Sandra bullock up from the ashes!!!!

[Hollywoodhaha]

She is so different from other celebs --in a good way!
Notice how in most magazine covers with babys, instead of looking at the child, the celeb is looking at the camera?
All Sandra sees is her new son

 

[Tiger926]

I don't feel bad for Jesse at ALL. He CHOSE his actions.

You have two kids. I hope you teach them that every choice has a CONSEQUENCE and to think them through before hand. You can't tell me that Jesse James, at 41, had no understanding of the consequences of dipping his stick elsewhere, with several women. It's not like he tripped, fell on top of them and it just happened. He is responsible for his actions.

He was selfish. Plain & simple. You reap what you sow. Because of his ACTIONS, VOLUNTARY CHOICES & DECISIONS, these are his consequences. He proved he doesn't deserve to be a father to that newborn. He is a bad influence. He doesn't deserve to be a mate to Sandra. He called her his best friend. Well, he wasn't one back to her.

The people I feel bad for is Sandra & his children. They got the repercussions of his actions. Those are the CONSEQUENCES of HIS actions. It must have been a triple heartbreak for Sandra. Her marriage was over. She's losing out on being a stepmother to kids she adores, and the life and future as a co-parent to that infant was destroyed. Jesse destroyed all that. His actions, his decisions, consequences that affected everyone.

Tiger

 

[shortbun]

I'm happy for her. I do kinda of feel bad for Jessie in this aspect, I'm sure he has got attached to the baby, and his kids also I'm sure got attached to the baby. It's a shame they can't share custody of the baby.

He's a cad and he's got kids to look after already. She's just lost him, his children from her life and she will be a wonderful single parent. He was attached to her too but that didn't keep him faithful.

 

[EMom]

This news brought the biggest smile to my face when I saw this on The Today Show this morning. I love that she adopted a baby from the states. It amazes me she was able to keep this secret for so long. It says that she has an amazing support system. She will be alright, she's an amazing woman and I have mad love for her!

I'm happy for her, but really don't give a rat's hiney where she got the baby. A child needed a mother to love him and she had love to give. They both gain immeasurably. If she indeed did start the adoption process 4 years ago, I would like to point out that this is one factor that often leads adoptive parents to go the international adoption route. Four years....and no guarantee of a child.....is a long, long wait.

From the perspetive of a woman who had undergone numerous surgeries, multiple IVFs and many, many painful miscarriages, I promise you that I did not have it in me to wait 4 years for a baby that might never come......A birth mother might never have selected us and that's the cold, hard truth. We wanted a baby yesterday, and there were babies sitting in orphanages halfway around the world who needed parents to love and care for them. Neither of us was too hung up on national origin. Domestic adoption is a wonderful thing, but can be a long and difficult process. When you have already suffered losses that most cannot fathom, sometimes you do not have the strength to face more loss.....You need a virtual guarantee of a baby. International adoption can offer that. It is not perfect, but it appeals to a certain group of adoptive parents for very valid reasons.

I have nothing but the best of wishes for Sandra Bullock and her new son. That photo made me happy. As one who has adopted, I can truly understand the incredible gift she has been given and I am sure she feels the same overwhelming joy we felt....and still feel. I just wanted to make the point that until you have walked in the shoes of someone trying to have a baby with no success and then enduring the process of adoption, it's easy to think people should adopt from the US instead of abroad. Most people who have not been involved in adoption have no idea how long, hard, expensive and sometimes heartbreaking the process can be......All because you just want a baby to love and care for. Do the research. Unwed mothers keep their babies today, almost exclusively. To be blunt, it is a simple matter of supply and demand. There are many, many more potential adoptive parents in the US than there are babies to be adopted. You can wait for years and still never get selected. You can decide to give up ever getting a baby and take a child in the double digits instead. Or like many of us, you can head to another country where there are waiting children and a much easier process and be home with a baby in well under a year. I am thrilled Sandra Bullock got lucky and received "the call" but we had little confidence that we'd be so fortunate. And I'm not a gambler by nature. I wanted a sure thing. Surely, that cannot be so hard to understand.

