[SKL]

Originally Posted by adoptnky

Cindy got a message from the minister of health, "wanting to see me and the babies. I went, and there were all these men talking to each other while I sat with two infants, not understanding a word. Finally one said, 'We can do surgery on this child.' But they had no intention of helping her, and I had to make a plane, so I just slammed my fist on the table, shouting: 'Then do it! What are you waiting for?' They were so stunned, he immediately signed the papers. I don't know where I got the nerve. I could've been arrested."

I think I just fell in love with Cindy McCain.

[Waiting4Celeste]

OK... guys.... hold on a minute...

Don't I recall people on this EXACT forum complaining and pleading that people just leave us alone about our (adopted) kids???

And now people are complaining that there isn't ENOUGH information about a politician's (adopted) daughter??

I would imagine that the McCains feel about Bridget like we do about OUR kids... that she is their daughter, regardless of how she came to them.

Each country is different, as is each situation. Why are we so stuck on HOW she was adopted??

I feel like we are providing yet another double standard:
leave me and my kids alone, but give us ALL the information about John & Cindy McCain and THEIR adoption. It isn't ANY of our business how she came to be their daughter, just like it isn't the business of the Wal-Mart cashier or the nosy stranger of how OUR children came into our families.

Let's not make this a political issue - or assume that they pulled strings to bring their daughter home. I have heard of situations where a child's life was in danger and the adoption was expedited. Perhaps this is what happened with her adoption. I don't know, but I won't allow myself to assume how this situation played out. Praise God that Mrs. McCain walked into that orphanage, saw children who needed help and did something about it!!

I KNOW that being in the political eye means that their lives will be scrutinized, but shouldn't those of us who are adoptive parents understand the most how frustrating it can be to be grilled over how their children came into their family?

Sorry to stir the pot, so to speak, but I was just reading this thread and it just reallllly started bothering me.

[HopeandaPrayer]

Cindy, I agree with you 100%!

Terri

[michelemk]

I read an article somewhere where Cindy McCain was interviewed and she said that she and John McCain had made a real effort to try to keep their kids out of the spotlight, especially Bridget because she was the youngest. Apparently they were both extremely hurt when the rumors were spread in 2000(possibly by the Bush camp) that she was his illegitimate child. This is one of the main reasons that McCain and Bush have had a not-so-great relationship, to put it lightly.
She also said that they fear for their sons especially, who are serving in the military...that they might be targets because of who their father is. In an interview in Time recently, the reporter asked some sort of question about their sons serving in the military, and he responded "I'm not discussing them."

My guess about the whole adoption thing...as far as Cindy just saying she brought Bridget home and asked John if he wanted to adopt her and he said "yes" and then they did it....this seems easier than trying to explain to a reporter the craziness of adoption paperwork and processes that all of us have come to understand.

Michele

[GDSinPA]

I didn't see anything from last night, but on Wed there was as speech by the Dad who adopted the other girl Cindy McCain brought to the US.

I did not like the way adoption was presented - suggesting that their children were saved by their American parents and that they should be grateful. I specifically remember receiving a lot of training discouraging this kind of thinking.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2 ... s-gullett/

Blessings,
-Greg

[Waiting4Celeste]

Originally Posted by GDSinPA

I didn't see anything from last night, but on Wed there was as speech by the Dad who adopted the other girl Cindy McCain brought to the US.

I did not like the way adoption was presented - suggesting that their children were saved by their American parents and that they should be grateful. I specifically remember receiving a lot of training discouraging this kind of thinking.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2 ... s-gullett/

Blessings,
-Greg

Greg -
Your link didn't work... it looks like it got cut off.

First - was that the McCains who were presenting the adoption like they "saved her" or was it the other family - OR was it the MEDIA???

Of course I haven't read the article... but I don't want to assume that because an article was slanted one way, that the parents meant for it to be.

ALSO - I was just thinking... if someone came on this forum and told all of us that they found a baby in a Guatemalan orphanage who had a cleft palate or any other medical need and that person was able to adopt that baby and bring them to the US for medical treatment, you don't think that any of us would mention how that baby was possibly "saved"?

Many of us on this forum adopted HEALTHY kids... we didn't save them (except from a life of poverty, perhaps).

I think there are situations where children are SAVED from horrific situations and I don't see a problem acknowledging that. (I don't think it is appropriate to tell a child that they were fortunate to be "saved", but telling them their story - at an appropriate age - to make them aware of how much their Mommy & Daddy loved them and wanted to help them survive - in right right context - is appropriate.)

