How Much Is That Baby in the Window?
Slate has an alarming piece on the sordid truth behind international adoption. As we've noted before, it often isn't so much adopting as kidnapping. From Slate:
Who wants to buy a baby? Certainly not most people who are trying to adopt internationally. And yet too often—without their knowledge—that's what happens with their dollars and euros.
Westerners have been sold a myth that poor countries have millions of healthy abandoned infants and toddlers who need homes. But it's not so. In poor countries, as in rich ones, healthy babies are rarely orphaned or given up except in China, where girls have been abandoned as a result of its draconian one-child policy.
The piece includes a haunting and very descriptive slide show of exactly how the families left behind, usually mothers, suffer. And how the brokers get very, very rich. Makes Malawi's dissing of Madonna make a lot more sense. [Read Meet the Parents: The Dark Side of Overseas Adoption for MoJo's special report on the same subject.]
thanks for sharing your
thanks for sharing your post...
Interesting post
tagged as:- result
People who want to adopt are almost forced to go international because the laws in America are so biased against adoptive parents when the birth parent(s) decide out of the blue (sometimes several years after the child's birth and adoption) that they want the child back. Here in Texas, we had a case several years ago where a birth mother decided after three years that she wanted the baby back and the courts sided with her. Imagine the emotional trauma that child went through when she was removed from the only parents she had ever known. This was not an isolated case, but was even done back in the Sixties when I was born.
As an adoptee, I consider my adoptive parents to be my 'real' parents, not my birth parents. My 'real' parents raised me, educated me and loved me throughout their lives, and I think it takes a real set of balls for the courts to side with the birth mother (as if tearing the child from the only parents she has ever known is in the child's 'best interest').
People don't want to go through that kind of trouble, much less put an innocent child through that trauma. So who can blame them when they resort to international adoption?
It is a lie that the adopter
tagged as:- solution
It is a lie that the adopter is the only "parent" an adopted child ever knows. Leaving aside the fact of adoption of older children, an infant also knows its mother from birth and feels the loss when taken from that mother. This is not some abstract statistic to me, nor an empty hypothesis. My daughter was taken from me for all of thirty minutes to be cleaned up and assessed after her birth. She was crying like her little heart would break when they brought her to me in my room, and quieted IMMEDIATELY when I spoke her name. She hadn't even gotten close enough to see or smell me yet. Now imagine what an infant goes through when it's not returned to mother at all--and they're not blank slates. They know. They do consciously forget sooner or later, but something is always missing.
On top of that, the vast majority of mothers who give their children up for adoption do so out of fear--either fear that they will not physically survive, or fear that they will not be able to succeed in life and take care of themselves. Our culture is to blame that they must experience these fears. Our only answers to mothers-to-be facing these dilemmas are abortion and adoption. Even in the liberal/progressive camp this is the case. How pathetic.
I've got a better idea than making it "easier" to steal a woman's child in the United States--and make no mistake, that is exactly what adopters do, because in the vast majority of cases some kind of coercion is involved, even if only economic. We should make it easier for natural families to stay together. We should also make it easier for people who cannot have their own biological children to cope with that fact and to find alternative means of mentoring and/or raising a child. This is what comes of reframing "the family" to mean only nuclear. Did you think only conservatives did that? I got news for you. Not the case. If we really felt other family forms were valid then we'd have no problem with the idea of biological families and childless individuals working together for the good of children rather than the latter snatching them away from the former.
Basically? Screw adoption. It's long past time it died an agonizing death.
isn't that a bit harsh ??
isn't that a bit harsh ?? not everyone who ends up pregnant want to be a mother, and not everyone can choose abortion to end the pregnancy so adoption is their only option - and letting their parents keep the child might not be the best answer either. what about all the children in foster care who were removed from homes of physical abuse, drug and alcoholism issues - these are not healthy situations for children so why is it better to keep the "family" together .. and there are many other ways for families to have children .. in vitro, surrogates, fostering - not all families immediately run to adopt... I gave up 2 children for adoption, not because of any economic or peer pressure, I just hate children and have no desire to ever be a parent but accidents happen and I don't support abortion. And yes, I got pregnant while on birth control.. so I made the best decision for the health of those children..if they would have stayed with me I would have provided for their material needs but emotionally they would have suffered and as my entire extended family is basically "crazy" there was no way that would ever be an option. As far as I'm concerned adoption was the only option and it gave them the best chance for a happy life .... And if you come back with "well we should provide social safety nets to help those will problems so they can keep their children" that is a lovely idea but who exactly is going to pay for those services ?? and why should I pay for people who can't afford to have children stay home ?? why should I pay for health care/therapy for those who statistically will just end up back out on the street ?? In my opinion, if someone can't afford to care for their children without welfare then they shouldn't be having children - it is not my responsibility to "care" for other people's mistakes and adoption provides a valid and caring solution to those who can't care for their mistakes - as for international adoptions, that is entirely different situation and I agree that there are concerns with the children being adopted.