Here's a clarification: The Montreal Gazette article uses the phrase
"decided to give her baby up for adoption." This Deseret News article
uses the "placed for adoption" phrase, at least as it appears today
(2/16). It's unclear if Sydney Jorgensen used the phrase in question at
first and has since edited it.But here's a point: the Gazette article
is reporting in language that reflects the deep feelings of the mother at the
time of the adoption. In that setting, "give her baby up for adoption"
Otter, you are so right! My son was born August 6, 1977 in Escanaba, Michigan to
his biological mother. He was placed in my home with my husband October 11,
1977. We are grateful everyday for the sacrifice of that fine young woman. My
son would like to connect with his biological mother sometime to thank her for
letting him have my husband & I as his parents. There's that LDS
contemporary song that goes something like this, "...from God's hands,
to my hands, to yours...." That's how I feel about adoption, that its
ideally a placement, not a taking & I hope that is how it was for my
son's biological mother.
I agree...giving an adoption to a child should be much sweeter, kinder and
loving. At least that is the way I see it - it's more tender.
Awesome story, but please don’t use the term “gave up for
adoption.” Phrases like this only fuel the fire of the many (somewhat
militant) anti-adoption organizations out there. I know it sounds trite, but in
its purest, most beautiful form, adoption isn’t about giving a child up;
it’s about giving him or her *more*.Could you please change
the phrase to “placed for adoption”? It’s a much more
appropriate description for this incomparable blessing.Thanks!