Is a Closed Adoption Possible? - Page 3

[phrogger]

Sorry Redoakmama, I have to disagree with you, I see the situation in India being almost identical to the situation in the US, however most women wont admit it. There is a vast majority of American surrogates who do it because they are desperate for money. 18 to 20k IS about the same as 2 to 10k is in india because the cost of living difference. There are far too many women who are surrogates because they have, at least in their minds, no other way of financially getting by.

It is easy for many of these women to say they are doing it for all the altruistic reasons, but honestly, for a huge majority, it is BS and they are doing it for the money. Heck many even fully admit it.

The biggest difference is in the US, the women expect more, financially and emotionally. In India they know they are doing it for a paycheck. In the US there are many laws that support the rights of the parents and the surrogates. In India I don't think many of those exist.

So I think both can either be equally demeaning or equally beautiful. It all depends on how you view surrogacy in the first place.

And this is coming from a 3 time surrogate.

[Freud]

Originally Posted by RedOakMomma

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.

This happens in this country too.

Many surrogates and egg donors are pressured into the situation (either by internal or external forces) to give up or "rent" parts of their body. Not every single person who chooses to do these things are facing the same pressures and conflicts, but certainly many. I mean, have you ever seen the ads on craigslist(!) looking for surrogates or egg donors? The amounts are exorbitant and might be hard to pass up for someone who is in dire need of money. I don't think its a coincidence that many medical ethics courses spend lots of time on surrogacy and egg donation, and that's in this country.

[Smithie]

I'm with phrogger and Freud. The power imbalance is everywhere is this equation. America, India, Georgia, wherever. It was not my intention to position myself as an uncritical fan of Indian surrogacy. But I think it gets singled out for damnation exactly BECAUSE the cash transaction is so transparent, instead of being wrapped up in a load of hooey about a "beautiful gift" or a "brave, loving choice." If I were going to take a poorer woman's egg or adopt her baby, or use her uterus to grow a child that was genetically mine, in exchange for giving her much-needed money, I would want to look that choice in the eye and know it.

[SundayCrepes]

Poverty is a reality for a HUGE number of people. Poverty beyond what I can imagine. I think we should allow these people to sell their kidneys, livers, eggs, etc. for large sums of money that would take them out of poverty forever.

I'm not an expert of world poverty, but my guess is $50,000 for a kidney would be a fortune to these people yet to my insurance company it would be a bargain to get me off dialysis. (Assuming I had renal failure, which, thankfully, I don't.)

IF I were that poor all the lectures about ethics and donations, etc. would mean little to me if my children were starving and unable to have any hope for a bright future. To rid myself of poverty forever by selling a body part I didn't likely need, you bet I'd do it. So, although there would have to be strict policies and oversight, I think organ selling should be allowed. More than two people would benefit from this transaction.

For me egg donation and surrogacy fall in the same ballpark. Of course there's emotional consequences for all involved, but I do not want to tell people how to live their lives. Surrogacy is different because there is a baby involved and their needs need to be considered. However, the exchange of money that could truly help someone should not be an excuse why these "donations" shouldn't occur. Those of us who live with central heating, 3 meals a day, and college funds for our children have no idea what a difference a few thousands dollars could make to someone. Lofty ideals go out the window when your children (or yourself) have few prospects.

[Sierra]

Originally Posted by SundayCrepes

Poverty is a reality for a HUGE number of people. Poverty beyond what I can imagine. I think we should allow these people to sell their kidneys, livers, eggs, etc. for large sums of money that would take them out of poverty forever.

I'm not an expert of world poverty, but my guess is $50,000 for a kidney would be a fortune to these people yet to my insurance company it would be a bargain to get me off dialysis. (Assuming I had renal failure, which, thankfully, I don't.)

Well, then, we should go ahead and feel great about the selling of body parts. We can wash our hands of systemic issues that cause poverty, and heck, even our personal responsibility to our neighbors around the globe, because if you are poor, you can just sell part of your body.

IF I were that poor all the lectures about ethics and donations, etc. would mean little to me if my children were starving and unable to have any hope for a bright future. To rid myself of poverty forever by selling a body part I didn't likely need, you bet I'd do it.

Of course you would. If your child is dying of starvation, you are going to do whatever it takes to feed your child. No matter the cost to you.

If the plight of the poor is solved by the selling of body parts in what those with the privilege of means can say is "surely a win-win" because no one starves to death, then a grave injustice is at play.

[Smithie]

"We can wash our hands of systemic issues that cause poverty, and heck, even our personal responsibility to our neighbors around the globe, because if you are poor, you can just sell part of your body."


