|
Post by kawaiidragonfoe821 on May 16, 2006 10:48:37 GMT -5
It used to be that if a baby couldn't be conceived naturally, the couples would adopt or accept that it was God's way of telling them that a family was not in his plan for them.
Now we are in the days of fertility drugs & invetro fertilization, I think this is wrong. I was raised to believe that if a woman couldn't conceive naturally then that was that. There are so many wonderful children (I should know, I've been a 'big sister') in foster care waiting for loving 'parents'. If every couple that couldn't conceive naturally adopted a child, foster care wouldn't be bursting at the seams like it is now & thousands of children across the USA (& th world) would have the opportunity to know what a loving family life feels like.
You're views???
|
|
|
Post by Patcat on May 16, 2006 11:08:36 GMT -5
I'm scarcely an unbiased viewer in this. One of my best friends is a bright, funny 5-year-old girl named Anna. Anna has chocolate eyes, a beautiful singing voice and strong opinions about everything. She is deeply loved by her brother and parents. And, as you might have guessed, she's adopted. She knows it, her brother knows it (he's not adopted), and it's no big deal. She's his sister; he's her brother--even when they can't stand each other.
Story: when my friends were in court for the final hearing on the adoption, there was a big celebration for the families. Each set of parents stood up and swore before the judge--raising their right hands and the whole deal. When my friends stood up and raised their hands, they heard a wave of laughter. They turned around and there was Anna's brother Zach--4 at the time--standing up with his hand raised and ready to swear too.
Corny statement: Biology doesn't make a family; love does.
Patcat
|
|
|
Post by Metella on May 16, 2006 11:24:34 GMT -5
That is a success story - but the question was .... why don't MORE people use adpotion & it had, to my perception, strong religious focus as to why adoption should be the main option - as well as a need for existing children.
I think more people do not adopt because they want their own flesh and blood to continue on. It is totally understandable & also totally selfish (like eating).
Under current sconditions it seems a flaw of logic to me to strive so very hard for your own genetic child - one because they could face a really "mad max" like future if we keep burdening the planet with more and more people; and two because there can be a great bond between adopted family members (of course, it can go terribly the other way), so you don't loose any love by adopting over natural.
I think it comes down mostly to an unthoughtout selfish need - they want a genetic child. I am not "against it" but I do think that the efforts and $ can be better used to either adopt - or just mentor and help the community you are in - you can get plenty of "baby" time by volunteering, keep the population down, and still have a strong and large network of caring humans around you.
Again - I am not against it, certainly not for those "if god wanted you to have a child" excuses - that just leads into the never ending arguments of faith and belief and why does god let good people and children die horrible deaths. There is not debating it as there is no common ground to start from. So if someone is against it for those reasons - then that is it - end of their story - their position is what it is and it is in stone as long as they are religious.
|
|
|
Post by janetcatbird on May 16, 2006 12:01:22 GMT -5
For anyone who hasn't read Silas Marner, I highly reccomend it. It deals with these same issues--well, not the test tubes of course, but the whole bloodline versus how you were raised. In fact, Nancy Cass refuses to let Godfrey adopt Eppie (his secret love child) because their only baby died and it just wasn't God's will--until she finds out later about Eppie's heritage. And then she gets mad at Eppie for staying with Silas Marner because blood ties are natural and therefore stronger than whoever loved you and cared for you.
The scenes between Silas and Eppie, especially when the neighbor lady is helping, are just sweet as can be. If you can, get hold of the BBC adaptation from the '80s in which Ben Kingsley plays Silas. Just "awwww", but it also makes you think.
I personally am all for adoption, but I can understand the desire to have a baby of your own, especially if you're in a loving relationship with a spouse/life partner/significant other. I want to have children some day, hadn't really thought about adoption but I know good and bad stories. It really is one of those private decisions, I guess.
--Catbird
|
|
|
Post by kawaiidragonfoe821 on May 16, 2006 14:52:22 GMT -5
I think that an inability to have kids naturally is natures way if telling you that you are not supposed to be part of the gene pool. I on the other hand would be totally thrilled if a doctor told me that I couldnt have children LOL I'd probably hug him.
