tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5210353425616744235.post5654347144156473566..comments2023-04-13T02:42:31.179-07:00Comments on And other ideas and thoughts ....: "Adoptees Using DNA to Find Family" My ReviewCampbellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13600505149020853906noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5210353425616744235.post-38556260583280335322014-04-28T11:58:14.868-07:002014-04-28T11:58:14.868-07:00It's so naive to think that adoptees search ju...It's so naive to think that adoptees search just for the birthparents. We want to know grand-parents, siblings, aunts, uncles, cousins, the whole crew. Adoption didn't just cost us our birth mother. It cost us our whole tribe.Lionesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08248105912379321811noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5210353425616744235.post-7384797945818182352012-02-29T07:13:58.140-08:002012-02-29T07:13:58.140-08:00A certain blogger thinks this thread is directed a...A certain blogger thinks this thread is directed at her. That's too bad. The comments that took issue with Jean were directed at her specific words, e.g., "Ivy League education". And it was all pretty respectful too. Also, I agreed with some of Jean's points and thought she presented them well. <br /><br />Am still a bit taken aback by the Pandora's Box issue. This phrase has been used so many times by adoptees and first parents to represent all of the stuff "that can fly out at you," to use one writer's words, when questions start to be asked and reunions begin unfold. Here are just a couple of instances: <br /><br />http://splitfeathers.blogspot.com/2011/01/pandoras-box-opening-adoption-stages-of.html<br /><br />http://forums.adoption.com/open-adoptions/189741-pandoras-box.html<br /><br />http://forums.adoption.com/search-reunion-stories/332839-can-pandoras-box-closed-advice.html<br /><br />I don't think Leighton meant anything by that phrase other than it's extremely complicated and there may be issues to deal with on all sides that no one anticipated. That should not obviate an adoptee's right to information or birth certificate.AllAboutMePart3noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5210353425616744235.post-60690189088734872522012-02-10T04:37:03.312-08:002012-02-10T04:37:03.312-08:00The last thing to fly out of Pandora's Box in ...The last thing to fly out of Pandora's Box in the original myth was Hope. It was meant to comfort the no longer innocent world into which all the stinging evils had been released. Adoptee and poet Penny Callan Partridge has even written a book of adoption poems entitled "Pandora's Hope".<br />So Pandora's Box is indeed a dangerous thing, but also a source of hope and promise.Amaranthnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5210353425616744235.post-17754620701831451182012-02-09T18:41:49.752-08:002012-02-09T18:41:49.752-08:00"Opening a Pandora's box means to unleash..."Opening a Pandora's box means to unleash evil."<br /><br />Anon, I don't think so. I think it means to unleash knowledge--a pagan theme which was transmuted into the Christian story of the tree of the forbidden fruit, aka the tree of knowledge. Even for Christians, the Garden of Eden incident is not all bad. It means the end of innocence, but love and relating are not only possible with new knowledge but also the whole purpose of living. Seriously, who would want to live in a state of "innocence" their whole life? <br /><br />Knowledge is always dangerous, and always essential. There is no way to remove the danger.FancyDrawersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5210353425616744235.post-7452472082263688332012-02-09T16:36:16.339-08:002012-02-09T16:36:16.339-08:00Pandora's box is frequently used as a metaphor...Pandora's box is frequently used as a metaphor for unanticipated consequences, particularly in the fields of scientific and technological development. <br />I have no doubt that is how Dr. Leighton meant it. <br /><br />BTW, not everyone who goes to an "Ivy League" university is raised with a silver spoon in their mouths. <br />Some actually get there by merit alone.<br /><br />Enough already.Whoevernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5210353425616744235.post-64871235132609040042012-02-09T14:06:22.735-08:002012-02-09T14:06:22.735-08:00Jean,
I hadn't thought about DNA being include...Jean,<br />I hadn't thought about DNA being included in property rights. Very interesting argument! I love it. Another thing about Locke was that he was a believer in Tabla Rasa, or that we are a blank slate at birth. This theory is the foundation to the concept of equal rights. Kings and nobles have the same rights as those of common birth. Blank Slate negates the importance of DNA to some extent. But the idea that DNA is propery makes it fit together better.Meganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01386268512599829234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5210353425616744235.post-79516863379680719562012-02-09T13:25:45.029-08:002012-02-09T13:25:45.029-08:00Personally I don't think I, as an adoptee, sho...Personally I don't think I, as an adoptee, should have to place the concerns of others above my own, just that I should consider the concerns of others.<br /><br />Other adoptees are free to do what they think they should do when it comes to concerns of others.Campbellhttp://campbellscoup.blogger.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5210353425616744235.post-77769982313466766842012-02-09T13:07:32.630-08:002012-02-09T13:07:32.630-08:00Opening a Pandora's box means to unleash evil....Opening a Pandora's box means to unleash evil. Do you really think that having one's offspring recognized is evil? Sounds as if the culture of reproductive shame is thriving here.