Why "Birthmother"
Means "Breeder"
by Diane Turski, Natural Mother
I
had never heard the term "birthmother" until I reunited
with my son. When the social worker who
located me referred to me as his "birthmother," my first
reaction was to instinctively recoil in distaste. What is a "birthmother?"
It occurred to me that perhaps she had merely applied this ridiculous
sounding term in an attempt at political correctness, so I ignored
it.
However, when my son's adoptive mother initiated her first contact
with me she referred to him as my "birthson." What is
a "birthson?" And what would a "birthfather"
be - I didn't know that fathers gave birth! In a "birthfamily"
are there also "birthsisters," "birthbrothers,"
"birthgrandparents," "birthaunts," "birthuncles,"
"birthcousins," "birthpets," etc?
It was then that
I began to suspect that these ridiculous "birth" terms were
not merely being applied in a benign attempt at political correctness.
Was it possible that the adoption industry intended to insult us by
applying these ridiculous labels to us? Is it possible that we mothers
have been so naive that we haven't yet realized their true intent?
Could it be that we are insulting ourselves every time that we apply
or allow others to apply these ridiculous terms to us?
Investigating,
I learned that U.S. social workers had collaborated about 30 years
ago to invent their own list of contrived terms to appease their adopting
clients. Adopters no longer wanted anyone to use the original term
"natural mothers." Why? Three reasons: 1) it indicated respect
for the mother's true relationship to her child - she could not be
written-off as a "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.
The
adoption industry didn't want adoption to be considered unnatural
- they could lose customers this way! After all, people were paying
good money for "a child of their own."
Adopters
didn't want a reminder that the child they were adopting still had
a loving parent somewhere else. After all, social workers had promised
them a child "as if born to."
So social workers responded by creating a list of ridiculous "birth"
terms meant to confine the mother's relationship with her child
to simply giving birth, ending at that point. In other words, "birthmother"
is simply a euphemism for "incubator" or "breeder."
Then,
social workers deliberately disguised their disrespectful intent
by calling it "Respectful Adoption Language." "Respectful"
to adoptive parents, who are now to be called "parents,"
as if the two natural parents no longer exist.
Deliberately
creating the term "birthmother" was a further attempt
to break the bond between mother and child; in addition to altering
birth records to indicate that adopters gave birth, sealing the
original birth certificate, and changing the child's identity with
a false adopted name. Adoption is built on lies and denials of truth,
so we mothers shouldn't be surprised that "Respectful Adoption
Language" is just another deceitful ploy.
However,
one truth that cannot be denied is the truth that thousands of mothers
and their lost children have found in reunion: that the deep spiritual/emotional
mother-child bond between them has never been broken, despite the
decades they were separated. That natural motherhood is forever,
that the relationship extended *past* birth. Adopters feeling threatened
by this sometimes try to pressure adoptees to end reunions: instead,
they should hold their brokers accountable for lying to them with
the "as if born to" sales-pitch.
Now
that we mothers have learned the truth about the invention of these
ridiculous "birth" terms, what should we do about it?
Do we really want to continue to disrespect ourselves and allow
the adoption industry to continue to disrespect us by applying and
allowing others to apply these terms to us?
Or should we insist on applying truly respectful language, such
as the term "natural mother," which is still used in other
countries who have not been as propagandized by the United States
adoption industry? I believe it is time for us mothers to defend
ourselves and our children from further insults and attacks.
 Diane
Turski is a mother who lost her newborn son to a sealed-record
adoption in 1968. Thirty years later they happily reunited
when he found her, proving that the mother/child bond can
never be broken. During those thirty years Diane, as a single
mother, had successfully raised her daughter while earning
an MBA degree and pursuing a business career. The reunion
triggered Diane's activism and her dedication to bringing
truth and social justice to other mothers of adoption loss.
Photo:
Diane and her son John at Santa Monica Pier.
"
... the tendency growing out of the demand for babies is to regard
unmarried mothers as breeding machines...(by people intent) upon
securing babies for quick adoptions." — Leontine Young,
Is Money Our Trouble? (paper presented at the National Conference
of Social Workers, Cleveland, 1953)
|
