Adopting to start a family in med school?

[brightness]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I've been thinking about becoming a doctor, very seriously. My main problem is that for me, family is very important. I think that having a husband to help me is great, but I really do want my children to know me and see me. And I'm not crazy about the idea of starting a family at 32.
I've been thinking about adopting while in medical school so that I don't have to feel with all the physical symptoms of pregnancy, while still having a child. Do any you have any information/perspectives about this plan?

 

[8744]

Hey. We just adopted a five-month-old girl from Guatemala. (We got her two weeks ago.) My wife is really enjoying this baby because a) She didn't have to go through pregnancy and recovery from C-section like she did for our last three kids b) She's not post-partum, and c) we missed all the usual colic, fussiness, and long sleepless nights that you get with most newborns.

Adoption is great....but very expensive.

 

[Apparition]

What's wrong with adopting at 32? As I'm sure you know, you'll be studying a lot in medical school and you won't have as much time as you want with the kid. Unless you are wealthy, it will be hard financially to support a child on your own. You'll have to attend classes. If you don't have help from someone, you will have to pay for day care. Try med school first then you'll see if adoption is a possibility.

 

[45408]

I think adoption is great, but if you are capable of having children, I don't think it would be the best idea to do for your first child. I'm not opposed to adoption in the future, but I'd like to have our own first if possible. I don't really think it would be a whole lot easier - the adoption process can be intense, especially if the biological parents are missing a few screws.

 

[bjolly]

I adopted a 9 year old midway thru my first year of medschool. It was the best thing I've ever done but it was and continues to be hard to be a good mom and a good med student at the same time. In your case I'm not sure why you'd go this route - avoiding the physical symptoms of pregnancy I get, but taking care of a baby and going to school is still going to be very very hard. I'm not sure where adoption vs biological would really make it that much easier for you.

 

[Law2Doc]

I've been thinking about becoming a doctor, very seriously. My main problem is that for me, family is very important. I think that having a husband to help me is great, but I really do want my children to know me and see me. And I'm not crazy about the idea of starting a family at 32.
I've been thinking about adopting while in medical school so that I don't have to feel with all the physical symptoms of pregnancy, while still having a child. Do any you have any information/perspectives about this plan?

You could also always freeze eggs and do the pregnancy thing later, when time is not such a premium.

 

[WhoisJohnGalt]

You could also always freeze eggs and do the pregnancy thing later, when time is not such a premium.

To be fair, when is that going to be? Residency follows med school, and time is even MORE of a premium then. If she's 32 now, and she starts med school next year, she's still looking at being in her 40's before she's out of residency, and that's a long time to wait if she wants a child, and doesn't bode well for a safe and easy pregnancy. I think you'll be fine whether you adopt, get pregnant, or decide not to have a child right now. Many people in my school have been pregnant or become fathers while in school, and they're doing great. It's just a matter of time management. You can't let this job in particular dictate your childbearing; there is NEVER a "good time" to have a child when you're becoming a doctor. You just have to do it whenever it feels right for you personally and realize that the details will work themselves out. Good luck!

 

[Law2Doc]

If she's 32 now,

I don't think the OP said she was 32 now, I think she said she wasn't keen on starting a family at 32 (i.e. down the road).

 

[Doctor Bagel]

My sister is in the process of adopting a baby from Guatamala, but it's hard and expensive. Honestly, I think it'd be easier to just have a baby if you can. Also, there's supposed to be some legal changes in the future that will make Guatamalan adoptions harder -- currently, Guatamala is about the most open place for adoptions. One thing to note is that with lots of countries, you're expected to spend pretty significant time in that country before adopting, which might not fit in with a med student schedule. Also, again, the expenses are huge -- my understanding is that it costs around $30k or more.

Another thing to note is that all schools are supposedly pretty generous with giving time off for women to have children, so I wouldn't let that deter you from getting pregnant. It might be harder to get time off to travel out of the country for all the adoption work.

 

[WhatUpDoc!]

Does anybody adopt stateside anymore 😕 I guess Angelina Jolie and the rest of Hollywood are making overseas adoption the norm. Not that I disagree with that or anything, but there are plenty of children in this country that need loving families too. I'll get off my "adoption mini-soapbox" now and let this thread continue 😳

 

[Doctor Bagel]

Does anybody adopt stateside anymore 😕 I guess Angelina Jolie and the rest of Hollywood are making overseas adoption the norm. Not that I disagree with that or anything, but there are plenty of children in this country that need loving families too. I'll get off my "adoption mini-soapbox" now and let this thread continue 😳

It's not because it's trendy -- it's just really hard (potentially impossible) to adopt a baby from the US. Maybe you can get an older child with psychological or physical impairment, but that's not exactly a minor task to take on. It'd be great if we could all do it, but we can't.

 

[WhoisJohnGalt]

Does anybody adopt stateside anymore 😕 I guess Angelina Jolie and the rest of Hollywood are making overseas adoption the norm. Not that I disagree with that or anything, but there are plenty of children in this country that need loving families too. I'll get off my "adoption mini-soapbox" now and let this thread continue 😳

The only person I know who is considering adoption is considering a Chinese adoption, and this was her reason. She watched her brother and sister-in-law go through a horrible ordeal with stateside adoption where the mother of their adopted child attributed him to the wrong father, and YEARS after the child had been happily living with them, the real father showed up and tried to take custody! They've been in court about it for years now, which is obviously not in their best interest or the child's. I think the lure of international adoption is that once you actually have the child, there's not as much opportunity for future legal battles down the road.

 

[chocolate-e]

it's just really hard (potentially impossible) to adopt a baby from the US.

