Ethics of adoption

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Adoption is truly awful. Sometimes love is unfair and people can't have bio kids. The solution is not stealing other people's children under the guise of giving them a better life. I'm sickened by the concept.

Huh? Wut?

Adoption is life saving, for both mothers and children. It's a gift to each party, and a tough choice on both ends.

I've been thinking a lot about my life planning and, as an older mom, what should become of my children if something ever happened to me prior to reaching maturity. I am blessed with a life long friend who would do a magnificent job of caring for my children. She'd love them as her own, make different choices, honor me, invest deeply in them. I'm not saying this is the same for women who are placing their children up for adoption, but I do wonder if this peace of mind is something we might share. What a comfort it must be to parents in difficult circumstances to place their child(ren) in loving homes, especially in the case of open adoptions.

If you didn't adopt, nor ever will or place a child, I'm not getting your point. It is not lifesaving for all. Not all are making the choice - but you clearly only look at the good in it. Open adoption is very different than someone being your child's legal guardian should you pass. I don't know why you'd even comment that. And, open adoption is dependent on the adoptive parents honoring their verbal and written promises and many don't.

It isn't always the adoptive parents who do not honor the commitment. I have friends whose birthparents did not. You are choosing to only look at one side of things.

Its the birthparents choice - it may be too hard for them have contact. They are two very different issues.

Well, it is pretty damn hard on the child when these "adults" cease contact, but I guess the kids don't matter, only the birth parents...

It depends on the age and actual child. My child had lots of visits with his birthfather early on and it stopped - he doesn't remember any of it nor cares.

Your child is fortunate that he wasn't old enough to understand that his bio dad deserted him a second time...and your example proves the point that a biological connection does not ensure good parenting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Adoptive parents are THE parents. All this pc pro birth mama Mumbo jumbo is wrong and discourages good folks from adopting. This, the child is the victim.

Unless the adoptee does what I did and dissolved my adoption. Now, they aren't my partents

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids are better off with bio parents, and everyone knows this including the pro-adoption crowd. That is why adoptive parents always live in fear that their "child" will want to find their real parents and will love their real parents better, because they know in their hearts that bio families have a profound bond. As a woman who has carried and given birth to a child the whole idea of adoption fills me with a cold dread. I honestly think any woman who's done the same would be against adoption bc it is just so unthinkable to me.

Not true at all. I've told my daughter if she wants to look for her natural parents - I am more than willing to help her. Is it hard for me to think about? Sure. Is it the right thing to do? Absolutely.

Calling the birthparents "natural" parents is bizarre - so you are the unnatural parent? We have an open adoption - nothing to be scared of as we know the good and bad as does our child.

my adoptive parents were pretty unnatural

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Adoptive parents are THE parents. All this pc pro birth mama Mumbo jumbo is wrong and discourages good folks from adopting. This, the child is the victim.

Unless the adoptee does what I did and dissolved my adoption. Now, they aren't my partents

some people do this with their biological parents. Some people suck at parenting and adoption and birth have nothing to do with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Adoptive parents are THE parents. All this pc pro birth mama Mumbo jumbo is wrong and discourages good folks from adopting. This, the child is the victim.

Unless the adoptee does what I did and dissolved my adoption. Now, they aren't my partents

some people do this with their biological parents. Some people suck at parenting and adoption and birth have nothing to do with it.

no shit, but that wasn't the point of my post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read it. I found it to be pretty one-sided. I think changing the waiting period for adoption revocation is a terrible idea, and ignores the needs of the child. A baby needs to immediately bond with its parent- whether that is the birth parent or an adoptive parent- not be ping-ponged back and forth.
The article did not make any attempt to get alternate perspectives- it only looked at those who regretted adoption.

The fetus has already bonded in utero and studies have shown the baby suffers when birth mother and baby are separated. [/b]Women who have babies born out of wedlock are no longer ostracized[b] and society should do all it can to keep these women and their babies together. It is not the job of any woman to be a brood mare for infertile couples. Adopting children from other countries is a travesty because these babies will never know or understand their hereditary culture, extended families or their mother tongue.

Tell that to Bristol Palin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read it. I found it to be pretty one-sided. I think changing the waiting period for adoption revocation is a terrible idea, and ignores the needs of the child. A baby needs to immediately bond with its parent- whether that is the birth parent or an adoptive parent- not be ping-ponged back and forth.
The article did not make any attempt to get alternate perspectives- it only looked at those who regretted adoption.

The fetus has already bonded in utero and studies have shown the baby suffers when birth mother and baby are separated. [/b]Women who have babies born out of wedlock are no longer ostracized[b] and society should do all it can to keep these women and their babies together. It is not the job of any woman to be a brood mare for infertile couples. Adopting children from other countries is a travesty because these babies will never know or understand their hereditary culture, extended families or their mother tongue.

Tell that to Bristol Palin.

Bristol Palin is a fool but So are all women who choose to have a child without a committed partner. Nevertheless, she may have apologized but she is open about it and not hanging her head on shame.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Bristol Palin is a fool but So are all women who choose to have a child without a committed partner. Nevertheless, she may have apologized but she is open about it and not hanging her head on shame.

To me it sounds like she is ashamed, or perhaps afraid of being judged the way she was last time. But she is no fool

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh my goodness. Fourteen pages of trying to reason with a bunch of hateful ignoramuses? People, you know there's no getting the last word with these ya-hoos, no convincing them to admit to the slightest possibility that there might be room for considering other options besides "NO ADOPTION EVER. I WOULDN'T DO IT SO NO ONE ELSE HAD BETTER EVEN CONSIDER IT"...right?

Oh for heaven's sake! There are multiple people posting here about adoption, with varying degrees of reasonableness on both sides.

