Inspired by the semen thread.

[Boozy]

I also don't comprehend the "it has to be MY biological child!" infactuation.

I don't doubt that some people think that way, but the people I know who chose IVF over adoption did so for far more complicated and valid reasons.

Cost is the big one. So is the waiting period - up to a decade in some instances, even if you are not picky.

And fostering/adopting older children is not for everyone. I know of no children in foster care who do not have special needs of the mental, emotional, or physical variety - and some have all three.

I've never understood why the world believes that it's the responsibility of the infertile to take care of these children. Before you ask an infertile couple why they don't just adopt, ask yourself that question.

[SkullKing]

Because I do not want to have to deal with children.

If I DID want children I would adopt.

I will however say that I do not live in the U.S.A, and it seems to me that adoption in the U.S.A is much more complicated than here.

Actually, regardless of fertility I think it would be best if people tried to adopt instead of having biological spawn.

It just seems more ethical to me.

I do completely agree that fostering/adopting older children is not for everyone.

[Andara Bledin]

Before you ask an infertile couple why they don't just adopt, ask yourself that question.

Because they actively want children. I don't even really want to be around them, much less have to live with one.

Honestly, the entire adoption and foster process needs a massive overhaul. The costs are often outrageous and prohibitive, and the waiting period is just plain stupid. *t's no wonder people will turn to buying babies or having another woman carry theirs.

^-.-^

[BlaqueKatt]

And fostering/adopting older children is not for everyone. I know of no children in foster care who do not have special needs of the mental, emotional, or physical variety - and some have all three.

sorry but I'm going to severely nitpick this one-I apologize in advance.

So this makes them immediately less desirable because they're "damaged goods"?

So the ones that need stability the most to become productive members of society, never actually get it because "it's too hard". And a lot of them end up as "damaged" adults. Makes perfect sense

Which scenario should be more fulfilling as a parent:

Take a newborn, give them every advantage and surprise they become a well adjust and productive member of society, or they rebel and become a major disappointment.

Take an older child that has had nothing, through no fault of their own, and give them a chance at becoming well adjusted.

I was that unwanted and unloved child, no one wanted to give me a chance, and guess what, I'm pretty screwed up. I have tons of self loathing to spare, because when no one loves or wants you, it gets in your head that there is something wrong with you, and it never goes away. I know I've made many questionable decisions in my quest for love, comfort, stability, and solace, and at 36 have yet to find even a shred of it. Therapy doesn't help much because quite simply, yup I get told I'm a worthwhile person, but as soon as I leave the office, I'm reminded of how society views the "damaged". The best I can ever hope for is pity, which I do not have any use for. So called "normal people" want nothing to do with me, most of my adult relationships have been severely abusive, because I'm viewed as weak and needy("damaged"), and quite simply, when you've never known love, you'll take anything that bears even a passing resemblance to it for a time, as it is a basic human need.*

My son, my own "flesh and blood", will never have the ability to live on his own due to his severe autism, no matter what advantages his father pours over him, it makes no difference, the damage can't be undone. Yet if he hadn't been born, some other child could conceivably be doing better. Think of me as a monster if you will, but I can't help thinking my selfishness doomed two children to no hope for a future.


*FYI-I'm still trying to get to the second level of that damn pyramid-have been for 36 years....I'm pretty sure it's not going to happen....ever....

[Boozy]

These children aren't any less valuable than others, BK, and they most certainly aren't any harder to love. But not everyone has it in them to raise special needs children. It's a difficult decision.

In my case, I think I could do it, and do it well. I KNOW my husband could do it. He spent his whole life (before leaving home) taking care of family members with special needs. Which is why we ultimately decided against fostering. He's paid his dues. He finally has a peaceful home without the constant demands of a disabled loved one who depends on you for almost everything.

Most people have and raise children with the expectation that one day, they'll leave home and lead independent lives. Then the parents can enjoy the fruits of their labour. There are no guarantees of that even with non-foster kids, but at least your odds are good.