Adopting healthy white infants may be difficult--though I still know a number of people who've done it--but adopting a baby per se is not really hard. Minority babies, as well as those with prenatal exposure to drugs or alcohol (even without any known effects), are still often considered hard-to-place or special needs. Infant "special needs" adoption isn't for everyone and that's okay, but people should at least know that adopting a healthy infant isn't always as difficult or expensive as the legends indicate.

 

[Psycho Doctor]

Does anybody adopt stateside anymore 😕 I guess Angelina Jolie and the rest of Hollywood are making overseas adoption the norm. Not that I disagree with that or anything, but there are plenty of children in this country that need loving families too. I'll get off my "adoption mini-soapbox" now and let this thread continue 😳

from what I understand it's almost impossible to get white newborns in the US if that's what you want...therefore many people look international for that premium.

 

[evade]

from what I understand it's almost impossible to get white newborns in the US if that's what you want...therefore many people look international for that premium.

But are people adopting white infants from these countries? If not, why not adopt non-white infants right here in the US? They're in plentiful supply.

To the OP, sorry to threadjack you. . .in answer to your question, adopting a child won't make things any easier. Pregnancy while in med school is eminently do-able, as is having a child. Sure, it's not the easiest thing to do, but it can definitely be done. People make it work. There will never be a "perfect time" to do it. Personally, I'd like to start my family when I'm in my very early '30s, but if you want to do it earlier, by all means do! There are a lot of parents in my class, and they're doing just fine (though my classmate who had a baby last spring is taking a year off. . .but hey, that's fine too!).

Basically what I'm trying to say is that adoption will be just as difficult (and rewarding!) as having your own. If the only reason you want to adopt is to avoid pregnancy, that might not be the right reason. If the reason is more that you know there are so many children out there who need someone to love them, and you want to be that someone, by all means do. 🙂

 

[8744]

The trouble with adopting healthy infants from the United States is that many of the birth mothers want what is called an "open adoption." In other words, the birth mother wants to be a part of the baby's life and this desire is contractually specified.

As many adoptive parents are desperate for a baby they will generally agree to anthing. My wife and I don't want to share our children with another shadow parent, particularly one whose only real link to the baby is an accident of biology. We particulary don't want the obligation of potentially providing emotional or financial support to the birth mother later in life, not to mention the small but real risk that the birth mother might sue for the return of the baby.

We have three other children so we're not that desperate.

The question of open adotion as well as the silly, politically correct idea that we must make an effort to keep our five-month-old adopted daugther's birth culture alive in our family goes against the idea of adoption which, in our view, is to make the adopted child completely part of the family.

It is also difficult for white parents to adopt healthy black babies because it is better for a black child to grow up in poverty or a series of foster homes than to take the risk that he might grow up "acting white."

It was relatively easy to adopt from Guatemala which is the appeal. It cost about $40,000.

 

[Wackie]

Perhaps my answer is offensive, but I think you need to decide which is more important-family or medicine.
Is it really fair to your child to be brought into this? For at least 8 years (which is a long, long time to a child), you will be extremely busy.
When I decided on this marathon, I chose medicine. If I want a family, after residency I'll consider it. By then, I'll be old enough that adoption will probably be the better route rather than trying to be pregnant at 39 or 40.
No way would I bring a child into this race on purpose. I know what it's like to have a parent who is almost never there. It sucks. My mother died unexpectantly when I was eleven and I never got to know her. I went a long time feeling like an orphan since my dad and I are so different.

 

[evade]

The trouble with adopting healthy infants from the United States is that many of the birth mothers want what is called an "open adoption." In other words, the birth mother wants to be a part of the baby's life and this desire is contractually specified.

As many adoptive parents are desperate for a baby they will generally agree to anthing. My wife and I don't want to share our children with another shadow parent, particularly one whose only real link to the baby is an accident of biology. We particulary don't want the obligation of potentially providing emotional or financial support to the birth mother later in life, not to mention the small but real risk that the birth mother might sue for the return of the baby.

We have three other children so we're not that desperate.

The question of open adotion as well as the silly, politically correct idea that we must make an effort to keep our five-month-old adopted daugther's birth culture alive in our family goes against the idea of adoption which, in our view, is to make the adopted child completely part of the family.

It is also difficult for white parents to adopt healthy black babies because it is better for a black child to grow up in poverty or a series of foster homes than to take the risk that he might grow up "acting white."

It was relatively easy to adopt from Guatemala which is the appeal. It cost about $40,000.

Hmm, I'd never heard this take on open adoption before. Curious, have you heard/read of any specific examples where the mother was more than peripherally involved in the child's life, or where she sued for custody of the child? I know women who have put their children up for adoption; one was an open adoption. She got pregnant at 15 and couldn't raise the child herself, and in part because her child was mixed-race, she wanted to be sure he was going to be in a good home with loving parents. She met the adoptive parents before he was born, and since then, they send her update letters twice a year. She doesn't see him much (if ever, really), but derives great comfort from knowing that he is growing up happy and healthy and loved. She carries no delusions that she is this child's parent. . .she gave birth to him, but since then she's been more of a distant family friend. Overall, it has worked out very well; she went to college to pursue her dreams and her son is in a wonderful family and well loved, and she wouldn't have it any other way.

I would be sad to hear if this was not the case in other situations.

 

[8744]

Hmm, I'd never heard this take on open adoption before. Curious, have you heard/read of any specific examples where the mother was more than peripherally involved in the child's life, or where she sued for custody of the child? I know women who have put their children up for adoption; one was an open adoption. She got pregnant at 15 and couldn't raise the child herself, and in part because her child was mixed-race, she wanted to be sure he was going to be in a good home with loving parents. She met the adoptive parents before he was born, and since then, they send her update letters twice a year. She doesn't see him much (if ever, really), but derives great comfort from knowing that he is growing up happy and healthy and loved. She carries no delusions that she is this child's parent. . .she gave birth to him, but since then she's been more of a distant family friend. Overall, it has worked out very well; she went to college to pursue her dreams and her son is in a wonderful family and well loved, and she wouldn't have it any other way.

