Is infertility part of Darwins *natural selection*? If so is adoption the solution?

Freckle Face

Dear Blue Jay,

Just leaving for vacation but a biology question. Yippee.

I actually can go along with you with the "natural selection" part as a wildlife ecologist.

On the adoption part though, there are countless examples of adoptions between both interspecies and intraspecies in the animal kingdom.

Sorry i would love a deeper conversation but our plane isn't going to wait for me, sadly:)

Great question.

Flying Monkey #073177

What the H-E-double hockey sticks does Darwin have to do with God???

No, really...

Darwin = Evolution
God = Creationism

Even I know the two have nothing to do with one another and I'm a dance-naked-in-a-circle-pagan.

Your question appears to be saying that natural selection and intelligent design are one and the same. What a cluster eff.

Not to mention the fact that if infertility is natural selection how does that have anything to do with adoption? So they shouldn't breed in your opinion, breeding and parenting are different things. Mothers and fathers should parent what they spawn but that isn't always possible. Are you implying that infertile people aren't going to be decent parents? That is as stoopid sounding as every person who comes on here calling first moms crack wh*res and abusers.

Philippa

No and no.

People who are infertile are either born that way or there is a reason.

I am a Christian and I still don't understand where it says in the bible that it's in God's plan for adoption to happen. In fact I find it very hurtful when that line is used and unfortunately it's usually used by pro adoption people who don't have a clue how adoption affects natural parents or adoptees.

I was coerced into my son being adopted when I was 19. What was my crime? I was singled, educated and had a good,secure civil job, I didn't smoke or drink alcohol and would have made every effort to be a good mother. It wasn't God's plan that my son was adopted, it was my parents and the adoption agency. My parents didn't want the shame of a single daughter raising her child and when my son in 1981 it was getting increasingly harder to adopt newborns as single mothers were getting the support they needed. My son had a positive adoption experience yet he is more inclined towards anti adoption as he was removed from me for no other reason than the choice of other people.

My husband is infertile and is likely he always was going on medical evidence, I can still have children so where is the logic in that. Fertility and adoption due to infertility have nothing to do with a parent being a good or bad one, it's down to human nature.

However I'm not against adoption completely as children shouldn't be raised by abusive parents.

sizesmith

Absolutely not.
The doctor who operated on the wrong side of me, and took the wrong ovary was supposed to be a genius, and he has 5 kids.

I have a very high IQ, a good sense of direction, and common sense in many things, and have had one child, so I know that perhaps I was supposed to. Thank God for adoption, and the special boy I'm raising, and his birth mother, who had him. BTW-her IQ was 165-very high.

And, I know some absolute wastes of energy on this earth, who with their drug using, their drunkeness, their beating of others, including children, and their laziness, and somehow, these seem to be some pretty fertile idiots. If that was Darwin's "natural selection", then Darwin had a screw loose.

SJM

I'm not sure where I fit into this question exactly. I was adopted by a couple who were infertile. I have three children of my own, but I was infertile for 18 years. I gave birth to two boys, and then I was unable to have more children. It was actually an environmental thing. When it began to effect my health in ways beyond infertility, I changed my lifestyle. I do not eat processed food. I use all natural products. I began to do infrared saunas, and I gave birth again. Infertility can be a little more tricky than just 'bad genes'. Our environment is filthy.

In any case, although I did intend to have a daughter, I did not consider adopting. I was content with what nature had provided.

Randy B

From my understanding you are not only comparing apples to oranges but you are also throwing in pears as well.

Which do you want to talk about? Darwin's theory, "intelligent design" or God's plans? And what about those that are infertile for other reasons such as injury or disease?

If you are talking Darwin, then adoption has nothing to do with it. We who are unable to have children ad potentially pass on our "bad genes" (my term, not Darwin's) are not doing that and we are only raising children born by others therefore no implications from good ol Darwin's school of thought.

If you are talking God's plan in as much as it may be God's plan for us not to give birth to children the thats what it is. We have not given birth, we are only caring for our fellow Man which, after all, is one of the things that it's all about.

If you are talking "intelligent design" then I'd argue that a combination of Darwin and God's plan applies. We are not only not passing on "bad genes" but we are caring for our fellow Man so again, it's a win/win.

â™¥â™¥Mum To Superkidsâ™¥â™¥

I don't think there's necessarily a right or wrong answer to this, it really comes down to your personal opinions and value system.
I don't necessarily think infertility=weeding out bad parents. I've known a couple of people with fertility issues and they've made good parents. I also have a cousin who was unable to conceive with his wife, and they had IVF which has produced 2 children. Sadly they are horrible parents and are the kind of people that I will not let my children be around.
Besides, I believe the theory of natural selection refers to the 'quality of adaptability to a given environment', or a 'survival of the fittest' ideal. I don't think it refers to moral or socio-cultural factors.

