Thursday, May 31, 2012

The Word "Adoption"


By G. E. Shuman

So, I’m probably going to get into trouble with this one. Please understand. This column is where I get to blab my opinions on issues, and, as time goes on, I am becoming more and more in the minority with those opinions, and therefore more and more likely to offend someone. It’s simple math. There are few of us dinosaurs around anymore. If I upset you, I ask you in advance to please forgive me. Anyway, here goes.

As the adoptive dad of two, and the adoptive granddad of one, I try, with no apparent success at all, to be less than irritated when the word ‘adoption’ is thrown about willy-nilly, helter-skelter, and used to describe other actions than that of bringing a child into your family, to legally become a part of your family. A supreme example of this irritation happened recently, as a teen I know joyfully related the story of how a litter of kittens she knew of had been spared, as some of them had been ‘adopted’, and some placed into ‘foster care’. What? I’m sorry. She meant well, of course, and I said nothing, even though that conversation made me more sure than ever that I must be a relic in this society. Adopted? Placed into foster care? Kittens? Really? What in the world is going on here?

I realize that, literally, you could adopt the habit of taking literal litters of puppies or kittens into your home. And, literally, it is not incorrect English to adopt things other than people. A country can adopt a new constitution, an organization can adopt new bylaws, and companies can adopt new methods of doing business, among the probable hundreds of other uses of the word adoption. To all such countries, organizations and businesses, I have to say, I see how you mean to use the word. You are simply taking on new rules or laws. You are not referring to those rules or laws as becoming a part of your family.

When people tell me that they have adopted a new puppy or kitten , I try to not look at them funny. I said, I try. There just is, or if there isn’t there should be, a rule of English grammar and vocabulary against using the word ‘adopt’ when referring to the action of taking into your home any creature other than a human being. My family has always had pets, but, to me, pets are pets, and are purchased. Just ask the guy at the pet store why he wants your credit card. I’m sure that farm animals are also purchased, (I think that there are few pig adoption agencies around the country, but, these days, I‘m not certain.) So, if this is so, where do you find the difference between piglets and puglets? Why are pigs bought, and pugs adopted? Especially since they look so much alike? To me, all animals are purchased, even in our animal-rights, circle-of-life, doggie-daycare land. Sorry. Actually, nope… not really sorry, any more than your local dairy farmer is sorry that he doesn‘t adopt his heifers. Side note: He also probably doesn’t speak baby talk to them.

People are not purchased. If they are, then we have much bigger problems than animal adoption. People, (children) are adopted, and that brings me to another point which is probably related to all of this. To me, a dog or cat is not a member of my family. They may live in my home, (Unless they are a cat, then they can‘t.) but I will never split my children’s massive inheritance with one of them. We diehard dinosaurs still think that dogs should sleep in dog beds, eat dog food, and pee outside. I do not ask my children to do any of those things. If my children have ever peed outside it is not because I trained them to do so. My pets are not my children… my children are my children. Seems like a simple concept to me. Last Christmas I actually saw one large pet supply company that took Christmas pictures of ‘pets and their parents’. Their parents? Sorry again, but, for me, that was way over the top, although I do actually see some family resemblances in some of those situations. Hum. The truth is, our dog’s parents were not human beings at all, they were Pekingese dogs who were not married, and probably were not even in love. (I think they were just after sex.)

As I have said, in all of this, I don’t mean to be mean, and harbor no hatred in my heart for our four-legged friends. I just think they have their place, and that place is way down the ladder from my children. Wayyyyy down.

For you who think I am heartless, consider that there are signs in our area, requesting that people ‘adopt’ a fire hydrant. I do understand the idea, but I’m not speaking baby talk to one of those, either. Couldn’t we just come up with some other, caring, wonderful word, and save “adoption” for our kids?

Hey, are we still friends?

3 comments:

transplanted said...

Ok, George, I'll have to "adopt" an attitude of tolerence for this one. Actually, I loved it. And besides. My cat is not my child, he is more like my owner.

;)
-sharon

mooreny said...

hey, I've always liked dinosaurs!!

Rene Yoshi said...

[chuckle] While my daughter and I consider her dog and cat to be a part of our family, and... well, come to think of it, she does sometimes tell her dog, Sally, to, "Go see Mommy," even though my daughter is her 'mommy'... anyway, I am not her parent. I am one of her masters, and she is a pet, so I hear where you're coming from.

Why not simply use the word support when talking about taking responsibility for a highway or something? I guess the idea of an emotional attachment and taking 'ownership' is behind the motivation of using adopt. Well, since the word embrace is being thrown around so much in this generation, perhaps we can exchange it with adopt when talking about a fire hydrant. But then again, I'm not too sure about visualizing that image either! We already have tree huggers. Can you imagine hydrant huggers?