AIBU to think "not wanting to ruin your body" is a perfectly valid reason not to have biological children?

It’s a perfectly valid reason. But to be very honest, in most cases I wouldn’t believe it. I wouldn’t believe someone could be so shallow/anxious/self-absorbed. In kindness I would agree with them that it can wreck the body (four didn’t wreck me) and they were just right and sensible. Anyone giving that reason would need my compassion and I certainly wouldn’t jump in saying I pitied you, or had excellent pregnancies and giving birth, picking my baby out of the water etc was magical. (All true for me.)

I had my first at 28, uncomplicated pregnancy and birth . I have never been fitter or slimmer than I was between the 2 babies. He (and therefore I) was on the go absolutely non stop which meant he slept brilliantly, he also breast fed like a train so the weight just dropped off me. Pre- baby I was out several times a week and stressed from full time work. On maternity leave I ate home cooked fresh, healthy food and did 20,000 steps each day in the fresh air as well ad yoga and swimming each week. I felt and if I may say so looked absolutely fantastic. My BMI was 20.5 when I got pregnant with my second child. Neither myself, my mother or my grandmother have had pelvic floor issues despite 9 vaginal deliveries between us. None of us had any stretch marks either. I have always done kegel exercises.

It's a perfectly valid reason and no you are not unreasonable for thinking it. You your husband and family members are admirable for choosing to adopt as well, I don't think I could do it.

It is unreasonable though to assume pregnancy and child birth 'ruins' or 'damages' your body (I'm not saying you have said those things exactly). Yes sure, for some women it does, but for many many others it does not. I enjoyed my first pregnancy very much, labour was exhausting and painful but worth every second to see those big brown eyes looking up at me the second he was (eventually) born! Same with the second although to be fair the pregnancy was less fun but the labour 3x quicker and easier! I love thinking about what my body was capable of doing, growing and feeding two humans, I think it's incredible and a privilege

The biggest changes to my body didn't come from being pregnant or childbirth, my physical body went straight back. It came from having 2 children to feed and care for, from having more food in the house to feed the kids and husband that I never had in the house in my 20's. It came from an although exhausting lifestyle a less active one. And it came from turning 40. For me and many people I know physical changes to my body were due to the lifestyle that can come with having a family and age not from physically being pregnant and giving birth.

That's my experience. Not everything is a given and not every woman has the same experience.

It’s hard jugggling work and toddlers. I was glad mine still breastfed at night and slept with me as I missed them in the day.

Same. Being pregnant, caring for them as newborns and breastfeeding them each for over 2 years was no sacrifice at all. I loved it and it was such a special time. My body is not the same but it's not ruined by any means.

But no one will say this to OP's face knowing she has adopted. It would be very, very rude.

The biggest negative changes came when they were toddlers and I got into a bad rut of work, no sleep, eating too much sugar to stay afloat etc. And a few years down the line, I'm fitter than pre-pregnancy.

That’s true. I will mention the positives on here as it’s anonymous. I loved being pregnant and giving birth (two home births.) and I enjoyed breastfeeding. My body wasn’t ruined at all.

Just to add, it was pointed out to you earlier in the thread that most (obviously not all 🙄) people tend to big up the negative aspects rather than gloat about the positives if they know someone has not experienced the same as them. So women telling someone who has adopted about the downsides of giving birth may well be being polite and kind rather than meaning “I wish I hadn’t had my children” 🙄

Yes, yes, we get it OP. Women who have given birth to our babies are ruined.

Well done to you for your perfect, non-ruined body.

I’m very happy with my changed but not ruined baby birthing body, thanks and would not have missed pregnancy, giving birth to babies who are genetically mine and my husband’s, and the early weeks and months of my children for anything.

But you do you.

Yes, I phrased my post badly. None of the women I know well enough that I would know if they had (sisters, mother, close friends) have had their bodies ruined by having a baby.

And yes, birth injuries can be catastrophic and even fatal. As can cancer including ovarian cancer (and breast and womb cancer) which pregnancy is a protective factor against. So it’s not a simple risk equation.

