taking sides: single, childless men in their mid-thirties vs single, childless women in their mid-thirties

Sam, you know I have a lot of respect for you, and maybe I'm misreading that particular phrase, but if you can't come up with something more committed than "it's worth trying", maybe you should write a book or something instead?

xposed

No I don't. Adoption's great and the existence of people happy to adopt is a wonderful thing. I was shocked that neither of the people I was quoting seemed able to accept that, to some people, there is a real genuine need/desire to have their own children.

nasty, unlike calling people 'un-human' and adopted kids 'random'?

Of course a waiting-to-be-adopted child would be "random" - unless you're proposing picking and choosing the one with the bluest eyes or whatever? What possible good does it do imbuing the word random with negativity when all I meant was "any child from the pool of children up for adoption"?

As for un-human, well, bad choise of words. I mean having a lack of empathy for what is a necessary attribute of our (and any other) species. Apologies if it offended Ailsa or JBR.

it takes some other randomer's eggs to make a baby too, y'know.

But if you'll see, it's not even neccesary to check context for their remarks - they're both in the first person, describing how they feel about it. You, not very shockingly, seem to be the only one to consider this an assault on convention.

Of course a waiting-to-be-adopted child would be "random" - unless you're proposing picking and choosing the one with the bluest eyes or whatever?

You are an ass.

I know what you mean by this, but I'd point you back to those old arguments that part of what makes humans great is our ability to rise above primitive instincts and see the bigger picture. Of course we need future generations to carry on the human race (if you see it as being worth carrying on, separate argument natch), and of course I need someone's kids to pay my pension, but I don't think it's unhuman to step back and see a major problem, which is that while we're having kids who are thought about, wanted, well looked-after and have a great chance at life, other children are not in that fortunate position, and maybe, just maybe it's more human to say 'right, I'm ready to make a home and a family. Who's got a kid they can't look after?'

However, I don't believe it's right to take a child away from its family and possibly country just because its family there can't afford to look after it.

Some of us were discussing this on a hen weekend recently (it's not all L plates and Heat magazine on hen weekends, it turns out) and I realised that the logical conclusion of my own beliefs is that I should continue to do what I do now, which is to out the energy and money that I might have put into childrearing into making it possible for other people's children to be reared safely and successfully. That's just what I believe in.

To get back to the thread's original thrust, though, I do feel that as a woman I'm required to have a stance on this, whereas my husband can just get away with saying 'dunno, just don't want kids'.

-- Andrew Farrell

Andrew, that's a bit much. Mark wasn't advocating picking the prettiest baby.

xpost

http://images.radcity.net/5990/1070833.jpg

Nope, never. In fact, I grow more confident with each passing year -- dadhood just is not for me. And if anything, my wife is even MORE confident that momhood is not for her.

I give up. If you can't really see the doctor's point of view... I was just trying to state that SOME PEOPLE DO CHANGE THEIR MIND. :-)

Consider the fate of someone going onto the Chicago thread a catlovers site and describing the result of going to the pet sactuary as a 'random' kitten. :)

I don't know though.

It's as obnoxious to me as would be a doctor trying to talk a woman out of an abortion.

I don't know about "panels of experts". I do believe parents choose a child from the ones available but their choice must be approved (including from the child herself if old enough).

isn't a vascetomy much more easily reversed than a ligation? Also it is not major surgery as ligation is.

This really might be the true fear.

All of a sudden I'm wondering if I wasn't being hopelessly naive. So parents ARE allowed to pick and choose their babies? That seems kinda... divisive - the generous, philanthropic qualities of adoption take on a sinister note if the parents can pick the prettiest or most smiley baby.

WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE UGLY CHILDREN!

p.s. thanks Anna for explaining very concisely what I've been spluttering about

Being 17 or whatever, I think we picked the parents who listed music as one of their primary interests, because we thought they would be more likely to be artistic or open-minded in the event that her child turned out to be like her.

It was an unbelievably difficult decision. I can't imagine what it must have been like for the prospetive parents. So it does kind of... I don't know. It seems a bit flippant when people say "oh, well, I'll just adopt!"

I am of an age, and an inclination where I believe that I will not have children. Part of me feels I would really like kids, though I have seen the degrees to which they have changed friends lives and wonder if I would be able to accept such a change. As someone whose whole approach to relationships is hugely risk adverse, it would seem to be admiting a whole load of risk into my life. Therefore the adoption or fostering idea is both attractive and even more scary for me. I do like children and am pretty good with them (I know where the off switch is).But am I missing out by not having any? Not when there are so many friends and families children I can be part of.

You're missing a lot. But if you have kids, you also miss a lot. it's a win/win, lose/lose situation. Does that make any sense?

at least until they were thirteen or so, the threat would probably seem pretty plausible.