Corruption in Adoptions

I have a pair of ovaries. They are an organ. Until last year, if I wanted to, I could have sold my eggs for around $5000 (possibly per egg). The process sounds grueling (lots of hormones) but not terribly time consuming (around 6 weeks).

Men have been selling their sperm for years. People (including myself) have been known to donate blood and plasma. They also will sell their blood (I've fortunately never had to sell my plasma).

And that's not all. People sell their organs. It may not be ethically a good thing, but it happens. It's a societal issue and a big debate.

I'd like to hear other's opinions - I'm trying to determine why as a society, we refuse to compensate mothers if they decide to "sell" their babies. I'm serious about this - I do know it's a contraversial topic.

I would just like to have a conversation. I'm not meaning for this to be a personal attack or debate. I know that many people have very strong opinions about life and fertility. Just that I'm not sure that we discuss issues like this (as a culture) and I think we should. I hope someone would not be morally offended by discussing this and if you think you might be, you might not to read further on this post.

Foreign Adoptions that have even the slightest tinge of possible "baby-selling" are denounced as corrupt or wrong. So, particularly in foreign adoptions, if an official gets an extra thousand dollars, and that money goes back to the birth mother - currently, everyone looks the other way. And there remain countries where anything can be bought - for a price. With that said, there is also the possibility that a child could be stolen from their birth mother. Or the adoption happens and the mother doesn't realize what's happening. If money is the only factor - that becomes much more possible. The possibilities are horrible - and how can one (society) prevent them from happening?

So as a society, the way we get around this is that we have determined that each mother should want to give up her baby only out of her altruistic good nature. We can reimburse her for some expenses, but any notion of compensation is corrupt. Most mothers/parents can and do give up their biological children to be adopted by another family - solely out of love. And I will say, personally, after going through the pregnancy process myself, it is the most difficult thing I have ever done. So the notion that the only way that a mother could bear to give up her child is out of love holds a great deal of sway for me.

But I have no illusions that all mothers or families have the privileged, loving upbringing that I had. And just because something is easy or unquestioning for me, doesn't mean that it is for everyone else.

It hearkens back to the stereotype that all women are destined to be mothers and capable of loving their babies. And simply carrying a baby for ten months (yes, it's ten - forty weeks) automatically means that a biological mother loves her baby. Or, at least, would never get pregnant simply to be reimbursed. Perhaps it's the notion that the only reason a mother would give up her child would be for the money.

I do bemoan parts of our culture where monetary gain is the only motivator. There is a lot more to life than a paycheck. And our society would fail if its citizens didn't feel some social duties or responsibilities.

With that said, money is incredibly important. I can't remember who said to follow the money to find power - but they are intertwined. And after everything that happens during the process - isn't the time and emotional attention worth something?

Another argument against compensation is that there should be a sanctity of life. That the ability to create a life should be held sacred. But it's unfortunately something that many people who shouldn't be parents are able to do. I'm speaking (of course) about those who abuse and neglect their offspring.

Or the very valid argument that humans should not be bought and sold. And at what price?

I think this is the most powerful argument against selling babies.

After all, how do you explain to your twelve year old son or daughter about the circumstances surrounding their adoption? If they want to find out where they came from? How would they react/feel to find out that their biological mother was only interested in the cash?

Economically, I'm interested that this is something that hasn't followed the supply and demand rule. There are lots of good parents who can't have babies (for whatever reason), but yet the supply of babies has not increased.

The question is - if we did start compensating mothers for babies, would there be additional unwanted babies? Would people (mothers) actually become pregnant for the paycheck?

I think no. Because giving birth is actually dangerous. Maternal mortality is still a very real percentage (although less than 1%) even in western nations. Motherhood can be fatal (no one ever seems to want to talk about this).

I know this post has gone all over the place. I don't really want to explain why I'm personally interested in this topic at the moment - I do know some adoptive parents who are struggling with these types of corruption questions (they are not reading this blog that I know of or were involved in a questionable adoption). They wonder how much "corruption" is okay. Thanks in advance for any and all opinions.

Sometimes I wish I were less sensitive

To preface this post, my friends who were adopting from overseas have a blog that I have been reading. I posted about my mixed feelings here .

And I have seen amazing pictures of their new daughter and their journey. I won't post them here out of respect for their privacy. As I predicted she is beautiful. My husband says that all babies are beautiful, otherwise people wouldn't take care of them. Whether or not this is true, they are making it work.

What I will say though, is that my friend described some of the other children at the orphanage. Some who may not be adopted.

What can I say, I'm a sucker for these kinds of stories. I may have a link to Olga Spachil's blog in my blogroll - because I remember her from Krasnodar - but I don't go there often. Because I get too upset seeing photos of kids in rows of cribs.

And it's not just orphanages.

I got upset in August of 2005 when Hurricane Katrina hit. I had two 3 and a half month old babies. And listening to the devastation of people trying to evacuate and stuck in the convention center - I couldn't help but think, what would I do? In an emergency shelter with two babies who go through a can of formula a week? With no fresh water? In the dark? The twins were barely sleeping through the night at this point (which may have been part of the reason I felt pretty emotional about it).

