If you knew your girlfriend or boyfriend were infertile

[babyrich]

When I met my DH, or better when we discussed getting married. I told him I do not want children. My DH is 10 years younger than me so I knew this could be an issue for him; but he told me he never wanted children either. We had many conversations about his leading up to our marriage because I wanted him to be sure that I would not change my mind about children.

Since he felt the same way, it was not a deal breaker for him; but I am sure if he wanted kids and knew I wasnt going to change my mind about having them, he would not married me.

The time before the marriage is the time to talk about these things. If you disagree on the major issues, than its better to break the deal before walking down the aisle. Isnt it?

 

[LIDisneyFan]

So your problem with the OP is that they want a child who shares their genes? Why exactly is that a problem?

I think eMom was referring to another poster (the original poster disappeared) and their reponse to me of "I don't agree that giving up your own child is a selfless act"

Forgetting everything else-and whether you would build your family through adoption or not - how do you not think someone who does the best thing for their child is not selfless?

 

[bmw99]

Just a quick addition to say that IMHO whatever family building or not building decision two people end up making is great. Obviously, I think adoption is a fantastic, wonderful, miraculous way to become a parent. But I know it's not the right way for a lot of people. The decision itself doesn't really matter, so much as the underlying confidence and commitment to make all of life's decisions, and deal with all of life's heartbreak, TOGETHER with love.

Miraculous??? How is a parent giving up on their own child, then an infertile couple who has probably already went through hell with treatments miscarriages, finances who agrees to adopt a child because they can't afford or go through more treatment a miracle?

 

[Mrs.Toad]

well put Frank, thank you. I put openly what we did when faced with the situation, and I have been put down or attacked. I dind't attack others choices that they made , only explained why I made the choices we did.

This is turing into adoption vs anti adoption thread rather than what did YOU DO.

Who attacked you or put you down? All I have read here (before your post) is people sharing their opinions that biology doesn't matter. Why do you assume they are addressing you and your choices? If anything, the poster that seems to be turning this into adoption vs anti-adoption is you.

Thank you very much for this post; now that you have brought this point up I will as well, I don't think most people think of adoption as a first choice though I know there were exceptions. I think it's incredibly unfair to a child to adopt only after learning you can't achieve a baby by your first choice method, why should this child know they were choice B?

We originally went about bringing children into the family the old fashioned way, not because it was our "first choice", but because it was the easiest, cheapest and most common way to do it. Honestly, we made no "choice" about it, we just moved forward with what most people do. It worked the first time, not the second, so we adopted our second child. Sure, it was the second choice method, but that's all it was, a method, the choice part has nothing to do with the child himself. It's no different than going through infertility procedures, IMO. I doubt IVF would be anyone's first choice method of bringing a child into the family, either, but no one ever seems to put it down as being "second choice" (not talking about ethical issues, creating life, just talking about the "choice"). This leads me to believe that your concern is more that the child himself is "second choice", not the method of bringing him into the family. Most adoptive parents do not feel this way. And for anyone who does think less of a child that doesn't share his DNA, please, please, don't adopt. It would be so unfair to the child.

I grew up in NY and went to college in Massachusetts, I had many good friends and a couple of girlfriends that were adopted. One of the common issues in all that were adopted after fertility was having some issue or guilt that they weren't the parents first choice; those were there thoughts not mine, and from an adopted childs pov very understandable. The other thing that was common was that most wanted to seek out their biological parents at some point to at least meet them or find out why the parent gave them up.

Wow. That's terrible. I know many adopted individuals IRL as well, and none of them felt they weren't their parents first choice. That said, I do remember one adopted adult on an adoption board telling us her mom had actually told her "you never love an adopted child the way you do your own." While I and every adoptive parent I know disagree completely, I don't deny that there are some out there who should have never passed the homestudy and I'm sorry for their kids who have to hear crap like that. In fact, many adoptive parents use the term "chosen" for their adopted child, to let them know just how wanted they really are. I personally don't like the term for other reasons, but in reality, adoptions don't happen by accident.

As for seeking out biological parents, no biggie. Like you said, biology is important to many people. Secure adoptive parents know that, and will support their kids when they search.

When DH and I looked it over, we both realized that for us, "parenting" was MILES AND MILES ahead of anything else on that list, including passing on our genes or having a child that was a combo of us. For us, loving, raising, caring for a child was the be all and end all.


