Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkalot
Parentage isn't biological?
|
You've never heard of adoptive parents?
Quote:
|
I don't see what argument you are trying to make.
|
My point is that adopted children are not any less of their adopted parent's children just because they are adopted and not biologically related.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parent
Note that Wikipedia defines "parent/parentage" as "a caretaker of the offspring in their own species." And that it specifies when talking about a biological parent - because there is such thing as non-biological parentage.
Quote:
|
Common progenitor is #1 in my opinion. It is all well and good that people accept adoption as family, as they should, but they should be listed separately and not included in subsequent generations.
|
I don't think you are entitled to tell other people how to build their tree. There is no "should" here. I include adoptive branches in my tree and I'm not doing anything wrong. I note the adoptions so DNA matches viewing my tree know who are biological relations and who aren't but there is no reason to "not include them in subsequent generations".
Quote:
|
2 of my uncles adopted children. They are my cousins. They are part of the family history but not ancestry or genealogy in the common usage.
|
But there's no official definition of those words that are exclusive to biology.
Quote:
|
I hate to see PC enter into this. Where steps and others are included. The old "we are all family" line should only count in the family history.
|
It's not politically correct, it's just correct. It's a fact that no definition of those words are exclusive to biology. They include the option of biology but it is not necessary.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
