?

Log in

No account? Create an account
socks and cat

5 failed IVFs

It says in entertainment news that Celine Dione and her husband conceived their recently born twins after 5 failed IVF attempts. I don't understand why after so many failed attempts they didn't just adopt. I guess because I don't understand the need to raise children that are biologically related to us. If she did have that need, why wasn't her 9 year old biological son enough for that so she could adopt after that? When I think of the number of older children in the foster and adoption system who may never find homes because no one wants an older child, it just doesn't make sense to me that a couple that is 42 and 68 would not want one of these older children. Why not give up on the emotionally devastating roller coaster of failed IVFs and open your heart and home to a child that needs your love right now?

Love is love. Why does it matter or mean more if the children you are loving are biologically related or not?

Comments

The only thing I can think of is that mothers usually have a certain "bond" with offspring that they give birth to. Many women want that "bond" more than anything else, and do not feel they can have it with a child that they have not carried. As a parent, there is something special psychologically to be able to look at a child and see a part of you in that child, whether you are the father or the mother.

It stinks, but it's almost unsurprising and a reflection of a certain level of nature.."adoption" in the wild is pretty rare.
Thanks for explaining. I'm missing that gene that makes people want to have kids. So it's difficult for me to understand.
I am actually with you on this Krisha - I also was born without the mommy gene and just never understood that drive for women to "breed". My sister is in her 40's and is now also pregnant with twins thanks to technology with her 35 year old boyfriend. I personally think women in their 40's are way better equipped to raise kids (just from the life experience stand point etc) but I would personally be afraid of the risks such as Downs Syndrome etc increasing substantially the older you get.

In a perfect world we would work more as a community and adoption would be more common. Adoption is honestly a nightmare for most couples to go through and excessively expensive. Our next door neighbors did two and wow, I am amazed any kids get adopted with how much it takes.
I am endlessly fascinated by human psychology and motivation. Humor me.
This is pretty much my opinion on adoption. The kid is your kid, whether you "birthed" it or not.


The whole "you can't really BOND" train of thought is bullshit IMO. You BOND by discovering each other's personality and spending time together. You can't BOND with an inanimate object/parasite, and that's what a fetus is.


The older I get the less opposed to kids period I am, but I still have no desire to go through a pregnancy. Between fear of pregnancy in general, and a strong desire to not have my genes added to the gene pool again, I will most likely adopt.
There is no such thing as 'just' adopt. Adoption is its own thing. It's a very distinctive path toward creating a family, and the only way it resembles giving birth to a child is the presence of a child. People who adopt set out, specifically, to adopt.

Also, the idea that adoption is simply a replacement for giving birth is incompatible with the idea that adoption is the act of rescuing an older and/or unwanted child. In a certain way, adoption is indeed an act of rescue. In a certain way, adoption is indeed a means of gaining a legal dependent. But it's a challenge, when one adopts, to balance out the two contradictory ideas and find a healthy middle ground.

We've only adopted; we've never had a biological child. So I can't compare the two experiences. But our experience was interesting... in a way that I would only recommend to someone who was genuinely interested in adopting a child.

If you ever get a chance to listen to an adoption social worker go through her introductory bureaucracy spiel, do it. It's eye-opening (and often jaw-dropping).

-Rick's wife, borrowing his LJ account
The urge to procreate can be strong.

Also, 42 and 68, not really the best candidates to adopt.
Actually at 68 I think you should definitely be adopting an older child rather than having a baby. At least that way you have a better chance of living long enough to see them graduate college and start a life of their own.
No, I meant that they won't place a child with someone 68.
I disagree. Older children are incredibly difficult to find homes for. A 68 year old parent is way better than a life of institutions for unwanted children. I think the foster care system knows that.