<br /><br />Forewarned? Don't you think we were all forewarned when we grew up not knowing where in the heck we came from? I didn't need Leighton to explain that some folks might be surprised I exist. I've never met an adoptee who thought they were relinquished because their birth was met with a chorus of "Hallelujah!" Nonetheless, I never felt as if I should consider myself an embarrassment to my mother. I certainly never felt as if my finding her would be the equivalent of unleashing evil upon her. <br /><br />I agree, there are ethical concerns here, but my ethical concerns are apparently in stark contrast to yours. Even though I know my ethical concerns will again be ignored, I still take it back to the beginning when an infant is surrendered and automatically stripped of his or her identity. That is the root of the ethical dilemma. It's wrong. It should be illegal. <br /><br />Unfortunately, Leighton chooses to lament over, "the definition of family and the definition of health as being so determined by genetics." Just what does she think a family is? "And as we know, family is a product of relationships and law." Law? Really? I'm sorry, but I didn't get pregnant by reading the administrative code. What in the world is ethical about ignoring the fact that families are, indeed, a collective of genetically similar individuals and that the law is not a powerful enough force to eradicate family ties? Our genes are proof of this.<br /><br />Leighton certainly could have broached some profound ethical issues. She chose instead to pile all the responsibility for the insanity generated by closed adoption squarely upon the head of the adoptee. Despite the complete lack of ethics in adoption, we must now place the concerns of others above our own needs. Let us call that ethics. <br /><br />I'll pass.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5210353425616744235.post-10821325552342785312012-02-09T11:43:05.596-08:002012-02-09T11:43:05.596-08:00Oh, and I also think that searching has the potent...Oh, and I also think that searching has the potential to open "up Pandora's boxes of other people's lives" and that it's not the same as just simply doing a genealogy like regular folks. Although, I imagine regular folks can also open up some pretty nasty boxes when doing genealogy, it's just not as likely.<br /><br />Forewarned is forearmed.Campbellhttp://campbellscoup.blogger.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5210353425616744235.post-83880892684939801902012-02-09T11:34:45.336-08:002012-02-09T11:34:45.336-08:00I've searched and found and believe there are ...I've searched and found and believe there are ethical considerations in searching. I don't get what's so wrong with this belief.Campbellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13600505149020853906noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5210353425616744235.post-19657473533244202762012-02-09T08:42:06.418-08:002012-02-09T08:42:06.418-08:00Leighton's "theories" automatically ...Leighton's "theories" automatically throw everyone who was adopted into the same second-class bin. I am an adoptee. I found my parents in 1987. Yet, according to her, I'm unleashing evil (opening a Pandora's Box) by engaging in genetic genealogy. I find her remarks more than a little offensive. <br /><br />She has an Ivy League education, yet she quickly stereotypes and is not afraid to make blanket statements regarding persons who were adopted. She did question the ethics of adoptees making contact with distant family members. She made the statement that family is defined by LAW. Is it ethical to suggest we should consider our own existence scandalous and therefore remain in the closet when it comes to bio family members? She has an agenda. It would be wonderful if you could ask her just exactly what that agenda is.<br /><br />JeanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5210353425616744235.post-63048930880348696492012-02-09T02:25:59.484-08:002012-02-09T02:25:59.484-08:00Shill? An unsubstantiated allegation made by an an...Shill? An unsubstantiated allegation made by an anonymous commentator. One for the trash bin. <br />CIs have nothing to do with this particular issue.RestoreOBCsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5210353425616744235.post-62397878166578739852012-02-08T19:28:25.641-08:002012-02-08T19:28:25.641-08:00Leighton's a theorist. Her interest in this is...Leighton's a theorist. Her interest in this issue is about the boundaries of family-making and the ethics of choice. She hasn't offered any opinion on your right to investigate your own DNA or, as far as I can tell, your right to your OBC. It would be interesting to see what she does say about those things.SomeoneNeedsToTakeHerMedsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5210353425616744235.post-2989534526516395522012-02-08T12:06:29.646-08:002012-02-08T12:06:29.646-08:00I do...choose to believe Leighton isn't acting...I do...choose to believe Leighton isn't acting as a shill. So far there's been nothing I've seen to indicate anything different.<br /><br />I think it does very little good to ignore ethics in searching and dismiss select groups of parents who want anonymity in the fight for open records. Pretending something doesn't exist doesn't make it so.<br /><br />If I ever get the chance I'll ask Ms Leighton about regulation of genetic genealogy. I imagine you're not including regulation like we have here in Canada that now prohibits anonymity of donors. You're not against all regulation in genetic genealogy, are you? Just regulation that would prohibit adopted people from obtaining their own DNA and using it to search.Campbellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13600505149020853906noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5210353425616744235.post-28249334852264849912012-02-08T10:48:48.421-08:002012-02-08T10:48:48.421-08:00@Campbell,
