[charles2004]

Did anyone see Dr Phil today!
He had a couple on that the girlfriend paid more attention to her dogs then her own boyfriend. Dr Phil asked about children and then said "You wouldn't spend more time with your dogs then your BIOLOGICAL child would you?"

Why did he have to use the word BIOLOGICAL, does it matter if the child is Biological?

Am I just too sensitive? Or was this rude?

Tam

[anifish]

no you are not, this was not a appropriate use of this word. yes shame on him. andi

[myccg2004]

Not that I am trying to defend Dr Phil because I really can't stand his tactics but, I honestly think he was just trying to make a point to this woman by using an extreme example. It definitely should not matter whether the child is adopted or not. IMHO, Once adopted, the word adopted should never again be used to describe a child. They are just our children, period. I think he was just dumbfounded by this woman's thinking and tried to get her to snap out of it.

[kretzklan]

I'm thinking that perhaps he was trying to say that her dog is her "baby"...but comparing it to a human baby. Obviously there is ignorance about adoption versus biology...just a thought!

[maddensmom]

I don't know about this one...
I really have a problem with people making a distinction like that. I agree that it need never be used after an adoption occurs. A long time ago I saw Marie Osmond on a talk show and it was so sweet when they asked her how many children were ciological and how many were adopted. She simply said she had not a clue. They were just all her kids. Why do some people continue to need to label kids one thing or another?
More of my problem with this comes form my own experience with this kind of thing as an adopted child. My son and I are not to this point. I admittedly am a bit afraid of my reaction when faced with this kind of thing and him...

[EJsDad]

While I can certainly understand that most adoptive parents have a particular sensitivity for distinctions such as the one that Dr. Phil made, in this case, he was clearly making a point that a dog (canine - not even related to this person) was more important that a child (biological - related). While *I* wouldn't have used that adjective in making the point, MOST people would - not to offend adoptive parents or to imply that adoptive children aren't "real" - simply because that is a common use of terminology for discussion.

I was super sensitive when we first adopted our son 4 years ago, but, now I brush it off when it's clear that it's just a common form of usage. We have to learn to pick our battles, I think. If you watch Dr. Phil regularly, you would know that he is definitely pro-adoption and indeed recognizes that an adoptive child is equal to a biological one.



Robert

[kllee4]

I saw it too and felt that he was making the distinction of biological child versus canine child, since most people look at their pets as their children. Maybe he should've used the term human child or furless child or something similar.

[Newsie]

Ugh...Dr Phil.

He'll do anything and say anything for the ratings...."therapist"...HA!

[votemom]

i find him incredibly annoying (and arrogant). never watch. but it doesn't seem like the word was necessary.

[DebiP]

I try not to let the verbage that uneducated people use bother me unless it is directed at my son or myself. Then you had better watch out. I too pick my battles. I am NOT a Dr.Phil viewer but have heard he speaks very positive about adoption. JMHO