Fertile people adopting?

[luvmy3]

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?

Um No, I'm suggesting they could adopt a child, just like any fertile couple could

 

[LuvinLucifer]

Um No, I'm suggesting they could adopt a child.

As in, not a healthy infant?

And most fertile people can't and don't want to adopt a child from foster care because most come with special challenges infants typically don't. It's a painful process with a typically difficult adjusting period that isn't a substitute for raising a child from infancy, which is what most people(fertile or infertile) want.

 

[Aliceacc]

For what it's worth: my 14 year old adopted son IS my own.

 

[LuvinLucifer]

Ever source I can find suggests that it's virtually impossible to adopt a healthy infant from foster care. This is sums it up pretty well though:

If you only want straight adoption, you will probably not get an infant from the state. Termination of the parental rights must be done first. This is a long process, and as I said before, the parents by law get a year, and in some states more, to work a plan to have their children returned to them. If you don't want to foster first, then you will have to wait until that termination of parental rights (TPR) happens, and the appeal period has passed. In Texas, the appeal period is three months. So you are looking, at the very least, at 15 months, from the time the child comes into care, until the child is placed for adoption.

http://voices.yahoo.com/adopting-child-through-state-foster-care-system-1801289.html?cat=25

 

[luvmy3]

As in, not a healthy infant?

Yes as in not a healthy infant. An infertile couple could adopt an infant, healthy or otherwise. They also have the choice of adopting a child, healthy or otherwise. A fertile couple has the same choices as well.

ETA, I'm not talking about foster kids, I'm talking about in general.

 

[jrmasm]

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?

I doubt it but neither does a fertile couple or individual that would like to have a family without going thru pregnancy.

 

[Aliceacc]

Ever source I can find suggests that it's virtually impossible to adopt a healthy infant from foster care. This is sums it up pretty well though:


http://voices.yahoo.com/adopting-child-through-state-foster-care-system-1801289.html?cat=25

My neighbors just did. They got a healthy, happy 1 week old caucasian baby a few months ago.

 

[LuvinLucifer]

Yes as in not a healthy infant. An infertile couple could adopt an infant, healthy or otherwise. They also have the choice of adopting a child, healthy or otherwise. A fertile couple has the same choices as well.

ETA, I'm not talking about foster kids, I'm talking about in general.

Infertile couples don't have the same choices though. Adoption is the only way most can have an infant. While domestic infant adoption is first and foremost about providing a good home for babies, it secondarily is about giving couples who would otherwise couldn't the gift of a baby. The question is if it really should also be a way to help women to avoid the tolls of pregnancy, even if it would dilute the other secondary purpose.

 

[luvmy3]

Infertile couples don't have the same choices though. Adoption is the only way most can have an infant. While domestic infant adoption is first and foremost about providing a good home for babies, it secondarily is about giving couples who would otherwise couldn't the gift of a baby. The question is if it really should also be a way to help women to avoid the tolls of pregnancy, even if it would dilute the other secondary purpose.

The question is, who will provide a safe loving home and family for an infant or a child who needs one. I personally don't think it matters whether one woman can't get pregnant, or whether one woman won't. I don't believe that being infertile gives you some extra privilege over an equally qualified fertile family. Having said that, a private adoption agency should be able to set whatever criteria they see fit for their purpose.

 

[LuvinLucifer]

My neighbors just did. They got a healthy, happy 1 week old caucasian baby a few months ago.

I'm sure some people luck out, though I doubt this was a short process for your neighbors, but the point is that there aren't just a bunch of healthy infants in need of adoptive parents. If your neighbors didn't adopt this baby, many other people would've been happy to.

 

[LuvinLucifer]

The question is, who will provide a safe loving home and family for an infant or a child who needs one.

The thing is there are plenty of infertile people already who will provide a safe and loving home for an infant.

 

[luvmy3]

The thing is there are plenty of infertile people already who will provide a safe and loving home for an infant.

So what, there are plenty of fertile people too. I get it, you don't think they should be sticking their names in the hat. Well, unless there is a law that says otherwise, they can do whatever they like. Luckily though for those infertile couples there are agencies out there to help them.