 

[ZachnElli]

I'm happy for her, but really don't give a rat's hiney where she got the baby. A child needed a mother to love him and she had love to give. They both gain immeasurably. If she indeed did start the adoption process 4 years ago, I would like to point out that this is one factor that often leads adoptive parents to go the international adoption route. Four years....and no guarantee of a child.....is a long, long wait.

From the perspetive of a woman who had undergone numerous surgeries, multiple IVFs and many, many painful miscarriages, I promise you that I did not have it in me to wait 4 years for a baby that might never come......A birth mother might never have selected us and that's the cold, hard truth. We wanted a baby yesterday, and there were babies sitting in orphanages halfway around the world who needed parents to love and care for them. Neither of us was too hung up on national origin. Domestic adoption is a wonderful thing, but can be a long and difficult process. When you have already suffered losses that most cannot fathom, sometimes you do not have the strength to face more loss.....You need a virtual guarantee of a baby. International adoption can offer that. It is not perfect, but it appeals to a certain group of adoptive parents for very valid reasons.

I have nothing but the best of wishes for Sandra Bullock and her new son. That photo made me happy. As one who has adopted, I can truly understand the incredible gift she has been given and I am sure she feels the same overwhelming joy we felt....and still feel. I just wanted to make the point that until you have walked in the shoes of someone trying to have a baby with no success and then enduring the process of adoption, it's easy to think people should adopt from the US instead of abroad. Most people who have not been involved in adoption have no idea how long, hard, expensive and sometimes heartbreaking the process can be......All because you just want a baby to love and care for. Do the research. Unwed mothers keep their babies today, almost exclusively. To be blunt, it is a simple matter of supply and demand. There are many, many more potential adoptive parents in the US than there are babies to be adopted. You can wait for years and still never get selected. You can decide to give up ever getting a baby and take a child in the double digits instead. Or like many of us, you can head to another country where there are waiting children and a much easier process and be home with a baby in well under a year. I am thrilled Sandra Bullock got lucky and received "the call" but we had little confidence that we'd be so fortunate. And I'm not a gambler by nature. I wanted a sure thing. Surely, that cannot be so hard to understand.

First off, I don't know why you HAD to write all this. You adopted internationally, you've already heard this, you know people think this way, you don't have to give a lecture everytime. I adopted domestically and it took less than 6 months to get an infant and we were not selected by the birth mom either, she didn't want to pick. It doesn't always take that long, so please stop spreading THAT myth!

 

[mlynn]

I was so happy to see this on the Today show. Her baby his so beautiful!! She looks so Happy!!!!! Can't wait to buy the Mag. when it hits new stands.

 

[HonnyDipp]

I'm happy for her, but really don't give a rat's hiney where she got the baby. A child needed a mother to love him and she had love to give. They both gain immeasurably. If she indeed did start the adoption process 4 years ago, I would like to point out that this is one factor that often leads adoptive parents to go the international adoption route. Four years....and no guarantee of a child.....is a long, long wait.

From the perspetive of a woman who had undergone numerous surgeries, multiple IVFs and many, many painful miscarriages, I promise you that I did not have it in me to wait 4 years for a baby that might never come......A birth mother might never have selected us and that's the cold, hard truth. We wanted a baby yesterday, and there were babies sitting in orphanages halfway around the world who needed parents to love and care for them. Neither of us was too hung up on national origin. Domestic adoption is a wonderful thing, but can be a long and difficult process. When you have already suffered losses that most cannot fathom, sometimes you do not have the strength to face more loss.....You need a virtual guarantee of a baby. International adoption can offer that. It is not perfect, but it appeals to a certain group of adoptive parents for very valid reasons.

