For further reference South End Press has some books out that are very relevant to this discusion. Undivided Rights: Women of Color Organize for Reproductive Justice, Dangerous Intersections:
Feminist Perspectives on Population, Environment, and Development, and Conquest:Sexual Violence and American Indian Genocide

Here's a quote from the description for dangerous intersections:
Dangerous Intersections provides crucial alternative voices and approaches to the short-sighted policies supported by many mainstream politicians and nongovernmental organizations policies that focus on the fertility of poor women of color, North and South, as the primary threat to the ecological viability of the planet. The authors make a reasoned yet impassioned argument for making women the central agents of their own fate and the fate of the planet.

Oh WOW. Thanks, RD and Ann, for posting this... I had no idea this was actually still happening. I guess I naively thought this was another one of those unpleasant little anachronisms from back when it was socially acceptable to be racist.

Then again, in a lot of ways it IS still socially acceptable. I've talked about adoption with some of the people I know and a SIGNIFICANT number of them -- liberals, even! -- actually literally SAY that they prefer white children. Sorry if this offends anyone, but I think this attitude is absolutely intolerable. I'm disgusted at the thought that people would "rather" have a white baby than a black baby. It almost makes me want to go out and make an affirmative effort to adopt kids with different skin colors, except that's essentially fetishizing a child's skin color too... anyway, I'm always astounded (I don't know why) when white people just throw out "well, and you know, it's just so hard to find newborn white babies" as a reason adoption isn't a great option. It makes me think of that hilarious SNL short where Eddie Murphy made himself up as a white man and he has people throwing bank loans at him -- sometimes there really IS shit white people will only say to each other. Chilling.

And, erm, sorry for going off on a tangent.

RD said:
There are seriously racist and eugenist philosophies at work here, for both cases. Doctors don’t want to sterilize young smart white women, partially because these are the people everyone wants reproducing.

Very good point. However, as a society, we DON'T want educated white women reproducing. A woman's chances of getting married decrease by 40% with every 16-point increase in IQ above 100. A lot of the intelligence genes are contained on the x-chromosome, so women always pass their intelligence genes along, while men only do so for their daughters.

So I guess it comes to this: in the abstract, we want educated, smart white women reproducing; yet, men don't actually want to have to spend the rest of their lives with such uppity ladies. ;)

(Ultimate and penultimate words said with wry humour - it's a compliment to anyone with a brain and the guts to use it.)

Very good point. However, as a society, we DON'T want educated white women reproducing. A woman's chances of getting married decrease by 40% with every 16-point increase in IQ above 100.

I think you might be looking at that the wrong way. I absolutely think that there's still a tremendous cultural push for smart women to reproduce- that's why you see scare-mongering articles about how women who wait are more likely to have problems, and that women should have babies sooner to increase their chances, etc, etc.

The lower marriage rate has less to do with society not wanting women to get married, and more (I suspect) with the women themselves. Perhaps the "issue" there is more about whether women with higher IQs are as inclined to get married?

Perhaps the "issue" there is more about whether women with higher IQs are as inclined to get married?

Or, as my friend says, smart men [who are more likely to get married] know that they need women, and smart women know that they don't need men? ;)

I do think that high-achieving women scare off men. I've seen it with friends, family, and myself: a LOT of men want women who are "smart, but not as smart."

I don't think that the scare tactics are about women reproducing, although it's a nice side benefit of (and mechanism for) getting talented women out of a position where they can compete with men.

Speaking of IQ, tangentially...

It was found that during the Canadian eugenics program, a vastly disproportionate number of Native Canadians and immigrants were being involuntarily sterilized, though people were supposedly only sterilized based on their low IQ scores.

The IQ tests were, of course, administered only in English.

TLF, you would not believe the amount of flack my husband and I are taking for NOT adopting a white baby. We're barely in the preliminary stages of the process -- researching agencies, researching countries, researching financing -- and our friends and families are appalled that we aren't looking for an Anglo child. And these are educated, upper middle class "liberals."

On adoption: I'm not saying it's cool to restrict oneself to children of one's own race, especially white, but there are ongoing ethical debates about whether trans-racial and especially trans-national adoption are good for the children involved, and also whether this is just another way for white, upper-class individuals to "colonize" people of color. I don't think many people are accusing white people of bad motives, but it remains that there is a lot of interesting and hotly-contested ground to tread if one intends to raise a child who by genealogical heritage belongs to another ethnic/socioeconomic/cultural group.

