You ask a lot of questions, Spy, but it shows a willingness to accept that things are not always as we'd like them to be. I will answer each point to the best of my ability.
I am, indeed, saying SOME couples have done exactly that.
I agree. It doesn't add up. However, think of the kudos. SUCH generous parents. All the money they've spent on that child.
A live in carer would be a stranger. A grown-up child would have been 'trained' and controlled to do the parents'.
bidding without question.
They would, of course, deny it, but "a slave" is exactly what they want, or at least, unquestioning slave-like devotion and gratitude which they believe is their right. Most people love their children and animals alike. I believe animals can be a substitute for children. I have witnessed some, who need to have control, who love their animals more than their children because animals -dogs more than cats- obey commands. For these people, it probably won't be any different it the child in question is adopted or biological. It's about the parent's inability to love unconditionally.
No, I'm not forgetting that now, because there's no longer a stigma attached to being a single parent, there are fewer babies available for adoption. This means that older children are likely to bring a whole life's worth of baggage with them that no child should have. At the very least there will be trust issues. It takes true love, devotion and patience to help them through it to a place where they feel safe. But, there's always the separation issue. A baby spends 9 months in it's mother's w..b. It hears her voice. It's senses her moods. It's widely known that by six weeks old, a baby reacts to it's mother's voice, the sound of her approaching, her smell and her touch. Remove the safety of everything which is "mother" to a helpless child and we're left with a child experiencing fear. I haven't touched on rejection, but however much an adopted child might be assured that "mummy really wanted to keep you but she couldn't", the hard fact remains that mummy made the choice -the reasons, to a child, won't be understood- to give her child away.
One would hope that adoption was no more complicated than childless people with love to give can be put together with a motherless child who need a home and everyone lives happily ever after. Sadly, it can prove to be a minefield. One desperate mother shared with me that she'd had to disown her adopted daughter, because having spent thousands on her education and supporting her through university, she'd been persuaded by her biological family, that she'd be happier working in a supermarket. Such proved to be the case. This child had been 'rescued' from a family who'd survived on their wits and benefits for generations, and placed with a professional family who had huge expectations of her -it COULD have been a golden opportunity- but she preferred the warmth and acceptance she felt within her biological family. Such was the adoptive mother's determination that her's was the right path for her daughter, there was never going to be a happy resolution. How similar is this case to that of the Bamber's...................and, indeed, my own?
I can only go by my experience and knowledge, and I’ve never come across ANY couples who decide to adopt so that in 40 odd years time their child will look after them in their old age.
You’re suggesting these parents are selfish, possibly lazy, only thinking of themselves when they get older — so decide to have all the trials and tribulations raising a family brings to everyone (adopted or not); the huge expense; lack of freedom etc...when none of us can read into the future; have no idea if we’ll die before our time; no idea if our children decide to emigrate; no idea about how our futures will turn out, but decide to adopt a child as a form of insurance that if we’re lucky enough to get old we’ll have them at our beck and call.
I’m afraid that doesn’t make sense to me.
And whilst it’s true that we’re all genetically wired to want our own flesh and blood, that doesn’t mean we’re incapable of loving.
We love our pets, don’t we?
We love our spouses.
We love our close friends.
We’re not biologically related but we still love them.
Some parents adopt children when they already have their own. Some parents adore children and want to give less fortunate children a warm, loving home. Look at Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt: they’ve adopted three children and have three biological children too. Although no-one knows, going by what you read and see in the pictures, those adopted children always look happy, appear secure, and are obviously loved. I’m sure Angeline and Brad didn’t adopt them so they could care for them when they get old!
You’re also forgetting that not all adopted children are just “given away” by an unloving mother. Some mothers are forced to if they’re young teenagers. Some are forced to if they’re unfit. Just because a child has been adopted it doesn’t mean the mother wasn’t heartbroken and fought to keep them.
And take orphans. If they tragically lose their parents and a loving couple adopt them, does that mean they won’t bond and love each other because their biological parents are dead? Even animals: dogs, birds, apes etc will adopt an orphaned pup, or even steal one at times.
I agree it must play on a child’s mind why they were adopted, which is why most parents keep it from them until they’re old enough to understand. It’s terribly sad that any child should have to be adopted, and thankfully, in this day and age with contraception etc, there’s fewer babies needing homes.
I certainly believe it’s far better for a child to be adopted by a warm, stable family rather than being brought up by neglectful parents who are alcoholics, abusive, drug addicted and living on sink estates. Likewise, I think anything is better than for a child being brought up in a children’s home where they’re often subjected to abuse, bullying and have no-one at all who’s close to them and cares.
