My partner and I were having an interesting conversation about babies the other day. I mentioned adoption instead of having your own and he would not have a bar of it at all. I asked him why passing on his own genes was so important and he countered with why shouldn't he be allowed to? He got very defensive when I kept pressing him about it I asked him why he wouldn't want to take in a baby put up for adoption and he (essentially) said that why should he have to miss out on passing on his own genes to make up for the mistake that another person made? I said that that’s not really fair on the orphaned baby and he finished with "Life's not fair!”
But since I didn't get a proper answer out of him about why passing on his own genes is so important I was wondering what your thoughts were on the subject?
I like to think that I would rather adopt than have my own (But then I am a young woman who is at the moment horrified at the thought of carrying a baby for 9 months and then giving birth to the thing...). But sometimes when I do think about babies I think how cool it would be for the baby to be my own child.... Being scientifically minded I think it’s probably something that is programmed into us to make us want to keep our genes going. But is this function really as necessary these days?
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
I think it is very inconsiderate to think he is wrong to want to have children.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Babies are not a rational subject; why should he have to defend whatever his decision is on the matter? And incidentally, I agree with him completely; I do not wish to spend the vast effort that is raising a child, on somebody else's baby.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:I asked him why he wouldn't want to take in a baby put up for adoption and he (essentially) said that why should he have to miss out on passing on his own genes to make up for the mistake that another person made? I said that that’s not really fair on the orphaned baby and he finished with "Life's not fair!”
While I view adoption as an intelligent, responsible choice, I do not think having your own child is an unintelligent, irresponsible choice. From what you've said here, it sounds like (he felt) you were accusing him of making a vindictive decision against an orphaned baby by electing to have his own child. Given that this is a pretty serious accusation to make, I don't blame him for being defensive.
In other words, I don't think you were simply asking him what his thoughts were; I think you were attempting to advance your own pro-adoption agenda, and he recognized this.
Posted by stacey (Member # 3661) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmer's Glue: I think it is very inconsiderate to think he is wrong to want to have children.
Uh, I don't think he is wrong to want to have children at all. I didn't think that was was my post conveyed. I was just interested in why passing on your own genes is so important thats all. Notice at the bottom of my post that I say when I think about children I think about having my own.
quote:
Babies are not a rational subject; why should he have to defend whatever his decision is on the matter? And incidentally, I agree with him completely; I do not wish to spend the vast effort that is raising a child, on somebody else's baby.
quote:
KOM, this is what I was wondering about... Why is it so important that it is your own baby?
P.S. It feels as if you guys think we were arguing about it? We wern't, we were just having a discussion and we are not actually thinking of having babies in the near future or anything like that. Just thought I would make that clear if thats what it sounded like in my original post Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Took my family thousands of years to work their way up to my genepool, why undo all that work?
Posted by stacey (Member # 3661) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Took my family thousands of years to work their way up to my genepool, why undo all that work?
Yay! This is actually what I was trying to ask for your thoughts on! lol, I wasn't asking for you to comment on my relationship, I was asking the question of why you think or don't think that passing on your genes is so important.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
With an adopted baby, it is very easy to just not love it like a biological child. It's just not the same.
Posted by stacey (Member # 3661) on :
How do you know?
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
How do you?
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Gee, I dunno. Plenty of biological parents don't love their children. How's that any different?
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmer's Glue: With an adopted baby, it is very easy to just not love it like a biological child. It's just not the same.
Do you have an adopted child and a biological child?
Stacey, I want to have biological children with my husband because I want to see a person (or people ) with both of us in them. Part vanity, part pride (both of my family and my husband's) and part instinct I guess.
But I am also not against adopting at all - it is something we have discussed, and something we may well do.
I think the attitude that an adopted baby is "someone else's" is shallow and potentially very hurtful. I'm willing to bet there are tons of (adoptive) parents who would never, ever view their child as anything but their own child.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
quote: Gee, I dunno. Plenty of biological parents don't love their children. How's that any different?
Not when they plan to have children. Those are called accidents.
It happens all too often. People have biological children, and adopted children. They often (not always mind you) just don't love the adopted children like their real children.
Posted by stacey (Member # 3661) on :
I don't! What you are saying may be right!
All I can comment on is my own experiences with this sort of thing? I know that our sheep don't care if the lamb they have is their own, just as long as they have a lamb. Ewes have been know to steal and switch lambs all the time on our farm. One ewe stole another lamb before she gave birth to twins. She rejected the twins and kept the single lamb that wasn't hers in the first place (they sometimes keep their own as well as the one they stole but that wasn't the case this time). This kind of thing happens in a lot of other animals as well including horses and cows (which we also own and have witnessed this baby stealing and swopping going on). I would be interested to know whether this happens in animals like chimps as well. So, really what I am trying to say is that these animals don't really seem to care for their "adopted" babies any less than they would their own. Can this also apply to humans?
(Edited for typo....)
[ September 27, 2006, 02:28 AM: Message edited by: stacey ]
Posted by cmc (Member # 9549) on :
Yet another moment when I'm glad I know in real life ONE other person on Hatrack and another moment when I find myself astounded at the things I'll actually share on this forum!!!!
I've got an Aunt and Uncle... they've been married since '91. They tried to have kids the 'regular' way, didn't work. They went through in vitro (who knows if i'm even spelling it right) numerous times, with failures and two ectopic pregnancies which eventually ruined my Aunt's hopes of carrying her own child. The first time it came up... Wait - I should tell you what it is. It is my Momma carrying the baby. So - the first time it came up I had a freak-out-fit and said absolutely no way - How am I going to explain to my friends that that's my COUSIN and not my sibling. Talk died down for a year or so... It came up again and I realized that it wasn't really my bag. It wasn't my place to say what these other players should do - it was my place to accept that they'd made the decision and work on my attitude towards it from there. So...
Long story short... My Momma was inseminated with Aunt #2's egg with Aunt #1's husband's sperm mixed in, carried the baby for 9 months, gave birth (10 pounds 10 ounces, natural, go Mom!) and then the little one went to live with my Aunt #1 and her husband.
