New SD banning abortion..

[AnaheimGirl]

Come on. If you're paying money to adopt a baby, you're essentially "buying". "Adoption" is just a euphamism.

No, it's not. There is a difference. When you adopt domestically, you're paying for services: homestudy, counseling, legal fees. It's no different than paying a doctor to deliver the baby you give birth to. You are paying for services that help bring the child into your family, but you are not paying for the baby. The relinquishment of parental rights by the birthmother is separate and distinct from the adoption by the adoptive parents. Yea, sometimes the lines get blurred. Yea, sometimes the birthmother receives help with living or medical expenses, but when she still has the right to "change her mind", that's all it is, help. When we helped our dd's birthmother with some living expenses, we had to sign a contract stating that we understood that this help we provided did not obligate her to place her baby with us, nor would we receive the money back if she decided not to place. We were, in effect, just helping her out of the goodness of our hearts. If we said "we'll give you this money if you promise to give us your baby", that's when the line gets crossed, and, according to the laws of my state, anyway, that's when it turns into baby-selling.

Why would anyone want to bring a baby home from the hospital knowing the baby could be ripped from your house at any time?

Um, we had no problem with it. Just like being pregnant doesn't guarantee you a baby (miscarriages and stillbirths happen), neither does taking someone else's baby home from the hospital before the legal termination of parental rights has occured. A decent ageny or attorney will counsel prospective adoptive parents about this, so they know what could happen. That doesn't make it any less heartbreaking, but that's the way it needs to be done, IMO.

Oh, and again... the baby can't be "ripped from your house at any time", if the process is done correctly. There is a relative short time frame when it can happen.

 

[cardaway]

When we helped our dd's birthmother with some living expenses, we had to sign a contract stating that we understood that this help we provided did not obligate her to place her baby with us, nor would we receive the money back if she decided not to place. We were, in effect, just helping her out of the goodness of our hearts. If we said "we'll give you this money if you promise to give us your baby", that's when the line gets crossed, and, according to the laws of my state, anyway, that's when it turns into baby-selling.

I think the point was that the cost is still a cost. I agree it's not a direct transaction, but... there is still the issue of it basically being a cost to get a child, and in many cases, not being able to afford that cost.

 

[AnaheimGirl]

I think the point was that the cost is still a cost. I agree it's not a direct transaction, but... there is still the issue of it basically being a cost to get a child, and in many cases, not being able to afford that cost.

A cost is certainly a cost and I know it can be too expensive for many people to adopt privately. I was specifically responding to the point where Sylvestor said

if the birth mother's expenses are paid by the adoptive family and they reach a binding agreement, that's it. the birth mother should have no way to back out of the agreement, it's a legal contract. the adoptive parents get the baby.

I absolutely disagree that the birthparents decision whether to place the baby should be in any way related to the monies paid by the adoptive parents. And I think she needs more than a day or two to make that decision.

 

[Beth76]

A cost is certainly a cost and I know it can be too expensive for many people to adopt privately. I was specifically responding to the point where Sylvestor said I absolutely disagree that the birthparents decision whether to place the baby should be in any way related to the monies paid by the adoptive parents. And I think she needs more than a day or two to make that decision.

Well, she's had nine months. And this could turn out to be the biggest scam in the world. Let's get pregnant and pretend we don't want it. Then find some rich white couple to foot the bill for us for a few months and decide to keep the baby at the last minute.

 

[cardaway]

A cost is certainly a cost and I know it can be too expensive for many people to adopt privately. I was specifically responding to the point where Sylvestor said I absolutely disagree that the birthparents decision whether to place the baby should be in any way related to the monies paid by the adoptive parents. And I think she needs more than a day or two to make that decision.

Sylvestor has posted some radical things, but I do agree with that part. Sorry, but that's the only way in can be IMO, otherwise everything about the process falls apart.

 

[mickeyfan2]

Well, she's had nine months. And this could turn out to be the biggest scam in the world. Let's get pregnant and pretend we don't want it. Then find some rich white couple to foot the bill for us for a few months and decide to keep the baby at the last minute.