I would be sad to hear if this was not the case in other situations.

We want nothing to do with the birth mother. We certainly don't want her as a distant family friend. Just a matter of personal preference. I'm pretty sure most parents would prefer it this way but like I said, many childless couples are desperate and will agree to anything to get a baby. Of course, the politically correct thing to say is that it doesn't matter and the child will benefit from having an extra parent but this is horse****. The birth mother needs to let go and the parents need to accept complete responsibilty.

You've hit one of my pet peeves. We discharged our first adoption service because they were into all of that multi-cultural, "it takes a village" horse crap. The last straw was their application where for page after page we had to come up with bad things to say about the United States and American culture while singing the praises of the society from which we obtained our baby.

 

[fang]

You've hit one of my pet peeves. We discharged our first adoption service because they were into all of that multi-cultural, "it takes a village" horse crap. The last straw was their application where for page after page we had to come up with bad things to say about the United States and American culture while singing the praises of the society from which we obtained our baby.

I think I can go along with the sentiment that you don't want the complication of a birth parent around, but I think you're way off on ignoring your kid's culture altogether. No, you don't have to say bad things about the US and praise guatamala, but you also don't have to go to the other extreme and try to raise him or her as though nothing is different. He/she is invariably going to want to know about that culture later on... you can either be a part of that process or make your kid feel guilty about a very natural curiosity.

 

[8744]

I think I can go along with the sentiment that you don't want the complication of a birth parent around, but I think you're way off on ignoring your kid's culture altogether. No, you don't have to say bad things about the US and praise guatamala, but you also don't have to go to the other extreme and try to raise him or her as though nothing is different. He/she is invariably going to want to know about that culture later on... you can either be a part of that process or make your kid feel guilty about a very natural curiosity.

Oh, we're not going to keep her country of origin a secret from her. But I betcha' she's going to be a typical American kid who will have nothing but a polite interest in Guatemala, probably at the same level as the other kids have for Greece which is practically none. We certainly have absolutely no interest in Guatemalan culture and it would be like pulling teeth to get us to incorporate this kind of thing into our family life. We are just not the kind of people who grimly try to celebrate diversity or try to to get their kids involved in idiotic cultural activities.



That's kind of the point. Nothing is different between her and the other kids.

 

[evade]

We want nothing to do with the birth mother. We certainly don't want her as a distant family friend. Just a matter of personal preference. I'm pretty sure most parents would prefer it this way but like I said, many childless couples are desperate and will agree to anything to get a baby. Of course, the politically correct thing to say is that it doesn't matter and the child will benefit from having an extra parent but this is horse****. The birth mother needs to let go and the parents need to accept complete responsibilty.

You've hit one of my pet peeves. We discharged our first adoption service because they were into all of that multi-cultural, "it takes a village" horse crap. The last straw was their application where for page after page we had to come up with bad things to say about the United States and American culture while singing the praises of the society from which we obtained our baby.

Well, that is your opinion, and you are entitled to it, but you didn't answer my question. Do you know of any cases where an open adoption has turned sour, where the birth mother has sued for custody of the child? If so, that's a problem with the system, because frankly, adoptions should be a done deal. But as to making them all "closed" adoptions, where the birth mother has no idea where the child goes, I take issue with that. I've got to say that as a woman, if I were faced with a pregnancy that I was not in a position to keep, I would have a really, really hard time letting that child go into the Great Blue Yonder, without knowing if s/he was going to a good home, or even knowing if s/he was in a permanent home at all, because so many children do end up in foster care.

 

[Doctor Bagel]

Well, that is your opinion, and you are entitled to it, but you didn't answer my question. Do you know of any cases where an open adoption has turned sour, where the birth mother has sued for custody of the child? If so, that's a problem with the system, because frankly, adoptions should be a done deal. But as to making them all "closed" adoptions, where the birth mother has no idea where the child goes, I take issue with that. I've got to say that as a woman, if I were faced with a pregnancy that I was not in a position to keep, I would have a really, really hard time letting that child go into the Great Blue Yonder, without knowing if s/he was going to a good home, or even knowing if s/he was in a permanent home at all, because so many children do end up in foster care.

I think that's an interesting point because Panda's a conservative pro-life guy, and pro-life people are always suggesting that women give up their children for adoption instead of abortions, as of that's an easy thing to do. Asking someone to give up their child and never see or have any contact with him/her again is asking maybe too much. It seems like the least you could so it send some cards to the birth mother letting her know that her child is still alive and okay.

Speaking of anecdotal stories, the one open adoption I know of has been successful. The birth mother has not been an instrusive figure, and the child and adoptive parents are happy and settled.

 

[Elysium]

I have friends that adopted 2 kids from Equador. They definetly buy into that "politically correct" global family business, but part of it makes sense. The couple is fair skinned, blonde hair and blue eyed, and the kids are olive skinned, with thick black hair and black eyes. They look very much like one another and very unlike mom and dad. Where are they supposed to tell them they came from, where the WMD's are stored? I mean, they're going to figure out they don't look like the other kids they go to school with - why not make them bilingual and take them to Equador (as well as a mansion in Lexington, MA where their grandparents live)? Why not buy them a play station and make them aware that there's something besides American Idol and Jessica Simpson? I don't see that American kids are so incredibly polite, intelligent, and well behaved that the whole world should be modeling itself after our kids. Matter of fact, I wish we could figure out a why to make american kids stop acting like such spoiled little brats...but that's another story all together.