It's been three years. Three crazy, roller coaster, can't even explain or try to talk about with people in a rational way years. Nobody gets it to the point I can talk about it - they all get stuck up on the - 'wait - explain that again?'.
My Uncle didn't want to adopt. He was really ready to not have kids if they didn't have his own genome somewhere in there. My Aunt was ready to adopt but not ready to have no kids. That's where her two sisters came in.
Honestly - who knows if there's another story like that out there. Probably, but not from anyone I've met. It's been really tough on our Family, for a whole lot of different reasons. I know this is not a scenario you were getting at when you originally posted this thread and I'm sorry if I'm derailing it.
It just kills me, though, that with so many beautiful little lives out there people would go to such extreme measures to bring another one into the world. I love the kid, please don't get me wrong, it's just a hard sort of love. It changed our whole family dynamic, who knows if it's good or bad, she'll be three in October so it's probably too soon to tell. I just know that it didn't have to be so CRAZY. There are a googolplex of kids out there who just need parents to love them, why spend so much money, effort, so many words I don't even have words for, to bring another being into the world.
I'm sorry if this seems horrible because I don't mean it that way at all. This post just made me think of my family... and made me think that if my Uncle had been more open to adoption a lot of all of our lives would have been different today.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
On the subject of sheep, I'd like to point out that we have been breeding them for the past five thousand years to not be very bright.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by imogen:
quote:Originally posted by Elmer's Glue: With an adopted baby, it is very easy to just not love it like a biological child. It's just not the same.
Do you have an adopted child and a biological child?
Stacey, I want to have biological children with my husband because I want to see a person (or people ) with both of us in them. Part vanity, part pride (both of my family and my husband's) and part instinct I guess.
But I am also not against adopting at all - it is something we have discussed, and something we may well do.
I think the attitude that an adopted baby is "someone else's" is shallow and potentially very hurtful. I'm willing to bet there are tons of (adoptive) parents who would never, ever view their child as anything but their own child.
While I have no children at the moment, I plan on both conceving and adopting.
I do, however, think the attitude that an adopted baby is "someone else's" is too often real, and something that ought to be taken into consideration; the same way that there are horrible biological parents, there are horrible adoptive ones, and I unfortunately know more than one adopted child who, to some degree or another, felt slighted by their parents because of their adopted status.
For example, one of my neighbors growing up had two children of his own, and had adopted a third child. His own children were, like he and his wife, caucasian; the adopted child was japanese. Despite their best efforts, my friend (the adopted one, let's call him "Brian") Brian always felt like an outsider in the family, not because his parents tried any less with him or loved him any less because he was adopted, but because they simply couldn't manage to stop treating him differently. His siblings saw him as their brother, but were always very conscious of the fact that they were not related by blood.
The situation was made worse by his surroundings; anyone who is (or knows) a different-ethnicity adoptee knows exactly what I'm talking about. The odd looks, the hesitation, the outright cruelty, the struggle with cultural identity; heck, I sympathized with him, being a japanese boy myself whose parents were as caucasian acting as any white people. Black people who were raised without the culturally stereotyped accents, attitudes and clothing also probably understand what I mean, as do many, many other groups raised in isolation. If you're not the right kind of person, these attitudes can influence and outright invade the way you view your own child. How many parents look around at tons of kids getting into trouble for drugs and pause a moment to consider their own child?
Some of you likely push the thought away, trusting your child and your own parenting to take care of the problem. Others of you likely begin wondering if your child has ever done drugs, and whether they continue to do them.
It's not an easy thing to deal with, even if those involved began with good intentions.
There's also the possibility that Brian was treated with nothing but equal love by his parents and siblings, the same love they had for their biological nuclear family, and Brian's concerns and psychological misgivings about his family's treatment of him arose because of the way he was treated by everyone else.
But there are also kids who are flat out told by their adoptive parents that they are not the same. I even know someone who was left out of inheritance from her father explicitly because she was adopted.
In short, people frequently suck.
Posted by cmc (Member # 9549) on :
PS - Elmer's Glue - my Mom had me at 18, I know I was an 'accident' as you may call it. I also know that (along with my 'more planned than me but not quite as much as the next pregnancy' little bro) I'm more her child that the 'planned' one and that I'm loved even more than I have the capability to understand. Forgive me if I come across as rude towards you but calling a kid an accident is something you should grow out of.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmer's Glue:
quote: Gee, I dunno. Plenty of biological parents don't love their children. How's that any different?
Not when they plan to have children. Those are called accidents.
Um, no. Not necessarily. None of us four kids in our family were accidents, but the parents still don't love us anyway. Never have, never will.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
I wasn't saying all unplanned kids are accidents, I was saying unplanned kids that aren't loved are accidents.
Posted by stacey (Member # 3661) on :
quote:Originally posted by quidscribis:
quote:Originally posted by Elmer's Glue:
quote: Gee, I dunno. Plenty of biological parents don't love their children. How's that any different?
Not when they plan to have children. Those are called accidents.
Um, no. Not necessarily. None of us four kids in our family were accidents, but the parents still don't love us anyway. Never have, never will.
And all 5 of us were accidents and our parents love us to bits.
Posted by stacey (Member # 3661) on :
quote: On the subject of sheep, I'd like to point out that we have been breeding them for the past five thousand years to not be very bright.
True sheep can be stupid (I don't think we breed them for it though). But we still have a lot of the same behavioral characteristics as them. Whether this (not caring whether offspring are biologically theirs or not) could be one of the chracteristics that are the same or not is something to consider.
I think it would be cool to know whether wanting your own genes to be passed on to your offspring is innate or something is acquired? And is it only exclusive to humans? Do other animals really care whether their baby is their own or not like humans do?
[ September 27, 2006, 02:31 AM: Message edited by: stacey ]
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote: I do, however, think the attitude that an adopted baby is "someone else's" is too often real, and something that ought to be taken into consideration; the same way that there are horrible biological parents, there are horrible adoptive ones , and I unfortunately know more than one adopted child who, to some degree or another, felt slighted by their parents because of their adopted status.