On the other hand I am perfectly fertile and able to have biological children but I choose to foster and take permanent guardianship of children who need homes and parents. I've always wanted to parent, but don't feel any need to have a child from my body.

I've known a couple who have been wonderful foster parents to many children over the years, they decided to foster after determining they were unable to conceive. They were dedicated and loving foster parents and it would have been a terrible shame for the children in their care to have been denied a caring foster family if they had been forced to "go with the flow" of infertility.

Serenity71

Well, you could say that IF what you're saying is true then those people had another destiny and that was to be available for children who need homes. If everyone was fertile then we'd have one over populated planet, more children in need of homes (because face it, there are kids that have abusive parents or neglect at times or other reasons for not being raised by biological families.) And then there would be no one available to care for those kids because they're way too busy with their own kids.

If I was one meant to raise a child that wasn't of my own body then I feel honoured. Not everyone gets that kind of privilege from a higher source of power.

As for Darwin's theory, he has some good ideas- but what your really saying is that the more infertile we become, the more likely we are to be extinct sooner than later. (And nature does allow for adults to look after young that aren't born to them. How else would a fragile species like the human race survive at birth if nature didn't.)

My DH and I I have fantastic genetics. (we even had a test that confirmed it a few years ago a doctor decided to do it as one of the hundreds I've had over the years. Apparently some couples aren't genetically compatible, but we are. ) We're just selfish and wanna keep 'em all to ourselves...

Our kids birth family on the other hand has fantastic genetics too because my two girls are beautiful in every way possible.

Edit; You did say god plan for a comparison along with Darwins theory thrown into it. Am I different because I didn't 'get a kid' the way you're suggesting. Where I live its all about family preservation mate, adoption/foster care second.

Opedial; too right! There are evil people in the world, tell that to a four year old girl who's biological father threw her off a bridge in Melbourne two weeks ago (he'd been reported a few years ago, but of course his rights mattered more than her life.) How lucky she is to have had him for a father. (She died hours later.) And with her two terrified brothers watching in the car. then he went into into a custody hearing with their mother sitting there waiting...not knowing what he just did. sick. (Rich, poor, outstanding citizen before hand scientific genius, nature doesn't care its all in place from the time of creation, if you can reproduce she's not fussy and if you can't, she's not worried because its all there in place for someone else to do it, she plants the deep need in our minds to breed, for some its overpowering. Like she gave them to much and then left out the vital ingredient. (and yes I feel thats when some crimes have happened, some that I won't mention because they are so horrible. But lucky not everyone is like that to the degree of imbalance...I'll stop now, or I'll just keep typing...

It happens and thats all there is to it.

Minnimouse

The thing is, maybe if we all lived a natural wild life then it would work with natural selection, deep down we are natural. But we don't, people (unfortunately or not) have got beyond that because of so many inventions and technologies. Humans have developed health care and fertility technologies (which unfortunately caused the horrible 8 babies) that are very unatural. Also, we rely on money to live. If we relied compeltely on our skills and ability to find food then yes natural selection would play a part, but money soon puts a stop to that.

The basic thing with adoption, is that has also become unatural. I like to compare things with other animals, please don't be offended by this. But, if you look at animals such as the meerkat, only the top female mates and has a litter, any other female gets pregnant they get dissowned by the group. The rest of the females take turns to babysit and care for the litter in a co-operative way so that it has the best chance of survival. So, in this case infertility or not physically giving birth does not mean that a living thing is not able to parent another's child, it means that there are actually more parents out there to help! It certainly doesn't mean they are any worse, they just fulfill a different but important role in the society.

Where adoption goes wrong is that unlike the meerkats, when a parent is unable to look after their baby, the immediate family fails to rally around and take on the parenting role. It's often a complete stranger who wants a baby and "steals" it or is offered it and that's where adoptees have problems with identity and a more extreme sense of loss.

So, basically, in the modern, technological, medical world of human, no natural selection can not exist. I also don't believe in fate or god. We have got ourselves where we are.

Jackie B

Wow, how do I fit in into the equation?

Adopted=not wanted, less than, a cast off

Infertile=corrupt genes, no parenting instinct, natural selection at work, SOL.

