Do you believe that most fertile couples who give birth do so for the baby's sake?

Answers to a previous question about whether or not infertile couples are adopting for the baby's sake, led me to wonder about whether or not fertile couples give birth for the baby's sake.Do you believe that most fertile couples who give birth do so for the baby's sake?
I love this question.





When I first came here last August I was perplexed by the idea that adopting a child should be ONLY about the child. If a desire to parent doesn't come first, children would be adopted for financial (foster care stipend) or unethical (I won't go there) reasons. It would be a rare situation when a person didn't want to be a parent but adopted solely for the sake of the child.





When we were trying to conceive, I never once thought, ';Let's take the cells from your body and the cells from my body and let them combine for their own good.'; I thought, ';I'm ready to be a mom so let's get 'er done.';





My desires were met when I became a mother. Now it's all for her sake.Do you believe that most fertile couples who give birth do so for the baby's sake?
Couples don't give birth, mothers do.





What child? The children don't exist yet. Adopted children already exist. That's very different.





I think that most people who adopt (and you and every other AP on this board are the exception, I'm sure) do not understand that they will be raising a child who will be very different from them and their existing family, because they are from another clan. So 'wanting' to be a 'parent' really isn't enough when it comes to adoption.





Maybe wanting to parent another couple's child is where most PAPs need to be pre-adoption. I think the 'wanting' would diminish considerably.
i get what you're saying. and i will tread lightly with my answer.





since greater than 2/3rds of pregnancies are unintended, i would say that the ';child'; rarely is the reason. yet, the DIFFERENCE is that the child derives from a personal BIOLOGICAL act; and involves ONLY the people who WERE INVOLED. for that reason, i do beleive, it is fundamentally different from adoption.





furthermore, i do reject the premise that good parents must first desire a baby. i believe that a good parent is ALSO one who can modify one's life (as with many pregnant women) to endure a pregnancy, labor and delivery and fall in love with the child growing inside. not desire ANY CHILD who fits the criteria ( eg. blond, green eyes, male, et al.) it's a bit different.





adoption (from my experience and from what i've learned from infertile couples) involves another set of parents. furthermore, adoption is usually the LAST RESORT after trying to have a baby ';the ole' fashion way'; or IVF. hence, it isn't at all about the child; yet about the desire to have a child.somtimes at the risk of (unknowingly) engaging in some unethical behavior. furthermore, adoption unlike pregnancy tip-toes on several ethical issues, including autonomy (some aparents expect to be in the delivery room and at appointments), respect for persons (a fmother is not expected to ';bond'; with the baby; nor change her mind), beneficence (there is no evidence that adoption is better for children).





i do think that the desire to be a parent should predicate having a child. but i also think the desire can be problematic when a baby comes from another woman.





although i DO believe that some adoptive parents are great moms and dads...i do take pause when similarities to pregnancy and desires for ';pregnancy related experiences'; become more important than parenting.
People have baby for many reasons, but the most important is a biological need/urge/instinct to procreate. That's how nature intended it to be. That's why women who ovulate feel, well, umm...in the mood, lol.





Of course, there are times when a pregnancy is unplanned, but that does not mean the mother does not want to be a parent. And, in MOST cases, first Moms who surrendered a child to adoption DID want to parent their child %26amp; to be a parent, but for some reason, chose to surrender- some willingingly, but far more, unwillingly.





I always had the desire to be a parent- to my own children, because I was adopted and lived it.





When I was faced with an unplanned pregnancy, I chose to have an abortion....BECAUSE I was adopted.
One of the ideas on this board that gets to me is that adoptive parents should only be thinking about the child and that adoption is only about the child and not the adoptive parents.





But like you mentioned a need/desire/want to be a parent is a must. If that didn't exist then its doubtful anyone would adopt or purposefully plan the birth of a child. While it shouldn't be all about the adoptive parents they do in fact play into the equation.





People don't give birth for the sake of the baby but because they want a child. When the same wants are applied to an adoptive parent though they are then branded as selfish/uneducated and in general terrible people where as those having kids biologically aren't looked down on one bit.
No, of course not a couple get married. (In some cases anyway,) And then go onto plan a family to fullfil their needs. If they fall pregnant early on without any difficulty they don't give it a second thought about why they really wanted a child. (Other than their own needs to be fullfilled.)





