One of the phrases that I hear (and that truly drives me crazy) relative to adoption is that a child is not one’s “real” child unless the parents birthed that child.
This phrase implies that a parent may not have/establish/feel an emotional bond with that child to the degree that they would if the child were biological.
Having never birthed a child, I do not have a reference point for determining whether this might be a true statement. I do know that after spending more than a year getting to know my son, I’m pretty emotionally attached and having trouble imagining life without him around.
Sometimes kids are gone a few days for one reason or another and that’s when the attachment becomes most noticeable from an emotional perspective.
The quiet house was nice for a day or two. Now it’s too quiet and I have to run the TV to have sufficient noise to be productive. I’d rather have “Mom, guess what?” than the nonsense from the television.
My house is getting organized and unnaturally staying that way. There’s no one to play games with at night. I get bored very easily now.
How did I survive living alone before?? Yep. Ready for my kid to come home.
Don’t tell me that he’s not my “real” child because my emotions will tell you otherwise.
7/12/10 - After reading this post, one of my friends reminded me that most people mean “biological” when they say “real” in this context. This is absolutely true and I should have said as much previously. Thanks, Paul, for reminding me!
No comments:
Post a Comment