http://www.ncfa-usa.org/media_News_101804.htm

Phil Ruggiero, Jr. wrote:
http://www.ncfa-usa.org/media_News_101804.htm
Atwood can go piss up a rope. His organization has worked since its
inception to stigmatize adoptees as innately unstable persons who cannot
be trusted with the information regarding their own births. (Actually,
there isn't a group in the triad that Nikfa hasn't attempted to
stigmatize, alarm, and coopt, but my main interest is in adoptee
rights.) The difference between "adopted person" and "adoptee" is, in my
opinion, neglible. They're interchangeable. What's obnoxious is Atwood's
presumption to set the terms for people who, as part of their individual
autonomy, can very well set the terrms for themselves. God save us from
experts.

Ron
Proud Bastard

"Ron Morgan" <rhyzome1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:41B6A00C.5020800@earthlink.net... Phil Ruggiero, Jr. wrote:http://www.ncfa-usa.org/media_News_101804.htm Atwood can go piss up a rope. His organization has worked since its inception to stigmatize adoptees as innately unstable persons who cannot be trusted with the information regarding their own births. (Actually, there isn't a group in the triad that Nikfa hasn't attempted to stigmatize, alarm, and coopt, but my main interest is in adoptee rights.) The difference between "adopted person" and "adoptee" is, in my opinion, neglible. They're interchangeable. What's obnoxious is Atwood's presumption to set the terms for people who, as part of their individual autonomy, can very well set the terrms for themselves. God save us from experts. Ron Proud Bastard

NCFA semantics are quite amusing. I prefer adopted person since I see
adoptee as a term of being acted upon, making the adopted person
passive--which in a sense is true when the adoptee has no choice in the
matter, and is acted upon by the state and it's corporate partners. That
said, I use adopted person and adoptee interchangeably and it's not a big
deal with me. Since NCFA can't control anything else, it now attempts to
control the language. We know how bilious "Bastard" makes them.

Marley

>http://www.ncfa-usa.org/media_News_101804.htm

"The reason goes to a basic issue: Just how much of an adopted person’s
identity is wrapped up in adoption? In NCFA’s view, adoption is the way
adopted persons join their families, not what defines them as a person. We do
not believe that there should be a distinct category of person, “adoptee,”
for people who happen to have been adopted into their families. “Adoptee”
sets them apart, implies differences that do not exist, and leads to
stigmatization."

Just like sealing their obcs?

J.





Reply to jmhjmd at aol.

I tend to refer to myself, on those rare occassions when it is necesay, as
an adoptee. It is simply easier than adopted peson. I know what I am. I
don't much care how others define it.

Raymond

sylak wrote:
I tend to refer to myself, on those rare occassions when it is necesay, asan adoptee. It is simply easier than adopted peson. I know what I am. Idon't much care how others define it.Raymond


I don't have any problem with either, what I have objected very strongly
to is government ministers and officials who refer to me as an 'adopted
child' even though I'm 51. It's people with that mentality who treat
adopted people as children not matter what their age. It's that
mentality that leads to some of the atrocious legislation and proposed
legislation that we have seen of late around the world.

Robin

Phil Ruggiero, Jr. wrote: http://www.ncfa-usa.org/media_News_101804.htm

p u k e

>Subject: NCFA--"Don't call them adoptees"From: soundawake@webtv.net (Phil Ruggiero, Jr.)Date: 12/7/2004 8:38 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <21868-41B6853F-485@storefull-3358.bay.webtv.net>http://www.ncfa-usa.org/media_News_101804.htm
snort<




Kathy
(birthee to an adoptee)

>Kathy(birthee to an adoptee)


Huh? Wouldn't you be the birthor? The resulting infant would be the birthee.
At the point of relinquishment, wouldn't birthmothers be the relinquishors and
the child to be relinquished the relinquishee? At the point of adoption,
wouldn't the adopted person be the adoptee and the people who do the adopting
the adoptors?

Glad we got that all straightened out.


P2P

"Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in message
news:20041209170220.07592.00002014@mb-m01.aol.com...Kathy(birthee to an adoptee) Huh? Wouldn't you be the birthor? The resulting infant would be the birthee. At the point of relinquishment, wouldn't birthmothers be the relinquishors and the child to be relinquished the relinquishee? At the point of adoption, wouldn't the adopted person be the adoptee and the people who do the adopting the adoptors? Glad we got that all straightened out.

Um....wha? ;)
--
---------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557

>Subject: Re: NCFA--"Don't call them adoptees"From: palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines)Date: 12/9/2004 2:02 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <20041209170220.07592.00002014@mb-m01.aol.com>Kathy(birthee to an adoptee)Huh? Wouldn't you be the birthor? The resulting infant would be the birthee.At the point of relinquishment, wouldn't birthmothers be the relinquishorsandthe child to be relinquished the relinquishee? At the point of adoption,wouldn't the adopted person be the adoptee and the people who do the adoptingthe adoptors?Glad we got that all straightened out.P2P

Oh gawd, someone pass the aspirin. ;-)


Kathy