RD's post is right on target, and somewhat related to the arguments against trans-racial and trans-national adoption. Both destroy cultures that exist outside from white, protestant patriarchy, whether that is the actor's purpose or not.

ticky:

Just realized my prior post could sound like an attack on you and your husband--I definitely don't mean it that way, I just wanted to raise the fact that some feminists of color have strong opinions on whether and how trans-racial adoption should be approached. I hope you are able to adopt a child and negotiate the bureaucracy and the prejudices out there with patience and love for the child.

It's okay, Legallyblondeez.

I would like to think that outsiders would look at our little family and -- if they could not see the love -- at least be okay with its formation. I would like to think that outsiders would see two Anglo parents raising a Indo/Hispanic or African child and say, "Hey, that's a great family."

I realize they won't. We'll be judged for taking a child out of the culture of her birth and robbing her of a greater cultural experience because we're WASPs (even though we're most likely to adopt out of Latin America, live in the American Southwest, and I have Hispanic ancestry). We'll be judged for not undergoing invasive fertility procedures to produce a genetic child. We'll be judged for not holding out for an Anglo baby. We'll be judged, period.

But hell, all of that judging will be heaped upon the rest of the judgments that come with a foray into motherhood, so what's a little extra when the neighbor's looking down her nose at me?

We'll be judged for not undergoing invasive fertility procedures to produce a genetic child. We'll be judged for not holding out for an Anglo baby. We'll be judged, period.

If you had IVF, you would be judged for spending $20,000 (well, in the US) on a procedure for the selfish purposes of having your own children while there are wonderful kids who need to be adopted.

As I told my parents and my inlaws, that's twenty grand we can put towards an adoption, where we're guaranteed a kid at the end!

...they didn't think that was funny at all.

"Then again, in a lot of ways it IS still socially acceptable. I've talked about adoption with some of the people I know and a SIGNIFICANT number of them -- liberals, even! -- actually literally SAY that they prefer white children. Sorry if this offends anyone, but I think this attitude is absolutely intolerable. I'm disgusted at the thought that people would 'rather' have a white baby than a black baby."

That reminds me, I heard that in western Europe, it's more about age than race, with people adopting abroad to avoid toddlers instead of blacks:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1027/p11s01-lifp.html

"...Families in foreign countries cite the availability of newborns as the primary reason they choose to adopt in the US. Canada and Europe don't have as many babies available for adoption. Therefore, 'if you want a newborn, you go to America,' says Bart van Meurs, Elisa's dad. Families also cite the health of the babies, the short waiting time, and the availability of medical records as additional advantages. Race is seldom a consideration.

"'Most of our families just want a baby as young as possible, and the US is the best place to go for a newborn,' explains Lorne Welwood of Hope Adoption Services in Abbotsford, British Columbia. 'They are not ignoring the race issues, but they don't think, like the Americans, that the less black the better.'..."

Hmm.

"On adoption: I'm not saying it's cool to restrict oneself to children of one's own race, especially white, but there are ongoing ethical debates about whether trans-racial and especially trans-national adoption are good for the children involved, and also whether this is just another way for white, upper-class individuals to 'colonize' people of color. I don't think many people are accusing white people of bad motives, but it remains that there is a lot of interesting and hotly-contested ground to tread if one intends to raise a child who by genealogical heritage belongs to another ethnic/socioeconomic/cultural group."

Meanwhile, what about the birth mothers in these situations, especially when they're more active participant and less exploited victim?

from that same article:

"...Most adoption agencies encourage the birth mother to select the adoptive family for her child. Sometimes a black birth mother prefers having her child adopted overseas because she believes there is less prejudice there than in the US.

"'Some birth mothers view placing their child abroad as a way for them to have a better life with less struggle,' says Joe Sica of Shepherd Care in Hollywood, Fla..."

Sure, some people would accuse a white German couple of "colonizing" blacks by adopting an African-American baby, and what would they say about the African-American mother who chose the white German couple?

Ticky-

Your parents/in-laws sound kind of make me shudder. I had a BF once who said that if he and his (future) wife couldn't have babies the normal way he'd try fertility therapy. My response was, "Not with my body, you wouldn't."

I think they're more upset with us choosing to end the respective gene pools. I think that our choice to pursue adoption instead of fertility treatments could be construed by them as a slap in the face of their choices to have us.