If I could go back in time and carry even one of those babies to term, I would not do it. Because if I did that, I would not have my DD. She is the child we were meant to have.

The method of adoption may be second choice for some, because it is (IMHO) even more of a PITA than IVF, and that is really saying something. But the child is not.

And for many of our children, it is not so much that their birthmothers did not want them, it is more a matter of them not being able to support them. It's just a fact. It has little to do with the child and everything to do with economics. We never say one negative word about DD's birthmother. I give her a lot of credit for giving birth to what may have been the healthiest child ever born in Russia. With our system of government assistance, we cannot imagine what life is like for people in countries with no such system in place. Wanting your child to have two parents who can feed, clothe, support and educate the child, as well as provide medical care and a decent home to live in is indeed thinking of your child and putting them ahead of yourself. Keeping a child when you have no way to feed it, buy even the most basic of medicines, provide clothes or even have a home/apartment to sleep in on a regular basis........How is that selfless? How is that putting the baby first? Because I assure, in many countries, love is NOT enough by a long shot.

Emom, I agree with everything you've posted here, except one. I know we've discussed this before, but for us, adoption seemed way, way, easier and cheaper than fertility procedures. (of course, I would have first needed surgery to remove scar tissue, then wait 6 months to heal, then try IVF with an egg donor, so I may have had more issues than some.) Our adoption was smooth sailing, we had our baby in our arms in less time than we would have even if the first egg donor cycle had worked, and it was probably the best choice we've ever made.

 

[bmw99]

I think eMom was referring to another poster (the original poster disappeared) and their reponse to me of "I don't agree that giving up your own child is a selfless act"

Forgetting everything else-and whether you would build your family through adoption or not - how do you not think someone who does the best thing for their child is not selfless?

Because the birthparents were not responsible by getting pregnant, then not having the financial means to take care of it. There are plenty of parents who are young and poor and step up to the plate because all you haev in life is your children. They are selfish

 

[aprilgail2]

This I can understand. No matter how much love the adopted parents show a child, that child could very well ask themselves this question. Of course, that is no reason not to adopt and raise that child as your own. But it is something to prepare for if you do.

It has to be heart breaking to think that your birth mother didn't want you. :sad1:

It sure isn't something you just get over--always in the back of your mind!

My personal opinion... BIOLOGY DOESN'T MATTER! You obviously don't share the same blood with your wife- but you're STILL a family!
!

That is great that you feel that way and that is your opinion---mine is that is DOES matter VERY much so....especially since I was adopted and didn't have any of my own blood relatives I very badly wanted one of my own that was connected to me by blood, not adoption. I agree that you are absolutly still a family -by adoption or blood....but just a deep rooted need in me to have my own child.

 

[LIDisneyFan]

Because the birthparents were not responsible by getting pregnant, then not having the financial means to take care of it. There are plenty of parents who are young and poor and step up to the plate because all you haev in life is your children. They are selfish

Not sure I understood your answer: Are you saying they ARE selfish for placing the child for adoption or ARE selfish for raising it themselves?

 

[skater]

I don't agree that giving up your own child is a selfless act

Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't. You have no way to know unless you know the details of the birth parents' story. For one of my children, the decision was indeed totally selfless.

 

[skater]

It sure isn't something you just get over--always in the back of your mind!



That is great that you feel that way and that is your opinion---mine is that is DOES matter VERY much so....especially since I was adopted and didn't have any of my own blood relatives I very badly wanted one of my own that was connected to me by blood, not adoption. I agree that you are absolutly still a family -by adoption or blood....but just a deep rooted need in me to have my own child.

And I understand this too. The biological pull is strong indeed.

 

[EMom]

When I met my DH, or better when we discussed getting married. I told him I do not want children. My DH is 10 years younger than me so I knew this could be an issue for him; but he told me he never wanted children either. We had many conversations about his leading up to our marriage because I wanted him to be sure that I would not change my mind about children.

Since he felt the same way, it was not a deal breaker for him; but I am sure if he wanted kids and knew I wasnt going to change my mind about having them, he would not married me.

The time before the marriage is the time to talk about these things. If you disagree on the major issues, than its better to break the deal before walking down the aisle. Isnt it?

As far as I can see, THIS is a good outcome. There is absolutely nothing wrong with never having or adopting children. It is a legitmate choice. You discussed it before marriage, made sure you were in agreement and that no one was secretly counting on changing the plan down the road. Again, BEFORE marriage is the key.

