daswig

I wouldn't think so. A healthy child is a healthy child, and a child who is at risk for chemically generated birth defects would be less of an attractive adoption candidate.

For example, a white child from two healthy parents that didn't do drugs, smoke, or drink alcohol and who had proper prenatal care would be considerably more attractive for adoption than a white prematurely-born child whose mother smoked crack while pregnant and who received no prenatal care.

I've got a 7 month old daughter. When we were working on a plan to concieve, my wife did a whole bunch of stuff that people who were not planning to conceive wouldn't do, like take massive doses of folic acid to lower the risk of certain birth defects. She didn't smoke or drink a single drop of alcohol during that time and during the pregnancy. We were at the OB/GYN's office at the minimum of every two weeks throughout the course of the pregnancy, getting checkups/ultrasounds/et cetera. When the baby was born, she was as healthy as can be, with a "high normal" birth weight, et cetera. If our daughter was up for adoption, I'm sure she'd be adopted in practically no time.


Somebody we know got pregnant about 2 months after my wife got pregnant. She continued to smoke both cigarettes and crack cocaine while pregnant, and she drank like a fish. She received no prenatal care. The baby was born a month prematurely, had a low birth weight, and visually appears to be a high-risk candidate for some form of ED/LD/mental retardation. His cranium LOOKS deformed, much smaller than what I'd consider "normal". He's already exhibiting signs of mental abnormality. Child Protective Services are already involved with him, and he's 5 months old. If he were up for adoption, I think he would have trouble being placed, not because of race (both babies are white), but because he's operating at a huge deficit already, and it's only going to get worse.