I agree. But what you are saying (and with the bolded part especially) is, IMO, quite different from what Elmer's Glue is saying.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
I think its more the point that sheep AREN'T bred for intelligence. It happens with dog breeds all the time who are bred for a certain body size or fur color and then end up completely stupid.
Earlier this year, I had some health concerns regarding fertility. Mind you, losing the ability to reproduce was rare and only a problem because I have google and an gift for worrying...but the fear was the same. I had always told my mother that I would never have children. She chalked this up to me being young and rebellious. I remember in high school having this plan to adopt a child from a poor, war-torn country who would then get a full-ride scholarship to Harvard with her sob story admissions essay.
Overpopulation does bother me and given health problems and the sheer insanity that has tortured generations of women in my family, I thought it best not to risk having a daughter of my own to pass all that on to. But when I started thinking about the possibility of losing that choice (whether it be to have children one day or not) I was very worried. You hear talk about biological clocks and I know it just has to be the case that we're programmed to want to pass on our genes. Maybe its more or less a need for some, but ideally this is how nature works.
The details of reproduction and the variations can be observed with just a few choice hours watching Animal Planet. Some reproduce often and in great quantities while others have complicated mating rituals in order to keep their population in tune with their resources. Some species care for their young for years, some only for weeks, and some not at all. Maybe some animals, driven by an innate need to mother, adopt orphans. Others trade young as a power struggle (I saw this during a special on captive wolves.) And I'm sure there's still others who adopt/trade because they are a simply too stupid to tell the difference between what is theirs and what isn't.
I can rationally list all the reasons why I shouldn't want children, adopted or not. I can list why it would be better to adopt rather than create my own offspring. Doesn't change the fact that when faced with the possibility that I may not be able to conceive and carry, that I mourned the potential loss. Somewhere deep inside I want to create a new life with a man I love and spend 9 months bonding in a very special way with that child.
While rationality certainly has it place in such a discussion between partners, gut instinct does too.
Posted by stacey (Member # 3661) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shanna: I think its more the point that sheep AREN'T bred for intelligence. It happens with dog breeds all the time who are bred for a certain body size or fur color and then end up completely stupid.
I would argue that sheep were probably not that intelligent to start with. That the traits that they have been selected for has not made them any more or any less intelligent. But thats not really anything to do with this topic really
I thought cmc's post was really interesting in that her Uncle wanted children but if they couldn't be his own then he wasn't going to have them at all. Is passing on your own genes more important (biologically) than actually raising a child?
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:I wasn't saying all unplanned kids are accidents, I was saying unplanned kids that aren't loved are accidents.
And so are all unplanned kids that are loved.
Planned kids that aren't loved are not accidents. Neither are planned kids who are.
What you're saying has no real bearing on the conversation at hand, it seems, other than stating the obvious fact that when you plan something, it's planned, and when you don't plan something, it's unplanned.
Duh.
My girlfriend and I were talking about this recently. We had a boy seven weeks ago, and we were talking about adopting our second. I was infinitely more comfortable thinking about adopting a girl than I was a boy. I don't know that I'd be capable of not showing some sort of preference to my own genetic son if I had an adoptive one near in age and in close competition with.
What I think I like most about having a biological child is knowing he has equal potential, with the advantage of cumulative wisdom, to me.
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
*giggles at the thought of frisco surrounded by dozens of children*
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Young guy perspective - I'm excited about having kids of my own someday, especially if with my current girlfriend, the idea of what our genetic lottery might produce is fascinating.
Will they have her hair? Her freckles? Her incredible talent? My geeky fascination with history? Tall or short? Brown eyes or something further back in either of our families?
Part of it is that I really want a piece of both of us to continue on in this world, I want to continue the family line, as more than just a name, and I also am just plain curious as to what will come of the union of genes. It's possible, though maybe unlikely, that I'd consider later children be adopted, but the first couple would have to be our own.
It's hardwired, but it's the way I want it, and it's my right as a human being to want it, so I don't feel bad about it.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
I hate to defer. Sheep just make me laugh because my mom has border collies that she herds with. Her friend has a farm full of animals to train dogs with. The dogs are fine with ducks, goats, cattle, but HATE the sheep. The sheep are mean and independent. If a dog comes home limping, its usually because it got run over by a sheep that didn't want to follow the others. The farm lady is very specific about how her ducks are raised (since they're good starter animals) so I wouldn't doubt that she bred her sheep to outsmart overconfident herding dogs.
In regards to passing on genes, we hear alot about people who supposedly live through their children. When a child succeeds, its treated as a positive reflection on the parents. I would think that it speaks well of a person's child rearing skills, but something in our society holds onto the influence of nature over nuture. I hear genes being blamed for why some people just can't grasp math or grammar, etc. But if a child is just naturally bright, the parents would assume it was their good genes that led to this gifted combination.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Frisco: What I think I like most about having a biological child is knowing he has equal potential, with the advantage of cumulative wisdom, to me.
But he doesn't. Or, rather, he may have more or less, even though odds are he's somewhere in your ballpark, give or take a rather wide margin.
Not only are there a not-insignificant number of situations like Down syndrome that happen unexpectedly, but don't forget that he's half her genes, too -- and that mix is some unprecidented and as yet unpredictable synergy of the two.
That boy has the gates of his world pretty wide open, still. *smile
----
Edited to add: There are plenty of kids that aren't as smart (however you measure it) as their parents, but it's the ones that are smarter than their folks that really seem to have it rough. At least, it seems that way to me. (Can you imagine the frustration of having a stupid boss multiplied by 24/7, with total control over you for over a decade? Ouch!)
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
And for what it's worth, I've had a little too much intimate familiarity with my own genes to be too enamoured of passing them on. I do think it would be a shame for the world to lose what's left of my mom's genes, but at least my brother is still in the runnning (theoretically) for offspring.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Depending on how you look at things, the only really meaningful, lasting contribution most people get to make in life is passing on their genes. I don't want to have kids that bad, at least not now, but I can certainly understand the motivation.
