

As of now, I am not sure exactly where I stand in favor of open adoptions or closed adoptions. Both sides have very good argument to why someone would consider open or closed adoptions. Open adoption is good for staying in contact with the adoptive parents and the child. This includes phone calls, face to face visits, and sending letters or pictures to the biological parents. A closed adoption is good for privacy purpose so there would be no contact prior or after the placement of the child. There is many more reason but this is just a few.

I suppose it all depends on the situation that I am countering if I want to settle for open or closed adoptions. There are many variables that can affect in the decision of open or closed adoption; an ethical concern with open adoption is “Ethical concerns include the limits of birth parents’ responsibilities to provide information about their health, genes, and families to adoptive families” (Allen, pg. 49). What if the biological parent does not feel comfortable telling that information to the adoptive family, are they obligated to do so? Overall, it should in the best interest of the child. It is all about the child, and not the biological or adoptive parents, such as filling emotional needs. A good example of this would be the guest speaker, Mary, said that after being contacted by her birthmother she was so needy and emotional (not using the direct wording from speaker). In that case, it should be a closed adoption because that can interfere with an individual how he or she live there life. Furthermore, I think open or close adoption need some improvement in both areas because neither is concrete in the position they stand at the moment but setting guidelines and keeping them is probably the best way to go.  

Chia C.

Blog Post # 5: Option #3

In this blog post, I am supposed to talk about which method of adoption I agree with most.  The truth is that I am on the fence a little bit after our guest speakers.  If I was asked this question a week ago I would have 100% agreed that open adoption is the route to go in the adoption process.  The problem with that now is that I don’t know if I can pick one side or the other.  Mary said something on Wednesday that was kind of eye opening to me in terms of open adoption, she stated that open adoption seems to have an effect that makes the birthparents feel better about their decision, not on the child’s overall best interest.   I think that she made a very valid point when she said this.  In an open adoption there is always some hope somewhere in the birthparents hearts that they may somehow, someway be a part of that child’s life.  Though some birthparents expectations of the end result are much lower or higher than others; I could imagine that there is some sense of relief that you will someday be able to reach out to your child or to knowing that they will most likely know that you exist.  In Mary’s case the expectation of her birthmother was more than she was willing to give.  So in this case open adoption turned out to be somewhat of an annoyance in the end for the child. 

On the other hand, I can’t agree with closed adoption 100% either.  If I were to put myself in the shoes of an adoptee, I would have a hard time knowing that I may never know where I came from whether I wanted to know or not.  That choice of knowing is automatically taken away from a child at birth with a closed adoption.  I can’t really say which one I agree with over the other because each person takes to the fact that they are adopted in different ways.  But I do think the child should be able to have some rights in the end.  All the rights are given to the birthparents and that doesn’t accomplish much in the end if the child wants to know their families past but aren’t allowed to do so.  The only suggestion that I can offer is trying to incorporate the best of both somehow.  Giving more rights and knowledge, but preserving the right of a birthparent if they so choose.  There is a reason that this class on adoption is incorporated into an ethics class, no matter what side you choice someone in the end will be unhappy.  But I think in this case more emphasis needs to be place on the child’s rights starting at birth.    

Lisa R 

Blog Post #5 Option #2

Blog Post #5 Option #2

It think that the discussion with both  LT and MG were exceptional additions to our learning experience. I felt like I received more of the adopted children’s perspective than I did from any other speaker or reading. It was interesting to hear more about their views on closed and open adoption.

After listening to both speakers on Wednesday, I believe my view on open adoption has changed dramatically. It was truly eye opening when LT explained how everyone gets to have a say in the decision of adoption except for the child involved. When she mentioned her idea on how she thinks the process could improve, I agreed. I think that birth and adoptive parents make a decision when they sign the adoption papers and that they should be bound by that, whether closed or open. On the other hand an adopted child should make their decision on the matter once they become an adult, since their voice could not be heard during the original signing. This will allow the child to make their own decision which is will be in their own best interest.

I found MG’s story to be just as eye opening as LT’s. MG’s tale demonstrated a stark contrast to Steve and Jen’s reunion. It honestly made me a bit sad that MG was pushed from every side to do what she ultimately did not want to do, which only led to her being stuck in an extremely difficult situation. It seems as though her relationship with her birth mother has only complicated her life. She was perfectly content with her adoptive family and spoke of her childhood fondly. MG’s birth mother wanted another family out of the relationship where as MG did not; MG simply wanted to please her adoptive mother. Anita Allen states in her work Open Adoption is not for Everyone, “it remains plausible and morally legitimate to understand newborn adoption as configuring separate, new families altogether” which is what I believe is what MG would have preferred and what would have benefitted her most (Allen, pg. 52). Though there are some rare situations where I believe open adoption can work well for all involved, the majority seems to end in a story similar to MG’s. I believe that overall, closed adoptions work best when an infant is being adopted as long as accurate medical records are available to the adopted individual. 