They'll deal. They'll have to, if they want to be grandparents.

You know, I am in great sympathy with the arguments about transracial adoption having the potential to cut kids off from their cultures of origin, cultures that they may need for sustenance in a racist society (they don't always, of course, if the adoptive parents put effort and energy into making the child's culture of origin part of their lives). But I wonder how much of that culture a kid is getting if he or she is in the limbo of the foster-care system. For a while discouraging transracial adoptions was, I believe, social service policy, and the result was lots of black children growing up with no parents at all, which isn't good for either the kids or the black community.

What makes people think they're entitled to grandchildren? I've encountered so many people whose parents believe they're owed grandchildren; it's so selfish and short-sighted.

On RD's post- I think that while the history of forced serilization is terrible, and I dislike the idea of offering English forms to non-English speakers, or asking during labor, or anything of that nature, it seems that one of her points bothers me a bit. She writes about how PA offered poor women sterilization but not shorter term birth control methods. I have a difficult time with that, because short term birth control is so expensive to provide and long term birth control is so much cheaper to provide. I don't know how to strike the balence between using public funds to provide short term bc for a few women or long term for more women. I would hate for women who only want short term birth control to suffer because they have the choice between forced abstinence or no future of children, but I would also love to be able to provide women who want long term birth control with it for cheap or less.

I absolutely believe racism plays a part in this, but its a difficult discussion to have.

Maggie what are your feelings on IVF generally?

Re: society: unfortunately only about 10% of the population is "Left" in any real sense - things like the Australian "Tampa" election in 2001 proved that the 10% do _not_ speak for the 90%.

You have to not think like a person that reads the NYT and listens to NPR but rather the majority of people that get their news from half-attention to the 6PM television news and their local tabloid.

I plan on adopting a child someday, but only a child of my own kind. By "kind" I mean a homo sapiens sapiens.

"I think that you will find that for women of color, low income women, or immigrant women, this issue is completely different. Rather than having trouble getting sterilization surgeries, they are being FORCIBLY sterilized."

Now this also leaves me wondering, while young high-income white women who want sterilization have trouble getting it and young low-income nonwhite women who don't want sterilization get pressured to have it...what about young low-income nonwhite women who do want sterilization? Once I'm ready to try to get the surgery for myself, will I find out how white the doctor thinks I look?

I wouldn't say that same race adoption is a racist thing necessisarily. There's a lot of anti-adoption bias in the world, the feeling that an adopted child doesn't "belong" in his/her family, and if the kid in question is a different color than the parents are, it makes the adoption clear, and something intimate into something very public.

People are insanely rude about it at times, and extraordinarily inconsiderate. I've heard some horror stories, things I don't know how parents manage to handle. How do you answer a stranger when they ask, "why did her real mother give her away?" in earshot of your five year old?

"We'll be judged for not undergoing invasive fertility procedures to produce a genetic child. We'll be judged for not holding out for an Anglo baby. We'll be judged, period."

(if you don't care what *anyone* else thinks, then why should anyone else care what you think?) Now that's out of the way, of course if you care what *everyone* else thinks then they'll drive you nuts! For a few examples I've seen:

If you give birth at home with a doula or midwife, someone will think you sold out to patriarchial interference.

If you don't marry off your daughter before she can get pregnant, someone will think you promote premarital pregnancy.

If you care about affording food and shelter for your 5-year-old, someone will think you put a price on her or his head.

If you teach your autistic child survival skills, someone will think you're suppressing her or him in the name of being neurotypical.

If you're Jewish and have a tubal ligation after having only 8 kids only 2 of whom are deaf, someone will think you remind her of the Holocaust (see _Train Go Sorry : Inside a deaf World_ by Leah Hager Cohen) o_O

Oops, that should be _Train Go Sorry : Inside a Deaf World_. Shame on my typing.

While I acknowledge and respect the point made, biased application of a beneficial procedure does not identify a problem with the procedure, but with the doctors applying it. Those individuals eager to sterilize women of color, low income women, and immigrant women are the same ones likely to be pleased with the right to refuse to sterilize white, wealthy women, whom they'd like to see conscripted into the business of egg manufacturing & distribution, contributing to the ongoing bleaching of America. Meanwhile, other means will be utilized to discourage women of color, low income women, and immigrant women from having children, and simultaneously those that would like to be sterilized for the sake of their personal security, health, and autonomy are denied the opportunity.

