Is a Closed Adoption Possible? - Page 2

[Keria]

HAve you looked into getting a surrogate?

[Deker]

Originally Posted by TropicalGirl

HAve you looked into getting a surrogate?

Sorry, I have been very busy in the past two weeks to answer your question.

Anyways, I didn't really consider using a surrogate because I have a functioning uterus - the RE just thinks my egg quality is whats really keeping me from concieving. Plus, I have PCOS which can increase my chances of misscarriages. I'm also in my late 30s and egg quality diminishes significantly after age 35.
Plus, surrogacy is extremely expensive (about 70-120K!!!). I'm struggling right now to pay for IVF and I know I certainly cannot afford surrogacy -traditional or gestational.

[Smithie]

I think that cost of hiring an Indian surrogate might be comparable to IVF.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...279407832.html

[Sierra]

Originally Posted by Smithie

I think that cost of hiring an Indian surrogate might be comparable to IVF.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...279407832.html

[Deker]

Originally Posted by Smithie

I think that cost of hiring an Indian surrogate might be comparable to IVF.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...279407832.html

Its funny you bring up this article Smithie.

I'm seriously considering going to Thailand, the Czech Republic, or India for embryo donation because the wait time here is very long or expensive. The wait list at the clinic I'm with is about 18 and growing! If I go with an agency the cost is about 10-15K and most were not happy about working with lesbians. If I go the the Czech republic, I could be matched IMMEDIATELY!! Race is the last thing I could care about and the Czech Republic seems like a good fit for me. Plus, they can shipped the embryos to my clinic in the US so I don't have to worry about traveling.

[phrogger]

Originally Posted by Deker

Its funny you bring up this article Smithie.

I'm seriously considering going to Thailand, the Czech Republic, or India for embryo donation because the wait time here is very long or expensive. The wait list at the clinic I'm with is about 18 and growing! If I go with an agency the cost is about 10-15K and most were not happy about working with lesbians. If I go the the Czech republic, I could be matched IMMEDIATELY!! Race is the last thing I could care about and the Czech Republic seems like a good fit for me. Plus, they can shipped the embryos to my clinic in the US so I don't have to worry about traveling.

My very good friend just went to the Czech Rebublic for IVF and she had a fantastic experience. She said the country was beautiful, the RE was wonderful and treated her great and the cost for all the travel etc was still less then IVF here and she got experience a new place.

The only thing I didn't like was she now probably has to have an egg donor and she can't go back there because they only do anon donations. Frankly, I think anon can go really wrong for the kids in the future and i would hate to not be able to have those answers for my children in the future. But, if that is something you are ok with, going there might not be bad.

Oh and my friend that went has been a surrogate 5 times so she is VERY familiar with IVF in the US. She said the RE was just as wonderful as any RE she has had here.

[Smithie]

I wasn't suggesting that Indian surrogacy was morally awesome (and I don;t the the WSJ article makes it sound that way). I was pointing out that it existed, and is affordable for many people who can not afford American surrogacy. It is also appealing to people who WANT to pay the surrogate, not sneakily disguised as medical or housing costs, but as upfront compensation for her time, risk and sacrifice - just like we pay egg donors.


But it sounds like Deker has found another option that is (IMO) way less morally fraught and than using another woman's uterus, so yeehah!

[kannon1004]

I don't have words for this except it make my heart hurt and I want to cry that this is even an option. Indian surrogacy, donors from the former Soviet republic of Georgia for the caucasian eggs. Who thinks this stuff up? Are people that afraid to adopt that these extremes are needed?

[Smithie]

Closed adoption? IVF? Egg donation? Domestic surrogacy? Indian surrogacy?

If you're going to offer a drive-by judgment call, you might at least be specific so we aren't all left wondering.

[mcgee]

Originally Posted by kannon1004

I don't have words for this except it make my heart hurt and I want to cry that this is even an option. Indian surrogacy, donors from the former Soviet republic of Georgia for the caucasian eggs. Who thinks this stuff up? Are people that afraid to adopt that these extremes are needed?

I don't think it's necessarily that people are afraid to adopt. Most of the people I know who've pursued IVF and surrogacy did so because first and foremost they wanted to be parents, and secondly, they had a desire to experience pregnancy and/or create a child who had a genetic bond with at least one of the intended parents. International surrogacy and egg donation exist because there is a market for it. People want to be parents, and they're willing to spend the funds needed to make that happen, but they can't always afford the fees involved with egg donation or surrogacy in the US.

Frankly, friends of mine who are starting IVF soon are doing so because they've had several adoption placements fall through, and they now view IVF as an easier path to parenthood. After all, with fertility treatments, it's THEIR baby from the start, and there aren't any birthparents involved who can change their minds and reclaim the baby.

Besides, from what I've read in the years since we first considered adopting, adoption - both domestic infant adoption and international adoption - isn't exactly free of ethical concerns.

[alexsam]

"For other women, like 29-year-old Lakshmi, a pregnant surrogate in Chennai who already has an 11-year-old daughter, a 12-year-old son, an alcoholic husband and a $4,000 debt, having someone else's child sounded like a better option than her other plan: selling a kidney."

Wow.

[Tigerchild]

You know, there are many things that there are markets for, but that we choose not to allow the market to rule us.

[tiffani]

I've been wanting to comment, but unsure of how I feel about the whole thing. It's horribly sad that anyone would be so financially desperate that they'd use their body to produce a child for someone else, but women in the US and Canada do it all the time, so why wouldn't it be ok for Indian women, or women anywhere else around the world? I have a close friend who is currently carrying a baby for a couple in Italy -- I have no idea how much she is being paid, but she's carried and given birth to 4 of her own kids, so I think she probably saw it as a way to make a large chunk of cash -- being pregnant and giving birth is something she's good at, it will help this couple out, making her some very much needed money. I have another friend who considered it when she was a single mom of 3 kids with no financial support or prospects. I think I would find it really difficult to not get attached to the baby -- and it seems sad for the baby, too.

I can't believe the women in India only make 2K, that's really where the obscenity here lies (ok, there are a lot of obscenities here...)... though it did say some of them make 10k? curious how much the agency pockets... yuk. If the women had more power over the process, it might be a different story, but I agree that as it stands, it's a pretty awful scenario... the fact that the women are sequestered from their family in some cases seems pretty disrespectful and gross.

[RedOakMomma]

Wow. I agree with Tigerchild. Just because there's a market for it, doesn't mean it's right.

Also, I think comparing the situation of most US surrogates and Indian surrogates could be apples and oranges. The rights of women, not to mention the financial pressures behind these choices, are probably VASTLY different in the two countries. There is surrogacy, and there is baby farming. Paying a poor woman in another country a few thousand dollars for the physical and emotional wear and tear of creating a new life seems, to me, to be on the farming side. Especially given the disparities between the lives and incomes of the parents/purchasers and the surrogate.

It's just a step removed from an argument I heard of on a Chinese adoption board several months ago, where desperate PAPs were trying to argue that the circumstances behind a baby's adoption in China didn't matter (the discussion was of corruption and baby-stealing) because in the end if parents got paid for the baby (willingly or not) it was just like surrogacy. That made me want to vomit. This.....this is close.

[Smithie]

The thing I keep coming back to is... I could not afford to pay an American woman enough to put her kids through school. I could not pay her enough money to buy her family a home. Basically, I could not compensate her on the SCALE (actual dollar amounts aside) that I think surrogacy merits.

So if I did not have a functioning uterus, I feel like I might decide to look into a scenario where my 2k-10k might really change a family's life.

But the whole situation is a big ethical muddle, no arguments there.

[kme]

Back to the original question....closed adoption is possible, of course. However, please consider what is best for the CHILD. SHE/HE may want contact even if you don't.
Of course you want a healthy child, who doesn't? It doesn't always happen whether you adopt or not. I have both bio children and an adopted child who was considered relatively "high risk". Guess what...she is fine and one of my bio kids is not. He has all sorts of problems and an unclear diagnosis - probably on the autism spectrum. Life happens in ways you do not expect, esp when it comes to kids.
I wish you luck with whatever you choose!

[Polliwog]

Originally Posted by Smithie

The thing I keep coming back to is... I could not afford to pay an American woman enough to put her kids through school. I could not pay her enough money to buy her family a home. Basically, I could not compensate her on the SCALE (actual dollar amounts aside) that I think surrogacy merits.

So if I did not have a functioning uterus, I feel like I might decide to look into a scenario where my 2k-10k might really change a family's life.

But the whole situation is a big ethical muddle, no arguments there.

The idea of buying a baby makes my skin crawl.

[Smithie]

The idea of taking something as valuable-in-every-way as a baby from a woman who has nurtured and cared for it for nine months without being legally allowed to offer some kind of recompense makes MY skin crawl. Which is one major reason why I'm pursuing adoption through the state - I'm not taking anything from anybody, I'm just showing up after the fact and hopefully helping to heal the damage on the kid's end. It's also one reason I responded to this thread - if you WANT to pay the emom for her time, pain, and risk, a non-agency adoption gives you more flexibility there.

(Sorry for the thread drift, OP, hope you find it useful in your ponderings...)

ETA: And I don't think that paying a woman for going through a pregnancy is the same thing as baby-buying. At all. Baby-buying is what happens when an agency/lawyer/government takes a baby from its birthparents through shady means, and turns a tidy profit on "placing" the baby with a third party.

[sarahrose]

I'm mainly a lurker here and I hesitate to post. But I'm a product of a "closed adoption". While I am curious about my biological parents, I'm pretty darn happy with the ones I have. I've managed to reach my 30's without being bitter, angry or upset with my biological mother (and father) who chose to put me up for adoption. I can only imagine how incredibly diffiicult it must have been for her.

To the OP, I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with a closed adoption. I understand that it is not what is done "now" but I can understand the reasons behind it. I was always told I was adopted, it was never a mystery. I guess my parents did a good job explaining it. I've never felt a desperate need to find my roots. (heck, I am curious who I look like)

I grew up with people (and people now, when I tell them I'm adopted) who ask me if I've met my "real parents"...as if my parents aren't real.

I think in any adoption there are going to be people who think you're doing it wrong. That is must be open. I think it matters what you think is right and how you handle the enevitable questions that arise. Good luck to you.

[RedOakMomma]

Originally Posted by Smithie

Baby-buying is what happens when an agency/lawyer/government takes a baby from its birthparents through shady means

For me, the whole idea of going to a developing nation to borrow a uterus IS shady. Any situation where a poor woman has "produce a baby for a rich couple" as option one and "sell my kidney to a rich person" as option two is a situation where a woman is desperate and willing to sacrifice her health for money. Shady!

Is every surrogate in India facing those or similar choices? I doubt it. But the sheer economic force of U.S. citizens arriving in a country for a service, waving thousands of dollars around, and then using people in developing nations because they're affordable/cheaper creates a very slippery slope. Are these women protected in any way? Do they have the same rights, medical protections, access to services/education/therapy that surrogates in the US have? ...Or are they just discount uteruses? The potential imbalance in power is really scary to me.