Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cheap wine
Starch+cheese as a meal (esp. for kids)
Organized religion
IVF
Juice
Raisins
The Dream Act

You MONSTER.

I'm in love with the 2nd PP here. My ultra picky eater DD would have wasted away if it weren't for pasta and Parmesan cheese. My mind would have wasted away if it weren't for delicious but inexpensive wine.

The original PP here. I get it- I am not here to judge what you can feed your picky eater. Not the hill to die on. I guess I meant that I don't like when this is the only item offered to the child, especially for many or most meals. I mean if your kid likes carrots give them a few carrots, or whatever. And I mean't CHEAP wine, not inexpensive wine. I love me a bottle of whatever TJs is selling for $7, as long as it's not Barefoot or Franzia.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, there aren't "thousands" of children in foster care who are free and clear for adoption. Most are there temporarily (however long that may be) and the goal is almost ALWAYS reunification; barring that, long term relative placement and inter-family adoptions are the next goal.

Just wanted to clear up that misperception.

Yes, there are. There are dozens listed in Heart Galleries online by location, and there are others who are adopted faster who aren't available long enough to need to be listed online. But there really are kids whose parents have had their custody revoked forever and whose extended families either do not exist or cannot provide a home. I've only looked into this a little bit, but to adopt a child from foster care takes about one year and costs around $3,000-5,000. Still not cheap, still not easy, and many of the children have emotional and physical problems. But there are kids awaiting permanent placement.

Anonymous wrote:Oh dear God take the IVF debate to another thread already!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cheap wine
Starch+cheese as a meal (esp. for kids)
Organized religion
IVF
Juice
Raisins
The Dream Act

You MONSTER.

I'm in love with the 2nd PP here. My ultra picky eater DD would have wasted away if it weren't for pasta and Parmesan cheese. My mind would have wasted away if it weren't for delicious but inexpensive wine.

Anonymous wrote:Actually, there aren't "thousands" of children in foster care who are free and clear for adoption. Most are there temporarily (however long that may be) and the goal is almost ALWAYS reunification; barring that, long term relative placement and inter-family adoptions are the next goal.

Just wanted to clear up that misperception.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cheap wine
Starch+cheese as a meal (esp. for kids)
Organized religion
IVF
Juice
Raisins
The Dream Act

You MONSTER.

Anonymous wrote:- religion
- people that drive BMW's or Hummers (hello, douche-mobile driver!)
- excessive fertility treatments and people that are so focused on genes
- Walmart
- the South & southern accents
- mushrooms
- smokers (including pot smokers)
- lobbyists
- cicadas
- people who breastfeed beyond 2 years
- crocs and the people who buy them
- uggs and the people who buy them
- homeschoolers
- destination weddings
- lying & hypocritical clergy members (ie, all clergy members)
- people who put giant bows on their infants
- Dr. Oz
- blind patriotism
- polygamy (but I support open marriages and same-sex marriage)
- clowns
- birds
- people who wear yoga pants everywhere like it's regular clothing

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, there aren't "thousands" of children in foster care who are free and clear for adoption. Most are there temporarily (however long that may be) and the goal is almost ALWAYS reunification; barring that, long term relative placement and inter-family adoptions are the next goal.

Just wanted to clear up that misperception.

No one said that. What was said was:

There are THOUSANDS of children in foster care who need homes and many of these children become eligible...


Just wanted to clear up your misconception.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, I'll bite:

Black people who think they are the only ones who have ever been oppressed.

Black people who actively oppress gay people -- voting against gay marriage, gay adoption, etc.

Black people who recite examples of historical oppression that have long been outlawed, while supporting the continued legal oppression of gay people here, now, today.

Black people who fail to realize there are gay black people.

So what you are saying is that you are secretly opposed to black people. Got it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm anti IVF because I think it's wasteful to spend tens of thousands of dollars on getting pregnant when there are already children here who need homes. But if you have the money, it's your body, your family, your life. Do what you want.

Alright, I have to stick up for the IVF crowd (and I didn't even do IVF, so I have no dog in this fight). For many fortunate people, their insurance pays for IVF or other fertility treatments, therefore they have very few costs to bear. Of course, there are some people who must pay out of pocket, and yes, that can cost a lot. Both domestic and international adoption is changing...the standard for a domestic one is open adoption (in whatever degree of openess) and the expectant mom picks the adoptive parents. Of course, because the baby isn't born and relinquished yet, making her an expectant mom and not a birth mom at that point, she has the right to change her mind and decide to parent. So btwn having an expectant mom pick you AND then have her actually decide to place...well, that can take a long time. People can wait years. With international adoption, many countries are closed or timelines, like Korea and China, are pretty slow. Again, it could take years. With either kind of adoption, it could take years or it could be quick. It's not as straightforward and reliable as it used to be.

