If a Natural parent is unable to pick N choose children WHY on earth do Adopters think they should be able to?

Lillie

I think a real "service to the community" would be to encourage family preservation, provide resources to keep children WITH their original families so that adoption isn't even necessary.

Please...adoption is not a "service to the community". It is a service to one's own wants and desires.

The ONLY reason AP's get to choose is because of the $$$. They are willing to shell out tens of thousands of dollars for what they want, and the agencies will do whatever it takes to fill that order.

It is a BUSINESS, people, and the sooner everyone realizes that, the sooner we will FINALLY start seeing the necessary reforms to start making adoption an ethical and true "service" to CHILDREN.

Kim

>> If Adoptive parents want society to accept Adoption as if its equal to Giving birth......why not get rid of all your stipulations/conditions? <<

There's a difference between "equal to" and "exactly the same as." As so many people have pointed out in the past, adoption is not the same as giving birth. IMHO, it is not in the child's best interest to base placements soley on which child is the neediest (nor, by the same token, which parent has been waiting the longest.) It's in the child's best interest to place him in an adoptive family who is both willing and able to meet his specific needs.

Of course, anything can happen down the road and I think most (nearly all) adoptive parents are willing to accept that -- just as most (nearly all) natural parents are. I get frustrated when adoptive parents stipulate superficial things (I know one who would only accept a blue-eyed baby) because they give all of us a bad name -- and perhaps those are the a-parents you're talking about â€” but I also think being honest about what you're willing/prepared to handle is the responsible thing to do.

DevonChaos

In a perfect world, every child who is up for adoption would be represented equally and given to parents regardless of any disorders or conditions. Unfortunately, I think that there would be an uproar amongst those who want the shiny new baby. They would see it as going to the market and buying expired food, or buying a car with dents in it already. Some people aren't satisfied with anything except their view of "perfection".
Lord only knows, I was a newborn, white female with no visible problems, but my parents soon found out that shiny and new doesn't equal unblemished and perfect. There is a struggle behind every person, and some are harder than others. I see the people who are unwilling to adopt ANY child as spoiled and lazy. If you want to adopt, to help a child "in need" then you should be willing to take any child in need. Not only children who are fashionable in your neighborhood. If you aren't equipped from day one to handle anything down the road, you aren't going to be capable when things happen later on. Even the most perfect baby can end up a paraplegic later in life and need 24/7 care from the parents who wanted nothing except the perfect child. You never know what you are going to get, no matter what things start out like.

Serenity71

Adoption in some countries (And in fostering in the US too) is about finding families for children.

I know in my kids case family preservation was the aim for months before we become her parents. Their Nmother knew she couldn't raise her child and didn't want foster care for them. So she chose adoption and then us. Then we were contacted. We didn't see a picture until after we agreed to the conditions of the adoption.

I come across a lot of people who don't really have a clue about adoption. And open adoption is unheard of to most because its only new. Public education is needed, not just on the good aspects but the not so good too.

IDK!!

you first statement is incorrect there are many ways biological parent select/deselect their children:
-elective abortion when a a defect is detected ot the "wrong gender"
-Weeding out gender or genetic risks when choosing embryos for implantation
-placing a child for adoption when a defect exists
-Dropping of kids a safe haves because they act up
-allowing grandma to raise kids
-placing adult kids in care facilities
-sending kids to boarding schools

This is just the tip of the ice-burg and i'm sure adoptive parents do many of the same things.

I was up for what ever came and i never regretted it. But I want to be everything my son needs.

If I were looking for a home for my child, particularly if he were special needs, i would what a home that WANTED him. A home like mine or Gaia's. I didn't know much, but i am open to learning and accept him no matter what. When I saw my son for the first time, i saw years of debt, doctors visits, pain, and never thought twice.

It's sad that more aren't open to special needs kids, but I don't think those are the people who would be good parents to them anyway. They usually will admit that they don't have what it takes. but I get what you are saying.

Just wanted to add:
My son IS perfect, he has a sick body, but HE is more than a body. he is smart, happy, affectionate, creative and has tons of love to give. I would never consider him broken.

ETA-"If adoption is about "a service" than why do not away with infant/toddler adoption altogether and replace it with legal guardianship until child is old enough to decide if he/she wants "your service" permanently."

At what age can they decide? Where will they go? What if they are mentally unable to make a safe decision for themself? Does that mean you think they should be inmacipated? What about the kids whose parents won't welcome them back?

You're grasping here!

Gina M

Okay in adoptions most often you do not go through some catalog and pick out a child. This is an idiotic question. There is no way to figure out how one adoptive child will grow up over another. If you are talking about looks etc you are not the brightest crayola in the box either. A lot of people now a days adopt the down syndrome babies and the aids babies. You cannot tell when a baby is little if it will have warts. I adopted a preemie that cries 8 hours a day yet I wouldn't trade him for the world. I adopted a teen who was addicted to drugs, I adopted a teen who was into cutting. I adopted a very radical preteen. All those on top of my other 5 natural born children. I never looked at their looks to determine if I could love them. Most other adoptive parents don't look at looks either. I think that your question was kind of hurtful in ways you don't get to really pick the child. Or go over it with a fine tooth comb.

