What not to say about adoption
Guest post by Susie Allen, Pro-Life in TN
Statistics tell us that 50-55% of teens experiencing unplanned pregnancies choose single parenting, 30-35% choose abortion, and less than 1% choose to place their children for adoption.
These statistics are disturbing. What if we could reverse the statistics of abortion and adoption? With two million couples waiting to adopt, why doesn’t adoption seem to be an option on the radar screen of parents experiencing unplanned pregnancies?
One reason appears to be that even in well-written articles, adoption is framed in outdated and negative language. Even some professionals who deal with teens have an inaccurate view of adoption, perpetuated by made-for-TV movies showing adoption as it was in the 1970’s. Today, options aren’t so limited, with open, semi-open, and confidential adoptions.
The nonprofit educational outreach, Decisions, Choices and Options was founded by Tennessee teacher and mother Joi Wasill, with the goal of correcting inaccuracies surrounding adoption. The group offers a copyrighted curriculum now being presented in eight states by 52 trained agencies. Since its inception, this program has reached 55,000 high school students.
From the group’s website, some ideas of correct adoption language (click to enlarge):
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Adoption?
It’s gonna be a long day.
We are all adopted into the family of God through Jesus. Adoption is not a bad word. Adoption is not shameful. Birth mothers who choose adoptions are not selfish and unloving. Putting the interest of others ahead of your emotions is not selfish.
What is bad is that the options today are..abortion or parent. I know Denise Noe will go ballistic but adoption is a good option and to think that it is portrayed incorrectly and so many couples wait to adopt is a tragedy.
I recently had an experience in a PRC doing an intake with a woman pregnant for the third time. She choose parenting the first two times. When I told her she was in the drivers seat about her choice she needed to hear all the options in an accurate manner. Abortion, thankfully, was already off the table for her. So I told her about open, semi open and confidential adoption. She leaned forward and whispered to me that she really wanted to consider adoption this time but she did not want to bear the stigma of a being a birth mom who choose adoption.
Cortnay, why do you say that? Is there an unconscious bias against adoption?
Courtnay, are you just waiting for Denise Noe to show up? I am too.
As an adoptive mom three times over (plus a fourth biological child), this issue is really important to me. Please read the list of Positive Adoption Language and make the effort to use the positive options in your conversations. In particular, people need to know that no one is “giving up” or “putting up” a baby–they are “making an adoption plan”. Pro-lifers, I’m looking at you. I read/hear this all the time. Placement is a pro-active, responsible, selfless decision and we need to respect it with our language.
I also think that all people need to understand the difference between “waiting child” adoption and “voluntary placement” adoption. I’ve often read the pro-choice argument that mothers shouldn’t give their kids over to “the system” to live in a lifetime of foster care, so abortion is a better option. Obviously, there are already problems with this logic–life is always better than death. But, importantly, birthparents who make an adoption plan are never relinquishing their babies to “the system” because they have voluntarily terminated their rights. ”The system” is driven in disfunction in part because kids wait and wait–at least three years on average–for parental and relative rights to be terminated by the courts. Voluntary placement is not this way. Birthparents choose the parents and the baby is placed with the parents right away. There is no “the system”.
EMH, you have it right. I love it Placement is a pro active, responsible, selfless decision and we need to respect it in our language.
Better off dead than adopted??? Are you kidding me????
Yes, pro lifers we are looking at you. I was just on a conference call this AM and the girl said I got pregnant as a teen and it was either abortion or parent. No one even talks about adoption.
Here’s an interesting article by a first mother addressing the proposed language:
http://www.firstmotherforum.com/p/positive-adoption-language.html
While adoption is certainly better than abortion for the children, we can’t act like it’s a great solution for women.
“If you are an adoptive parent reading this blog, do I have your attention yet? I’ve used words that adoptive parents recoil from: gave up, daughter without modifiers, and though you may be thinking, birth mother, I avoid the use of the term whenever possible. Women who relinquished their children are not having the same negative reaction to my choice of words.”
