Just out of curiosity...why should infertile people only "adopt puppies"?

Question

I have seen this statement more than once in answers to adoption questions...hmmmm Does that mean that only fertile people should adopt children...as far as I can tell there are not to many fertile couples on the lists in fostering with view to adopt. So what should we do with relinquished and abandoned children if all the infertile couples are busy adopting puppies?

Answer 1

Personally I think that is just a silly statement. I see nothing wrong with an infertile woman wanting to adopt as long as it's done legally. Their are children who need homes, some are abused or they have no parents. As a woman, I know what it's like to want a baby, but I don't know what it's like to not be able to conceive. The heart break must be unbearable at times.

Answer 2

Actually when you look at dogs in a shelter it is very similar to adoption. Some dogs have been abused, some have been neglected (owner's choice), some have been handed over by owners who can not longer care for them (partly owner's choice), some come from an elderly owner who has passed away (not owner's choice), some come from people who lose their jobs and can no longer afford to keep a dog (not owner's choice), some love their dog but rent and the landlord doesn't allow pets (not owner's choice).

It is so often percieved that birth parents choose to give up their babies. This is not always the case. A lot of birth parents are forced to adopt their children.

Adoption should be another option, another choice, not the last resort, not because an infertile couple want to have a "happy family", not because they want to fix their grief, and not because they want a child of a particular brand (children are not cars).

This is similar to adopting a dog, it is not okay to go around adopting dogs from shelters because we want a doberman to make us look tough, or a poodle to fit in with the decor of our home and even though we feel sorry for them, we certainly should not adopt a dog because it looks cute and sad. A good shelter will evaluate your lifestyle and figure out whether the dog you want will suit you, a lot of dogs also come with various behavioural difficulties because of their background and you are informed of this so you can be prepared to work through these problems such as nervousness or lack of obedience training. Some dogs also need experienced dog owners because they are of a particular breed or have behavioural tendancies that a novice would not be able to cope with.

I think we do a much better job at adopting a dog than adopting a child to be honest.

The puppies comments probably mean however that if you can't take the responsibility of adopting a child with trauma and a grief problems then go for something easier. But I think if an adoptive couple can't even look after a child properly I'd be worried about the dog.

Answer 3

Hi Sofiakat,

Personally, I don't think one's fertility should have anything to do with whether or not they are qualified to adopt children.  Although it may not sound fair, there is no rule that says we must redistribute children around so that everyone who wants one may have one.  The reason I say that is because adoption is not about infertile people's desires or needs at all.  It is all about CHILDREN'S needs.  Children should never be treated as commodities to fill other people's needs for a price.

Adopted children will have needs in addition to what biological children need.  Children who are truly in need of alternate homes need to be matched up with adults who are aware of these needs & who are specially trained to meet them.  They need to learn how to best honor each child's family & heritage because it is a part of the child, and it always will be.  They need to be sensitive to the short & long term needs of the adoptee.

Adults who cannot or will not do that, regardless of whether or not they are fertile, are not qualified to raise adopted children.  There are many people out there who think that adopted children will fix the grief of infertility.  They can't, and it's not fair to the child.  Not being able to have children is a loss that needs to be properly addressed long before considering adopting other people's children.  

Simply put, some people are obviously nowhere near being ready to take on the challenges of adoption.  Those are the PAP's you might see being referred to adopt puppies instead of children.  Then there are the parents who want to adopt a playmate for their biological child.  They might be better off getting them a puppy instead too.  If that's not you, then I wouldn't worry about it.  Just explaining that when you see the comment, it is not directed at infertile people, but at people who are not ready to adopt at all.  Sometimes they are infertile, sometimes not.  Hope this helps explain that.

julie j

reunited adoptee

Answer 4

I answered a question yesterday in which someone was asking about adoption. This person wanted a closed adoption and didn't want to tell the adopted child that s/he was adopted until s/he was 'older.' I suggested that she get a cat so that she wouldn't be burdened by these "silly" matters. That response was tongue-in-cheek, of course. I am, apparently, infertile, and I adopted my son when he was 2-1/2. The point I was trying to make was that if the adoptive parents don't want to honestly and openly discuss adoption with their child from day one, then why bother? My son was not born to me; he has a first set of parents and a second set: me and my (now ex-) husband. Denying him the knowledge of where he came from is just wrong. I didn't give birth to him and I have never pretended that I did. As far as I'm concerned, no one should do that. If they plan to, then they should get a cat or a dog because pets don't care where they came from.

Answer 5

I don't know about the puppy comment, but I have never seen anyone speak out against adopting TRULY 'abandoned' children--those in foster care.