Siver C

You also don't get scrutinized when you become pregnant. Anyone can give birth.. you have to jump through a lot of hoops in a typical adoption.

cmc

Ummm, natural parents don't get whichever child is placed in their life. They are guaranteed to get one that shares 50% of their DNA, which will determine many things about the child they get - looks, potential health issues, personality are all tied to some extent to DNA. If they want to do some high-tech IVF they can even decide if they want a boy or a girl. There is a very high chance the child will resemble one or both parents.

Not everyone is a good candidate for transracial adoption. Putting the child first, they deserve an environment that can foster their self esteem, give them role models and help them grow into great people. APs should be realistic about what they can provide to a particular child and decide accordingly if it is a good match. Our society is not colorblind. Also if your child doesn't look like you, you are asked rude questions and you may not be comfortable talking about adoption every time you go to the grocery store. It just isn't realistic or good for kids to say "take what you get".

I am an adoptive mom in a mixed race family, so I'm not being defensive about myself.

e_osu

Because it isn't equal. Those who adopt are providing a service to the community. They are providing a home to a child who otherwise would not have much of a home at all.

Randy B

I don't feel that your contention that natural parents don't have the ability to choose is entirely correct. They are limited only by nature and science since in some ways they can choose. If it is known, or even strongly believed, that a child may be born the "wrong" gender then what the parents want or could have a serious illness then the natural parents have medical options available to them as well as the option for adoption. I'm not saying it's ideal but they are options for the natural parent.

The adoptive parent has similar options although because they are not limited by the restrictions of nature they are able to chose gender, race, age and state which challenges and conditions of a child they feel they are best able to handle and deal with. This stops them from getting over burdened and potentially affecting the whole family in a negative way.

Considering there have been a number of questions posted recently about children who have not been placed with the proper families, some of whom have been abused or worse, I don't see a problem with prospective adoptive parents stating what they feel they are best suited to handle and what would be the best fit for them and their current family. We also hear quite often, especially in this forum, of the bad placements that have been made so I'm not in a hurry to leave it up to the whim of the very social workers that so many around here choose to complain about. At least if the adoptive parents have some input in the process there is a greater hope for success.

And to those who say that adoptive parents get to choose because of $$$ and the fact they are buying a child, wise up. I have two adopted children and will hopefully have a third soon and I have spent no more then $800 US for the first adoption and $0.00 (nothing, nada, zip) for the second. We stated our preferences and made our choices based upon what we felt was best for our family AND for the child entering our family, not because of any sense of entitlement over money that was spent. I would have it no other way then that and would not adopt if we were told..."here is your child, take him/her or leave him/her".

mmmckinn

No, are you crazy? Adoption is about a forever family. If you want foster care, stick the kid in foster care, and fight to keep parental rights. You are asking someone to take on another person's child and you want them to not question the health of the child? Nope, not realistic. Part of the deal. It's one thing to say, a couple can't choose gender, it's another thing to demand that someone inherit your DNA problems without telling them the child has DNA problems. You want them to be able to care for the child, right? How can they do that without proper knowledge.

We see this fiasco happen all the time in International Adoption. We are more educated here in America, and information should be passed from the birthmother to the Adoptive Mother for the protection of the unborn child.

I walked out of a doctor's office from a woman who offered me her unborn daughter for adoption. Why? She lied to me and told me everything was fine. Then the doctor told me that the baby was a cocaine baby and that I better be prepared to adopt a cocaine baby, regardless. Then the woman argued and said "I've not done drugs since the beginning of the pregnancy". Then the doctor said, "So you won't mind doing a blood test for us now" She said, "I'm not going to consent". I walked away. The writing is on the wall.

Keep the baby if you want it. But don't expect people to do your parenting for you, then come back and take the baby when it is 15 or 16.

BPD Wife

I have thought the same thing on many occasions regarding "picking & choosing". When we first learned that our son had a life-threatening disorder, we were worried that we would not be able to parent him. But then we realized that we could have given birth to a child who had similar issues or WORSE and we would have parented that child, so why should it matter? For us, it was the best decision we have ever made.

However, I can also see where "picking & choosing" might apply to families who are adopting older children that may have additional needs that could affect the family as a whole. If there is a child in foster care who has violent tendencies, a family may not feel comfortable bringing that particular child into a family with small children. That would be the exception to the rule but it is something that would need to be considered in adoption of older children.

Just my 2 cents. : )

Indian-vision

A birther is able to control the medical health of their child to a large extent through 1) Pre- natal 2) Healthy diet 3) Abstaining from use of alchohol, tobacco and drugs 3) Any genetic disorder screening if they are especially expecting the child to be prone too.
So yes, that is largely in a "birthers" hands.
They are able to choose the RACE of the child. Example two caucasian parents can not have an Indian race baby. Nor can Indian parents have a White Kid.
That is 100% in the Birthers hands too.

So if an adopter wishes to specify a few details, he becomes unworthy parent for you !!??!!

And who are you kidding on your way to the Candy land when you say adoption is only for a child's needs. I have always said a child's needs can be best met with adopters who equally need and want him rather than doing the child a charity favour.

mommy

I do agree to a certain extent but the kids that these people "choose" need loving parents and a home too, just as much as the other kids

good question. probably because they're dropping some serious money on a child. some think if they're "buying" a kid they should get what they want. but that doesn't apply to all people that adopt. some are extremely grateful for any child and some want a child that fits into their cookie-cutter life. i personally think a child is a gift and that you should be grateful to have one and love it as you'd love your own.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: