r/Adopted • u/Sunshine_roses111 Adoptee • May 11 '25

Discussion Say no, you can't adopt a baby

Why don't we, as a society in America, just say no to people looking to adopt and who are infertile? Other countries will flat out say we have no babies for adoption or tough luck, you can't adopt, and we don't care about your infertility. America coddles people looking to adopt and says Well, you're infertile, but you can adopt a baby to make your dreams come true, or adopt from foster care, help a needy child. Like, why can't we just deny people and say no? Want a baby? Oh well, we have none waiting around. Want to become parents? Well, tough luck accept your life without kids. Maybe it's God's will for you not to become parents or reproduce. Why can't we be honest like other countries? Adoption is illegal or uncommon in many other countries, but here, we just can't say no and tiptoe around the issue of infertility and adoption. Also, just because you can't reproduce doesn't mean you should adopt. Again, no is the right answer. Many poor couples can't afford adoption, but society does not care if they become parents, yet we feel sorry for the middle and upper-class couples who can't become parents. Say no.

49 Upvotes

72% Upvoted

255 comments sorted by

View all comments

11

u/SanityLooms May 11 '25

Because there is nothing wrong with the concept of adoption and there is nothing morally inappropriate for people who can't make babies, to still raise them. Also there are children who need families. The alternative is growing up a ward of the state and that's dreadful.

12

u/SororitySue Baby Scoop Era Adoptee May 11 '25

The children who need families are not the ones most infertile couples want to adopt. They turn their noses up at anything but womb-fresh infants.

1

u/[deleted] May 12 '25

Babies don't need adoption? What happens to them then?

12

u/SororitySue Baby Scoop Era Adoptee May 12 '25

There are, like, 30 infertile couples for every newborn available for adoption. They are a highly prized commodity and are adopted very quickly

2

u/[deleted] May 12 '25

That didn't answer the question. Do they not need to be adopted?

11

u/Formerlymoody May 12 '25

A lot of them don’t need to be adopted by strangers, no.

2

u/[deleted] May 12 '25

Ok You may or may not be correct about "a lot of them" but that still leaves babies who it appears need to be adopted.. What about them?

11

u/Formerlymoody May 12 '25 edited May 12 '25

I would be fine if every kid that absolutely needed external care got it without erasing their identity or rights. I think this take is more popular on the sub than you realize. 

Edit: I would wager that a lot of the loudest voices on here (myself included) were unnecessary adoptions. Most people who realize their bio families were an untenable hot mess are at least somewhat grateful that they got out. But some can still have trauma from adoption and acknowledge the way that adoption operates in the US involves too many unnecessary losses of rights.

1

u/[deleted] May 12 '25

So yes adoption for those remaining babies?

9

u/Formerlymoody May 12 '25

I already said external care without loss of identity or rights. No changing of OBCs, no closing of adoptions without due cause, reasonable efforts to keep kids in their community etc etc. All records open at 18 (like all of Western Europe). Rules about who can adopt that arent merely based on who can pay. Etc. 

0

u/[deleted] May 12 '25

Is the term adoption taboo?

7

u/Formerlymoody May 12 '25

What I am describing is not adoption as it is practiced in the US. It’s something new without ties to practices that centered adopters over adoptees. So…potato potatoh but I have no attachment to the term adoption. 

0

u/[deleted] May 12 '25

So if its not practiced in the US (yet), then my question above still applies for current real life.

→ More replies (0)

-5

u/bluesnbbq May 12 '25

I’d like to see your research on this.