Julie Thurmes

Blog #4 option 2

Blog #4 Option 2

Personally, before taking this course on ethics & adoption I have no clue what adoption is all about. Better yet, I was even more clueless on gay adoption. I am not sure why I have not come across adoption topics during my school years before college, maybe it is a touchy subject? Our guest speaker, Phil Duran provided the class with a lot of information regarding adoptions for gays and lesbians over the past many decades. It was interesting to hear him talked about how adoptions were changed for gays and lesbians base on different states statues.

There are many things that I am still confused about with adoptions in general, but the more confusing thing I find is between homosexual and heterosexual adoptions. From what I learned in class is that a single straight male or female can adopt a child if he or she meets all the criteria for adoption and that heterosexual couples can adopt a child even though they are not marry. But what is the difference between a single homosexual adopting or a homosexual couples adopting? Even though some States are becoming more aware of this issue, homosexuals are still limited when it come to adoption.

            Even if gay and lesbian couples were capable of adoption they are still facing other issues as well. I mean if they are allowed to adopt then why do they lack rights as a parent in regard to their child? Not all states guaranteed a same-sex couples adoption decree. What the decree is that “guarantees that the parents will be treated as parents for all legal purposes including custody, the authority to enroll the child in school, participate in health-care decision-making…” (Appell, pg. 50). So my ethical question that I have is if homosexual couples are capable to adopt then why do they need an adoption decree to gets those rights or authority over their child? I think that once someone adopts regardless of their status, they should be capable of making all those decisions within the adoption decree.

Chia C.

 

Blog Post #4 (Option #2)

            In this blog post I will be talking about the guest speaker that we had from Outfront Minnesota.  I found that he did a very good job in regards to talking about some of the issues that gay and lesbians have had to face, especially in the last forty years or so.  I personally see no detrimental problems with same sex couples raising a child.  Personally, as long as the child is loved and knows it’s loved, has stability and boundaries there should be no issues with how this child will grow and develop into adulthood.  Any child, in any circumstance could end up being gay/lesbian, become a criminal, murderer, etc.  A lot of what a person becomes is instilled within them at birth, not by how they are raised.

            The one thing that made me raise an eyebrow in regards to our guest speaker was the comment that he made about adoption internationally.  He had stated that some gay or lesbian couples will adopt a child by having one of the parents individually go through the process in certain countries because the country that they plan on adopting from does not agree with gays or lesbians adopting and/or raising children.  Since this is an ethics class the first thought that came to my mind was is this type of “deception” ethically acceptable?

            I spent my long weekend on this thought and even had a discussion about it with a friend.  I still don’t have the right answer personally.  The only thing that I could agree with was that if the individuals that are adopting find it ethically acceptable, then so be it.  This question came to be in my mind because of one of the discussions we had in class where Professor Keller talked about some aspects of her adoption processes that she found personally unethical and would not agree to an adoption under certain circumstances.  This question also made me think of the countries that are agreeing to send their children to the United States and what they would think if they knew a same-sex couple was raising the child they sent to us.  In class we talk shortly about how Russia has closed adoptions to those that live in the United States.  We talked about how it could be a way to show power and/or a way to preserve the heritage of their children.  So if more countries feel this way (as I suspect they do) and are sending their children in hopes of this commitment, is lying about the type of household their child will grow up in really ethically right or is the fact that this child has a home trump that?    

Lisa R.    

Bog Post 4) option 2

Phil was great getting us engaged with his presentation. He brought up so many different things that I never knew about. Phil made me want to keep learning about current events that deal with these types of issues. It felt great to hear and to know about these issues. There were several things that caught my surprise about how gays do not have the right to privacy and on top of that they were labeled as sex criminals and that if you are gay that you have HIV. Phil was speaking about the past but, when I think about it how much of this is true and is what many people think of today. Everyday seems like a fight and the fights turn into battles. Like the man Gary who Phil mentioned didn't have the right to privacy and he didn't just accept that and he took it to another level to challenge authority. Just think if you were denied your right to privacy. I would be very angry. How can we be fair and say we have equality when really we don’t? 

Another interesting point Phil mentioned was that people think that gays don't have "Family Values." This is completely false. Even heterosexuals don't have the perfect family and some end up getting divorced. Family values come from our parents and generations past down from tradition/ culture. I myself do not have a problem with LGBT but, my mom is religiously against it. She does not approve of it and thinks it is a sin. I am sure many other people have this same reason. This is why it is difficult for same sex marriage to be legalized and makes it even harder when they do not have the same rights and health benefits. Think of ethics and morals here. I mean should they start lying that they are related to see their partner in the hospital and because that is the only way they can visit them? If they wanted health insurance for their partner is that so wrong? Are the rules that the government has made really ethical? How can we tell right from wrong?

-Ka L.

Blog Post #4, Option #2

Blog Post #4, Option #2

I thought every speaker that came to our class was very interesting and informative, but Phil Duran’s speech especially stuck out to me. I felt that his historical background really helped to support his views and to solidify his arguments. I was impressed with the information he was able to provide us on past events in the LGBT community that have led our society to be the way that it is today. His comments at the very end of the hour were especially intriguing to me.

