Difference between adoption costs and buying a baby?

It's the same difference between healthcare and the concept that doctors and hospitals make money off of sick and dying people.

If you needed to have your appendix taken out, would you expect that your doctor would do the surgery for free, because it's wrong to make money off of your illness? Would you expect the hospital to eat the costs of the operating room, your medications and even your food during the hospital stay? Would you expect your nurse to care for you for twelve hours a day and not bring home a paycheck?

Like practicing medicine, the process of adoption involves the work of professionals in their field (social workers, psychologists, judges, lawyers, etc). Like doctors, these professionals do not work for free. There are costs incurred that are borne by either the adoptive family (in cases of domestic or international adoption) or the taxpayers in general (in the cases of foster adoption).

There are many cases where the services rendered simply don't add up to the fees charged and that is one of the biggest problems with adoption. Professionals should be compensated appropriately for their services, but the costs should be according to market value of those services. A doctor shouldn't charge one patient three times the average cost of a hip replacement surgery is, for example.

But if you think that it is wrong to compensate professionals for their services, I suggest you pay for law school and only take pro bono cases or become a doctor and just work for free.

I am a birthmother, so from my end, I didn't see it as 'selling' a baby as I received nothing toward my adoption--insurance covered my medical costs.

Now I can see how someone may--in a skewed way--see adoptive parents as 'buying' a baby. But the costs paid to an agency go toward background checks & service fees.

Like another Answerer said, you don't consider doctors as 'profiting' off another's illness.

The difference? The mother of the child gets none of the money so, in reality, she is not selling her baby....the adoption agency or whoever she goes through it doing the selling. There is absolutely NO reason that adoptions in the US should cost upwards of $20k to $50K. None whatsoever. Hell, my divorce was only $800 and we had children!

State laws differ as to the amount of money that adoptive parents can pay towards birth parent expenses. Expense reimbursement is for pregnancy related expenses and varies state to state.

It is different because it is policed. Parents have to undergo home checks etc. I hope we never see the day where children are regularly bought or sold. Mothers might see giving birth as a way to line their own pockets and those with money to burn might think they can buy the perfect designer child. All the wrong reasons and none of them child focused.

You dont pay for adoption do you, in the UK you dont and buying a child is horrible.

Selling your baby is illegal. In legal adoption the agencies collect high fees they claim is for the paperwork involved.

I do not even understand this question. Are you trying to say adoption is the same thing as a woman just selling her baby to the highest bidder? They are two completely different things. But if you are saying adopting a child is basically like buying a child, I suppose technically you are paying money to recieve a child, but who looks at it like that?

Your question is like asking "How does child labor which is illigal differ from paying children an allowance?"

The purpose

The cause

&

The outcome is the difference

As far as Im concerned there is little difference between "adoption costs" and baby buying. Honestly, the biggest difference that I can see is that with adoption the mother of the baby gets none of the money made from the sale..........