 

[crazy_cavalier]

We want nothing to do with the birth mother. We certainly don't want her as a distant family friend. Just a matter of personal preference. I'm pretty sure most parents would prefer it this way but like I said, many childless couples are desperate and will agree to anything to get a baby. Of course, the politically correct thing to say is that it doesn't matter and the child will benefit from having an extra parent but this is horse****. The birth mother needs to let go and the parents need to accept complete responsibilty.

You've hit one of my pet peeves. We discharged our first adoption service because they were into all of that multi-cultural, "it takes a village" horse crap. The last straw was their application where for page after page we had to come up with bad things to say about the United States and American culture while singing the praises of the society from which we obtained our baby.

I agree with you. When someone adopts, the whole point of that is to assimilate that person into your family and raise them as your own. Also, so-called "open adoptions" are indeed, horsesht. When the biological parent makes the decision that they cannot take care of the child and gives them up to adoption, that decision should be final.

On a somewhat related note, if I find myself in a position where I couldn't find a mate and wanted kids (I do want kids), I think I would look for an egg donor. There's a number of problems with that approach... I think getting a surrogate mother would be the biggest problem. Has anyone invented an artificial womb yet?

 

[8744]

...I don't see that American kids are so incredibly polite, intelligent, and well behaved that the whole world should be modeling itself after our kids. Matter of fact, I wish we could figure out a why to make american kids stop acting like such spoiled little brats...

Who said the world should model itself after our kids? I'm just relating to you how we run our family. We are not perfect parents but I bet if more of the country took their responsibilties as parents as seriously as we do we'd have fewer of the social pathologies which afflict us, most of which are a direct result of the collapse of the traditional (Panda Bear style) family.

I presume you are a Yankee. In the South we go to great lengths to raise our children to be polite, starting with the obligatory "Yes Sir, No Ma'am" and proceeding from there to the usual customs of giving up a seat to a lady and holding doors. You know, the standard stuff that we have gotten away from.

But it is a work in progress and I'd never say my children have perfect manners.

As to intelligence, I guess because most of the people who I know are old school, fairly well-off, and send their kids to private school their kids are pretty sharp. We send our kids to a fairly decent public school and the three Rs are not neglected.

But why do you suppose that Guatemalen culture is any better when it comes to the behavior of children? It is an incredibly corrupt society and presumably the police who harrass and extort the citizens were once children. They also have a somewhat ingrained racism with the indian population (native-Guatemalans?) being regarded poorly by those of mixed or largley European blood. The crime rate is also pretty high so presumably somebody is doing a crappy job as parents.

 

[8744]

I think that's an interesting point because Panda's a conservative pro-life guy, and pro-life people are always suggesting that women give up their children for adoption instead of abortions, as of that's an easy thing to do. Asking someone to give up their child and never see or have any contact with him/her again is asking maybe too much. It seems like the least you could so it send some cards to the birth mother letting her know that her child is still alive and okay.

Speaking of anecdotal stories, the one open adoption I know of has been successful. The birth mother has not been an instrusive figure, and the child and adoptive parents are happy and settled.

A woman who will give up her child doesn't really want the child, at least here in the United States. Not only is there no longer any stigma to being a single mother but the nanny-state will see that a young mother gets the whole gamut of state support to help her raise the child. Crying poverty is a poor excuse. Most parents would never give up their children no matter how poor they were. As the Bible says, and I paraphrase, where your treasure is will also be your heart. Chidren are our treasure and we order our lives accordingly.

Now, I reckognize that a baby is a huge inconvenience to a seventeen-year-old girl just starting her life. But that's the point. The inconvenience outweighs any maternal feelings. This idea of "wanting to give the child a better life" is nine-tenths hogwash. If that were the case we would have shopped our kids around when they were born to a richer and more loving family than ours. The fact that we don't is because we are willing to make the effort to give them the best life which we believe only we can do.

See my point? Parental love has an element of selfishness to it. They're our kids, not the villages.

The birth mother will get over it. Biology is over-rated. Love is what you get when you hang around with someone, not something that springs into existence out of nothing.


Now, because I'm pro-life and appreciate the opportunity to adopt doesn't mean I have to go through life goo-goo eyed and gaping at the recieved wisdom of our incredibly sappy modern culture.

Take home point: As in abortion, when a mother gives a baby up for adoption the inconvenience and projected effect on her lifestyle outwieghs maternal feelings.

 

[Elysium]

Who said the world should model itself after our kids? I'm just relating to you how we run our family. We are not perfect parents but I bet if more of the country took their responsibilties as parents as seriously as we do we'd have fewer of the social pathologies which afflict us, most of which are a direct result of the collapse of the traditional (Panda Bear style) family.

I presume you are a Yankee. In the South we go to great lengths to raise our children to be polite, starting with the obligatory "Yes Sir, No Ma'am" and proceeding from there to the usual customs of giving up a seat to a lady and holding doors. You know, the standard stuff that we have gotten away from.

But it is a work in progress and I'd never say my children have perfect manners.

As to intelligence, I guess because most of the people who I know are old school, fairly well-off, and send their kids to private school their kids are pretty sharp. We send our kids to a fairly decent public school and the three Rs are not neglected.

But why do you suppose that Guatemalen culture is any better when it comes to the behavior of children? It is an incredibly corrupt society and presumably the police who harrass and extort the citizens were once children. They also have a somewhat ingrained racism with the indian population (native-Guatemalans?) being regarded poorly by those of mixed or largley European blood. The crime rate is also pretty high so presumably somebody is doing a crappy job as parents.

Matter of fact, I'm a Texan and am still saying "Yes Sir" at age 33, living in Oregon (out of ingrained habit). I will teach my children to say "Yes/No Sir" because I think there is a distinct lack of manners in our society and I'm tired of kids acting like entitled punks. I truly don't understand who is raising the kids of today, but the majority of them are total dinguses. They have no respect for teachers, authority, clinicans, anyone. And not just "Youth Gone Wild" type of stuff. At age 15, they really think they're ready to have kids and live on their own and try to get on a reality show. It's nauesating.

