By Trace A. DeMeyer
I’ve been reading blogs by Christian folks who saved an
orphan and plan to do it again. Apparently
using the words “Christian” and “Orphan” somehow makes this adoption business holy.
“Doing God’s work,” some potential adoptive parents (PAPS) are blogging how they
are so compassionate and defend it’s the Christian thing that they adopted
babies - because these babies were
orphans and in need and “born in another womb” decreed by God to be adopted by
them. Really.
A few PAPS were upset that no one understands how difficult it
is for them as married couples to cope with infertility and no one feels sorry
for them. So that makes it perfectly alright for them to go out and buy adopt that
baby. (Yup, it’s always a baby they
want. They get angry if you argue with them.)
So adopting makes them
feel good. It doesn’t really matter a woman will have to sacrifice her baby for
them. (Some birthmothers may also feel euphoric they gave a couple a precious
baby. Maybe a few did it for cash.) It’s a mind bender that it doesn’t enter their
minds that the baby hurts and is devastated losing their mother (or father) and this wound
lasts a lifetime…
There are thousands upon thousands of PAPS who want only a
baby and defend their reasons why. Adoption agencies are more than happy to
make their dreams come true.
I have a new theory. It’s a crazy world out there. People
want to feel better so they’ll rescue someone, in this case a baby, and this “giving”
back will create euphoria in their brain chemistry. I think the adoption industry
has manipulated and used “adopting babies” as the wonder drug that clouds the
mind from adoption reality. (They also steer clear of the adoptee perspective or
Nancy Verrier’s Primal Wound in their
adoption propaganda.)
So these righteous saviors of babies are on a mission to
feel better about themselves. Adopting makes them high.
Read this:
…the
surprising conclusion is that giving affects
our brain chemistry. For example, people who give often report feelings of
euphoria, which psychologists have referred to as the "Helper's
High." They believe that charitable activity induces endorphins that
produce a very mild version of the sensations people get from drugs like
morphine and heroin.
Norm
offers a thought experiment: if a pill reproduced exactly the same brain
effects, wouldn't people still give? I agree this suggests there's more to it.
Adding to that, and reflecting on my own thought processes related to giving, I
think this is a good case illustrating the interactions between levels of
causes in human behavior. Proximately, I often go through with a charitable act
despite fretting that it will be boring, too much trouble, too costly, or
otherwise unpleasant. But upon doing it, or soon afterwards, I feel a sort of
euphoria I would associate with the endorphin effect described in the NY Sun
article.
I will suppose that the euphoria and the associated brain chemistry register
somehow in my mind -- in behaviorist terms, an association is reinforced
between the feeling and the act of giving -- and this association comes into
play the next time a choice for giving arises. But even if so, the association
is barely liminal, and I don't reflect along the lines of 'I'll get a nice endorphin rush if I go through with this.' Rather, I
think along the lines of 'good people do things like this, and I want to be a
good person despite the short-term fuss I will have to endure' -- and I
think the euphoric brain chemistry is a bonus (and should be seen as a
second-order cause) that keeps acts of giving on the list of thinkable,
possible alternatives. The next time I am faced with a choice to give or not
to, I will have inarticulate impulses pushing for it, and these impulses will
be rooted in brain chemistry.
Source:
http://danceswithanxiety.blogspot.com/2007/12/giving-and-brain-chemistry.html
I do expect some people will disagree so please leave a comment... Trace
" People want to feel better so they’ll rescue someone, in this case a baby, and this “giving” back will create euphoria in their brain chemistry."
ReplyDeleteAnd in too many cases, they are 'rescuing' a child who has no need of being 'rescued' and is, in fact, not available for 'rescuing', like Veronica Brown and Baby Desirai and Baby Hope.
You got it, Robin. And for some reason, these adopters are too high on themselves to see they are HARMING, not helping, children and their birth families. We still have to remain calm and sane - but we battle back with truth and end adoption-abduction.
DeleteAgree and that euphoria is often very visible.I've been working on a post on 'baby lust', trying to work it out and this post of yours makes it fall into place.Thanks Trace!
ReplyDeleteAh, GREAT MINDS think alike, dear friend!
DeleteI *love* it when science backs up my crackpot notions.
ReplyDeletehttp://snarkurchin.wordpress.com/2011/11/24/ive-figured-it-out/
It's euphoric to come up with some of these notions!
Delete