[Vogi2002]

Okay so I have some questions. I was listening to a lady I know (she has three biological boys) and she said,
"I would like to adopt a baby, I mean, I can have one on my own but there are so many children out there that need good homes, but I would only be able to adopt a CC newborn..." Anyway, she went on and I basically summed up what she said but it really got me thinking about something and the different views I am sure there are...and I am curious what answers/opinions there are out there...

Do you think that people who are capable of having a child biologically should be able to adopt? If so, should it be specified to international/special needs/biracial-AA/foster/older child adoptions (or hard to place situations) or should they be able to be open to any adoption plan? Do you think this has an effect on the adoptive parents that are not able to have a child biologically (i.e. raises the cost of adoption, wait time, etc) or does it even matter? Should infertility even be a concern to an angency when "approving couples"?

Personally, I have never thought about it before and don't really have an opinion one or another currently....but it sure got me thinking!!

((P.S I hope this doesn't offend anyone, I just wrote some of the few different arguments i have found.... Oh and I apologize if this has been discussed before, if so just send me the thread and I'll look there!! )

[alwaysus]

I personally think that if a person with bio kids wants to adopt he or she should.We had 5 bio kids before We adopted. Then we adopted Paul. I had 2 people tell me that I was being greedy and should let someone else adopt Elijah. I was honestly appalled. Does that mean we should limit how many children an infertile couple should be allowed to adopt? I didn't consider myself greedy.
If the potential birthparents want to chose someone with bio kids, that is their choice.

Both Paul and Elijah were newborns when they came to live with us. Being that I had bio kids, should I have allowed them to go somewhere else and then adopt "hard to place kids?"
Adoption isn't just for the infertile. Adoption is just another way to build a family.
I have heard this argument before and it does raise some good questions. It should be interesting to read the replies.

[Vogi2002]

alwaysus-great reply!! Thanks, all very valid points!! I will be curious what others have to say!

SIDE NOTE: Please feel free to reply without being bashed, but do not bash another for thier opinion/view. I am aiming for an educational discussion!! Thank you in advance!!!

[BlessedBe]

I don't think adoption should only be limited to infertile couples. However, we chose an agency that only accepts infertile couples (or couples with no living biological children). We even had to have our RE write a letter stating that my uterus is so uncooperative that it said "NO" to seven perfect embryos ( ).

Although this wasn't the reason we chose this particular agency, we feel as though their reasoning for this requirement is valid - for this agency (not all agencies require couples to be infertile, nor should they).

To me all that really matters is that there are loving couples, infertile or not, available to potential birthparents to choose from if they decide to place their baby for adoption. Therefore, if the birthparents prefer to place with an infertile couple they'd make that one of their deciding factors in choosing an adoptive couple. If that's a non-issue to them, they should have plenty of other couples to choose from.

I hope all that makes sense - it's late and I feel "rambley."

[DreamingAzure]

Hmmm...interesting thought...


I'm kind of torn on this lol I think parents who have bio children already should be more open to adopting a waiting child, or an infant who might be harder to place.

At the same time, I don't think people should be forced into an adoption situation they aren't comfortable with.

It all comes down to personal choice

For me international adoption was really the only way to go I'm single and not comfortable with the idea of waiting several years and taking a newborn placement domesticly(who could easily go to a 2 parent home) when there are so many babies laying in orphanges in Asia(Vietnam for me In my mind it was the idea that one parent is better then NO parent. And here in the US there isn't that problem newborn placements usually.

It's a grey area I think good for some, bad for others.

I do think it plays into the cost of adopt too. I am amazed at the restricts and crap that PAP are willing to put up with from their agencies for the chance to have a child. When I first started contacting agencies, I was dumbfounded at what an attitude I got from some of them...I actually had one of big national agencies tell me that I was only "good" enough to adopt a special needs child since I'm single and make less then 50K a year...makes a lot of sense huh?? lol

I think MANY PAPs are discouraged and stop researching adoption when they find out how expensive adoption can be. And it doesn't have to be that way.(I tend to have a RobinHood complex)

[Vogi2002]

Wow, talk about some honest, open, and sincere feedback!! I am trying to do more research on this. Basically what got me thinking is that I started thinking about how birthparents should really have the right counseling and how many wouldn't have placed if that was true. Then I thought about how that would affect the cost of adoption and the number of babies available (not that this should matter wether or not birthparents recieve counseling).

