What do you think would be better to say regarding this quote in an online magazine?

Question

"The signature line of the form to apply for a Social Security Card asks for your relationship to the person applying, and one box is labeled “Natural or Adoptive Parent.” What a negative thing to come across while still in the joyful first stages of parenthood!"

http://www.adoptivefamilies.com/thumbs.php

Answer 1

I think Natural is perfect and makes complete sense to me. Adoptive parents don't become parents by a natural way. The act of signing papers and paying money and having your child delivered to you isn't very natural at all.

It doesn't mean that you can't be a great mother, many people are incredible mothers to children who didn't come to them in the "natural" way( conception, pregnancy and birth )

its not offensive from my point of view, but you're not alone in your feelings. Terminology is a sensitive subject for many in adoption.

Answer 2

I think it's how it is.

Nature / Nurture.

Or should that be -

Natural / Nurtural

It's usually adoptive parents that get their knickers in a twist about the 'Natural' parent bit.

They think that because the first is 'Natural' - then they must be 'Unnatural'.

They are the one's making the fuss.

No one else.

It's the truth - I was born on this earth via nature from my first mother.

I was then raised and cared for by my adoptive mother.

It's not rocket science.

Answer 3

I agree with Rosie, a parent is a parent. Full stop.

Answer 4

My question here is - does that mean the "natural" parent (ugh, how I hate thinking of that word in some cases.  I know not all biological parents are bad, but in the two cases closest to my heart, there is nothing NATURAL about them.  Parents who can damage their own unborn children and abandon them without a backwards glance...  what part of THAT is "natural"...  ok, enough rant)  

Anyway, does that mean that the biological parent can STILL get a social security card on the child even after the adoption?  That seriously scares me if it's true.  My parents had some trouble when the IRS went to electronic matching because my brothers names had never been changed in all the areas of Social Security.  However, these days there are even more risks.  What if the biological parent kept claiming the child on taxes?  You'd end up having to get auditted EVERY year.  Even if cleared, it'd be a real pain.  What about credit applications too?  Is your child going to turn 18 and find out their "natural" mommy or daddy has been stealing their credit for years?  

If the biological parent has no access to the card/number after the adoption, then what purpose is there to such a question?  Wouldn't "parent" simply be enough?

Answer 5

Natural!!!  All the way.

Answer 6

If the TRUTH upsets you, you'll have a L-O-N-G row to hoe.

Your child has another MOTHER,

Get used to it.

Answer 7

I don't understand why it's necessary to know if you are biological or adoptive period, no matter what the wording.  If you are a parent, you are a parent, plain and simple.

Answer 8

The question is there because even when the adoptive parents apply for a new Social Security number the original one remains connected to the new one. This is so that in the future there is no possible way for a person to Use both social security numbers...or for someone else to use the no longer valid original social security number.

The question is what determines the way the new number is issued. The Natural Parent may have applied already for a social security number. The Adoptive Parents may Change the Number which is often advised for children leaving foster care when there is an order of protection.

The Adoptive parents will get a new number, and if the natural parents had already gotten one, the two numbers will always remain associated in the social security records.

This also avoids the possibility of anyone claiming the same child on taxes with two different social security numbers. Everyone who applies for a social security number completes the same paper work. The word "natural" is natural to most people... the only ones who ever seem to take issue are adoptive parents... (like me) But only when it is used in a derogatory context.

Answer 9

No. Natural is pretty honest language if you ask me.   My mother is my mother by nature (she gave birth to me, naturally) and my other mother is my mother via adoption.

Why must adoption language be twisted to suite the Adopter while at the same time if adoptees and first Moms complain that something is offensive to them, we are told we are being overly sensitive (eg telling folks that we must use 'birthmother' in place of MOTHER).  Funny that isn't  it.

Answer 10

It was not too long ago that the government insisted on stamping "ILLEGITIMATE" across the birth certificate of child being born out of wedlock......as if it is any ones business how you were born.

Social security does NOT issue a new number to every adoptee....it is only in extreme cases of abuse or just cause to protect children. You can not simply ask for a new number because you want your child to have anonymity.

Answer 11

I don't see why that's a negative thing? It's a form, and they need to know the relationship, and the terms 'adoptive' or 'natural' are pretty straight forward.  

But then again, I don't remember being "still in the joyful first stages of parenthood" when I filled out those forms. I think I was tired and the children were hungry and we all wanted to get out of there because I promised them Friendly's for lunch.

Answer 12

I have never liked the term natural mother.  For the form, they just want to know if the child was adopted or not, because different processes.  But I don't like natural, never have for the obvious implications.  I also get highly annoyed when adoptive parents are educated on terms offensive to other members of the triad, but then when we complain about the term natural, we are basically told our feelings don't matter, just theirs.

But this is Y/A and different people have different opinions.