.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}


"...another reason I'm intrigued with the hanged of Salem, especially the women, is that a number of them aroused suspicion in the first place because they were financially independent, or sharp-tongued, or kept to themselves. In other words, they were killed off for the same sort of life I live right now but with longer skirts and fewer cable channels." Sarah Vowell, The partly cloudy patriot.


Stop the insanity

On the news this morning, a 60-year-old woman who gave birth to 4-pound twins was profiled. What annoys me about this is the persistent need some people have to have "their own" children even if it will cost them tons of money and bring about children who may or may not be viable, or who are only viable with tons of medical interventions - and who may additionally end up being disabled.

Is is so important to profligate your seed and continue your genetic line that you want to pay thousands of dollars to create a kid (or a litter of kids)? These kids are typically born prematurely, severely underweight, often have huge health problems, and often have long-lasting health problems and cognitive disabilities. Is having one's own kid so important that this is seen as a good thing?

I understand people may feel cultural pressure to give birth and to have biologically related children - and that people may feel "less than" if they are unable to do so - but just stop with the fertility technology! Why add more children to this world, and why spend so much money doing so when there are tons of children who desperately need parents?

I'm sorry - I know this is judgmental, but it strikes me as seriously selfish and cruel, and I'm sick of hearing about it in the news. I get especially sick when people spend tens of thousands of dollars to have a set of barely viable quintuplets, and then the country rallies around them to give them tons of free stuff -- as though what they have done is heroic.

You wanna know what's heroic? Adopting kids out of the foster care system.

The woman on the news today was saying she wanted to have these babies because she has more love to give, and at her age will be a better mom, has more resources, and will be a better nurturer given that she is more mature at 60. To me, that sounds like the perfect qualities for adopting foster kids! They need mature, stable parents with good financial resources - parents who have time and energy to give them what they missed out on in their early years.

Stop supporting the fertility industry, and start supporting children.



At 10:51 AM, Blogger Seeking Solace said...

I agree with you. One of my friends who desparately wants children but does not want to go the fertility route mentioned adoption to her mother in law. The response was "I don't think I could love a grandchild that was not biological mine" My freind was devastated.

Thankfully, she is still considering adoption, but it just goes to show how narrow minded our society truly is!

At 7:17 PM, Blogger k8 said...

I read that her daughter was "appalled."

I agree, though. There are so many kids who need a home, and how can anyone judge their ability to love a child beforehand? But, this is coming from the daughter of a social worker who remembers seeing the catalog-like pamphlets of older kids (not infants) who needed a home. Especially heartbreaking were the descriptions beneath the pictures noting how nice it would be if the child could stay with his/her sibling.

At 8:02 AM, Blogger Ianqui said...

Even if the children end up totally normal and healthy, I think it's immoral to have kids when just 10 years from now, the mother may need serious medical intervention herself. That mother could be diabetic, or have parkinsons or alzheimers and not know it yet. And then what are you going to do with a pair of 10 year olds that you can't take care of? I think having kids at that age is kind of selfish.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home