Now that I'm out of my Potter haze I can finally address the interesting and thought provoking comments left to my posts below.
I think Nancy Verrier is too strident and inflexible when it comes to her Primal Wound theory (outlawing gestational surrogacy based on it? Um, NO). I think it's an interesting facet of the adoption experience but it's by no means universal or even a majority experience for adoptees. But the fact that so many adoptees identify with it keeps me from dismissing it as "hogwash". (Check out the Thin Pink Line for an adoptee's point of view.) It's an outcome that everyone involved in adoption must face as a possibility. There's no predicting which child will suffer from a "primal wound" and which will find it irrelevant. I don't think it's my business, or the business of adoptive parents, to decide whether it's irrelevant for adoptees.
It must be crushing to think that your child may suffer simply because she was raised by parents she wasn't born to. And that there's nothing you can do to ease that pain, no matter how many boo-boos you kiss or late nights you spend caring for your child.
And you can understand how tempting it is for me to believe the Primal Wound theory because it makes me the central figure in the life of the child I'm not raising. We like things that make us feel important, and we are wary of things that make us feel insignificant. It's only natural.