Perhaps God had really intended for the three tumors in my head to kill me instead of making me a barren wasteland.

gypsywinter

Infertility I don't believe is part of 'intelligent design' or 'God's Plan'. Nor is surrendering ones' baby for adoption part of a 'God's Plan' either..much as 'some' adoptive parents would like to believe. As humans we are imperfect and not all parts within the human body always work as naturally designed with their specific natural functions. There are many causes for infertility and the infertile person must find a way to reconcile that within themselves before embarking on adoption. No adopted child will replace the child they could not have or dreamed of birthing. The same as another child can never replace a mother's child who has died.

There is at least one major cause of infertility..but I won't write it here..as I don't want to further upset those who cannot produce their own children. And that particular cause has nothing to do with 'intelligent design', God's Plan or 'natural selection'. There are consequences of action in human life...even for 'some' people who would later discover themselves infertile.

Terri B

I know of a woman who has had about 8 kids, never knows who the father is and immediately gives the baby up at the hospital, walks out and gets pregnant again within the week. The last one was born with crack cocaine in its system and died.
On the other hand, I know plenty of couples who love children, are respectable and honest and would take excellent care of a child, giving it all the opportunities it deserves, who can't have children.
How in the world can that be natural selection? No, I don't believe that at all.

BLW_KAM

It's an interesting idea. Since good parenting is dependent more on emotional qualities than physical qualities, I think God (or natural selection) would first rule out those without the emotional strength to successfully raise the next generation. Obviously that hasn't happened.

Our infertility was caused by a horse riding accident in 1966 that left one of us with internal damage to the reproductive organs. Surely natural selection doesn't weed out 10 year olds who rode a nervous horse?

Isabel A

Well adoption is not a cure for infertility. Never has been. It's not even a band-aid. So IMO this is a moot point.

I think this question might be better asked of people who use fertility treatments.

Shelly P. Tofu, E.M.T.

not meant to reproduce is very different than not meant to parent.

ask all the children who grow up with abusive parents... their BIOLOGICAL parents..

Ask Shirley Mason.

infertility OR fertility has NOTHING to do with whether someone should be a parent or not.

Rowan

Thats a silly thing to say.

IDK!!

I think in a way yes.

people with certain genetic disorders like those that effect the movement of cilia are infertile, i do think it's natures way of preventing the disease to be passed on. I don't think that means that the afflicted person should be a parent, just not of their own flesh. kinda like those born hearing impaired, should they just not hear? or be open to other paths that lead to "hearing".

mom to be

No Darwin and natural selection have noting to do with being infertile. If that were the case then women and men who have the recessive gene for certain disorders would not be able to reproduce. A woman can carry the recessive gene for MD and not have it herself, only be a carrier, but pass it on to her children. A female with Down Syndrome can have a baby. Being infertile has nothing to do with natural selection.
As far as going with the flow... have you ever thought about all the infertile couples who do foster care and adopt the children who have no families, where would the children be, back in government institutions or orphanages.

Independ"ant"

"is infertility part of *intelligent design* or Gods Plan?"

I would say..."it is what it is" and leave it at that. There are more important things in life than worrying about ones little self-centered issue...why waste money,time and resources on it. I don't believe in JC or God so "Gods plan" means nothing to me.

"Why cant people go with the flow instead of insisting on getting kids to adopt?"

Wants and desires......character flaws, emotional and mental issues that prevent acceptance. They want what they can't have and they will do anything to justify their participation.

Ex. buying a perfectly healthy child from a corrupt system and then using the worst case scenarios of child abuse and neglect to justify it even though it had nothing to do with their achilds situation.

â™¥â™¥Ritaâ™¥â™¥

No!

If infertility were some kind of superior plan then social services would not pick up as many abused kids as they do....many of those parents should have never, ever, ever had children....ever. They have a passel of kids, lose them all and keep on procreating, neglecting, abusing, pickling them with alcohol while in utero....

I don't believe this has anything to do with God, Darwin or an Intelligent Design.....

brit23

i think this disproves natural selection and proves intelligent design. this is a morbid question to ask should we just let children rot and die because nature tells us they are not fit? no, and we don't. humans have compassion (at least some do) and we are not bound by natures "laws" and it is a safe assumption that natural selection does not occur in the human race so the bigger aspect of evolution has to be wrong. why evolve so far only to hold the race back by raising someones "unfit" offspring and messing up the gene pool? why? because we are human always were and always will be. we have love and faith in our creator and will do His will (like i said at least some of us). will you deny observable observation time and again? we adopt.... no natural selection involved, therefore we know that humans differ from "animals" we could of never been "animals" or we would be evolving backwards. we as humans can not go with the flow because it is not OUR nature. There are already children out there that need parents, people that cant have them are just filling the need. simple as that. ALL THINGS WORK TO THE GREATER GOOD.
by the way
i have two children and i am very fertile and still wish to adopt a child everyone deserves to have a home... even if "biology" gave them the short straw.

e w

There are already too many people on this planet.