I don't think those two things are inextricably linked. A person can care an awful lot about eradicating poverty, for example, and still decide to adopt a child who was almost certainly given up for adoption as a direct result of biofamily poverty (Ethiopia, Uganda) or taken away due to a dangerous biofamily environment as an indirect result (most adoptions from our public system).

I don't think any kind of biological transaction is inherently more ethical because the person who's giving something up doesn't get compensated.

[Sierra]

I was responding specifically to the advocation of the selling of body parts as a solution to poverty for some families. I wouldn't blame a family for resorting to that, nor would I advocate the rest of us accept -- or promote (!) -- that as a viable solution.

"We can wash our hands of systemic issues that cause poverty, and heck, even our personal responsibility to our neighbors around the globe, because if you are poor, you can just sell part of your body."

I don't think those two things are inextricably linked. A person can care an awful lot about eradicating poverty, for example, and still decide to adopt a child who was almost certainly given up for adoption as a direct result of biofamily poverty (Ethiopia, Uganda) or taken away due to a dangerous biofamily environment as an indirect result (most adoptions from our public system).

I am not claiming they are inextricably linked (no opinion...would be interesting to look at). But when privileged people decide to accept the selling of body parts or the renting of uteruses among the poor to the privileged, because it seems justifiable as a route out of poverty, a fine line is walked.

I'll repeat what I said:

If the plight of the poor is solved by the selling of body parts in what those with the privilege of means can say is "surely a win-win" because no one starves to death, then a grave injustice is at play.

In matters of oppression (and injustice and oppression are fairly closely woven here), it is of utmost importance that the privileged own their privileges, whether or not they chose them. The oppression of some is created by the privilege of others, chosen or not.

Child labor, for example, means the difference between starvation and marginal nutrition for many children. Are we going to accept that? Should we promote child labor?

My opinions about surrogacy, across national borders or not, are more nuanced than all of this, but the suggestion of bargain buying surrogacy overseas seems to raise enough flags to indicate the need to slow down and talk justice first. I'd suggest the need to put on some anti-oppression lenses and look at this for a while.

Just as I would suggest any parent adopting slow down and look at justice for a while when it comes to the role of ethics in adoptions, I'll suggest the same here, even moreso because this is especially unchartered territory.

[Smithie]

Well geez, Sierra, it's hard to debate you when I actually agree with everything you say.

[tiffani]

This is the crux of it for me, though (also agreeing with you Sierra)... We adopt children from crushing poverty because it is a reality that poverty exists and those kids need homes. It is a reality that there are many women in India (and around the world) who are in a state of poverty such that they would jump at the chance to be a surrogate, or sell a kidney, for that matter.

I would love for there to be no need for adoption from poverty-stricken countries, and we specifically chose a country where essentially no money is changing hands, so there is no financial incentive for adoption to happen. The reality is, though, that there is a need for adoption. We can work to eradicate poverty around the globe and still face the reality of the needs of the impoverished *today*, and that's where I'm hazy on all of this. Really, there isn't a NEED for surrogate mothers, there is only a WANT for surrogate mothers, but for the surrogate, the payoff is pretty huge. Yes, as long as this market exists, it will continue to exploit the impoverished for the benefit of the wealthier, but if it also truly benefits the surrogate, I'm not sure I can disagree with the practice, in terms of the reality of poverty, here and now, today. To me, if someone who wants to hire a surrogate does their research and makes sure that the woman is treated well, compensated well, and is truly enthusiastic about the exchange, then I'm not sure it's actually unethical -- sad that we're in this place at all, but unethical? not sure, still thinking....

[SundayCrepes]

Originally Posted by tiffani

The reality is, though, that there is a need for adoption. We can work to eradicate poverty around the globe and still face the reality of the needs of the impoverished *today*, and that's where I'm hazy on all of this. Really, there isn't a NEED for surrogate mothers, there is only a WANT for surrogate mothers, but for the surrogate, the payoff is pretty huge. Yes, as long as this market exists, it will continue to exploit the impoverished for the benefit of the wealthier, but if it also truly benefits the surrogate, I'm not sure I can disagree with the practice, in terms of the reality of poverty, here and now, today. To me, if someone who wants to hire a surrogate does their research and makes sure that the woman is treated well, compensated well, and is truly enthusiastic about the exchange, then I'm not sure it's actually unethical -- sad that we're in this place at all, but unethical? not sure, still thinking....