I have nothing but the best of wishes for Sandra Bullock and her new son. That photo made me happy. As one who has adopted, I can truly understand the incredible gift she has been given and I am sure she feels the same overwhelming joy we felt....and still feel. I just wanted to make the point that until you have walked in the shoes of someone trying to have a baby with no success and then enduring the process of adoption, it's easy to think people should adopt from the US instead of abroad. Most people who have not been involved in adoption have no idea how long, hard, expensive and sometimes heartbreaking the process can be......All because you just want a baby to love and care for. Do the research. Unwed mothers keep their babies today, almost exclusively. To be blunt, it is a simple matter of supply and demand. There are many, many more potential adoptive parents in the US than there are babies to be adopted. You can wait for years and still never get selected. You can decide to give up ever getting a baby and take a child in the double digits instead. Or like many of us, you can head to another country where there are waiting children and a much easier process and be home with a baby in well under a year. I am thrilled Sandra Bullock got lucky and received "the call" but we had little confidence that we'd be so fortunate. And I'm not a gambler by nature. I wanted a sure thing. Surely, that cannot be so hard to understand.

I just found out watching Nancy Grace that Sandra wanted to adopt a child from this country. I see nothing wrong with that. I see nothing wrong with giving a child a good home, celebs are adopting children from other countries, but its rare to see this. And in the manner it was done. Truely a blessing.

 

[EMom]

First off, I don't know why you HAD to write all this. You adopted internationally, you've already heard this, you know people think this way, you don't have to give a lecture everytime. I adopted domestically and it took less than 6 months to get an infant and we were not selected by the birth mom either, she didn't want to pick. It doesn't always take that long, so please stop spreading THAT myth!

The person I responded to had written that she "loved that she adopted a baby from the states." The unmentioned, but obvious elephant in the room was "instead of from overseas." Otherwise, WHY does it matter WHERE the baby came from? Indeed, why does it matter at all? I find no fault with her adopting domestically....or you for that matter. I am thrilled when it works out well for a family. I am happy when a child from any country finds a home with a family, period. It's a win/win all the way around.

I am not slamming domestic adoption. Friends of mine have done so with success. Others have met with failure. Getting a baby quickly and easily is just not the norm. It simply isn't. With so many women opting to keep their babies these days and so many more families wanting to adopt, basic math tells us there will never be enough babies in the US to "go around." Some couples/singles will get lucky domestically and some will not.

Those of us who could not take one more failed attempt at parenthood....and I was one...simply may not be cut out for domestic adoption. If I had started trying to adopt before my first surgery and before I ever tried IVF and had all those miscarriages, I very well might have tried to adopt domestically. Back then, I would have been a different person. I have friends who were not cut out for international adoption (for various reasons) and I do not criticize them for it because it is NOT for everyone. For them, domestic was a better fit. I am not saying one is superior or inferior to the other. They are just DIFFERENT. And the parents who adopt have had different life experiences that make them choose various paths to parenthood.

When people automatically assume that it's better/preferable to adopt from the US than internationally, I merely try to point out that they might want to attempt to understand WHY some of us choose international. Adoption is rarely a breeze, whether it's domestic or international. It's so easy for people to pass judgment until they have lived through what we have. I cannot fathom why anyone would think it better for my husband and I to have gotten in a waiting line for a baby that was not even born yet when there were waiting babies elsewhere in need of loving parents. We would have loved to have gotten a newborn (one of the reasons many people prefer domestic) but it was not a MUST. We figured why not go outside the US to adopt and let someone here "move up the waiting line" so to speak, if it meant that much to them to have a newborn? If we took ourselves out of the pool of domestic potential adoptive parents (because we were fine with going elsewhere) then a couple who was NOT fine with going elsewhere would stand a better shot of getting that US baby. It only made sense to us....for everyone.

I don't care if Sandra Bulllock (or anyone else for that matter) got her baby in the US, Africa, Europe or Asia. He looks happy and she looks over the moon. Without a doubt, he will have a good life. In the end, isn't that what matters?

So why do I even respond or bring it up? Because someone else brought it up by implication in the first place. Sure, I'm probably a bit touchy regarding the subject. Implying that adopting internationally is "less than" adopting domestically gets me riled up since it, in a roundabout way, is an insult to my child. You seemed to think I was criticizing domestic adoptions (I did not mean to....for that I apologize) and you seem to have gotten somewhat irritated yourself. I'll quit "giving a lecture" the minute people stop giving me a reason to get on my soapbox. So long as an adoption is legal, who cares where the baby is from?

