There appears to be something in the North American
psyche that inspires dysfunctional families to proactively get
themselves onto national television shows where they bare their
most painful issues for the titillation of the general and widespread
public. I think its called reality TV. One of these programs is
hosted by a middle aged balding man who offers himself up as "Dr
Phil", as a kind of Mr. Fixit on the altar of American naivety.
He's a bit of a bully but he has inspired at least
one adopter to pray for him through the virtual notice board attached
to his Television program website. That is so sweet. And the prayer
was inspired by the potential adoptability of a baby still inside
his mother Alexandra, a young expectant mother taking part in
the show, in her role as daughter in a very public parental dispute.
I suppose it could be considered that the baby was
appearing on the show in his own right, although there could be
legal debate around the issue of whether or not he was in a position
to give informed consent for his life to be bandied around in
the way it was. Or his mother subjected to the disgusting and
constant hammering to offer him up for adoption by the very public
spirited Dr Phil.
This little soap opera, that dragged on for several
revolting episodes had a polling facility attached. Each session
ran a separate poll to help the public express their view on whether
or not Alexandra should adopt her baby. Yes, it was as gross,
as brutal, and as unsubtle as that. "Should Alexandra keep
her baby" or Should Alexandra adopt her baby". The polls
results were amazing but not for the reason I expected. What actually
happened is that the large majority of many thousands of voters
believed Alexandra should keep her baby!
However, in spite of the fact the polls showed quite
clearly that the huge majority of viewers thought Alexandra should
raise her own child, Dr Phil subsequently produced no less than
three sets of pre-adopters for Alexander to consider as future
'parents' for her child. This also in spite of the fact that Alexandra
had not once indicated an interest in adoption as a 'solution'
for the so-called 'problem' of her child. This blatant coercion
of Alexandra's personal and legal rights is astonishing. The way
in which many Americans still believe they have the right to stomp
all over the civil rights of expectant mothers is astounding.
What on earth is going on over there? Hello! The statue of liberty!
The constitution! Hello! Are you there?
This show illustrated succinctly how many American
minds work in relation to forced adoption. The good citizen, personified
in the form of the good Dr. Phil, believes that they have every
right to bully, to cajole the young mother to surrender her child
for some romantic idea of a greater good. As if the good doctor
is really that naïve. Yeah, right! The pro-adoption lobby
is driven by greed, the desire to save tax dollars. It's not about
romantic childlessness at all. That is just the public facade.
Adoption is a financial scam.
While the façade of a 'greater good' is usually
focused around the emotional instability of a childless couple,
whose remedy for their empty lives is someone else's child, this
greater good is actually a right wing plot to save tax dollars
that would otherwise be directed towards assisting young single
mothers to raise their children. It might be tax dollars invested
in day care subsidies to enable single mothers to work. Politicians
favor adoption because it is the cheap option. They dump it when
their constituents let them know their choice is inhumane. It's
time your politicians heard from you.
For when the emotional arguments of the pro-adoption
'debate' clear, that is really the only issue left. It's actually
about money, about the state having to assist mothers to raise
children. It's also about child support, something a lot of right
wing men are not too keen on when it is them who must be paying.
I for one don't feel sorry for all those people
who joined their lives together and now find they have infertility
issues. Alexandra may have many problems ahead of her as she begins
the courageous, joyful and challenging task of raising her child,
but the infertility of strangers is not one of them. What drives
Dr Phil to make him believe it is her problem, or that it should
be her problem? Didn't Bush recently give a generous tax rebate
to upper income families, while cutting aid to poorer families?
That will be the dollars from the day care subsidy that Alexandra
may not now have access to. Is Dr Phil helping the economy, and
therefore himself?
It is a system that rewards the wealthy and castigates
the poor for their subjugation. I suspect Dr Phil is not short
of a few dollars. If he can force Alexandra and other young mothers
to surrender their babies, eventually he could pay a bit less
tax.
But Western countries that support single mothers
financially show a trend over time for mothers on income maintenance
because of dependant children, to not need that income beyond
a five year period. Single mothers work. They also study and train,
and educate themselves towards a better life. Time passes. Young
single mothers grow up. Statistics show most single mothers do
not stay single for long. They either marry or form less formal
but permanent relationships into which their first child is absorbed.
Single motherhood has been shown to be a temporary state for the
vast majority of women raising a child alone.
It makes you wonder what all the fuss is about,
doesn't it. The hysteria and the hype that surrounds the mothers
'decision' to raise her own child is based on a presumption she
must have made a 'decision' to keep her baby. Why is that, I wonder?
What mental gymnastic of brain cell makes the illogical leap from
single pregnancy to 'you therefore do not want this baby' scenario.
It is widely assumed that expectant single mothers automatically
consider adoption. What nonsense. It is always instigated by what
someone else wants for them, and the desire for adoption is invariably
driven by the almighty dollar. It's mind association. Baby. Defenceless
mother. Money. Profit. Greed.
A big issue driving the hysteria around pro-adopters
is the huge amounts of money that the adoption industry would
lose if Alexandra and others like her do not contemplate adoption
and do not proceed with one in spite of all the pressure. Private
enterprise takes a big hit whenever a mother refuses to take part
in the formal abandonment of her newborn. HWI's (healthy white
infants) are estimated to be worth between $US 100,000 and $US
250,000. Each. That's a lot of potential profit down the drain.
Add the savings to society from not supporting the mother and
child into a life of independence, and the saving is even greater.
Another issue that drives adoption is the publicized
emotional garbage around the issue of infertility, with self-pity
the main motive in the drive to purchase the children of vulnerable
mothers. There are many people unable to conceive but the facade
of infertility is not as romantic as it first appears. There are
many preventable causes of infertility with the main one being
sexually transmitted disease, commonly known as STD. While it
may be unfortunate that women who have recklessly damaged their
own reproductive plumbing are no longer fertile as a result, their
infertility in no way entitles them to force a single mother to
give up her child to them. It's their problem. And it's not romantic.
What all this has to do with Alexandra is - absolutely
nothing. Her baby should not be considered as the panacea with
the potential to fix the financial woes of a wallowing capitalism,
and it is certainly not Alexandra's problem that three sets of
strangers dredged up by the good Dr Phil have apparent fertility
problems that prevent them from having children. Her infant could
care less about that too even if he is worth up to a quarter of
a million dollars on the legal baby market sanctioned by the United
States government. Legal adoption in the United States is a disgrace.
It must be stopped.
If Americans need to save tax dollars they could
stop making wars on other countries. They don't need to use sly,
manipulative and dishonest methods to convince a young mother
by damaging her confidence that she is unfit to parent her unborn
child. What ugly emotion drives that kind of abusive behavior,
one can only imagine. Apart from the money, that is. Perhaps the
good Dr Phil could enlighten us. He could do a show on the topic
of greed.
The adoption industry is an ugly industry. It uses
ugly means to force vulnerable young women into a form of reproductive
slavery for themselves and their child. When Dr Phil attempted
to force Alexandra through verbal bullying to allow him to reassign
her unborn infant to new owners, he inadvertently joined this
slave trade in not yet born human beings.
But the warm fuzzies must go to the American public
who watched Alexandra struggle against the tide of forced adoption
on Dr Phil's show, and came in wholeheartedly with their votes
to support her right to raise her own child. When they voted 'Alexandra
should keep her baby' they were telling all young mothers that
a huge chunk of the American public supports the right of young
mothers to parent their own children. It just goes to show that
the vocal pro-adoption lobby must have more political clout than
actual weight in numbers and that most Americans, the quiet majority,
no longer approve of young mothers being forced to adopt.
Politicians please take note.
