LaurieDB

Although most of the "regulars" here know me as an adoptee, I'm also an infertile woman who struggled greatly with not being able to have children. I've often wondered if my thoughts about the sacrifices one would make for her own children are skewed because of my infertility.

So, my question is for people who are parents (adoptive or not.) Did you have to sacrifice anything for your kids? If so, what sorts of things and would you do it all over again?

Thanks for any and all insights. At 43, I'm thinking about my infertility again, and how it has affected my life. Being on this forum has probably contributed to me thinking about it more, too.

I would love to see reforms in adoption. I don't want adoption **as it is currently practiced,** to flourish. It needs repair. I am not, however, looking to "abolish" adoption. I know there will always be children who end up in need of families.

Despite this, there are people who call those of us who work for reform "abolitionists." However, an abolitionist wouldn't bother to put the effort into reforming that which s/he wished to abolish. If I had an old chair that I decided to just throw out, I certainly wouldn't bother to repair it, clean it up and refinish it.

So, how is it logical to consider those who want to REFORM and BETTER adoption to be abolitionists?

A previous question today made reference to teen parents. A number of the responders were young parents who successfully raised or were raising their children. They even made mention that they were not receiving welfare, since the question made reference to welfare. I posted about my grandmother who successfully raised my mother, whom she bore at 14.

http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ao...

So, here's my question:

Why would anyone thumb down people successfully parenting their own children? Is our society so anti-family that we find it disdainful when people properly and successfully do what nature designed us to do and raise their children, simply because the parent doesn't fit into someone's idea of what a parent is "allowed" to be?

I am entirely turned off by this. I wasn't some poor little waif wondering the streets like a stray cat that someone decided to take home. I was a child who was eligible for adoption. My adoptive parents SOUGHT OUT a child to adopt, because they WANTED to adopt a child. They didn't just "take me in."

Anyone else?

It was simply, "Shall we all join in a chorus of Kumbaya?"

Considering the context of what was going on here at this forum -- people trying to clear up some of the ugliness that's occurred -- it was meant to lighten things up and to try to call for peace.

It wasn't hurting anyone, so I don't see why someone felt the need to do this. Perhaps the person who reported it would be willing to explain why s/he did so.

I have absolutely no knowledge about any stats on this, nor do I have an opinion on it. I am only asking because recently one of my AP friends said that she's noticed that many adoptees that she knows don't have children. She thinks that perhaps a higher percentage of adoptees than non-adoptees don't end up having children. I found it an interesting thought.

I am interested in evidence that leads to either a positive or negative conclusion, both anecdotal and statistical, if statistical evidence can be found.

Concerning my own situation, I'm adopted and have no children. My best friend is adopted and has no children. I'm infertile. She's not infertile, but chose to not have children.

As I stated previously, I have no evidence or opinion about her thought being either true or false. I'm looking forward to a variety of responses. Thanks, everyone.

By law in all U.S. states, when a parent gives up a child (relinquishes his/her parental rights) or when the parent's parental rights are otherwise terminated, the child's birth certificate remains unsealed, unchanged and remains the child's only legal birth certificate. The birthparent cannot have it sealed even if s/he wanted to do so.

How does this law ensure the birthparent's identity remain confidential?

If there is some sort of extra right of anonymity for first parents, then explain how adoption law itself, as outlined below, proves it.

1.Records only seal upon the FINALIZATION of an adoption. They only stay sealed if an adoption remains intact. They do not seal upon relinquishment, are not sealed while the child is in foster care and are not sealed while the child is in an adoptive placement that is not yet finalized by the court. How does this protect a natural parent's anonymity?

2. If an adoption fails, i.e. the adoptive parents "return" the child, the original birth record with the natural parents' names on it, is unsealed and re-established as the child's only legal birth certificate. How does this protect the natural parents' anonymity? Incidentally, I'm sad to say that there have been stories in the papers lately about failed adoptions occurring.

If someone was raised by his or her biological family, but hasn't had a good experience with his/her family, does that mean this person is probably anti-procreation?

Although step-parent adoption allows a child to be eligible for everything that the step-parent's biological children can receive (inheritance, medical insurance and the like,) there are also downsides.

For example, if a couple divorces, the former step-parent, now parent, is subject to everything any biological parent must follow. This includes child support, possible continuation of medical coverage, continuation of inheritance rights. What problems may arise if this parent now feels that since this isn't his/her biological child, why should s/he have to continue these requirements of parenthood. The ultimate problem can be that this adoptive parent may rather give up parental rights in order to "divorce" the child, since s/he is divorcing the natural parent.