College Choices and Marriage

[JoCa]

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

Do you find adoption inferior to having biological children? 

If one has the ability to have biological children one should do so-but adopted will never be biological that is a fact of nature-period.  Adoption, i.e. non-biological children is a sub-optimal solution.  It is a great solution to allow individuals who can't have children or who want more children to do so. But biology, is biology-the child will never be flesh and blood.  It can be raised as if flesh and blood, but will never be flesh and blood.

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, JoCa said:

If one has the ability to have biological children one should do so-but adopted will never be biological that is a fact of nature-period.  Adoption, i.e. non-biological children is a sub-optimal solution.  It is a great solution to allow individuals who can't have children or who want more children to do so. But biology, is biology-the child will never be flesh and blood.  It can be raised as if flesh and blood, but will never be flesh and blood.

You are right, adopted kids (like myself) have a special bond and in some ways, a deeper bond with their parents than biological children do. 

[BeccaKirstyn]

Why does he want to go to BYUi? Or similar schools? 

[JoCa]

1 minute ago, felicityswims said:

I think he does, based on the way he's speaking. And I think that's despicable. 

Family and children don't need DNA. Love has nothing to do with DNA, and if you think families are any less because they don't share the same blood, you need to rethink your life. I was adopted by my grandparents and they are a million times more my parents than my biological parents are.

Actually that is not true-studies exist that show the optimal solution is for children to be raised by their biological parents.  In a fallen world this is not always possible-but it is the optimal solution.

[BeccaKirstyn]

Just now, JoCa said:

Actually that is not true-studies exist that show the optimal solution is for children to be raised by their biological parents.  In a fallen world this is not always possible-but it is the optimal solution.

And yet, we live in a fallen world! How about that. 

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, felicityswims said:

I think he does, based on the way he's speaking. And I think that's despicable. 

Sounds like it to me too. As an adopted kid (like I mentioned in the previous post) I can tell you that the only people I've met in my life to actually have a problem with it have been religious people. They are the only ones who have commented on it or thought negatively about me/my parents. 

Thankfully, it's 1% of religious people who have a problem with it, so their opinion is totally useless and not to be taken seriously. 

[JoCa]

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

You are right, adopted kids (like myself) have a special bond and in some ways, a deeper bond with their parents than biological children do. 

If that were true than facts would be that every child should be adopted.  This is plainly false.  Adoption is a great solution to a fallen world problem.  I do not dispute this; but the idea that in general adoption is as good or better than biological children is false.

[JoCa]

2 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Sounds like it to me too. As an adopted kid (like I mentioned in the previous post).

No, it's just that some people have a chip on their shoulder b/c they are "special".

Look, adoption is great, wonderful-where have I said it isn't?

It can not, and does not replace a mother who carries the child for 9 months in her womb, of a father that sees the mother go through the changes and then to witness the birth of that child.  

There are plenty of studies that show that a child knows the mothers voice upon birth . . .b/c the child hears it in the womb.

Edited October 1, 2017 by JoCa

[felicityswims]

1 minute ago, JoCa said:

Actually that is not true-studies exist that show the optimal solution is for children to be raised by their biological parents.  In a fallen world this is not always possible-but it is the optimal solution.

So I should have been raised by my alcoholic, drug-addicted, bi-polar, schizophrenic mother and no father rather than my loving and caring grandparents? Sure, makes sense to me. 

1 minute ago, BeccaKirstyn said:

And yet, we live in a fallen world! How about that. 

Exactly! In our world, biology isn't the best, regardless of what "scientific studies" say.

[BeccaKirstyn]

I can't tell if we're being trolled or if this is a serious conversation right now. I'm in awe. 

[JoCa]

1 minute ago, felicityswims said:

So I should have been raised by my alcoholic, drug-addicted, bi-polar, schizophrenic mother and no father rather than my loving and caring grandparents? Sure, makes sense to me. 

Exactly! In our world, biology isn't the best, regardless of what "scientific studies" say.

You are obviously only hearing what you want to hear.

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, BeccaKirstyn said:

I can't tell if we're being trolled or if this is a serious conversation right now. I'm in awe. 

Take great comfort in the fact that the opinions shared are in the significant minority.

