I mostly agree with the idea that children are seen as this commodity that everyone should have a right to, no matter how much it may harm the child/the couple/the people around them. for me, though, I see this happening in the fertility industry where people will exhaust their resources and destroy thier bodies and relationships all for the sake of having a little genetic clone. it's ridiculous.
I actually think even biological "normal" birth is ridiculous and is motivated by a lot of outdated or pathological ideas. I personally have wanted to be sterilized since age 18 and my partner and I are not having children (we actually had this conversation again today and reaffirmed that we both don't want to spawn and will probably both get sterilized).
there's a website called The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (http://vhemt.org/) which outlines my beliefs pretty well. IF I ever decided suddenly that I wanted children, I would provide a foster home or opt for long term guardianship of a child. but I don't think I will. I don't want to be a mother. I'd be a terrible mom. if I got pregnant this moment, I would give the child up for adoption.
I agree that in an ideal world (ie. a feminist socialist society) it would be better to have extended family take in a child or have the child raised in a community of women and children who all support each other. but this is not always possible.
I think there are many people who adopt for the wrong reasons but there are also many who really do have a heart for underprivileged children who would otherwise be lost. I don't think those people should be chastised for genuinely wanting to provide emotional and material stability to someone who would otherwise be shunted back and forth to foster homes till they're 18 and spit out into the world.
ideally no children would be put up for adoption anyway, but so many already are, there are so many kids who need a home right now and there's no way they can go back to their parents, so what's the alternative? I agree with you that "long term guardianship" is the best case scenario, but adoption (under the legal definition) doesn't have to be about destroying roots. sometimes it is, but not always.
also I am not buying the whole extended family thing. say I can't keep my baby for some reason whether it's poverty or mental instability, I dunno, whatever reason, what makes you think my sister or brother or parents will be in a position to take on the child? couldn't we assume they have similar circumstances? or the child's extended family either doesn't exist or can't/won't take them in? should we force them to? and say I go the "long term guardianship" route... how do I know the child's extended family WANTS to be a part of their life? maybe the kids' uncles, aunts, grandparents etc opted out. and I'd rather raise them in safety and love than expose them to people that really want nothing to do with them.
I also have a problem with the idea of obligating extended family to take in a child -- it's like saying I have to be financially and emotionally responsible for my sister's actions as well as mine no matter what, when meanwhile there are tons of people who are in a better emotional and financial position to take care of the child. if my sister got pregnant and was planning to give it up for adoption, I would NOT volunteer to take it in. I am not in the mental, emotional, or material position to do so, and I'd resent being told that it's my responsibility.
personally had my parents not been able to take care of me, I would rather not live with my aunts or uncle, who are all even more fucked up. also I think in some cases the extended family takes in a child and raises them as their own, never telling them who their real parents are... I think that raises the same issues of destroying roots and history and genetic lineage. if you're lying to a child it's the same effect, whether the child is related or not.
no subject
I mostly agree with the idea that children are seen as this commodity that everyone should have a right to, no matter how much it may harm the child/the couple/the people around them. for me, though, I see this happening in the fertility industry where people will exhaust their resources and destroy thier bodies and relationships all for the sake of having a little genetic clone. it's ridiculous.
I actually think even biological "normal" birth is ridiculous and is motivated by a lot of outdated or pathological ideas. I personally have wanted to be sterilized since age 18 and my partner and I are not having children (we actually had this conversation again today and reaffirmed that we both don't want to spawn and will probably both get sterilized).
there's a website called The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (http://vhemt.org/) which outlines my beliefs pretty well. IF I ever decided suddenly that I wanted children, I would provide a foster home or opt for long term guardianship of a child. but I don't think I will. I don't want to be a mother. I'd be a terrible mom. if I got pregnant this moment, I would give the child up for adoption.
I agree that in an ideal world (ie. a feminist socialist society) it would be better to have extended family take in a child or have the child raised in a community of women and children who all support each other. but this is not always possible.
I think there are many people who adopt for the wrong reasons but there are also many who really do have a heart for underprivileged children who would otherwise be lost. I don't think those people should be chastised for genuinely wanting to provide emotional and material stability to someone who would otherwise be shunted back and forth to foster homes till they're 18 and spit out into the world.
ideally no children would be put up for adoption anyway, but so many already are, there are so many kids who need a home right now and there's no way they can go back to their parents, so what's the alternative? I agree with you that "long term guardianship" is the best case scenario, but adoption (under the legal definition) doesn't have to be about destroying roots. sometimes it is, but not always.
also I am not buying the whole extended family thing. say I can't keep my baby for some reason whether it's poverty or mental instability, I dunno, whatever reason, what makes you think my sister or brother or parents will be in a position to take on the child? couldn't we assume they have similar circumstances? or the child's extended family either doesn't exist or can't/won't take them in? should we force them to? and say I go the "long term guardianship" route... how do I know the child's extended family WANTS to be a part of their life? maybe the kids' uncles, aunts, grandparents etc opted out. and I'd rather raise them in safety and love than expose them to people that really want nothing to do with them.
I also have a problem with the idea of obligating extended family to take in a child -- it's like saying I have to be financially and emotionally responsible for my sister's actions as well as mine no matter what, when meanwhile there are tons of people who are in a better emotional and financial position to take care of the child. if my sister got pregnant and was planning to give it up for adoption, I would NOT volunteer to take it in. I am not in the mental, emotional, or material position to do so, and I'd resent being told that it's my responsibility.
personally had my parents not been able to take care of me, I would rather not live with my aunts or uncle, who are all even more fucked up. also I think in some cases the extended family takes in a child and raises them as their own, never telling them who their real parents are... I think that raises the same issues of destroying roots and history and genetic lineage. if you're lying to a child it's the same effect, whether the child is related or not.