[rredhead]

Originally Posted by Fran27

I agree with Natalie - too many families, IMO, go for adoption for the wrong reasons - then they end up adopting a healthy CC baby when there are 40 families looking to adopt one - so much for the 'saving a child' theory.

While I agree that a person shouldn't adopt only to "save a child" I do have to say that, just because a baby is healthy and CC doesn't mean that the birthparents of that baby are any more able to take care of her than AA or bparents of other races, so the aparents may be "saving" a child. I don't think people who are infertile should have the first choice of any kind of infant; the pbparents should be free to choose from whatever pool they wish.

Also, there are people I know who have felt "called" to go to one country or another and adopt a baby/child there. The rescuing or saving a child idea isn't bad in itself, it just shouldn't be the ONLY reason one adopts.

There was a great thread about whether infertile couples should be higher on the totem pole than people who could be pregnant and have a baby.

Originally Posted by Fran27

Personally, the thing I have a hard time with is just understanding why someone would spend sometimes 20k and deal with the heartache of adoption (from birthmoms changing their mind to having to find someone to keep the kids while away etc) when they don't have to.

I have always wanted to adopt. I have NO interest in getting pregnant and going through that experience. Pregnancy carries its own heartache: stillbirths, miscarriages, birth defects, premature delivery, gestational diabetes, emergency C-sections, physical pain, etc. I'd much rather fill out 13 different forms talking about my childhood and why I want to adopt than go through that. I know most people find this odd, but that's me.


-R

[teranga]

Originally Posted by Fran27
Personally, the thing I have a hard time with is just understanding why someone would spend sometimes 20k and deal with the heartache of adoption (from birthmoms changing their mind to having to find someone to keep the kids while away etc) when they don't have to.


That statement right there is VERY disturbing to me. Infertile A-parents say on this board, time and again, that they hate it when people feel sorry for them, sorry that they couldn't have biological children, and that it is insulting, ignorant, etc.

Yet, this very statement says to me that you are saying adopting a child is 2nd rate. No one would do it if they didn't HAVE to, right? These kids up for adoption will do, but boy, if I could have one biologically, I wouldn't consider them for a second.

Well, I have 2 bio kids, and had zero trouble conceiving, my kids are totally healthy, smart, etc. But I WANTED to adopt. So why would someone adopt when they don't have to? I for one, don't see an adopted child as "2nd rate", which your statement really implies you do. My biological child, my adopted child...they are as worthy of being in my family as the other.

I wanted to "save" a child. That is part of the reason I adopted. And I believe I did. I was also very selfish in saving this child for myself. He owes me nothing. Just b/c part of the reason I adopted was to make a difference in his life, and the lives which are touched by him, does not mean I expect thanks. He is treated like my bio kids, and treats me like my bio kids do. I wanted a 3rd child, and saw an opportunity for that to happen while helping a child already on this earth. I don't understand why people think that wanting to make a difference in one child's life automatically makes you a bad parent, or puts him in a bad position. I love my son. He owes me nothing. I believe I have made a large positive difference in his life, and based on his health when we got him (and the time he spent in hospital the days following our arrival in Addis Ababa), I believe that he might not even be alive right now if we hadn't adopted him. But he has given us much more than we gave him. All children do. Of course if that is the only reason someone is adopting, they would be better off donating money, but as a contributing factor? That is a GOOD thing.

[Vogi2002]

Originally Posted by teranga

Originally Posted by Fran27
Personally, the thing I have a hard time with is just understanding why someone would spend sometimes 20k and deal with the heartache of adoption (from birthmoms changing their mind to having to find someone to keep the kids while away etc) when they don't have to.


That statement right there is VERY disturbing to me. Infertile A-parents say on this board, time and again, that they hate it when people feel sorry for them, sorry that they couldn't have biological children, and that it is insulting, ignorant, etc.

Yet, this very statement says to me that you are saying adopting a child is 2nd rate. No one would do it if they didn't HAVE to, right? These kids up for adoption will do, but boy, if I could have one biologically, I wouldn't consider them for a second.