I mean, god, I'm not that old, but even people 10 years younger seem like they were raised by a totally different generation. Hell, my parents are 60. Maybe that's part of it.

I'm not trying to bag on your family unit or anything, just that I don't think American culture is all that much to be proud of, I guess. I'm much more interested in my Italian heritage, even though I know that half was probably marginally involved in something sketchy. It's nice to know your ethnic identity, because no matter who raises you, it's part of your genetic code, part of who you are.

You're Greek Orthodox, right? (I have a weird memory for stuff like that). Greeks traditionally have a strong ethnic identity with distinct cuisine, religion, language, customs, etc. Your daughter will have those things, of course. But don't you think she'll be curious about her genetic heritage? What if you found out tomorrow you were adopted and your entire family was German? or Russian? or Dutch? Wouldn't you be slightly curious? Wouldn't you identify with it somewhat? I sure as hell would, but maybe I'm just being naive.

It just seems like in America there is so little culture left, that everything is such an amalgam (in a muddy pond sort of way) that people are either very, very ethnic (I'm black! I'm a jew! I'm gay! I'm mexican! I'm Chinese! I'm Japanese! I'm Puerto Rican! I'm Mandarin! I'm Mormon! I'm Christian! I'm Evangelical! I'm Atheist! BLAH BLAH BLAH shut the **** up) or so bland they have no identity at all. I always envied the people that knew their background, both born and adopted. Just playing devil's advocate for giving both your family and your daughter the chance to learn a little about her genetic background as well as raising her with your own culture.

Sorry for the long post - really not trying to start any sh1t with ya.

 

[8744]

...You're Greek Orthodox, right? (I have a weird memory for stuff like that). Greeks traditionally have a strong ethnic identity with distinct cuisine, religion, language, customs, etc. Your daughter will have those things, of course. But don't you think she'll be curious about her genetic heritage? What if you found out tomorrow you were adopted and your entire family was German? or Russian? or Dutch? Wouldn't you be slightly curious? Wouldn't you identify with it somewhat? I sure as hell would, but maybe I'm just being naive...

Well, our religion is Greek Orthodoxy but we're not very "ethnic." When I was on the parish council at our last church (yes, I am pillar of the community) I fought mightily to have the language of the liturgy changed from Byzantine Greek (which even Greeks don't speak) to English. There is no reason why the service can't be in English, you understand. The Bishop has no objections and it is the custom of the Orthodox church to adopt the language of the people. Naturally I met a lot of resistance from the old guard, that is, the dwindling group of very ethnic Greeks who have been here for a ridiculous number of years and still have not assimilated.

Greece basically sucks, anyways. I know it's the custom to speak nothing but badness about the United States and sing the praises of all other countries but that's the truth of it. Or rather, if you're going to judge American culture by certain criteria then it's only fair to judge other countries by the same criteria in which case Greece sucks in spades.

I disapprove mightily of the hyphenated-American. Diversity is over-rated. What we need is a little more conformity to a common set of ideals, not a collection of aggrieved ethnic groups huddling in their balkan-like enclaves.

I predict that my new daughter will have a certain morbid curiosity about her birth mother but will know that my wife is her real mother. She'll care as much for Guatemala as my other daughter cares for Greece which is not at all.

You ethnic heritage has nothing at all to do with who you are if you are not raised in it. When I was in Liberia, Africa during the Liberian civil war some of the black guys in my infantry company had an epiphany when they realized that, even though their slave ancestors probably came from that area, they had absolutely nothing in common with the Africans we encountered except for the color of their skin.

 

[Elysium]

Take home point: As in abortion, when a mother gives a baby up for adoption the inconvenience and projected effect on her lifestyle outwieghs maternal feelings.

With all due respect (and I mean that seriously), only a man could say that. I have never given birth, but I honestly cannot imagine that you could carry a child for nine months, give birth (one of the most primal experiences other than being born and dying), hold that child in your arms and completely devoid yourself of all attachment to it. Women don't work that way, unless they're sociopaths, maybe. Every woman who gets pregnant, no matter what the outcome, is invested in what happens (again, unless they are a sociopath or a drug addict or something) because it is directly happening to them. Hormones are so bizarre, so all encompasing, it's hard to explain (well, your wife has had three kids right? You remember what she was like when she was pregnant? Post partum?). To imagine fighting off the cascade of the endocrine system after your child is born, to pass them off to someone else, may seem to you like just ensuring that she can continue to enjoy her lifestyle, but to me seems like an enormous sacrifice. I have a tremendous amount of respect for the women that give their children up for adoption, a hell of a lot more than a 20 year old dragging around 2 kids by 2 different dads, like a badge of friggin' honor, talking about how her relationship with god doesn't allow her to have an abortion, but having sex at 14 checks out a-ok. Selective morality. What a pisser.
My point: how bout a little love for the moms that give up their kids for adoption? I would honestly find any woman that wanted zero contact with her child at all, in any way, a lunatic.

 

[trustwomen]

A woman who will give up her child doesn't really want the child, at least here in the United States. Not only is there no longer any stigma to being a single mother but the nanny-state will see that a young mother gets the whole gamut of state support to help her raise the child. Crying poverty is a poor excuse.

Take home point: As in abortion, when a mother gives a baby up for adoption the inconvenience and projected effect on her lifestyle outwieghs maternal feelings.

