Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A look at my state's website for adoptable children produced some interesting results.
" Lauren would benefit best from a two parent family where there are no animals and she could be the only child; or the youngest by many years."
If this were the standard for anyone to have children there wouldn't be a lot of them.
" An ideal family would be able to provide him with a non-smoking, stay at home parent who has the time and energy to devote to working with numerous medical providers as well as be on hand to take him to many doctor's appointments. Strong organizational, and effective communication skills will be imperative for a parent to manage and advocate for all of his needs."
This is more like a job description than a search for a parent.
"Ren would benefit from a loving dedicated adoptive family who will let him continue to enjoy his monthly visits with his biological grandparents and parents, all of whom are in support of adoptive plans for him."
Wow, the adoptive parent of this 16 year old gets to send this kid back to the same people who didn't want to parent him. Don't that sound just peachy?
"Jordan will thrive in a home where he can be the only child or have an older brother. A two parent family would be ideal as Jordan's energy level will require a lot of one on one attention and constant supervision. Re-direction is needed at times due to Jordan's inability to understand appropriate boundaries."
Hmmmm .... I think my special needs kid would like a situation like that. Unfortunately, he is stuck here in this less than optimal environment where I guess he won't thrive as much.
"Travis was born in October 1992 and is an English speaking Caucasian young man with blond hair, blue eyes and is rather tall for his age. Travis is the oldest of three siblings and it would be beneficial to them to continue contact. "
But not beneficial enough for the surrendering parents to keep him in their custody.
"Janvier's birth mother has been a consistent and dedicated visitor. She is committed to maintaining a relationship with Janvier and an adoptive family. A family open to supporting a relationship with Janvier and his birth mother would help him maintain this positive connection."
Nothing like having a constant intrusion into your life, especially by someone who doesn't actually want to parent this child.
Can you understand that many people might not want to be involved in the above situations?
THANK YOU!!!!!! Consider yourself on the receiving end of a cyber hug and kiss from me for that. These examples, along with many, many other reasons, are why so many infertile couples won't go near adoption. It ain't the 1950's, folks, where the prom queen and the football quarterback get knocked up and produce a healthy, fullterm, white, intelligent baby with lots of potential and relinquish all further claims.
Fertility in older women is not on par with winning the lottery, btw. The odds are not good but they are better than winning the lottery.
It might as well because it is certainly low. You don't want to discourage but you don't want to raise false hopes either. Making an undetailed statement like "It's possible that a 50 yo could spontaenously have triplets" is uninformative and possibly misleading since it's incredibly unlikely.
Quote:
Also, just so you know, spontaneously conceived fraternal twins ARE more common in older women, by far. That's because as our hormone systems begin to fail, the ovaries get confused and kick out more than one egg at a time. Some believe this is a survival mechanism of sorts, to increase a woman's chances of conceiving when her bio clock is winding down.
That is simply false information and isn't supported by human physiology because as a woman ages her number follicles is drastically reduced making it difficult to conceive let alone having multiple births. The odds of one having twins without any intervention is 2% to 3% in the general population. The odds of having triplets is even less. Your statement is not published in any reputable medical journal or medical textbook. Are you an RN for a board certified reproductive endocrinologist MD/DO or a Naturopathic "physician"?
Quote:
My basic point is: delaying childbearing most certainly will result in problems for a majority of women over age 35, and young women DO need to be educated on this, BUT, as the public becomes more informed, they need to also beware of falling into the trap of half truths and assuming that ALL older women who are pregnant must have used DE or some sort of assistance. While some older women will lie about not using DE or not using IVF, there are also populations of older fertile women who couldn't possibly do IVF or DE due to either the expense or their religious beliefs, and they are still getting pregnant up into their early 50's!
I'm not arguing anecdotal tales. I'm arguing science and human physiology. I'm telling you the published guidelines by ACOG (American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology) regarding odds of fertility. I know there is a lot of quack science by some naturopaths and herbal "doctors" who publish false data and theories that have not been supported by quality research studies (Randomized Double Blind Studies with large sample sizes over a prolonged period and published in a reputable medical journal like JAMA or NEJM. Anyone who wants to know more about their odds of conceiving a child needs to see a board certified physician MD/DO in the field of reporductive endocrinology which are OBGYN's who have completed a fellowship in Reproductive Endocrinology instead of listening to anecdotal tales or people making claims that are not substantiated.
AZriverfan, I would like to know why you have turned so disrespectful and offensively aggressive toward me? Would you please answer that?
