One Seinfeld episode I
particularly enjoyed had the crew heading out to the Hamptons to see some
friends’ new “bay-beee.” While there,
Elaine meets the couple’s pediatrician, a handsome, single man who immediately
catches her interest. During a
conversation, he says she is “breathtaking.”
This, of course, results in Elaine believing he really thinks she’s
something! Who wouldn’t? That is, until he uses the same descriptive
for the ugliest baby any of them have ever seen. Elaine grows confused. How could he apply the same adjective to both
of them? A word that was a great
compliment became a great insult as its definition was downgraded by applying
it to a less attractive countenance.
I have long thought the same
conditions have devalued the word “hero.”
The definition used to imply that a person had put his or her life in
jeopardy for the sake of others. Now I
hear it being used to describe people who perform such mundane acts as helping
someone cross a parking lot or bandaging up somebody’s leg. While I am confident the recipients of these
actions had strong emotional reasons for applying the moniker, those detached from
those situations should know better than to repeat the accolade. By applying the term “hero” to those who don’t
demonstrate extraordinary bravery or risk their lives for the sake of others,
we are demeaning those who truly deserve the title.
I strongly believe we are doing
a horrible injustice to a vast population of children who, through no fault of
their own, find themselves in the unenviable situation of having no biological
parents or of having been given up for adoption by a parent or parents who know
they can’t be the parents they need to be for those children. These children are “adopted” by people who
are more than willing to raise them as their own children; they are delighted,
excited, and thrilled for the privilege.
The word “adopted” means to be accepted into someone’s family and raised
as if the adopted person was one of the family.
In fact, both legally and emotionally, these adopted children are part
of the family doing the adopting. What a
wonderful process! The Bible tells us
when we acknowledge Christ as the Son of God and commit ourselves to following
him, God “adopts” us into his family, with all the rights and privileges a
biological child would have. Adoption is
(or certainly should be) a joyous union of child and parents, and perhaps new
siblings.
So, what is my gripe? I hate (yes, hate) the idea that when people
decide to get an animal from a shelter they are said to “adopt” that dog or
cat. I readily acknowledge the fact that
some people, perhaps many people, do think of their pets as “family.” However, I don’t accept that as normal,
healthy or morally right. God very
clearly set us humans apart from the animal world, giving us an exalted
position over them. They can be useful
to us for food, work, protection, rodent control, and even cuteness. We can form emotional attachments to them, and
mourn their passing, but they are not people.
It irritates me when people refer to getting an animal from a shelter as
“adopting” them because the word is thus downgraded, and therefore, demeans the
children who are adopted into loving homes to be raised as children of
those families.
“Hi, my name’s Tom. I’m adopted.”
“Hello, Tom. I’m Fred.
We adopted a dog.”
Doesn't that just sound wrong? I am going to try to start a
little revolution from this post.
Please, don’t misuse the word. As
I have said before, “Words matter!” And
please don’t allow others to get away with wrongly using the word. Be kind, but correct them, explaining how
demeaning it is to adopted children and their parents. This is much more important than signing a
Twinkie petition.
No comments:
Post a Comment