I think you need a review of some basic statistics.  For every baby up for adoption there are 90 couples who want to adopt that child.  

So, really, Sofia, all the unwanted babies you mention will be just fine--they are in HIGH demand.  And how many of these babies should remain with their own families?  I'd wager many of them.  The babies are not the NEEDY party here...

Now how many puppies up for adoption per infertile couple?  Your odds are a h**l of a lot better.

Answer 6

Sofie. I agree 100% that its a harsh statement but unfortunately, thats what it takes sometimes for self centered people to realize that adoption isn't about filling the void for someone that isn't capable of having children themselves. To not acknowledge that these infertile couples in search of healthy babies and toddlers isn't a driving force behind crime and other atrocities against other women and children is fine but don't expect the rest of the world to ignore it and not call them on it.

I never said that infertile couples should not adopt but if thats what its going to take to get "society" to focus on the best interest of children than I would be all for it. I'm for anything that prevents people from distorting the word "orphan" to suit their personal agendas. Look at the bright side of how it would affect these couples, maybe it would get these couples into therapy to deal with their emotional problems in a healthy way and not have it affect another human being.

For the record its not a coincidence that the number of kidnapping, rapes, coercions of children and women decline when the source of demand is cut off.

Read about it on Unicef.org

Answer 7

I've never heard that before- it's not appropriate to say, so just ignore it.

There;s alot of infertile people that have had great success adopted little humans. Talk to them.

Answer 8

That's horrible!  I've actually never heard that before.

Obviously the people who make those statements are heartless...

Answer 9

This is an insulting and dehumanizing concept or statement.  It might be equated with cancer patients only taking aspirin, or uneducated people only reading one book.  Children whose parents have relinquished them have a right to have parents who want to parent them.  As I have said before, while adoption can be very complicated emotionally, it is not rocket science.  Women relinquish their children and others adopt them.  Or, parents abuse/neglect their children and others foster/adopt them.  If we cut out adoptive parents and foster parents out of the equation, do we have birthparents suddenly becoming able or willing to parent their children?  I would be afraid that what we might have then is growing infanticide, abandonment, and abuse.  But -- we might also have more birthparents parenting -- And if support, education, and counseling were mandatory for them (as it is for adoptive/foster parents), then I would fully support that increase.

Answer 10

UM, what about the older and harder to place dogs. they need home too.

Answer 11

me thinks that anyone who is responsible should adopt puppies even if you are infertile.  I mean why would the puppy even care?

Answer 12

Never heard of it before....sounds like it's coming from ignorance...

Answer 13

i have never heard that being said. what a horrid frame of mind. i hope whoever would be so caluse as to say that is blushing from embrassment.

Answer 14

I have only read this in reference to people saying they want a specific type of child (IE: a healthy white newborn boy) like they think they can order up a child to their specifications.  Which is why someone would say adopt a puppy.  Because children are children and come in many different "types" it is crass, rude and wrong to think that ordering up a child to specifications is okay.  If that makes sense.

I do not think anyone on here thinks that ALL adoption is bad.  I do know most people want reform in the way adoption is handled, and I agree with them.  Most domestic adoptions are not necessary, and if only AP's, PAP's and adoption agencies were willing to help women contemplating placing their child find the resources they need to parent their own child, well than less domestic adoptions would happen.  However, there is a demand for newborns, and so...the agencies will look out for their interests and not the interests of the child.  Because the child (or first mom) is not the one paying them, they aren't going to be showing that parenting is an option for them.  Make sense?

Answer 15

Hi Sofiakat,

1) There are some people who are totally opposed to all adoptions, except foster care.  For me, its extreme but they have a right to voice their opinion.  Depending on their experiences in adoption, I can see where they are coming from.  They have convinced me that most domestic adoptions should not happen.

2) Most times i think its used in reference to self centered pap's who make statements like; I want a baby, I want a girl, I want blah blah blah.  Its clearly not about putting the child's interests first.  Here i totally agree.

3) Some people do believe that if all pap's just stopped adopting (demand) then there would be no more adoption (supply).   I, personally, believe its more complicated than that but again everyone has a right to their own opinion here.

That's my take on "adopt puppies".

Please don't take things personally here.  I know its hard.  As an abused child there was a question that asked if people like me should be able to adopt.  I just don't let things like that bug me and if it does, then its time for me to take a break.

I know people are hard on aps and paps here and i'm okay with that.  We get all the "good" that comes with adoption and most of us will never completely understand the pain associated with adoption.  I tend to listen, understand and comfort people in pain not lash out at them and cause further pain.  That's just me, tho.

Best wishes:)