Nice clickbait title op

I'll never know whether we would have taken the risk of adoption if we hadn't been able to have a biological child. I know with absolute certainty we wouldn't have adopted to add a second child as there are too many unknowns.

But I got more stretch marks from puberty than I ever did from pregnancy so maybe I'm biased.

Birth injuries can be catastrophic, life changing, and you wouldn’t necessarily know that other women have been affected (eg fistulas, stomas). There are long term consequences too like prolapse.

I can see why women like OP would want to swerve that tbh - size 8 jeans and perky boobs are certainly not the be all and end all, but we face big risks every time we give birth.

Your choice, but birth children or not, over time your body will start to ‘deteriorate’ anyway. Being ‘birth child free’ does not change the ageing process.

How interesting! I froze my eggs a few years ago and want to donate them if DH and I are lucky enough not to need to go down the IVF route for a baby. I obviously don’t know how I’ll feel once they’re donated, but I suspect I’ll feel the same as you. I find the obsession with one’s DNA / lineage to be odd if not a bit perverse (but keep such opinions to myself IRL, of course).

I’ve also donated eggs and no, I don’t have any interest in meeting the child which my egg helped to create or seeing what they look like. I presume they’ll have some of my features and some of their biological father’s features. It’s not really of any great curiosity to me. If they’d like to meet me when they’re 18 to satisfy their own curiosity or need to see what I’m like, they’re welcome to, but there’s no big story to tell them: I donated eggs when I was 34 because I thought it would be a nice altruistic thing to do for somebody else and I wasn’t doing anything else with those eggs. There’s nothing more to it. It’s rather different to adoption where a child might want to find out why their bio mum couldn’t or didn’t want to keep a child they’d given birth to, and learn answers about their birth and early childhood which their adoptive parents can’t give them.

I think the people who are calling the OP shallow are missing the point in a way. She is clear that she sees no value to a genetic link to her child, or any desire to have one. That's unusual but perfectly fair. If you felt like that, then it would be really illogical to want to bear any of the risks of childbearing while there are still many children needing adoptive homes. It would be like doing an extreme sport you don't enjoy - sure, lots of people would be happy to take the risk, but why would you? I think if OP had really wanted a biological child but decided not to because she might put on weight that would suggest a really troubling focus on how she looks, but if she was equally happy (or happier) with an adopted child why put up with even the slightest change to her body to have a biological child? As I've said upthread, the only thing that surprises me about OP is that she seems to not realise how few people genuinely feel no preference for having a biological child, but that makes her unusual, not wrong.

Edited to say it is increased risk of cardiovascular disease but reduced rates of reprodictive cancers.

Just to put tbe otherside of the argument. Pregnancy and breast feeding is protective for dememtia, heart disease and various cancers. So actually can be good for women's health. But I have massive respect for anyone who adopts with all the attendant risks and uncertainties for whatever reason.

No indeed. A woman should never be shamed for the choices she makes regarding her own body.
However, I don't think your comparisons with your body and the bodies of women who've had children lands well, because the purpose of a woman's body isn't to be aesthetically pleasing. I imagine its this thinking they are likely pushing back on when they're calling you shallow, not your choice not to have biological children.

It’s a perfectly valid reason not to have children as long as one doesn’t then pay for a surrogate to carry your child. I dislike surrogacy and think it should be outlawed.
I suffered secondary infertility and would never have considered adoption tbh. I know I could never love an adopted child like my own.
Too many adoptions are open now and a lot of them are forced because of the mother’s and / or father’s inability to care for the child. I would not be able to raise a child who was taken forcibly from their parents. So many adopted children with special needs too and I’m not a strong enough person to raise them how they deserve to be raised.

You did good.

I agree that any reason is a valid reason . I think it’s fantastic that you have adopted a child . I do think it’s quite a shallow reason not to want to have a child personally. In fairness most of the child free women I know don’t look the same as they did in their twenties . But everyone is entitled to make whatever choice they want about their own body and family planning and it’s nobody else’s business .

c-sections ARE normal births, I wouldn't focus too much on the vaginal part. Still need a woman to give birth.