That got put on hold after reading something that was posted on the wall of the Instinctual Mamas Facebook page. It was something I first read yesterday and it really upset and offended me. I made the mistake of looking at it again today and just could not hold back. I left a brief comment on the wall addressing it but there was so much more I wanted to say. I share IM with 3 other mamas though and didn't want to risk bringing drama to the page. I decided to post here instead that way if drama followed it was only directed at me and not to all the other mamas on IM.
So, I am sure you are wondering, what did I let get me all hot and bothered? What has my panties in a twist? It was an article posted about adoptions. As most of you know, Karma is adopted (and if you didn't know, now you do). I have been meaning to write out her adoption story and contemplated for a brief second using this blog post as a means to do that. I decided not to because her adoption story is a beautiful story filled with love and I did not want to taint it with negativity. I promise I will write it all out soon, for the purpose of this post I will just share a few important details.
What's so wrong with an article about adoption? It was the manor and tone in which the article was written that upset me so much. You can read the full post here. Go ahead, click on the link, read it. I will wait for you to come back................
are you still reading it??
is it making you angry yet??
|Karma's Adoption Day, one of the happiest days ever!|
Sariah was cooking in my belly so even she was "there".
Perhaps I was offended by this because I am a mother who has adopted. The title should have tipped me off to the fact that this was something I should ignore and not read..... Adoption Advertising- Destroying Real Families. Hmmm, there's that pesky word.... REAL. What makes a REAL family, is it all about DNA or is it L-O-V-E? If you read the article then you know that obviously some people feel it's all about DNA and nothing else.
Does the fact that Karma's birth mother (oh yeah, I went there, I call her the birth mother!) is also Ted's sister make her adoption not "as bad" of a crime as in we did not "make an orphan" out of her because she at least shares DNA with Ted and our other 3 children?
What does that make me though, she shares no DNA with me. Am I just some outsider, some "sadistic woman" who "stole" a baby to fulfill my own needs?
We are not the "typical" adoptive family in that we can have our own biological children (obviously we have NO problems with this as we have "so many"! We are giving the Duggars a run for there money is what I often joke with others.). We are the same as every other adoptive family out there in the fact that we heard the need of a tiny helpless baby girl and we stepped up. We took her in and we love her just as much as the other 3 children. If anything I tend to favor her and let her get away with more because I am paranoid that she will grow up with a "I am adopted my parents love me less than their biological kids" syndrome. Articles like the one above do not help this paranoia.
Perhaps, in the eyes of the author of this article and those who share her view points I am not as bad as other "adoptive moms" because Karma's birth mother abused drugs during her pregnancy and therefore Karma was removed from her and put into foster care at birth. Maybe those of us adoptive parents who adopt through foster care are not as bad as those who do private adoptions. Do I agree with this, NO! I think all adoptions are beautiful. I am just speculating on what may be deemed as an "acceptable" form of adoption to people who share this viewpoint. Perhaps there is no acceptable form of adoption to them, perhaps in their eyes its better for kids to languish away in state care so that the rights of their "real families" are protected. Again pure speculation.
The contents of the aritcle itself is not what upset me so much as the tables containing the "Honest Language" and comparing it with "Biased Positive Adoption Language" or the "Language Promoting Artificial Families". That last statement should give you a taste of these tables but in case you didn't read the whole article I will give you a few examples that they list. Remember, these are the views of the author and not me, I am simply listing what they wrote. I am listing the ones that upset me the most, they all upset me though:
Honest, Unbiased Language- mother, natural mother, actual mother
Language Promoting Artificial Families-"birthmother" (incubator) , "bmom", "BM", "unwed" or "unmarried" mother
Honest, Unbiased Language- person looking for a baby to adopt/buy
Language Promoting Artificial Families- loving couple, parents, adoptive parents, real parents
Honest, Unbiased Language- is adopted (is legally related to adopters as in "is married")
Language Promoting Artificial Families- was adopted, joined the family through adoption (pretending the relatedness is natural, not legal. The naturally-related family members are dehumanized as "birth objects".)
Honest, Unbiased Language- person who has adopted, adopter
Language Promoting Artificial Families- mother, father, parent or "real mother", "real father", "real parents"
Honest, Unbiased Language- adoptive situation, adoptive family
Language Promoting Artificial Families- family, "real family"
I think anyone who has adopted, as well as adult children who were adopted, would be offended by these terms. Or at least I hope I am not alone in this. Calling a family Artificial because there is adoption involved is down right abusive and a form of bullying in my opinion. There is NOTHING artificial about my family!
Karma is my REAL child, I am her REAL Mama! End of story!
I am her MOTHER! I breastfeed her back to health (she was sick, withdrawing, diagnosed "failure to thrive" on a prescription formal and potentially set to have a feeding pump if she did not start to improve-you can read my full breastfeeding journey with her on my guest post on NPN here). I am the one who woke up with her and stayed up with her for hours at night when she was a tiny baby. I am the one who continued to have to get up with her every 2 hours until she was well over 1 because her brain thought she still needed to eat like a tiny baby due to the effects of the drugs. I am the one who comforts her when she is hurt, I am the one who takes care of her when she is sick. I am the one who teaches her, sings to her, plays with her, explores the wonders and mysteries of the world with her. I am the one who shares the love of Jesus and Heavenly Father with her. I am the one who looks into her beautiful brown eyes and wonders if I am doing enough, am I doing it right, who will she be when she grows up, will she understand. I love her, she is MY BABY! I am her MAMA!
DNA means nothing to me. It is just a complex scientific means to identify us, it does not define a family. Humans share more than 99% of identical DNA, its less than 1% that makes us individuals. So if your argument is that DNA is what matters one could argue we are all related, we are all 1 big family. Science does not make a family, LOVE makes a family!
I AM HER REAL MAMA! Ted is her REAL Daddy (her birth father is unknown). Teddy is her REAL brother. Kimmy and Saraih are her REAL sisters! Any other kids we may have in the future, whether by giving birth or through adoption (as we have not ruled out more adoption in the future) will be her REAL siblings too. It's just as simple as that!
WE ARE HER FAMILY. There is nothing artificial about us!
Karma's REAL mama,