But why, Afi? There's a difference. Your own child has your genes, and carries them further to the future. In a sort, it is your duty before God. If there's no medical problems, why should you deny him/her life? Just because there are orphans? I guess it's better to live a half-orphan than not to live at all. I think we must give them a chance. If I was less shy and upright and wouldn't think it such a sin, I'd have one already!
Speaking about adoption.
Consider, why should people leave a child. No normal people should. Events when the young child loses both parents and has no other relatives are rare. Usually the parents are either alcoholic, or drug addicts, or there's some problem with the child. Of course you can adopt ill child, but that is a commitment that must be well thought over. We have a family in our neighborhood, they adopted two boys, and they said that the earlier you adopt, the better. The more time this child spends without parents, the more reserved he/she becomes, and it may be difficult to wake their abilities later. There are some processes in human psycho that have no recourse, so I understood. Usually the most healthy and able children are adopted at once, on place. What remains - goes to charitable organizations, and the last remaining sometimes to the US. BTW, speaking about Russia, after some monster of an american woman killed a child that was adopted from Russia, there was a strong indignation, and many illegal adoption scandals, so now there's a strong movement against international adoption. They are doing well, and I hope they'll prohibit it finally. Every child must grow in their own nation.
So, what I mean is, when I give birth to a half orphan myself, I at least know that never in my life and especially during pregnancy did I smoke, drink or take drugs, I know who's genes are in this child, I'd look after my health and eat normal food. So, this child has a chance to be much healthier in every respect than any random orphan.