[SchmennaLeigh]

Suzie; natural mom comes from the old legal terminology. Some states still use it in the adoption paperwork. Not saying I use just saying where it originated.

[kakuehl]

Frankly, all titles are a problem depending on individual points of view. All of them can have positives or negatives depending on our own experiences. I tend to use birthmom as a mater of convenience and for idenification purposes. If I define mother as the one who gave D life by nuturing him in my uterus and giving birth, that's me. If I define mother as the woman who raised D, that is S. D is and always will be my firstborn son. Genetically, physically, he is flesh of my flesh; nothing can change that. S, however, is is mother. I cannot change that; nor do I want to. It does make titles very complicated, for me however.

Someone talked about ways to make adoption win-win. I honestly don't believe that is possible. While I still believe (36 years later) that I made the best decision for D, that doesn't mean my life was not affected a great deal. I don't think that even open adoption removes the pain of having your child raised by someone else. It's funny, what hurts the most today is having D's children call me "Miss Kathy".

[RobinKay]

I have a problem with "firstmother". It seems to indicate that there might be a "second mother". I am not the "second mother". I am the mother of all three of my sons.

My youngest also has his "birthmother" the woman who gave birth to him. Now that is her connection to him, the only connection. Someday maybe they will be friends also, but there is no mother-child bond/relationship anymore.

Same feelings for "firstfather" vs. "birthfather".

[Vogi2002]

Originally Posted by RobinKay

My youngest also has his "birthmother" the woman who gave birth to him. Now that is her connection to him, the only connection. Someday maybe they will be friends also, but there is no mother-child bond/relationship anymore.

Well my thoughts are that if your child's birthmother made the responsible decision to place him or her with a loving family, well then yes they were the first mother in his or her life, and you are now the second. Does that mean we are second best? Heck no...it's just an order.

Also - I will say that I do not know your child's story, but to say there is and never will be a mother-child bond is way harsh. I mean I KNOW my son will always have a certain bond with his birthmother that I will (nor will WANT) to replace. Thier bond is thiers, it doesn't mean he won't bond with me either, it just means he has a bond with her that is special to them.

It's like having two kids...you bond with both, and your bond is different...but the same. KWIM?

I do personally despise natural mother...only because it does make me feel less than natural....like that is the mother they were SUPPOSED to have...and while (naturally - nature - speaking) that may be so...I have a strong faith that my kids were MEANT to be my kids.

I also don't like REAL mom but alas most of the world uses that so I can't get upset. Most of them aren't intentional.

[vegaschristina]

I guess my issue with the birthmom/natural mom/biological mom thing comes from a different perspective...of a foster adoptive mom.

My kids' birthmom did not make a loving decision to place. She did not make a loving environment for the 9 months of gestation, and she did not choose a family to give her children the things she could not. Instead, she choose to do drugs and provide an unfit environment for them such that she had her rights terminated for her oldest and only relinquished rights on the younger 2 when she was in court for the TPR trial.

She is genetically 1/2 of my kids, and she did give them birth so biological or birth mother fits, but there is a huge difference between a mother and a mom. I am a mom, she is a biological mother or a birth mother. IMHO, mom is a title that has to be earned, and not by simply being able to procreate.

[millie58]

I agree about the term of the use "real". my 2 oldest boys used it, saying I wasn't their "real" mom. I then said "fake" moms don't buy treats. the term "natural" also conjures up "unnatural". I use biological and adoptive; they don't have the same negative consequences. IMHO

[questioning]

We have been told (by social workers and adoptive parents) that "first mother" is better avoided as a term to use with children, not because of the implication that "first" is better than "second" but because children may think this means having had a "first" and now a "second" set of parents they may go on to have several more sets of parents. It's likened to saying that birth parents "gave them away/up" - who's to say that their current parents may not do the same thing.

I tend to think of "birth mother" as shorthand for "mother who carried a child and gave birth to them" which is echoed in the explanation that is normally given to children "your mother that carried you in her tummy and gave birth to you" or "tummy mummy" - however cheesy or irritating you may find the latter it explains it well for a small child, it's an explanation of the whole time the child was with their birth mother, not just the "giving birth" part.

Incidentally I know of a few adults who are not adopted but still refer to their biological father as "biological" or "birth" father or even "genetic" father (or even "sperm donor") as they were raised by a stepfather. I'm not about to use any of those terms myself but I can see where adopted adults might want to.

[Roosmama]

The problem with the term "birth mother" is that it is offensive to many women who have chosen adoption for their children. Some women feel that it cheapens their role in the triad. Do a Google search on the term, and you'll see what I mean. Personally, I believe terminology is all in what we make of it. But for the same reason that I don't like and won't use the label "natural mother," I respect that DS's biological mother doesn't want to be called his "birth mother." She is his first mother, and I am his forever mother (not second mother). It's an important distinction. We also use the term biological because that is technically correct and is also the only term we use to discuss his biological father. (A father does not give birth.)

Ultimately, it's about respecting the other members of the triad. Adoption is a very positive choice for women facing an unplanned pregnancy. As adoptive parents, we should do whatever we can to promote it as such. If that requires changing the terminology, then so be it.

[manni28]

I respect that DS's biological mother doesn't want to be called his "birth mother." She is his first mother, and I am his forever mother (not second mother). It's an important distinction

.


Roosmama;

I like the term "forever mother', it's cute.

-Manni

[Hadley2]

I think it's terribly ironic that "natural" mother (which I don't like, anyway) was ditched, as I remember, not out of respect for all those "unnatural" adoptive moms, not at all as I recall, but out of respect for the placing parent.

As I understood it years ago, "natural" was deemed offensive because it conjures visions of uneducated, stupid, poor, bare-foot, rag-clad peasant pregnant women gestating for the well-to-do. Not much better than breeding cattle. It was offensive to placing mothers.

In fact, in social discourse, the adjectives "natural" and "native" applied to people came to be regarded as offensive and in some cases racist/classist in general, with a connotation of sub-human qualities.

"Birth" was chosen because, at the time and apparently not so much today, people felt the word valued the totality of conception, gestation/nurturing, and birth. "Birth" was a more relational, more socially neutral way to describe the relationship and had a nobler connotation.

Open adoption aspects of the relationship were not a part of the equation.

Titles do matter. Language, generally (not for every individual person), matters. Our language embodies our world view. That is, in large part, what makes language language and not just representational sound. Certain words and titles are more important than others--they are the landmarks by which we navigate in society and the world. So I don't think anyone should be dismissed for taking language to heart.

We don't have, in English, a word that means placing or entrusting parent or a parent that has placed or entrusted and is no longer a parent. We don't have, in English, a word that means a parent that has placed/entrusted and remains in the child's life and is no longer a parent. I don't know if any other language has words for those things but I doubt it.

Personally, I think any phrase anyone comes up with, will, over time, be found to be lacking or packing for somebody because the situation, for so many (not all) placing parents and perhaps parents as well, just will never be entirely comfortable or satisfactory.

Maybe, ultimately, our adoption model just doesn't fit the real world experience of most people and we should stop trying to act as if it "should be" the standard for everyone. Certainly, the model is changing and I think the effect of that shifting ground and not having clear language about it are two things that causes as lot of the turmoil we see on these boards. I don't know.

But as for the comeback of "natural," I am kind of shocked that a parent that has placed/entrusted would want the title that I've been taught and do feel is offensive to everyone.