Metella>> Yes, I think that a disregard of the warning signs given by ones own body in a quest to have 'your own flesh & blood' is very selfish indeed, though I wouldn't compare it to eating, which one has to do to survive.
|
|
|
Post by Metella on May 16, 2006 15:56:22 GMT -5
perhaps. However there is really such a thing as a biological clock - so it is a pretty primal need. You brought up another point I meant to make & forgot - that of long term genetics - if it doesn't work and the reason is genetic - then forcing it has the chance to extend this problem and difficult decision to future couples. Isn't this, with a different genetic problem, what many of the members think influences Goren not to search for marriage & children? A concern to not pass on his family's problems? Anyway - I think being a parent is a wonderful thing; I think anyone who wants to be a parent should be & that adoption is a really great option if a couple can't conceive.
|
|
|
Post by Cassie on May 16, 2006 17:32:01 GMT -5
I think abortion and money plays the biggest part in not adopting. Sorry to say it but.....supply and demand. There are just not enough children to go around.
To adopt a healthy baby, you need mucho bucks. To adopt an older child, the same, but I don’t think as much. Plus most of the older children that are up for adoption are "special needs" children with serious health and/or mental issues. If a couple is up for the challenge that is great! Then the problem arises of putting the child on your own health insurance. Most heath insurances do not cover a person pre-existing conditions, that includes newly adopted kids.
So I think it might be easier and less expensive to try having your own, with the help of a doctor, if you can not conceive. I know that a person's health insurance does not cover all of the cost for all of the different techniques for infertility, but I think their may be less red tape involved.
Oh and if you can’t afford to adopt when your young. You can work hard and by the time you can afford that child, chances are your too old to adopt in the USA. (I have a couple of friends that are 50 years old and have been denied adoption because of their age.) So you have to go to another country, like China or Russia. I don’t mine people going to other countries adopting the children. Those kids need homes too. I guess where I have the problem is wanting and longing for a child, and when you can finally afford them. Your really too old to have them. I cant imagine being 50 years old and having a 2 year old under my feet, plus thinking of the future with that kid as they reach puberty while I am in my 60’s. Not for me…..I will wait for the grandkids to come some day….So I can send them home, when I am tired out by them
|
|
|
Post by kawaiidragonfoe821 on May 16, 2006 18:13:47 GMT -5
its very costly indeed to do invitro & such, I think thats why we have so many probs in our species, because people dont know how to read the signs that their not supposed to breed. We control the breeding of animals so strictly; neutering them & such (though i dont agree with using artificial means on them either) but we turn a blind I when it comes to our own species?
I think that the whole biological clock thing is a hoax, i'm 24 & feel no desire to have kids.
|
|
|
Post by LOCIfan on May 16, 2006 19:18:05 GMT -5
its very costly indeed to do invitro & such, I think thats why we have so many probs in our species, because people dont know how to read the signs that their not supposed to breed. We control the breeding of animals so strictly; neutering them & such (though i dont agree with using artificial means on them either) but we turn a blind I when it comes to our own species? Yes, but don't be fooled, adoption (both domestic and international) is also extremely costly. And it can also take a very long time. Depending upon where you are in the U.S., the wait can even be years. It's true that there are many older, foster children available for adoption, but many of them, as someone pointed out upthread, are have either special physical or mental/emotional needs. Not everyone who would make a good parent is capable of handling the demands of a special needs child. International adoption is an attractive option to many people because the waits are often shorter than they are in the U.S. There is also the added benefit to the adoptive parents of having some certainty that the adoption will be final (that the birth mother will not later change her mind and take the adoptive parents to court). However, it is extremely expensive. Often requiring fees of $20,000 - $30,000 for the agencies as well as one or more trips overseas. And even though the waits can be less than they are in the U.S., it can often easily take a year and a half to two years to come home with a child. As for who should and should not breed, well, that whole conversation is a bit too "Brave New Worldish" for me, as it gets into all kinds of issues regarding eugenics.
|
|
|
Post by LOCIfan on May 16, 2006 19:22:36 GMT -5
I think that the whole biological clock thing is a hoax, i'm 24 & feel no desire to have kids. This line made me smile. Get back to us when you're childless at 39, and let us know if you've ever heard a tick-tock. I'm not suggesting the everyone feels the pressure of the biological clock, but it is something that I wouldn't necessarily expect someone in their 20's to have felt or experienced. Also, don't get me wrong, I definitely believe adoption is a wonderful option, but was just trying to add to the discussion of why more people don't adopt.