A nanny-state... the US? You're kidding, right? Do you seriously think that a single mom with no education and no family help will be able to survive just fine? Now, yes, in recent decades, there has been an elimination of (most) stigma associated with single motherhood (leading to families not abandoning their "sinful" daughters quite so often), and the creation of some helpful social programs, which is partly why so few women place for adoption these days - as you say, birthing women with the resources to keep the baby generally do so. But not all women can keep - so much still depends on their personal (not governmental) support systems!

Many women in the U.S. absolutely do give up their kids out of a feeling of necessity - due to extreme poverty, or the imminent prospect thereof - not because they don't want the child (or because of the "inconvenience"). That's why so many of them can't let go and change their minds at the last minute (or a few days or weeks later). That's why hospitals who deal regularly with birth mothers discourage the staff from allowing the mother to hold the newborn - once she does, the odds of her going through with the adoption drop drastically. If she were giving it up because of the "inconvenience" and really didn't want the child, seeing/holding/feeding it wouldn't change a damn thing.

So many people have and raise their kids in abject misery - I admire those who have the altruism to place for adoption, and I realize that it's a wrenching thing to do (I could never do it).

 

[trustwomen]

With all due respect (and I mean that seriously), only a man could say that. I have never given birth, but I honestly cannot imagine that you could carry a child for nine months, give birth (one of the most primal experiences other than being born and dying), hold that child in your arms and completely devoid yourself of all attachment to it. Women don't work that way, unless they're sociopaths, maybe. Every woman who gets pregnant, no matter what the outcome, is invested in what happens (again, unless they are a sociopath or a drug addict or something) because it is directly happening to them. Hormones are so bizarre, so all encompasing, it's hard to explain (well, your wife has had three kids right? You remember what she was like when she was pregnant? Post partum?). To imagine fighting off the cascade of the endocrine system after your child is born, to pass them off to someone else, may seem to you like just ensuring that she can continue to enjoy her lifestyle, but to me seems like an enormous sacrifice. I have a tremendous amount of respect for the women that give their children up for adoption, a hell of a lot more than a 20 year old dragging around 2 kids by 2 different dads, like a badge of friggin' honor, talking about how her relationship with god doesn't allow her to have an abortion, but having sex at 14 checks out a-ok. Selective morality. What a pisser.
My point: how bout a little love for the moms that give up their kids for adoption? I would honestly find any woman that wanted zero contact with her child at all, in any way, a lunatic.

Hear, hear.

I have worked with female drug addicts and sociopaths for a few years now, and as a whole they want their babies just as much as anyone else (maybe not for the right reasons, but they sure want them) - but they also know that child services will take the baby anyhow, so they plan for adoption in order to gain an (illusory) sense of control in the matter. Often they can't go through with it, bring the baby home, only to have it taken away shortly thereafter during their next binge or abusive situation. (I've only known one who's actually changed her lifestyle for her kid and was able to keep custody, out of about 20 girls who "tried").

 

[8744]

Hear, hear.

I have worked with female drug addicts and sociopaths for a few years now, and as a whole they want their babies just as much as anyone else (maybe not for the right reasons, but they sure want them) - but they also know that child services will take the baby anyhow, so they plan for adoption in order to gain an (illusory) sense of control in the matter. Often they can't go through with it, bring the baby home, only to have it taken away shortly thereafter during their next binge or abusive situation. (I've only known one who's actually changed her lifestyle for her kid and was able to keep custody, out of about 20 girls who "tried").

I repeat, the desire to be rid of the baby, either through abortion or adoption outwieghs maternal feelings keep the baby. If it didn't then the mother would keep the baby. Additionally the maternal bond is not universal otherwise babies would not be abused and neglected as they are. In the case of the above mentioned sociopaths, the desire to continue smoking crack far outstrips the rudimentary desire to take care of the baby, much less keep it.

This is a case of talk being cheap. Every parent talks a good game, heck, many of the parents of horrifically abused children I have seen swear they are good parents or something to the effect that their heart is in the right place but the fact is that despite talk to the contrary, many parents behave as if they don't want their kids.

As to social programs, it is true that the welfare roles have been cut considerably in the last fifteen years but young, poor, single mothers are still entitled to food-stamps, WIC, Section-8 housing assistance, medicaid for thier children, as well as direct "traditional" cash payments. Additionally, in many states they are entitled to free child care if they are attending school or working. Surely not enough assistance to live the high life but a far cry from the abject poverty which drives a poor indian woman in Guatemala to give up her baby.

What more does a baby need than food, shelter, clothing, and love? It takes niether a village nor a lot of money to be a good parent. To say that the poor can't raise their kids is insulting, patronizing, and somewhat racist.

 

[NonTradMed]

I've been thinking about becoming a doctor, very seriously. My main problem is that for me, family is very important. I think that having a husband to help me is great, but I really do want my children to know me and see me. And I'm not crazy about the idea of starting a family at 32.
I've been thinking about adopting while in medical school so that I don't have to feel with all the physical symptoms of pregnancy, while still having a child. Do any you have any information/perspectives about this plan?

What's wrong with starting a family at 32? I had a friend who mentioned she wanted to have kids by her late 20's so she'd 'enjoy' them before she was too old to do so. However, I don't think 32 is too too old to do this (you'd be 50 by the time the oldest is out of the house, not a bad age to start empty nesting 😎 ).

My two cents on the whole cross cultural adoption thing:

From what I understand with white families adopting Chinese babies (I'm chinese, so I do get some of them coming up to me), it's far harder to do what Panda Bear suggests of "assimilating" into the family, simply because their kids do not look anywhere close to what the parents look like.

It's not just political correctness that has some of these parents getting their kids chinese lessons etc, it's also the fact that they don't want their kids to feel disoriented because they WILL grow up with society telling them that they are not white, but asian. It's not anything earth shattering, and most kids will turn out fine, however, it's an issue of identity that families which adopt kids within the same race do not seem to experience as severely.