I am kind of on the fence about it all, not sure how I feel. On one hand, if you are able to have children biologically and REALLY want to "give a child a home" I feel like you should consider a waiting child through foster, or adopt a "harder to place" child...BUT, I agree with Dreaming, noone should do anything they aren't comfortable with....

We happen to be with an agency who also requires you to be infertile. They don't require a letter from your dr unless they really feel like they need it. I too understand thier reasoning....but also am glad that agencies out there WILL accept couples w/o fertility problems.

Another thought of mine is that, the USA needs to have resources to potential birthmom's to where they won't feel pressured to place thier children. But, then it also needs to work on it's resources for infertile couples (which right now is basically pathetic). IVF available for EVERY person with healthcare, etc. That too would help cut down on the PAP's out there. So why not, instead of focusing on who SHOULDN'T adopt, focus on making it to where some people don't feel as though they "have to". I think that would help way more people than cutting out the ones who don't have fertility issues (which seems to be not the majority of PAP's). I hope that sounded right....I am NOT saying that I feel adoption to be second best than having a child biologically, but for many of us, this is why we have started on the path for adoption, and for some people that is the ONLY reason they are adopting (yes this i kind of sad, but true)...

Ok so it is late, I tend to ramble!! LOL THANK YOU for all of your insight so far!!

Natalie

[kakuehl]

Natalie,
I have a friend who really gets upset about abortion! She lost her second child to menigitis and wasn't able to have more. When she and her husband tried to adopt they were told they were too old (this was 30 years ago.)

I really don't have an opinion on the subject myself. (My bson's aparents adopted two children then had a biological child.)

Good luck with your "study."
Kathy

[mom2justynsarah]

I am one of those "infertile couples" who adopted a beautiful baby girl. (newborn domestic open adoption). She is now 16 months. We also have a seven year old son. He was conceived after several IVF cycles.

My opinion is that anybody who can provide a loving, safe, secure home should adopt. ALL babies/children NEED that. It shouldn't matter whether or not you have infertility problems or not.

However, there are some bmoms who ONLY want to deal with infertile couples. Or they may want their baby to be the first one. Some don't care. It's definetly personal choice.

In our case, my daughter's bmom didn't care that we already had a child. However, the fact that I suffered with infertility mattered to her. She felt a lot of empathy for us.

It was very easy for her go get pregnant. She already had three older children. She wanted "THIS" baby to be with a family who struggled to have children. She felt that we would love her baby more because we wanted one so much.

She also had a friend who suffered with infertilty. So she knew first hand the pain & longing for a baby. I don't think she even gave a profiles of fertile couples a second look.

[Vogi2002]

Mom- this is true...I guess really who should (and will in most cases) decide if a couple should adopt is the birthparents themselves!

kak-that is so sad about your friend! We were told we were too young many many times over before we found our agency currently (we are both 23) so I know how bad that feels (of course it is much worse if you are told you are too old, we can wait to adopt, they couldn't).

[DebCsMom]

You've all brought up interesting answers.

We have 2 biological children. For one reason or another, we weren't able to have anymore. Secondary Unexplained Infertility. There is NOTHING wrong with either of us, we can conceive, but haven't been able to. After a few years of TTC we adopted. We have ALWAYS wanted a large family. So because we haven't been able to concieve again, should we be denied our dream of that big family?? Know what I mean?

When we decided to adopt we wanted only AA or Biracial. Not because we thought other CC childless couples should have a CC child. But because AA & Biracial children needed families more than a CC baby. There are more CC couples waiting to adopt than there are AA couples. When we began the adoption process we had NO IDEA how fast it would be for us! We thought it would be the same long wait.

In the end, it is the birth parents who decide the type of family for thier child. Our 2 1/2 year old son's BMom LOVED the fact that we had bio & adopted children & so many. She said it showed we had experience with children & that was important to her. She also wanted him to have siblings.

We have 5 children now, 2 bio & 3 adopted. Since we have adopted I have miscarried twice, a single pregnancy 3 years ago & twins a year ago. We haven't stopped trying for another bio child, we aren't trying REAL hard, but aren't preventing it from happening. We are also in the process of updating our homestudy. This time we are adopting an older child. BUT not because we again feel we should leave the newborns to the others. We feel we have done the "baby" thing & now we just want to have another child.

