My brain hurts this morning. We talk about the advances that have been made in thought and process. We talk about the continuous changes that we want to make within the adoption system so that things are done in an ethical manner that protects the rights of all involved. We don't want women who can parent their child(ren) to be unnecessarily separated. And then some moron like this comes and takes a tragic case and turns it into a platform for mothers to place their babies.

The film-critic turned sudden adoption expert is now arguing that Jessie Davis, recently slain expectant mother awaiting the birth of her second child, should have placed the first child she had with the alleged murderer for adoption. As he's a film critic, I'm assuming that his sudden adoption expertise is based on Lifetime movies and thus has absolutely no basis in reality. His "solution" is too simplistic for the complexities that surround adoption in whole or in part. To quote:

The more tender, loving, unselfish and, ultimately, more motherly decision would have been to place the child in a two parent home with vastly better odds of achieving happiness and success.

No mention of the fact that adoptees can suffer from any number of emotional traumas due to the separation from their biological mother. Whether or not you want to believe the theories behind the Primal Wound, adoptees speak out everyday against the system that removed them from mothers and fathers that could have parented them simply because they were "illegitimate," which is how the film critic is referring to the child in question. (Is this 1950? Where is the evidence of this progress we have made?)

Furthermore, no mention is made that two parent adoptive homes are not protected against things like financial disturbances, sudden death or divorce. There is no guarantee that a child placed at birth into a two parent home will graduate high school from a two parent home. Adoptive families are in no way immune to the ups and downs of life. Beyond that, Mr. Adoption Know-it-All is forgetting the many single adoptive parents that raise children adopted domestically, internationally and from foster care. Should we be telling them to give up the rights to their children and hand them over to the neighbors? So many questions left unanswered by this guy.

Beyond that, trying to correlate this tragedy with the single parenting issue and then tie it to the adoption versus abortion issue is a big stretch of the imagination. May I remind you that Laci Peterson was killed by her husband, not a lover. May I also remind you that the murderer in question acted above and beyond the law. Instead of walking away, he took matters into his own hands. We will never know if Jessie Davis would have raised an amazing son and daughter. In fact, we'll never meet that daughter.

Before I end, I must remind you that the placement of a child is no guarantee that the mother will "survive" either. In the case of Cindy Jordan, a set of unethical adoptive parents and the other grief and loss that are associated with the placement of a child lead to her ultimate demise in the form of suicide. One form of death does not justify another.

Adoption is not the answer to stopping murder. Single parents can and do succeed if given the proper support and, you know, chance to live, breathe and function. In short, Jessie Davis is dead because someone else decided to take her life. Not because some film critic thinks that she should have placed that baby for adoption. Not because some sudden adoption expert thinks he knows the ins and out of placing a child. Not because there are those spouting how it's her fault because she should have kept her legs closed. (Note: it takes two, folks. Where is the father's blame in that rant? No where. It's always, always the woman's fault, even in this millenium.)

I'm disgusted. I'm appalled. And I'm willing to bet I'm not the only one. (Take Nikki Jo's two recent posts for full example.)

//
For more on poorly written articles concerning adoption, read:

1. Article on Adoption Subtly Coerces Mother.

2. Another Newspaper Article Misses the Mark.

3. More Negative Adoption Speak in the Meida.


//
Article reference.