At the end of class he was asked by a student what the LGBT community’s response would be to the statement, “a child being raised by gays may be harmed because of this environment.” In class the other day I also had a hard time thinking of a response to this because all I could think to ask was “well why would they? What makes that environment any more harmful?” Phil had a very similar response. He also asked, “Why would they?” He talked about how we learn how to parent by our own parents or guardians and that gay and lesbian people had parents just like any heterosexual person. They are no more likely to harm a child than a heterosexual couple would be. The argument that children raised by gays are at a higher risk for negative outcomes has been debunked by research in psychology. In a chapter written by Judith Stacey and Timothy J. Biblarz they write “most research in psychology concludes that there are no differences in developmental outcomes between children raised by lesbigay parents and those raised by heterosexual parents” (Biblarz & Stacey, pg. 55). So, why is this still an argument used today?

I believe this argument may still be around due to our slow changing society. After listening to Phil, I now understand how slow of process this is and that it will take our society a long time to move on from its past beliefs. Of course there will always be people who refuse to believe the evidence, but I hope that as time moves on, our society as a whole will continue to make great strides in protecting LGBT rights.

Julie Thurmes

Blog Post 3 (option 1)

I was very happy that both Steve and Jen came in to share their story with us. Steve sounds like a wonderful father. He talked about how he had a one night stand and later found out that the woman/ birth mother was pregnant and he did not want anything to do with it. Peterman (2011), “…they have never been or sought to be primary participants in the decisions about their children’s fate… they’re young or married to other women or they’re chicken…they defer or deny or flee because the can (152).” In Steve’s case he was young and not prepared to be a father. He expressed that he thought everything he was doing was the right thing. I can imagine that at that age you wouldn’t know what to do in this situation. “And society has insidiously reinforced their inclination to do so (152).” Steve said no one ever talked to him about his child or what he should do. Not even his parents or friends talked to him and offer just ask Steve what he is going through with his decision to place the child for adoption. Steve was alone.  I understand the ethics of being a responsible person but, how can his loved ones just sit back and do nothing? This clearly shows why Pertman brings up that birth fathers are unnoticed. 

In contrast to Jen’s side of the story, I thought it was very interesting. We have not read much about what adoptees experiences are like therefore, I was pleased to listen to Jen’s explanation. I think for Jen she says that she never wanted to know her birth parents and I think maybe this is typical for some adoptees to feel this way. Many times it is easier to avoid things to get past it. She obviously had an emotional stance with the thought of having any connection with Steve.  Even though Steve is her flesh and blood it doesn’t mean anything only that he is the biological father and another stranger to her. Which is why I was so surprised that they connected on the phone so well and then they met each other the very next day. I think that Jen had every right to see Steve and to decide how she wanted to bring Steve into her life. I loved how Steve constantly told the class to remember small moments because those are special moments. I think Steve feels very happy that his daughter who at first he wanted nothing to do with her, has taken the time to actually talk to him and include him to treat him like a human being. 

-Ka L.

Blog Post #3, Option #1-Julie Thurmes

Blog Post #3, Option #1

I found Jen and Steve’s story to be an incredible one. In our class we have talked about how adoption works and how people process adoption, but it was incredibly different to be hearing it in person from two people who had actually experienced it. They both supported and contradicted some of my beliefs about the introduction process of an adoptee to their birthparent.

One way in which my previous view of the reunion process was supported by the speakers was that the father, Steve, had a difficult time getting access to his daughter. This is in line with the articles on birthfathers’ perspectives that we had read for class. The article written by David Mendoza mirrored some of the same views and struggles that Steve had encountered, that birthfathers have almost no rights. David Mendoza stated “I basically pleaded with her [birthmother] to let me have the baby,” but he did not have that right as a birthfather and the decision to let his baby be adopted was up to the birthmother (David Mendoza, pg. 78). Though Steve decided to find his daughter later on in life, he still had to follow the birthmother’s wishes, as David had. Steve had to ask for permission to contact his daughter from many different people including the birthmother. Steve seemed frustrated with this process and I felt that I personally could better grasp that frustration when listening to him rather than simply reading about it. I found it very interesting that to this day birthfathers are still being treated in such a manner.

Though much of what was said fit my beliefs on birthfathers and adoptees, there were some surprises. In class we have read many case studies where things have gone terribly wrong during the adoption process that I was beginning to feel like a happy ending for all involved may be more rare than I had previously thought. Steve and Jen reassured me that, though there are some difficulties with reuniting, it can be a positive experience. I thought it was wonderful how easy it was for Jen and Steve to talk to each other and how comfortable they were with their relationship. At one point Steve said, “we are so comfortable, and I am thankful for that.” I think him saying this speaks volumes about the stigmas attached to this process, that such a relationship is considered rare.

 

Julie Thurmes