My sympathies go out to those forcibly sterilized as described above, but I am simply unpersuaded that blaming the technology (or accessibility to it) is the right solution. Would we say the same thing about abortion procedures if we found doctors disproportionately encouraging women of color, low income women, and immigrant women to get abortions, while discouraging white, wealthy women from doing so? I can't imagine an anti-abortion camp building on this blog supported by that flawed reasoning.

While I acknowledge and respect the point made, biased application of a beneficial procedure does not identify a problem with the procedure, but with the doctors applying it. Those individuals eager to sterilize women of color, low income women, and immigrant women are the same ones likely to be pleased with the right to refuse to sterilize white, wealthy women, whom they'd like to see conscripted into the business of egg manufacturing & distribution, contributing to the ongoing bleaching of America. Meanwhile, other means will be utilized to discourage women of color, low income women, and immigrant women from having children, and simultaneously those that would like to be sterilized for the sake of their personal security, health, and autonomy are denied the opportunity.

My sympathies go out to those forcibly sterilized as described above, but I am simply unpersuaded that blaming the technology (or accessibility to it) is the right solution. Would we say the same thing about abortion procedures if we found doctors disproportionately encouraging women of color, low income women, and immigrant women to get abortions, while discouraging white, wealthy women from doing so? I can't imagine an anti-abortion camp building on this blog supported by that flawed reasoning.

"A woman's chances of getting married decrease by 40% with every 16-point increase in IQ above 100."

That piece of information is absolute rubbish. I mean it is logically inconsistent with itself for starters.

If 100% of women with an IQ of 68 or less get married, then at IQ of 84, 60% get married, at IQ 100 it's 36%, IQ 116 it's 22%, IQ 132 it's 13%, IQ 148 it's 8%, IQ 164 it's 5%,... and if you're smart enough to work out the numbers this far presumably you are a confirmed spinster by now!

But there is truth in the fact that certainly here in the UK the government can't stop whining about middle class white people not having enough kids, and whining about working class and ethnic minority people having too many kids.

Part of it is a cold and relatively unfeeling cost/benefit analysis. Which is true, though the effect is not nice.

Short term, high-efficiency, woman-controlled BC is actually fairly expensive.

Condoms are much cheaper. Partly because they're, well... cheap (a quick web search showed them at under a quarter each in packs of 100, and half of that in packs of 1,000.) And they're also cheap because you only pay for them when you actually have sex (while other equivalently safe BC is a constant cost.) If you have sex twice a week, a full year's worth of effective BC costs you $25.

But they're not controlled by the woman. And a lot of guys won't use them.

That makes the cost/benefit analysis more biased towards sterilization.

The other thing that few people have mentioned is that having kids is incredibly expensive. It really is--whether you're poor, middle class, or rich, it's an enormous financial blow. The corollary is that if you ARE poor, and you don't want to be poor, then an incredibly "good"* way to make non-poverty more likely is to avoid having children. So that surely comes into the equation as well.

*"good" statistically. NOT "good" ethically, morally, etc.

oops hit post too soon.

Anyway, a lot of folks retain the general feeling that "people who seek government assistance should be required to do everything possible to minimize their need for assistance."

This view is (unsurprisingly) most common among richer people. But if you combine that view with the fact that kids are expensive as hell, you end up with people pushing sterilization.

Because a lot of the common motives are linked to money, it is probably relevant to note the intersection of race and class. The prosterilizatio nopinions are certainly classist (which leads to racially biased results, as class and race are correlated to some degree) and are probably also racist as well.

I'd much rather have fertility treatments than adopt. There are waiting lists at adoption agencies, birth mothers can take their kids back at any time, you have to be saint to be approved, and you don't even get a biological child out of it. Sounds like a bad deal to me. I want to experience carrying my child from conception and giving birth. I want to look at my child and see myself and the person I love. Adoption can't replace that.

GAAAAH!

I'd much rather have fertility treatments than adopt. There are waiting lists at adoption agencies, birth mothers can take their kids back at any time, you have to be saint to be approved, and you don't even get a biological child out of it.

Here's my advice: Google is your friend. YES there are waiting lists, but that's neither here nor there. Many agencies want to have adoptive parents matched up with birth parents in a situation where it's best for both parties. Any way, having a kid shouldn't be a "I WANT IT NOW" proposition, even if you can have one biologically. NO the bio parents can not "take back" a child at any point. NO you don't have to be a saint (if you did, no children would ever be adopted).

