Adoption-Friendly Language or Honest Adoption Language, Page 2
Honest Language Isn't Easy Some of these mothers, cloaked in the shame of unwed, young motherhood, accept the term that is common. Many mothers who have lost children to adoption prefer the old term,
natural, because it describes what is simply true. Some prefer the terms
first or
original mothers, because in point of plain fact, that's what they are, though they may not be the children's only mothers. Other mothers prefer to follow politically correct language, and refer to themselves as
a mother who has lost a child to adoption.
This brings us to another effect of 'adoption-friendly' language: it is designed to denigrate and break the bonds of the natural family. For example, the only mother a child has is his or her mother, unless and until the adoption occurs. So, no couple can be parents until they receive a child and no mother can be a birthmother until she has signed those papers. Therefore, to call a mother 'a birthmother' while she's still pregnant is an attempt to have her come to think of the child within her as belonging not to her, but to someone else. This induces an emotional numbing which makes it easier for others to convince her to lose her child to adoption. Honest adoption language would refer to her as the child's mother until the time comes where she is convinced to lose that child to another couple.
The very terms that describe how a mother loses her child convey impressions of her - if she 'gives up' her child, she is callous and uncaring of her child. This is the worst crime a mother can be accused of - that she does not care about her child. Yet in years gone by, few mothers had any choice in losing their children. Society decreed this punishment for those pregnant before marriage. Even now, the terrible loss of one's child is couched in language designed to give a lofty impression - 'giving a gift to a childless couple.' What 'gift' does one give out of poverty, youth, and naiveté? Children are not objects to be given away. The simple fact of adoption is that it separates mother and child so that someone else can raise a child. It breaks a family in order to build or create one.
Similarly, 'making an adoption plan' is really 'convincing a mother to lose her child.' Some people are even so silly as to suggest there aren't 'adoption reunions,' because the (now adult) child is meeting blood relations for the first time. This is patently impossible: how could a baby not have met the person in whose womb he or she grew for nine months? The only reason for such silliness in language is to pretend that the natural family does not exist and that the adoptive family is all. While the adoptive family may come to be the most important in the child's life, this cannot negate the child's bonds to the natural family. Like it or not, adopted children have two families.
The whole suite of 'adoption-friendly' language should come under the same scrutiny. (What man ever gave birth and became a 'birthfather'?) If we're honest about what's happening in healthy newborn adoptions, we're talking about convincing a mother that she should lose her child because someone else can't have a child and wants to take hers to raise. These are not prospective adoptive parents; they are people who want to become parents by taking someone else's child. This honest language is difficult language, of course, because it does not sugarcoat what is happening. It does not help to separate mother and child. It does not denigrate the child's natural mother. Perhaps that is why it is not language the adoption industry will embrace any time soon.
If you want to be respectful to mothers who have lost their children to adoption or even those who 'have surrendered or released their child,' listen to the terms they use for themselves and use those terms. If you want to be clear about what you are doing, use honest adoption language. At the least, balance the language you use so that you are respectful of the terrible pain caused when mother and child are separated.
© Sandra Falconer Pace
Home
Comments
Hey....I appreciate you
Posted by: stevemaan at 03/07/2008 01:57 AM
"[I]Other mothers prefer to follow politically correct language, and refer to themselves as a mother who has lost a child to adoption."
"...'making an adoption plan' is really 'convincing a mother to lose her child.'"
"we're talking about convincing a mother that she should lose her child because someone else can't have a child and wants to take hers to raise. These are not prospective adoptive parents; they are people who want to become parents by taking someone else's child."[/I]
These are quotes from the article. I would argue that 'making an adoption plan' is what a birth mother when she has become pregnant and is not able or willing to parent her child.
Adoptive parents and prospective adoptive parents are not "taking someone else's child". They are [I]providing a loving home and future to a child whose birth parents are uable or unwilling to parent him.[/I] Certainly, they are enriching their own family in the process. Does that make them child stealers? Would the author prefer that these children lanquish in foster care and orphanages?
My child's birth parents did not make an adoption plan and they did not 'lose their children [I]to adoption'[/I]. Yes, they lost their children; [I]because they severely abused and neglected them![/I]
I agree, absolutely, that relinquishing one's child... either by choice (even if due to poverty, or circumstances beyond her control,) or involuntarily (due to the birth parent's abuse and neglect of the child)...is a loss of unimaginable magnitude. It is a loss that will be grieved for the birth parent's entire life, I am sure. [B]But surely no reasonable person can blame the adoption process or adoptive parents because birth parents (for whatever reason) are not parenting the children born to them.[/B]
Posted by: forevermom at 02/16/2008 09:21 PM
This may not exactly be on-topic, but I would just like to say that I hate the term "politically correct." It's just a not-so-subtle way for a speaker to say that others' concerns are fabricated or otherwise invalid. A pretty effective method of silencing people who have those concerns, using that label is a modern version of being in the first grade and calling someone a "sissy" when s/he shows compassion for another kid.
Posted by: absolutely at 11/11/2005 09:12 AM
Whether you are a birthmother, a first mother, or natural mother you are still a mother. Yes it is wrong to call a woman that is pregnant with a child and is considering adoption a birthmother. In fact, she should be called a mother until she comes up with her own term that she is comfortable with. I think that sometimes we try so hard to be "politically correct" that we miss the boat entirely. Being honest is always the best policy. Honesty in your speech and in your actions shows that you have integrity and honor.
Posted by: jmrodg at 11/10/2005 02:20 PM
When reading this article, I was troubled by the following sentence:
"Some of these mothers, cloaked in the shame of unwed, young motherhood, accept the term that is common."
Actually, not simply that sentence, but many others in the article paint a picture of the first mother as someone accepting a loss, "cloaked in the shame," "giving up," and other negative terms that seem to feed into the often false stereotype of the young unwed mother as the typical standard for the "first mother." In today's world especially, single mothers occupy a much higher "status" in the world than they used to; not only are single mothers making it (of all ages!), working hard, and raising healthy and happy children responsibly, but many women are actually making a conscious choice to become single parents, or surrogate parents for loved ones that cannot have children of their own. I think it's a different world, and the language just hasn't quite had the time to catch up. Plus, there's still this strange idea that the "traditional" and typical family structure is a nuclear one -- with two parents, etc. -- when in reality, that is actually an abnormal type of family because of rising divorce rates, "non-traditional" life choices, etc. But we have politicians (President Bush for one) that are continuing to perpetuate the negative images of being "single," and "unwed" by insisting that the country's family values are slipping simply because the families don't resemble the nuclear "standard." Of course, these false stereotypes carry over when people are thinking of who first mothers are, and so we're often getting false representations across the board. I think finding appropriate language is not only about political correctness and respect, but also about accepting the diverse realities that exist instead of trying to put a label on everything.
Posted by: bandstand at 11/08/2005 12:12 PM
View all comments (15)
Add Your Comments!
We want to know what you think. Your comments are important to us and the other readers. You are what makes this site special.