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

[DeepSnail]

DH and I decided to adopt in 2021 and we were matched in August 2022. DS was just about to turn 2 at the time, and honestly he has been the absolute joy of our lives. We love him so much and he is our son in every way that matters.
We'd always talked about adoption. DH was adopted himself, so it's something he'd always wanted to do, and I genuinely never had any desire to be pregnant. We're both in our mid to late 30s. We used to own a flat in London but sold it to buy a house outside London and now commute in once or twice a week.
The reason for this post is that I was out for dinner with a friend recently and she said she wished she'd "just adopted" because, in her words, having children had ruined her body. I said I completely understood where she was coming from because I never wanted to go through pregnancy or birth either.

Even when I was 18, adoption was always what I imagined for myself, I grew up with 4 cousins who were adopted so this has definitely affected my views on wanting to adopt. I have a sister 10 years older than me and all I she ever did was complain about pregnancy, labour and how she never "snapped back" afterwards even to this day and her children are well into their early teens now. That definitely influenced me.

DH is a doctor (not in obstetrics and gynaecology) but he hears plenty from colleagues about difficult pregnancies and births, and he's always said he'd never want me to have to go through some of what they see.
I'm also someone who enjoys looking after myself. I'm still roughly the same weight I was in my 20s. I eat well, exercise, don't drink much and generally make an effort to stay healthy because I feel better that way. I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting to take care of your body or wanting to feel comfortable in it.

Before anyone jumps on me, I know not everyone who has children gains weight or is unhappy with their body, and equally people can gain weight without ever being pregnant. But a lot of my university friends who've had children openly say they struggle with how their bodies have changed. Pregnancy is the obvious difference between us, and several of them have said if they'd known how much it would affect them physically they might have made different choices.
I don't think it's shallow to decide you simply don't want to put your body through pregnancy and childbirth. Surely that's as valid a reason as any other?

Any reason is a valid reason - there's no need to try to justify it?

Also, a pp is right that 'having babies ruins women's bodies' is best kept as an inside thought.

Despite your disclaimer I sense an 'it's inevitable that your body will be ruined and you'll get fat, not like me, because unlike women who had babies, I take care of my body!' attitude from you, which is both insulting and wrong.

I know.

What I am saying is that it is fine not to want children because you don't want to go through pregnancy and birth, whether that is because of the effect on your body or other reasons.
I don't think the reason for adopting a child should be because you don't want a saggy belly/ stretchmarks etc.

Edited to add that this was in response to someone replying to my last post saying you don't give birth to adoped children - the quote didn't appear.

Not superior I just wanted to pose a question I did not come here to offend anyone you are able to just ignore my post if you got the wrong impression. sorry

YABVU. Someone (some woman) has got to 'ruin her body' to give someone that adopted child. (That they want but don't need.)

And MY body hasn't been ruined through having children, thank you.

Good grief, what an awful thread! As has been said - so rude and misogynistic. 'Women who have given birth have wrecked their bodies, but women who haven't still have a nice body because they chose to not have children!' Good grief @DeepSnail can you hear yourself?!

.

Any reason not to have children is perfectly valid and to adopt a child and give it a loving home is a great thing to do. Perhaps I’m missing something but I find it strange that you didn’t want to have your own children but somewhere out there is a child that is biologically yours.

He has not discouraged women to not have children.

Any reason is valid if that's your reason. You could like holidays too much to want a child, thats still a valid reason. I'm not sure who you are fighting with here as it seems to be yourself, somehow?

With all that- while I can believe it is a reason for you, I don't believe it is the reason for you. Your post reads to me like adoption was something you really wanted to do and the thought of not risking your figure was the bonus that came with it.

Why is it strange? My aunt and uncle could never have children and had tried many methods, I was lucky enough to be able to help a family so why not. They are just eggs to me personally I am not attached to them, I do not know the child, I do not know the gender, all I know is they had a baby and they sent me a thank you letter when the baby was born.

Most adopters don’t feel “noble” or like that way of thinking in my experience (in process of becoming an adoptive parent and have met with many). It kind of perpetuates the notion that adopted children are like rescued pets. The vast majority of parenthood starts with an adult want - either a planned pregnancy because they want to be a mum and dad or an accidental pregnancy they have chosen to continue as an alternative to abortion. Adoption is no different - it generally stems from a want for children/a bigger family. I’m not somehow kinder or more altruistic because I’m coming to parenthood a different way and I’m not rescuing someone unwanted. Most adoptees in the UK were taken into care because their parents couldn’t care for them. Not because they didn’t want them.