[felicityswims]

3 minutes ago, JoCa said:

No, it's just that some people have a chip on their shoulder b/c they are "special".

Look, adoption is great, wonderful-where have I said it isn't?

It can not, and does not replace a mother who carries the child for 9 months in her womb, of a father that sees the mother go through the changes and then to witness the birth of that child.  

There are plenty of studies that show that a child knows the mothers voice upon birth . . .b/c the child hears it in the womb.

Actually, studies show adoption can and does replace a mother who carried the child. It's been proven that some women never bond with their child, that some women never make the connection while they are pregnant or after.

And by your logic, that would make the surrogate mother in such cases the real mother, because it was the voice the child heard in the womb. And that contradicts your "blood is best" belief, because the surrogate wouldn't be blood-related to the child--she would just be carrying the egg.

[The Folk Prophet]

10 minutes ago, JoCa said:

[Adoption] can not, and does not replace a mother who carries the child for 9 months in her womb, of a father that sees the mother go through the changes and then to witness the birth of that child.  

Total rubbish. 

[JoCa]

Just now, felicityswims said:

Actually, studies show adoption can and does replace a mother who carried the child. It's been proven that some women never bond with their child, that some women never make the connection while they are pregnant or after.

And by your logic, that would make the surrogate mother in such cases the real mother, because it was the voice the child heard in the womb. And that contradicts your "blood is best" belief, because the surrogate wouldn't be blood-related to the child--she would just be carrying the egg.

Yes some women never do; and yes adoption is necessary.  I really don't get what you are trying to argue.  I've never said adoption is bad, never said it isn't a good thing.  I've only said that adoption is not equal to having your own children.  

I'm not sure here, I don't follow . . . did we just switch to donor eggs or something?

Come back and talk to me when you have a biological child and then when you don't.  It's different. It just is.  When you see the baby being born and notice "oh he has your father's eyes" or oh he/she does this or does that and that is exactly like so and so.  You don't have those moments with adoption.

Babies need their biological mothers and fathers, in some cases, due to circumstances adoption is necessary and a great thing- but the better thing would be if they didn't need to be adopted in the first place!  That is my point.

[JoCa]

2 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Total rubbish. 

Have your done both . . .adopted and had a child.  Come back to me when you have.

[anatess2]

2 minutes ago, felicityswims said:

He has looked into online courses, but he's not too into them. I can't say I blame him, online isn't for everyone, you know? And thank you for saying you "applaud my ambition". I appreciate it, as it seems SOME PEOPLE think that a woman wanting a career is something to be ashamed of. 

That's not what they're saying.  This is what they are saying:

I am what people would call a "career woman".  I pursued a Master's degree and have a great job.  But I am under no illusion that it is my primary responsibility or my equal responsibility to provide for my family.  That's not my job.  That's my husband's job.  My job is to manage the household and rear the children.  So, even as I make pretty good money doing what I do, it comes second only to my primary responsibilities as a wife and mother so that when I gave birth to my children, I stayed home and took care of them while my husband brought home the bacon.

But, that said, I don't like to cook, I don't like to clean the house, I don't like to iron clothes... I'd rather go do what I'm super good at - designing systems.  So, I got myself a contract job with super flexible hours that I can do at home.  I go make money designing systems while somebody else is cleaning the house, ironing the clothes, cooking the food that I pay for with my earnings.   I can spend my time and energy focused on nurturing the children and being a help meet to my husband.

As you can see, my husband doesn't expect me to bring home any part of the bacon and I don't expect my husband to manage the household.  Of course, as part of managing the household, I can assign him specific tasks like taking out the trash or washing the car, or mopping the kitchen floor, etc., but that's not his primary responsibility.  He was simply helping me.  And at the same time, when he got laid off from his job, I took on more hours at my job while he took care of the children to keep our family afloat, but that's not my primary responsibility.  I was simply helping him.