Well, I have 2 bio kids, and had zero trouble conceiving, my kids are totally healthy, smart, etc. But I WANTED to adopt. So why would someone adopt when they don't have to? I for one, don't see an adopted child as "2nd rate", which your statement really implies you do. My biological child, my adopted child...they are as worthy of being in my family as the other.

I wanted to "save" a child. That is part of the reason I adopted. And I believe I did. I was also very selfish in saving this child for myself. He owes me nothing. Just b/c part of the reason I adopted was to make a difference in his life, and the lives which are touched by him, does not mean I expect thanks. He is treated like my bio kids, and treats me like my bio kids do. I wanted a 3rd child, and saw an opportunity for that to happen while helping a child already on this earth. I don't understand why people think that wanting to make a difference in one child's life automatically makes you a bad parent, or puts him in a bad position. I love my son. He owes me nothing. I believe I have made a large positive difference in his life, and based on his health when we got him (and the time he spent in hospital the days following our arrival in Addis Ababa), I believe that he might not even be alive right now if we hadn't adopted him. But he has given us much more than we gave him. All children do. Of course if that is the only reason someone is adopting, they would be better off donating money, but as a contributing factor? That is a GOOD thing.

I have to say that this is not at ALL what she meant. Coming from our (infertile) side, it's hard to imagine someone CHOOSING to do this when they can biologically have a child. NO adoption is not second rate, but it's a heck of a lot more expensive and heart wrenching I don't care HOW or WHAT WAY you go through.

I'm not saying someone doesn't have the right to adopt if they can have a child, I just personally cannot see how someone could choose this path. YES I will love my kids and adoption is a MIRACLE but it's just so HARD......no harm meant but I wanted to tell you that she was not implying that adoption is second rate, just that it is a heck of a lot harder than getting pregnant. AND we all respect your desire to adopt, it's just hard to understand, just as it can be hard for some of us to imagine WANTING to do other things....Hope that makes a little more sense.

[joskids]

Natalie - you're MATCHED!!!!!!!!!!!! Just noticed. Great news. Please keep us (ME) posted. So happy for you. Can you share any more at this point?

Josie

[Fran27]

Thanks Natalie it's what I meant - but again only infertiles who adopt can get it, I think.

About the 'saving a child' comment - I'll be more blunt and I find it hurtful to see fertiles adopt to 'save a child' when so many infertile couples could 'save them' instead. The reason I don't think it's 'saving a child' at all, is because there are so many families trying to adopt, I think most children would get a home either way, when you see all the waiting lists nationally and internationally... So, I find the idea very hypocritical, personally, and seriously lacking perspective.

Rredhead, I'll tell you something too - for most of us infertile people, we're broke, or close. So yeah, given the choice I would much rather have used those $40k I've spent trying to get a child FOR my children. That's probably a point that rich people won't get either, though... Paperwork is something, the huge fee is definitely something else.

In the end, I guess that the big difference between infertiles and fertiles adopting is that while fertiles want an 'adopted' child, infertiles just want a child. It's not about saving a child, just about finally being parents.

[tinatyme]

Originally Posted by Fran27

In the end, I guess that the big difference between infertiles and fertiles adopting is that while fertiles want an 'adopted' child, infertiles just want a child. It's not about saving a child, just about finally being parents.

I think that is a horrible thing to say. I think both infertile and fertile parents want a child. They have different motivations, histories, circumstances, financial situations, etc. but one is not better than the other. I am a foster/adopt parent and so have a different perspective. I support adoption in all ways possible. I do wish that more people would think about "saving" a child through foster care and foster adoption.

There are many, many children waiting for a family (fertile and infertile) and a large percentage of them won't get adopted and will end up growing up in foster care.

I am, however, considering domestic and international adoption for the future and came to this board as a resouce, but now I hesitate even asking questions as I might not live up to the image of the perfect adoptive parent (which from your previous posting seems necessitate that you be infertile and poor).

IMHO Whether you are fertile or not, you should be able to choose how to build your family and the adoptive community should support this choice as it has changed the life of a child, a family, and a community.