I'm not even going to touch the whole "you don't get a biological kid out of it" thing. The blatant implication there is that the ONLY children you can REALLY love are the ones who come out of your womb, and I know that's complete bullshit and UTTERLY INSULTING to adoptive parents and adoptees.

Oh, my, Darwin, Nicole. Everything that comes out of your mouth is appalling. Sometimes I think you must be a clever caricature of an ignorant, spoiled teeny-bopper.

There are waiting lists for WHITE NEWBORNS at adoption agencies. Believe me, there's no shortage of adoptable babies & children in this world. But then again, unlike you I consider non-white children and those who weren't born in America "adoptable."

Birth mothers CAN'T take the children from you at any time. There's more than one kind of adoption, you know.

And if you're only capable of loving someone who shares your genes, you're fucked up. "If it doesn't look like me, how could I love it?!"

No, adoption can't "replace" the experience of carrying and giving birth to a baby, but sometimes you can literally save an ALREADY LIVING child's life by doing it. One fewer orphan in the world. Or you could just spend $20,000 creating your own little mini-me.

And if you're only capable of loving someone who shares your genes, you're fucked up. "If it doesn't look like me, how could I love it?!"

Aren't the differing preferences of one's OWN biological children above/below one's OWN adopted children things where people just differ?

I know a lot of adoption families and it seems pretty obvious that they love their kids. Saying otherwise seems, as you put it, pretty fucked up.

But saying that YOU PERSONALLY would not like to adopt, and/or that YOU PERSONALLY don't feel comfortable with the concept, isn't fucked up at all. I know plenty of people who don't believe they could give an adopted child as much love as their own biological child. So long as they don't adopt anyone, what's wrong with that view?

I never said adoptees aren't lovable. I just don't think adoption compares to having a biological child. There is no greater miracle than giving birth to the combination of yourself and the person you love. Adopting is a very difficult process no matter the race of the child and just can't compare to the miracle of conceiving and giving birth. I respect people who adopt, but it's not for me.

Conceiving and giving birth is not a goddamn miracle. It's a normal, common biological process.

Nicole, if that's how you fell, then fair enough. But the way you worded it was incredibly offensive, even if you didn't mean it that way. It sounded a whole lot like you think my parents got a bad deal when they adopted me, and that the bond they share with my non-adopted sisters is 'better' than the bond my parents have with me.

My sister-one of the non-adopted ones, so we aren't biologically related-just had a baby. Let me reassure you the lack of a biological relationship to him does not lessen my love, or the bond I have with him-he is, quite simply, the BEST BABY EVER! (no offense meant to those who are aware of other Best Babies Ever!-that's just my personal opinion on the subject)

There is nothing wrong with not wanting to adopt, Sailorman. But Nicole didn't just say, "Adoption's not for me."
She made a number of ignorant statements that don't reflect reality, and her language suggests that her reason for wanting bio kids is a narcissistic one. Sure, everyone has their reasons, but her post comes off as very childish and elitist.

"Conceiving and giving birth is not a goddamn miracle. It's a normal, common biological process."

If that is how you feel then I feel sorry for you. Just because something is biological does not mean it is not a miracle. You don't know everything about conception. The best fertility specialists in the country don't. You may know the basics, but no one truly knows everything that happens. Some basic science does not make the process any less miraculous. I think the Big Bang is pretty miraculous. There is some science to it, but that doesn't change the fact that it is something we don't completely understand or make it any less incredible. The same goes for conception and birth.

The greatest miracle about giving birth is that some people are willing to do it more than once :)

You feel sorry for me b/c I refrain from using the word "miracle" where it doesn't apply? Virgin births are miracles. Trillions and trillions of babies born via human sexual reproduction... not so much.

Right on, SarahMC.

Miracles are caused by the intervention of the gods, and I'm not really an exhibitionist-I don't want a third party in the room when I'm having sex.

In any case, weren't we talking about the non-miraculous intervention of doctors? I'd very much like to see some new stats on tubal ligation, to see what the differences are between various groups, not just in terms of colour, but in terms of poverty levels.

Nicole-
mir·a·cle (mĭr'ə-kəl) n.
1) An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God: "Miracles are spontaneous, they cannot be summoned, but come of themselves" (Katherine Anne Porter).
2) One that excites admiring awe. See Synonyms at wonder.
3) A miracle play.
Courtesy of the American Heritage Dictionary.