Thats what "SOME PEOPLE" were trying to tell you.  Your idea of the bacon being your responsibility too is not a good one.  Males have specific strengths different from females and the traditional roles of the man being entrusted with the bacon and the woman being entrusted with the household is the ideal situation that magnifies those strengths in tandem for a successful home.  Going into a marriage telling a man he is not solely responsible for the bacon is making the man weak.  Of course, this doesn't mean you shouldn't pursue a career.  Of course you should!  But you should be going into that career knowing exactly what your responsibilities are.  This understanding will help you, not only in deciding whether you should move or he should move, more importantly, it will help you decide whether you and your boyfriend are ready for marriage.

Hope this helps.

[Guest]

28 minutes ago, felicityswims said:

He has looked into online courses, but he's not too into them. I can't say I blame him, online isn't for everyone, you know? And thank you for saying you "applaud my ambition". I appreciate it, as it seems SOME PEOPLE think that a woman wanting a career is something to be ashamed of. 

I applaud your ambition as well.

If you are going the mother/lawyer route, I would definitely pray about it and take it to the temple.  One of the best families I know has a mother who is a lawyer (and a very good one at that), and all of the kids turned out just fine. 

On the other hand, I do think it is possible a working mother situation would not be advisable for other families, based on numerous factors including child temperament, husband's career path, etc.  

Only one person knows the answers for what is absolutely best for your family, and that is Heavenly Father.

So I would definitely consult with the Lord about this stuff and see what is best for your family and marriage.

Anyhow, unsolicited advice from DoctorLemon (who is a lawyer himself).

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, DoctorLemon said:

(who is a lawyer himself).

And to think, I used to have respect for you. 

(kidding! I always knew you were a lawyer and I will always have great respect for you! Nothing but love!) 

[Guest MormonGator]

4 minutes ago, JoCa said:

Have your done both . . .adopted and had a child.  Come back to me when you have.

You've done both-does your adopted child know you how feel? I feel sorry for them if they do. 

[JoCa]

2 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:

Only one person knows the answers for what is absolutely best for your family, and that is Heavenly Father.

So I would definitely consult with the Lord about this stuff and see what is best for your family and marriage.

And some things he's already told us in either The Proclamation on the Family or Scriptures on what's best . . . but everybody wants to be an "exception".

[JoCa]

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

You've done both-does your adopted child know you how feel? I feel sorry for them if they do. 

How condescending of you MG.  I expect better of you.

You want to deny reality.  Men are different than women, adopted is different than biological.  It is just different.

Edited October 1, 2017 by JoCa

[felicityswims]

2 minutes ago, JoCa said:

Have your done both . . .adopted and had a child.  Come back to me when you have.

My grandparents have four biological children and me. They don't see a difference. Because there IS NO DIFFERENCE. 

My aunt has one biological and one adopted. She doesn't see a difference. Because there IS NO DIFFERENCE.

Even your wording is problematic: "adopted and had a child." Adopting IS having a child, just through a different way. You thinking that adoption is second-best is disgusting.

2 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:

I applaud your ambition as well.

If you are going the mother/lawyer route, I would definitely pray about it and take it to the temple.  One of the best families I know has a mother who is a lawyer (and a very good one at that), and all of the kids turned out just fine. 

On the other hand, I do think it is possible a working mother situation would not be advisable for other families, based on numerous factors including child temperament, husband's career path, etc.  

Only one person knows the answers for what is absolutely best for your family, and that is Heavenly Father.

So I would definitely consult with the Lord about this stuff and see what is best for your family and marriage.

Anyhow, unsolicited advice from DoctorLemon (who is a lawyer himself).

Thank you very much, Doctor(Lawyer)Lemon! Your advice is much appreciated. 

[JoCa]

3 minutes ago, felicityswims said:

You thinking that adoption is second-best is disgusting.

 

???

Excuse me . . . .look if things worked properly, there wouldn't be adoption-FACT.  Deal with it. Otherwise what you would be arguing for is for a baby-selling mechanism and I can't possibly believe you would argue for that?

The only reason adoption occurs is because either somebody or something got screwed up.  Either parents died, couldn't provide for the child, etc.  Therefore it is a logical conclusion, that adoption is a great solution to a problem that ideally didn't happen!!  

Edited October 1, 2017 by JoCa

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, JoCa said:

How condescending of you MG.  I expect better of you.

I expect everyone to think better of adoption/adoptees, so we've both been disappointed tonight.