[taramayrn]

Whether you are fertile or not, you should be able to choose how to build your family and the adoptive community should support this choice as it has changed the life of a child, a family, and a community.

Thank you for addressing this. Regardless if a couple is "fertile" or "infertile" they have their own individual motivations for adopting. I don't think it is appropriate to try and make generalizations regarding why each "type" of couple choses to adopt. There isn't one cookie cutter reason that drives a couple to adopt.

So with that, please remember to speak from your own experience. Generalizations do not do anyone justice.

[teranga]

OK, responses to two comments in 2 different posts.

One,
"no harm meant but I wanted to tell you that she was not implying that adoption is second rate, just that it is a heck of a lot harder than getting pregnant"

This is your perspective, but it's not cut and dry like that. Getting pregnant and having a baby puts you at higher risk of DEATH than adoption. Blood clots are more common, death during delivery happens, incontinence for life sometimes results, massive hemmoraging sometimes results....there are risks to being pregnant. They are risks that you are willing to take, but they are there, and they are not lesser than your risks of adopting. They are totally different, but there are risks to both sides. To me, the risks of adopting are fewer. Yes, it can be hard, but you're not going to die from it. But I understand that to you, adopting seems harder. It's all in the perspective, and they are both valid perspectives.

Speaking of perspectives and as for the other comment,
"The reason I don't think it's 'saving a child' at all, is because there are so many families trying to adopt, I think most children would get a home either way, when you see all the waiting lists nationally and internationally... So, I find the idea very hypocritical, personally, and seriously lacking perspective."

I think that you are seriously lacking perspective with this comment, in a number of ways. For one, when we adopted from Ethiopia, the boys were not being adopted. Period. There was very high risk of a boy spending his entire life in the orphanage. Black boys, internationally, are the very last group on the totem pole. We have 2 girls. We had many clothes we could have passed along to another girl, but we spoke with the agency and after hearing that the girls were being adopted (for the most part--not all), and the boys weren't, we opted for a boy. And like I said, he went directly into the hospital in Addis when we arrived and the dr. told us he could easily have died. I'm not saying this to make myself look good. I'm saying this b/c you CAN save a child by adopting. And even now, post-Angelina Jolie, when more people are adopting from Ethiopia, and the babies are pretty much all getting adopted, don't forget this (and it's the same in many, though not all, countries): if it takes 6 months for someone to accept the referral of a little girl in Ethiopia, that is 6 months that the orphanage is literally turning people away at the gate, b/c they are at capacity. The more people interested in adopting, the better the rate of turnover (there are exceptions for beurocratic slowdowns, but there are many countries where this isn't the problem). The reality is, that even if you are not "saving' the child you adopt (meaning, she would have found a home eventually anyway), you may be saving the life of the child who is accepted into the orphanage. Who is not turned away.

Like I said, saving a child shouldn't be the only reason you adopt. And you may or may not end up saving the life or at least future for a child, but it's not a bad reason to do it, as a contributing factor. As long as you are going into adoption knowing what you are doing, and happy about doing it, and prepared for the reality of the lifelong addition to your family, then ANY reason is ok.

I mean, I'm an aetheist. When I read (and I read these A LOT), a comment that "God" led them to adopt, I think it's kind of funny. I'm not saying that to start an argument about God, but what I am saying is that people who adopt for this reason do so for a reason that is completely non-sensical to me, but it does not mean it's a bad idea. I'm sure they are wonderful parents and the children have wonderful lives. My reasons do not need to be their reasons or your reasons, and I don't think you should say anyone else's reasons for adopting are lacking in perspective any more than I should say that people adopting b/c God tells them to or leads them to, is lacking perspective. I believe it makes perfect sense to them, in their perspective, and that's what counts. And everyone wins. My perspective may not make sense to you, but that doesn't mean it isn't a good one for me or for others.

[teranga]

"In the end, I guess that the big difference between infertiles and fertiles adopting is that while fertiles want an 'adopted' child, infertiles just want a child. It's not about saving a child, just about finally being parents."

