It just occurred to me that, when pregnant, the child we get is whatever God decides or genetics or chance happens at conception.
But adoptive parents seem to have a list of what they will and won't accept. Or a hierarchy of what they want. And so many of them want the same things that there is a shortage of that profile ideal child while so many needy children languish.
How many potential adoptive parents would be willing to spin the roulette wheel? What if choice was as much NOT an option as natural birth? How long would the wait list be then?
People want children to nurture and parent - if you couldn't choose, would you still want to adopt?
2008-09-12T01:17:22Z
i appreciate the candor of those who have answered, but an assessment of coping with special needs doesn't seem (to me) to be part of the question, as giving birth can also mean giving birth to children with special needs, and those parents aren't given the option of accepting or rejecting special needs based upon their ability to cope with what is ahead. (we are not entering into the abortion debate in this question) pregnancy truly is a crap shoot. and those parents must find a way to adapt.
so that is also one stop on the roulette wheel to be included in this question
my question is more about dealing with a lack of choice, would you still want to adopt?
2008-09-13T23:52:40Z
because this was an opinion question, i don't believe there is a best or worse answer. i can like some of them or disagree with some of them, but if there must be a "best" then i'll leave that up to you to vote upon.
interestingly, i wasn't even thinking about special needs when i formed this question! i was thinking about age, gender, etc.
i learned a great deal from this question and i appreciated getting long, thoughtful answers. even Becca's callous regard for children still had a valid perspective re: the question i asked, and even though i REALLY didn't appreciate the tone in which Jennifer L answered, i saw the point she was trying to make.
i was encouraged almost half of you would love whatever child needed a parent. i don't know much about FAS, etc., but i'm kind of crying right now because nobody wants or can cope with them.
re: the non special needs children - i just wish more PAPs didn't have such a limited criteria of what their child could be.
thank you!
Jennifer L2008-09-12T07:29:06Z
Favorite Answer
You're forgetting something here.
On that list of what APs will and will not accept are things like FAS/FAE, and in-utero drug exposure.
These things are not part of a roulette wheel. They happen as a deliberate choice by the pregnant women. If a pregnant woman does not use drugs/alcohol during pregnancy there is a 0% chance that these disorders will spontaneously occur.
Since adoption is a choice for the APs, after what should be a long process of self examination and an honest inventory of their financial and personal resources, I see nothing wrong with APs being forthcoming with regards to what special needs they can cope with.
After all, on this forum, APs are constantly held to a higher standard than non-APs. There have been numerous situations where a biological parent's behavior would have been excused or rationalized, where an APs behavior would not be.
Even though we chose the age, gender and special need of our daughters we still are spinning the roulette wheel some. We don't know any of the medical or pregnancy related information. We just had to pray that their birth mothers didn't drink alcohol, do drugs or smoke when they were pregnant. These are activities I didn't do when I was pregnant due to the risks and I would not like my adopted children's birth mothers to do either. Did they though? We'll never know for sure.
So it the aspect of prenatal care, conditions that can be controlled I think that AP are within their rights to have certain restrictions. Many people luckily want the children that have been exposed in utero. My hats go off to them, they are better people than I ever will be. I wish I had the patience to deal with some of the problems that they choose to have.
All this being said if any of my children adopted or bio were to develop a severe mental, physical disease I would buck up and do what I have to do. I would never turn my back on them.
Even through an international adoption, I basically played roulette...
The only information I received for my son, was his date of birth, height, weight at 3 days old (my son was not born in a hospital), and his birth-given name... and I received information that his natural mother did not have HIV. But, that was it. I accepted his referral and about 7 months later, flew to Guatemala to meet him for the first time and take physical custody of him. The adoption was completed with me never meeting him... which is why he came to the USA on an IR-4 visa, which meant I needed to readopt him in my state when I got home. He was mine- no matter what.
And, yes, I'd do it all again, if I could afford parenting a second child.
In the beginning I did specify that I wanted to adopt a girl because I am single and I lived with my sister at the time... but things happened and I felt it was meant to be that I tell my agency that I was not adamant about adopting a girl. I told them just to notify me if there was any baby from Guatemala, boy or girl, that needed a home. And when I got *the* call, it was regarding my prescious son. I could not imagaine life without him or life with a daughter... he is just too awesome! And he does have some tiny minor health issues-- but who doesn't? ------------ If anyone wanted to adopt a child... and there was no choosing sex, age, abilities, race, etc., YES, I'd do it the first time.
The second time, however, I'd give it more thought. As I am doing now... I'd love to adopt again, but I can't afford being a parent to two children... this time, it's not just me, I think of how it would affect my son, first.
It's really not quite true that having biological children is entirely left up to chance. People choose a partner with traits they can live with. There are prenatal screenings for many genetic and physical defects. Biological parents can make the decisions about prenatal health, including nutrition, vitamins, medical care, doctor visits, and avoiding alcohol and drugs. Those of us who know our genetic histories can choose whether or not to reproduce based on our medical risks.
It's also not true that biological parents are always able to raise the children they conceive and bear. They can't always just "adapt." Some special needs children simply exceed their parents' capacity to provide care. Sometimes the state will only provide resources after custody is surrendered. These children are sometimes relinquished into the care of others because the parents just can't cope. (I have a friend going through this right now-- she has a child with severe special needs who requires 24/7 specialist care, but the child can't be placed in a residential facility in their state if her parents keep custody-- and it's heartbreaking to watch them have to choose between the child's need for family and need for professional intervention.) Biological parents cannot just automatically handle whatever is flung at them.
When it comes to adoption... why set the parents up for failure? Why leave it up to chance, when the futures of children are at stake? Is it REALLY in the best interests of a severely handicapped child to be placed with parents who couldn't handle her needs, and she ends up in foster care again a few years later? Is it REALLY best for any child in the home if a child who sexually offends against other children gets placed in a home with vulnerable little ones? Is it REALLY in the best interests of a fourteen year old boy to be placed in the home of a twenty five year old single mom without parenting experience?
I am an ardent supporter of adoption from foster care. I strongly, strongly encourage anyone who has a place in their hearts to consider opening their home to a child in need. I strongly support the adoption of older children, minority children, children with special needs, and sibling groups.
But I am NOT in favour of placing children with unprepared adoptive parents, or in favour of placing already vulnerable and traumatized children in homes where they will not receive care suited to their needs. I don't think that helps anyone. I think the best adoptive placement is a permanent and secure one, and that doesn't just happen by accident. I see no logic in placing children by "roulette," because it's ultimately going to be the CHILDREN who suffer.
I see this not as something I can decide if I would or would not do personally, but as something that would be harmful to children in general.
This is an excellent question and one I never really thought about till now. Yes, we did set some guidelines as to which children we would like to foster - but it wasn't set in stone. We did want to foster only boys (my husbands choice) and we didn't state what race (although this isn't part of this discussion), but we did also state that we could only handle mild to moderate special needs. Meaning that we couldn't / weren't able to foster / parent a child with severe medical needs who needed 24/7 care. We weren't opposed to down syndrome...etc.
But I can see where you are coming from when asking this. And I guess my answer would have still been yes. There are people that we have met through classes and such who only foster / adopt extreme special needs children....and they choose to only foster / adopt these children.