 

[Pigeon]

Miraculous??? How is a parent giving up on their own child, then an infertile couple who has probably already went through hell with treatments miscarriages, finances who agrees to adopt a child because they can't afford or go through more treatment a miracle?

There are many reasons why people are unable to parent biological children. It usually has nothing to do with "giving up on" and everything to do wtih wanting what is best for the child.

We are a family through adoption. We certainly did not go through hell with treatments. We chose adoption pretty easily, and it's the best decision we've ever made as a couple. I'm delighted I didn't end up having biological children. My kids are wonderful in every sense.

I'm not religious and I don't believe in miracles. But it is pretty amazing that two kids whose biological parents could not raise them ended up finding two parents who think they hung the moon. And the love between these two biologically unrelated sisters is something very, very special. I don't know anybody who has more devoted siblings, even during the teen years!

 

[bmw99]

Lets end this forum here, no more posts

 

[DopeyDame]

There are many reasons why people are unable to parent biological children. It usually has nothing to do with "giving up on" and everything to do wtih wanting what is best for the child.

...
But it is pretty amazing that two kids whose biological parents could not raise them ended up finding two parents who think they hung the moon. And the love between these two biologically unrelated sisters is something very, very special. I don't know anybody who has more devoted siblings, even during the teen years!

Thanks for stepping in and providing an awesome answer, Pigeon.

I'll also add one of my favorite adoptions quotes, by Scott Simon: "Adoption is a miracle. I don't mean just that it's amazing, terrific, and a wonderful thing to do. I mean that it is, as the dictionary says, "a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of divine agency."

Is the fact that a woman gets pregnant when she isn't in a position (for whatever reason) to parent her child a good or miraculous thing? Of course not. Is the fact that some people aren't able to get pregnant when they want to a good or miraculous thing? Of course not. Is the fact that a loving, stable, wonderful family is formed out of these two sad and upsetting things a good and miraculous thing - a million times YES!!!!!!!

I'm sure my DS will always feel a loss of his bio family, and we will help and support him his whole life to deal with whatever issues that may bring, but no one's going to ever convince me that his being my son and my being his mom is anything short of a miracle.

 

[EMom]

Because the birthparents were not responsible by getting pregnant, then not having the financial means to take care of it. There are plenty of parents who are young and poor and step up to the plate because all you haev in life is your children. They are selfish

Alrighty.....So they were irresponsible when they got pregnant before they were financially able to take care of a child? Agreed. But let's face it....It happens. A lot.

I have friends and relatives who became moms at a young age and DID step up to the plate, became great, selfless mothers who devoted themselves to their children. And then........

There are the many, many, many girls who become pregnant, are not able to financially support a child, are not mature enough to be a mother and are not emotionally ready to put the child ahead of themselves and no amount of coulda, shoulda, woulda is EVER going to make it so. When those moms keep those children, the children do not come first, their needs are rarely met and we eventually see the damage that is done. A child should be wanted and appreciated, not begrudgingly accepted as a consequence of unprotected sex. A child deserves to be more than a consequence.

Ironically, it is not usually these birthmoms who are usually the ones to place their children. No, the ones that fall in that category often don't think of their child's needs first, and thus, never ask if they are ready, willing and able to be a mother to a child.

You say plenty of young women who get pregnant unexpectedly step up and become responsible moms and that is correct. But plenty DO NOT and for that, too many children suffer. I say it would be far better for those children to be adopted by parents who are ready and eager to devote themselves to the children in question.

 

[bmw99]

Thanks for stepping in and providing an awesome answer, Pigeon.

I'll also add one of my favorite adoptions quotes, by Scott Simon: "Adoption is a miracle. I don't mean just that it's amazing, terrific, and a wonderful thing to do. I mean that it is, as the dictionary says, "a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of divine agency."

Is the fact that a woman gets pregnant when she isn't in a position (for whatever reason) to parent her child a good or miraculous thing? Of course not. Is the fact that some people aren't able to get pregnant when they want to a good or miraculous thing? Of course not. Is the fact that a loving, stable, wonderful family is formed out of these two sad and upsetting things a good and miraculous thing - a million times YES!!!!!!!

