Fertile people adopting?

[Offsides]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[LuvinLucifer]

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.

You do realize that there are no babies that need a family? For every baby placed for adoption there are thousands of infertile couples wanting to adopt it.

 

[LuvinLucifer]

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.

Unexplained infertility is a diagnosis.

 

[JessB320]

You do realize that there are no babies that need a family? For every baby placed for adoption there are thousands of infertile couples wanting to adopt it.

Really? Then they need to look into the foster care system. In my city alone there are over 100 babies ( all under 12 months) that are available for adoption, and yet they stay in over crowed private and group foster homes because no one wants them. Most have been in the care of the state from the day they were born.

 

[LuvinLucifer]

Really? Then they need to look into the foster care system. In my city alone there are over 100 babies ( all under 12 months) that are available for adoption, and yet they stay in over crowed private and group foster homes because no one wants them. Most have been in the care of the state from the day they were born.

I believe you are mistaken. The goal of the foster care system is reunification. If there were more infants available there would not be long waiting lists to adopt. According to AdoptUSKids there are only 8 kids available under two, all of whom have special needs:

http://www.adoptuskids.org/_app/child/searchpResults.aspx

 

[Colleen27]

I think the fertility angle is being overplayed, or at the very least twisted. She went to a Catholic agency, openly affiliated with a faith that condemns contraception and non-procreative sexual activities, and said she's a healthy married woman who just doesn't want to go through the physical changes of pregnancy. And she expected them to treat her the same as they would an infertile couple? I think she was looking for controversy.

FWIW, Catholic Charities also won't adopt to unmarried couples and several regional branches have shut down rather than comply with court rulings that would force them to adopt to legally married same sex couples. So it shouldn't come as a big surprise that they'd balk at adoptive parents who are openly violating other Church teachings. She would very likely get a different response from one of the many secular/private agencies that place newborns.

 

[JessB320]

First if you look at the bottom of that website you will see it is a private company called the Adoption exchange Association. This is not a government website and does not in any way list all the children in every state available for adoption, or every child in foster care who's parents have had all rights terminated, making the child available

I am not mistaken as I provide respite care to the very foster homes I speak of. I became involved in respite care after talking to a close friend, who happens to run the operations of the foster care system in my city. Through her I learned of these babies. Since I am not in a position to be a foster parent, this is how I help.

Yes reunification is the goal, it doesn't always happen however. There are many mothers who have children removed at birth for many reasons. Some of them willing relinquish rights immediately. Some have already lost rights to older children. Some don't want to take the steps to regain their children.

 

[luvmy3]

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.

I don't mind seeing remarks, I just think your remarks on this thread are offensive to women who want to be mothers without going through pregnancy. I also think you have some "issues" of your own, but since you aren't really worth the points, I wont bother to point them out in this thread.

 

[luvmy3]

You do realize that there are no babies that need a family? For every baby placed for adoption there are thousands of infertile couples wanting to adopt it.

An infertile couple can adopt a child. They dont need first dibs on all the babies out there.

 

[LuvinLucifer]

Yes reunification is the goal, it doesn't always happen however. There are many mothers who have children removed at birth for many reasons. Some of them willing relinquish rights immediately. Some have already lost rights to older children. Some don't want to take the steps to regain their children.

Do you have a source for this because it doesn't add up? There are millions of people waiting to adopt a baby. There are aproximately 20,000 babies placed for adoption a year. It doesn't make sense there would be babies waiting to be adopted when there are so many people waiting to adopt. Any birth mother could call an agency and have thousands of profiles of couples wanting to adopt her child.

 

[LuvinLucifer]

An infertile couple can adopt a child. They dont need first dibs on all the babies out there.

Are you suggesting that just because they are infertile they have a special responsibility and ability to raise troubled teens and children with severe special needs?