First thing this morning. Slap. Hello. There it is again. I was reading the light and fluffy "Personality Parade" in Parade magazine when I stumbled upon this sentence ... "Burt (Reynolds) even named his adopted son, Quinton after..."
It's such a simple word - adopted - yet it packs a powerful punch. Why, I wonder, do reporters always feel the need to single out a child as adopted? Why can't they simply say son, daughter or child? Why the need to qualify?
And speaking of qualifying, how come no one ever says, Tom and Barbara's fertility-drug-induced daughter, or so-and-so's sperm-donated son? How about Lacey's surrogate-carried sister? Or the Buckley's sex-in-the-back-seat-finally-got-them-pregnant twins. Silly, huh? Your child is your child is your child. Unless, apparently, he or she is adopted. Then we slap on the labels, the explanations, the qualifiers.
I'm soon (how I hope it's soon!) to be a parent. Yes, the path to our child is through the world of adoption, so yes, he or she will be adopted. But that's such a small slice of the pie. So why is it the piece always served by the media?
Posts
It’s so silly that people find the need to label children as adopted. I think ignorance is the only (albeit weak!) explanation! Being a new mom of adopted twin boys we get so many ooos and ahhhs when we go out since we’re quite the spectacle; women always commenting about how great I look after giving birth to twins and how much they look like us – sometimes I clarify the situation, sometimes I just say “thank you!” and get on with my day. I guess my point is, adoption was the path to completing our family but it doesn't DEFINE our children. As you pointed out: your kid is your kid! Aside from the fact that I think of their birthmother (and am eternally grateful and awed by her courage) and her family often, I might forget altogether how they came into our family. I love them so much and can’t imagine feeling any differently about a biological child.
ReplyDelete