I feel adoption made me examine my real reasons for wanting to become a parent far more than fertitity treaments did. It made me a lot less self centred about becoming a parent and why I wanted a child. It became more about the child as investigated adoption. I guess having 13yrs to think about it has its benefits after all.
Well sometimes fertile couples give birth because they ';wanted'; a child, but they feel that ';desire'; to parent because nature has designed us with a need to procreate as a means of keeping our species going.





There is really a difference between wanting to have children and bearing your own and feeling entitled to someone else's infant because you are more ';suitable'; to raise it.





eta: Seriously??? Conceiving a child and carrying it for 9 months is a SMALL part of motherhood?? If not for that ';SMALL'; part of motherhood, there would be no children or mothers. What ridiculous logic!
I believe that fertile couples give birth because they want a child. (You know the perfect family theory, the 2.5 children and 1 dog.) It's not for the baby's sake, unless it was an unplanned pregnancy and they'didn't want to kill it.





YES, a parent (regardless of how the child comes into their life) should WANT to parent the child. (Ofcourse, for adoptive parents, that means taking on an ';I am so selfish for WANTING to parent a child'; role.)
It's one thing to 'want' or 'desire' to be a parent of your own child.


It's a completely different thing to 'want' or 'desire' to be a parent to someone else's child.


Especially if you also wish to delete that child's existence off the face of the planet - with changing names - falsifying birth certificates - not allowing the child their truth - not allowing the child contact with the family that he/she was born to (for better emotional and psyche health) - essentially trying to wipe away the child's first family - so that you can feel good about yourself.


Especially if you're talking about infant adoption - where there can be loads of coercive practices - and basically children really should stay with the parents that they are born too - unless there is harm present.


It's a complete head mess (for the adoptee) to be given away - especially if it's not 100% necessary - just to fulfil adult needs.


That's cruel to the child.


So - making adults happy is more important than caring for kids????





(not you per se - but many many prospective and adoptive parents in the world today)





It's sounds on paper to be similar - but it's astoundingly different - especially when you talk of adoption in the USA where many many prospective adoptive parents are all about ME ME ME ME ME - and don't give a second thought to the child.
What I think?





~~If Every Child was born because the parents wanted to do so for the baby's sake there Would NOT be a such thing as Adoption.





~~If Every baby was Born because the parents wanted to do the best for the baby, there would NOT be more then a half-million children in Foster Care...





...and if everyone brought children into the world out of a desire to raise them for their Own Sake there would probably be fewer single parents--fewer day care centers and fewer messed up kids growing up to have more baby's needing parents who do care....fewer, drug addicts, fewer young offenders in jail, fewer people on welfare...fewer all sorts of things.





Every baby should be born with the intention of their lives being what matters...sadly, that isn't always the case and if it ever becomes the case we won't need to chat so much about the rare cases a child needs to be adopted.....
No.. most want to be a parent.





Call her selfish if you want... but my mom had three pregnancies and two children because she WANTED to be a mom.. BADLY.. she had a little boy that SHE WANTED.. she tried again when he was only 9 months old, got pregnant, because she WANTED another baby.. she had a miscarriage which broke her heart, but tried again because she DESPERATELY wanted a little girl. She got what she wanted. Yeah.. call her selfish if you want... I just call her mom.. the most incredible, selfless and loving mom anyone could have had. She'd spend her last dime on us.. do anything for us.





Everyone should be a parent because they WANT a child to LOVE...








ETA: I don't see that huge big difference between wanting to parent, regardless if that child is born to you biologically or adopted. He/she is still ';your own child'; maybe not ONLY ';yours'; but I can live with that. No, I don't need lies, falsified birth certificates, and/or a complete monopoly on being the kid's only mom.. but I still WILL be his/her ';mom'; It's not a big difference to me. I (would be willing but..) was never DESPERATE for the whole pregnancy/birth/breast-feeding experience. That's such a SMALL part of being a mother, I won't ';miss it.'; Not that my children's firstmother(s) aren't going to be important to them.. I simply don't feel like I'll be missing out by not going through that.
I had my first because I wanted someone to love me and I wanted someone to love. And believe me she is spoiled rotten. She gets whatever she wants when I have the money which is 95% of the time.





