Very very well said..

Jackie

Oh, you've said it all, and much better than most. Every anti-adoption fanatic needs to read and reread, and remember that the children waiting for a life with a family, in whatever shape or color that takes, aren't sitting on the internet debating whether it will be good for them or not to get out of whatever hell hole they are in - that luxury is not available to them, and they would probably to be horrified by some of the things that some people suggest would be "good" for them.

Have a little humility, dear anti-adoptionists - try to see the picture from the other, bleak, black, lonely, tragic side.

Sandra, this blog should be printed in every newspaper I know of.

Best,
Lisa

Sandra......what can I say? This is why I love reading your blogs. This is why I appreciate YOU so so much. Because you keep asking the hard questions.

The hard questions are awful to ask. The answers are worse to receive. Sandra has the courage to look directly into the face of grinding poverty, governmental corruption, genital mutilation, selling toddlers to the sex industry, and mothers too traumatized by their own country to tap into even the slightest of maternal feelings. She looked, she saw, she asked the hard questions.

So, let's get out of our comfortable positions where we have the luxury of arguing over minutia and personal peeves and a. reform what needs reforming and b. support the adoptions that are necessary?

I have a friend who adopted a baby from Pakistan. The baby's original family already had many members and no money, and they were nearly starving. That is the only reason they let this little girl go. It wasn't that they didn't love her, that they were abusive, that they would sell her into the sex trade, that they would mutilate her, etc. etc. etc. If someone gave this family a decent job or enough dollars to get by, they would not have let her go.

So help me understand. Are you saying it is preferable to remove that baby girl and send her to another home - as opposed to feeding her original family and helping them stay intact?

Do you believe that it is somehow impossible to feed that first family? Is the thinking that since we "can't" help the entire group, adoption is the best compromise?

Because I think we could do better. Some will say that this is unrealistic, that the world is a crappy place and will always be a crappy place, no matter what. But if that's the case, why would more adoptions be the one thing able to turn the world around?

See, I get the part about finding homes for kids who have no one, but what I don't understand is the cases where families in need are stripped of the one resource they do have, solely because they are down and out.

I would like to help the kids sold into slavery, etc., just as much as anyone else, but I don't actually believe that it's those kids who are being considered for adoption today. I think THOSE kids are largely ignored. I agree that perhaps those who make it to orphanages are the lucky ones, in one sense.

Perhaps you are suggesting a shift in what *kind* of kids are matched with adopting families-- from those whose parents are downtrodden to those who have no parents at all, or bad parents. I would actually be behind that move.

So, more of the right kind of adoptions (those that help kids who have no one decent to depend upon) -- yes. More adoptions that capitalize on the poverty or helplessness of the disadvantaged)
-- no. Those just perpetuate a cycle.

Considering the orphanage conditions, perhaps not. I wish that countries (Guatemala comes to mind) would put more emphasis on creating a centralized child care unit so children are not abandoned and don't end up on the streets alone with no one to fend for them.
If governments will not get involved, and in fact consider the poor to be beneathe them, and if charities can only do so much and a lot of families, not all are in a depressing survival mode Americans, even the poorest could never understand, I don't know what could be done.
Perhaps a combination of all depending on the situation.
There are places where girls aren't valued, so there has to be a better option than the unthinkable, can folks destroy the people who would sell children to thinks I can't even think about? If the US government sends aid over to other countries, would the money go specifically to the poor, or into the pockets of people who are rich?
I don't know if the international situation is the same here, in some cases it might be, but in other cases?

It is so easy to be blind to the ugly, ugly realities of this world. But you're absolutely right, they are there. The sad thing is is that you really don't have to look that far under the surface to find them, even right here in good ol America. And the fixes are not simple. I will stretch out my neck and even say that some fixes are impossible. When it comes down to it, you simply can't make decisions for other people, and ultimately, children are dependent upon the choices other people make for them.

"When I hear about damaged, bitter souls, broken hearts, lifetimes of regret, secrets, lies, shame, pressure and poor decisions..."

Sounds to me as though you are saying that you can dismiss all that because you think of worse fates. Encouraging taking babies from mothers who could and should raise them does not equate to less babies starving on the streets or being used for dire purposes.

Adoption is a good thing when it achieves what it is meant to and when it is necessary. However, you are wrong if you believe the numbers that it hurts are few when an adoption is not necessary.

