Why Do People Equate Adoption Fees with Birthing (Medical) Fees?

Question

Do people really think that adoption is no different to giving birth to a child?

Isn't this one of the biggest myths in adoption?

Answer 1

No, it doesn't mean that adoption is no different than giving birth.  It just means that there are services that people require (or at least usually need and use) to achieve both and the services, either medical or social, both cost money.  It is trying to correct people's image of adoption as just going to some baby store and buying a baby.  You may think it's more honest to define babies as commodities, but at any rate it isn't healthy for my daughter to hear people describe it that way.  So that is why I define it as the expenses were for the services.

Answer 2

they need a reason to feel like they aren't buying a child.  plain and simple.

Answer 3

Buying a child? what?! for gods sake, I see nothing has changed since the last time I was on here.

Your adopted, just like me, face up to the fact that you cant change the clocks back!

Answer 4

I gave birth to two kids and adopted a cat, there's no way I'd equate adopting my cat to squeezing it out of my v****a.

Answer 5

what a catty question.  who cares--these kids obviously need a home.  good thing there are people out there willing to "buy" them as you put it. get off your high horse.

Answer 6

I think the BIGGEST myth is that agencies who claim to be non-profit, are considered to be any better than anyother business, all the means is they spend all of their money before the end of their business year. When incentives are involved, no matter who benefits from it, IT"S WRONG!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-profit_...

Answer 7

I'm not sure about the context of your question, but I have actually sort of done this.

It happened when a co-worker asked me "How much did she cost?" (fortunately this was at work and my daughter was not there)

I told her that the adoption cost about the same as giving birth in a hospital, if you didn't have insurance. And that raising kids CAN cost a lot of money, but isn't it worth it!

I also told her that was kind of a rude way to ask--yes, the adoption cost money, but I did not buy my daughter and I do not own her.

Is that what you meant? Should I not have answered this way? Do you have a better answer for me? (serious question, I'd love other options)

ETA:

I'm NOT trying to suggest that adoption and giving birth are the same--because they are not. What I guess I'm trying to do when I answer the "how much did she cost" question this way, is to take the emphasis off viewing my daughter as an object that can be bought and sold. And though adoption and and giving birth are not the same, and adoptive parenting and adoptive families are different from natural families as well -- the kids are the same in terms of not being owned by their parents. So, I do think it is important to normalize adoption for the kids' sakes. Not that is the same, but that it doesn't make them some sort of weird freak or some sort of commodity.

And as a transracial adoptive family, we get this sort of question all the time (something I was aware of before adopting, but hadn't fully thought through -- hindsight, sigh). I really am open to other suggestions of how to respond, though.

Answer 8

Not sure.  Anything that involves agencies, lawyers, social workers, etc...involves fees beyond medical fees. You have to pay for those people somehow.  Seems pretty clear.  I don't have a problem with paying professionals to do their jobs. ( I do have a problem with for-profit agencies however).

Answer 9

I have done this.  I compare the two in money ONLY.  Yes, you have to pay to adopt a child (even in our case, and we're adopting through the state...although the only money we are paying will be for our homestudy and the lawyer fee).  And yes, you have to pay to give birth to a child.  If you want to say we're "buying" a baby, then you have to say the same thing about biological families, unless it's a home birth, without a single doctor visit, and without any paid assistance during the birth.  Both options require money.

And that is where the similarity ends.  With money.

ETA:  It occured to me about an hour ago that my answer sounds really hypocritical coming from a person who tells PAP's that they are buying a baby when they come on here and say "me me me" and "I want" and "it must be the most perfect little piece of human flesh EVER for me to adopt it" (the word "it" used intentionally).  I guess I'm saying that if money is exchanged and a family is created, then the definition is the same.   If you call it baby buying, then it's baby buying, regardless if it's coming from PAP's or biological family.

I do differentiate between people who are looking into adoption for the benefit of the child, and those who are out to fill a hole in themselves.  I think there's a huge difference.  But, if it's baby buying, then it's baby buying.

Answer 10

I understand what your asking. I dont understand why you need to ask this though.

Adoption is obviously not the same as giving birth, But it can be the same in the upbringing. The adoptees who dont have issues or dont feel a loss, are the proof of that.

I personally think its better to keep things as natural as possible in adoption and always be open with the adoptee, about where they came from. My parents were open with me and I knew everything about me. I guess that was a big help.

I just think that adoption runs alot deeper than what people think, and nothing should be overlooked. Everyone is different and everyone has different feelings on it, but no one here is willing to agree to disagree.