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 "Death by Adoption"
Copyright © 2004 Joss Shawyer

Death by Adoption
Touched by Adoption, with a Blowtorch
Alexandra's Baby Not For Sale
When God Stuffs Up

When Infertility Goes Shopping
African-Americans - The Moral Majority of the Not-Adoption World
Nature v Nurture - The Mystery Gene
The Baby Breeding Doll
The Perpetrators of Adoption Crime
The Rocky Road of Reunion
Adoption "Choice" is a Feminist Issue
The Empty Seat at the Table

Legal Disclaimer