Statistically, there are people who are infertile, and using drugs and artificial techniques can backfire, as this can be a genetic defect, which can be passed on to offspring.

Not everyone has to reproduce, and sometimes nature has a way of eliminating the reproductive ability of genetically defective individuals.

Look at that octomom. No means of support, 14 children.

Obviously there is some serious psychological defect in someone so driven to have so many children artificially.

If anyone shouldn't reproduce, it's she, and that is a prime example.

And, shouldn't the doctor be forced to pay for the expenses involved in bringing up these children, instead of the state?

Unfortunately, there aren't yet laws on the books, but there should be, that noone can artificially be assisted to bear children unless they have the means to support them.

It's obviously unethical, but medicine has little to do with ethics, just like politics.

AdoreHim

EXCUSE ME- God has everything to do with the children that we have in our families- either through biological means or by adoption. God is very partial to adoption- He adopted us who have accepted Christ as our Savior. If adoption did not happen, there would even be more abortions, because there are actually women who cannot raise their children for whatever reason. I know, I am one of those adopted children. Also we have 2 of our own. You are right to say that some women cannot and will not reproduce, but that does not mean they should not adopt. Actually THEY ARE MEANT TOO!

durdenslabs

If infertility is part of Gods plan then adopting is as well. If a couple can not have their own child (call it natural selection, Gods plan, whatever) then they are not passing on their genes. They can, however, adopt a child who has been born and who needs a family.

Why would you want someone to NOT adopt a child if they can't have their own? They are giving the gift of family and receiving it at the same time.

monkeykitty83

I think you're misunderstanding natural selection. It deals with which genetic traits are carried on, not necessarily with social relationships. Natural selection isn't finely-tuned magic, it's a process subject to physical laws of biology. (You kind of answered your own question in your edit... might want to look back at your own words.)

So while infertility does prevent genes from being passed along, because adopted children aren't genetically related, natural selection doesn't really apply. Since natural selection is a BIOLOGICAL concept, applying it to adoption or not adopting doesn't really make sense. Adopted children don't magically get their adoptive parents' GENES.

Also, even if we could apply the concept and ignored genetics, don't make the common mistake that natural selection means "survival of the strongest." It doesn't. It means "survival of the fittest." Since we live in a social and communal setting, being "fittest" has a major social component, not just a physical one. The "fittest" are suitable to living in their social as well as physical environment-- so being able to engage in the social reality of parenting would actually be one way of indicating "fitness."

Even if we ignored all THAT and pretended "natural selection" still had a will of its own and decided at random to weed out adoptive parents, humans don't let nature take its course anyway. We help the physically and mentally handicapped. We give medical care to the chronically ill and the badly injured. We attempt to provide for the elderly. "In the wild" creatures in these situations just die. But we're humans. We prop up people who "nature" would allow to suffer and die-- as we should, because nature doesn't decide morality. So unless you're prepared to extend this argument to the handicapped, the ill, the injured, and the elderly, it makes no sense to apply it randomly to adoptive parents only.

Because... you know... we're human.

Mei-Ling

No. I think we should stop pointing towards religion and saying it is the cause of everything. It's quite annoying when people do that.

Faith is one thing. Believing that "God's Plan", "Fate", or some other deity is making people suffer just so you can get what you want?

Come on.

That's just looking for a way to deny that any of us have any responsibility or that our decisions and actions have any consequence. Yes, people don't WANT to become infertile.They do not CAUSE themselves to become fertile. For many people, it is a medical condition, or because of aging, or because of some other condition.

I recognize that, and there ARE explanations for infertility. It isn't "God's Plan", or "Fate" or someone's destiny. It CAN be explained.

SO CAN ADOPTION. Adoption is the result of human consequence.

But no one tells people to adopt BECAUSE they are infertile. It is a conscious decision on their part. Same like those who relinquish their children - they do it because they have NO CHOICE, not because some deity felt it was their destiny.

ETA: "Same like those who relinquish their children" came out wrong. I didn't mean it was all their fault - but that Fate had nothing to do with their relinquish. Lacking the resources and support DID.

ETA 2: "Maybe there are certain people who arent meant to reproduce is all Im saying."

I disagree. Infertility has nothing to do with "meant to be" or NO "meant to be." It often has to do with the body aging or because of a chemical imbalance or other medical conditions. It can be *explained*. That's why it has nothing to do with "Meant to be" in the context of "maybe you weren't meant to have children."

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: