In Sweden moves the debate in the LGBT movement on the right to the use of host / surrugat-mothers. Personally, I am against this, not for religious reasons, but simply because there is money to be made and people to exploit. To me, is the host / surrugat-moms who equated with giving away organs to afford their survival. For if we skip persons Anna Wahlgren, who seemed to think that it was a small thing to give birth, there remains the rest of us women who have realized that it takes a lot of strength and energy to wait and bear children. The body torn and is not to be used as some kind of child manufacturing factory. When I was talking to a lesbian colleague Host / surrugat mammary so I was met by coherent reaction. She also thought it was about exploitation.
On TV4 politicians blog I staggered as follows:
Host / surrogacy (I do not use the word surrogate for it is derogatory)
It is basically impossible for gay couples to adopt. There are no children available. (Source: http://politikerbloggen.tv4.se/2011/06/23/hbtq-personers-rattigheter-en-bit-kvar-att-ga/)
When I read this, I will be so surprised. What do you mean there are no children available? It had certainly been if there had been a choice for Swedish women. Some time ago I came across a post on a parents forum. It was written by a woman who had broken up with his girlfriend. She already had two children from a previous relationship and did not want to keep the baby as she waited. Her comment was that she wished she could adopt her child, because it felt wrong to kill the child.
It amazes me that more voices are raised in Sweden concerning eligibility for adoption and adopt indigenous children. Where is the freedom of choice? Or are considered women who do not want to perform an abortion when they do not feel they are unwilling or unable to keep their unborn children as "brainwashed," "oppressed" and so on and so on.
Personally, I understand very well the women who do not want to undergo an abortion. I myself have faced the same choice, agreed to an abortion, but then luckily changed my mind. In my case, my doctor insisted on an abortion because my baby had a birth defect. Sometimes I still feel anxiety before that I might have conducted an abortion.
Then think tank this instead. I do not want my children, but begrudge another child instead. There is little that I have written that if any of my children are dying to get their bodies used to save the life of another child. What is more valuable than giving life to someone else?
But you might say. think of bearing a child and then leave it off. Yes, but first, it's actually a choice, and secondly, I can not for my life figure out what would be the difference emotionally and physically to wait and give birth to a surrugatbarn which then was removed. Yes, is not it so that it "feel " this is my eggs that I carry on instead of something implanted egg.
So I do not see domestic adoptions as anything other than a win-win project.
There are plenty of childless couples, both within the LGBTQ and among heterosexuals who can not have children. More childless predicted it will be too because chlamydia is increasing among the population and untreated chlamydia can lead to sterility.
The cost of a conventional adoption can be up to 190 000 for an only child. The question of adoption, thus becomes a class issue. It can not be denied. In addition, the waiting time is long for those who choose not to take a child with disabilities. It can then take around 5 years and then want many couples also have two children. In the end, this will be difficult, both for economic reasons and due to that we should not be over a certain age to get the right to adopt.
Out of curiosity, so I gluttade into an adoption website in Utah. It said the cost of adoption indicated. They had carefully written that there will be costs for having to live more, etc., ie costs that would have existed if it had had the opportunity to bring children into the world. But the adoption cost landed on 20 dollars! Suddenly no question of adoption, something that only the rich are able to. With domestic adoptions can all get the opportunity to good fortune to take care of a child or children.
Costs to Foster and Adopt
Generally the cost to adopt through the Foster Care System is nominal Compared to other adoption avenues.
Up front, there are fees for Background Checks Associated with being licensed (generally less than $ 20). There May Also ask costs Associated with Bringing a residence into compliance with state regulations. These Vary Widely. Finally, there are legal fees Associated with the adoption proceedings. The State reimburses up to $ 2,000 of These costs - Which Generally covers costs to families.http://adoptuskids.org/for-families/state-adoption-and-foster-care-information/utah#foster
I know that a lot actually drives the issue of the right to domestic adoptions. It is the Christian Democrats. Maybe there are some people who do not want to take the pliers in which the Christian Democrats suggest, but the fact is there are women who would have preferred to adopt away and there are childless couples who want to adopt - whatever any of them have political color. Why not let the issue become rainbow-colored and allow all parties to be involved?