I had her brother because she kept trying to bring babies home, so I thought a playmate was in due. So having my second was in the best interest of my first. She wanted a companion so she got one.





I had my last ';gasp* because she was my unplanned pregnancy. And I thought if I am capable of raising two whats one more. Boy had I gotten my tubes tied 2 weeks earlier and prevented to begin with. But I love her she turned 12 weeks old today. She is happy and healthy and we've bonded nicely.





So I had one out of my 3 kids for a selfish reason. I did get my tubes tied. And if I still end up pregnant then I will raise that one to and wouldn't believe I was doing it for a selfish reason just taking responsibility for my actions.
Well, there are good and bad reasons to have a baby, just like there are good and bad reasons to adopt.





Some people have babies to try and save a marriage or a relationship. Some have babies because they want to feel more independent or grown up. Some have babies to fill some kind of void in their lives. Some have babies to get (or stay) on welfare and collect a check.





None of these are good reasons.





I agree with you that people who adopt or have a baby should do so out of some desire to be a parent. Not a substitute caregiver. Not a therapist.
People become parents because we have all been hammered that the idea of having a bayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyybeeeeeeeeeeee is so romantic.





But when the kid arrives, and the sexy couuple are now a mom and a dad, 30 of the white kids get raised by just mom, and 62% of the black ones do.





Parenthood isn't for everyone, but we have all bought into the myth that if ya get married, ya gotta have a baaaaaaaaabyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy... the lastest fashion accessory.
It depends on how you look at it..... are they continuing an unexpected pregnancy or did they plan to get pregnant. When I got pregnant the last time, it was because ';WE'; wanted a baby. We weren't doing our daughter any favors when on that drunken night, we decided to go bareback.
Adoption is supposed to be a social service





You have highlighted one of the biggest myths - that adoption is no different to having children biologically





Apples and Oranges, my dear, apples and oranges.
It's Nature's design that most of us give birth because we were feeling a bit frisky. Parenting a child you've given birth to is the part that is done for the child's sake.
No, I did not bring a child into the world because I thought a little bodyless spirit out there needed a home and I wanted to do a good deed. I got pregnant because I wanted a baby.
Probably not. But you don't know if they want to exist or not, or if they'll have a good life...so you can't really do it for them.





Harriet
I went through with my pregnancy because I am pro life, wanted children so when I knew I was pregnant I Knew I wanted to parent him. Unfortunately my parents didn't want that and I was coerced into surrendering.
No, they do so because they want to be parents.





And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
No.
nope
Why is this in the adoption section?





People get pregnant because they have a biological, natural urge to have sex and procreate. Yes, parents should want to be a parent. That happens naturally when one is pregnant 98% of the time anyway. When a woman becomes pregnant, regardless of fear or lack of self esteem, her body and mind go through a process to prepare her to become what her child needs. That does not happen in adoption - not naturally anyway. There is no automatic, biological process that happens via the body's changes during gestation. If a woman prepares for parenthood without the assistance of pregnancy, that is an artificial (not less worthy, just artificial) process that does not equate to, nor compare to, pregnancy.





Adoption and pregnancy are two very different subjects. This question makes me think of that offensive t-shirt ';adoption is the new pregnant';. The two cannot be compared. The natural result of sex is NOT adoption. The natural result of the urge to parent is NOT adoption. Adoption is NOT a biological function of the body.





When one wishes to adopt, they need to want to parent an ADOPTED child, and be willing to figure out, somehow, how to become what that child needs. Without the benefit of pregnancy and shared DNA to prepare a woman for this parenthood experience, the preparation period is quite different than that of a pregnant woman's preparation period.





These two are completely separate topics.
They simply do so because its ';natural';.








No rationals nor reasons are needed. Jealous?.











Volunteering your services or buying a child so you can be a substitute mother or adoptive parent are different subjects/issues.