I posted way back when and said, AS AN ADOPTIVE PARENT, I think private infant adoption -- not talking about foster care, now -- is a solution in search of a problem -- the "demand" for healthy babies far outstrips the "supply," and the people who are eager to adopt are generally (not universally, but generally) more affluent, which means they are able to exert more influence over the process, which (I believe) does a real disservice to women who would like to parent but face obstacles.

During my adoption process, I encountered a ton of prospective adoptive parents who would say straight out, "We're paying the agency's fees, we're their client, they owe it to us to do x." And if, on the other side, the pregnant woman and/or the child up for adoption were also someone's client, that would be fair. But the kids aren't paying anybody anything, and plenty of adoption agencies will tell pregnant women things like, "You don't need to hire a lawyer, we take care of that for you!" like that's a good thing.

I don't think there should be NO ADOPTION EVER!

I think we need better services so women aren't forced by circumstance to place their child for adoption when they really want to parent. (I'm the one who posted the three-point list of resources. And I think it's ironic that the people who criticize that list by invoking "responsibility" are the ones trying to disclaim any responsibility for their fellow citizens.)

I think we should abolish private adoption, and all adoption should occur through the foster care system (which, granted, needs a LOT of improvement).

I would also say that IVF and similar procedures should be covered by insurance, as a matter of mandate, so that people who really want the infant experience can get that without contributing to an industry that subtly (and sometimes unsubtly) pressures women to relinquish their kids.

I love, love, love my adopted daughter. And if she gets pregnant at 16, I am going to back her to the hilt in whatever choice she makes, whether that's abortion or adoption or parenting her child. Because as much as I love my kid, I think it's awful that her mom didn't get that kind of support from her own family.

You are making the mistake of extrapolating your experience to all other adoption experience which shows a lack of mature and critical thought. You are also not looking beyond the limited scope of domestic adoption to address the needs of children in throw-away societies that culturally do not adopt and seem to be conflagrating private adoption experience with agency adoption. BTW, i have had experience with foster care and I would not wish that hell on any child no matter how flawed the private adoption system may currently be and I can't believe any moral, caring human being would wish that on any child. No amount of money or reform will fix this system to make foster care the preferable option. I am astounded and dismayed at your narrow view.

Yeah, except I adopted internationally, through an agency.

I guess you didn't do your due diligence. This falls on you not the millions of people who do all the research necessary to ensure theirs are legal and ethical adoptions. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water because you made bad choices.

Our adoption was completely legal and ethical; my daughter was in the equivalent of foster care in her country, and the local child welfare agency that facilitated the adoption is extremely conscientious. I think it was unfortunate my daughter's mother didn't have her family's support to parent, and I think it's unfortunate her country stigmatizes single motherhood and doesn't offer the kinds of services that would have enabled her to parent without family support. I also think it's unfortunate many adoptive parents view themselves as customer and expect agencies to serve the people paying the bills. Those issues have nothing to do with the agency we chose or the legality and ethics of our adoption.

[Anonymous]

Clearly this is an unregulated industry. I remember seeing reports that it about 15 billion dollars worth. Obviouxly the agencys and facilitators have studied psychology and know howto manipulate everyone.
Some reform is needed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you really want a child then you should be happy to take a chiild with disabilities because they need more love a,scare. The truth, however, is that very, very few would adopt a child with any kind of disability. Stop being such hypocrites.

Doesnt this go for everyone who wants to be a parent? Adopt the older special needs kids before conceiving?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you really want a child then you should be happy to take a chiild with disabilities because they need more love a,scare. The truth, however, is that very, very few would adopt a child with any kind of disability. Stop being such hypocrites.

I don't think this is true at all. In fact I think adoptive parents, including us, and most of the ones I know in the area, are far more willing to both consider and agree to parent kids who have (or might have) disabilities than most of my friends with bio kids (yes I know women who have terminated pregnancies for suspected issues.) Often in domestic infant adoption, you have no idea if there will be disabilities. If there's no obvious physical deformity, many of those types of problems can't even be tested for until the babies are several months old. Many cases are like ours where you get a call with a tough situation and you have to be ready to make a choice in a few hours. In our case it was a severely premature baby born to a woman who drank and smoked through her pregnancy. We said yes we'd consider parenting the baby. And then the birth mother picked us from profiles shown. We were ones at the baby's bedside in the NICU daily for a month. And we are now getting the baby tested for developmental delays, because 3 months later a few disabilities (I.e, eyesight) are only now starting to become clear. But there's no doubt we adore our kiddo and knew the potential for problems. This doesn't make us regret our choice one bit, we'd do it again in a heartbeat. And I would say the same is true for every adoptive family I know, many of whom are parenting kids with disabilities, including disabilities obvious from birth. The pool of kids available for domestic infant adoption is so tiny, that I don't know how any adoptive parent these days goes in intending on waiting for the "perfect situation" (no exposure, low chance of disabilities). Those who do, will wait years. I think most adoptive parents, at least those going through infant domestic adoption, totally know their chances of parenting a kid with disabilities is higher than in the normal population and are far more likely to embrace kids who may need extra help and services.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous[b wrote:]Read this and tell me this little girl was better off with her biological father than being adopted.
[/b]
http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/480750.page

I guess you forgot to read about the case where and adoptive dad left his toddler in the hot car and kid died-it was in Virginia and part of the reason why Russia banned adoptions to the US!

Russia banned US adoptions in retailiation for the Magnitsky Bill, not because of this tragic accident.

+1 They still adopt world-wide. It was a purely political decision that had absolutely nothing to do with the practice of adoption.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you really want a child then you should be happy to take a chiild with disabilities because they need more love a,scare. The truth, however, is that very, very few would adopt a child with any kind of disability. Stop being such hypocrites.

You really think anybody cares about your stupid opinion?