Posted by Adam_S (Member # 9695) on :
I think there's something to the ideal of marraige as two-into-one. Your child is a physical representation of that--it is you and it is also your dearest love, who is also part of you. There's something intrinsically powerful to that which I think people connect to.
my roomate will eventually deal with this with her longterm boyfriend (conversation came up on the trip back from comiccon, that's how I know) She can't ever imagine having babies but wants to adopt, he is definite that a child needs to be his, I can see this eventually breaking them apart.
If it were me in the situation I'd be stunned and hurt. If a child is both yourself and your beloved as one, the refusal of the beloved would destroy me. What does that say about how she really feels about the two of us? It would create a possibly unhealable fissure (in my mind) between us. Not a happy thought at all.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
The question brings to mind the stories of the unscrupulous doctors who use their own sperm to fertilize all the eggs of the women who come in for artificial insemination. They want to pass on their genes enough to break the law and behave in a completely unethical way, and don't even care if they ever see their offspring. I don't know if any of the stories are true, or if they're all fictionalized, but it makes some sense from a genetic standpoint.
Posted by stacey (Member # 3661) on :
So is not being able to have a child that has your genes a deal breaker for you? Or is the refusal to not have a child that contains your genes the deal breaker?
Posted by stacey (Member # 3661) on :
Oops sorry MightyCow if that was in reply to the post that I deleted. I deleted it because I thought I was asking way too many questions and making everything too complicated.
Just so other people know what you are replying to the question I asked was whether you could still be content with raising a child if after a fair while you found out it was not biologically yours (i.e. it had been switched with someone elses or something to that effect)? Would you search for your "real" child and exchange the two even though you had been raising that one for a while?
(I may have left out some of the original questions but I can't remember exactly what I asked anymore....)
[ September 27, 2006, 06:36 AM: Message edited by: stacey ]
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
If being able to pass on my genes was a deal breaker... Uh, I'd be in serious trouble.
And stacey, considering that I can't have children (or, at least, it's extremely improbable), I would already know that the child wasn't mine. Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I don't particularly care about passing on my genes. I think I'm reasonably intelligent and talented, but I have what may be genetic drawbacks as well; the world will get on just fine without my genes.
I think it's worth noting that raising adopted kids is very often more challenging than raising your own kids; kids rarely come up for adoption without some very unfortunate circumstances. I don't lose respect for anyone who prefers not to take on that challenge.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't mind the idea of passing on my genes, but I don't know that I'd get someone like me. I am not at all like my parents, so if they were hoping for a copy they lost out.
The idea of kids is still a little inconceivable to me, so I'm not sure. Ask me in a couple of years.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I can't wait to pass on my genes, and I can't think of any other explanation for that besides narcissism. I think I have good genes, and they deserve to keep going.
Doing my part for evolution, I'm selecting my genes (with a heap of luck) because I believe in them.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Unrelated, but people who respond to a question with "Life's unfair" just annoy the hell out of me. Perhaps one day when I am mature and find a person who is worth having a child with, then I'd consider having a kid. But it would have to be a person I really love enough to have a person that is half them... It's so depressing when folks have a child with someone they don't love and say, "You're like your mother" or "You're like your father" in a dismissive almost hateful way... I know, because my own separated parents are a bit like that. But I'd also love to adopt a child because they simply NEED someone to raise them and care for them, because who else will?
Posted by sweetbaboo (Member # 8845) on :
I'll chime in with my experience. I was adopted as a baby and everyone in my family or who has known my family since before I became a part of it doesn't ever even remember that I'm adopted. Many of my High School friends who had known me since grade school and knows my family, didn't know I was adopted. I was not loved less and I was never treated as less than my 3 "biological" (to my parents) siblings.
I realize not every adoption case is as ideal as mine has been but I just wanted to point out that there are fabulous parents in this world who can love both adopted and biological children and count them as "theirs" and lucky for me, I've got 'em.
Incidentally, I have three biological children of my own and have always wanted to adopt at least one child but it hasn't worked out yet (my husband is open to it though).
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
“I want to pass on my genes”. I think it is instinctual. Just like the “I want to eat” and “I don’t want to die” ones. I haven’t rationalized it too much yet, just like in the case of “eating” and “keeping alive”. It all goes to one final end anyway: Keeping going the Human Race.
It is all part of life, and seeing all known life as an “island in the Universe”, the importance of any particular individual kind of shades away… But anyway, even if we agree that there is some importance of keeping the Human Race going, I think there aren’t many individuals to accept that others decide for them whether their particular genes are better of passed on or not. So why rationalize it at all?
And if you are curious, here is my (rational) analysis:
There is a difference to be made, apparently, depending on which part of it we insist. Is it “I want to PASS ON my genes” or “I want to pass on MY genes”?
The first one is directly admitting that continuing the existence of the Human Race is something worth while.
The second one has to do with egoism. It is saying that “MY genes (as opposed to others’) are better off passed on”. But better off for what purpose? Well, for the continuing existence of the Human Race of course .
And, there is even a third one: “I want to pass on my GENES”. But why are the genes so important? Why not the knowledge? Can’t we pass on the knowledge regardless of the genes involved? But again, why pass on anything? Is the Human Race better off with “my heritage” that without it?
Sorry if there are more questions than answers in this post, but someone has to ask, don’t you think?
A.
BTW: The big question is: “Do Humans really deserve to keep on going?” (see BSG )
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
I just read the thread rather quickly, so if what I said has been repeated, I apologize. In addition to the fascination with what our kids will look like and be like, my strongest motivation is to take part in the miracle of creation. A significant part of the excitement of anticipating having kids for me is knowing that I made him.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:“I want to pass on my genes”. I think it is instinctual. Just like the “I want to eat” and “I don’t want to die” ones.