|
|
|
Post by pyramid on May 16, 2006 19:52:44 GMT -5
Why don't more people adopt? Two words: Baby Jessica. I think oher reasons are because people have to jump through to many hoops to adopt. It is costly and timely, and the qualifications can be excruciating. It's actually easier to adopt a child from overseas than here in the USA. I believe there are plenty of children to be adopted here in this country. Foster homes are filled with hundreds of thousands of them. I've read it is nearly impossible to get an infant due to waiting periods and most people do not want older children. I think that is another reason adoption rates are down. I think that the whole biological clock thing is a hoax, i'm 24 & feel no desire to have kids. This line made me smile. Get back to us when you're childless at 39, and let us know if you've ever heard a tick-tock. I'm not suggesting the everyone feels the pressure of the biological clock, but it is something that I wouldn't necessarily expect someone in their 20's to have felt or experienced. Also, don't get me wrong, I definitely believe adoption is a wonderful option, but was just trying to add to the discussion of why more people don't adopt. I'm nearly 37, do I count? I think the biological clock is a hoax as well. I think it is more a society clock ticking more than your own. Some people aren't meant to have kids. Now I wish I had paid more attention to the date on my birthday when I signed up because now I'm going to look like an idiot. I was born in '69, not '75. Personally, I would ever adopt a child or even have one.
|
|
|
Post by kawaiidragonfoe821 on May 16, 2006 20:42:24 GMT -5
Pyramid>> thank you! I to think that it is society that does the tick tocking, not anyone's personal biological clock & I also agree that some people arent meant to have kids, i'm one of them I would probably be a more terrible parent then the Simpsons are lol.
|
|
|
Post by Metella on May 17, 2006 7:28:54 GMT -5
The societal press is going away - there are many older women who do not hang their head when they say they don't have children.
I like children, but when asked - I say, "no, I have dogs" and roll on the conversation & mostly it is just smiled at.
Families are probably the worst as far as pressure to have children.
I think it is great that some of you have truely evaluated yourselves and decided that children are not for you. The truer we are with ourselves - the happier we will be.
|
|
|
Post by spaniard on May 17, 2006 8:51:49 GMT -5
In Spain foster homes don´t work like in other countries, here you do it for free, because you want to help so kids never end up in questionable homes with other five kids in the same house just for money.
I'm pro adoption if you can give birth or not because there is no difference between kids no matter what they come from, if they are born by 'nature' or by 'bureaucracy' and it´s fantastic if you can save a life because the destiny for some of those kids are terrible.
On the other hand, parents deserve the right to go through pregnancy and birth if they want without being called selfish, in fact nobody calls them that when they can have kids naturally, it´s what they are supposed to do but when they need extra help, then they are considered self-centered and they should think about other options. I think parents that can have kids should adopt too, it´s unfair that this matter is only related to couples with problems.
About God 'telling' couples that maybe parenthood isn´t a plan for them, if a couple wants to have a kid and a baby could improve their lives, we shouldn´t stop them. I´m probably exaggerating but what would happen if you need a lung transplant and the doctor says "sorry dude, this is God's way of telling you that breathing is not in the universal plan for you". If a doctor can help you and you don´t hurt anybody, why not? And that kid is a blessing present in God´s plan too.
|
|
rangerhm
Silver Shield Investigator
Posts: 59
|
Post by rangerhm on May 17, 2006 9:05:51 GMT -5
Unless you have gone through the pain and heartache of infertility, of desperately wanting to have a child with your husband and being unable to do so you should refrain from passing judgement on those who will take advantage of anything medical science has to offer them to achieve this goal.
I come from a family with many adopted members including my brother, his wife, and several cousins. Adoption is a wonderful, wonderful option for those who wish to persue it. But so is in-vitro, artificial insemination, etc. They are individual's choices to make based on what is right for their family, who are you to judge them.
"An inability to have kids naturally is natures way of telling you that you are not supposed to be a part of the gene pool" Come on!!! That is absurd. That is like telling a cancer patient or a heart disease patient ...sorry we can't use the most modern medical science on you because you got sick you are supposed to die, it's nature's way.
I had no trouble getting pregnant with my first child but due to complications from uterine fibroids could not get pregnant a second time without help, so condem me and my husband.
As for women who chose never to have children for whatever personal reasons you have, bravo, you should never have children and should never be chastised for your decision. I also think that if somewhere along the line in your lives you change your mind, you should be able to do that also and go ahead and have a child and love it without being judged for that as well.
And as for the biological clock...sorry ladies...every piece of scientific evidence points to the fact that there is one and the longer you wait to have children the harder it is to conceive, not impossible, but harder, with more complications and more likely the need for medical fertility intervention.
|
|