Language of Adoption “BIRTH” Terms

WHY THE TERM ‘BIRTHMOTHER’ SHOULD NEVER BE USED

“The word “birthmother” is a derogatory, degrading, and inhumane term which was devised by adoption professionals to relegate a natural mother as 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 .”

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 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 Pearl S. Buck first used the term and then in the early 1970’s U.S. social workers followed when they 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:

It indicated a respect for the mother’s true relationship to her child – which was problematic for adoptive mothers.
It recognized that the sacred mother/child relationship extended past birth and even past surrender, and
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 “as if born to” 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 and 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 “birthmother” 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 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 fantasy they were being sold 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 today is used as psychological warfare on young pregnant women and youth for adoption coercion. By calling young pregnant woman a“Birthmother” 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. In Canada 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. They take on a role that is carved out for them by the Adoption Agenda. Their natural instincts of motherhood begin to be suppressed.

The adopters end up in delivery rooms “delivering” the babies of these mothers. The terms “Open Adoption”, and “Tummy Mummy” appear in modern vocabulary. All of these terms are a marketing tool used by the Adoption Agenda and become part of the overall marketing plan of modern psychological coercion which continues in our modern world to be derived to break the bond between mother and child and obtain babies for “deserving” infertile couples.

The term “birthmother”, which is being widely used by society, governments, 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 when these groups became active and strongly advised us that they were not acceptable. 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. This is not a term that we created for ourselves, this is a term that was created for us by the Adoption Agenda.

The thousands upon thousands of adopted people in the world who are searching for a mother for which they have no conscious memory are a testament to the miraculous bond between mother and child which extends forever, beyond birth, beyond relinquishment….we are Mothers.

It is time to abolish these “Birth” terms in our modern vocabulary.

Marietta Spencer is the author of the study which was embraced by all Social Agencies in the United States and Canada, and her terminology is now widely used and accepted as THE respectful adoption terminology.

“Choosing emotionally “correct “ words is especially important in Adoption transactions “ followed by an example validating the sole parenthood of adoptive parents after the adoption of a child, implying that ….no emotional or familial connection remains between members of the pre-existing family” Marietta Spencer (1979)

“It is essential to make sure that the language of adoption is understandable to the nonprofessional, and that attention to vocabulary is always in the interest of the persons involved in the adoption itself. “ Marietta Spencer (1979)

“Natural Parent”. This term, used primarily in legal contexts, implies that the adoptive parent is somehow unnatural, “artificial”. Marietta Spencer

Birthmother or Mother of Birth. These terms are useful in differentiating the biological process and the child rearing process. Marietta Spencer

Valerie Andrews 2009-07-11
“Why Birthmother Means Breeder” by Diane Turski)
Also with exerpts from Facebook post -Bryony Lake 2009-07-11