Fertile people adopting?

[LuvinLucifer]

I moderate a forum on which one of our members wants a baby but complains that pregnancy will "ruin" her body, so she either wants to adopt or use a surrogate. She came on all upset recently because an adoption agency refused to deal with her because infertility has to be the primary cause of seeking to adopt. She was told that they have so many qualified prospective adoptive parents that they don't feel like it is fair or necessary to add fertile people to the list.

Do you think this is unfair discrimination? On one hand, there are already plenty of people waiting to adopt babies, but utimately would letting a few(because it's not like this woman is the norm) fertile people try to adopt give birth parents that much more options?

I personally can't feel too sorry for this woman and would prefer to place my child with someone who adopted for less trivial reasons.

[Gumbo4x4]

I think she needs to go to the back of the line. BTW, anyone concerned about pregnancy wrecking her body seems to be pretty delusional about the sacrifices required of parenting.

[Aliceacc]

I think there's a huge difference between someone who chooses to adopt because she doesn't like what it will do to her body and someone who is fertile but chooses to adopt.

We adopted my son after 9 years of trying. Six months later I was pregnant. Was I supposed to give him back?

Because adoption is part of our family life, I can easily see either him or either of his two sisters (both biologically mine) choosing to adopt. Should they be denied that choice?

My guess is that they don't want HER adopting because "vapid" is a poor description for a good mother. And that this is the spin she's chosen to put onto the story.

[StitchesGr8Fan]

I'm torn on this. On one hand, I want to see people who can't have kids get the chance to be parents. On the other hand, there seems to be more kids who need parents than there are parents available.

[EMom]

Originally Posted by Gumbo4x4

I think she needs to go to the back of the line. BTW, anyone concerned about pregnancy wrecking her body seems to be pretty delusional about the sacrifices required of parenting.

This. I would hazard a guess that the agency is less concerned about whether she is fertile or not and more concerned that anyone who would look to adoption/surrogacy so as not to "ruin" her body may not be made of the stuff it takes to be a devoted, selfless parent who puts your child first. God forbid she get a chunky or unattractive child.

BTW, anyone who thinks adoption (or surrogacy for that matter) is easier than being pregnant and delivering is flat out wrong. And in general, I've found that parenting, not just pregnancy, can be hazardous to your figure.

[luvmy3]

Originally Posted by LuvinLucifer

I moderate a forum on which one of our members wants a baby but complains that pregnancy will "ruin" her body, so she either wants to adopt or use a surrogate. She came on all upset recently because an adoption agency refused to deal with her because infertility has to be the primary cause of seeking to adopt. She was told that they have so many qualified prospective adoptive parents that they don't feel like it is fair or necessary to add fertile people to the list.

Do you think this is unfair discrimination? On one hand, there are already plenty of people waiting to adopt babies, but utimately would letting a few(because it's not like this woman is the norm) fertile people try to adopt give birth parents that much more options?

I personally can't feel too sorry for this woman and would prefer to place my child with someone who adopted for less trivial reasons.

She should just use a surrogate then.

I don't see it as unfair discrimination, and adoption agency can have a certain criteria to be met and those who don't, don't get to adopt through them.
I also don't have an issue with a woman wanting to be a mother but not wanting to go through pregnancy. I don't feel that she should be put in the back of the line because she can have kids but chooses not to. I feel for people who struggle with infertility, but I don't believe they are the only ones deserving of adopting.

[EMom]

Originally Posted by StitchesGr8Fan

I'm torn on this. On one hand, I want to see people who can't have kids get the chance to be parents. On the other hand, there seems to be more kids who need parents than there are parents available.

There is a shortage of adoptable BABIES in the US. It seems as if she wants a baby, not an older child. There are indeed lots of older....sometimes much older.....children in foster care who might/might not be available for adoption.

[Luv Bunnies]

Originally Posted by LuvinLucifer

I moderate a forum on which one of our members wants a baby but complains that pregnancy will "ruin" her body, so she either wants to adopt or use a surrogate. She came on all upset recently because an adoption agency refused to deal with her because infertility has to be the primary cause of seeking to adopt. She was told that they have so many qualified prospective adoptive parents that they don't feel like it is fair or necessary to add fertile people to the list.