I have a problem when people look at my perfectly healthy children and comment that we "saved" them from an awful life in Guatemala simply because Guatemala is a poorer country than the US. Different situation. Living in the US doesn't guarantee a perfect life, just like living in a Third World country doesn't guarantee a miserable life. Joy can be found, regardless of where a person lives. To quote "Pretty Woman" "That's just Geography."

Do I believe that the McCain's SAVED this child.... yes, I do. It was obvious that she would have died if Cindy hadn't brought her to the US for medical treatment.
In my opinion, that's different than completing paperwork for an adoption and being referred a newborn child with no initial apparent medical needs.

I believe that Cindy McCain saw that this child was dying, wanted to save her, sought medical attention for her, fell in love with her and then wanted to adopt her.

That's a MUCH different route than our family took to bring our children home.

[BosMom]

Yes... adoptive parents. I also happened to notice that Bridget appeared to be the only attendee who wasn't white (with only one exception that appeared to be a Latina). Hmmm.....

[SKL]

With due respect, I feel we get a little too hung up on word choice.

One single word is never enough to sum up the reasons, experience, and effects of an adoption.

From what I've read, God brought Bridget and her family together, and the rest of it is semantics.

[Waiting4Celeste]

Originally Posted by SKL

With due respect, I feel we get a little too hung up on word choice.

One single word is never enough to sum up the reasons, experience, and effects of an adoption.

From what I've read, God brought Bridget and her family together, and the rest of it is semantics.

I totally agree - I don't think we can lump all adoptions into one group and complain when someone says that a family "saved" a child... like it is a bad thing.

Sometimes it is the truth.

And, in the end, God has paths for each one of us and how our families will be formed.
Ain't life grand!?!

[GDSinPA]

Sorry about the bad link.

Prepared Remarks by Wes Gullett : RNCAPFeed : The Rocky Mountain News

I think you'll see what I mean when you read the text above.

Actually, it's not just the wording that's a problem. It's encouraging your kids to be grateful that you saved them that's a problem. It's likening them to charity that's a problem. Think about how that feels to an adoptee?

The reality that a child may have or would have had a better life (or even no life) in their home country is beside the point. The problem comes in how you present their becoming a part of your family and whether you raise them to believe that you're their savior rather than their parent. In other words, if you want to save a child, there are plenty of ways to do so, but that should be separate and distinct from parenting them. Saving is not a healthy thing to have over your children, IMO.

It's OK to talk about how adoption has impacted your life, perhaps even to advocate for adoption (ethically of course), but to have your life story presented to the world in the context of your parents saving you is not acceptable. A child should not be encouraged to believe they should be grateful for being adopted, which is the actual end result of this for Wes Gullet's daughter (which you'll see in the text of his speech.

Does that make better sense?

Blessings,
-Greg

[SmileLaughLearn]

Cindy and SKL, well said, both of you!

[SKL]

Originally Posted by GDSinPA

Prepared Remarks by Wes Gullett : RNCAPFeed : The Rocky Mountain News

Actually, it's not just the wording that's a problem. It's encouraging your kids to be grateful that you saved them that's a problem. It's likening them to charity that's a problem. Think about how that feels to an adoptee?

The reality that a child may have or would have had a better life (or even no life) in their home country is beside the point. The problem comes in how you present their becoming a part of your family and whether you raise them to believe that you're their savior rather than their parent. In other words, if you want to save a child, there are plenty of ways to do so, but that should be separate and distinct from parenting them. Saving is not a healthy thing to have over your children, IMO.

It's OK to talk about how adoption has impacted your life, perhaps even to advocate for adoption (ethically of course), but to have your life story presented to the world in the context of your parents saving you is not acceptable. A child should not be encouraged to believe they should be grateful for being adopted, which is the actual end result of this for Wes Gullet's daughter (which you'll see in the text of his speech.

Does that make better sense?

Blessings,
-Greg

I am not sure I ever understood this concept fully.

Everyone's life has difficulties and hurdles, many of which our parents have helped us to overcome. Many of us are grateful to our parents for things that have resulted in our having more opportunities or even life. For example:

I'm grateful that my mom taught me to value education, despite the fact that neither of my parents attended high school past their 16th birthdays, and the fact that my dad is so dyslexic that he couldn't read a nursery rhyme to his children. My mom's actions made a huge difference in my life.