We adopted internationally and it was the right choice for us- no doubt about it. However, I can completely understand why some people choose to pursue fertility treatments that could take less time and money than adoption. I also understand that some people want a bio connection to their kids- I bet the great majority of people do even fertile people. Otherwise, you as a fertile person would've adopted and not had bio children, no?? Also, depending on mental health or physical health (or income), some people don't qualify for an international adoption.

I do wish that more people would consider adoption, but all you can ask is that they genuinely consider it, and if they decide for whatever reason it's not right for them, then that's good they considered and decided against it. Personally, we did not pursue IVF for many reasons, but as long as people who do don't make derogatory remarks about adoption and adoptees, then I have no beef with IVF.

Signed, an adoptee and adoptive parent

I'm the PP you quoted. I haven't previously been bashing IVF and I don't have any weird ideas that women who can't get pregnant shouldn't because of evolution. I agree with you that adoption comes with its own issues and that it is not for everyone. What about people who buy a donor egg, donor sperm, and hire a surrogate? At that point, wouldn't it be better to just adopt a kid?

DH and I paid over $35K and two years trying to adopt an older special needs child and had NO luck - the country we were working with closed foreign adoptions shortly after our application was approved. You don't get a refund - all that money was lost not to mention the terrible sorrow of "losing" a child that we had grown deeply connected to. We then went the domestic adoption route, only to have the heartbreak of the birth mother deciding after the baby was born that she wanted to keep her child (a decision we understood, but deeply disappointing for us, nonetheless). We eventually went the IVF route because it was FREE (my insurance covered the procedure and the meds) and less than four months after starting the process I was pregnant with my daughter.

When I hear people bashing IVF and/or holding up adoption as a piece of cake I instantly recognize them as being ignorant as to what adoption really entails and/or really sheltered from the heatbreak that many of us face as part of the adoption process. I can't imagine why anyone would resent or judge another person for trying to build their family in whatever way they can and choose to follow. It's nothing short of twisted.

It's interesting that you were deeply disappointed that the birth mother chose to keep her child rather than give it to you. I find your take on this to be selfish. You aren't guaranteed someone else's baby until the papers are signed, so it's best to not raise your hopes too high in the event they decide to parent their child. And when they choose to do this, be happy for the child.

And IVF wasn't free. Other members of your health care plan helped foot the bill for your pregnancy. Rather than pay to increase our population, I'd rather have *my* portion of the money go towards finding homes for the many children in foster care. But, of course, you didn't want a child *that* bad, right?

I'm the PP that you quoted. Your response is so rage-filled, inappropriate and misdirected - you have poor reading comprehension - that it's tempting to ignore it entirely. You sound like a real knuckle dragger. But I'll respond to say that I don't know many people who wanted a child more than DH and I, adopted or otherwise. Aside from the fact that you We spent over $60k and a total of four years trying to adopt, so we did want a child *that bad*. You are truly moronic if you think that couples don't get their hopes up about a child they've been matched with. And as I wrote (again, try paying attention to what you read), we understood the birth mom's decision but it was nonetheless heart breaking. Moreover I pay into a very high premium insurance plan that offers IVF - it's the reason why most people select that plan (in fact the insurance company promotes this feature of the plan). So don't worry, bub, you're not paying for me to have a kid.

Knuckle dragger? How quaint. Whether you intended it or not, your post came off as you judging the bio Mom for keeping her child. That should always be viewed as a good thing.

If you wanted a child that bad, why didn't you pursue foster care? There are THOUSANDS of children in foster care who need homes and many of these children become eligible for adoption after a certain amount of time. So, is it that you wanted a child or that you wanted a newborn baby?

And re: insurance. You're kidding yourself. Everyone on your insurance plan is footing the bill. Are you honestly suggesting otherwise? IMO, if you want to pursue IVF, have at it, but pay for it (entirely) yourself. I want bigger boobs and a flatter stomach, but I'll have to foot that plastic surgery bill myself. Same should apply to IVF. This is one of the reasons why I believe the industry is flooded with scam artists falsely raising the hopes of women to do countless rounds of IVF so that they can make money.

New poster here and wow, PP, you are remarkable. That's what you got from her post? Have YOU ever tried to adopt a child from foster care? She said she tried to adopt an OLDER, SPECIAL NEEDS child and was unable to do that after spending $35K. Poster saying "just adopt" have no concept how difficult it is, and this idea that you can just go and pick out a foster kid like a goldfish at a pet store is ludicrous (and offensive not only to adoptive parents but to foster children, whose adoptive homes must be carefully vetted).

To the other poster, huge congratulations on your daughter and I hope your family is well.

Anonymous wrote:Actually, there aren't "thousands" of children in foster care who are free and clear for adoption. Most are there temporarily (however long that may be) and the goal is almost ALWAYS reunification; barring that, long term relative placement and inter-family adoptions are the next goal.

Just wanted to clear up that misperception.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm anti IVF because I think it's wasteful to spend tens of thousands of dollars on getting pregnant when there are already children here who need homes. But if you have the money, it's your body, your family, your life. Do what you want.