Notice that "sexual reproduction" is not part of any of the given definitions. Why? Because it is "explicable by the laws of nature." And you are wrong. A miracle, as defined, is NOT biological. And I have never seen anyone stand back in "admiring awe" at someone else's ability to concieve a child. Ever.

Also, your comment about not wanting to adopt was vapid, uninformed, and cruel, as are most of your comments (i.e. those found on the "Richie Rich" thread).

Why is it that you would not be able to see yourself and the person you love in an adopted child? I would imagine that if you raised a child that was not biologically your own, you would find that it would turn out a great deal like yourself in terms of personality, ideology, and habits. Is that somehow less than a physical resemblance?

As for the whole "there are waiting lists at adoption agencies, birth mothers can take their kids back at any time, you have to be saint to be approved, and you don't even get a biological child out of it," thing, sigh....

I believe the whole "saint" thing is basically a requirement that you don't have a criminal record and you are financially able to support a child. Not exactly unreasonable.

Birth mothers ABSOLUTELY CANNOT take their child back at any time. That is just ridiculous.

The waiting list thing has been discussed.

And I am frankly appalled at the implication that a biological child is *better* than an adopted one ("you don't even get...").

Cruella,

Let me re-state: "For every 16-point rise in IQ above 100, a woman's chances of getting married decrease by 40%."

16 points is one standard deviation for the relevant IQ test. 96% of any set will be within 2 standard deviations from the norm; 2% will be on the far right end of the bell curve.

Ergo, only 2% of women have an IQ above 132. If 100% of them get married, or 0% get married, it will only have a negligible effect on the percent of overall women who wed.

Here is the relevant study:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V9F-4F1GRC0-1&_user=10&_coverDate=05%2F31%2F2005&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=eb3341cb6fde7f76fe218de2caa87ea1

The math works out quite well. If 100% of 100 IQ women wed by mid-life (defined, in the study, as age 51, I believe), then 36% of the "smartest" 2% of women will wed. Not sure why that is "impossible" or "internally inconsistent."

"There are waiting lists for WHITE NEWBORNS at adoption agencies."

...and on occasion, waiting lists for other newborns too:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1027/p11s01-lifp.html

"...While the news may be encouraging for African-American children adopted abroad, there's evidence of change on the home front, too, as more white Americans look into adopting black babies.

"Since the US doesn't keep statistics on private domestic adoptions, the exact numbers of trans-racial adoptions are not known, but anecdotal evidence abounds of a shift toward black infants being placed with white American families.

"'We can find homes for all our babies in the US, but there are regional differences,' notes Robert Springer of Christian Homes in Texas, who adds that 'many families in the Northeast, Northwest, and Minnesota are eager to adopt African-American babies.'

"Dick Van Deelen, with Adoption Associates in Michigan, reports that for the first time in 35 years they have a list of white families waiting to adopt black babies.

"In a twist to the import/export world of international adoption, 'We are thinking of looking to Africa to bring over more children to meet this need,' he says.

"Adoption-Link, in Chicago, also has a waiting list of families for black babies.

"'The younger generation that is now adopting is less prejudiced and more open to becoming a mixed-race family,' says Mr. Van Deelen..."

Does anyone else find it strange that only couples having difficulty concieving naturally are held selfish if they chose not to adopt? Being capable of having bio-kids doesn't mean being incapable of adopting as well, so why is it that only infertile people are held to this standard?

Oh, and BTW, IMHO, all parenting is just a tad narcissistic, whether bio or adopted. I mean, here you have two adults conspiring to shape a little one into being of the same mind and character as they themselves. Either way, they're attempting to mold a mini-me, whether or not the genetic similarity is there.

Either way, they're attempting to mold a mini-me

I don't really see where this is coming from. Often, good parents are attempting to form a supportive environment wherein a child can develop into the separate person she/he is, while socializing the kid well enough that she/he doesn't eat with her/his fingers in public.

There's a lot of parents-to-be that go into the experience with the idea that they can mold their kid into this perfect little athlete, princess, daddy's girl, or other "I really wish I would've" idealizations of their own childhoods. True, for the most part, by the time the kid is a toddler, the parents realize he/she has a mind of his/her own, but until then, they're content to dress the little thing in whatever outfit suits the mold they have in mind, and dream of how they'll be just so when they're 9 or 10.