Are these situations comparable?

Nope , not the same thing at all. Aodptees are being denied our rights every day. Rights afforded to every other person in this country.

Trolling for babies online and soliciting women who aren't even pregnant via private email based on assumptions from questions asked is just TACKY.

I think people who do this need to reexamine WHY they want a child in the first place because it sounds like desperation is wearing on them psychologically.

No one is entitled to be a parent. Parenting is a privilege, it is not a right.

BTW, I found my biological mother through legal means and did nothing unethical or underhanded whatsoever. Initially, I found her on adoption.com she had registered, I had registered. Nothing illegal about that. My state has a registry and if adoptee and bioparents both register, then records are opened. We both registered and I got all my info including my OBC. How is that illegal?

In this case the pots and the kettles are not the same thing at all.

ETA:It is interesting that there are suddenly hurt feelings when something posted publically is questioned. It's ok to call adult adoptees hypocrites for finding their bio families but it's not ok to talk about it?

I want to thank MPS for asking this question, it was a public statement that deserves to be discussed.

It is an intersting comparison...I would love to hear from an adoptee who also has struggled with infertility. Only then could we truly get a perspective from someone who has been on both sides of the tracks.

Being a parent isn't a right, it is a privilege! Nobody understands this concept better than the adoptive parent...I know I am blessed to have my daughter in my life and I am also keenly aware that this may be temporary if she decided to find her birth family and they are receptive towards her, but I would not trade this time for anything in the world! I hope and pray that when the time comes I will be as supportive that I think I will be.

No the two are NOT comparable.

BPD, I don't know why you feel use of your quote was done to chastise you. May be you are just feeling uber sensitive around the holidays? We wouldn't have even known who said it if you hadn't claimed responsibility. The op was furthering discussion based on something already publically said.

As for the reply who was curious about adoptees who struggled with infertility....I also did. However, knowing what I do about being adopted - I would never consider it. (Although, from personal experience I do know adoptees make slightly more empathetic adopters) I know the feelings of wanting to have a baby, to carry a pregnancy and all the barrage of other emotions. However coming to peace with my fertility struggles meant acceptance - not a desperate grab to separate someone else's bond that I might play Mommy to someone. I realized my purpose might be to help others maintain their families, virtually all parents can use some form of help to raise well-rounded happy kids.

As others have pointed out, adoptees already have a connection with the family lost. Those who are pestering expecting moms and placing ads are seeking to destroy family ties to enhance their own. The later is appalling and quite pathetic.

your so stupid that im embarresed that my brothers call is austin. in existence you don't get what you p.c., and extreme college you learn how to handle that, existence isn't truthful, so in case you p.c. quite of complaining which you have 30 min lunch, you ought to be satisfied which you do not have much less that 30 minutes its no terrible, if the shorten the lunch hour the shorten the college day by means of 30 minutes, possibly no longer lots too you yet 30 minutes to run a school is lots, thats 30 minutes of greater electrical energy, 30 minutes greater of water from the fountains. possibly no longer lots for sooner or later, yet after time which will probably shop thousands of hundreds of greenbacks so as which you adult males can shop your basketball team. ok, its nevertheless shown which you employ greater power durring lunch then while your sitting on your type studying. and that i in my view doubt the did it just to touture you the ought to have a clarification for it.

furfur says: "It is an intersting comparison...I would love to hear from an adoptee who also has struggled with infertility. Only then could we truly get a perspective from someone who has been on both sides of the tracks."

Well, I went through 8 years of infertility and four miscarriages - one of which was twins that I lost a week apart - on Labor Day no less.

After all that I started looking into adoption. I would have never ever ever in a million years trolled online for a baby. I looked into foster-to-adopt and also international adoption. But as I started to receive literature from agencies and joining online groups of prospective adoptive parents and adoptive parents I started feeling sick to my stomach. As an adoptee a lot of the things that people said really upset me - made me physically ill and made a lifetime of suppressed emotions rise to the surface. The info from the agencies made me sick because it was just like shopping for a baby. They send pamphlets with pictures of what you could potentially get and for how much. I also attended agency seminars which were beyond disgusting - having little adoptees come in and parade around the room to pull at the heartstrings of the many women who had not been able to have children - to get their hopes up that they too will get a child just as adorable. I was flabbergasted at how they exploited young children for their gain.

And then I woke up.

I decided to finally, after 25 years of wanting to search, to go ahead and do it. I am fortunate in that I was born in one of the few states that will provide an adoptee with their original birth certificate - unless of course there was a contact veto - which there was not.

I don't see the two situations as comparable at all. I was not out looking for a way to acquire a child. I was looking for someone I was already connected to - my own mother. My own family. Not someone else's family but mine. My biology, my heritage, my roots. Mine. And while I used the internet in my search the way I really found her was through the public library.

Also, I can guarantee that my mother felt a whole lot more joy upon me finding her then her relinquishing me. Big difference in these scenarios that I do not see as comparable at all.

And in a happy ending to my story and proof (at least in my eyes) that biology and the mother/daughter connection mean something, I got pregnant within days of meeting my natural mother for the first time, had a successful pregnancy and a beautiful little boy who fortunately, because of my "desperation", will always know his natural family.

