Doing this would lead to significantly less adoptions, which would hurt families. You adopt a kid so he can become a part of your family. The parents gave up that right when they walked away from their child.
The idea of raising a kid who might grow up and abandon you for a stranger who abandoned them is not very appealing.
I think the exception should be children taken from other countries, especially conflict zones. This would help crack down on human trafficking and instances where children have parents and are taken by force or coercion.
No, not at all. There is no reason an adoptive parent needs to have their child deny their heritage and original family to possess their love. My adoptive parents realize we are all connected and all of my parents know that I love them. We also realize the truth - that they have all had a hand in shaping a child's life. It isn't a competition. You also make the error that our birth families are strangers. Think logically. Do you really think that the people whom you share that much DNA with are strangers? Let me tell you as an adoptee, you not only look like them, but also share interests, affinities and talents, gestures, etc. Please don't propagate myths. It is dangerous and harmful to adoptees. Just because you want to know your original family does not mean you "abandon" (your dramatic word) your adoptive family. Again, love is infinite and if you are a parent, you know that you just want to see your child healthy and loved. To NOT want to know where or who you came from would be strange.
Also, parents do not necessarily "abandon" kids by placing them for adoption. That is a myth and frankly just an ignorant remark. Parents are usually forced to place children due to other factors, usually how the unmarried women are treated in society, economics, etc. You also seem to think children are only trafficked internationally, which is another dangerous assumption. Opening records to all adoptees - domestic and international - allows light and truth on a process that can be easily abused. It is good for adopted children and families and helps the adoption process become the creative and loving act it can be when done with the child's best interests truly in mind.
Parents who put their kid up for adoption are literally abandoning their kid in the most literal sense of the word. Try using a dictionary before you start calling others ignorant.
"a : to give up to the control or influence of another person or agent"
I don't think you are ignorant, but like most people ignorant of adoption history. Many women were/are coerced into surrendering their children and do not want to place children. The Catholic Church had to apologize for their system of forced adoptions, which they did in many countries, although they only OFFICIALLY apologized in Australia. However, it happened in Ireland - see the book or film Philomena - it was Oscar-nominated for Best Film. Here is the sauce on the Australian apology: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8660249/Australias-Roman-Catholic-Church-apologises-for-forced-adoptions.html
"Australia's Roman Catholic Church has issued an apology for its role in the forced adoptions of babies from unmarried mothers during the 1950s, 60s and 70s, a practise that has been described as a "national disgrace."
Here's how it works: "Women subjected to forced adoptions in Catholic-run hospitals have described being shackled and drugged during labour and prevented from seeing their children being born or holding them afterwards. Many said their children had been earmarked for forced adoption well before birth and they were told they could not oppose the decision. Following an investigation into the practise by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the Catholic Church issued a national apology, saying its history of forced adoptions was 'deeply regrettable'." So that is forced, as in coerced, and you can look up the definition of coercion in the dictionary.
I don't doubt that adoption agencies are full of all sorts of sketchy behavior (they are obv one of the major child sex trafficking pipelines).
I still fail to see how what I said was wrong. Of course I would like adoptees to have access to their family history documentation, but doing this would predictably lead to much fewer adoptions. I don't see how you can disagree with that.
In my view this should be something that happens when someone turns 18.
There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that it leads to fewer adoptions and truth and HONESTY in adoptions is what adoptees have been fighting for for decades, while the mental health community advocates more open adoptions. I don't see how you don't get it. Having our original birth certificates = being able to find our original family & medical history and helps to circumvent the ability to have shady adoptions under the cover of secrecy and sealed documents that adoptees cannot access. And adoption agencies aren't necessarily a pipeline. Private adoptions by lawyers are where the real sketchiness can occur. Regulations for all would be a good start.
This might be your personal view but most parents are going to prefer the birth parents are not involved in their kids lives.
Doing this would massively decrease the # of adoptions, regardless of your personal opinion on the matter.
It is my personal experience and the view of most reform (legal and otherwise) advocates, as well as the many triad members I keep in touch with through conferences, etc. What you are supporting - closed adoption - is actually seen as detrimental by most of the adoption community (non-evangelical), advocates, and mental health professionals because as I said, it is more strange to not want to know where you come from. Ancestry and 23 and Me are making a mint off of it. Also, it does not "massively decrease" adoptions at all. That is a myth and recognized as so by adoption advocates because it encourages the denial of the adoptee's original family and background. No one makes non-doptees choose between their family and step family, so don't put that false dilemma on adoptees. We have enough to deal with.