And this is my thinking about organ selling. I am not supporting that we keep people impoverished. I strongly advocate for the changes that would make us a world of middle class (however each society would define that.) However, until someone different is appointed the role of god, or at least king, poverty will exist. I understand that the system could be corrupt, and that needs to be considered, but I don't think it should be automatically discounted because it makes us uncomfortable.

[robynlyn80]

in response to the OPs statement about embryo adoption, i know couples who were matched immediately upon having a completed home study. there are embryos waiting to get matched with couples, not the other way around. and the cost was quite minimals (respectively). Minor costs to the agency, home study fee ($700-$1000 around here) and $1000 per IVF cycle.

[RedOakMomma]

Originally Posted by phrogger

Sorry Redoakmama, I have to disagree with you, I see the situation in India being almost identical to the situation in the US, however most women wont admit it. There is a vast majority of American surrogates who do it because they are desperate for money. 18 to 20k IS about the same as 2 to 10k is in india because the cost of living difference. There are far too many women who are surrogates because they have, at least in their minds, no other way of financially getting by.

Desperate for money in the US and desperate for money in a developing nation are two VERY different things, though. Poverty in these two nations are very different things. As are the laws and social supports in place for citizens of developed versus most developing countries. I think Sierra is discussing this far better than my attempts, so I'll just quote her:

But when privileged people decide to accept the selling of body parts or the renting of uteruses among the poor to the privileged, because it seems justifiable as a route out of poverty, a fine line is walked.

[phrogger]

Originally Posted by RedOakMomma

Desperate for money in the US and desperate for money in a developing nation are two VERY different things, though. Poverty in these two nations are very different things. As are the laws and social supports in place for citizens of developed versus most developing countries. I think Sierra is discussing this far better than my attempts, so I'll just quote her:

I still disagree. Taking advantage of the poor is still taking advantage, and unless you have been that desperate for money, it is hard to say that it is less of problem just because there are social programs in place in the us. Fear and desperation will cause many people to do things they normally wouldn't do. And that is wrong regardless of any of the external issues going on (which country has more money or better social programs).

[mort20]

It can happen but you will surely have a hard time. Only few people are trying that method because of the cost. But if you are determined to adopt a child, there's no such thing as "long wait'.

[mort20]

1.It can happen but you will surely have a hard time. Only few people are trying that method because of the cost. But if you are determined to adopt a child, there's no such thing as "long wait'.

[Polliwog]

I don't think that's true. I know people who've waited for years to finally adopt their children.

[Deker]

Why would a closed adoption cost more than an open one?

Plus, how much more $$$ are we talking about? Is it thousands of dollars more or only a couple of hundred?

[pumpkingirl71]

Originally Posted by Deker

Why would a closed adoption cost more than an open one?

Plus, how much more $$$ are we talking about? Is it thousands of dollars more or only a couple of hundred?

I don't know how much more money it would cost, but I am sure it would be more expensive. I am not sure anyone could explain why, other than the law of supply and demand. It costs more to adopt a healthy white baby. Most birthmothers would prefer an open adoption and most adoption agencies suggest them. So you are just dealing with a smaller pool and that inflates the price.

[APToddlerMama]

OP, I haven't read the other posts, but having worked in adoption for years, I would strongly urge you to educate yourself on open/closed adoption and adoption in general before you proceed. Going into adoption with the mindset that you want nothing to do with the biological family is not even a close to ideal situation for the child who you would be adopting. I am not sure what the reasons are behind this, but if you cannot even consider the possibility of a somewhat open adoption (and I am not talking like your kid goes to see her bio mom a few times a year or anything), it is highly unlikely that you would be able to emotionally give that child what he/she is going to need. Most kids who are adopted are going to have questions and many will have some interest in meeting their bio parents. Emotionally, the adoptive parents need to be in a place where this isn't threatening to them and they are able to support their children wherever the journey takes them. Otherwise, you are really setting yourself and your child up for issues. It is one thing when contact isn't an option for whatever reason, but I am talking *mindset* and hopefully adoptive parents at least have the mindset that open adoption is an okay thing.

[APToddlerMama]

Originally Posted by pumpkingirl71

It costs more to adopt a healthy white baby.

This is incorrect. I am not sure where someone would get the idea that babies have price tags on them. There is a difference in cost if you compare state adoptions (many more older children, various races, and many health/behavioral/emotional needs), international adoption (again depends on country if you are going to adopt a "healthy, white" baby), and private domestic adoption. There is no price tag on the child's race and health status. Rather, different types of adoptions tend to have different needs and more or less of any given race, and different types of adoptions cost different amounts. Typically State adoptions are free, domestic adoptions cost several thousand dollars and can vary widely, and international adoptions are the most expensive.