There is a huge difference between trying to secure a child and trying to find your family. For one thing choosing to adopt is an adult decision, becoming an adoptee is forced upon a child (for the most part).

I have never heard of a searching adoptee trying to coerce a woman into becoming their natural mother. Either that woman is or they aren't. On the other hand many PAPs will attempt to coerce a natural mother into handing over their child. Apples and oranges, both fruity but not even close to the same thing.

I doubt anyone would call it trolling if someone was searching for a family member who was kidnapped or abducted into the sex slave trade. So why would it be trolling when an adoptee yearns to see their lost family members?

An adoptee searching for his/her identity is compared to "trolling"? Was that an answer here? I have seen some low blows aimed at adoptees but this is the most insulting, nastiest, disrespectful one that I have ever seen anywhere. This person must really hate adoptees who search.

Has anyone reported this?

Added - Wow - Talk about losing respect for someone!

Also, I apologize for not answering the question before. I was just so stunned that anyone would call adoptees desperate for wanting to know their families.

So - no, I do not think that these situations are comparable at all. To me the big difference is that I have seen some adoptive parents who appear to be willing to exploit an innocent person for personal gain.

No, they are not comparable.

I think that if an infertile woman (or any other woman who wants to parent, for that matter) wants to use the internet to help her find a child to adopt (DCFS, adoption agencies, etc.), that's her business. As is using the internet to search for biological family members. But when a potential adoptive parent begins contacting pregnant women to ask for their children, THAT is wrong. I don't approve of that at all; it's sickening to me.

Not at all.

There is no "right" to a child of your own or to anyone else's child. And yet everyone who is not adopted has a perfect "right" to their own birth certificate and similar documents.

There are laws in place that protect people from being stalked. If an adoptee won't back off when a first relative doesn't want contact, the person who doesn't want contact can get a restraining order--just like any other US citizen who is the victim of a crime.

For the record, I have NOT used "any means necessary," nor would I. I've had it suggested to me that if I want to know who my first father is, I should threaten my first mother with telling my half-sisters I exist, which she has chosen not to do all these years. I can't bring myself to do that, even though I feel very strongly that she is wrong for not telling them, and that lifting the secrecy would help her feel better about herself. I don't think it's my decision to make, and I don't think making threats to get information I want, however badly, is ethical.

On the other hand, a search angel did break the law to get my first mother's name for me. I don't have a problem with that. She assumed the risk, nobody was harmed, and I got a little scrap of the same info everyone else in this world takes for granted: my mother's identity. The law that keeps that information from me is what is unethical here.

Getting a kid by "any means necessary" would include kidnaping one, or killing a pregnant woman and cutting her open--and we know these things happen. Learning my identity by "any means necessary" would mean the woman who gave birth to me would face some feelings she doesn't want to face. No way do these things compare.

No, they are not close in the least. I am a reunited adopted person who is also infertile, so dealt with the issue that I could not have children -- something I very much wanted to do and something which caused me to grieve greatly.

My natural family searched for me for years. I searched for them for 6 months and found them. (It's easier for adopted people to find than for their natural family members to find.) I used public records, available to everyone, to do this. Happily my natural father welcomed me with open arms and tear-filled eyes, but that's another story.

My natural father is my blood and I, his. We have a history. Even if we didn't have a history, there is nothing distasteful or unethical about inquiring to another person if he or she may be the person for whom you are looking. If someone here noticed that my name is Laurie and I live in Sacramento, CA and that I'm 43 years old, it would not be offensive or unethical in our society, which allows free association, to contact me and ask, "Are you by chance the Laurie Dunfield who graduated from Mercy High School in 1982? My name is such and such. I think you may have been in my class. Do you remember me?"

I did not, however, go around inquiring to other women if they would be willing to relinquish their future children to me. They may already be in a very difficult, emotional, confusing situation. I could not take advantage of that. There are agencies and counselors to help them. They don't need a total stranger throwing something like such solicitations into the mix. This is particularly true if I were to have suggested circumventing proper channels in order to easily acquire the child.

Desperately wanting to have a child, was I? Certainly. But I would not put my desperation above treating a total stranger of a woman as if she were there to perhaps fulfill my desire. There were agencies for me. I may not like the fact that it is a slow process, but it was by no means my right to have a child bestowed upon me.

Adopted persons and their natural families also often experience a slow process. Firstly, the natural family knows that there is a minimum of 18 years before searching on either part is even likely to occur. That's a long time. They may or may not have each others' names. Having names doesn't necessarily mean it's a quick or likely find, either. As far as having names goes, in states that keep an adopted person's truth from him or her, doing so is unethical and discriminatory under the law, anyway.

So, no, these two situations have nothing comparable between them. In one case, people are looking for others with whom there is some history, and between whom there are blood relations. (People doing genealogy trees do this sort of thing all the time. People even look for, or inquire about, old acquaintances all of the time.)

There is no history or relation between someone who randomly solicits possibly pregnant, possibly confused women, whom one hopes may be willing to relinquish their children, and the women on the receiving end of these coercive solicitations.

In the end, one scenario is unethical, the other is not.