And besides, why wouldn't anyone want to give their kids the chance to learn a second language or another culture? I have been on the receiving end of ignorant coworkers who never recieved such an education and ask me stupid questions like how I feel about being a disappointment to my parents since I was Chinese and obviously all Chinese people want to drown their daughters babies. Yeah, thank god none of that diversity spread to where I lived. 🙄

(I no longer dignify the eating dog question. I'm still waiting for the eating fetus question though, since evidently, one of the Congressman in my state stated that Chinese people eat human fetuses since we have such "disrespect for human life". 😕 )


But anyway, while I believe that some families of Chinese babies go overboard with their Chinese adoptions (giving them chinese names is, IMO, not good, because half the time, people won't know how to pronounce it, not practical!), I think most are earnst in wanting to learn their adopted child's culture as a way to also bond with their babies.

I had relatives in China that I never met, but after I visited there, I became very interested in China and Chinese culture. It's hard to explain, but since I did not grow up with my relatives, and hardly ever knew them, to all of a sudden, meet people who shared the same genetic blood as me such an bonding experience, and it stayed with me for years after. For an adoptee, especially one who may not look racially like their parents, I think the affect may magnify as they grow up.

 

[MossPoh]

It was relatively easy to adopt from Guatemala which is the appeal. It cost about $40,000.

Wow...My sister should've adopted from Guatemala! While that is still pretty damn expensive it seems like a deal compared to Russia.

To the OP...it really is your choice but 32 isn't that horrible and no matter what happens you will be busy with a child. I guess since my sister adopted their first child at 35 after years of trying, and my brother had his first child at 40, and because my mom was in her 40s with me I have a hard time understanding why you couldn't wait. I do understand why you want a child younger but I feel sometimes women feel overly rushed to have children at a younger age. While I cited the older people in my fam with kids, my other sisters both had at least 3 kids (3 and 5) before they were 30.

I am a big fan of adoption and have seen almost nothing but positive results from it whether the child is russian, chinese, guatemalan, african or whatever other region you can think of... I have a good friend that was adopted from china and she (since it is always the girls that get dumped off) is perfectly happy with her white parents. Her parents made an attempt to at least make her aware of her culture but overall nothing has prevented her from feeling like a normal child. Looking different doesn't make her parents love her any less.....she never caught any crap from people at school either. Good luck with whatever you decide and I'm sure you'll be a fine mother whether it is in your 20s, 30s, or 40s.

Panda..It is nice to see we somewhat agree on something. Which is probably more than it seems. 😛

 

[trustwomen]

I repeat, the desire to be rid of the baby, either through abortion or adoption outwieghs maternal feelings keep the baby. If it didn't then the mother would keep the baby. Additionally the maternal bond is not universal otherwise babies would not be abused and neglected as they are. In the case of the above mentioned sociopaths, the desire to continue smoking crack far outstrips the rudimentary desire to take care of the baby, much less keep it.

This is a case of talk being cheap. Every parent talks a good game, heck, many of the parents of horrifically abused children I have seen swear they are good parents or something to the effect that their heart is in the right place but the fact is that despite talk to the contrary, many parents behave as if they don't want their kids.

As to social programs, it is true that the welfare roles have been cut considerably in the last fifteen years but young, poor, single mothers are still entitled to food-stamps, WIC, Section-8 housing assistance, medicaid for thier children, as well as direct "traditional" cash payments. Additionally, in many states they are entitled to free child care if they are attending school or working. Surely not enough assistance to live the high life but a far cry from the abject poverty which drives a poor indian woman in Guatemala to give up her baby.

What more does a baby need than food, shelter, clothing, and love? It takes niether a village nor a lot of money to be a good parent. To say that the poor can't raise their kids is insulting, patronizing, and somewhat racist.

No, it ISN'T "the desire to be rid of the baby", it really is wanting your baby to have a better life in many cases - i.e. altruistic love. Those who want to "be rid of" the baby generally have abortions before it's too late. If women carry to term, it's usually because they do want their babies. If they give the babies up, it's out of a feeling of necessity - "I can't offer this baby even a halfway-decent life, god I wish I could", and it is wrenching. More often, the reason those babies wind up adoptable is because the court took away her parental rights (i.e. she tried but failed). Trying and failing does NOT mean that she wants to "be rid of" the baby, or that she doesn't "really" want the baby.

Abusive parents (the mothers, especially) usually DO feel a strong bond towards their children - they just feel other emotions too (rage, frustration, etc.), that they don't know how to control. It's not an "either-or" situation, people are more complex than that. If they didn't feel the bond at all, why would they resist having their children taken away?

In no way do I think that poor people can't raise children, and I said or implied nothing of the kind. However, it does take support - some financial, but also personal, the kind you get from friends and family. There absolutely are areas of the US where raising a baby on public assistance (or minimum wage) - absent a solid interpersonal network - is a truly hellish life, one that grinds down even the strongest; and those who grow up in those environments have to overcome incredible odds to have a decent future. I don't blame women who feel that their children deserve better than that. I don't believe that they don't love or want their babies.

I think it's both ignorant AND patronizing to tell women that they'll be "just fine, with a little elbow grease" and that giving up their babies is somehow a sign of weakness, laziness, or lack of maternal love.

 

[Psycho Doctor]

But are people adopting white infants from these countries? If not, why not adopt non-white infants right here in the US? They're in plentiful supply.

To the OP, sorry to threadjack you. . .in answer to your question, adopting a child won't make things any easier. Pregnancy while in med school is eminently do-able, as is having a child. Sure, it's not the easiest thing to do, but it can definitely be done. People make it work. There will never be a "perfect time" to do it. Personally, I'd like to start my family when I'm in my very early '30s, but if you want to do it earlier, by all means do! There are a lot of parents in my class, and they're doing just fine (though my classmate who had a baby last spring is taking a year off. . .but hey, that's fine too!).