By the way, how does this argument hold up once you have one child? How does this hold up for all those adoptive parents who have one child, and decide to adopt another? They are already parents, just like I already was when I decided to adopt. So are they now less worthy too? Should they now step back from adoption so that other not only infertile, but also childless, parents can adopt? It's about being parents for everyone. For some, the secondary reason is just different than for others....

Why can't we all support one another's decision, no matter how we form our families? Why are you pitting women against other women?

[Vogi2002]

Originally Posted by teranga

One,
"no harm meant but I wanted to tell you that she was not implying that adoption is second rate, just that it is a heck of a lot harder than getting pregnant"

This is your perspective, but it's not cut and dry like that. Getting pregnant and having a baby puts you at higher risk of DEATH than adoption. Blood clots are more common, death during delivery happens, incontinence for life sometimes results, massive hemmoraging sometimes results....there are risks to being pregnant. They are risks that you are willing to take, but they are there, and they are not lesser than your risks of adopting. They are totally different, but there are risks to both sides. To me, the risks of adopting are fewer. Yes, it can be hard, but you're not going to die from it. But I understand that to you, adopting seems harder. It's all in the perspective, and they are both valid perspectives.

I'm sorry - I was going to be more specific and probably should have. Adoption IS harder AND more expensive MOST of the time than getting pregnant. I am not talking about the people that go through IVF, or high-risk pregnancies. YES there are risks to both, and I didn't mean to down-play those risks regarding pregnancy. I also didn't say this to "down play" any reasoning from ANYone to adopt. I, like you, think that while "saving" a child can be a part of the reasoning, it should not be the only reason. Hope that makes a little more sense...

Originally Posted by teranga

I mean, I'm an aetheist. When I read (and I read these A LOT), a comment that "God" led them to adopt, I think it's kind of funny. I'm not saying that to start an argument about God, but what I am saying is that people who adopt for this reason do so for a reason that is completely non-sensical to me, but it does not mean it's a bad idea. I'm sure they are wonderful parents and the children have wonderful lives. My reasons do not need to be their reasons or your reasons, and I don't think you should say anyone else's reasons for adopting are lacking in perspective any more than I should say that people adopting b/c God tells them to or leads them to, is lacking perspective. I believe it makes perfect sense to them, in their perspective, and that's what counts. And everyone wins. My perspective may not make sense to you, but that doesn't mean it isn't a good one for me or for others.

THIS is what I meant when saying that I don't "understand" but in no way judge reasonings or decisions!! I don't in anyway think that anyone has more or less right to adopt (just like I don't believe anyone has more or less right to get pg...) it's just hard for ME to see that's all (just as the God reason is for you!).

In the end we are all created equal, and we all EQUALLY have a right to adopt. We don't have any right to judge, even though it's hard to see through another's person glasses.

[Fran27]

Just to make my position clearer - not to play on words but I do also think that you 'save a child' when it's a child that doesn't have any other families in line of course - much much better for them than being in an orphanage.

I'm just irked about people claiming that they want to save a child when so many children actually do need homes, but they go for the ones that have 40 other families waiting for them - do you see what I mean? It doesn't mean it's wrong to adopt, it just means that the reasoning is, in my opinion, wrong.

I guess I'm just so sick of all the people saying how many children need homes and yet nobody is going to adopt one of those.

About birthmothers having the choice, it's great that they do, but even if they only had the choice to pick between infertile couples, I really don't think that the child would be less better off in the end - so I'm honestly mixed up about the whole thing. All I know right now is that it's hard for me to wait and wait and wait while some couples who could just have a child the 'easy' way are adding their name to the list - just to 'save a child' for lots of them - really glad my agency only deals with infertile families.

[teranga]

I can see your point about anyone--fertile or infertile--thinking they are "saving a child" but then adopting a healthy cc domestic baby. This child would surely be adopted without them in the picture, so I agree that isn't "saving" a baby (although I do fully believe that the birthmother should have the right to decide with whom to place, as this is about the child, not the a=parents). I agree though, it's not "saving a child."

But my question that stems from this is that if someone is so desperate to have a child to call her own, and is infertile, why is that woman limiting herself to the child that 40 other women want?

