Why Does Adoption Cost So @#$%@#$ Much?? - Page 4




 
--
Boots
 
April 15th, 2005  
Missileer
 
 
Regardless of what it costs to adopt, you're buying a baby a life that it wouldn't be able to live otherwise. The bureaucrats are the ones who are controlling the price, not the parent/guardian or child.
April 20th, 2005  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Missileer
Regardless of what it costs to adopt, you're buying a baby a life that it wouldn't be able to live otherwise. The bureaucrats are the ones who are controlling the price, not the parent/guardian or child.
No argument there. 95% of the cost is completely unnecessary.
April 21st, 2005  
Charge 7
 
 
I saw this site mentioned on TV today and thought you might be able to find some help here, Thunder. They specialize in helping people finance adoption.

http://www.celebrateadoption.com/financingadoption.htm
--
Boots
April 22nd, 2005  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charge 7
I saw this site mentioned on TV today and thought you might be able to find some help here, Thunder. They specialize in helping people finance adoption.

http://www.celebrateadoption.com/financingadoption.htm
Thank you Charge7, I'll defintely look into that.
April 25th, 2005  
nellebelle
 
 
I have read through this and absolutely appalled at some of the things that have been implied. Would any of you whine about the cost if it was your "real child"? Has anybody priced a delivery, with the cost of meds, drugs, complications, etc? It is pretty darn expensive. If you are wanting a child as bad as you say then cost should not be an issue. They are a h*ll of a lot more expensive once you get them home. We just spent $140 on medicine for my daughter. What for you may ask. Only an ear infection and her asthma medicine. I would have gladly dropped 10 times more then that if it was something to make my daughter better. Not to mention the diapers, formula, clothes, toys, enrollment fees for school, car when they get older, prom, graduation.....need I go on?
Next, I don't think that a woman wants to just "give her child away" or "doesn't want it." When I was 16 I had a son that I put up for adoption. Not because I wanted too but because I knew that was what was best for him. I could not take care of him, decided not to have an abortion and gave him the best that I could at that time. So that is not only an incorrect way of thinking but a really hateful thing to say. God forbid you do get a child and tell him or her "Your real mom didn't want you so we had to spend way too much money to buy you." Please! I thank my lucky stars that the couple that adopted my baby are as great and loving as they are not only to him but to me and mine also.
April 25th, 2005  
pixiedustboo
 
 
I don't think anyone was debating or complaining on how much a child "costs" while they are being raised. I think the comments were towards how much money it costs to in essence BUY them. That money could be spent towards the child's welfare and NOT be used to "buy" them.

Also...there are many mothers AND fathers who don't want their children. Why do you think abortion is so prevelant also? Adoption may be for those who have kids at such a young age they can't take care of them but it's also for parents that don't want their children.

Why do you think China is being over run with female children? It's because their parents don't want them. --- As cruel as it is. THEY DON'T WANT THEM.

Also, this is in no way meant to be an attack on you, but I've always wondered...those people that have given up a child for adoption and then gone on to have more children...how does one do it? How can you pick and choose which child...same with mothers who have had abortions. ((I am well aware there are certain issues with these two subjects that would force the parents to decide for these issues, but disreguard those parts)).
April 25th, 2005  
pixiedustboo
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nellebelle
When I was 16 I had a son that I put up for adoption. Not because I wanted too but because I knew that was what was best for him. I could not take care of him, decided not to have an abortion and gave him the best that I could at that time.
I say, you are old enough to have sex of your own reguard then you are old enough to take care of anyone that comes from that union of sex.

I had a friend who also was 16 when she had her child. She worked her A** off and that child may not have every toy in the world but he is loved and fed and can grow up with his mommy.


Quote:
Originally Posted by nellebelle
God forbid you do get a child and tell him or her "Your real mom didn't want you so we had to spend way too much money to buy you."
How DARE you imply this? After all the stuff that was said here. YOU obviously took it the wrong way. Don't rail at everyone here because YOU gave your child up for adoption. I think ANYONE who posted on this topic would be a GREAT and LOVING parent to ANY child. Adopted or otherwise. Do you know how many other people would be good parents that DON'T have the money to spend on "buying" children but could provide well for them? Some people just don't have 10,000 to set as a down payment.
April 25th, 2005  
nellebelle
 