”The system” is driven in disfunction in part because kids wait and wait–at least three years on average–for parental and relative rights to be terminated by the courts.
Thank you so much for saying this. I am tired of hearing people tell me that if I do not adopt all the children out of foster care that I’m not allowed to be pro-life. The truth is, in my state, even being a foster parent has an age limit, adopting a child who’s been in foster care is extremely problematic not only because I’m 8 years over the age limit for that, but also BECAUSE the parent(s) still have rights. Meanwhile, as you well know, the kids get older and their problems don’t get easier as they age.
Ok, it’s just me personally, but I am so very sick of being told that I can’t oppose abortion unless I adopt multiple children.
clair_b, thanks, that was my thought. This post seems to be focused on what adoptive parents want to hear. Most of the natural mothers I have talked prefer “first mother”, “natural mother”, or just “mother” with no qualifiers. They think that “birth mother” is acting like the connection to their child was severed at birth, when that’s not true. From the article clair_b posted:
“The most toxic “preferred” term of all is make an adoption plan. Is someone who falls off an ocean liner and then thrown a life saver “making a plan” as she swims to it? Or is she just doing what she must to save her life? If I can make an adoption plan, certainly I am able to rationally weighing various options, and have the resources to make an alternative plan. My social worker at the time of relinquishment may have been “making an adoption plan” but I was drowning in a sea of shame and societal mindset that all pointed one way: Give up your daughter. Give her a good life, better than anything you can provide. She needs two parents, not one. Et cetera. Indeed, I was giving up. For the vast majority of us most of us, even today, that is the reality of relinquishing a child to be someone else’s. ”
And I am seriously opposed to making closed adoption more palatable. It should be rare, and open adoptions should be legally enforceable at the mother’s request. It’s seriously not to be offensive to adoptive parents, but you can’t deny that it’s preferable that children stay with their biological families if at all possible.
I feel like Denise is apparently skipping this thread so I should channel her lol.
If adoption was all fluffy bunnies and kittens, it would be called fluffy bunnies and kittens. It’s not. While we, as prolifers, need to encourage women not to abort, we do need to be upfront about possible pitfalls of adoption. It’s not the perfect solution.
And Jack, I agree- closed adoption should be super rare.
“Most of the natural mothers I have talked prefer “first mother”, “natural mother”, or just “mother” with no qualifiers.”
First mother I have no problem with. Natural mother irritates me, because it implies that the child’s adoptive parents (who the child will think of as mom and dad) are somehow unnatural. Mother without qualifiers is just confusing (and insulting unless she also refers to her child’s adoptive mother as “mother” without qualifiers). Ultimately I think the terms are descriptive and I have no problem with any term that gives an accurate description (birth mother, biological mother, first mother etc.). On the same end I have no problem with “adoptive mother” when a differentiation or description is needed (though obviously the family would not use these descriptions amongst themselves).
“I am seriously opposed to making closed adoption more palatable.It should be rare, and open adoptions should be legally enforceable at the mother’s request.”
Here we need to be careful. I agree that at least semi-open adoptions are almost always better, but when granting any rights to a relationship that has been legally severed, you have to make sure that the child’s interests are taken into account first. It could very quickly put the child in a position of being in a permanent custody battle (actual custody would not be at stake, but there are many similarities – enforcing visitation, changing agreed upon terms down the road, constantly being in court). People tend to view this as adoptive parents being the bad guys to poor birth parents, but it’s not always the case. There are birth parents who would definitely try to take advantage of any sort of legally enforcable relationship. I’ve seen open adoptions (fully open) work beautifully, but not every situation is the same. I just think we need to be very careful with this one.
“It’s seriously not to be offensive to adoptive parents, but you can’t deny that it’s preferable that children stay with their biological families if at all possible.”
Of course that would be ideal. But as we know it’s not always possible. Given the reality that they are relinquishing their child to another family, we need to make sure we create laws that provide stability for that child first and foremost.
