[MamaS]

My cw said the reason there was a higher demand for girls than boys when adopting internationally was that men did not want their "family name" bestowed on a child of a different race or color. It did not matter with girls, because they would be getting married and taking someone else's name. I guess some things never change.

[SupaModel]

Sorry but i'm judging on this one. I also feel it's very unfair to the child and kinda shelfish.

[slugbug0930]

Wow....how in the world are they going to keep up with 2 newborns? I can barely keep up with one little baby and I am only 30. I can't imagine taking on that at 70.

I just think about my husband's grandparents and try to picture them having babies right now?? Weird They can't even manage to watch my baby with out help so I know they couldn't handle twins of their own.

[aclee]

Originally Posted by MamaS

My cw said the reason there was a higher demand for girls than boys when adopting internationally was that men did not want their "family name" bestowed on a child of a different race or color. It did not matter with girls, because they would be getting married and taking someone else's name. I guess some things never change.

This happens more than just internationally. Right here in the US the demand for AA girls far outweighs the demand for boys for this same reason. I almost vomited. I think people also think the criticism around AA boys is stronger than around AA girls. One agency went so far as to say that families that do not specifiy race or gender 'almost always' end up with an AA baby boy.

[Casey677]

I don't get some people I really truly don't. What is the huge deal about carrying on a name? My dh has an older brother who probably won't have children, so a lot of pressure was put on us "to carry on the family name". (and just as an aside, it is a very uncommon name, that is just horrid. No one can pronounce it, no one can spell it). They didn't really say much while we were adopting, so we didn't really know or understand just how nuts his parents were until I was pregnant. They lit candles and prayed every day I would have a boy. Just before we left for the "big" ultrasound, we were told "If at first you don't succeed.....". So what does that mean? Am I a failure for being a girl? Are my first two daughters not good enough for being both girls and *gasp* adopted? I laughed my butt off when she wouldn't cooperate and kept her legs closed the whole time. When we found out two weeks later that we were in fact having another girl, they were upset. When my dh told his mom that he had a vasectomy she cried. I don't have a clue how many children they would have wanted us to have until we eventually had a boy, but we are thrilled with our three girls!

[Casey677]

Originally Posted by aclee

One agency went so far as to say that families that do not specifiy race or gender 'almost always' end up with an AA baby boy.

We didn't specify and ended up with two girls... you just never know! We knew the sex with our first when we were matched, but our second was unknown gender. It would have been nice to have a boy.... but having three sisters is absolutely amazing!

[mumofone]

All, I can say is WOW!!!!

I know a foster mom/dad who have two babes, one being 4 months, and the other is 15 months. They are in their late 60's, and they truly amaze me. They have as much energy as we do. lol They have actually considered adopting the 15 month old. Should something happen to them, their son and DIL would have taken on the responsibility of raising her. They have since decided not to adopt her because of their age and felt it wouldn't be fair to the little one.

It isn't something I would want at 70, but I know of many who are raising their grandchildren at that age and doing wonderfully.

[Linny]

Ahhh, Josie (previous post) you took the thoughts right out of my head this morning! LOL
Personally, I'm saddened they felt they had to have an heir; but I don't understand IVF treatments at all anyway............so there's a difference of view right there.
It's true no one seems to have any difficulty with older 'stars' having babies. In fact, it's seen as somewhat WONDERFUL, isn't it?

And, as far as 'what's old'? We didn't have (adopt) our first baby until dh and I were a 'whopping' 23yrs old. Our second baby came at the OLD age of 25yrs! And I tell ya, that was back in '80 and '82....and EVERYONE thought 23 and 25 WERE REALLY OLD AGES to be adopting! So, that just goes to show you how views of 'being older' have changed over the years, believe me!

I KNOW my grandparents of 70 could have handled babies; and we have friends in their mid 60's who've just adopted a sib group...the youngest being only around 18months now (the baby came as a newborn). They're young at heart, keep up with the best of 'em'.
It's a frame of mind; and it really depends on how long you've been parenting, I think. Had we stopped at the first two, and started babies again in our mid-forties (as we did), I think parenting would have taken on a completely different viewpoint. But, we were already parenting little ones from foster care, so that made a difference.

At lot also has to do with 'how you consider raising children'? Some people see it as a phase of 'you do this, then you do that, and then you look toward retirement, etc.'

Others see it as a constant thing.........believeing that raising children is their niche in life and doing it as long as they can. '' Full Retirement' as a lot of folks view it, is often a four letter word to them; and they can't imagine their lives w/o having children running around.

As for dh and I....we couldnt' care less if there're ever grandbabies. That's for our kids to decide...not us. And, in terms of an heir.......who gives a flying flip! LOL

Sincerely,

Linny

[mg1970]

One thing that no one has mentioned here is -- there is no way that she was able to do this with her own eggs. Not that there is anything wrong egg donation.

I can totally see their children having to raise this child so they will have "someone" to manage their estate. I don't get it, but then I guess that was how it used to be everywhere.

All I am wondering is, why did it take them to age 70 to realize that this was a problem? Couldn't they have done something about this 20 years ago?

And also, don't they have some grandsons? Why wouldn't that be a solution?

M