A great way to pay the rent!!!!

 

[Galahad]

Oh yeah. Someone on the DIS was saying (in some countries--not all) a lot of those fees are actually bribes to city officials.

When my cousin and his family were stationed in Japan with the Navy they adopted a child from the Philippines and the process was riddled with graft. Don't think they would ever view it as "buying" a daughter and it seem rather insulting to the daughter to view it that way. They came by the decision because they had learned of a huge need for adoptive parents for children there being born in very desperate situations (there are desperate situations everywhere, but this happened to be the one they learned about and felt compelled to respond to). Their daughter was actually born to an indigent prostitute and as far as I know does not know all of the sordid details. She is a college sophomore now and happy and healthy and was in no way purchased, IMO. I'm sure in those situations you'd pay the devil himself if you felt it was saving a child.

 

[mickeyfan2]

When my cousin and his family were stationed in Japan with the Navy they adopted a child from the Philippines and the process was riddled with graft. Don't think they would ever view it as "buying" a daughter and it seem rather insulting to the daughter to view it that way. They came by the decision because they had learned of a huge need for adoptive parents for children there being born in very desperate situations (there are desperate situations everywhere, but this happened to be the one they learned about and felt compelled to respond to). Their daughter was actually born to an indigent prostitute and as far as I know does not know all of the sordid details. She is a college sophomore now and happy and healthy and was in no way purchased, IMO. I'm sure in those situations you'd pay the devil himself if you felt it was saving a child.

ITA. I think the details of her life before her adoption will not help her to know them. I have no problem with paying somebody's rent, medical bills and other stuff like that and them letting you adopt their unborn child. I wish the US laws would change and this practice (or some other version of it) would be allowed. They tried surrogate mothers, but that was riddle with problems due to existing laws. New laws need to be drafted to correct the gates to adoption in the US.

 

[Beth76]

Don't think they would ever view it as "buying" a daughter and it seem rather insulting to the daughter to view it that way.

I'm not trying to put down adoptions, domestic or foreign. I think it's wonderful when people adopt children who don't have homes. I'm not trying to imply that adoptions are "shady" because people are paying money. I understand where the money goes and why it's needed. But, I don't think it's right to pay a potential birth mother thousands of dollars when she can turn around at any time and keep the child and the money.

 

[chobie]

I'm not trying to put down adoptions, domestic or foreign. I think it's wonderful when people adopt children who don't have homes. I'm not trying to imply that adoptions are "shady" because people are paying money. I understand where the money goes and why it's needed. But, I don't think it's right to pay a potential birth mother thousands of dollars when she can turn around at any time and keep the child and the money.

I agree. I think no money should exchange hands until the baby has been given over to the the adoptive parents and the birth's mother time to back out is over. And I do think there should be a couple of weeks at least for the birth mother to change her mind and there should be some checks in place to make sure she was not coerced.

There were some lawsuits a few years back against some of the "crisis pregnancy clinics" who had tricked teenager girls into signing adoption papers whithout them knowing that is what they were.

 

[AnaheimGirl]

Well, she's had nine months. And this could turn out to be the biggest scam in the world. Let's get pregnant and pretend we don't want it. Then find some rich white couple to foot the bill for us for a few months and decide to keep the baby at the last minute.

It is not uncommon for a woman not to realize how she will feel about her baby until it is born, especially when the pregnancy is unplanned and everyone around her is telling her it's best to place the baby for adoption. Adoption experts agree that the decision cannot be made until after the baby is born. She can think about it, she can get counseling about it, but she can't really decide before the birth.

Yes, scams happen and that is wrong. This is exactly why many states have rules about what the potential adoptive parents can and cannot pay for, and they are getting stricter. There are other ways to avoid scam artists than to force all women into making the biggest decision of their lives prematurely.

But, I don't think it's right to pay a potential birth mother thousands of dollars when she can turn around at any time and keep the child and the money.

With this I agree, but I believe the solution is to avoid paying potential birthmothers thousands of dollars in the first place, rather than using the money as a reason to require that she place the baby.