So, as adoptive parents we're "taking babies"? See, that would be kidnapping. I was not kidnapped. A woman who, for whatever reason, chose not to be a mother to me. My parents wanted to be mine. Adoption was necessary. How in God's name is that a bad thing? We chose to parent our daughter and we don't care about the biology. Adoption was necessary.
So, should the government give all of our money to people who can't/shouldn't parent so that they can fix their problems? To the detriment of our daughter? And remember that we are the government, right? That's not going to fix anything, and may break even more things. Like that's gonna help these kids? No, the kids need to be the focus, not the grown-ups. The kids.
Adoption is a good thing, despite what a group of bitter people with selective retention want everyone to believe.
OK, I'm done now.

"Are you saying it is preferable to remove that baby girl and send her to another home - as opposed to feeding her original family and helping them stay intact?"

Heather, of course I don't think families should be broken because of money issues. But, talk about sunshine and lollipops, people seem to think that if we just say "we're going to reform now" that that will make everything peachy. We'll throw a little money at the poor of other nations and they will gratefully pick it up and spend it responsibly on meeting the critical needs of their children. And POOF! no more "unnecessary adoptions". That would be incredibly simiplistic and would ignore the larger problems contributing to teh poverty that started the problems in the first place. Reform is a hard and challenging business that has to be faced and achieved despite the odds, not a counter-reaction to big bad people who want to steal babies from their mothers.

Instituting reform in any country, much less Third World countries, is really tough. There are underlying reasons for the poverty and desperation that are so grinding that extreme solutions such as adoption are considered.

Three issues I can think of immediately that those seeking reform would face are:

1. Due to attitudes of social prejudice, it could take many years, if not decades to help a country care for it's own poor. There are millions upon millions of children STILL NEEDING HOMES during the period it would take to aid a country in instituting a social welfare-type system that could adequately care for its poor. To close adoption (as many anti-adoptionists and agressive reformers suggest) is NOT acceptable for those children.

2. It's just a matter of sending money and then the "good people" will take that money and use it to keep people from poverty and there won't be any need for adoption anymore, right? Honestly, I think most, if not all of us, wish it were that easy, but it's not. First, who are the "reformers"? Where does the money you send go? Who takes it there? Who decides who qualifies for it? Who is in charge of organizing and distributing it? Are THEY ethical? What organization or government body is in charge of making that country self-sufficient to care for it's poor or is it a perpetual dependancy on the generosity of other countries? I promise you that, even in the most ethical of relief organizations each dollar you spend is, tragically, not a dollar's worth of relief. So that means even more money needed for reform.

3. The poor in these countries are ALWAYS poor. So were their grandparents, so too will be their grandchildren. That's how the society is set up. It's not simply a case of starving b/c they don't want to work over-time. The society that they live in often doesn't ALLOW people of a certain class to get ahead. Any aid that goes to the raising of a child has to be 18-21 years of aid per child. Even then, what happens at 18-21? Do they suddenly start living a "middle class" existence? What are their education opportunities? Will they suddenly get the equivalent of a 50K job, get married and support their children? If they can't break the "cycle" of poverty, that 18-21 years of aid will simply roll over to the sons/daughters of that person. (to be honest, I'm not even sure if there IS realistic movement between social classes in other countries or if economic opportunity is governed by, as in so much else, nepotism and corruption).

These is just a rough categorization with some of the things I see as things that need to be worked out in order to provide reasonable, compassionate, effective reform. My biggest fear is that people get so caught up in "REFORM!!" as a pc concept that they throw out adoption, the only chance some of these children have, before taking the time to develop a realistic sense of just what is needed and what the potential obstacles and possible solutions are to those obstacles.

I'm not against reform....I just want it to be reform that has a chance of being effective....

Heather,
Baby girls treasured in Pakistan? I'll take that with a grain of salt.

And I'm not clear on what it is you want me to help you understand that hasn't been covered.

As I said in this post: http://news.adoptionblogs.com/index.php/weblogs/warping-horrid-reality-to-poke-adoption
"There are much bigger problems, however, that take a much larger toll, and if those were taken care of many of the adoption-related ones would dry up and blow away."

And one more point:
There are many reasons children are relinquished, and I respect the right of a family to make that decision. Being the wrong choice for some does not make it the wrong choice for all.


Jan,
I said the numbers are "relatively few" ... once again it's important to read all the words ... and I am not wrong. Even if we were talking about a million, two million, five million, angst-ridden birth mothers ... and I don't think the membership of CUB is near that ... it doesn't stack up against 50 to 200 million children on their own in the world, 7000 dead girl babies each and every day in just one country, the millions of child prostitutes, and so on.

It's the big picture I'm looking at, and that perspective may take some of the urgency away from middle class Americans with regrets.

