Originally posted by BlackCat
View Post
Before we got pregnant we were thinking about artificial insemination or adoption. Either of those processes costs $10,000, minimum (very low-ball estimate, $20K or $30K might be more like it,) out of pocket. In the case of artificial insemination that makes sense (although some states do cover it.) But are the incentives out of whack in the case of adoption? Factoring in coverage it's cheaper by $7K or $17K or $27K to get pregnant naturally and bring another hungry mouth into the world, rather than adopting.
Is that weird? A progressive 21st century nation would see adoption as part of a solution of re-allocating resources to improve everyone's lot. But our system is built around a 19th or early 20th century model, where nation-states benefited from out-populating each other and so the incentives are aligned in favor of more births, rather than efficient management of available births.
Comment