Katsmeow
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 5,308
Uh..kinda confused with your questions. I am not adopted, just that my blood family is VERY small and there aren't many of us still around.
I think it was because in your original post you distinguished blood family from just "family" without a qualifier. I know that people often use that terminology without meaning to make a distinction.
But, at times there is an intent to distinguish "blood" or biological family from, say, adoptive family. In fact in the linked article I found it interesting that they put in a chart which talked about people over 50 "without any living kin, including a spouse, partner, biological children, siblings, or parent." Another place in the article talking about only 1% of older Americans having "essentially no relatives at all alive, including a spouse, partner, children, or biological parents or siblings."
I feel sure that you in your post weren't meaning to leave out adoptive families but the author of this article seemed to go out of his way to do so. He seemed to be taking the position, for example, that someone with adoptive parents or siblings has no relatives. That would be news to my adoptive mother. It would also be news to my adoptive children. And it would be news to my biological child who under this article apparently should no longer consider his adoptive siblings as being actual relatives.
To be clear OP - I don't think you meant to exclude adoptive relationships by referring to blood family. But, it really does shock me that someone writing for Bloomberg apparently really wanted to stress biological family as the only real relatives.