Well, if you choose to believe that Le...@Campbell,<br /><br />Well, if you choose to believe that Leighton wasn't acting as a shill for the all too familiar cabal of interest groups who wish to promote confidential intermediaries with the force of law, feel free. We can debate the ethics of searching until the cows come home, but it does little good without first debating the ethics of government forcing a child to develop without the knowledge of his or her origins. So long as people attempt to justify the authority of government to grant a select group of parents the "right" to anonymity from their own offspring, adoptees will continue to be treated as inferior citizens. That treatment may very well result in the regulation of genetic genealogy. Ms Leighton certainly didn't advocate against that possibility.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5210353425616744235.post-25968315675580697822012-02-08T08:28:56.956-08:002012-02-08T08:28:56.956-08:00As for the matter of privacy which, in the case of...As for the matter of privacy which, in the case of adoption, is not so much privacy as anonymity, this and all other rights is rooted in self-ownership. Because we each own our own body, we also own the fruits of our labor. That includes ownership of our actions and decisions. We do have the right to keep some of those actions and decisions private. However, when the fruit of our labor is another human being, we do not maintain the right of ownership. If we did, no one would ever be able to do anything without parental permission. <br /><br />At the age of majority (18 or 21), each individual becomes a political equal to his or her parents. Even before then, people do not have the right to keep their offspring hidden. That's not part of the right to privacy. <br /><br />My right to throw my fist ends where your nose begins. The same is true with conflicting rights between parents and offspring. A parent's right to privacy does NOT supersede the right of his or her adult offspring to achieve political equality. In other words, no one has the right to treat another person as nothing more than their own dirty, little secret. <br /><br />With rights comes responsibility. People have the right to reproduce. They do not have the right to produce political slaves. In fact, according to Locke, parents have a duty toward children. Signing a piece of paper then anonymously walking away forever is NOT a fulfillment of that duty.<br /><br />JeanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5210353425616744235.post-81686235236789641552012-02-08T08:28:33.899-08:002012-02-08T08:28:33.899-08:00Interesting. Thanks all.
I just want to clarify t...Interesting. Thanks all.<br /><br />I just want to clarify that nobody has said adult adoptees don't have the right to use their own DNA to discover origins and identity and if they did, I wouldn't support that.Campbellhttp://campbellscoup.blogger.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5210353425616744235.post-12570911455588447592012-02-08T07:53:35.168-08:002012-02-08T07:53:35.168-08:00Sorry I found this late.
Megan says: "Accor...Sorry I found this late.<br /><br />Megan says: "According to the theories of philosopher John Locke, which had great influence in the structuring of the US Constitution, people have a "natural right" to life, liberty and property. Knowing one's bio parentage is not a natural right/human right. Is someone's right to privacy a natural right? Possibly."<br /><br />Really? Natural rights are founded upon property rights. The basis of this is the principle that we own our own bodies. DNA testing is the perfect proof of our natural right to know our own identity. I own that DNA that I had tested. I can do with it as I please. Furthermore, according to Locke, the government exists as a social contract. In an effort to establish justice and promote peace, individuals transfer their individual executive authority to a collective known as government. The legitimacy of government is confined to its equitable exercise of this executive power. <br /><br />In other words, the government is responsible to protect the rights of the individual, and those rights are rooted in self-ownership. The minute anyone claims adult adoptees do not have the right to use our own DNA to coordinate with other willing individuals to discover our origins and identity, a cause contrary to Liberty and Natural Rights is being advocated.<br /><br />JeanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5210353425616744235.post-77139573524107839122012-02-05T20:01:07.552-08:002012-02-05T20:01:07.552-08:00Fruit of the Loon, thanks. There are no "sho...Fruit of the Loon, thanks. There are no "shoulds" when we're talking about how people in adoption reunion feel. I think it is the expectations that get us into trouble. Leighton addresses the issue of expectations in the radio interview.Meganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01386268512599829234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5210353425616744235.post-39923349305619921702012-02-05T11:26:22.107-08:002012-02-05T11:26:22.107-08:00"I think that he just doesn't feel anythi..."I think that he just doesn't feel anything familial for me. I don't think he's in denial."