TEACHING CHILDREN ABOUT BRAVE NEW FAMILIES

 

 

 

Tricia Smith Vaughan
November 6, 2005
NewsWithViews.com

When my firstborn son was a baby, I took him to work with me—not just for show and tell, but every day. I procrastinated placing him in daycare for a few months until I finally decided to stay with him at home. But before I left the company, a younger co-worker came into my office one day and was ooh-ing and ah-ing over my son, telling me that he had my eyebrows and eyes. A proud new mother, I was revelling in her ooh-ing and ah-ing. Then she said something that surprised me: “I want to adopt a baby!” Like Angelina Jolie, who has stated that she has no desire to reproduce, the young woman in my office four years ago stated what is becoming a trendy thing: People would rather adopt than breed.

Having been separated from my natural family for over 34 years, I know how difficult even the best of adoptions can be on a child. Despite mainstream media’s propaganda to the contrary, the supply of children has not kept up with demand. Adoption lawyer Allan Hazlett claims that there are 30 to 40 couples waiting for each healthy newborn. No wonder mothers-to-be are being offered college scholarships to give away their baby. Despite these facts, many people think that the supply of babies is much higher than the demand. My former co-worker was under the impression that she would be helping the world more by adopting an infant than by having her own.

She is not alone in believing that the supply of newborns exceeds the demand. And the demand is increasing each year. My mother was told that she shouldn’t keep me because she wasn’t married. Things have changed, however, and now single people and homosexual couples adopt with ease, making the demand for healthy babies even higher. Now, we can add to the demand fertile young women who are able to reproduce but don’t want to.

When I was in high school, my friends and I wanted to find a mate and reproduce someday. That desire was certainly thwarted by the government school system and mainstream media, who told us that babies were a big pain and that we should avoid them as long as possible. Nevertheless, some of us managed to defy the odds; we reproduced anyway. I’m not sure what the government schools are teaching in sex education these days, but it must be making women think twice about reproducing at all. Many readers have written to me, telling me that they are not infertile but that they want to adopt instead of reproduce.

I do know that many media are teaching our children that we should adopt instead of procreate. Celebrities such as Jolie and Calista Flockhart parade around with their acquired children and the masses follow. The United Nations’ Agenda 21 followers must be thrilled at this voluntary attempt to decrease population.

Recently, I learned of a new way to promote adoption to children, the “Newborn Nursery.” This one has even advocates of adoption all riled up; advocates claim that this portrayal of adoption, in which a child picks a baby from a multitude of dolls in cradles, is all wrong. Adam Pertman, who makes big money from writing about his adoption of two children, and who often speaks for those of us who have been separated from our natural parents via adoption, states that the Newborn Nursery portrayal of adoption to young children is based on "antiquated, discredited perceptions" and is a far cry from modern adoption practices. Pertman claims that current adoption practices place more focus on the children and their natural parents. Let’s face it, if more attention were paid to children and natural parents, babies would be breastfed by their mom, as Moses was, before going to strangers.

In fact, I don’t see how the Newborn Nursery discredits the current adoption process at all. Sometimes those who want to adopt go through a picture book of children and pick the child they want. Other times, adopters pick a child from an Internet site. The adoption agency that separated me from my family has advertisements for “waiting children” in each issue of its newsletter. Just the other day I saw an Internet site in which people who want to adopt placed advertisements for themselves, asking a mother-to-be to consider them to raise her child. Maybe Pertman is quibbling about the difference between going through a book to select a child and selecting one via the Internet. I find the Newborn Nursery to be quite similar to today’s adoption practices.

As a reunited adoptee, I am absolutely thrilled that “The Adoption Experience,” as the Newborn Nursery calls it, is finally being shown as its ugly self. “Adopting is as easy as 1-2-3” notes the site. With such a rosy picture of adoption, why bother with nine months of pregnancy? The site itself even has a link where you can print a “Birth Certificate” for your adopted doll. The certificate lists the “adoptive parent” as having given birth, just as my own birth certificate does. It doesn’t say that the birth certificate is false, but neither does my own amended birth certificate. If the government can lie on its own documents, as the state of my birth does with my birth certificate, why can’t businesses do the same with plastic dolls? Just what is it that Mr. Pertman finds “antiquated” here? Even today, parents are falsified on the birth certificates of most adoptees in the U.S.

A “Recent Adoptions” link on the Newborn Nursery page shows lots of cute little girls with their recently adopted doll in arms. One of the doll adopters seems a bit older than the others, perhaps a bit too old to be playing with dolls, but then again, that merely reflects the recent trend among those over 50 to adopt or to hire a surrogate. One only need to check recent copies of traditionally family-oriented magazines to see Joan Lunden and her husband on the cover, proudly holding two infants that they hired someone to conceive and produce. See, young women? We’re just like men! We’re never too old to be fertile. Or at least to pretend to be.