This was the second time I took a hiatus from listening to npr on my daily drive to and from work.

The first was, understandably, after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11th. I have yet to watch either the Flight 93 or World Trade Center movies. It has been five years. I could watch them - but I know I'd be a basket case.

For me, it's not the terror of being attacked on American soil. I think it's the terror of finding myself on a hi-jacked plane and doing what needs to be done. I know I could do it. I just get stressed out thinking about it. Thinking about leaving my family and friends.

Both times I made a conscious choice to turn off the radio. I actually find npr very comforting and listen to other stations as I travel. At some point, I may post about just how great I think npr is. Not in these situations.

I struggle with finding emotional boundaries. I know logically that I cannot save all the world's orphans. I know that there are a ton of kids who will grow up without parents or good homes. I also know that there's nothing I can (or will) do about it. I need to start by being present with my own kids and work from there.

Yet I find it hard to let these types of societal tragedies go. I knew, listening on Sept. 11th 2001 and during the aftermath of Katrina that there was nothing I could do. I could send money (which I think I did) but it didn't make me feel any better. I read about people who gave up everything to drive to Mississippi - to help rebuild. Others who worked giving emotional support to the survivors of the NY tragedies.

I know bad things happen. These types of things, while impacting me emotionally - don't keep me from sleeping at night. I just find myself affected by these things completely out of my control. And sometimes I find I need to turn off npr.

So why can't I just be happy for them?

It's not my place to judge. Why is it any of my business if someone decides to adopt a child from a foreign country? It shouldn't be my concern. That's a decision that their family has made.

But I have to admit I have mixed feelings about their decision.

There, I've said it.

It's not fair to their future adopted daughter. Who I'm sure will be beautiful and intelligent. They are giving her a chance - which she almost certainly wouldn't have had in her birth country. She will grow up with every advantage here. Her parents and grandparents are very comfortable.

I'm hoping that by blogging about this and admitting I have mixed feelings will help me acknowledge it and move on.

I really don't understand what they've gone through. I know the mom had been on fertility treatments for some time before their son was born last year. And that her pregnancy was very difficult. I can't begin to comprehend what going through the treatments or having morning sickness until week 30 would be like. (I only had morning sickness until week 20, and I didn't have to take medication for it).

So why wouldn't it be okay that they decide to go to an Asian country to adopt a little girl?

Overall, I think the US adoption system needs a serious overhaul. I only have second and third hand evidence about the process. But, as a society, it doesn't seem right to me that couples are going overseas to adopt kids when we have kids here in the US that could be adopted. Granted, most of the time, the kids here are not babies and have baggage. And the birth mothers have up to a year sometimes to change their minds. This would be a heart break for any family to go through. An overseas adoption does not have that chance. And, the second hand evidence is that kids here in the US usually could have special needs - birth mothers who abused drugs or alcohol during pregnancy. But is this really the case? I don't know.

I do know that parents here have to jump through enormous hoops to adopt from the US. To some extent, that makes sense. You want any child to go to a fit parent. But are the adoption agencies allowed too much discretion in their selective process? So US couples decide it's not worth the hassle - and that it's easier to go overseas?

I don't understand why adoptive parents have to go through so many hoops when basically anyone with the fertility could become a parent.

My father in law suggests that we should start selling babies to the highest bidder. When he first suggested this, I thought he was joking. As I thought about it, it does make some sense. Why not compensate a birth mother for the ten months of incubation? Why not make sure all her medical bills (and living expenses) are paid for? Obviously, some oversight would have to exist to prevent people from adopting who were not fit parents.

Yet currently, many adoption agencies are very concerned with adoptive parents being religious and Christian. There are lots of other random requirements that aren't fair.

So I'm going to try and hold my tongue and be happy for my friends. I don't know them well enough to share my mixed feelings with them. I don't think it's right to adopt a baby when your kids will only be 9 months apart.

I'm sure part of my issue is that I'm not sure I agree with having kids close together. Of course, I had twins so my two are automatically close together. So take anything I write with a grain of salt. I just think that some of the conflict I had with my sister (who is fifteen months younger than I am) over the years was due to how close we are. Sometimes there can be a great deal of competition between kids who are so close in age. I'm not critizing a couple who has children close together, because there are many advantages (including those for the parents). I'm just suggesting that it's not always the best policy - especially if your kids will only be nine months apart??!? It is hard for me to understand their urgency in adopting now.

It is none of my business what decisions another person makes about parenting. As I posted in Run Ladies Run, these issues are complicated. It's not fair that one couple is able to have kids when another is not. It's not right that people are allowed to become parents who are not capable of being parents (those who abuse their children). The chances of that changing in the U.S. are about one in a zillion. No politician could ever run on a platform limiting fertility.

And not only that - but there is another couple we know who has not been able to conceive. I would feel much more comfortable with them going to Asia (or anywhere) to adopt. How crazy is that? Why would I feel more comfortable with one couple than another?

So I look forward to any and all comments. Please feel free to tell me I'm way off base here and being too judgemental, because I might be. It's a relief to get this off of my chest.