 

[LuvinLucifer]

So what, there are plenty of fertile people too. I get it, you don't think they should be sticking their names in the hat. Well, unless there is a law that says otherwise, they can do whatever they like. Luckily though for those infertile couples there are agencies out there to help them.

I'm not saying there should be any type of law. I just don't think there is anything particularly noble about a fertile person adopting a baby hundreds or thousands of other people want, and I can understand why adoption agencies limit their services to couples who are either infertile or have other medical reasons for avoiding pregnancy. I also think this whole pregnancy "ruining" the body thing is shallow and stupid, and I'm extremely vain, so that's saying something. lol

 

[luvmy3]

I'm not saying there should be any type of law. I just don't think there is anything particularly noble about a fertile person adopting a baby hundreds or thousands of other people want, and I can understand why adoption agencies limit their services to couples who are either infertile or have other medical reasons for avoiding pregnancy. I also think this whole pregnancy "ruining" the body thing is shallow and stupid, and I'm extremely vain, so that's saying something. lol

I think people have their own personal reasons, and while I may not agree with them, the important part IMO is that a child is placed with a loving family. Not just making sure someone gets a chance to have an infant that they otherwise wouldn't get.

 

[Aliceacc]

I can absolutely see how any of my 3 kids might choose to adopt in the future, regardless of whether someone else thinks they should have that opportunity.

After all, adoption helped form our family. I can absolutely see how they would choose to have it help form their own, regardless of whether or not fertility is an issue.

 

[LuvinLucifer]

I think people have their own personal reasons, and while I may not agree with them, the important part IMO is that a child is placed with a loving family. Not just making sure someone gets a chance to have an infant that they otherwise wouldn't get.

I think finding the child a loving family has to be the #1 priority. However, if all else is equal I don't see the problem in giving preference to who are infertile. I don't see what is wrong an adoption agency's #2 priority being to help infertile couples as long as they a qualified.

 

[North of Mouse]

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.

Thank you for being so concerned about any imaginary issues you feel I might have, especially since I'm only a name LOL.

Since you're being so thoughtful, I'll also not point out what some of your posts have sounded like to me, and to others that are commenting on them.

 

[Offsides]

I think finding the child a loving family has to be the #1 priority. However, if all else is equal I don't see the problem in giving preference to who are infertile. I don't see what is wrong an adoption agency's #2 priority being to help infertile couples as long as they a qualified.

If that is their policy, then that is what they should do. I believe a particular agency should be able to have and enforce their own policies. I think, though, that the child should go to the best suited family, period. There should be something about THAT family that leads those placing to believe the child will have the best life. Fertility or infertility doesn't even need to be a factor.

 

[Mel522]

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.

I'm totally fine with adopting children as opposed to babies. I think anyone who only wants a baby is missing the point of being a parent. Babies are only babies for a very short time, and although it is an important time, it is not the only thing.

I'm not saying there should be any type of law. I just don't think there is anything particularly noble about a fertile person adopting a baby hundreds or thousands of other people want, and I can understand why adoption agencies limit their services to couples who are either infertile or have other medical reasons for avoiding pregnancy. I also think this whole pregnancy "ruining" the body thing is shallow and stupid, and I'm extremely vain, so that's saying something. lol

Just because someone is infertile doesn't mean they will be better parents or are more deserving of the responsibility.

I do agree that private adoption agencies have a right to limit their service. I also believe the parent putting the child up for adoption have a right to say if they have a preference. Since they are the ones giving the gift of parenthood, they should have a choice in who can and cannot get the child.

FYI, not wanting to get pregnant because of what it could do to your figure is different than not wanting to get pregnant for what it could do to your body. It's has nothing to do with vanity.

 

[LuvinLucifer]

Just because someone is infertile doesn't mean they will be better parents or are more deserving of the responsibility.

I never said infertile people make better parents. There are equally qualified infertile and fertile couples. That's why I don't see the problem with giving a preference to infertile people when all else is equal. Not only would this provide a loving home for the babies, it would give the chance at parenthood to someone who otherwise wouldn't have it.