For the life of me, I cannot see why it's better to adopt a baby from one place instead of another. Or a boy over a girl. Or an African American baby over a White baby. Or a this over a that. What does matter is that a child has a devoted mother to love and care for him. She chose the route she took for her own reasons and that is her right and her business. She didn't choose my route and I'd never expect her to. Both are wonderful ways of becoming a parent. The first words out of my mouth when I saw the pic of her and her son today were, "Good for her!" It never occurred to me to focus on WHERE she had gotten her son......

 

[redlight]

Happy for her. And doesn't Sandra look great!

 

[Laura]

There are lots of reasons why Sandra Bullock's placement took 4 years. For example, she may have wanted a closed adoption--no contact with the birth family--for personal reasons. Birth parents who are interested in choosing the adoptive parents may not wish this. Often, adoptive parents make up a profile with their pictures, etc, to tell birth parents about themselves and help them choose whom to place the baby with. If Sandra Bullock was unwilling to do this so it wouldn't become "news" that she was looking to adopt, that would make it all the more difficult for her to get the call. Also, she obviously wanted a newborn; it's often a lot faster if you wish to adopt an older child or even an older infant.

Adoption is complicated, and there is no country in the world where adoptions don't/can't fall through for some reason or other. It is a mistake to generalize "foreign" vs "domestic" adoption because countries are vastly different in how they handle the process.

I wish her and her new son every happiness.

 

[mykidslovesdisney]

Just have to say her son is soo cute!! I just want to pinch those cheeks!!!

We have been down the infertility road. It is a sad lonely road. We found happiness at the end of the road when we adopted our children. It is such a wonderful feeling to have that baby placed in your arms to love and care with all your heart!!!

My dd turned 7 today. I was thinking soo much about her birthmom and what an extremely hard decision she had and I am forever grateful that she chose our family to love and raise dd.

I was soo happy for her with all the heart ache she has endured -- she has her little man to cause her to smile!

 

[CaliforniaDreamin]

I think some people think it's refreshing that she adopted a baby from this country because a lot of celebrities have turned the whole international adoption thing into a trend. Now I feel that a baby is a baby is a baby. And any child up for adoption, regardless of where they live, needs a good home and a good parent. I mean, remember when Madonna went thru all that just to adopt David from Malowhi(sp)? It just seemed like she was determined to pick an African child. I know a lot of people wondered why she went thru all that, bypassing the village laws, taking a baby from a man who was the father and wanted David, when she could have picked a child from here. I think orphans in the US are suffering a bit because of the trend of adopting a baby from another country. I know that parentless children in this country have it better than parentless children in other countries..it just turned into somewhat of a trend for celebs. Maybe thats why the poster said it's refreshing...I see her point. Sandra just wanted to adopt. She didn't have to search remote Cambodian villages. She went thru the adoption process like so many other Americans. No special treatment. This separates her from the Hollywood crowd.

 

[Disney Doll]

Go Sandra!!!!!!!

 

[EMom]

I think some people think it's refreshing that she adopted a baby from this country because a lot of celebrities have turned the whole international adoption thing into a trend. Now I feel that a baby is a baby is a baby. And any child up for adoption, regardless of where they live, needs a good home and a good parent. I mean, remember when Madonna went thru all that just to adopt David from Malowhi(sp)? It just seemed like she was determined to pick an African child. I know a lot of people wondered why she went thru all that, bypassing the village laws, taking a baby from a man who was the father and wanted David, when she could have picked a child from here. I think orphans in the US are suffering a bit because of the trend of adopting a baby from another country. I know that parentless children in this country have it better than parentless children in other countries..it just turned into somewhat of a trend for celebs. Maybe thats why the poster said it's refreshing...I see her point. Sandra just wanted to adopt. She didn't have to search remote Cambodian villages. She went thru the adoption process like so many other Americans. No special treatment. This separates her from the Hollywood crowd.

From what has been released, it does seem she followed all the rules a "regular" person would have and yes, that may have well contributed to the wait. And I applaud her for following the rules. When you want a baby so much you can feel it, it's tempting to take shortcuts. I do get upset when it appears (I guess we can't be 100% certain, but let's face it, sometimes it seems obvious) that the famous take liberties with the adoption process, be it domestic or international. Why? Because as a famous person, their adoptions will surely attract attention and if shortcuts were taken, it can cause problems with adoptions for other families down the line. The law(s) must be followed. Most adoptive parents don't have a chance at shortcuts, but the famous might. To pass up that temptation is the right thing to do, but doing the right thing isn't always easy.

