If a woman wants to experience pregnancy, if a couple wants to find out what sort of new life they can create and nurture together, if they want to have some idea what to expect from the child in the way of inherited traits and characteristics, and even health issues, if they are able and eager to embark on the journey of parenthood, they are bad people if they don't first think "adoption"? Why on earth should they be (what they would view as) punished for what basically boils down to somebody else's decisions? Are you really suggesting that couples interested in having a child be compelled to adopt? Don't you find that to be incredibly fascist? And don't you find the sentiment you're professing to be incredibly self-righteous? If your first impulse isn't to adopt, you are clearly an immoral, uncaring P.O.S.? You might not have explicitly stated that, but your question screams it pretty loudly. And it's sort of a self-gratifying sentiment too, don't you think? You're the smartest and can best tell the poor throngs of deluded fools what is best? It's not exactly like you're unbiased in the debate. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a beautiful sentiment to want to see every child adopted and being lovingly raised by a nurturing family, and I can definitely see how it is an issue that is very close to your heart, but if I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that if a woman finds herself pregnant when she wasn't planning on becoming a mother, she must be compelled to abort the child so that she can either not have to deal with the burdens of a child, or if she decides she wants a child after all, she has to adopt ("I'm also more angry that people keep surprise pregnancies")? "PARENTHOOD isn't about what YOU WANT. It's about what your child NEEDS." I think you need to pay more attention to that sentiment. Are you suggesting that this can include abortion if somebody else's child is in need? And with adoption, the child only becomes yours once you take the steps to adopt it. I don't consider anybody else's offspring my own, and they sure as heck better not consider mine theirs. Is this moral imperative just directed to single mothers, or does it include couples that find themselves with one extra child than they anticipated? What of a couple that was planning for just one more, but finds themselves pregnant with twins or triplets? Do we cull the surplus and supplement them with adoptive children if they still want 3 children? You're really proposing intruding a little too intimately on others' lives. I think it is wonderful that parents elect to adopt, and I agree with you that it is both shameful and despicable that so often, people do not give adopted children the same legitimacy as biological children (I envy the willpower of adoptive parents who hear questions like, "Are you going to try to have any real children" and don't knock the person asking's lights out). But I think that what you are saying is just as offensive to parents who decide to have biological children as minimizing the legitimacy of adoption is offensive to you.
You bring up some good points, but I feel as though you are projecting quite a lot.
I actually did address my feelings on how I feel if someone would like to experience pregnancy and achieves that, and that it is wonderful.
I still think that if you find yourself pregnant and are financially, emotionally, and/or otherwise unready to have a child you should probably abort it, rather than HAVE the child and put it up for adoption where it will grow up in the same conditions I was very, very mercifully rescued from. OR, in the other scenario, keep a child they didn't want, in a situation in which it cannot be properly taken care of because no one was ready. I don't know why you assume I'm saying people should abort it and immediately adopt a child afterwards.
During the adoption process, I would not urge anyone to consider a child 'theirs' until after the adoption process is complete anyway, since unfortunately other people have attempted to adopt and odd international laws have interrupted the process halfway through.
I also don't know why you think that I think that we should kill off unexpected twins and triplets? I honestly do not understand your assumptions.
I think you're missing the other alternatives that people go to before adoption.
Want a child but can't get pregnant? IVF!
Want a child but don't want pregnancy? Surrogate!
There are other roads besides pregnancy and adoption.
However I do agree that I am very harsh on the choice of biological children. I feel guilty about it a lot. I know that it's no excuse, but I live in an area where people are very very poorly educated on safe sex and a lot of kids get knocked up by pure virtue of ignorance. It's so sad to see.
