Do infertile people make better parents?

Question

I see in a previous question that many think that infertile couples could have "dibs" on infants placed for adoption.

Really???

Shouldn't it be what's best for the child reguardlessa of the parents fertility issues?

It seems like infertility is used as a guilt tactic when "counseling" a woman considering adoption for her child.

This whole concept seem bizarre to me, what do you think?

Do you think Infants should be reseved for couples as a consolation for not being able to have children?

Answer 1

Obviously the answer is no someone being infertile is not going to make them any better of a parent then someone who is not infertile.  A baby or child should go to a family that will genuinely be the best for them.

Answer 2

Contrary to popular belief, adoption is supposed to be what's best for the adoptees, not the adoptors.

Answer 3

NO they do not! Just because they are infertile does not make them a good mother or father!

Answer 4

Infertile people are infertile for a reason, and I don't think that they should use innocent children as commodities to heal their pain.

IMO infertility is nature's way of dictating who should not be parents, and adoption is stealing.

Answer 5

you have a lot of questions.

1. not necessarily.

2. yes really! actually I don't know, but I understand the thinking.

3. It isn't a guilt tactic. angry much?

4. Not bizarre, but understandable

5. infants and children should go to a loving home that is available. If deciding between a parent that is infertile and one who is not and both homes are suitable, infertility may be a deciding factor. sorry.

Answer 6

It should be who is the better parent and best place to put the child not if the couple can have kids or not. An thats how it is as far as I know. They see the best place and best people for the child and place them there.

Answer 7

I think you probably read the same question that I answered and I think mine was probably one of the answers you disagreed with.

I do completely see your point, don't get me wrong. It is a very difficult situation, and of course one in which the child should ALWAYS come first.

However, as I explained in my earlier answer, I think that IF there is a situation where there are two couples, both of whom can offer the child an equally great life, then a different deciding factor has to be determined. Of course if one couple is more able to offer the child a better life than another then fertility shouldn't come into it - the childs needs should be put first. However if there is no difference between what the two couples can offer, then I think it is only fair that the couple who are unable to conceive naturally should be given the priority.

As a fertile woman (I already have one child), I would like to think that if I ever felt the urge to adopt a baby, I would have enough human compassion to realise how much this baby would mean to a couple who would otherwise be unable to ever become parents, and take a step back. I know how wonderful it is to have a baby and I find it heartbreaking that some poor, worthy people out there might never have the chance. People who have had children of their own can always look into adopting or fostering older children that may have more trouble finding a home than the very young.

Answer 8

No, it shouldn't be a consideration at all.  

Adoption should be about the needs of the adoptee.  Not the needs of the adopters.

Answer 9

If you haven't been in my shoes I am infertile we did 7 years of IUI, IVF you take injection day after day and you want a baby so bad and you are told that you will never have children of your own.  and you see these young girl that abortions and have these baby and don't know want to do when the baby crying and they get them to stop. and hold a baby and you see the baby not getting best of care, you cry in side.  so answer your Yes  if you are infertile and can't have children yes I think they should be first, because there women know how it feel to hear a baby call them mommy or daddy.