As for the language, I think we need to have postitve, but honest language that puts the needs and feelings of the child first. The parents’ (all of them) feelings are secondary to that.
I should clarify that I have no problem with a biological mom referring to herself as natural mother or “mother” without qualifies or even other people using those terms. I meant it in the context of advocating it to be the standard when discussing adoption or for adoptive parents to use. For that purpose, I reject any effort to use those terms exclusively or even predominantly for the reasons I mentioned above.
” First mother I have no problem with. Natural mother irritates me, because it implies that the child’s adoptive parents (who the child will think of as mom and dad) are somehow unnatural. Mother without qualifiers is just confusing (and insulting unless she also refers to her child’s adoptive mother as “mother” without qualifiers). Ultimately I think the terms are descriptive and I have no problem with any term that gives an accurate description (birth mother, biological mother, first mother etc.). On the same end I have no problem with “adoptive mother” when a differentiation or description is needed (though obviously the family would not use these descriptions amongst themselves).”
Descriptive terms are fine. It’s just that I’m not going to use language that someone tells me hurts them around them. Actually the only term I dislike completely is birth mother, because like I said it seems to imply that her relationship to the child ended at birth, when pretty much every mother who relinquished that I have talked to never stopped feeling like a mother to her baby in some way. I would just use parent or adoptive parent to refer to the adoptive family, depending on the situation (obviously if you are talking about the bio family and adoptive family you have to differentiate).
” Here we need to be careful. I agree that at least semi-open adoptions are almost always better, but when granting any rights to a relationship that has been legally severed, you have to make sure that the child’s interests are taken into account first. It could very quickly put the child in a position of being in a permanent custody battle (actual custody would not be at stake, but there are many similarities – enforcing visitation, changing agreed upon terms down the road, constantly being in court). People tend to view this as adoptive parents being the bad guys to poor birth parents, but it’s not always the case. There are birth parents who would definitely try to take advantage of any sort of legally enforcable relationship. I’ve seen open adoptions (fully open) work beautifully, but not every situation is the same. I just think we need to be very careful with this one.”
Well, you and I have gone around with stuff like this before, I do have difficulty having sympathy for the adoptive family’s point of view. I am trying to work on that and be more fair though.
Of course there are situations where closed adoptions might be necessary, especially when a child was removed from a parent’s custody rather than the parent willingly relinquishing custody. I just don’t see a problem with legally enforcing semi or fully open adoptions, as long as the terms are clear and immutable. There could be a time limit, say no terms could be changed six months after the child is placed or something similar. As it stands now, adoptive parents can lie, pretend that they are going to do this and that, and then move or change their phone number and the first mom has no legal option to make them abide by their word. I mean, they are raising her child, and if she only gave the child to them on the reassurance she could visit once a month or whatever, then that should be legally enforceable.
” Of course that would be ideal. But as we know it’s not always possible. Given the reality that they are relinquishing their child to another family, we need to make sure we create laws that provide stability for that child first and foremost.”
Considering how many adoptees I have met who have resentment and issues about the adoption and about information on their birth parents being denied to them, I don’t think that open adoptions or the like can hurt there.
” As for the language, I think we need to have postitve, but honest language that puts the needs and feelings of the child first. The parents’ (all of them) feelings are secondary to that.”
That’s true. When you’re talking to the kids or in general. If I’m talking to the first moms, though, I’m not gonna be all “Um, excuse me, don’t use the term natural mother plzthnks”.
I think of two birth mothers. One who got pregnant in college. She came from a married mother /father family and had a wonderful upbringing. She wanted the same for her son so she choose a semi open adoption. Anther friend was raised by a single mother and had a tumultuous upbringing and eventually ended up being raised by her elderly grandparents. When she got pregnant as a senior in high school, she wanted her child to have a different upbringing than her. She choose an open adoption. So both birth mothers made a brave and selfless choice for two different reasons…one wanted for her son the upbringing she had and the other wanted a better life for her son than she had being raised by a single mom.