I suppose I misunderstood. It sounded like what you were indicating was that any unintended children were best suited for the chopping block, which is why I extrapolated about the multiple births ("I'm also more angry that people keep surprise pregnancies or put them up for adoption.."). I'm sure that there are many couples that perhaps are not planning for a child, but nonetheless welcome the addition to the family, and it grows up loved and hopefully, not even knowing that they were a 'mistake'. I am also sure that there are many adults, well adjusted and happy, that when their parents found out they were pregnant, had no idea how on earth they would afford said child, and yet managed to, and to even love the child. Not every unintentional child winds up aborted or up for adoption. I'm sure that there are many people who find that they have to grow up in a hurry because they are pregnant. Not the best alternative, but I find it more than a little messed up to imply that all unintended children that are kept by their parents are doomed to a sad and pitiful existence. Additionally, saying, "I'm also more angry that people keep surprise pregnancies or put them up for adoption.." implies that as an adopted child, you think it would have been preferable to be aborted? Yes, many children flounder in orphanages and foster care, but do you think that they all would have preferred nonexistence? Maybe you didn't intend your question to sound that way, but in reading your question only, that is what it seems like you are implying. I wasn't saying that parents in the process of or attempting to adopt a child shouldn't view a child as their own, I think that they definitely should (at least in domestic adoptions, I know that foreign adoptions can unexpectedly fall through), and it would probably be impossible to avoid, but what you seemed to imply was that any adults considering expanding their family should be thinking of children in foster care and the adoption pool as 'theirs', and you seem to think that they have some sort of responsibility, and ought to feel some sort of attachment towards them. They don't, any more than they have any responsibility and attachment towards any other individual they don't know. It's like you're looking to redistribute children. I understand where your opinion comes from, it's not as though it's insane or irrational, given your life experiences, but, and it's really more of a BUT- what you're saying really does make you sound like a twisted fascist.
I'm assuming that you're female. Given that you seem to live with and socialize a great deal with your parents, I suspect that you are a teenager, but I would be interested to find out how old you are. I would also be interested to learn how you feel about the subject when you're nearing 30 and your biological impulses may be overriding your current moral stance.
I still think you're projecting too much. I am female, but I'm in my early twenties.
Regarding "Yes, many children flounder in orphanages and foster care, but do you think that they all would have preferred nonexistence?"
I don't think you understand what it can do to a psyche to feel as though you weren't meant to exist in one of the most the most basic and important ways most people were.
IIN people preferring biological over adopted kids makes me angry?
← View full post
If a woman wants to experience pregnancy, if a couple wants to find out what sort of new life they can create and nurture together, if they want to have some idea what to expect from the child in the way of inherited traits and characteristics, and even health issues, if they are able and eager to embark on the journey of parenthood, they are bad people if they don't first think "adoption"? Why on earth should they be (what they would view as) punished for what basically boils down to somebody else's decisions? Are you really suggesting that couples interested in having a child be compelled to adopt? Don't you find that to be incredibly fascist? And don't you find the sentiment you're professing to be incredibly self-righteous? If your first impulse isn't to adopt, you are clearly an immoral, uncaring P.O.S.? You might not have explicitly stated that, but your question screams it pretty loudly. And it's sort of a self-gratifying sentiment too, don't you think? You're the smartest and can best tell the poor throngs of deluded fools what is best? It's not exactly like you're unbiased in the debate. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a beautiful sentiment to want to see every child adopted and being lovingly raised by a nurturing family, and I can definitely see how it is an issue that is very close to your heart, but if I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that if a woman finds herself pregnant when she wasn't planning on becoming a mother, she must be compelled to abort the child so that she can either not have to deal with the burdens of a child, or if she decides she wants a child after all, she has to adopt ("I'm also more angry that people keep surprise pregnancies")? "PARENTHOOD isn't about what YOU WANT. It's about what your child NEEDS." I think you need to pay more attention to that sentiment. Are you suggesting that this can include abortion if somebody else's child is in need? And with adoption, the child only becomes yours once you take the steps to adopt it. I don't consider anybody else's offspring my own, and they sure as heck better not consider mine theirs. Is this moral imperative just directed to single mothers, or does it include couples that find themselves with one extra child than they anticipated? What of a couple that was planning for just one more, but finds themselves pregnant with twins or triplets? Do we cull the surplus and supplement them with adoptive children if they still want 3 children? You're really proposing intruding a little too intimately on others' lives. I think it is wonderful that parents elect to adopt, and I agree with you that it is both shameful and despicable that so often, people do not give adopted children the same legitimacy as biological children (I envy the willpower of adoptive parents who hear questions like, "Are you going to try to have any real children" and don't knock the person asking's lights out). But I think that what you are saying is just as offensive to parents who decide to have biological children as minimizing the legitimacy of adoption is offensive to you.
