Fertile people adopting?

[daughtersrus]

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.

To refuse adoption to all fertile people would mean that they would also have to refuse adoption to people that choose adoption because they are carriers of a genetic disease.

Of course this isn't the same as not wanting your body to change but it still falls under the fertile exclusion.

[IheartMickey]

I have only read a few posts but when I was 24 and didn't have fertility problems I looked into adopting from the foster system. I went to orientation and met with someone and whether or not I had fertility issues didn't come up at all. I was single and wanted to be a mother. Adopting a child from the foster system who was in need of a loving home made more sense than for me to spend money on sperm.

A few years later I did try to conceive with donor sperm because I did realize I would love to know what it felt like to be pregnant and to carry my own child. A few months after that I found out I actually do have fertility issues now and I've looked into adoption several times since then. It would be wonderful if I could become pregnant as I do want that experience but if it can't happen then adoption goes back on the table. Or if I'm not married by a certain age that I've designated I'll adopt.

[DopeyDame]

It sounds like this woman was turned down by one particular private adoption agency. That's a far cry from saying she "can't adopt because she's fertile". There are many adoption agencies and they all have very different guidelines based on their own specific beliefs and missions. Some have religious requirements. Some have marriage requirements. Some have financial requirements. Some have more strict health requirements. And some, indeed, only work with infertile couples. it sounds like she should have done some better research when chosing an agency to which she applied.

ETA: I also agree with the others that have said that her reason for adopting may have raised some big red flags to the social worker. Hopefully we aren't getting the whole story.

[Wishing on a star]

Originally Posted by IheartMickey

I have only read a few posts but when I was 24 .... I looked into adopting from the foster system. I went to orientation and met with someone and whether or not I had fertility issues didn't come up at all.

I knew somebody a few years ago, who went into the Foster Care System, because they cannot have children.

Back then, they actually went thru the whole program, training, etc... And, never got a child placed with them.

They happened upon the Foster Care christmas gathering, when it was at the same place as another dinner that they were attending. There were several foster parents there with young children. But, this couple had never gotten a call.

While nothing specific was ever said, it was very obvious that her infertility and desire to adopt WAS the reason.... The system's mission was to obtain childcare, and either return the children to deadbeat parents, or keep them in the system for years. I guess they did not feel that an infertile couple with such a strong desire to adopt was 'appropriate' for their mission.

The Feds actually came into the State shortly after that and forced them to do a complete overhaul. Getting children into permanent homes had to become a bigger priority.

[design_mom]

Originally Posted by DopeyDame

It sounds like this woman was turned down by one particular private adoption agency. That's a far cry from saying she "can't adopt because she's fertile". There are many adoption agencies and they all have very different guidelines based on their own specific beliefs and missions. Some have religious requirements. Some have marriage requirements. Some have financial requirements. Some have more strict health requirements. And some, indeed, only work with infertile couples. it sounds like she should have done some better research when chosing an agency to which she applied.

ETA: I also agree with the others that have said that her reason for adopting may have raised some big red flags to the social worker. Hopefully we aren't getting the whole story.

I agree. I know for sure that "fertile people can't adopt" is not an across-the-board adoption rule. It sounds like this particular agency might have had more specific rules.

Or, she gave some "weird answers" to the social workers which led to her being declined, but "I was declined because I was fertile" is the answer she is telling others.

At the agency we used for our second adoption, you had to turn in all of your paperwork and be approved, but then you had to attend an in-person interview at the agency and be approved after that, too. After we were "accepted" I asked the interviewer if they'd ever approved anyone at paperwork stage, but declined them after the interview. She told me that it was rare, but that it had happened a couple of times when people gave "really weird" answers during the interview... or when the husband/wife (if married) did not appear to be on the same page.

I seriously doubt the turned-down candidates say "I was declined because I gave really weird answers in the interview." I'm sure from their point of view they were turned down for a frivolous reason. I saw a post on a message board that was saying bad things about our agency because the poster had been "turned down just because I planned to use daycare." We were approved and we planned to use daycare (I was honest about it in the interview), so I can't think that's the "whole story," but that's what this person was telling anyone who would listen.