I already told you that I am an RN who has worked in reproductive endocrinology for some of the most respected RE's in this country. I am not a naturopath or a CMD, but I would not disparage these modalities as acupuncture and herbal treatments have been shown to have a positive impact on fertility, and studies on acupuncture and endometrial thickness and quality in particular have been duplicated by MEDICAL studies -- there, are you pleased with that? Dr. Geoffrey Sher was the first RE to hire a clinic acupuncturist for his fertility patients who have impaired uterine blood flow as evidenced by doppler, and the REs in my city were referring thin lining patients to an acupuncturist as early as 14 years ago! Now it is standard MEDICAL practice to refer impaired uterine blood flow patients to an acupuncturist. Take care that you don't fall behind the times!
You are simply WRONG about older women and fraternal twins. I cannot even imagine what you are reading!!! Yes, of course, the number of follicles decreases with age, but there are still follicles and TWO can and do release at once! It is WELL DOCUMENTED that ADVANCED MATERNAL AGE is a risk factor for fraternal twins!! OMG, I cannot even believe you are arguing this basic fact. Go and read some more. You are confusing two different things -- overall ovarian reserve vs. release of follicles per cycle.
I never said anywhere that a 50 year old conceives triplets spontaneously, did I??? Go and find where I said that and get back to me. I believe your example was of a 39 year old conceiving triplets and this is absolutely possible, without any treatments at all, or without IVF but with minimal treatment, such as oral Clomid.
Nowhere in my post have I encouraged women to hope to get pregnant in their 40's or 50's. Instead, I have repeatedly stated that to wait this long will likely result in failure at worst and expensive fertility treatments at best. I have simply CORRECTED your false notion that ALL older pregnant women must have done DE or IVF. That is simply not true.
You can spout all you want to about "medical journals" but I hate to tell you buddy, I simply know more about this subject than you do. And I have neither the time nor the interest to go find article links for you, but if you are truly curious, go have a look-see and you will find that I'm right on all counts.
p.s., this statement in particular, "Your statement is not published in any reputable medical journal or medical textbook" concerning advanced maternal age and fraternal twinning, should embarrass you. As for the "randomized double blind studies with large sample sizes over a prolonged period of time . . . " GET OVER YOURSELF! Do you even know what that type of study is?
Last edited by chattypatty; 12-31-2009 at 07:15 PM..
p.s., this statement in particular, "Your statement is not published in any reputable medical journal or medical textbook" concerning advanced maternal age and fraternal twinning, should embarrass you. As for the "randomized double blind studies with large sample sizes over a prolonged period of time . . . " GET OVER YOURSELF! Do you even know what that type of study is?
1. It is one research study. It has not been confirmed by ACOG or other OBGYN academies. ACOG is the American College of Obstetric and Gynecology and it has not published any statements confirming that a woman is more likely to have fraternal twins as she ages. You are aware of ACOG right?
2. It is not included in any major board review books or taught/tested on licensing exams such as the United States Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE) step 1, 2 or 3 or the OB/GYN boards
3. The same can be said for Acupuncture. You provided a link to a WebMD article. That isn't the same a double blind randomized research study that has been published in peer reviewed medical journal that is on a site like PubMed. You obviously have no experience with research and you certainly lack the ability identify what a quality reseach study is
4. There are THEORIES that women between the ages of 35-40 are three times more likely to have fraternal twins than women between the ages of 20-25. Yes, I've always known that but that isn't the same as EVIDENCE supported by research
5. WebMD is a consumer driven site for the lay public. It is not the Journal of the American Medical Association or the New England Journal of Medicine let alone UpToDate or eMedicine. It is not a peer reviewed research study. It is not a licensing board or a College that has published statements.
Next time, try asking questions before copping an attitude and trying to teach someone who is more versed on this subject than you. It's obvious you did a google search and the best you came up with was a couple of weak WebMD articles and citing that as evidence. If you were a resident physician and you presented your Attending physician with a WebMD article supporting a claim, he or she would probably send you home.
P.S. Happy New Year
Last edited by azriverfan.; 12-31-2009 at 07:47 PM..