--
Anonymous Post Author
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
You bring up some good points, but I feel as though you are projecting quite a lot.
I actually did address my feelings on how I feel if someone would like to experience pregnancy and achieves that, and that it is wonderful.
I still think that if you find yourself pregnant and are financially, emotionally, and/or otherwise unready to have a child you should probably abort it, rather than HAVE the child and put it up for adoption where it will grow up in the same conditions I was very, very mercifully rescued from. OR, in the other scenario, keep a child they didn't want, in a situation in which it cannot be properly taken care of because no one was ready. I don't know why you assume I'm saying people should abort it and immediately adopt a child afterwards.
During the adoption process, I would not urge anyone to consider a child 'theirs' until after the adoption process is complete anyway, since unfortunately other people have attempted to adopt and odd international laws have interrupted the process halfway through.
I also don't know why you think that I think that we should kill off unexpected twins and triplets? I honestly do not understand your assumptions.
I think you're missing the other alternatives that people go to before adoption.
Want a child but can't get pregnant? IVF!
Want a child but don't want pregnancy? Surrogate!
There are other roads besides pregnancy and adoption.
However I do agree that I am very harsh on the choice of biological children. I feel guilty about it a lot. I know that it's no excuse, but I live in an area where people are very very poorly educated on safe sex and a lot of kids get knocked up by pure virtue of ignorance. It's so sad to see.
--
ohplease
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I suppose I misunderstood. It sounded like what you were indicating was that any unintended children were best suited for the chopping block, which is why I extrapolated about the multiple births ("I'm also more angry that people keep surprise pregnancies or put them up for adoption.."). I'm sure that there are many couples that perhaps are not planning for a child, but nonetheless welcome the addition to the family, and it grows up loved and hopefully, not even knowing that they were a 'mistake'. I am also sure that there are many adults, well adjusted and happy, that when their parents found out they were pregnant, had no idea how on earth they would afford said child, and yet managed to, and to even love the child. Not every unintentional child winds up aborted or up for adoption. I'm sure that there are many people who find that they have to grow up in a hurry because they are pregnant. Not the best alternative, but I find it more than a little messed up to imply that all unintended children that are kept by their parents are doomed to a sad and pitiful existence. Additionally, saying, "I'm also more angry that people keep surprise pregnancies or put them up for adoption.." implies that as an adopted child, you think it would have been preferable to be aborted? Yes, many children flounder in orphanages and foster care, but do you think that they all would have preferred nonexistence? Maybe you didn't intend your question to sound that way, but in reading your question only, that is what it seems like you are implying. I wasn't saying that parents in the process of or attempting to adopt a child shouldn't view a child as their own, I think that they definitely should (at least in domestic adoptions, I know that foreign adoptions can unexpectedly fall through), and it would probably be impossible to avoid, but what you seemed to imply was that any adults considering expanding their family should be thinking of children in foster care and the adoption pool as 'theirs', and you seem to think that they have some sort of responsibility, and ought to feel some sort of attachment towards them. They don't, any more than they have any responsibility and attachment towards any other individual they don't know. It's like you're looking to redistribute children. I understand where your opinion comes from, it's not as though it's insane or irrational, given your life experiences, but, and it's really more of a BUT- what you're saying really does make you sound like a twisted fascist.
I'm assuming that you're female. Given that you seem to live with and socialize a great deal with your parents, I suspect that you are a teenager, but I would be interested to find out how old you are. I would also be interested to learn how you feel about the subject when you're nearing 30 and your biological impulses may be overriding your current moral stance.
--
Anonymous Post Author
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I still think you're projecting too much. I am female, but I'm in my early twenties.
Regarding "Yes, many children flounder in orphanages and foster care, but do you think that they all would have preferred nonexistence?"
I don't think you understand what it can do to a psyche to feel as though you weren't meant to exist in one of the most the most basic and important ways most people were.