<br /><br />I think we ALL really have to wrap our heads around this one and accept that this is one way to feel. It is not a right way or a wrong way, but some people's way. "I do not feel anything familial for you" may be unacceptable to some people but it does not amount to "denial" or "fog" and as a reponse to an inquiry, it must be accepted for what it is unless you truly intend to force that parent (or adult child) to capitulate emotionally. Not the greatest ground upon which to start a relationship.FruitOfTheLoonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5210353425616744235.post-5341317532940590552012-02-04T11:12:20.714-08:002012-02-04T11:12:20.714-08:00I don't see how the "implied privacy"...I don't see how the "implied privacy" argument can carry weight unless there is evidence that the implication has been heard and understood. <br />For instance, I can imply a thing to you, but if you don't pick up on the implication it doesn't really amount to anything at all. No connection has been made. A tacit agreement can't be proven.<br /><br />My interpretation is that given the nature of the times, it was considered to be so shameful that an assumption was made on the mother's behalf. So that effectively, it was imposed rather than implied.Whoevernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5210353425616744235.post-73760616813140553892012-02-04T10:47:30.180-08:002012-02-04T10:47:30.180-08:00I just want to say thanks for the DNA testing guid...I just want to say thanks for the DNA testing guide link. I went there and am looking forward to becoming better educated in this area. I'd like to know more about my ancestry and am planning to get some testing done in the not too distant future. This is all so cool.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5210353425616744235.post-55194536457862716042012-02-04T08:37:46.641-08:002012-02-04T08:37:46.641-08:00Campbell, thank you for articulating so well the c...Campbell, thank you for articulating so well the concern of birth parent privacy. I won't try to speak for birth parents, but i can tell you what my birth father told me about privacy. The first time I contacted him, he was married with two teenage daughters at home and had a busy law practice in a small town. "I'm not your real father. Your real father was the one that raised you," he said. He was kind enough to write a letter to give me some information, but did not want a relationship with me. He developed an expectation at the time I was relinquished that I was gone forever, and he has not regretted it. I have to respect that. Years later he did consent to meet me. I tried to correspond with him after that, but he eventually stopped responding. He has a very structured routine, which allows him to functon whilst maintaining his steady state of alcoholism. <br /><br />I think that he just doesn't feel anything familial for me. I don't think he's in denial. I think he also doesn't want to be reminded about his 2-year relationship with my birth mother. I was a break-up baby, conceived after they were officially "through." But I don't want to speak for him.<br /><br />He is now in his late 70's. He's not going to change, most likely.Meganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01386268512599829234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5210353425616744235.post-46058119908697036552012-02-02T17:02:38.265-08:002012-02-02T17:02:38.265-08:00Thanks Whoever
Obviously I am not on page with &q...Thanks Whoever<br /><br />Obviously I am not on page with "so what?" when it comes to birthmothers having been given an implied promise of confidentiality but Maryanne, just like everyone else, is entitled to her point of view. Most people don't agree on every thing in life : ) <br /><br />I think it's a very big deal and influences mothers'/ parents' actions when it comes to how they conduct themselves after adoption and as a result how they react in reunion and/or react to, what they perceive as, the threat of open records.<br /><br />Hah...it would be nice if a parent who wants anonymity, fears open records, and believed they'd never be found is reading here could find the courage to speak up and comment. If I could I would ask my bio mother to write us all a little something to try and help people understand (believe) people like her exist but I can't see that ever happening.<br /><br />If you're an anonymous parent and reading here feel free to comment anonymously about the subject. I guarantee your privacy here.Campbellhttp://campbellscoup.blogger.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5210353425616744235.post-55202573176140388302012-02-02T13:29:37.097-08:002012-02-02T13:29:37.097-08:00Agreeing with those who have pointed out that rest...Agreeing with those who have pointed out that restoring OBCs and records to all adoptees would make the 'searching backwards' scenario redundant in the vast number of cases.<br /> <br />Whether promises of confidentiality were given to surrendering mothers remains a matter of dispute. B.J Lifton in her afterword to "Lost and found: the adoption experience" writes that the word "implied" was added because "there is nothing to attest to such a promise". And even if a promise CAN be tacitly inferred, bad laws are meant to be broken. It is a matter of recognizing and correcting the injustice of denying adopted people the same civil right as the non-adopted. Access one's personal and bio-familial history is not a privilege. It is a right.<br /> <br />As Maryanne Cohen wrote in "Confessions of a weepy birthmother' more than ten years ago, " If birthmothers really did have an implied promise of confidentiality--so what? White bigots had an implied promise they would never have to eat lunch next to an African-American in the pre-civil rights south: it was written into the law. But once that law was seen to be a violation of civil rights, that which anyone had wanted or expected before, went out the window, and a lot of fine southern ladies and gentlemen were real uncomfortable!"Whoevernoreply@blogger.com