Maybe I'm just not supposed to be a parent

So, we're finally ready to start the adoption process, and were all set to fill out paperwork. And then we found out that the coordinator we wanted to work with isn't taking new clients.

Fuck.

That means our options are now really, really limited. Problem is, there are only two agencies in the region that affirmatively support queer families. One primarily works with state adoptions, the other only does open. All the rest are international, religious, etc.

The problem with state, of course, is that virtually all of the kids are special-needs, which we're not equipped to handle.

And the problem with the open agency is that they heavily promote ongoing visitation with the birthmother (and even her family, in some cases!) Not just contact and communication, which we're OK with, but actual, in-person visits several times a year. Ack.

I'm up for adopting a kid. I'm not up for adopting her entire birthfamily, too. If I wanted an extended family to come along with the baby, I'd ask one of my fertile friends to have one for us. At least then I'd already know and like the people who'd want to still be a part of her life.

I think the thing that really makes me uncomfortable about this is that it doesn't seem like the birthmothers really want to give up their kids. It seems like adoption in these situations is more like extended foster care. And I just don't want to do that. I don't want to be made to feel like I'm stealing her baby; that she's only giving it up because she's too young or poor or whatever to raise it herself.

And I really dislike the impression that we poor, barren people are subordinate to the queen of fertility who's deigning to give us a gift, for which we owe her hosannas. Not that I'd want the opposite, of course. I don't like the idea of agencies that make birthmoms feel like dirty Jezebels who should be grateful that someone else wants to clean up after their mistake. I don't think either party has moral high ground, here. Hell, I don't think there's a moral ground in the first place.

Ideally, I just want this to be sort of a business transaction. She has something she doesn't want, we want something she has, the agency does the paperwork, and then we all move on with our lives. We'd stay in contact, of course, especially in case the kid gets curious and wants to meet her someday. But we wouldn't be trying to make the birthmom part of the family--because she's not.

All I want is what fertile people get solely by virtue of their functional reproductive systems: A child of our own, to whom no-one else will lay claim except the kid herself.

Is that too much to ask?

One more adoption-related rant

Really quite sick of the whole beggars-can't-be-choosers attitude.

Also quite sick of the implication that we're morally bankrupt if we're not open to a special-needs child.

1. The fact that we're not physically able to make our own biological child from scratch does not mean we're less deserving of a relatively healthy infant that will be solely our child.

2. I think pretending we could properly care for a special-needs child when we actually can't would be a far greater moral failing.

Yes, of course nature occasionally randomly delivers a special-needs baby to his or her bio parents. But that's a lot more rare than you might think. Assuming a healthy, first-world pregnancy with no genetic weirdness or teratogens, the chances of having a kid who can't eventually be turned into a self-sufficient adult are infinitessimally small. In our case, since we were genetically cleared and I don't drink/smoke, etc., the biggest risk we'd have had would've been Down Syndrome, and that's still less than a quarter percent of all births.

So, yes, if I'd been able to carry to term, chances are excellent that we would've had a perfectly healthy baby. So why shouldn't we have one now that we're adopting?

Again, I am way happy for people who want to take on those challenges and are able to do so. But I don't, and I'm not. If my otherwise-healthy kid had some horrible accident and needed care, of course I'd deal with that. But I'm not going to go voluntarily taking on that kind of misery if I don't have to. This doesn't mean I'm spoiled or selfish. It means I'm realistic.

I'm already dealing with a ton of social bullshit implying that I'm less of a person because I can't make my own kid. Dealing with even more of it when I'm trying to buy someone else's? Is pissing me off.

One last adoption-related tidbit for the day

This is actually kind of funny, in a screwy sort of way.

So, over on FB, someone linked me to this site, which is an aggregator of all the DSHS departments in the entire US plus territories.

Out of ALL of that, there are only 11 children younger than 2, and all of them have severe disabilities that require constant care.

Now, of course there are more kids who go into state care. These listings are just the ones they're actively trying to find homes for. But it should make it clear that no, there aren't tons of happy, smiling babies just waiting around for some family to take them home.

The rare few young kids in state care who are healthy get taken almost instantly because the competition for them is so intense. Yes, even non-white babies and ones with mild issues. It shouldn't be surprising that it can take a year or more from filing the first bits of paperwork to having a judge sign off on the finalization. The kids are NOT out there.

So yes, there's a reason people spend gobs of money and time on international adoptions, infertility treatment and even surrogates. They're not selfish people looking for designer babies and turning up their noses at some sad little orphan. They just want a kid who's eventually going to become a relatively well-adjusted adult. Just like any other parent.