One thing I would say is that I was on cloud nine for 3-6 months after giving birth. I was very, very deeply happy and content and I got the strong impression that my husband was too. I wouldn’t have missed that feeling for the world. It must have been all the oxytocin.

I think your perspective on this is absolutely valid and in many ways great, but is really quite unusual. Not many people would see raising a two year old as the same as having that child from birth - that isn't to say it's lesser, but it's a very different experience. I am a bit surprised that you think that he was 'mouldable' - you know he will always be greatly shaped by the circumstances of his early life, right? I think most people would see adoption as a much harder route than having children biologically. As I said, I think it's great that you have such a hugely positive view of your situation, but it feels like you don't realise how few would feel like that.

I don't see anything wrong about deciding not to have bio children for any reason.
I don't see anything wrong in offering to foster/adopt when some existing child needs a home - if the person/couple is suitable for dealing with fostering/adoption, and goes through checks and training.

I am against creating/ordering children for this purposes, be it by surrogacy, limiting contraception/abortion access, or giving up on contact with birth family for economic reasons or reasons not connected with aggressipn/abuse/...

In my country it won't be a secure strategy, as there are very few healhy babies available for adoption, even less so from majority ethnicity. And not everyone is ready to take care of older/disabled/in partial touch with the original family.

Didn’t say there weren’t. There is just naturally less risk of birth injuries and other unpleasant side effects the less someone does something.

I also come from a family of formula feeders so won’t be breastfeeding. My body is my own. I want to minimise the amount of time it is being physically used/stressed in some way. I can’t really explain it better than that.

You don't need to justify wanting or not wanting kids, it can be as shallow or deep as you want. It's a hell of a lot more shallow to have kids when you don't really want them or just to taka few insta photos.

but you make it sound like a judgement on other mums and imply that they have ruined their bodies. It's becoming an insult against others, not a private decision.

so YABU
You don't want to put your body through that, no one can blame you, it's not necessary. Pregnancy ruins body? No. It's not a curse.

I do not think he was mouldable, its just a term I used to say, I think that is what the families thought based on his adoption notes which he has access to and has let me have a read through. A lot of families were interested in him and I think one of the main reasons was because he was still so young but maybe I am wrong

I think it is matter of perception whether or not child birth 'ruins' your body. I only gave birth once and have stretch marks and boobs were never quite as firm again after bf. However I always wanted to experience pregnancy and birth and find the whole process fascinating ( I would have had another but circumstances weren't right) I too am fit and ran half marathons when I was younger. Maybe 14 hours of labour gave me endurance! You don't need me to tell you that your experience of motherhood is any more or less valid than mine, just arrived at by a different way.

It’s not just vanity though is it. Pregnancy and childbirth carry risk of injuries and even death.

I completely understand anyone not wanting to go through it, even though I did but couldn’t due to fertility issues.

I said the child you love not that their birth mother loves and I don't know her circumstances
I am sure you do love him that he will have a good life with you. I don't dispute that .
I just feel very uneasy that one of your main reasons for adopting was not ruining your body .
Our bodies change as we get older anyway.

I don’t know anyone whose body has been ruined by pregnancy/childbirth. This includes my mother who had seven children. Yes, there is a small risk of injury or death, as with many worthwhile activities in life. But pregnancy and breastfeeding reduce the risk of several cancers so the risks are not entirely balanced against childbirth.

I completely reject OP’s notion that having a baby = not looking after your body.

Exactly! I was very slim and fit before I got pregnant both times and my body went back into shape quickly afterwards. I breastfed and lost weight very quickly. I also walked everywhere (no car) so stayed active.

This sounds a completely win win situation for all involved.

Of course our bodies change as we get older, but what on earth is wrong with making choices which prolong physical health, fitness and appearance, such as not giving birth? Perhaps OP wants her 30s and 40s to be an extension of her 20s in that regard, and doesn’t want the sagging breasts, loose-skinned/untoned stomach etc.

I wonder if some people are objecting because there exists a legitimate way for a woman to pursue parenthood without destroying her body? Women having more choice and trying to have their cake and eat it always ruffles feathers (like men don’t do the same in almost every aspect of life…).

Even the birth mother?

I think it’s strange because to me eggs are part of me and carry my DNA etc. They are not a commodity. It’s the same for sperm donors. If my husband was to donate sperm I’d think it weird that my children had half siblings we knew nothing about. Having said that, if people want to donate eggs etc then that’s their choice.

I think I heard (too many) women coming up with the "peri-menopause/ menopause" excuse to justify letting themselves go, rarely pregnancy.

A few have suffered from a left-over excess belly soon after surgery which was obviously hard to get rid of, but that's it.