Instead of being stigmatized these women should not have to put up with the rude comments about her values. Both of these women love their child in a way that cannot be expressed.
As to the terms birth mother…there is nothing wrong with that….raising a child following birth is the real challenge. Bio mother or birth mother is not a bad term. But natural or real mother is totally inaccurate.
Positive adoption language is not for the benefit of the family blessed by the adoption. It is most of all for the benefit of the child and the mother making the adoption plan. No stigma to the mother making an adoption plan and most of all not the child was was adopted…an event and not a lifestyle. But most of all look at those stats….of pregnant teens less than 1% choose adoption.
Just today a young lady told me about getting pregnant as a teen. There was parenting and abortion. No one even speaks about adoption. If we are pro life how can we not want to change those two numbers around. Please don’t give me better off dead than adopted.
” As to the terms birth mother…there is nothing wrong with that….raising a child following birth is the real challenge. Bio mother or birth mother is not a bad term. But natural or real mother is totally inaccurate.”
Natural mother as in “this is the biological (biology is ‘natural’) mother”. It’s not inaccurate. Real mother is rude, both mothers are “real”. I’m just not going to call women birth mothers who have told me the term hurts them. I suppose some of them are fine with the term, but the few I know don’t like it.
” Just today a young lady told me about getting pregnant as a teen. There was parenting and abortion. No one even speaks about adoption. If we are pro life how can we not want to change those two numbers around. Please don’t give me better off dead than adopted.”
Because some of us don’t see adoption as an awesome thing. It has drawbacks. If anything I would like to reduce teen pregnancy, not make more adoptions happen. I would like to see no abortion, sure, but I don’t see the amount of babies being adopted increasing all that much even if abortion does dramatically decrease. The numbers are low for a reason. Adoption is a difficult thing, all the positive language in the world isn’t going to change that people tend to be attached to their biological children and the vast majority of people aren’t going to be able to choose adoption. I think that banning abortion and encouraging legally enforceable open adoption might increase the numbers slightly, but generally it’s not going to be what people choose.
I don’t think adoption is “bad”. It’s problematic, but infinitely preferable to abortion. What I really want to see is a dramatic decrease in teen pregnancy (a decrease in unwanted pregnancy overall, actually), and support for those who want to keep their babies but don’t know how they can manage. Adoption should be there as a fallback when the mother just can’t/doesn’t want to parent, not encouraged. And people should be honest about it’s drawbacks.
“Well, you and I have gone around with stuff like this before, I do have difficulty having sympathy for the adoptive family’s point of view. I am trying to work on that and be more fair though.”
Fair enough.
“Of course there are situations where closed adoptions might be necessary”
Maybe I wasn’t clear, but I am not advocating for closed adoptions at all. I think semi open or open are better for all involved especially the child. (except in rare cases).
“I just don’t see a problem with legally enforcing semi or fully open adoptions, as long as the terms are clear and immutable. There could be a time limit, say no terms could be changed six months after the child is placed or something similar. As it stands now, adoptive parents can lie, pretend that they are going to do this and that, and then move or change their phone number and the first mom has no legal option to make them abide by their word.”
I think these are good protections (established terms, limit on changes). I am totally against the adoptive parents who lie and say whatever they think the biological mom wants to hear without any intention of following through. So wrong. However, I’m also cognizant of people who went into open adoptions with the highest of hopes and had to make a decision to alter the terms due to instabilities with birth parents. When setting terms for these adoptions, you’re doing so with people you barely know. There needs to be a balance, but I’m just not sure I want to create a situation where the child gets caught in a pseudo custody battle over terms.
“I mean, they are raising her child,”
I get why you’re saying it, but that’s actually more hurtful to the child who was adopted. I know there are exceptions, but adopted kids don’t go around saying, “these people are raising me for my mom.” They are the child’s parents.
“and if she only gave the child to them on the reassurance she could visit once a month or whatever, then that should be legally enforceable.”