I want to be clear that I'm not saying that foster kids are a lost cause. They aren't. I've personally seen foster parents work miracles, and lives turned around. However, I've also seen some rough, heart-breaking shit in those same situations.

It is never as simple as "just adopt".

Also, I have no problem with people choosing not to have kids. That's ultimately the bittersweet decision my husband and I have made. My problem is with parents with their own biological children telling ME to adopt. I'm not adopting for the exact same reasons they didn't.

[mooncat]

Whenever this type of question comes up, I have the same thought: People say that it's too expensive to adopt, and takes too long.

These are often the same people who spend five or more years trying to conceive/carry to term, and spend thousands of dollars on fertility treatments that don't work because their bodies can't complete a pregnancy.

In other words: What's the difference?

This is based on stories I've read of actual people who described what they went through trying to have a baby.

Sometimes the woman's genes just cannot combine successfully with her partner's. It's always seemed to me that if you have multiple miscarriages, your body is trying to tell you something.

Of course, if insurance won't pay for fertility treatments, it's not going to pay the adoption costs either.

[fireheart17]

Whenever this type of question comes up, I have the same thought: People say that it's too expensive to adopt, and takes too long.

Slight nitpick, I'm in that camp of the "adoption does take too long and it IS expensive", however I've never had a child and at last count, I am still perfectly normal in that department .

On the adoption front, I can nitpick about that: so you don't have the ability to raise a special needs kid. What happens if your wunderkind, who has come through as the result of IVF/AI etc. also has special needs of the physical or mental sort? Are you going to abandon that kid in the system?

[Boozy]

On the adoption front, I can nitpick about that: so you don't have the ability to raise a special needs kid. What happens if your wunderkind, who has come through as the result of IVF/AI etc. also has special needs of the physical or mental sort? Are you going to abandon that kid in the system?

Can you honestly not see the difference between having a child who turns out to be special needs, and adopting one that you know for sure has serious problems?

Most prospective parents don't joyfully await the birth of their child by installing wheelchair ramps, or setting up mental health counselling sessions, or locking up all lighters and knives in their homes - "just in case". That's ludicrous for most parents, and yet this is what many foster parents need to do.

And again, I really do not want to imply that all foster kids have serious issues. Some do not. But prospective adoptive parents are told not to be picky, and to be prepared.

Whenever this type of question comes up, I have the same thought: People say that it's too expensive to adopt, and takes too long.

These are often the same people who spend five or more years trying to conceive/carry to term, and spend thousands of dollars on fertility treatments that don't work because their bodies can't complete a pregnancy.

Here's what you need to understand about fertility treatments: The doctors have no fucking idea what's going to work until they try it.

They start you off with the cheap and easy shit. Each and every early cycle has the couple thinking, "This could be it. We could be pregnant in only a few weeks". A few weeks and a few hundred dollars is better than adoption, right?

Then the cycle fails, and they doctors are telling them that they have something new to try, and it's only about a thousand bucks. So the couple thinks, "Okay, one more month, and a thousand more bucks. Still cheaper, faster, and simpler than our other options. Let's do this."

Then the cycle fails, and the doctors say, "Ok, you need to go straight to IVF. It's thousands of dollars a round, but the odds are better than our previous treatments, with about a 66% chance of achieving a viable pregnancy. You've come this far - why stop now? One more cycle and it will be all worth while."

The couple agrees, because three thousand dollars and one more cycle is STILL easier and cheaper than adoption. And besides, they've gone through all this really horrible shit for nothing. They are desperate for it to mean something.

I believe it's called the "sunk cost" fallacy in economics. Everyone does it, especially when they are emotional and not thinking clearly.

The real heartbreaker is when a couple eventually conceives after a lot of medical intervention, and then it turns out that the woman's body simply can't carry a pregnancy to term. Again, this is shit that doctors do not know until it happens, sometimes several times.

If couples knew at the beginning that things were going to go this far, many might choose to go the adoption route. But they never know that until it's happened.

[macphile]

As has been noted, the government doesn't pay for abortions--they're only covered (by insurance or whatever) if they're medically necessary. And I for one would never want them to be covered when they're voluntary. But then I oppose them, so no surprise there.

