Positive Adoption Language: is this correcting corruption?
I was reading Holt's media page of parental terms and use, and found myself rather annoyed by the suggestion that journalists ought to follow certain language rules when it comes to reporting a story about adoption. The folks at Holt were nice enough to include a list of "correct terms" and "incorrect terms". For example, an adoptee does not "track-down and make contact with natural parents". No. The adopted person searches and reunites with those who chose to make an adoption plan. That's all fine and good if the child in-question was not stolen and then sold to the parents with the most connections and cash.
Elsewhere on the internet, I found "corrections" like this:
USE APPROPRIATE LANGUAGE AND GENTLY CORRECT THOSE WHO DON’T. When your prying neighbor asks, “Why was she given up for adoption?” respond that your child’s birthparents made an adoption plan knowing that was the best option for her. You don’t have to chastise anyone for their incorrect terminology, but you will notice that others will begin to copy the terms you use.
MAKE CORRECTIONS TO FORMS THAT USE INAPPROPRIATE TERMS.When I was petitioning the court for Zack’s adoption in 1997, our adoption agency gave us sample pleadings that we could adapt and file with the court. The samples contained the terms “natural mother and father.” When I asked our agency about it, they told me that the court in this particular jurisdiction was very traditional and still used such terms. Not settling for “its-always-been-done-this-way,” I changed all of the terms to read to “birthmother and -father.” And do you know what? The judge signed the final order of adoption with my modifications. You can emend medical or school information forms—or any other document crying out for an update—in much the same way.
WRITE A LETTER TO THE EDITOR ABOUT INAPPROPRIATE TERMS used in print, and consider sending along the adoption stylebook created by the Accurate Adoption Reporting group. This stylebook contains guidelines and appropriate language for journalists to follow when writing about adoption issues. You’ll find it in Adoptive Families Jan/Feb 02, www.adoptivefamilies.com/articles.php?aid=405.
Given the nature of corrupt governments, unethical adoption lawyers, money hungry doctors/nurses, and AP's not all that concerned about fraudulent paper-work/documentation, how can those with a moral compass promote such sugar-coating as a politically correct way to clarify an adopted child's origins and adoption story?
Surely those who have been stolen, abducted, and sold through black market adoption rings can see just how bothersome and disturbing PAL's version of "facts" can be.