A ContactMusic.com article about Sharon Stone adopting her two children brought up all sorts of adoption-related issues for me.
The article first tells us that Stone "refuses to hide her two children’s adoption from them."
Refuses. Interesting choice of words. Why would she want to hide the fact that she adopted them? Does the reporter believe that adoption — in and of itself — is so shameful that Stone should consider hiding from her children the details of how they joined her family?
(An aside on shameful — Stone’s fame is in large part based on her role in the movie "Basic Instinct." Maybe Stone should consider hiding that from her kiddos!)
Stone says that she has already told her son Roan that he was adopted, and she plans to tell son Laird as soon as he’s old enough to understand. Good for you, Sharon. Adopted kids and birth parents have suffered too long from the stigma that adoption must be kept secret at all costs.
Next, Stone says she thinks adoptive parents have a deeper connection with their children than biological parents. Well, that’s a new one! Adoptive families are constantly stereotyped as families who can’t possibly love each other as much as biological families because they’re missing the mysterious, all-important "genetic connection." Stone flips this stereotype on its head, jokingly referring to "all the poor mothers who just have birth children — they don’t know what it really means to have a child pick you and you pick them."
Groan. Why do we obsess with comparing who loves whom more? Can’t we be content with knowing that biological parents love their kids (most of the time), birth parents love the children they placed for adoption (usually from afar), and adoptive parents love their kids (most of the time).
Then there’s this choosing business. Well, yeah, Stone and her kids might have picked each other out at an orphanage, but the reality of adoption is that, while adoptive parents purposefully choose to add a child to their family, that child is often chosen for them by a social worker, attorney or government worker. And in private domestic adoptions, it’s usually the birth parent(s) who choose an adoptive family for their child. Let’s not let choosing one’s child become a measuring stick of our love for them. Let’s just love ‘em. Period.
Stone’s final comment is that "our kids look so much more like us than birth children look like their parents."
Double groan. This statement makes me wonder why Stone’s trying so hard to validate her adoptive parenthood. Why should it matter who the kids look like? Does looking like one’s parents somehow validate a child’s place within his or her family? Let’s allow our children — adopted or not — to just look like themselves.
Related Posts About Sharon Stone:
For more articles about adoption, visit my Web site, www.laurachristianson.com.
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
I just think it’s great that she adopted and that she really loves her kids.
I think what Sharon was ‘trying’ to do was help the reporter and the reader understand that adoption is a special, wonderful thing. She went a little overboard, I admit, but her intent is admirable.