Brian et al, I would certainly agree with the adoption bit - our daughter Claire is a greatly-loved adoptive daughter, of whom we are very, very proud but, she has no interest at all in finding her 'natural' mother, as she can't imagine why her mother was able to bring herself to give Claire away. My husband and I wondered whether she would change her mind when she was pregnant - one of the problems of being adopted is that the 'adoptee' has no medical records! - but that hardened her attitude even further, especially when Dylan - now eight years of age - was born. Claire thinks that adoption was the best thing for her, as she feels that she would have languished in a children's home if she hadn't been adopted, and quite possibly wouldn't have done anything like as well academically etc. And if one thinks of the option of abortion, then adoption is surely better! So - how thankful we were when Claire decided to keep Dylan - the tenets of a lifetime's faith cannot be overthrown just to suit our own conveniences - but that doesn't change the fact that we were and are jolly glad that we had the chance to adopt Claire.
But - it is difficult to try and convince her that, even thirty years ago when she was born, things were so different regarding the stigma of being the child of an unwed mother. I have divided feelings - I cannot imagine life without our grandchild Dylan, but thank God every day for Claire, so can't tell anyone the extent of our gratitude that we had the chance to adopt her and bring her up. As Brian said, though - we cannot judge historical events by the standards of today. We have recently been hearing a great deal about the orphans (and some of the small children weren't orphans either) from children's homes like Dr Barnardo's, who were shipped off to Australia, Canada and New Zealand just after the Second World War. (There was a series on BBC Radio 4) Some of those children - now in their 70s and 80s - were interviewed and, almost without exception, and even though some had done extremely well in their 'adoptive' countries, regretted the fact of their being shipped off. Of course, some were brutally treated, in their new countries, by sadistic and cruel people, which made the whole situation even more shocking, but at the time, just after the War, it was felt by 'the powers-that-be' that the children in homes and institutions would be better off in countries which were not wracked by rationing, and where a 'better life' awaited them. These people were doing their best in an unpleasant situation and, although it (probably) wouldn't happen now, at the time people thought of it as 'a good thing' for the children. So even relatively close events can be disastrous, even though those decisions were made for the best of reasons. Carol - in a cold but dry and sometimes sunny Suffolk UK. Subject: [lace-chat] Aboriginal oral tradition OK so this is politics and a very emotive subject. To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line: unsubscribe lace-chat [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