 

[chobie]

It is not uncommon for a woman not to realize how she will feel about her baby until it is born, especially when the pregnancy is unplanned and everyone around her is telling her it's best to place the baby for adoption. Adoption experts agree that the decision cannot be made until after the baby is born. She can think about it, she can get counseling about it, but she can't really decide before the birth.

Yes, scams happen and that is wrong. This is exactly why many states have rules about what the potential adoptive parents can and cannot pay for, and they are getting stricter. There are other ways to avoid scam artists than to force all women into making the biggest decision of their lives prematurely.
With this I agree, but I believe the solution is to avoid paying potential birthmothers thousands of dollars in the first place, rather than using the money as a reason to require that she place the baby.

Yes, I think those scams are rare and if an adoptive parent was going through a reputidable adoption agency this would not happen.

I agree that there is a problem with paying birth mothers, in this country anyway where they can get public assistance while pregnant, for giving up the baby.

And I agree that there is no way a woman can know if she will go through with an adoption until after she has had the baby. Just like we cannot know what we would do if faced with a pregancy through rape or if our health was in danger unless we have been in that circumstance.

 

[AnaheimGirl]

Sylvestor has posted some radical things, but I do agree with that part. Sorry, but that's the only way in can be IMO, otherwise everything about the process falls apart.

What falls apart? Adoptions have been happening quite well in this country for quite a long time without laws requiring women to place their babies if they've accepted monetary assistance. Yes, women change their minds sometimes and that is heartbreaking for the potential adoptive parents, but you also have to consider the birthparents, who are losing their children in the process. They need to be able to take the time to make the right decision.

Some people here seem to be looking at it only from the adoptive parents point of view, but adoption laws must consider the rights of the birthparents as well. Plus, if you think many people are priced out of adopting infants now, just think how bad it would get if we let monetary payments to birthparents get into the mix.

 

[chobie]

What falls apart? Adoptions have been happening quite well in this country for quite a long time without laws requiring women to place their babies if they've accepted monetary assistance. Yes, women change their minds sometimes and that is heartbreaking for the potential adoptive parents, but you also have to consider the birthparents, who are losing their children in the process. They need to be able to take the time to make the right decision.

Some people here seem to be looking at it only from the adoptive parents point of view, but adoption laws must consider the rights of the birthparents as well. Plus, if you think many people are priced out of adopting infants now, just think how bad it would get if we let monetary payments to birthparents get into the mix.

Also, I don't think a court of law would be too likley to enforce a contract entered into before the baby was born as it would take into consideration such things as duress, unequal bargaining positions (ie teenage girl v. wealthy middle-aged couple, etc.)

 

[AnaheimGirl]

Also, I don't think a court of law would be too likley to enforce a contract entered into before the baby was born as it would take into consideration such things as duress, unequal bargaining positions (ie teenage girl v. wealthy middle-aged couple, etc.)

Yup. In my state, the courts won't even accept a request to set a court date for relinquishment of rights until after the baby is born.

 

[VSL]

South Dakota is making (minor) news here now:
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,15410-1213849,00.html

 

[conciergekelly]

I am pro lifechoice...You should make your own choice with your own life and stay out of mine.

 

[Sylvester McBean]

In A Hurry, I apologize. I had no idea, and it wasn't meant to hit you personally. I do post some over the top ideas and thoughts in this thread, beacuse it's meant to counter some of the radical thoughts coming from the pro-life crowd. again, I'm truly sorry.

 

[Sylvester McBean]

A great way to pay the rent!!!!

there's a better way. I knew a girl in college that would sleep with a guy and then tell him she was pregnant and willing to get an abortion if he paid for it. sometimes she'd do it 3 times a month just for the cash. when free money is involved, you can't trust anyone.

there has to be young girls that are pregnant and look at those heartfelt adoption ads and see them as free money. put them in front of a judge and have the whole process explained to them. if she signs the petition, there's no going back. my birth mom and dad did the right thing. they gave me up and I was adopted 2 days later. take the drama out of it, a clean separation and right into the adoptive parent's homes.

 

[In a hurry]

Thanks. I appreciate that. Have a really nice day!