4. There are THEORIES that women between the ages of 35-40 are three times more likely to have fraternal twins than women between the ages of 20-25. Yes, I've always known that but that isn't the same as EVIDENCE supported by research
It is not a theory, it is a fact. Learn the difference between the two. The incidence of real live fraternal twins already born to older women at a prevalence of 3-4 times the rate of twins born to younger women is not a "theory." They are HERE already -- they are a fact. And no, you have not "always known that" because if you had, you would have stated it in your previous post. This is your lame attempt to save face. "Evidence supported by research . . . " is just a buzz phrase that you have picked up somewhere to try to make yourself sound more knowledgeable than you are. And, oh, for God's sake, about medical textbooks and exams (as if you know anything about either) -- if you failed to answer correctly a question about advanced maternal age and twinning, then you most likely wouldn't have the intellectual capacity to answer other questions correctly either and you'd FAIL.
I worked with this information DAILY for YEARS. I don't have to be an expert in "research." I worked for REs at a major university medical center and they were researchers. Some of this information is common knowledge now -- it doesn't need to be "researched" anymore. They are onto bigger and better things, you know, the stuff that is still a mystery.
As for the WebMD articles, they popped up on the very first page of my google search and EVERY SINGLE ARTICLE that popped up on that page made a statement about advanced maternal age and dizygotic twinning. It was easy to grab one and if you noticed, in the WebMD article, the REs who were QUOTED were practicing with major university medical centers (read, "research centers"). So don't try to give me that BS in an effort to dismiss the information. These doctors know what they are talking about and they supported my assertions.
Last edited by chattypatty; 12-31-2009 at 07:52 PM..
It is not a theory, it is a fact. Learn the difference between the two. The incidence of real live fraternal twins already born to older women at a prevalence of 3-4 times the rate of twins born to younger women is not a "theory." They are HERE already -- they are a fact. And no, you have not "always known that" because if you had, you would have stated it in your previous post. This is your lame attempt to save face. "Evidence supported by research . . . " is just a buzz phrase that you have picked up somewhere to try to make yourself sound more knowledgeable than you are. And, oh, for God's sake, about medical textbooks and exams (as if you know anything about either) -- if you failed to answer correctly a question about advanced maternal age and twinning, then you most likely wouldn't have the intellectual capacity to answer other questions correctly either and you'd FAIL.
I worked with this information DAILY for YEARS. I don't have to be an expert in "research." I worked for REs at a major university medical center and they were researchers. Some of this information is common knowledge now -- it doesn't need to be "researched" anymore. They are onto bigger and better things, you know, the stuff that is still a mystery.
As for the WebMD articles, they popped up on the very first page of my google search and EVERY SINGLE ARTICLE that popped up on that page made a statement about advanced maternal age and dizygotic twinning. It was easy to grab one and if you noticed, in the WebMD article, the REs who were QUOTED were practicing with major university medical centers (read, "research centers"). So don't try to give me that BS in an effort to dismiss the information. These doctors know what they are talking about and they supported my assertions.
It is not a fact. Just because you believe it is doesn't make it so. Provide the type of research Ive asked as well as evidence from ACOG publishing those statements. You can't and thus you are arguing to save face
It is not a fact. Just because you believe it is doesn't make it so. Provide the type of research Ive asked as well as evidence from ACOG publishing those statements. You can't and thus you are arguing to save face
Scientists have the nasty habit of not doing "randomized double blind studies" on facts that are obviously observable. Deal with it. You are making a fool of yourself by not admitting that you were mistaken about twinning and advanced maternal age.
Geez.
You are hiding behind a lot of pseudo scientific lingo but you have no knowledge of actual medical practice in the field of reproductive endocrinology. IVF itself should be proven ineffective if we were to go strictly by research statistics on success rates -- with a success rate on average of about 25%, who would recommend that kind of therapy? And yet, IVF is a widely performed procedure. There are numerous treatments given in the process of IVF that have not been proven or approved by research, and yet are in common practice. One example is lupron. Another is heparin. Again, I say, "get over yourself."
Last edited by chattypatty; 12-31-2009 at 08:37 PM..
It is very unfortunate that the huge, growing middle class and wealthy in China do not adopt their own female babies.
While I am happy that a little girl has a better life here, I wonder if the white adoptive parents are trying to do the "diversity" thing?
Because if it was just about charity, there are so many children they could be helping right in this country.
I am not saying it's bad; I applaud they have such love in their hearts, but do you wonder about this?
Lets just be happy that "white people" like baby girls...in China they obviously don't, if "white people" didn't adopt them they would not survive and live a happy healthy life. Lets be happy that we have different groups of people that do different types of charitys...one person will give thousands to help animals and we can say, why don't they give that money to humans that need it...but you know what... WE DO have that group of people that gives to humans...just like I am sure "white people" ALSO adopt children from their own country. Different strokes for different folks and we should be thankful for that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