It might be instinctual for some people, but it is by no means universal. I want to eat, and I don't want to die, but I have never felt the need or desire to pass on my genes. And honestly I think there is a lot of conditioning involved in the decision for those who do, but I can't prove that anymore than you can prove it's part of life. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
:trying desperately to think of a baby-eating joke:
:failing so far:
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
That would involve passing the genes, Scott, but hardly passing them ON.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
"The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard." - Anonymous
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Well, if it the baby you were eating were your own, you could probably do something scatological with the phrase "passing".
On the actual subject of the thread, though, I've never felt any kind of urge to pass on my genes, but to be fair I've also never felt any particular urge to be a parent, period (if I had a partner that strongly wanted a child I could get on board with the idea, and I expect that I'd get pretty enthusiastic about the whole thing. I also think I'd make a fairly good father. I just don't have any tremendous desire to do so).
If I *were* to be a father, though, I would prefer to adopt. There are good and bad things both about my genes--people in my family tend to be intelligent, creative, and have good teeth, but they also tend to be uncoordinated, have heart problems and develop colon cancer--so there's no shining beacon saying that my genes are ones that the species really needs. In addition, there are lots of children already in existence that need loving homes, and a general problem with overpopulation. Given all of that, adoption makes more sense to me.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Given all of that, adoption makes more sense to me.
That makes sense to me, too, but this isn't an area where I decide things logically.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: And honestly I think there is a lot of conditioning involved in the decision for those who do, but I can't prove that anymore than you can prove it's part of life.
What kind of proof would you need to agree that it’s part of life? If there were no instinct to pass on genes, then what do you think “sexual attraction” is based on? Pleasure? Then pleasure is also the base for eating, even more obviously so. (We actually feel sick if we don’t eat). And the fact that some of the humans don’t “feel” the instinct to pass on their genes can’t prove that there is no such instinct, while “some of us” do feel it.
A.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:And the fact that some of the humans don’t “feel” the instinct to pass on their genes can’t prove that there is no such instinct, while “some of us” do feel it
Well, sure. Which is why I said that "I can't prove that" anymore than you can prove the reverse. So to ask me what kind of proof I need is kinda silly. I can't think of anyway you could prove it, because I don't think it can be proven.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
You can receive pleasure from carrying out your conditioning as well, or feel ill from failing to do so, so I don't think that necessarily proves anything.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*is apparently invisible today*
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I laughed, rivka.
Maybe Noemon just had not refreshed.
Or maybe he hates your guts and routinely ignores everything you post.
(It's okay, he reads my posts but gives other people credit for them.)
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Also I have EVERY intention of going to China one day and adopting a sweet little Chinese girl. This is purely an act of compasion on my part, the fact little chinese girls are the cutest looking the world is secondary. I hate the fact that they are tossed away by their families because they wan't sons, and these girls have no hope of a better future. If I can help one of them at least get a fair chance, even if it does not pan out, I think my existance will have more meaning.
Having said that, I still want to see just what kinda of human beings I myself can craft with my genes as well as my personality.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I beg to differ, BB. Hatrack babies are the cutest in the world, it's a scientific fact.
That said, I think that it's nice to pass on your genes-- but, having two children, I think there are more important things to pass on, like the importance of loving families and kindness to others and wisdom and great literature and...
If I was not able to have children, I would very much hope to adopt. Loving children is in my genes, and was nurtured in me through my upbringing. I am glad I am able to have children, but were there no hope of that, I would still want to rear children.
This way is much cheaper for us, though. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Or maybe he hates your guts and routinely ignores everything you post.
*lower lip wobbles*
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
"Wobble" is one of my favorite words.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: You can receive pleasure from carrying out your conditioning as well, or feel ill from failing to do so, so I don't think that necessarily proves anything.
So, do you agree that "passing on genes" is a (essential) part of the life of any species, or not?
A.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: *is apparently invisible today*
Nah, I just got my message 99% composed immediately after Scott had posted, got caught up with work, and didn't get a chance to type the last three words and click "Add Reply" for about an hour.
Or basically, what Olivet said.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
quote:Given all of that, adoption makes more sense to me.
That makes sense to me, too, but this isn't an area where I decide things logically.
Which is fine. It is for me, but that may be because I don't feel any particular drive, either biologically or culturally induced, to have kids.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
A motivation just occurred to me, though it won't apply to everyone. Most people are not very bright; to the extent that intelligence is genetic (and I think it's generally agreed that there is a strong hereditary factor) it follows that most people's children are not very bright. Plainly, raising a bright child is more fun than raising a dull one. Any child of mine will, probabilistically speaking, be a lot smarter than one selected from a random sample. (And also, you have to consider that the best and the brightest may well be underrepresented among the people who put children up for adoption, so the sample is actually a bit worse than random.) A child of mine, then, is a better bet for my personal satisfaction.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
I feel excited by the idea of having my own child. As a woman, I think it's amazing that I have the ability to create life inside of me. I would like to have that experience. I also think it would be interesting to watch a child grow and see at least some of the genetic traits of myself and future mate.
That said, I think that raising adopted children is a more meaningful endeavor than raising your own kids. Raising kids you made is simply fulfilling your duty. Raising somebody else's kid is going above and beyond. And going beyond that, is raising kids that somebody else started raising (most likely poorly) and then stopped. I think that with each additional layer of meaning it requires a stronger person to rise to the challenge. One day I would like to be the kind of person that is emotionally strong enough to adopt older children that have been abandoned to the state foster care system.
I am single, young, and have no money so children are not in my immediate future. At this point in time, although this could quite likely change, I love the idea of working my way up. I could start with my own child and learn about raising kids. If that goes well and I feel I could handle more, I would look into adoption.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: *is apparently invisible today*
Nah, I just got my message 99% composed immediately after Scott had posted, got caught up with work, and didn't get a chance to type the last three words and click "Add Reply" for about an hour.
Or basically, what Olivet said.
::lower lip wobbles::
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
((rivka and Icky))
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
King of Men- if you were stupid, would you want to raise a baby smarter than you? Or would you want to raise a super genius baby?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: A child of mine, then, is a better bet for my personal satisfaction.