I do want to make it clear that I do not have anything against domestic adoption. Years ago, I used to speak at infertility/adoption conferences. Many of the couples I met were still in the process of trying to decide whether or not to adopt and if they did, whether to adopt domestically or internationally. Frequently, the topic of a "pro & con list" would come up. I would tell the attendees that I thought the pro/con list was a good idea, but that they needed to be brutally honest with themselves and their spouse/partner AND....that no one's list was going to look like anyone else's. My pro might very well be their con. And that was perfectly okay. The important thing was to arrive at the correct conclusion for them, because there was no such thing as ONE right answer for everyone.

For example: Traveling to Russia (for us it was 2 trips...1 month total) was a huge PRO. We'd always wanted to go there. For another couple, it might have been a definite con. What if one of them was afraid to fly? What if they could not take off work or leave another child for that long?

Another couple might put "continued contact with birth mother" on their pro list while the couple next to them might put that on their con list. One might absolutely have to adopt a newborn, while another might be fine with a baby of less than a year old. International adoption is not the way to go for a newborn, so the "newborn is a must" couple would associate that with a con for international adoption. Even if a couple decided on international adoption, there still needed to be some soul-seaching done (and a new pro/con list) to determine the best country for them. Remember what I said about us being excited to go to Russia? I had a relative who adopted from Korea, partly because Korea would escort the baby to the US. She has never been on a plane and is deathly afraid of them. The "child" is in his 20s now and she has STILL never been on a plane. I used to joke with her that if she'd had to go pick him up like we had to go get DD, he'd still have been sitting in the Seoul airport. She had to sheepishly agree that I had a point. Russia (if it had been available then) would have never made her list.

There were times when after a couple made their pro/con list, it became apparent that domestic was a better fit than international. I never once discouraged them from going that route....Because THAT was what was best for them.

I see adoption as a good thing in general. Domestic, international, whatever..... Trying to force a square peg into a round hole will never work. That's why I counseled people to figure out WHAT they were, in a manner of speaking....square peg or round hole. A lucky few were good either way. I still give this advice. Figure out which one is the best match for you. There are risks and rewards to each. Educate yourself and ascertain which YOU are most comfortable with. Do not expect your answer to be identical to mine or anyone else's. Above all, be honest with yourself. If you do that, you'll come to the right conclusion.

Anyway.....Back to the topic of Sandra Bullock's baby.....I could eat that kid up with a spoon. He is too dang cute. It is nothing short of a miracle that she kept this quiet for the past few months, but hats off to her for putting the best interests of that child first and shielding him as much as she could. The way the press has been dogging her, I am amazed that she pulled it off.

 

[CaliforniaDreamin]

He is an adorable baby, no question. I just heard on Extra that she was inspired to adopt him after visiting New Orleans a few years ago. Louis was born in N.O. I think she is going to be a wonderful mother. She seems very unHollywood. I'm happy for her and Louis.
Anyone who choses to adopt, I have such admiration for. Whether foreign or domestic, whether for a current trend or not, at the end of the day, these people are opening their hearts and home to provide a life to children who otherwise would not have a good childhood. My admiration for Sandra has skyrocketed. I hope this brings her much happiness...and I honestly believe it will.
And I want to add that in my PP, I did not mean for it to appear that "normal" couples who adopt internationally deserve to be critized for their decision to go overseas. A lot of couples travel to Russia, Korea, Romania etc to adopt and there is a real need for adoptive parents. This can often be a difficult, expensive, lengthy process. One of my favorite international adoption story is about an American couple who flew to China to adopt a baby girl. A few months into the process, they requested and received a picture of the baby in a crib at the adoption agency. They noticed that this baby was sharing a crib with another baby girl who looked identical to the baby. There was no indication that these babies were related, but the adoption workers placed them in the same crib because they looked so similar. The babies arrived at the orphanage at different times and the birth parents could not be traced to determine if the babies were related to each other. The parents flew back out to China, decided that these babies HAD to be twins based on looks alone. They adopted both of them. Took a chance that these babies were sisters, and could not bear to separate them. The adoptions were finalized, the parents had DNA tests done and confirmed that these babies were identical twins. They only intended to adopt one, but without hesitation, decided these babies belonged together. I thought this was such a beautiful story.

