"Birth" terms...why no "birth child"?

Eep. Way back when I was a proud birthmother, I used to call my son my birthson. It was a coping skill to attempt to further prove to the world that I wasn't his mother and to cue others as to not ask about him like I was parenting him.

But for reasons similar to why I don't like the term birthmother, I now don't distinguish him with a qualifier anymore. He is was and always will be my son.

The only time I seen the term is on adoption.com and it is the most stupid term ever as children can't give birth to themselves. Then again putting birth in front of any family member is stupid as only mothers give birth but they don't just do that they go through pregnancy and bonding so it is a cold term to use. But then that's why people like using it as it puts us in a 'nice (not) little box' as the the real truth that we do have feelings and care about our children is something they don't want to deal with ;)

My found son is just that - my son. Not my birthson.... I would think he would feel insulted if I introduced him as such. Just as adding the prefix birth to mother or father objectifies them - it does the same but more so, to a human being who was adopted to be referred to as a birth child.

I don't get it why some people have a problem with the reality that an adopted person has two mothers, two fathers and he or she is merely a son or daughter to both.

Birth family indicates the family you were born into. Until they make test-tube babies that develop fully in the test-tube, we're never gonna need the term birth kid 'cause it's damn obvious that the kid was birthed (yes, I'm counting caesarians as 'birthing' in this tiny piece of the universe, even though they're not /really/) somewhere along the way.

I have never called my daughter...lost to adoption...my 'birthchild'. UGH!! That sounds as awful to me as 'birth' thingy anything. I would never think to say...Yes, I have 4 children..one birth child and 3 more. Quite simply I have had....4 children...period.

And Sly is correct..only one person gives birth (the action) to a child and that is the mother/natural mother of the child. Sibs don't give birth, not fathers, not grandparents, not aunts, uncles, nor cousins. The natural mother is just that, the mother who surrendered her legal parental rights to raise her own child. She did not surrender the human fact that she was pregnant with and went thru L&D to bring forth her child into this world, who was only her child until the point of surrender and/or the legal finalization of an adoption. And she did not stop being a 'mother' because she signed on the dotted line. One cannot erase the evidence from her body, not even on legal paper. Every child that was adopted, has 2 mothers...his/her natural mother (the one that surrendered, whether you like her or not) and their adoptive mother. The whole 'birth' thingy thing, was created by the adoption industry, to even more lessen the connection to one's own surrendered child...'as if' the 'action' was much like a birthing-machine, and no human emotions were involved. OK! Birth Thing...you've done your part of the job, move on, your history! Or has 'some' would like to believe, don't even exist in their mind's eye.

What I think even more peculiar today...is where I read younger mothers today, talking about their 'birth-children', having kept and raised their own children, nor have ever surrendered a child to adoption. What's up with that?!

I actually have heard several parents who placed a child for adoption use the terms "birth-son" and "birth-daughter", but this was usually only to clarify between the children they are raising, and the one(s) they placed for adoption.

That is a great question. I think it's because a child that is part of this world...is automatically a child of birth so the term seems odd or redundant (the term...not the child).

Whereas "birth parents" etc...distinguishes between the parent who gave life through birth and the parents who didn't but are still a part of the child's life. Yet...we have the term "adoptee' for that child's role at that point.

Very interesting question.

I know there will never be a consensus but I sure would like to know what the more sensitive term is. I may ask that at some point but want to pose the question properly.

I never knew it was a term that irked people so.

I always thought it was simply a term, like "biological", that differentiated between the parents that adopted a child, and the parents that created the child. I had no idea it was a word that got people so hot under the collar.

Honesty do we really need another dehumanizing term? Stop the madness.

Because any child given birth to is a birth child and there is no need to distinguish. But only some one who gave birth can be what some refer to as "birth parents" (I don't, but I get what you mean). I have see step parents refer to their children as "Birth and Step".

The birth terms only exists and a means to distinguish. I don't use birth terms BTW.