Do you think this is unfair discrimination? On one hand, there are already plenty of people waiting to adopt babies, but utimately would letting a few(because it's not like this woman is the norm) fertile people try to adopt give birth parents that much more options?

I personally can't feel too sorry for this woman and would prefer to place my child with someone who adopted for less trivial reasons.

On the other hand, why shouldn't babies be placed with the people who are best suited to raise them? If the couple passes all of the qualifications with flying colors, why shouldn't they be able to adopt? Whether or not they are infertile shouldn't matter. Should an infertile couple with lesser qualifications be put ahead just because they are infertile?

[sookie]

I smell a troll on your board.

However, I think that Jillian Michaels has pretty much said she did this. But for the common person - it might seem easier in theory but won't happen. Would be easier to just get a surrogate if it comes down to it!

[LuvinLucifer]

Originally Posted by Aliceacc

We adopted my son after 9 years of trying. Six months later I was pregnant. Was I supposed to give him back?

I don't think anyone would expect that. The agency just needed a doctor's note saying there was a medical reason that she couldn't go through a pregnancy or that she hasn't been able to get pregnant. That's not a guarantee of no pregnancy ever.

[akcire]

Private adoption and surrogacy can cost in excess of $100,000. If she can afford it she can buy it. I'd suggest all her friends buy prepaid therapy for the kid for baby shower gifts. Is it right, not in my mind (doesn't sound like shell be a great mom) but it is legal.

[EMom]

Originally Posted by Luv Bunnies

On the other hand, why shouldn't babies be placed with the people who are best suited to raise them? If the couple passes all of the qualifications with flying colors, why shouldn't they be able to adopt? Whether or not they are infertile shouldn't matter. Should an infertile couple with lesser qualifications be put ahead just because they are infertile?

What some of us are saying is that a woman who wants to avoid pregnancy because it might ruin her figure is a BIG RED FLAG. It virtually screams, "not cut out to be a mother." The adoption agency worker probably had a hard time picking her jaw up off the floor after hearing that line. I can't even imagine a birthmother selecting a woman like that to mother the child she is relinquishing?

[Aliceacc]

Originally Posted by LuvinLucifer

I don't think anyone would expect that. The agency just needed a doctor's note saying there was a medical reason that she couldn't go through a pregnancy or that she hasn't been able to get pregnant. That's not a guarantee of no pregnancy ever.

I still say her story is sketchy.

I believe her application was denied. I really don't buy the reason.

[EMom]

Years ago, a girl I knew from HS was trying to adopt, along with her doctor husband. Her relative told me the agency turned them down flat. I was surprised. Married couple, with a doctor husband.......they ought to be in good shape.

Then the relative told me if might have something to do with it being the wife's second marriage, the husband's fifth marriage and him losing his Chief of Staff job due to issues with cocaine addiction. Yep.......maybe. Adoption agencies weed out people all the time, for all sorts of reasons. Many make you undergo a psychiatric/mental health evaluation. I can see why.

[sookie]

Originally Posted by Luv Bunnies

On the other hand, why shouldn't babies be placed with the people who are best suited to raise them? If the couple passes all of the qualifications with flying colors, why shouldn't they be able to adopt? Whether or not they are infertile shouldn't matter. Should an infertile couple with lesser qualifications be put ahead just because they are infertile?

If someone has body image issues to this degree, they might not pass a psychiatric exam. I'm serious. There might be some serious issues there. What if they get a baby that gets sick or has a deformity later? They might really have an issue with that. You have to have someone who has the ability to cope. Someone who can't cope with the effects of pregnancy has major issues - this is a MAJOR LIFE CHANGE. If they can't take the effects of a pregnancy, how in the world will they handle a newborn and and parenting a child? They aren't living in reality.

I say don't put her on the list. Put infertile people on the list, lady who needs therapy due to body image issues goes to the back of the line until she proves she can get psych clearance and is going to regular therapy. I would not be responsible for sending a newborn into that house - either being associated with an adoption or surrogacy agency.