Infertile and Lesbians Given IVF

Given a choice between practicality and equality, I'd go for practicality, I don't think anyone who does that is evil.

Fight smart, not fair.

I would go for principle, equality included, and I know that many people consider that evil. Honestly, I do not mind.

Double standards are one thing I hate with a burning passion.

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

"Also, parents who give their children up for adoption and revoke their parental status still have the right to see the child, and are literally allowed to approach the child on the playground and say, "Hey kid, I'm your real mom!" That can be overly traumatic for children and is an infringement upon the adoptive parents' rights to tell their kids they were adopted when they are ready."

Waiting to tell the kid is not a good idea. If you raise a kid to know from the start that they're adopted, then it's no big deal. Just a fact of life. And you can spin it to make the child feel special, like 'out of however many kids I could have had, I chose you because I could tell right away what a great kid you'd be'. Whereas plenty of evidence from older generations shows that if you don't tell a kid they're adopted, they tend to feel really betrayed when they eventually find out. Also, adoptive parents must consent to the biological parents having contact. It's encouraged, because that spares the kid some questions and makes it easier for the bio parent to handle giving the child up, but it's still their choice. And in the few cases where contact with biological parents would actually be harmful (eg your biological parent likes to have sex with kids) they don't allow it.

If I'm asking for advice on a story idea, don't tell me it can't be done.

^ But how do you explain that to a young child that and make them understand it? I would think that would be why adoptive parents wait, so that they can have a mature conversation with their kid when they have the mental capacity to understand the situation. However, I would also guess that the more time that passes until they do, the more likely it would be to have the side effect of the parents being afraid to tell their kid, to protect them from feeling like an outsider in the family, or else the fear that they might "lose" their kid to the pursuit of their original family, which would be where the feeling of "betrayal" comes from. I think letting the birth family be a part of the kids lives from a young age would also be extremely confusing for a kid growing up. I don't think that they shouldn't be a part of the kid's life at all, but I think that unless the kid learns early on and wants to reconnect, they should probably wait until the child is at least 18 before having contact, and preferably with the blessing of the adoptive family.

But these are just my gut feelings without any particular back up other than what I've seen on TV.

edited 11th Jan '11 10:59:16 AM by sparkpoint

This post is called, "We hate you, please die."

But practical benefits (i.e. more adoption, less reproduction) are the entire goal in this case. What you refer to as "consistency" seems beside the point. The prospective parents, whether hetero, homo, fertile, infertile, are interchangeable means to an end as far as I'm concerned. It doesn't matter how many from each subset end up adopting; what matters is merely that as many as possible from the overall set are forced to adopt rather than breed. The only relevant distinction between subsets is that some happen to be easier targets than others.

The plan is not merely to deny some people IVF; the plan is to completely abolish IVF and all other assisted reproductive technologies. Assisted reproductive technologies may not be the entire problem, but they are part of the problem. Getting rid of them is a step in the right direction.

It's called choosing one's battles.

That's social engineering you're doing there. It's a dangerous game.

Perhaps, but I have zero interest in discussing the pros and cons of social engineering in general.