Thankfully, whether by nature or nurture, any child of yours is likely to be inexcusably arrogant as well. I say "thankfully," because I fully expect the exact same glee my parents get when they see me have to deal with stuff my kids do that is similar to what they had to deal with from me.
Noem and Ic, making me laugh like that at work is not ok! Do you know how much my ribs hurt from stifling it?! Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
quote:A motivation just occurred to me, though it won't apply to everyone. Most people are not very bright; to the extent that intelligence is genetic (and I think it's generally agreed that there is a strong hereditary factor) it follows that most people's children are not very bright. Plainly, raising a bright child is more fun than raising a dull one. Any child of mine will, probabilistically speaking, be a lot smarter than one selected from a random sample. (And also, you have to consider that the best and the brightest may well be underrepresented among the people who put children up for adoption, so the sample is actually a bit worse than random.) A child of mine, then, is a better bet for my personal satisfaction.
I hate to rain on your parade, but it's not true that intelligent people will have intelligent children. Yes, there is a genetic component with intelligence, but there's also a regression to the mean involved in genetics. For example, my father was a world-famous cardiologist and medical researcher (before he ruined his career with drugs and alcohol). And while I was intelligent enough to get a scholarship to a good college, I have very little aptitude for science. Genetics is such a roll of the dice that nothing is certain. Also, genetics doesn't protect against injuries or infections or diseases that can reduce your child's intelligence.
I'm guessing that you have very little experience with children - the bright ones give just as much trouble, if not more, than the "dull" ones. Also, I can't imagine how you came to the conclusion that most people who give their children up for adoption aren't bright. There's a difference between stupidity and poor judgment. I think that people who give their children up have made a mistake and are brave and smart enough to realize that they aren't in a position to raise their child.
I wanted to have a biological child for reasons already stated - maternal instinct and the desire to create a person with my husband. However, we were also ready to adopt if we couldn't conceive. We are still planning on adopting in the future and I'm sure we'll love all of our children equally.
For me, there's a religious consideration. We believe that the command to be fruitful and multiply means having at least one child of each sex.
BTW, congratulations, Frisco!
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer: That said, I think that raising adopted children is a more meaningful endeavor than raising your own kids. Raising kids you made is simply fulfilling your duty. Raising somebody else's kid is going above and beyond. And going beyond that, is raising kids that somebody else started raising (most likely poorly) and then stopped.
I disagree with this. To me, choosing to have children and raise them with love is just as meaningful as choosing to adopt someone else's child and raise them with love.
Posted by stacey (Member # 3661) on :
quote:For me, there's a religious consideration. We believe that the command to be fruitful and multiply means having at least one child of each sex.
This is interesting. Would your religion look down on (sorry couldn't think of a better phrase at the moment) people who couldn't concieve?
(p.s. If that sounds like an attack I'm terribly sorry, it is a legitimate question that I couldn't think of how to phrase without using a bit of inflammatory language... )
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
quote:For me, there's a religious consideration. We believe that the command to be fruitful and multiply means having at least one child of each sex.
My sister and her husband believe something similar, only it's two children, not necessarily one of each.
What happens, then, if you end up having all girls or all boys? (And, like stacey, this is honest curiousity, not any attempt at being inflammatory.)
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholar: King of Men- if you were stupid, would you want to raise a baby smarter than you? Or would you want to raise a super genius baby?
I have no idea, and don't see why the question is interesting.
quote:I hate to rain on your parade, but it's not true that intelligent people will have intelligent children. Yes, there is a genetic component with intelligence, but there's also a regression to the mean involved in genetics.
Clearly there is no guarantee, nor did my post suggest one. But there's such a thing as improving the odds.
quote:I'm guessing that you have very little experience with children - the bright ones give just as much trouble, if not more, than the "dull" ones.
You are looking at the wrong end; obviously all children are troublesome. I'm looking at the good end, the experiences you have with your child. Let's see you teach someone with an IQ of 90 to enjoy chess.
quote:Thankfully, whether by nature or nurture, any child of yours is likely to be inexcusably arrogant as well. I say "thankfully," because I fully expect the exact same glee my parents get when they see me have to deal with stuff my kids do that is similar to what they had to deal with from me.
I expect my children's arrogance to be exceeded only by their reasons for arrogance, just like my own.
Posted by Sharpie (Member # 482) on :
There is something to the idea of wanting to make a child with the person you adore, at least for me. I have already produced my "quota" and then some, if the quota is two children, in my first marriage. But I confess that I often find myself dreamily imagining the amazing child that John and I could make. "Could." Who knows what the genetic dice would do? Who knows what effect our ages would have? And probably we won't. But the wishful thinking is there, I admit it.
Is there a googly-eyes icon? A dreamy schoolgirl one? Well, just imagine it.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
quote:I expect my children's arrogance to be exceeded only by their reasons for arrogance, just like my own.
I'm sorry, that just made me laugh.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
My question about having a kid smarter than yourself was looking at whether or not you want a child who is like you or trying to optimize your child.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Yes, KOM really wants a Mini-Me Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholar: My question about having a kid smarter than yourself was looking at whether or not you want a child who is like you or trying to optimize your child.
I don't think the situations are symmetrical. I have a low tolerance for the company of stupid people, hence I would enjoy raising a smart child more. If I were stupid, I don't think I would necessarily have a low tolerance for the company of smart people; a smart child might still be a better bet, to the extent that the child was able to tolerate my company. It's not a question of similarity, but of compatibility.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
stacey and quidscribis - you can fulfill your obligation by adopting (adopted children must be converted). In my experience, there is a stigma about infertility in certain Jewish communities. It's something that I'm still coming to terms with. I believe that infertility (in either spouse) is grounds for divorce, but rivka or Tante Shvester would know better than I. And y'all couldn't have been more respectful.
