Hi Kristen — I popped over to your piece for CBC because as an adoptee, I was interested in what you had to say about adoption as an alternative to procreation. While it’s true that many kids are waiting for adoptive homes, the operative word here is kids, not babies.

Folks who are psyched about procreation usually want to create a new human being from their own gene pools. Failing that, they usually want babies. Fresh, healthy, white babies, preferably, ones they can raise up in their own culture with their own values in a nature versus nurture situation where they think nurture will win.

Most kids who are waiting for adoptive homes already have their own culture and their own set of values. They may have extended family who want to stay in touch. Many are children of color, or teens, or disabled kids, all of whom are not as in demand as healthy, white preschoolers. In other words, they come with baggage. Prospective adoptive parents need to be focused on the best interests of the child, and that can entail a lot of work.

I won’t even get into the issues surrounding how and why children are made available for adoption, but suffice it to say that racism and classism play a big role.

So I’m not comfortable with suggesting adoption as an alternative to procreation. Most adoptions in the U.S. happen after years of infertility treatments have shown that procreation isn’t possible for a woman or a couple. In those cases, any child who is adopted is a runner-up, a second-best, a last resort. And that creates a boatload of bullshit for the child to deal with.

Exceptions exist, of course, and some people do adopt intentionally, without any desire for ego-gratification, and with the best interests of the child in mind. A great example is @ReneDenfeld. Read about her adoption experience at https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/11/style/modern-love-four-castaways-make-a-family.html. On adoption from the adoptee perspective, see Liz Latty, or https://www.counterpunch.org/2014/01/16/racism-class-and-adoption/