 
You misunderstood what I wrote Serenity. I said that God forbid they have a child and tell them that. Not God forbid they have a child. I am not fighting that they would make great parents. I am saying that if the mentality is that adoption costs too much then what happens later when the kid wants a new pair of expensive shoes, clothes or wants to be sent to college. These things are going to end up costing a lot more in the long run. If there is b*itching and moaning about the cost of adoption now when having a child of your own would cost almost as much, minus the legal fees, then what will it be like later? The couple that adopted my child had to take out a second mortgage on their house cause it cost so much. I was very sick with him, was put into the hospital a week before he got here on strict bedrest (could only get up to take a shower every other day at most. Had to use a bedpan yuck ) had to take an ambulance ride to go to a different hospital, in a different town, pushed for 4 hours, then had to have an emergency c-section. They have never complained about the cost. They were happy to have a healthy child to love and to hold. They are a couple that can not have children "the old fashioned way" so they saw an opportunity to have a child, weighed out the pros and cons and decided that having a child was important enough to pay $30,000+ in dr bills, legal fees and such.
Now on to the next subject. You are right, when one has sex they are old enough to take on the responsibility. It amazes me that I am fighting this battle again. I fought it 10 years ago with a bunch of punk as* kids from high school and never thought I would be defending myself to another person who had the same holier then thou attitude. At 16 I was not able to provide for him the way that he needed. I was barely 16 (only by a couple of months), scared to death and had not the slightest clue what to do with a baby. Why did he deserved to be punished? Why not give him a great life with great parents that could support him in the way that he needed? My mother told me she would help raise him. I realized that it was not her responsibility to do so. His father was not in the picture enough to help out. We had used protection and bcp's every single time we had sex and well, sh*t happens. I took on the responsibility the best way that I knew how and that was by putting him up for adoption. At least I did not leave him in a trash can right? At least I did not go on welfare, which I could have, and sucked your tax dollars away. When I was 19 I got pregnant again (once again on birth control), I was in the military so I had a decent paying, steady job. I knew that the military would not let me fail as a mother. I was more prepared for having a child. I did not "pick and choose" what child I wanted. It was rather a circumstance thing. I resent that someone would ever say that I "did not want" the baby I put up for adoption or that I chose my children that I kept over him. I loved him with all of my heart and that is why I put him up for adoption. So that he could have a far better life then I could give him. And to think, if there were not people out there that had the same thought process as me then there would be no babies for others to adopt.
I am saying this with the utmost sincerity. I hope that you never find yourself in the same situation that I found myself in. To think that keeping a child and struggling to make it is loving a child more then giving it what it deserves by putting it up for adoption is an asinine way of thinking.
I am not trying to be a b*tch about the situation, I am simply trying to give the other perspective and let you guys know how cold hearted what you are saying sounds. That it costs to much to adopt a baby and take them out of something that could potentially affect them adversely for the rest of their lives. I never realized that their was a price on human life. I would think that the joy of walking in a spring shower holding your kiddos hand, planting flowers with them, reading a bedtime story "Just one more time mom/dad", and hearing that adorable giggle when something so simple that we take for granted makes them laugh would far outweigh any cost to get that child. If one was to find themselves pregnant after thinking that they could not get pregnant would they complain about the cost? I don't think so. So why complain about the cost of someone else having your baby and allowing you to raise it. That, to me, is the most honorable thing that could be done. Have a good day!!
April 25th, 2005  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nellebelle
I have read through this and absolutely appalled at some of the things that have been implied. Would any of you whine about the cost if it was your "real child"? Has anybody priced a delivery, with the cost of meds, drugs, complications, etc? It is pretty darn expensive. If you are wanting a child as bad as you say then cost should not be an issue.
Right, so lets just bump the price up to $100,000 since absolutely everybody has a spare $100,000 to spend. Pocket change!! One BIG underlying point is that 100% of the costs involved (especially for the examples cited) are not compensating the mother in any way, shape of fashion. They are fees paid to lawyers, foreign governments, American government agencies, the adoption agencies themselves, court fees, etc.

Out of curiosity, did you receive a payout compensating you for the medical costs of everything?? If you did, then good. I'm all in favor of it. But that is absolutely not the thing that drives the price up. For $30,000 we're talking about not even bothering with compensation of the biological mother at all, at least in most cases. Considering that, how much more does providing reimbursement to the mother cost?