And lest we think that it’s only the demand side of adoption that’s being prodded, a mother who lost her firstborn to adoption recently wrote about how troubled she was to hear a young college student say that if she became pregnant while going to college that she would gladly give her child to an infertile teacher of hers. Finishing college was deemed more important than keeping her child. Ads abound for mothers to give away their child; one reader sent me a copy of an advertisement from a couple trying to find a baby that was posted in a South Carolina retail store. Not only are women learning that we should adopt instead of reproduce, we are also believing that if a baby doesn’t come along at exactly the right time—as if there could ever be a baby who would do exactly that—that we should give the baby to someone else. The baby has become no longer our treasured progeny but instead, a gift that we may keep or give to someone else.

B. F. Skinner must be rolling over ecstatically in his grave at the Newborn Nursery and at the education of youth via U.S. government school sex education classes. Skinner’s ideal family, related in the book that describes his ideas of Utopia, Walden Two, would have fit in quite nicely with today’s adoption industry. Skinner and his behaviorist ilk thought little of the traditional family and sought to destroy it. Walden Two’s narrator, Frazier, explains Skinner’s plan quite nicely:

“A community must solve the problem of the family by revising certain established practices. That’s absolutely inevitable. The family is an ancient form of community, and the customs and habits which have been set up to perpetuate it are out of place in a society which isn’t based on blood ties” (p. 128). Indeed, Skinner’s utopian world had no respect for blood ties. Rather, it was based on the idea that every child belongs to every adult. Does this village sound familiar?

Skinner makes no bones about his plans: Skinner’s utopian community, Walden Two, “replaces the family, not only as an economic unit, but to some extent as a social and psychological unit as well. What survives is an experimental question” (p. 128). It may have been an experimental question in 1948, when Skinner’s book was first published, but it is no longer a question. With Skinner’s methods drilled into every government school student’s head via behaviorist strategies, we begin to see how antiquated familial blood ties are. Just the other day, on the award-winning PBS children’s show Sesame Street, I heard the following lyrics: “Any group of people, living together, loving each other, is doing the family thing.”

See? It’s all about loving each other. Family can be anyone who wants to be thrown together. Family no longer has to be about blood ties. Genealogy is, in fact, so unimportant, that we can lie on birth certificates. Of course, I’m not saying that a family shouldn’t love each other. We should and in fact, we used to much more than we do now. But true familial love and kinship began to be destroyed over 100 years ago by a government that still takes our children away and keeps them under its watchful eye all day.

Natural family loyalties acquiesce to the supposed greater good of separating family members from each other in artificial classrooms with parent replacements that we call teachers. The deference of familial ties to peer pressure in the early part of the twentieth century led to children’s becoming adults at a later age. Only since the early twentieth century have U.S. children remained in childhood until they reach 18 or 21. The first appearance of the word teenager in the English language was in 1941, according to the Oxford English Dictionary. Prior to that time, the people we now describe as terrible teens had adult responsibilities, and even young families, often before they reached 20.

John Taylor Gatto attributes this elongation of childhood to the government schools, an entity that not only separates family members but also makes it nearly impossible to be a responsible adult. Even though nature tells us to become adults much earlier, the government’s plan is to draw out our childhood, making us adults at a much later time. Now, many adults in their 20s and even older, struggle with responsibilities that adults of previous generations handled with relative ease.

Such social engineering has taken its toll on natural families. Young mothers-to-be have been told since World War II that finishing high school or college is more important than keeping their baby. Responsible young fathers are now often told that they are too young and while some have tried to fight for their child, the mother’s desire to give the child to strangers usually wins out in our court system.

With all the governmental and media pressures on our families, I’m sometimes amazed that any natural families still exist. With messages that would have seemed very strange to our ancestors, we are being told that we should have as much sex as possible but that we have all these supposed choices when it comes to bearing the consequences of having sex. In such a brave new world, it becomes easy to see why many women no longer want to reproduce, or, if they do reproduce, why they might want to give their child to someone else.

In the United Nations globalist world that awaits us, having lots of sex is very important, but having the blood ties of a natural family is not. Promoting adoption and surrogate pregnancies via the Newborn Nursery is merely one step that our society is taking to reach the top of Skinner’s global pyramid. Skinner’s ideal is a place where children are attached to no one family but are the property of everyone. Teaching our children to adopt rather than to have their own children leads us toward a utopian world indeed, one in which family will never be the same.

References:

1, Deliberatedumbingdown.com
2, John Taylor Gatto
3, Exile d Mothers
4, New Born Nursery
5, Seattlepi.com
6, Daily Texan on Line
7, American Adoptions

© 2005 Tricia S. Vaughan - All Rights Reserved