 

[HonnyDipp]

The person I responded to had written that she "loved that she adopted a baby from the states." The unmentioned, but obvious elephant in the room was "instead of from overseas." Otherwise, WHY does it matter WHERE the baby came from? Indeed, why does it matter at all? I find no fault with her adopting domestically....or you for that matter. I am thrilled when it works out well for a family. I am happy when a child from any country finds a home with a family, period. It's a win/win all the way around.

I am not slamming domestic adoption. Friends of mine have done so with success. Others have met with failure. Getting a baby quickly and easily is just not the norm. It simply isn't. With so many women opting to keep their babies these days and so many more families wanting to adopt, basic math tells us there will never be enough babies in the US to "go around." Some couples/singles will get lucky domestically and some will not.

Those of us who could not take one more failed attempt at parenthood....and I was one...simply may not be cut out for domestic adoption. If I had started trying to adopt before my first surgery and before I ever tried IVF and had all those miscarriages, I very well might have tried to adopt domestically. Back then, I would have been a different person. I have friends who were not cut out for international adoption (for various reasons) and I do not criticize them for it because it is NOT for everyone. For them, domestic was a better fit. I am not saying one is superior or inferior to the other. They are just DIFFERENT. And the parents who adopt have had different life experiences that make them choose various paths to parenthood.

When people automatically assume that it's better/preferable to adopt from the US than internationally, I merely try to point out that they might want to attempt to understand WHY some of us choose international. Adoption is rarely a breeze, whether it's domestic or international. It's so easy for people to pass judgment until they have lived through what we have. I cannot fathom why anyone would think it better for my husband and I to have gotten in a waiting line for a baby that was not even born yet when there were waiting babies elsewhere in need of loving parents. We would have loved to have gotten a newborn (one of the reasons many people prefer domestic) but it was not a MUST. We figured why not go outside the US to adopt and let someone here "move up the waiting line" so to speak, if it meant that much to them to have a newborn? If we took ourselves out of the pool of domestic potential adoptive parents (because we were fine with going elsewhere) then a couple who was NOT fine with going elsewhere would stand a better shot of getting that US baby. It only made sense to us....for everyone.

I don't care if Sandra Bulllock (or anyone else for that matter) got her baby in the US, Africa, Europe or Asia. He looks happy and she looks over the moon. Without a doubt, he will have a good life. In the end, isn't that what matters?

So why do I even respond or bring it up? Because someone else brought it up by implication in the first place. Sure, I'm probably a bit touchy regarding the subject. Implying that adopting internationally is "less than" adopting domestically gets me riled up since it, in a roundabout way, is an insult to my child. You seemed to think I was criticizing domestic adoptions (I did not mean to....for that I apologize) and you seem to have gotten somewhat irritated yourself. I'll quit "giving a lecture" the minute people stop giving me a reason to get on my soapbox. So long as an adoption is legal, who cares where the baby is from?

For the life of me, I cannot see why it's better to adopt a baby from one place instead of another. Or a boy over a girl. Or an African American baby over a White baby. Or a this over a that. What does matter is that a child has a devoted mother to love and care for him. She chose the route she took for her own reasons and that is her right and her business. She didn't choose my route and I'd never expect her to. Both are wonderful ways of becoming a parent. The first words out of my mouth when I saw the pic of her and her son today were, "Good for her!" It never occurred to me to focus on WHERE she had gotten her son......

That person was me. Seriously, must you make this issue a debate? Read the People interview, Sandra said she wanted to adopt a child from the states and I thought it was a great decision. This was a fun thread, thanks for reminding me why my ignore list is starting to pile up on the DIS boards.

 

[Imzadi]

Yes, can't you take your where to adopt debates to another thread instead of crapping all over THIS one? Let's leave this a joyous CELEBRATION for Sandra , whose had such a hard time. Some of us want to celebrate with her instead of having to scroll by all your adoption controversy.

