I'm torn on this one. As an infertile woman, I completely understand the desire to have children; and I do appreciate the arguments that this will help regulate the fertility 'industry' for lack of a better term, and make it more subject to oversight. At the same time, as an adoptive mom, when I think of all the children in the world who need homes... and I think of all the other family issues these billions of dollars can go to - universal daycare, improvement of family&children's services/children's aid, etc. ...
I can't help but think we women sometimes put the sentimentality in the wrong place. It's about becoming parents, not becoming pregnant. I love my son as if he were 'my own', and honestly, I don't particularly see, for example, when there are children available for adoption and singles and couples so eager to be parents, why, for example, the province of Quebec needs to fund Celine Dion's umpty-umpth IVF treatment when she could adopt and provide a needy child a lovely home.
I suppose, though, there are always going to be people who put a premium on biology that I just don't comprehend - and as long as that's going to happen, I will be cautiously supportive of this as long as it actually DOES lead to better regulation and oversight.
I can't help but think we women sometimes put the sentimentality in the wrong place. It's about becoming parents, not becoming pregnant. I love my son as if he were 'my own', and honestly, I don't particularly see, for example, when there are children available for adoption and singles and couples so eager to be parents, why, for example, the province of Quebec needs to fund Celine Dion's umpty-umpth IVF treatment when she could adopt and provide a needy child a lovely home.
I suppose, though, there are always going to be people who put a premium on biology that I just don't comprehend - and as long as that's going to happen, I will be cautiously supportive of this as long as it actually DOES lead to better regulation and oversight.
1 comment:
I think I'm a little torn too. I mean, I think it's a good idea. I do. I can't even say that being pregnant is amazing because I hated being pregnant. I was two rough pregnancies, as you know, and never again would I put my body through that. I'm sorry that there are women out there, though, that can never experience pregnancy (good or bad), because dispite me having crappy pregnancies, feeling the baby kick for the first time is the ONE JOY that I did have. Ok, and maybe my husband doing things for me that he normally wouldnt lol.
HOWEVER
What will happen to the thousands upon thousands of children across our world who need homes? Will they now get shoved aside because now it's free to try attemp after attemp of IVF?
If our government is going to start paying for IVF, than why not continue in that line and start paying for adoptions as well. Oh, I know, they shouldn't pay for lawyer's fees because I mean they are working. But like all the other stuff should be getting covered. The courses, the adoption practioners, everything. Or they should at least get some of the money back, like send the government a receipt or something. I dunno.
I've always agreed strongly with the saying; Any male can be a father, it takes a real man to be a dad.
I feel the same goes for women. Any woman can give birth to a child. But in my opinion, the REAL mothers are those who raise the children.
Does that make me a bitch because I think more of the women raising the children than the women who give their children up for adoption? Probably. But they're just as important too. Without them, there wouldn't be a baby.
HOWEVER!! Motherhood is about RAISING your child(ren). Motherhood is about being there for your child, teaching them, guiding them, learning from them, comforting them and letting them learn on their own as well.
So where as I think the government stepping in to either help out or fully pay for IVF is a great idea, I just wonder about what's going to happen to the adoption services and the children who need homes.
Post a Comment