Unless it’s not in the child’s best interest that she visit. Some biological mothers would have lost there parental rights down the line. Some have had their rights involuntarily terminated for other children. Some people change over time. It’s not always easy to know what kind of person you’re dealing with over the course of a few months of pregnancy and after birth. So then we end up with the pseudo custody disputes again. Maybe that’s the right balance? But I keep coming back to the fact that the biological mom DID give up her right to make decisions about what is in the best interest of her child. I know the bond is still there…I know. I’m sure you can tell that I don’t have the answers, but I don’t think you’re capturing the whole picture.
“Considering how many adoptees I have met who have resentment and issues about the adoption and about information on their birth parents being denied to them, I don’t think that open adoptions or the like can hurt there.”
I advocate for information being given to the child. In fact, the needs of the child are my main concern.
“That’s true. When you’re talking to the kids or in general. If I’m talking to the first moms, though, I’m not gonna be all “Um, excuse me, don’t use the term natural mother plzthnks”.”
I wouldn’t either – see my second comment.
As to the “make an adoption plan” one, I know a couple who runs an adoption agency and they say they tend to use “place for adoption.” Which I think might solve some of the problems of “adoption plan” and steers away from the obviously problematic “gave up/put up.” It’s an active term, so it gives agency to the birth/first parents, and it’s not fraught with extra connotations.
In general, I like the newer, more positive terminology better because it is more respectful. However, it all boils down to what terms do the parties in the adoption triad prefer to use for themselves. One person may choose to describe herself as the birthmother; others may want to say first mother, or biological mother. Whatever, it is her decision to make for herself, and everyone else needs to respect that. Just as families call their grandmothers by different names from Nana to Maw.
My adoptive parents were Mom and Dad. I only use the word adoptive when I needed to clarify the relationship to an outsider like my doctor. I refer to my birthparents by their first names. It is easier. It has how we relate to each other since reuniting as adults. They are not my parents psychologically. However after reuniting I learned I had a bunch of other relatives. Birth-sister, birth-brother, birth-grandparent, birth-aunt, and birth-uncle felt awkward, so I just say sister, brother, grandma, grandpa, aunt, and uncle.
As for abortion supporters who chastise pro-lifers for not having adopted or fostered one more children, I offer these responses. 1) An ad hominem attack on me is your attempt to deflect the conversation from the gruesome reality of abortion. It won’t work, and it does not change the fact of what abortion is. 2) This conversation is not about me personally or living up to some arbitrary standard set by you; it is about abortion. 3) I would be happy to foster/adopt any child an abortion minded mother would choose to place with me. 4) Two million couples are waiting to adopt; I do not need to be in competition with an infertile couple. 5) I have not yet been fortunate to enjoy that experience.
Joanne thank you for your comments. As a daughter by adoption you articulate the issue well. This is not about making adoptive parents feel better. This is about not stigmatizing the woman who chooses adoption, the child who is the fruit of that choice.
I have many friends who are parents by adoption. It really frustrates them when they say the child is lucky, the adoptive parents are wonderful but oh that mean and selfish birth mother. NO…she is loving, brave and selfless. How many times do we make a decision that is personally hard on us. We usually make a decision that puts us first.
I have said it before as a grandmother by adoption. We are the lucky ones and I bless the mother who choose life when she could have easily aborted at any stage on the dime of the govt. I hope we can meet her someday but it seems unlikely.
Would adoption be more popular if a clause was put in the adoption agreement stipulating that the adoptive parents had to hire the birthmother as nanny or babysitter?
I knew you couldn’t stay away from this post, Denise. :)
JDC says:
March 17, 2013 at 8:25 pm
I knew you couldn’t stay away from this post, Denise.
(Denise) I’m asking a question. I said nothing about adoption’s statistical links to certain types of homicides.
“I’m asking a question. I said nothing about adoption’s statistical links to certain types of homicides.”
Fair enough, I wasn’t objecting, just noting.