A Reddit user who has been trying to get pregnant with her husband for a couple of years now, finally learns that she's pregnant. Sadly, the couple cannot provide for their foster son any longer who was on his way to be adopted by them.
Parenthood is truly a blessing i.e. if you're fortunate enough to conceive. That being said, there are numerous options available today to have a child that you can call your own, including adoption. Sure, it's an amazing experience, but this phase of one's life does require a lot of patience, care, and of course a lot of money! Now, say you and your husband earn enough to raise a kid and are on the way to adopt a one when you learn about your pregnancy. Who would you choose? Or rather, would you make a choice or raise them both despite your monetary constraints?
Taking to Reddit's AmItheAssh*ole platform, a user who has since deleted her account shared the details of a predicament she was in. The post begins with her explaining how after trying for long with no luck to get pregnant, the Reddit user and her husband decided to foster children with the intention of someday adopting one. After fostering many kids, they were now looking after a 9-year-old boy for the past two years. My husband and I never thought that we could get pregnant, so we got plenty of therapy after a few failed treatments and moved to fostering with the intent to adopt. We've had a few fosters, but this concerns our current foster, a 9-year-old who's been with us for two years. He's a spirited boy, but not a bad kid. Just takes a lot of time, money, and mental energy, wrote the foster mother.
Informing how they were finally identified as a potential adoptive resource for the kid, she added, The child's case plan has now moved to adoption, and we were identified as an adoptive resource. However, their plans shifted quickly after learning that they were pregnant. We were taking the first steps towards adoption when we found out that I was pregnant. It was mind-blowing as this is my first pregnancy, and I am now over 40. I had thought I had finally hit menopause but was in fact 12 weeks pregnant, she wrote. After calculating the cost of raising two kids and then comparing their income, they found themselves in a world of confusion.
Unfortunately, after thinking we could do both, we did the hard math, and with our work and our finances, the only way we could raise our foster son is if we terminate this pregnancy. We can't financially have both children. I can't emotionally bring myself to terminate what is realistically our only chance at a biological child, who I am already bonding with. My husband wouldn't think of it either. We have to refuse the adoption, read the post. However, their foster child was already informed about this possible adoption. Unfortunately, still, our foster son knows of preparations for an adoption through his therapist and social worker, so now we're taking him away from a stable home and what may be his only chance of adoption as he is older, all for reasons that aren't his fault. Am I the asshole for putting a still unborn child above him? wrote the 40-year-old Reddit user.
Her predicament was met with mixed responses from other Redditors. One user, @textbasedpanda, who believed that the Redditor was at fault, wrote: Your bond with your current sentient child isn't as strong as your bond with an embryo? I wanna vote YTA but the kid would be better off in the long run if he isn't raised with a family that's willing to discard him for the "better" child. However, another @hipdady02 begged to disagree and added: You are trying to force an abortion on a woman who doesn't want one because of a state's rules on adoption? Nah, you are unrealistic. Also, abortions are hard emotionally and expensive, and can be hard to acquire. Sorry but no, NTA. The state is the asshole for putting such stupid restrictions to keep statistically unadoptable child from getting a home.
Providing a little more detail about her financial situation, the 40-year-old wrote in an edit: We currently live in a 2 bedroom condo. We are required to give foster son his own room, which is not possible with a baby by social services standards. Us moving into the living room doesn't pass either. Social services is giving us until January to find a larger place, but we would have to stay in the county. We can't afford 3 bedroom places in the county, as it's a costly area. We don't qualify for assistance with both of us working, and if one of us quits, we wouldn't be able to afford our current place even with the assistance we could get. Both of us working would make it difficult to swing appointments for two children as well. It's a catch 22 basically.
Now that you have the complete picture, do you think the Reddit user is wrong to choose her unborn baby over a foster child she was about to adopt?