KoM, you can get just as much joy teaching a learning disabled child to read as you can teaching a bright child to play chess. Happy and meaningful experiences with your children don't have to involve achievement. You don't love your children because they have qualities and abilities you value - you love them unconditionally.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
If it's any consolation, Mrs. M, there's a stigma about infertility in many communities, including the LDS one. Not everywhere, and it has improved, but it is there. Okay, not so much a consolation as a general commiseration. Posted by stacey (Member # 3661) on :
Mrs.M, are you allowed to adopt even if you can concieve? (i.e. you can have your own biological children but you choose to adopt instead) or is adoption just a last resort?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:stacey and quidscribis - you can fulfill your obligation by adopting (adopted children must be converted).
This is generally not accepted to be true. Although adoption is absolutely seen as a Very Good Thing, it is entirely separate from the commandment of having children. However, like any commandment, if you are constrained by circumstances beyond your control, you are not held to blame.
quote: In my experience, there is a stigma about infertility in certain Jewish communities.
This is unfortunately true. Although it is something that is spoken out against by those in authority. The more acceptable attitude of pity is probably not a whole lot easier for those dealing with infertility.
quote: I believe that infertility (in either spouse) is grounds for divorce, but rivka or Tante Shvester would know better than I.
Correct. However, unlike some grounds for divorce (such as infidelity by the wife), it is an optional choice. I know a great many Jewish couples who stayed married for life, who had no children. Among the more famous were Sara Schneirer (mother of the Bais Yaakov movement) and her husband, the last Lubavitcher Rebbe and his wife, and Nechama Leibowitz and her husband.
Someone who never marries is also unable to fulfil the commandment. Which, BTW, only devolves upon men, not women.
Posted by stacey (Member # 3661) on :
quote:However, unlike some grounds for divorce (such as infidelity by the wife)
Sorry to drift from the actual topic but this sentence just jumped out at me. Is infidelity by the husband not grounds for divorce?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Just wanted to add a relevant quote from my last link.
quote:We were talking about rebbes and the faith people have in them when Nechama remembered the following story:
"One day when I was in the University library's reading room, a young married Yemenite woman, who was an ex-student of mine, came over to me:
I must ask your advice.
What is it?
My husband and I are married nearly ten years and we have no children. We don't know if we should get divorced and each try to have a family with another spouse. What do you say, Nechama?
The story goes on for a bit, and concludes:
quote:I remember my thoughts as I drove home after hearing that story. Neither Nechama nor the Rebbe ever had children. They both know the pain of the childless, and they both know the power of love. Their deep-seated love has blessed them both with thousands of "children" throughout the Jewish world.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by stacey:
quote:However, unlike some grounds for divorce (such as infidelity by the wife)
Sorry to drift from the actual topic but this sentence just jumped out at me. Is infidelity by the husband not grounds for divorce?
Since biblically the husband could have multiple wives, no. (Which is not to say it might not cause a divorce, just that it is not obligated to do so.)
Posted by stacey (Member # 3661) on :
So in Jewish couples where one of them is infertile but they decide not to get divorved, are they allowed to adopt? (Maybe allowed isn't the right word.) Would it be acceptable? Would they be thought of differently in the jewish community if they adopted instead of remaining childless?
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mrs.M: stacey and quidscribis - you can fulfill your obligation by adopting (adopted children must be converted). In my experience, there is a stigma about infertility in certain Jewish communities. It's something that I'm still coming to terms with. I believe that infertility (in either spouse) is grounds for divorce, but rivka or Tante Shvester would know better than I.
Mrs.M IS Jewish, Stacey
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by stacey: So in Jewish couples where one of them is infertile but they decide not to get divorved, are they allowed to adopt? (Maybe allowed isn't the right word.) Would it be acceptable? Would they be thought of differently in the jewish community if they adopted instead of remaining childless?
I know Jewish couples who have biological children and adopt, and quite a number who have adopted because they cannot have biological children. As I said above, adoption is seen as a wonderful thing -- a big chesed (kindness). While not every Jewish infertile couple adopts, many do.
Posted by cmc (Member # 9549) on :
Whoa... maybe I missed something... Is it religiously wrong in some belief sets to adopt? If so - can someone fill me in on the why?
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
Interesting thread!
I've never felt the drive to be a mother at all. I always assumed that if I ever did want to have a family, I'd adopt. I just don't think it's important for me to pass on my genes. I have really crummy genes, in fact. I have some kind of weird-ass immune system problem, and my family is absolutely riddled with alcoholism, heart disease, and mentall illness. The world does NOT need more Libbies. I managed to escape relatively healthy and normal, but I couldn't guarantee that to any of my genetic offspring.
However, there are lots of great kids out here waiting for good families. If I wanted the responsibility of caring for a family, I'd want to provide a good home for one (or more?) of those children. I don't see it as giving up my "chance" as passing on my genes (as if you only get one?), but rather as giving those children a chance at a good life.
Bummer that I don't want any kids anyway, though, huh?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by cmc: Whoa... maybe I missed something... Is it religiously wrong in some belief sets to adopt?
Not to the best of my knowledge. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:KoM, you can get just as much joy teaching a learning disabled child to read as you can teaching a bright child to play chess. Happy and meaningful experiences with your children don't have to involve achievement. You don't love your children because they have qualities and abilities you value - you love them unconditionally.
Love, unfortunately, does not preculde being annoyed at the loved one on occasion. Plainly, the fewer those occasions, the better. I believe I mentioned my impatience with slow people.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
So much claimed intelligence and you still can't figure out basic skills like patience and empathy? I've met plenty of adults without degrees who can atleast manage that.
Sorry, I just find the idea of intelligence as a precursor to love to be absolutely ridiculous and contrary to the very meaning of love.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I don't think you can have read my post. Try it again.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
I'm not worried about adoption for a very simple reason. A few years ago I met my cousin Joe for the first time. He's the adopted son of an adopted son - nothing close to a blood relation - and we were finishing each other's sentences within minutes. We could tell we were family even if there wasn't a shared gene between us.
My mom was adopted by her stepdad. Same thing. They've always been family. The fact that he was originally her stepdad rarely comes up.