Basically what I'm trying to say is that adoption will be just as difficult (and rewarding!) as having your own. If the only reason you want to adopt is to avoid pregnancy, that might not be the right reason. If the reason is more that you know there are so many children out there who need someone to love them, and you want to be that someone, by all means do. 🙂

yes many people adopt white infants from foreign countries....older ones too./

 

[Psycho Doctor]

Perhaps my answer is offensive, but I think you need to decide which is more important-family or medicine.
Is it really fair to your child to be brought into this? For at least 8 years (which is a long, long time to a child), you will be extremely busy.
When I decided on this marathon, I chose medicine. If I want a family, after residency I'll consider it. By then, I'll be old enough that adoption will probably be the better route rather than trying to be pregnant at 39 or 40.
No way would I bring a child into this race on purpose. I know what it's like to have a parent who is almost never there. It sucks. My mother died unexpectantly when I was eleven and I never got to know her. I went a long time feeling like an orphan since my dad and I are so different.

people can be mothers and fathers and still be med students; they are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Dr. McDreamy]

I've been thinking about becoming a doctor, very seriously. My main problem is that for me, family is very important. I think that having a husband to help me is great, but I really do want my children to know me and see me. And I'm not crazy about the idea of starting a family at 32.
I've been thinking about adopting while in medical school so that I don't have to feel with all the physical symptoms of pregnancy, while still having a child. Do any you have any information/perspectives about this plan?

since when is 32 so old to start a family?

if you had a kid now, you wouldn't have time for it in medical school and if you have a kid at 32 you'll be too old? it doesn't seem like either time is good (in your eyes).

personally, if decide to reproduce some day it won't be till i'm at least 35.

anyway, i can't imagine anything worse than having a baby/adopting anytime in the next 10 years (i'm 24). how miserable.

 

[crazy_cavalier]

since when is 32 so old to start a family?

if you had a kid now, you wouldn't have time for it in medical school and if you have a kid at 32 you'll be too old? it doesn't seem like either time is good (in your eyes).

personally, if decide to reproduce some day it won't be till i'm at least 35.

anyway, i can't imagine anything worse than having a baby/adopting anytime in the next 10 years (i'm 24). how miserable.

Damn straight. Although, I think I'll strive for 30. You know 35 qualifies a mother as having "advanced maternal age"...

 

[Dr. McDreamy]

Damn straight. Although, I think I'll strive for 30. You know 35 qualifies a mother as having "advanced maternal age"...

i think i'll freeze my eggs at 30. that way i can wait till i'm 65 to have the alien claw it's way from my loins. and if not i can sell them for big money.

actually i think babies are pretty gross. i don't get what all the fuss is about.

 

[crazy_cavalier]

i think i'll freeze my eggs at 30. that way i can wait till i'm 65 to have the alien claw it's way from my loins. and if not i can sell them for big money.

actually i think babies are pretty gross. i don't get what all the fuss is about.

Oh, but they're so cute and cuddly, and your life as a human being really is incomplete unless you have one (or at least raise one via adoption). Don't even argue, you know it's true.

I think the grossest part is the placenta. Oh man those things are nasty-looking.

 

[Dr. McDreamy]

Oh, but they're so cute and cuddly, and your life as a human being really is incomplete unless you have one (or at least raise one via adoption). Don't even argue, you know it's true.

I think the grossest part is the placenta. Oh man those things are nasty-looking.

gosh i always thought the grossest part was ****ting all over yourself as 10 strangers look on and occasionally stick their arms into your snatch "just to see how you're coming along".

but yeah, placenta sounds gross. better to adopt and let someone else go through all that for you.

oops, are we derailing this thread? i'm sorry. i'll shut up now.

 

[squacken22]

Hi Everyone,

I was about to start a thread on this, but a search came up with this older one. I thought I would resurrect it for background.

After reading it, I'm still curious when people think it would be best time to adopt while in Med School. My husband is in his first year of Med School and I work part-time.

Thanks for your advice!

 

[PeepshowJohnny]

I have no idea how long the adoption process takes or what is involved, but I'm assuming you're going to want a time where you can be flexible with schedule.

The first two years of medical school are generally a good time because your husband will be keeping the semblance of a "daily" schedule. 8-5 or whatever. Sure, around exam time it can get dicey but it's not too bad. However, try not to load too much onto the end of second year, especially that summer, because he'll be taking Step 1 then, a huge exam which can have big implications on what specialties he could apply to.

Third year is the absolute worst. Huge time commitments, almost uncontrollable schedule, and the evaluations you get this year are very important for residency application.

Fourth year is good, very flexible schedule, but he's going to be going on interviews/away rotations at that time so that's A) An added expense and B) Time he's going to be away. So keep that in mind.

 

[Mr hawkings]

I have no idea how long the adoption process takes or what is involved, but I'm assuming you're going to want a time where you can be flexible with schedule.

The first two years of medical school are generally a good time because your husband will be keeping the semblance of a "daily" schedule. 8-5 or whatever. Sure, around exam time it can get dicey but it's not too bad. However, try not to load too much onto the end of second year, especially that summer, because he'll be taking Step 1 then, a huge exam which can have big implications on what specialties he could apply to.

Third year is the absolute worst. Huge time commitments, almost uncontrollable schedule, and the evaluations you get this year are very important for residency application.

Fourth year is good, very flexible schedule, but he's going to be going on interviews/away rotations at that time so that's A) An added expense and B) Time he's going to be away. So keep that in mind.

Agreed 100%.

on a personal note, my wife had our son in her second year of residency and that was pretty rough. I put off starting med school for a year so that he will be a toddler when i start and not a baby (easier and cheaper for day care).