This will be interesting to see hwere this topic goes.

Deb

[maggie_va]

I guess I do kind of think that childless couples who are infertile should be considered first and foremost and their profiles should be shown first. I can understand despartely wanting a child and not being able to conceive. For those families, adoption is going to be one of the only choices they have to build a family. I guess I feel that they should get the chance first.

Originally Posted by Runyan2002

"I would like to adopt a baby, I mean, I can have one on my own but there are so many children out there that need good homes, but I would only be able to adopt a CC newborn..."

What bothers me about this line of thinking though is the "so many children out there that need good homes" because in the case of a CC newborn I just don't believe it. I think there are enough potential adoptive families in the US waiting that no CC newborn would be without a "good home".

Maggie

[ggman]

First, let me commend all of the previous posters for having such great forum manners. I like it when we can all have different opinions, but talk about them in a civil manner! Thanks!

This is a really interesting discussion. We are not infertile, but we thought we were for a while-- it took us almost a year and a half to conceive DD. We chose adoption for our second child for a host of reasons, but namely because we wanted to grow our family and there were so many children in Haiti (where we are adopting from) who need homes. We have a home, so we thought that would be a good fit.

I personally don't feel the need to adopt a child that is the same race as me, (obviously as I am CC and our son-to-be is Haitian), however, I can understand that some people prefer this.

I guess when I think about it, I don't know why a CC person who has the ability to have healthy biological children would desire to adopt healthy CC children when there is such a long wait for couples desiring these specifics and ARE infertile. However, I don't think that there should necessarily be rules or laws against it. (There are always situations where we are not aware of all the details!)

I guess I really haven't advanced the discussion at all.. just "thinking aloud" (or typing aloud I suppose.)

[tjb52]

This is an interesting topic! I am not infertile but have a disease that requires me to take medication that I can not take while pregnant, and I can't stop taking it without severe consequences. We have one Bio son and always planned on a large family. I would be heartbroken if I was told I had to be infertile to adopt. We are choosing adoption or a newborn domestically for many personal reasons and I dont think our choices should be limited simply because we are not infertile. In the end it comes down to the choice of the birthmother and she should have as many options as possible.

[Vogi2002]

Originally Posted by ggman

First, let me commend all of the previous posters for having such great forum manners. I like it when we can all have different opinions, but talk about them in a civil manner! Thanks!

Totally agree!!! I am so excited the ensightful and curteous posts on here, it is really interesting to me!!

Originally Posted by ggman

I guess when I think about it, I don't know why a CC person who has the ability to have healthy biological children would desire to adopt healthy CC children when there is such a long wait for couples desiring these specifics and ARE infertile. However, I don't think that there should necessarily be rules or laws against it. (There are always situations where we are not aware of all the details!)

This was my thoughts on it too....I hear people saying that all the time they want to help but only want cc newborn, but my guess is most of these people are stopped in thier tracks after finding out all the work/money it takes

Originally Posted by ggman

I guess I really haven't advanced the discussion at all.. just "thinking aloud" (or typing aloud I suppose.)

HAHA, me too! I think that is what we are all doing!! I have such a one way view on this (as a couple who suffers from infertility) that I am really enjoying hearing those who haven't and thier opinions! A year ago, it would have been hard for me to imagine CHOOSING to adopt over pregnancy, but now I can see why people do it and would still adopt even if I became PG....

Natalie

[jaenelle]

DH and I honestly don't know if we can get pregnant or not. We've never tried.

I do have PCOS, and while I know there are lots of women with it who get pregnant, it seems to usually take fertility treatments of some kind to get a pregnancy, and there also seems to be a higher rate of miscarriage with PCOS. To my knowledge there is nothing wrong with DH's fertility.

The main reason that we're not trying to get pregnant is because the only medication I've found to control my PCOS symptoms at all -- is birth control pills which are sort of an impediment to getting pregnant. I can't imagine going off them for even a few months -- I've done it in the past and been MISERABLE and don't EVER want to do it again.

I hope that at least some pbirthparents will be open to us as a couple who possibly could have bio children. I see lots of others on this board who have bio kids who have been chosen, so maybe this won't be an issue for us. At least I hope not.