Alright, I have to stick up for the IVF crowd (and I didn't even do IVF, so I have no dog in this fight). For many fortunate people, their insurance pays for IVF or other fertility treatments, therefore they have very few costs to bear. Of course, there are some people who must pay out of pocket, and yes, that can cost a lot. Both domestic and international adoption is changing...the standard for a domestic one is open adoption (in whatever degree of openess) and the expectant mom picks the adoptive parents. Of course, because the baby isn't born and relinquished yet, making her an expectant mom and not a birth mom at that point, she has the right to change her mind and decide to parent. So btwn having an expectant mom pick you AND then have her actually decide to place...well, that can take a long time. People can wait years. With international adoption, many countries are closed or timelines, like Korea and China, are pretty slow. Again, it could take years. With either kind of adoption, it could take years or it could be quick. It's not as straightforward and reliable as it used to be.

We adopted internationally and it was the right choice for us- no doubt about it. However, I can completely understand why some people choose to pursue fertility treatments that could take less time and money than adoption. I also understand that some people want a bio connection to their kids- I bet the great majority of people do even fertile people. Otherwise, you as a fertile person would've adopted and not had bio children, no?? Also, depending on mental health or physical health (or income), some people don't qualify for an international adoption.

I do wish that more people would consider adoption, but all you can ask is that they genuinely consider it, and if they decide for whatever reason it's not right for them, then that's good they considered and decided against it. Personally, we did not pursue IVF for many reasons, but as long as people who do don't make derogatory remarks about adoption and adoptees, then I have no beef with IVF.

Signed, an adoptee and adoptive parent

I'm the PP you quoted. I haven't previously been bashing IVF and I don't have any weird ideas that women who can't get pregnant shouldn't because of evolution. I agree with you that adoption comes with its own issues and that it is not for everyone. What about people who buy a donor egg, donor sperm, and hire a surrogate? At that point, wouldn't it be better to just adopt a kid?

DH and I paid over $35K and two years trying to adopt an older special needs child and had NO luck - the country we were working with closed foreign adoptions shortly after our application was approved. You don't get a refund - all that money was lost not to mention the terrible sorrow of "losing" a child that we had grown deeply connected to. We then went the domestic adoption route, only to have the heartbreak of the birth mother deciding after the baby was born that she wanted to keep her child (a decision we understood, but deeply disappointing for us, nonetheless). We eventually went the IVF route because it was FREE (my insurance covered the procedure and the meds) and less than four months after starting the process I was pregnant with my daughter.

When I hear people bashing IVF and/or holding up adoption as a piece of cake I instantly recognize them as being ignorant as to what adoption really entails and/or really sheltered from the heatbreak that many of us face as part of the adoption process. I can't imagine why anyone would resent or judge another person for trying to build their family in whatever way they can and choose to follow. It's nothing short of twisted.

It's interesting that you were deeply disappointed that the birth mother chose to keep her child rather than give it to you. I find your take on this to be selfish. You aren't guaranteed someone else's baby until the papers are signed, so it's best to not raise your hopes too high in the event they decide to parent their child. And when they choose to do this, be happy for the child.

And IVF wasn't free. Other members of your health care plan helped foot the bill for your pregnancy. Rather than pay to increase our population, I'd rather have *my* portion of the money go towards finding homes for the many children in foster care. But, of course, you didn't want a child *that* bad, right?

I'm the PP that you quoted. Your response is so rage-filled, inappropriate and misdirected - you have poor reading comprehension - that it's tempting to ignore it entirely. You sound like a real knuckle dragger. But I'll respond to say that I don't know many people who wanted a child more than DH and I, adopted or otherwise. Aside from the fact that you We spent over $60k and a total of four years trying to adopt, so we did want a child *that bad*. You are truly moronic if you think that couples don't get their hopes up about a child they've been matched with. And as I wrote (again, try paying attention to what you read), we understood the birth mom's decision but it was nonetheless heart breaking. Moreover I pay into a very high premium insurance plan that offers IVF - it's the reason why most people select that plan (in fact the insurance company promotes this feature of the plan). So don't worry, bub, you're not paying for me to have a kid.

Knuckle dragger? How quaint. Whether you intended it or not, your post came off as you judging the bio Mom for keeping her child. That should always be viewed as a good thing.

If you wanted a child that bad, why didn't you pursue foster care? There are THOUSANDS of children in foster care who need homes and many of these children become eligible for adoption after a certain amount of time. So, is it that you wanted a child or that you wanted a newborn baby?

And re: insurance. You're kidding yourself. Everyone on your insurance plan is footing the bill. Are you honestly suggesting otherwise? IMO, if you want to pursue IVF, have at it, but pay for it (entirely) yourself. I want bigger boobs and a flatter stomach, but I'll have to foot that plastic surgery bill myself. Same should apply to IVF. This is one of the reasons why I believe the industry is flooded with scam artists falsely raising the hopes of women to do countless rounds of IVF so that they can make money.