Infertility treatment is not medically necessary and is insanely expensive. I do sympathize with people who are in that position, but at the same time, we can't just pay for everything for everyone. Our insurance costs are already out of control.

I know a couple (two women) who've fostered (and subsequently adopted) several special-needs kids. They had an advantage going in that one of their natural-born children is mentally retarded, so they're used to it. Their lives aren't easy or cheap, but I know they don't regret it, and the kids are great. It saddens me to think of how many such kids are out there right now, abused or neglected by parents and unwanted by anyone else. Perhaps they'll never go on to be a doctor or whatever, but it doesn't mean they don't deserve love and care, and (nearly) all kids are capable of something, if given the right opportunities. Thank goodness we've moved beyond the days of dumping kids in institutions. One of these women's kids was abused by his father (partly prompted by being unplanned and then turning out to have CP and thus not being quite "up to par"). He was often left home alone at the age of 2 and just generally mistreated. Well, this kid is a genius, as it turns out. AP testing...impressed everyone he ever met as a kid--everyone wanted to take him home with them. Social, outgoing, friendly, funny, cute as a button, the whole thing. His natural parents missed out on a lot. (Of course, he also turned out gay, which I'm sure would have driven his dad over the edge.)

And so I'm crazy in favor of special-needs adopting and of allowing gays to adopt, which is a different thread (although these women don't identify as gay exactly).

On the other hand, I totally get that it's "not the same" as having your own and don't fault anyone for wanting that.

[Giggle Goose]

Slight nitpick, but Giggles is a girl a very lovely girl at that

Thanks, you are far too kind.

I think you misunderstood him.

He was saying that people being able to fall into hard times is not a valid counter argument for people wanting to have extrababies when they already are on hard times.

Which I agree.

Yes, this is true and exactly what I meant. If you are of the mindset that the government should pay for you to have a child, then you probably wouldn't think twice about expecting them to support your family when you lose your job for some reason. It has nothing to do with Wall Street.

[fireheart17]

Can you honestly not see the difference between having a child who turns out to be special needs, and adopting one that you know for sure has serious problems?

Most prospective parents don't joyfully await the birth of their child by installing wheelchair ramps, or setting up mental health counselling sessions, or locking up all lighters and knives in their homes - "just in case". That's ludicrous for most parents, and yet this is what many foster parents need to do.

Kids who are born with osteogenesis imperfecta (specifically Type III-which is one of two diagnosed in-utero but isn't as fatal) or Down's Syndrome may require parents to do that.

Not all of the problems that foster kids have are developed as a result of being in the foster system. Some of the problems ARE congenital. Some are acquired from abusive parents or abusive foster parents.

In regards to the other two points you mentioned: adopting kids from overseas (not just fostering them) can also bring a whole wealth of problems as well, some of which may also be congenital (and the reason why said kid was abandoned in the first place) or may be the result of abusive adoptive parents (my friend was in this situation).
As for the locking up of lighters and knives, kids CAN and WILL get into anything whether the intention is there or not. A former friend of mine's 6-year-old brother (at the time) would threaten us with a knife on occasion. There are several stories involving kids (blood-related at that) picking up a lighter and then burning the house down.

[BlaqueKatt]

Can you honestly not see the difference between having a child who turns out to be special needs, and adopting one that you know for sure has serious problems?

Most prospective parents don't joyfully await the birth of their child by installing wheelchair ramps, or setting up mental health counselling sessions, or locking up all lighters and knives in their homes - "just in case". That's ludicrous for most parents, and yet this is what many foster parents need to do.

and because they aren't prepared for anything to be possibly wrong with their own child, each blames the others genetics, they get stressed because they weren't prepared to deal with it, they become resentful, and often the marriage is destroyed, sometimes because one or both partners wants to "prove" they can have a "normal" child, and it was the others fault.



Interestingly parents of children with down's syndrome have a lower divorce rate than average(speculation being that a down's child isn't as difficult as other issues, and because it can be tested for), but the rest are quite high.