Anonymous wrote:Still no one has answered what is to become of the children whose birth parents neither want to provide or are capable of providing a safe and healthy environment for a child. Should they be resigned to an abusive and neglected household or fostercare instead of being given a chance at a living home? Just because you cannot imagine placing a child for adoption does mean that other women do not willingly do do and that it is not in the best interest of the child.

Anonymous wrote:I think those of you that are anti all adoption are hateful and its sad.
Should adoption be less expensive? certainly. Are there people out there who make money off it? yes.
We could certainly do more to get more children out of foster care and into permanent loving homes.

And adoption is not only for rich people. If you adopt from foster care I think its free or they even pay you a stipend. Private adoption costs more but is not unreachable.
Our HHI is $110, not wealthy but not poor either. Our total costs for a domestic infant adoption were just over $22,000. The feds give you $10,000 of that back. So that leaves $12,000, Thats less than most people spend on a car. You can always get a loan and pay it off.

No one that I know that adopted thinks they did it to do a great thing, or expects kudos for doing it. We all did it because its the way we wanted a family.
Our DD's birth mother was 22, had 2 kids already, and got pregnant accidentally. She did not want a 3rd kid. No help from an outside source would have made her want to want a 3rd kid.
Adoption is open so that when/if DD wants to meet her when she is older she can do so.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is an honest question. How can parents be coerced into placing their child for adoption?

They are all coerced "in hindsight"

Hmm. Let's see. Vulnerable woman with little or no social support turns to a deceptively "neutral" agency that lauds the good act of placing one's child for adoption and warns of ruin should the woman choose to keep and raise the kid. Abortion, of course, is out of the question.

Seriously?

Well if she has little to no social support, isn't it a good choice to place the child for adoption? I mean she is at an adoption agency. If she were at an abortion clinic they wouldn't talk about adoption and raising the child.

Isn't it better to ensure she has the *true* option to raise her child, including by providing social and financial support?

Who is going to provide financial support?

When you choose to be a parent, you commit to financially supporting that human for 18 years.

Right. Some women are in vulnerable situations during pregnancy - are minors, are victims of rape, are homeless, or are victims of sex trafficking/forced prostitution or domestic violence. Their vulnerability and lack of resources should not mean that their only option is to place their child/ren for adoption. More resources must be dedicated to supporting these women in motherhood.

Minors okay. If you are an adult, life happens. You get through it the best way you can like everyone else. I don't want to pay for you to raise a child, you have resources to do that on your own.

You consider homelessness, sex trafficking, forced prostitution, rape, and domestic violence normal instances of "life happening"? You can't be serious.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is an honest question. How can parents be coerced into placing their child for adoption?

They are all coerced "in hindsight"

Hmm. Let's see. Vulnerable woman with little or no social support turns to a deceptively "neutral" agency that lauds the good act of placing one's child for adoption and warns of ruin should the woman choose to keep and raise the kid. Abortion, of course, is out of the question.

Seriously?

Well if she has little to no social support, isn't it a good choice to place the child for adoption? I mean she is at an adoption agency. If she were at an abortion clinic they wouldn't talk about adoption and raising the child.

Isn't it better to ensure she has the *true* option to raise her child, including by providing social and financial support?

Who is going to provide financial support?

When you choose to be a parent, you commit to financially supporting that human for 18 years.

Right. Some women are in vulnerable situations during pregnancy - are minors, are victims of rape, are homeless, or are victims of sex trafficking/forced prostitution or domestic violence. Their vulnerability and lack of resources should not mean that their only option is to place their child/ren for adoption. More resources must be dedicated to supporting these women in motherhood.

Minors okay. If you are an adult, life happens. You get through it the best way you can like everyone else. I don't want to pay for you to raise a child, you have resources to do that on your own.

You consider homelessness, sex trafficking, forced prostitution, rape, and domestic violence normal instances of "life happening"? You can't be serious.

If you are a woman in one of the above situations you very likely *do not* have resources to raise your children. However, your misfortune should not translate into de facto adoption as your only option. I believe society and government should help women in those situations, not present them with a false choice (adoption or nothing) which is no choice at all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is an honest question. How can parents be coerced into placing their child for adoption?

They are all coerced "in hindsight"

Hmm. Let's see. Vulnerable woman with little or no social support turns to a deceptively "neutral" agency that lauds the good act of placing one's child for adoption and warns of ruin should the woman choose to keep and raise the kid. Abortion, of course, is out of the question.

Seriously?

Well if she has little to no social support, isn't it a good choice to place the child for adoption? I mean she is at an adoption agency. If she were at an abortion clinic they wouldn't talk about adoption and raising the child.

Isn't it better to ensure she has the *true* option to raise her child, including by providing social and financial support?

Who is going to provide financial support?

