|
 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.
Voices
From Exile November 2003 "Alexandra's Baby Not For Sale "
Copyright © 2003 Joss Shawyer
|