Quote:
They are a h*ll of a lot more expensive once you get them home. We just spent $140 on medicine for my daughter. What for you may ask. Only an ear infection and her asthma medicine. I would have gladly dropped 10 times more then that if it was something to make my daughter better. Not to mention the diapers, formula, clothes, toys, enrollment fees for school, car when they get older, prom, graduation.....need I go on?
Right, which all could have come out of the $30,000 you paid get through the adoption process. That's $30,000 that you just lose, without the option of using it on the adopted child.
Quote:
Next, I don't think that a woman wants to just "give her child away" or "doesn't want it."
In China, baby girls turn up in dumsters every single day. Why? Because for a variety of reasons, the mother did not want the child. In fact, she did not want it badly enough to murder it. I think its pretty safe to say that a woman who abandons her child to die in similar fashion ... doesn't want her baby. Wouldn't you agree? Numerous examples exist of the same thing happening right here in the good ol' USA. Remember the story of the girl who had her baby at her High School Prom? She had the baby in the restroom, threw it in the trash (where the baby died) and continued to dance the night away. Do you honestly think that she wanted her baby?

Yes, there are most certainly cases where a mother really and truly does not want her baby. But in general, you are quite correct: Most mothers who put a baby up for adoption love their child and it is a terrible emotional decision for them. My heart goes out to them, each and every one of them.

Quote:
When I was 16 I had a son that I put up for adoption. Not because I wanted too but because I knew that was what was best for him. I could not take care of him, decided not to have an abortion and gave him the best that I could at that time.
Good for you. That's the entire point that was being made, was it not? The baby is adopted by parents who can provide better for the child and have a stable marriage, thusly a good environment for a child to grow up in. I don't think that adoptive parents should be required to have the money on hand sufficient to buy their adoptive child a brand new BMW for the 16th birthday, should they? There is a word for what comes of that: Spoiled brat. God knows, we've got WAY too many of those in this country already.

Quote:
So that is not only an incorrect way of thinking but a really hateful thing to say. God forbid you do get a child and tell him or her "Your real mom didn't want you so we had to spend way too much money to buy you." Please! I thank my lucky stars that the couple that adopted my baby are as great and loving as they are not only to him but to me and mine also.
That's a nice story, but I'm not following you when you say "that is not only an incorrect way of thinking but really hateful thing to say." What was a really hateful thing to say??????

What kind of adoptive parents are going to b*tch and moan to their adopted child about "how much you cost and the fact that your mother never loved you." Where in the hell did that come from????? Well ... I sure as hell never said any such thing.

By the way, I'm 100% in favor of remaining in contact with the biological mother. The only reservation is the fact that it sometimes leads to the biological mother suing for custody several years after the baby is adopted. That's a large part of the reason that most adoptions are completely sealed in the courts and that it is a complete nightmare to ever contact the biologcal parents. I'd be 100% in favor of any suggestion that would make the situation more liveable for all parties involved.

Quote:
I am saying that if the mentality is that adoption costs too much then what happens later when the kid wants a new pair of expensive shoes, clothes or wants to be sent to college. These things are going to end up costing a lot more in the long run. If there is b*itching and moaning about the cost of adoption now when having a child of your own would cost almost as much, minus the legal fees, then what will it be like later?
By that same standard, you end up banning about half the parents in America from ever having children. My wife and I make about $30,000 per year right now. Thank heavens we won't always be stuck in this income level!! But what about those that are stuck there? Essentially, if you cannot have children naturally, you can't have them period ... unless you make over X certain amount of money per year. If you make less than the required amount, you take out mortgages on homes, sell things, scrimp and save ... all to pay out a gigantic chunk of change that absolutely is not doing anything to improve the life of the child being adopted. Additionally, in most cases nothing is being done for the biological mother with all that money. So either the parents are pretty rich or the child is adopted into a family that went deeply into debt to adopt them. Considering that you are guaranteed to have plenty of the latter (those that took out a loan for the $30,000), you've succeeded in placing a child into a family that is deeply in debt. Does this seem wise to anybody?

By the way, I don't think that I'm a finacial tight-ass for daring to think that the adoption process shouldn't cost $30,000. What that price-tag makes me think of, I already stated: There is a mother or parents who don't want or cannot keep a baby. There is a set of parents that are willing to take the baby and raise it as their own. The birth parent or parents give up the child and the child is adopted. What in the hell is costing $30,000 here?? Sure isn't going to the birth mom. Sounds to me like everybody involved is taking advantage of the situation, doesn't it?
April 25th, 2005  
pixiedustboo
 
 
*Thumbs up on GOT's post*