Strollerderby

when did adoption stop being an option for people who can't conceive on their own? why is adoption only an option for people like angelina jolie, who are perfectly capable of having children, but just want to show how great they are by taking in other peoples kids. there are millions of kids in the world who need homes with parents that will love them. why isn't that the next option for people who want kids so badly?

Mimi, just wondering why your question is not directed towards all people who want to have kids.  Why isn't this a question asked of all people - fertile and infertile -  before going forward and pursuing having a biological child?  Why are you reserving this question only for infertile couples?  Have you had the chance to research adoption?  Are you aware of the costs and potential complications that interfere with people pursuing both domestic and international adoptions?  Just wondering if you have children? If so, are they adopted?

I think that surrogates are wonderful women, and I think there are a lot of issues with international adoptions that need to be looked at. There really aren't millions of babies who need homes, it is not that simple. Our own greed also needs to be examined as well. Adoption would be wonderful if not everyone was looking for a perfect healthy tiny baby, because there are not so many of those, there are older children, with disabilities who need homes, but no one wants those kids.

washingtonpost.com

 >  

Opinions

ad_icon

Quantcast

Find Your Dream Job Now!

Ads by Google

Background Checks

Find Arlington Heights area background checks on DexKnows.

www.DexKnows.com

MCCA Companies

Mortgage Credit Rpts/Consumer Data Tenant & Employment Screening

www.mccacompanies.com

Criminal Records Check

Lookup Criminal Records On Anyone!. Takes 5 Secornds.

Criminals.GovCriminalsRecords.com

The Orphan Manufacturing Chain

Who wants to buy a baby? Certainly not most people who try to adopt internationally. And yet too often that's how their dollars and euros are being used.

The idea that the developing world has millions of healthy infants and toddlers in need of new homes is a myth. In poor countries as in rich ones, healthy babies are rarely abandoned or relinquished -- except in China, with its one-child policy. The vast majority of children who need adoption are older, sick, disabled or traumatized. But most Westerners waiting in line are looking for healthy infants or toddlers to take home.

The result is a gap between supply and demand -- a gap that can be closed by Western money. In some countries, Western cash has induced locals to buy or kidnap children or defraud or coerce their families into giving them up, strip the children of their identities and transform them into orphans for Western adoption. In 2008, Vietnam stopped adoptions to the United States because of these concerns. A cable from the U.S. embassy in Vietnam, recently obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request by the Schuster Institute for Investigative Journalism, said that, "while there are legitimate orphans in Vietnam, the corruption in the adoption process has become so widespread that [the embassy] believes that there is fraud in the overwhelming majority of cases of infants offered for international adoption."

Last year, the United States finally implemented the Hague Adoption Convention, a 1993 treaty designed to address these problems. But the regulations apply only to adoptions from countries that have also signed the treaty.

Of course, not every internationally adopted child has been purchased or kidnapped. But when the orphan manufacturing chain gets going, it generally works like the one below. For more information, visit www.brandeis.edu/investigate .

Really, thank you for that comment and your questions for Mimi. I am also interested in those answers.

I'm a surrogate currently and will be taking a very luxurious vacation next year with my family among other things like buying a car and helping a lovely couple have a biological child :)

I think surogacy is, well, creepy. For a few reasons. First, the class differences between the genetic parents and the surrogate, or, even if this is negated, the fact that it is primarily (only?) people who are very well-off who can afford it. Second, I'm one of those feminists who sees this as just another commodification of women's bodies. I think the phrase "womb for hire" is crass, but, at the same time, I think that it's fairly accurate. Finally, the fact that we're messing with biology with surrogates (and IVF, and, in some cases, fertility drugs) by passing on a trait (infertility) that nature intended NOT to be passed on. I think that Liza Mundy disscusses this in her boo "Everything Conceivable", and about how there could be an epidemic of infertility in the distant (but not unforseeable) future. It's fascinating. I DON'T want to say that people who can't conceive naturally *shouldn't* have kids, but I do think that ethics AND biology say that such people should adopt.

I hope that SJP's surrogate doesn't turn surrogacy into the new "expensive strappy shoes and vodka-based girly drinks." However, the pessimist in me is scared that it will.

ChiLaura, the idea that "nature" intended infertile people NOT to reproduce is both tired and offensive. You might as well say that nature has intended all sick people to die or stay sick. According to that argument, no one should use glasses, contact lenses, blood pressure medicine, insulin, surgery, artificial joints, etc. None of these things are natural.