My youngest sister is grateful that my mom stood up to people, including her own mother, who tried to convince her to have an abortion. My sister wouldn't be here otherwise.

A colleague is grateful to her mom for faithfully going on bedrest during pregnancy, saving her life.

I have friends who are adoptees and who have talked about how grateful they are that their parents went through a lot to adopt them and give them a better life. Nobody sat them down and told them they need to feel grateful; they just are.

Sometimes I feel we're being advised not to tell our kids the reality of their stories, lest we let them think we "saved" them. The fact is, a child who isn't getting nutrition is going to die without intervention. That is a fact of that child's life. We advocate sharing every good and bad detail we know of a child's first family, however hurtful that may be, yet we shy away from sharing the stark reality that most orphans in the world would have a rough life if they weren't adopted.

There's a right and wrong way to communicate this reality, but if we are honest with our kids, there's no way to stop them from making the connection between the act of adoption and their relatively blessed situation. I don't understand why that is seen as a bad thing.

[GDSinPA]

SKL and others. I totally get what you are saying. I really do. I am extremely grateful for all the postitive things in my life and how my parents, family, and friends contributed to that. No doubt about it.

The problem is that when you create or encourage an aura of "gratefulness" in this way you are sending a message to your child that can be troublesome. A friend of mine discussed this and said it way better than me.


...telling an entire country on national TV that these children were rescued, saved, and are lucky is akin to putting those chidlren in an emotional straight-jacket, IMO. What happens if Nikki one day thinks, "Hey, yes I'm glad to be an American, but I'm also sad I lost my home country of Bangladesh?" It's going to be harder for her to face and address and express those feelings, because she'll come across as ungrateful and angry, now that her adoption has been set up as something she should feel grateful for.


Perhaps what is said to Nikki and Bridget in their own homes is better. Perhaps they ARE allowed to grieve their losses behind closed doors--I don't know. So I'm not trying to say these aparents are doing everything all wrong. It could be that the speech at the RNC is balanced, at home, with more empathy and freedom for the children. However, it's still a pretty large burden to bear to listen to your parents tell an entire country that you should be grateful and feel lucky you were rescued. It's also just icky to use kids for political gain, IMO. It's all very dehumanizing.... makes them into political pawns, rather than human beings.

[SKL]

Originally Posted by GDSinPA

SKL and others. I totally get what you are saying. I really do. I am extremely grateful for all the postitive things in my life and how my parents, family, and friends contributed to that. No doubt about it.

The problem is that when you create or encourage an aura of "gratefulness" in this way you are sending a message to your child that can be troublesome. A friend of mine discussed this and said it way better than me.


...telling an entire country on national TV that these children were rescued, saved, and are lucky is akin to putting those chidlren in an emotional straight-jacket, IMO. What happens if Nikki one day thinks, "Hey, yes I'm glad to be an American, but I'm also sad I lost my home country of Bangladesh?" It's going to be harder for her to face and address and express those feelings, because she'll come across as ungrateful and angry, now that her adoption has been set up as something she should feel grateful for.


Perhaps what is said to Nikki and Bridget in their own homes is better. Perhaps they ARE allowed to grieve their losses behind closed doors--I don't know. So I'm not trying to say these aparents are doing everything all wrong. It could be that the speech at the RNC is balanced, at home, with more empathy and freedom for the children. However, it's still a pretty large burden to bear to listen to your parents tell an entire country that you should be grateful and feel lucky you were rescued. It's also just icky to use kids for political gain, IMO. It's all very dehumanizing.... makes them into political pawns, rather than human beings.

I didn't read the speech as saying the children should feel grateful. The dad did use the child's own words to show that she feels lucky. I don't see any evidence that they told her anything to make her feel that way, other than her factual birth story.

If it looks like the children were rescued, well, that appears to be a fact. Just like Elian Gonzales was rescued. A rescue doesn't automatically imply a debt. It doesn't apply that the child is any less than any other child. In fact, if anything, it highlights the fact that the child has tremendous worth.

I would never use the term "rescue" to decribe my adoptions. If I hadn't adopted my daughters, I am pretty sure that somebody else would have, and they would have had a good life either way. However, maybe they will nevertheless consider my decision to adopt a blessing. I should hope that would not reflect negatively on me.

[Mariais5]

Palin/SKL 2012!