So I subscribed to this magazine, "Adoptive Families." It has some very useful and interesting articles. It also has a couple things wrong with it, in my opinion. First, the following terms: "Forever Family" and "Tummy Mommy."

Oooh, it makes my skin crawl just typing it. I was adopted at a young age, just 3 or 4 months old. My parents did an excellent job educating me, at the proper ages, about what adoption meant - another lady gave birth to me, but because she was a teenager and not married, she couldn't raise me to have a good life. So she gave me up for adoption. My parents reinforced when I was little about what a hard decision it must have been for my birthparents, and how brave they must have been, and how they must have loved me very much to choose to let me grow up where I could have all the toys I wanted, and get an education, etc. We never had a special name for these people. Usually just "the lady who gave birth to me" and later, "birthmother."

Nowadays, they have special names. "Tummy Mommy" is the birthmother. That term just irritates me. But the other one - "Forever Family" - that's just wrong. My parents also pointed out that a Mom and Dad, and a family, are the people who are close to you and raise you. I believe that fundamentally. I may be blood-related to other people, but my family is the one I saw day after day, year after year, who shared my life.

The term "Forever Family" is supposed to soothe the adopted child and reassure them that THIS family isn't going to "give you up." Unlike that other family, who didn't want you. Those other people were temporary. Like there's a difference between the two groups. But birthparents aren't a family. There's no "temporary vs. forever" going on with an adopted child - if you remark on that, as an adopted child I would have wondered about another family who was doing the same things my family is, just without me! There is the family that is raising you. Period. No "forever" vs. "short-term". At least, a child shouldn't be led to think that.

A child is born to people who, for whatever reasons but usually economic, do not have the means to support the child. So they allow that child to go to a FAMILY who can. Not a "forever family." Ack.

There are 2 other things regarding phrase-ology of adoption that the Adoption Nazis hate. One is "giving up for adoption." As in, the child is not worthy. Oh please. Call it relinquished, abandoned, chose, transferred, placed.... the child is given up by one, so another can raise it. It's what I heard all my life, and I have not been emotionally scarred by this term.

The other is "adopt-a-" causes. As in, adopt-a-whale, adopt-a-building, whatever. People in this magazine actually claim that children get these terms confused - because it's marketing a temporary cause, then their own adoption may be temporary. They claim it also leads to adopted children being teased "are you a monkey too? It says to adopt an animal...". Oh, my gosh. I also grew up in the age of "adopt-everything" phrases, and not ONCE, EVER did I get the terms mixed up. Never has my self-esteem been affected by these terms.

In my thesaurus, adopt also can be used interchangeably with formally approve, accept, choose, appropriate, take up, follow, embrace, espouse; utilize, employ, assume, affect, use; acknowledge, conform to.

Businesses better stop adopting new rules. Our government needs to stop adopting measures and laws. Otherwise, the appropriated children of the world will get confused.