I needed IVF to become pregnant mainly because my reproductive organs were fixed in place from scar tissue that was the result of multiple surgeries. That isn't something that can be passed along to the next generation. There are so many factors that contribute to infertility. Even if the infertility is attributable to a condition that can be passed along, there is no way to say if that same condition will create fertility problems in the next generation. For example, a woman with mild endometriosis might be unable to conceive without ART, and another woman with severe endometriosis might get pregnant by having sex once. There are too many factors, such as how long a condition has gone untreated, how old a potential mother is when she starts trying, etc. Besides, what couple doesn't pass SOME family history of illness to their kids? By your logic, anyone with any known illness (reproductive or otherwise) should not reproduce.

I think it's ludicrous to say that anyone SHOULD adopt. If anyone should, then everyone should. My parents chose to adopt me rather than pursue whatever treatments were available to them at that time, and I'm glad they did. My husband and I chose to do things differently, and I'm glad we did. Some couples choose surrogacy because that is what works for them.

Hi ChiLaura - It's just that your argument is based on the assumption that infertility is uniformly genetic in its basis - which it's not.  Infertility has a myriad of causes.  Some of which may be enviromental or caused by infection.

But for those cases where genes are involved -  most deleterious genes are recessive and that means the vast majority of mutant copies of those genes are carried by people who are "normal" AKA FERTILE.  It's the fertile folks who are doing 99% of the propogating of these mutations - not people with infertility who manage to conceive from fertility treatment.  It's a common misconception of population genetics and evolution that we can eliminate a negative trait by simply not allowing those affected by it to breed. If that worked, cystic fibrosis wouldn't exist...or Tay-Sachs...or any other genetic disease that kills you before you're of reproductive age.

I would really like to know the situations of the people making such harsh comments...would you have the same feelings if we were not talking about celebrities here? Would your opinion be different if we were talking about a regular middle class couple?

Personally I do not have problems with fertility but I know many couple who have and I believe it is their choice to take advantage of all options available to them. Some couples are put on adoption waiting litsts for years meanwhile they are having fertility treatments and/or searching for a surrogate. Either way, they are excercising their option to bring a child into this world that they want to love and care for? What gives us the right to tell them how to do this?

People criticized Madonna and the Jolie-Pitt's for adopting their children so basically if a celebrity can not conceive a child in the natural way they are in a lose-lose situation. People will always find fault with the decisions of someone in the public eye and its really nto fair. We have no idea what made SJP and Matthew Broderick decide to use a surrogate and its none of our business. Why can't we just be happy that a loving couple is bringing more joy to their family?

As a woman who has faced infertility, I call bull(#$t on anyone's right to say to say what anyone else should do, reproductively speaking. No one else should get to decide whether I should undergo IVF, or use a surrogate, or adopt a baby from abroad, or adopt an older child from the U.S., or not have children, or anything else. Dealing with infertility challenges is an extraordinarily expensive and, for most women and/or couples, a very painful experience. Let's give each other the opportunity to decide for ourselves how best to navigate this difficult situation. If I read one more comment online about what women should or should not do, I think my head will explode.

/end rant

"when did adoption stop being an option for people who can't conceive on their own? why is adoption only an option for people like angelina jolie, who are perfectly capable of having children, but just want to show how great they are by taking in other peoples kids. there are millions of kids in the world who need homes with parents that will love them. why isn't that the next option for people who want kids so badly?"

Umm...maybe adoption isn't considered the "next option" for people who want kids so badly because some judgemental people <whistling and rolling eyes> assume that people only adopt to "show how great they are"...

Sheesh...talk about damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't!

I think Alex paid $25K for her surrogate.  That's basic testing and maybe 2 IVF cycles including drugs.  

While hardly a drop in the bucket, it isn't such a bad idea.  

I love how motherhood has become some kind of war between breast vs bottle, cloth vs disposable, and now adoption vs surrogacy vs IVF.

You can't ever understand how gut wrenching this stuff is until you have been there.  I have and it sucks.  We got our happy ending, but it wouldn't have been possible for us without the right insurance.  For those of you who judge, try it.....really.  And if you do have children, would you be saying the same things if your child were to have fertility issues???

Plus a lot of infertility issues are related to the later age at which people start families.  Is the answer for us to all get knocked up at 16?  I don't think it's unreasonable to wish to hold off on a family until you feel ready to be a parent, have an established relationship, or a comfortable financial situation (whatever it is you feel would make you ready for a family).  However, waiting can make conceiving more difficult.  Aging isn't a genetic condition, it's universal.

Mimi I have adopted and had babies.  I did both out of choice.  We wanted more kids but thought adoption was the right thing to do rather than bear more biologically. I wanted to be a parent not just be pregnant.  I think surrogacy should be illegal.  It is for the wealthy and stinks of classism, prostitution and servitude.  It is disgusting that anyone would rent a body for any reason. Surrogacy puts the womens movement back into the 19th century.  Once again women can make money using their body and the rich get to rent it.  Adoption is not expensive at all n many cases.  One of ours cost us the fees to file in our state and that was it.  No one wanted this abandoned child but we could not wait to get her because she was my daughter born in my heart.  Another adoption was overseas and cost us about 15K over a 2 year period, mostly our plane tickets, government fees and our hotel.  The child was free.