On a side note, I hear a lot of people get bent out of shape about telling kids they're adopted. They get all worried about the kid wanting to find their birth parents and like them better or that people will treat the kid different if they know. I've known a buddy of mine was adopted for about three years, and I only asked him about his birth family a few months back. It's just never come up before.
I don't see what all the hooplah is about, but then I plan on adopting in about 15 years. It's pretty liberating to know I don't have to plan my family around the lifespan of my reproductive organs. I can wait until I'm ready.
Posted by Chanie (Member # 9544) on :
quote:Originally posted by quidscribis: What happens, then, if you end up having all girls or all boys?
There was a family on my street growing up that had 7 boys before they had a girl.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Is there anyone here who isn't feeling sorry for KoM's future child?
Posted by Sharpie (Member # 482) on :
Biology does very good things to most people, Katharina. Hopefully, he's one of them. It will make him mushy and goofy and he'll be buying Power Puff Girls sneakers for his imperious four-year-old daughter with a loopy grin on his face, and thanking her for the privilege.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:I believe I mentioned my impatience with slow people.
As long as you apply this rule to yourself first and foremost it's possible to have this be a force for good in your life.
Otherwise, it'll just tend to give you a reputation as a mean and destructive person.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chanie:
quote:Originally posted by quidscribis: What happens, then, if you end up having all girls or all boys?
There was a family on my street growing up that had 7 boys before they had a girl.
My friend has 7 girls and one boy (although he was born 6th). Another has four sisters and no brothers. Two are the only girls in a houseful of boys (7 and 8 brothers, respectively).
One of my favorite bits of contemporary Jewish music is a song about a guy with 5 daughters, no sons, and how happy he is.
My point being, it is in our hands to try. It is in His hands to determine what we get -- in terms of gender, intelligence, abilities, and a whole host of other things.
Anyway, there is at least one opinion that says the obligation is two children of any gender. Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Seven girls! Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: Is there anyone here who isn't feeling sorry for KoM's future child?
I'm just envisioning the kid's teenage rebellion where he accepts Jesus as his Lord and Savior. Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by mackillian: Seven girls!
My aunt has three boys and nine girls. Not to mention a whole slew of grandchildren.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by mackillian: Seven girls!
Met a Chinese woman on the street that had 10 sisters, they had never taken a family photo with everyone in it.
See for me I would have given up on having a son after about 4 girls at the most 5.
Rivka, I use Fiddler on the Roof as my model for what would happen if I had only daughters Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
You would become a milkman and walk the streets singing?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
That's what happened to me . . .
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
Now I feel like a slacker for only having five daughters and one son.
Although my son was #3, and I really wasn't trying to get "a brother for Todd" like so many people seemed to think I was.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
I have three sisters older than me. My father insisted that I be called "David" regardless of whether I came out a boy or a girl.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
That's funny, Ic, I thought you became a bookbinder.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nighthawk: I have three sisters older than me. My father insisted that I be called "David" regardless of whether I came out a boy or a girl.
Funny, my mom tells me they called me Taylor all 9 months I was in the womb, because they knew I was going to be a boy.
To this day I insist they called me Taylor because its a unisexual name, had I been a girl they would have fed me that same story.
Its one of lifes ironies. We live in a world where many men want sons and yet its all up to the man to produce the chromosome needed, and yet we cannot control it.
Man its double irony. You want something, its up to you do something to aquire it, you can't conciously do it, but it must be done.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
rivka, I totally don't get the "bookbinder" joke. Was that his role in the local production of Fiddler or something?
<drat>
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Yeah . . . I played Avram the bookseller. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Bookseller, bookbinder, what's the difference? Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
I have a friend who is has been sick since childhood with scleroderma. She's on extremely strong medication to control it - really, it's low dose chemotherapy, at least that's how she explained it to me - and at least one of her meds causes extreme birth defects. If she wants to have her own kids, she'd have to go off the medicine and wait a full six months before trying to get pregnant.
She got married in March of this year and she and her husband want to start a family. Now, she met said husband only a year ago this Labor Day; she married him within 9 months. All through their engagement and courtship, she talked excitedly about having a family, and how she had no problem adopting or using one of her sisters as a surrogate mother (even then, she' dhave to go off the drugs for six months).
But now, her husband is so resolute about the idea that they must have their own children and she must bear them. He wants to go off her meds for the six months, then try to get pregnant - she doesn't even know if she can - and then have her go nine months without the drugs.
I just don't understand it. He's putting her life in completely undue, unnecessary risk (and she's going along with it, but that's another story). While it's possible (though unlikely) she could go off the meds and not have an immediate health problems, scleroderma is something of a degenerative disease. If she stops controlling it even for one second her life span will get shorter.
This type of thing I just really, really don't understand, especially when there are so many unwanted children in the world.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I don't get that either... They could at least get a surrogate or something if it will cost her... 15 months of agony.
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
It's worse than that... she'd be so much worse after all those months of non-treatment and some of that would be permanent. He can ask her to bear the child or he can ask her to rear the child. He can't expect her to be able to do both, her body won't take it. Of course her body might be quite disabled within a few years even if they DO adopt.
Posted by Valentine014 (Member # 5981) on :
I want to look at my child and marvel and what my significant other and I have created. The two of us having the ability to do what humans do best, to join together and make something that is a part of each other. I want to have a connection with my son or daughter like my mother has with me. We are endlessly amused with our similiarities. We have the same laugh, same smile and sometimes even say the same things at the same time. Those experiences have created a bond that we, as biological mother and daughter, can share.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:We have the same laugh, same smile and sometimes even say the same things at the same time.
I know adoptive families of which these things are true, as well. I wonder how much of our behavior is learned, how much is genetic, and whether learning can compensate for genetic differences in some families.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Sometimes, when I think about how awesome I am, it makes me realize that it would be a crime against humanity not to pass on these sweet genes I have.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
I asked him why he wouldn't want to take in a baby put up for adoption and he (essentially) said that why should he have to miss out on passing on his own genes to make up for the mistake that another person made? I said that that’s not really fair on the orphaned baby and he finished with "Life's not fair!” ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)