I'm sure my DS will always feel a loss of his bio family, and we will help and support him his whole life to deal with whatever issues that may bring, but no one's going to ever convince me that his being my son and my being his mom is anything short of a miracle.

It's actually very explicable in very simple language and easy to understand law. You have a typically young parent who is unable to be responsible or is financially void, and then an unfortunate infertile couple who has suffered due to a medical reason out of their control and an adoption agency who is able to broker the deal. While it works out niceley for everyone, not a miracle...but if you want it to be one thats fine

 

[Mrs.Toad]

But this hypothetical isn't about feelings. In this scenario, BF/GF is infertile - feelings have nothing to do with that medical fact. What you are saying is that you can not accept that person for who they are - worts and all.

To me, that means you aren't ready for marriage - no matter how perfect the person may currently seem. Because once you're married, life WILL throw curveballs at you, maybe infertilify, maybe illness, maybe finance, most likely something you could never ever imagine right now. Unless you're ready to jump in to the future with the other person - regardless of what the future brings - you're not ready for marriage.

K, I've lost track a bit on this part of the discussion, so I'm not so sure if I'm agreeing or disagreeing with you , but I see a big difference between accepting what life throws at you and compatibility. My husband and I did not discuss infertility or adoption before we were married. I'd always had friends who were adopted, an aunt who is a birthmother, and always knew I'd happily adopt if the opportunity presented itself. Although I completely respect other people's opinions and choices, I simply cannot wrap my head around the idea of being against adoption. If my husband was so completely against it that he'd rather be childless than adopt, that would change something about him in my eyes. I can't say because we didn't talk about it then, and we both believed we were fertile, but I may not have married him, I don't know. If this came up when we first discussed adoption -- after we were already married for 8 years and found we had secondary infertility, it would have been different. I would have been fine with having surgery and trying egg donation at first. But if that hadn't been sucessful, and he still refused to adopt, I don't know, I may have grown to resent him for it. Or worse, had he given in to my desire to adopt, he may have grown to resent me, and the child. Marriages have broken up over less.

On the other hand, if my husband and I were unsuccessful in adopting, we would have moved on together with only one child, although we'd always have sorrow in our hearts and felt that our family was incomplete. Very different because it's going through hardship together, rather than one partner inflicting that hardship on the other.

Miraculous??? How is a parent giving up on their own child, then an infertile couple who has probably already went through hell with treatments miscarriages, finances who agrees to adopt a child because they can't afford or go through more treatment a miracle?

Well, if there was no adoption, the child would have no home, be in an orphanage or foster care. The possibly infertile couple would be childless. The miracle is that the baby now has a loving home and parents to take care of him.

Welcome to the board, by the way.

 

[Mrs.Toad]

Lets end this forum here, no more posts

You really are new here, aren't you?

 

[FlightlessDuck]

If I am in love with someone, and want to spend the rest of my life with her, it wouldn't matter to me that we couldn't have kids. We could always adopt.

I mean, that's what gay men have to do, right?

 

[EMom]

The thing about becoming a mother.....a good one who thinks of what is best for their child at all times....is that there is no magic age for it. Some women can become pregnant at 16, when that is that last thing they wanted and they become wonderful moms who devote themselves to their children. Another 16 y.o. might prop the kid up in the crib with a bottle of Koolaid and a dirty diaper while she gets high. A 30 y.o. mom might have a baby and you'd expect her to be patient and ready to parent, but all she does is gritch and moan about she never has any "me" time anymore. (Welcome to parenthood.) If there was a magic age, we could make it against the law to have children before age X, but no such age exists. It's about the child being more important to you THAN YOURSELF. Statistically, the younger you are, the less likely you are to be mature enough to put a baby first, but this is not absolute.

I hear people say they want to have a baby so they can have someone who will love THEM. Big mistake. Babies come to love you eventually, but at first, they are little takers. Precious, adorable little takers. Really, it's all about them. The baby is not going to worship you at first. That's your job as a parent. I say that's why God makes babies so precious and irresistable. You change poopy diapers, clean up barf and stay up half the night because you just can't help but love them, they're so cute. It's their built in insurance.

 

[AntePrincess]

Having kids the old fashioned way was important to BOTH my BF (DH before we got married) and I. However, we were pretty much a team the second we met, and if there had been a horrific accident resulting in a hysterectomy or similar, we would have stayed together regardless. I doubt we would have considered adoption unless there was a baby in need in our family.