Perhaps the science behind Liza Mundy's argument re: infertility is bad; read the book and judge for yourself. At this time, though, I find it convincing. And it IS different than bad eyesight or diabetes or even cancer, none of which prevent the propagation of the human species (which is what has gotten us to year 2009 in the first place). Genetic infertility SHOULDN'T be passed on, according to dear Mother Nature. If a woman or man waits too long to have children -- well, that's nature too. Knocked up at 16? Probably not necessary. But for the health of your children and for your own mental state, what's wrong with getting married and having kids by the time you're 30?

I also have ethical problems with IVF and surrogacy in particular. I think that both commidify children and make them a prize to get. Just as surrogacy in particular turns women into objects. So few people bother to answer these objections. Most objections above basically fall under the "well, it's just not fair" category, which I don't buy.

Two members of my extended family recently found ways around difficult adoption situations. One family who simply didn't want more than two bio-kids adopted two siblings from the foster system. These are black kids into a white family, and one is "damaged", I guess one might say, by behavioral issues passed on from his bio-mother and learning disabilities, which I think are both reasons why more people don't adopt out of the foster system. The kids carry health insurance from the state AND the state provides money for their care. Besides the (arguably superficial) hurdles that a lot of children from the foster system look different from their adoptive parents and might have "issues", I can't understand why more people don't go this route except for the fact that they want "their own" baby. The other extended family members adopted embryos, which is way, WAY cheaper than IVF and required only that my cousin manage her cycle with some medicine so the embryos can be transferred and the transfer itself. Again, why don't more people do this? The woman can still experience pregnancy, the family still gets a baby fresh from the womb, and it's cheaper. Why not do it? Well, I guess with this you don't get the privilege of being biologically related.

And, Sheri, if God forbid my child had fertility issues, it still wouldn't make me say, "Here's a free pass to disregard everything we've taught you about what's moral and right." Just because something hurts or is painful doesn't mean that we can do "whatever it takes" to overcome it. Several friends of ours are infertile and I admire their courage as they refuse IVF on moral grounds in the face of a society that tells them they should have every damn thing they want.

If more people of the economic and social caliber who are able to afford IVF and surrogacy actually fought for better adoption policies, it seems that the system would be forced to reform. Instead, people spend tens of thousands of dollars for "their own" kid and leave the kids abandoned in foster care or embryos abandoned in deep freeze. Where's the justice? What about these unwanted children? Don't they matter? Or just not to anyone who can afford to ignore them?

Really: I'm just curious if you've read Liza Mundy's book (or at least the chapter on genetic infertility)? I'd be interested to know if your criticism is based on actual evidence contrary to her book? I guess I'd be curious about your evaluation.

Two of my cousins have cystic fibrosis. One can't have kids at all, but his sister can (at least in theory). Were it not for modern medicine, though, they certainly would've died long before reproductive age, in which case they couldn't have passed on their genes. I might be a CF carrier; I've declined to be tested. The chances of marrying someone who is also a CF carrier, though, and then (if he were) actually having a child with CF (only 25%) are infintisemal. Clearly, these chance encounters do happen but it seems that nature then effectively kills diseased offspring before reproductive age. And isn't part of the issue with Tay-Sachs that the populations that carry it tend to breed only with one another (e.g. Ashkenazi Jews)? Which, again, nature favors diversity, which makes it seem that were it not for the insular population wouldn't be such a problem.

Should surrogacy be illegal in cases invlving relatives?  I know of situations where a mother, sister, aunt or whatever was a surrogate to a woman that could not carry a baby to term because of cancer or various other non genetic things.  I also know of srrogacy being used by gay men and a sibling.  Hell I remember on Six Feet Under they brought that up.  The whole this is a class issue is kind of funny when you think about the fact that non wealthy do it to.

I don't understand why people get so up in arms about "wombs for rent" and villify the genetic parents as if they had enslaved the surrogate. The woman who is "renting her womb" chose to do so. Sure, people who are well off have a better chance of affording this option, but does being well off make them bad people? I think people lose sight of what is truely important, and that is whether or not there are children being raised by loving parents. If someone wants to raise and love a child, how does anyone in this world have the right to tell them how to do so?

Women who are in porn are choosing to do it, too. The difference is if one is a feminist who believe that women can do whatever they want with their own bodies; or one who believes that there are limits on what one as a member of womankind in general *should* do with their bodies. I find porn demeaning and harmful to all women; I find "womb rental" demeaning and harmful to all women, regardless of their own attitude towards participation in it.

Less time bickering and being on the computer - put more into raising your children to be decent members of society!!