[Offsides]

Originally Posted by wilkeliza

To people that say they are worried about being pregnant because of what it does to your body I don't get that argument. I've never met a fit woman who gets pregnant and then goes back to her daily exercise routine who curses their children for what they did to their body. If a baby changes your perfect body so much that you can't get it back age will do the same thing. If it isn't stretch marks now it will be wrinkles later that changes it. I'm only wondering about this argument because I want to know where this idea that once you have babies you can't get back to your pre-baby self comes from.

There is a huge difference between what it can do to your figure and what it can do to your body. A change in your figure will happen eventually, no matter what.. this is true. Things happening to your body, like preeclampsia, eclampsia, DIC, gestational diabetes, hemorrhage, are things that are not going to happen UNLESS you are pregnant (with the exception of DIC or hemorrhage which aren't exclusive to pregnancy). I know the OP was mentioning a woman worried about her figure.. but if someone says they're worried about their body, it can mean any number of things, IMO.

Originally Posted by North of Mouse

My mother lost more than one baby, had two very hard pregnancies (one was twins) and nearly died twice. It didn't stop me or my sisters from having children. There is not too many *desires* stronger IMO than when a woman wants to have a baby! When (if) you reach that point, then you will not think of *what could happen* but will just want to get pregnant with your baby (this is saying that their is nothing medically wrong, of course). This opinion comes with lots of experiences. There will always be exceptions.

Can't understand vanity/sacrifice of pregnancy discomfort, whatever, having a stronger pull than wanting to have your own baby, if you truly want one, but you say you feel that way, so guess there is.

Good for you and your sisters? Not trying to sound rude or snotty but just because you and your sisters were willing to take the risk does not mean that everybody would be comfortable taking it, or that they should feel less for not wanting to take that kind of a risk. Everyone takes past experiences and the effect they have on their lives in different ways. I get where you are coming from.. I just don't feel that you going through with a pregnancy despite a family history of complications during pregnancy makes my desire to NOT go through one invalid.

[Mel522]

Originally Posted by North of Mouse

If you truly feel that way, you probably would not enjoy motherhood either. It too, takes a *toll* on the wear and tare of your body Maybe when a few years have passed, when you truly want a baby bad enough, what pregnancy will do to your body (or perceived to do) will be the least of your thoughts and will not matter at all. I never once thought like you do, but trust me, when I wanted a baby, I didn't care what it took Being pregnant with dh & my babies was the greatest thrill we could ever have had. Why wouldn't someone want a baby to look like them, and truly be a part of each one

It isn't an issue of vanity. I don't see the point of going through the pain and discomfort of pregnancy if I don't want to. There are more than enough children in this world who need homes. Why would I not be a good parent if I choose to take a child who has nothing into my home and love, raise, and provide for him/her? If I don't want to be pregnant, why do I have to be?

As for wanting a child who looks like me, I don't care. Looks aren't important. What does it matter if my child has my eyes or my nose? I can't image loving a child who resembles me more than loving a child who does not. What makes a family a family is not genetic, it is love.

[Mickey'snewestfan]

Originally Posted by Wishing on a star

I knew somebody a few years ago, who went into the Foster Care System, because they cannot have children.

Back then, they actually went thru the whole program, training, etc... And, never got a child placed with them.

They happened upon the Foster Care christmas gathering, when it was at the same place as another dinner that they were attending. There were several foster parents there with young children. But, this couple had never gotten a call.

While nothing specific was ever said, it was very obvious that her infertility and desire to adopt WAS the reason.... The system's mission was to obtain childcare, and either return the children to deadbeat parents, or keep them in the system for years. I guess they did not feel that an infertile couple with such a strong desire to adopt was 'appropriate' for their mission.

The Feds actually came into the State shortly after that and forced them to do a complete overhaul. Getting children into permanent homes had to become a bigger priority.

If a child or sibling group's team has made the decision that reunification is the long term plan for a child, then it makes sense to put them in a situation that can support that goal. Ideally, kids should go to families that will be able to support them either way. That will be able to coordinate for visitation, and work on strategies to support kids relationships with their parents, while willing to keep the child if the plan changes to adoption.

Placing a child whose plan is reunification with a family who is fostering due to infertility and desperately hoping to adopt, isn't fair to anyone.

That doesn't mean that families who are infertile, or who want to adopt for other reasons, can't be wonderful resources for kids in foster care for whom the plan is permanency, but it's important to understand that for young kids the initial plan is almost always reunification, and that many many young kids whose plans change stay with the family who first took them in as foster children.

[mhsjax]

Originally Posted by daughtersrus

To refuse adoption to all fertile people would mean that they would also have to refuse adoption to people that choose adoption because they are carriers of a genetic disease.

Of course this isn't the same as not wanting your body to change but it still falls under the fertile exclusion.

This is in no way the same thing. Not even close. Choosing to adopt because you are afraid of gaining weight or pain or any other reason along those lines isn't the same as adopting because you may be passing a genetic disease to you own.

[mhsjax]

Originally Posted by Mel522

It isn't an issue of vanity. I don't see the point of going through the pain and discomfort of pregnancy if I don't want to. There are more than enough children in this world who need homes. Why would I not be a good parent if I choose to take a child who has nothing into my home and love, raise, and provide for him/her? If I don't want to be pregnant, why do I have to be?

As for wanting a child who looks like me, I don't care. Looks aren't important. What does it matter if my child has my eyes or my nose? I can't image loving a child who resembles me more than loving a child who does not. What makes a family a family is not genetic, it is love.

Great then adopt a "child" leave the babies for those you can't have them. Or go to another country where there are babies waiting. Here there is too long of a list for people to just decide they don't want to distort their body to have a baby. If you don't "want" to be pregnant, then you don't get a "baby" Sorry, that sounds cold., but too many couples with real infertility issues want babies, those babies should be left for them, not those who just don't "want" to be pregnant.

[Kennywife]

Originally Posted by mhsjax

Great then adopt a "child" leave the babies for those you can't have them. Or go to another country where there are babies waiting. Here there is too long of a list for people to just decide they don't want to distort their body to have a baby. If you don't "want" to be pregnant, then you don't get a "baby" Sorry, that sounds cold., but too many couples with real infertility issues want babies, those babies should be left for them, not those who just don't "want" to be pregnant.

Amen brother Ben, shot the rooster and killed the hen!!!!!!!!! That's a saying here in OK.

[North of Mouse]

Originally Posted by luvmy3

You seem to have a real problem with a woman not wanting her own biological child. Maybe you should stay off threads about adoption.

So sorry you feel that way, not ---

Maybe you should read the first post about *not wanting* to have her own biological child, and the title about a *fertile woman adopting*. My own dd would have loved her own, but had no choice but to adopt. If you don't want to see posts about being able to have your own vs. opting to adopt (especially for selfish reasons) maybe you should be the one to opt off reading or posting on this thread.

[iKristin]

Some people would just rather adopt, for multiple reasons. I can have my own kids, but I want to adopt my first baby and give a family to a little one that doesn't have a family.

[North of Mouse]

Originally Posted by mhsjax

Great then adopt a "child" leave the babies for those you can't have them. Or go to another country where there are babies waiting. Here there is too long of a list for people to just decide they don't want to distort their body to have a baby. If you don't "want" to be pregnant, then you don't get a "baby" Sorry, that sounds cold., but too many couples with real infertility issues want babies, those babies should be left for them, not those who just don't "want" to be pregnant.

Great post - agree completely!

[si-am]

I was semi considering adoption recently and looking at some online applications. One of them wanted medical reports documenting infertility. I went through all the testing, but they couldn't find anything wrong with either me or my husband, so technically we don't have an "infertile" diagnosis, even though we've been trying to conceive for almost 6 years now.

I feel like there are so many shades of grey here, it would be hard to put such strict terms on it.