LANGUAGE OF ADOPTION

 WE DO NOT CONDONE THE USE OF THE “BIRTH” TERMS SUCH AS “BIRTHMOTHER”

 
“The word "birthmother" is a derogatory, degrading and inhumane term which was devised by adoption professionals to relegate a natural mother to a biological incubator for adoptive parents and further to imply that the sacred bond of mother and child ends at birth in order to facilitate and further the adoption agenda .”

 
“Language is powerful. It is a tool of oppression. Groups that control the lexicon (words people use) can control a society’s thinking subversively”

Before the term “birthmother was coined, a mother who had given birth to a child was called that child’s natural mother. It was accepted that the mother was a mother by the laws of nature. The myth that adoption was any sort of “ancient” or “natural” act was not as prevalent as today. The truth, that child legal adoption is a modern legal convention was not hidden or forgotten. It was accepted that mothers who had lost children to adoption still had an emotional, familial, and social connection to their child and there was no attempt to hide this fact.

Upon investigation, it was learned that in the early 1970’s U.S. social workers colluded to define adoption terms that would be “palatable” to their adopting clients. Those who were adopting children no longer wanted to use the original term “natural mother” which had been in use for decades and was widely accepted. The use of the term “Natural Mother “ created problems for adopters and the adoption industry because:

1.    It indicated a respect for the mother’s true relationship to her child – she could not be written off as the “convenient slut” whose only value was reproduction.

2.    It recognized that the sacred mother/child relationship extended past birth and even past surrender, and

3.   It implied that the adoptive mother’s relationship to the child was unnatural.1

 It was not in the interests of the adoption industry for adoption to be considered unnatural . Those who were adopting children felt uncomfortable with the term “natural mother “ or “real mother” as it implied that their children had a family who cared for them somewhere else. They did not want to be reminded of that fact, and social workers wanted to reassure adopters that they would be the “only mother” of the child. Adopters were promised that the child would be “theirs” that “no one will ever come for the child” “the real mother will not be able to find the child”, this is “your child and no one else’s”, this child was “born in your heart”. Calling a natural mother by her true name was intimidating and threatening to adopters. The “natural mother” had to be destroyed.

The work of Marietta Spencer, (a Social Worker at the Childrens Home of Minnesota St. Paul and Co-Director of the Adoption Builds Families Project) became the model for the adoption language in use today. Her work strongly supported the use of the term “Birth” for mothers, fathers, sisters, and any other relatives of a child who was being adopted.

The adoption industry responded quickly and began to use the terms “Birthmother”, “Birthfather” etc. These terms were meant to assign the mother’s relationship with her child to that of simply giving birth, ending at that point, relegating her role to that of a biological event . In Marietta Spencer’s work she applauds any term that implies only a biological tie. “Birthmother”, “ Bio-Mother” are terms embraced by the study.

The adoption industry not only adopted these terms but went further and called the new language “Respectful Adoption Language”. However these terms were devised to be respectful to adopters only, and disrespectful to natural families, and in particular to natural mothers.

As a bonus, the new term psychologically destroyed the “natural mother”. This destruction was necessary for those who adopted to feel secure and superior in taking these babies home. She was just the “birthmother” they were able to tell themselves. “It is just biological”, “Did anyone really care about the poor wee baby”, they were able to say. They became heroines and heroes in their own minds which helped them to conceal their own fertility inadequacies and live a kind of fantasy existence. This was entirely encouraged by the adoption industry as it created the climate for adopters to believe the lies they were being told and to see themselves as “rescuers” of a child who, in reality needed no rescue.

In addition, the term “Birthmother” or “The Women Who Gave Birth to You” was suggested as being useful in explaining birth to a young adopted child; and in so doing became part of the psychological warfare used on our children to further separate and break the sacred mother/child bond.

This new language not only psychologically destroyed the very existence of the natural mother, but also in today’s world ties well into the psychological warfare used on “unwed mothers” for adoption coercion. By calling young women “Birthmothers” BEFORE birth, a new weapon is in hand. Websites promoting “Birthmother Packages” are now the norm in the United States. These packages offer everything from all expense paid trips to designer maternity wear.   There are adoption websites calling out to “Birthmothers” to choose families for their children by reading “Letter to a Birthmother” from prospective adopters. These young vulnerable women begin to think of themselves as “Birthmothers” before they have even held their own babies in their arms. Their natural instincts of motherhood begin to be suppressed. The adopters are now in the delivery room “delivering” the babies of these mothers through this monstrous method of defining the mother as a “birthmother” before birth. This term becomes a cog in the wheel of modern psychological coercion which continues in our modern world to be derived to break the bond between mother and child in addition to keeping babies away from their mothers in delivery rooms, sealing original birth certificates, changing children’s identities etc.

This term, which is being widely used by society, and even by mothers themselves (who do not know or understand the true origins ) is akin to many other words which we do not use in society today. The difference is, that groups have rallied together and fought against inappropriate terms applied to them by society, and have had new terms applied to their status which are acceptable TO THEM. For example, terms such as African American, Disabled, Challenged, Little People, or First Nations are new terms which replaced others that were inappropriate, degrading, and disparaging for those groups. Society acted appropriately to change these terms as any term applied to a specific group should be appropriate to THE GROUP THEMSELVES, otherwise it becomes disrespectful. Specific groups in society should have self determination with respect to any term applied to them.

Once we understand how and why the term “Birthmother” was applied to us, and how it is used today to coerce young vulnerable women, it becomes impossible for us as a group to embrace this term in any way.

The thousands upon thousands of adopted people in the world who are searching for their families are a testament to the miraculous bond between mother and child which extends forever, beyond birth, beyond relinquishment, beyond all adversity.

 These grown children are not merely “curious” as some would have them believe, although many feel ashamed to tell their true intentions to Adopted Parents for fear of another abandonment, or fear of betraying those who raised them. Many also, who were conditioned to think of their Natural Mother as “The woman who gave birth to you” have different feelings, and reunions can be very difficult and sometimes unsuccessful because of this.