Random thought on adoption

[pne]

The thought just crossed my mind -- I wonder whether a vague analogy to how it "should" be is to consider children born with a Caesarian section and those who are born "naturally".

It's a fact that some are born one way and some the other, and most mothers would probably be able to tell you how a given child was born if you asked them, but they nearly never bring it up in conversation unprompted (e.g. introducing someone as "and this is my delivered-by-C-section son") nor treat the children differently -- nor do most other people. (Though I wouldn't be surprised to learn that some people might look down on children who weren't born "properly", or consider the mother or the child to be a second-class person due to the circumstances of their birth.)

And that it could be similar with adoption: whether a child is adopted or not is a verifiable fact, but for most intents and purposes should have no bearing on anything. (I still don't know what people-in-general here think, though -- whether they are open-minded and do think this way or could be brought to easily, or whether my paranoia is at least partly justified.)

Comments

[fridoline.livejournal.com]

Usually people do not care much about how a child was born. Only sometimes, when they hear about some actess or other who had a "planned C-section to save her love channel" they might snort. Fortunately those are the exceptions. (And in later year no one would call the child "the one who was born through planned C-section.)

The mothers themselves might have a feeling of failure if they wanted a natural birth but had to have a C-section. But that passes with time.

I had both, but it is so unimportant now.