>At 1:47 PM 7/8/97, Joel VanLaven wrote:
>
>>I hesitate to minimize the importance of biological parentage, but I hope
>>that those people who find solace in it pause to consider other options
>>and ways that people might get the same thing. Since I don't
>>think that I personally get much of anything from my biological
>>connections other than those derived from my non-biological interactions
>>with them, I have no personal problem with the notion.
>
>Me neither; I think bio parents are mainly important from a medical pov
>(spotting and dealing with inherited weaknesses), but that the main point
>of parents is that there be *someone* to play that role and play it reason-
>ably well. There's been research lately supporting the idea that if a child
>doesn't learn by age 2 or so that bonding with another person -- learning
>to trust, in other words -- is possible and desireable, that child will
>become an adult with absent or impaired bonding skills, to its own
>misery and that of the people around her/him. Those with impaired intimacy
>skills are basically unhappy adults because they never manage to trust any-
>one enough to make the intimate connections we all crave; those with none
>at all become our social monsters, showing up as criminals who murder
>without compunction because they just don't get it -- that the "other" has
>a self
>just as they do. But it doesn't seem to matter very much *who* offers the
>requisite pattern for establishing intimacy in early childhood, so long
>as *somebody* does it long enough and well enough to establish the pattern
>in the child's psyche.
>
>Now, whether this is good science (as opposed to finding a "scientific"
>stick with which to beat those who are already society's victims, ie inner
>city crack babies or what-have-you) I can't be certain. But it does make
>sense to me.
>
>Suzy
Well, Suzy and Joel, you make some good points, but as an adopted kid
myself, I felt it extremely important to seek out my biol. father (I've
always known the biol. mom) and get a sense of that side of me. What it
did when I found that side of the family was explain part of me that had
gone unexplained. I felt I had a clearer, more complete picture of myself
with the new knowledge. I feel a little more comfortable with myself
having gotten to know some of the biol. father's side of the family because
they exhibit certain behavioral traits that are similar to mine but not to
any others of my adoptive family. So, I'm saying, while my adoptive
parents did a great job of raising me, there's a lot to be said for knowing
your biological history, especially psychically (and perhaps
psychologically) speaking. Whether the pieces are good or bad, I'd rather
have them and thus the full story on myself than a fragment. To do
otherwise would be to willingly live a life in a certain amount of
ignorance, and I don't approve of that at. I think it's foolish and
cowardly.
-Sean
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:06:23 PDT