When you choose to be a parent, you commit to financially supporting that human for 18 years.

Right. Some women are in vulnerable situations during pregnancy - are minors, are victims of rape, are homeless, or are victims of sex trafficking/forced prostitution or domestic violence. Their vulnerability and lack of resources should not mean that their only option is to place their child/ren for adoption. More resources must be dedicated to supporting these women in motherhood.

Minors okay. If you are an adult, life happens. You get through it the best way you can like everyone else. I don't want to pay for you to raise a child, you have resources to do that on your own.

You consider homelessness, sex trafficking, forced prostitution, rape, and domestic violence normal instances of "life happening"? You can't be serious.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is an honest question. How can parents be coerced into placing their child for adoption?

They are all coerced "in hindsight"

Hmm. Let's see. Vulnerable woman with little or no social support turns to a deceptively "neutral" agency that lauds the good act of placing one's child for adoption and warns of ruin should the woman choose to keep and raise the kid. Abortion, of course, is out of the question.

Seriously?

Well if she has little to no social support, isn't it a good choice to place the child for adoption? I mean she is at an adoption agency. If she were at an abortion clinic they wouldn't talk about adoption and raising the child.

Isn't it better to ensure she has the *true* option to raise her child, including by providing social and financial support?

Who is going to provide financial support?

When you choose to be a parent, you commit to financially supporting that human for 18 years.

Right. Some women are in vulnerable situations during pregnancy - are minors, are victims of rape, are homeless, or are victims of sex trafficking/forced prostitution or domestic violence. Their vulnerability and lack of resources should not mean that their only option is to place their child/ren for adoption. More resources must be dedicated to supporting these women in motherhood.

Minors okay. If you are an adult, life happens. You get through it the best way you can like everyone else. I don't want to pay for you to raise a child, you have resources to do that on your own.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is an honest question. How can parents be coerced into placing their child for adoption?

They are all coerced "in hindsight"

Hmm. Let's see. Vulnerable woman with little or no social support turns to a deceptively "neutral" agency that lauds the good act of placing one's child for adoption and warns of ruin should the woman choose to keep and raise the kid. Abortion, of course, is out of the question.

Seriously?

Well if she has little to no social support, isn't it a good choice to place the child for adoption? I mean she is at an adoption agency. If she were at an abortion clinic they wouldn't talk about adoption and raising the child.

Isn't it better to ensure she has the *true* option to raise her child, including by providing social and financial support?

Who is going to provide financial support?

When you choose to be a parent, you commit to financially supporting that human for 18 years.

Right. Some women are in vulnerable situations during pregnancy - are minors, are victims of rape, are homeless, or are victims of sex trafficking/forced prostitution or domestic violence. Their vulnerability and lack of resources should not mean that their only option is to place their child/ren for adoption. More resources must be dedicated to supporting these women in motherhood.

Minors okay. If you are an adult, life happens. You get through it the best way you can like everyone else. I don't want to pay for you to raise a child, you have resources to do that on your own.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is an honest question. How can parents be coerced into placing their child for adoption?

They are all coerced "in hindsight"

Hmm. Let's see. Vulnerable woman with little or no social support turns to a deceptively "neutral" agency that lauds the good act of placing one's child for adoption and warns of ruin should the woman choose to keep and raise the kid. Abortion, of course, is out of the question.

Seriously?

Well if she has little to no social support, isn't it a good choice to place the child for adoption? I mean she is at an adoption agency. If she were at an abortion clinic they wouldn't talk about adoption and raising the child.

Isn't it better to ensure she has the *true* option to raise her child, including by providing social and financial support?

Who is going to provide financial support?

When you choose to be a parent, you commit to financially supporting that human for 18 years.

Right. Some women are in vulnerable situations during pregnancy - are minors, are victims of rape, are homeless, or are victims of sex trafficking/forced prostitution or domestic violence. Their vulnerability and lack of resources should not mean that their only option is to place their child/ren for adoption. More resources must be dedicated to supporting these women in motherhood.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

natural is the preferred term of birth mothers - that is my understanding.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is an honest question. How can parents be coerced into placing their child for adoption?

They are all coerced "in hindsight"

Hmm. Let's see. Vulnerable woman with little or no social support turns to a deceptively "neutral" agency that lauds the good act of placing one's child for adoption and warns of ruin should the woman choose to keep and raise the kid. Abortion, of course, is out of the question.

Seriously?

Well if she has little to no social support, isn't it a good choice to place the child for adoption? I mean she is at an adoption agency. If she were at an abortion clinic they wouldn't talk about adoption and raising the child.

Isn't it better to ensure she has the *true* option to raise her child, including by providing social and financial support?

Who is going to provide financial support?

When you choose to be a parent, you commit to financially supporting that human for 18 years.