If the issue were that there simply aren't enough babies available for adoption of any race, then I might (I haven't thought this through fully), but might see your point. But why can't those in your situation expand your criteria and accept a child of color, or some other child who does not have 40 women waiting for it?

[JGarrick]

Originally Posted by Fran27

...even if they only had the choice to pick between infertile couples, I really don't think that the child would be less better off in the end...

I don't think that's true. What if the birth parents don't want their baby to be an only child? What if they want only experienced parents?

And for many older children or children with special needs, there just aren't enough families to go around. Children in foster care here in the U.S. wait by the thousands for homes. Around the world, children of color, boys especially, wait by the millions.

All that aside, even if it were true that there would be an infertile couple waiting for every child that needs a home, limiting placements in this way puts the needs of the parents before the needs of the children.

I understand your frustration in dealing with people who think they're "saving" a child by adopting a healthy infant, but I don't see that it necessarily follows that this in any way indicates that couples who can have a biological child of their own shouldn't be able to adopt, or that infertile couples should somehow get preferential treatment. Maybe those fertile couples want to have children, but feel it's important that they do so without increasing the population, or maybe they only want girls, or boys, or children of a certain race or heritage, or maybe they could have children, but have an unacceptable risk of birth defects. I don't think, as a society, that it's necessary or proper for us to judge these motives.

[crick]

Uh Fran..I think you might want to clarify your last post a bit. "One of those"? OUCH! It almost sounds like you are thumbing your nose at any child who is not a white healthy perfect infant and I really hope that isn't what you meant, because there are a ton of parents reading here who just might take offense to that.

And uh...isn't that the type of adoption you are doing? Kind of hard to buy into any of your opinions when you are searching for the same child the other 40 families are. kwim?

Just a thought... if you want to judge others then you might be a bit more careful lest the mirror comes back on you...

[dawnrenee58]

Ok, I haveta jump in. Why is is that the people adopting healthy white infants complain about people adopting healthy white infants??? When we (briefly) looked into domestic adoption, it was astounding to hear about this! If you are so concerned about the 40 families waiting for the same child as you, why not try and adopt a child whom NO ONE is waiting for. I can certainly refer you to people in Nicaragua, to orphanages with many many children who will not leave until they are 6 and kicked out to live on the street.

Also, on the "one of them" comment. My son was a "waiting child" who was hispanic, living in an orphanage. Is he "one of those"? I am hoping you did not mean it like it sounded, but I am so sad that it was stated like this. I am also sad for my son, who will not only have to encounter people who are hurtful about adoption, but also hurtful towards minorities. I have never done this on the boards, but I really think you need to apologize to those of us whose children may not have been the "healthy white newborn". My son is precious, and a gift, and deserved to be adopted just as much as the child here in the US with many families hoping for him.

One last thing. I am now pregnant. Yes, it is a miracle, and everyone (including my OB/GYN) is shocked. But, as I have said before, adoption is WAY easier. I was never physically sick, or hurt, or even physically uncomfortable, because of my adoption. Yes, it was expensive, but we will be getting most of that money back in a few months. Yes, adoption is heart wrenching, and time consuming, but I really really don't want to be pregnant again. And, this is coming from someone who went through IF, like all of you. All I wanted for several years was to get pregnant. When I adopted, though, I realized that getting pregnant was not the issue. It was having a child, the perfect child for our family. Someone earlier said that only someone infertile would understand why infertile people would feel as you do. I was infertile, and I did not ever feel like that. I simply accepted that it was not the way my family would come about, and set upon another road. Why is this so hard? No matter how you build your family, it is perfect for you. YOU WILL LOVE YOUR ADOPTED CHILD AS MUCH AND WITH THE SAME LOVE AS ANY BIO CHILD!!!! I PROMISE!!!
You do not know me, as I do not know you, and I thing we should not presume to know what is best for each other. If what is best for you is domestic CC infant adoption, then you know the waiting possibliities. If that is not the best way for you to build your family, then you should find what is, and pursue it, regardless of the wait. As has been said many times on these boards, the anguish of the wait will fade to nothing when you hold your child in your arms.

Best of luck with your adoption.