Yes it is.
Why? Because it 'entitles' the payer to the payee's child. Not actually, but as we all have heard (if we have been paying attention) SOME mothers say they felt 'obligated' to hand over the baby, even though they had changed their mind about wanting to, that's coercion. And, as we all have heard (if we have been paying attention) SOME mothers state that the agencies have gone so far as to tell them IT ALL HAD TO BE PAID BACK if they changed their mind, that's coercion.
As much as SOME PAPs and APs would like to think of it as a 'gift' -- and call it such -- if there are strings attached, that's no gift.
Pre-birth matching inherently creates a relationship of expectation and obligation -- paid expenses or not. Paying the mother's expenses just adds to that pressure. No mother should ever, EVER even be made aware of PAPs who "want" or "need" or "deserve" a child -- let alone specific ones. If a mother TRULY feels (at any time) that adoption will be the best choice for her child, an "adoption plan" can still be made. But, to be ethical, it MUST be without any involvement or knowledge of any PAPs and it MUST be fully revocable, at any time (until finalization) and for any reason, and it MUST not involve any signing of documents whatsoever until the mother has given birth, recovered physically from giving birth, flushed any and all birth/pain related medications from her system, and had all the time she wants/needs (if she wants and needs it) to see, hold, bond with, nurse, care for and love her baby.
ONLY after all of that -- without any presence or involvement of PAPs -- can I, personally, feel that an adoption is done by the mother's choice, and without coercion.
Yes, coercion has varying forms and intensities. ALL of them are WRONG when it comes to adoption. ALL OF THEM!
An adoptee because of coercion.