All you thread crappers are long time DIS posters, I know you know how to hit the "New Thread" button.

 

[EMom]

Oy! This may come as a shock, but MANY lurkers read any thread related to adoption matters because they are considering adoption. My last post was especially directed at them, not those who are bugged by my posts. They can hit the ignore key at will. I still maintain that both domestic and international adoption are fantastic ways of becoming a parent and that it is vital you determine which is the best fit for you.

I would never have said one word about why some people choose international adoption rather than domestic adoption had it not been for the fact that someone FIRST opened the door to that subject by mentioning how wonderful it was that Sandra Bullock adopted from the States.....and it didn't take a rocket scientist to know the rest of the unwritten sentence was "as opposed to....." or "instead of...." Otherwise, why not just say that it was wonderful that she adopted a baby, period? Why even qualify it? I didn't make that an issue. Someone else chose to.

I was not the person who brought domestic rather than international into this thread. I wasn't. You may think I was, but it's simply not the case. They had their reasons for bringing the subject into the thread and you seem fine with that. I merely replied and gave an explanation as to why people may choose to adopt outside the US. Heaven knows it has nothing to do with a bias against US babies.....we were once US babies ourselves. I come from a whole family of US babies.

But there is a subtle implication in such statements that if adopting from the US is a "wonderful" thing, that adopting from elsewhere is not so wonderful. If you can't see that, then maybe subtlety isn't your thing. I'll give the benefit of the doubt and allow that perhaps when people say such things, they do not grasp the impact of their words. Can you imagine how hearing something like that could affect a child would was adopted internationally? It could very well make them believe that people feel they should not have been brought to America. Is that what people really intend to do? Probably not. But words have unintended consequences, especially where children are concerned. So if by "crapping all over this thread" I get even one person to realize that they might unintentionally make a child feel like dirt someday, I'll take that chance.

I think adopting from ANYWHERE is wonderful and will never stop making that point. Yes, Sandra Bullock's adoption was wonderful. But it is not more wonderful than if she had adopted internationally. How could it be more wonderful than it already is? Would it be possible for that child to be more precious if he was born elsewhere? The joy of becoming a parent is not more or less because of where the child was born. Anyone who had adopted can tell you that. The child is the joy.

My estimation of her has soared because of her ability to keep the adoption quiet and protect the baby from all the craziness of the last few months. I truly admire that. And I don't think anyone could be happier for Sandra Bullock than another adoptive parent. We have been in her shoes. We know the feeling when they place that baby in your arms and you realize you didn't think it was possible to even BE that happy or in love with someone you just met.

 

[Imzadi]

Oy! This may come as a shock, but MANY lurkers read any thread related to adoption matters because they are considering adoption. My last post was especially directed at them, not those who are bugged by my posts. They can hit the ignore key at will.

You can start ANOTHER thread about adoptions and those lurkers can go read there.

This thread was about Sandra Bullock and her adoption.

I'm not going to Ignore you. I like you. We get along on other threads. But, this thread was about Sandra.

 

[NEM]

I would never have said one word about why some people choose international adoption rather than domestic adoption had it not been for the fact that someone FIRST opened the door to that subject by mentioning how wonderful it was that Sandra Bullock adopted from the States.....and it didn't take a rocket scientist to know the rest of the unwritten sentence was "as opposed to....." or "instead of...." Otherwise, why not just say that it was wonderful that she adopted a baby, period? Why even qualify it? I didn't make that an issue. Someone else chose to.

Honestly, I think you are putting your own baggage on the statement of the previous poster. I never read an implied "as opposed to" or "instead of" in her statement. You are reading something into it that was never said based on your own experience. It was just a statement. It was not loaded with implications to most people. I think you should maybe look that your reaction to it is based on your own experience. I do not think the original poster meant a darn thing. It was not "opening the door" to some hot button topic...

I was so happy for Sandra this morning...even made me a bit teary. And I did not give a rats behind where that precious baby came from...happy momma, happy baby. The end.

God bless them both! TEAM SANDRA!!!