If I really need to point out AGAIN that there are problems with adoption that need to be addressed and that it's a bad thing to coerce and mislead expectant women into relinquishing against their will, fine. I just did.

Again, I think the issues in international adoption and domestic adoption have inherent differences. Many babies are given up because of poverty in these foreign countries, and to imply that those children's adoptions are "unnecessary" is a gross misunderstanding of the nature of poverty in third world countries.

Poverty in Pakistan, Guatemala, Laos, Indonesia, Vietnam, Cambodia, Iraq, Iran, etc, and ad naseum is not about a parent's ability to provide an education, clothes, the latest gadget, etc. It is very often about LIFE and DEATH. Child isn't given up for adoption - child dies regardless of the great love the parent's held for the child.

I think SoBlessed clearly put out the difficulties in the simplistic solution of "supporting the families" - I am sorry, but until the world is a wonderful, ethical place where no one is corrupted by money, I am just not quite sure how that is solving world poverty and adoption. While adoption of some children is precipitated by poverty, the issues are so much greater and deeper than that. People have been throwing money at poverty for YEARS and YEARS and it is still here and I don't see it going away.

And, truly, I am offended by the implication that adoptive parents just want the babies. There are a host of parents adopting all ages and from everywhere; this statement then implies that adoption should only be about "saving" children, ie, adoptive parents should really only adopt the damaged children. So the healthy babies just hang out until they are damaged?

Ahhhh.

Romee

I am going to adopt and I'm not even infertile. The horror!

Seriously, I've been to Pakistan among other poverty-stricken countries and have to agree with Sandra's levelheaded examination of the situation.

I am insulted by the commenters implying (or outright stating) that adoption does not help children. It does, in fact, equate to fewer children in a dire situation even if we disagree how that situation arose in the first place. If you disagree with the system that led to a child in a hellish orphanage, then HEY! we agree. However, as Sandra, Soblessed and others have so clearly outlined, it is inappropriate to use the same brush to paint an adoptive family and a baby-taking exploiter. It's a little ironic that reform inspired by the desire to protect the adults involved is bound to sell out the children.

Also, those at-risk kids ARE actually the ones in Pakistani orphanages, unless the begging gang masters or worse get ahold of them first. I do have sympathy for birthparents- but have to wonder why some look for their story in every adoptive situation.

"And, truly, I am offended by the implication that adoptive parents just want the babies."

This is a statment so often used against adoptive parents. It's often used to imply, if it hasn't already been overtly stated, that the only incentive some people have to adopt is greed. It is an incredibly offensive statment to ANY adoptive parent. It's ironic to me that so many of the birthparents and adoptees who are so heavily vested in the "correct terminology" often fling this awful accusation around whenever adoption is discussed as if it's no more than a cheerful "g'day, mate". I have to wonder.....if everytime someone accused an adoptive parent of greed, another person piped up calling a birthmother "irresponsible" or an adoptee "ungrateful", would the "greedy parent buys baby" line be used as much?

I give a lot of credit to all members of the adoption process who stick around despite the repetitious use of accusations, namecalling and ignorance.

I have to believe, though, that it is getting slowly better adn will continue to do so in the years ahead. At some point, we all need to come to the common table and start making our solutions work. Not for me. Not for you. For the children.

I am learning to take a deep breath after things fly out about adoptive parents. It gets so depressing.

The other thing is if you have spent anytime at all overseas living and working in truly impoverished countries not only is the magnitude of the problems completely overwhelming, but the solutions seem like bandaids at best.

This is not to say that I don't support efforts to ease poverty, it is just that most of us living in America have absolutely no idea what true poverty entails especially under highly corrupt governments where institutional racism (as in Guatemala against the Mayans or in Laos against the Hmong) is the norm.

Many Central and South American countries that have ceased or tightened up their adoption (by tightened I meaned made it almost impossible), have not seen a sudden drop in the numbers of children and babies needing adoption - the numbers of children dying, living on the streets, or inhabiting orphanages, however, seems to have maintained a healthy growth.

Sigh.

Romee

Should i feel guilty for wanting to adopt a baby? I have my reasons for not wanting to do a newborn adoption and I don't think I am ready to adopt an older child.

Guilty? I hope not. I adopted a baby - well, he came home at 11 months and close to toddlerhood.

My biggest fear in adopting an older child? Attachment issues. Yes, you can have attachment issues with children adopted at very young ages(I just t/w a parent who is having attachment problems with 15 y.o. adopted at six months - baby was moved three times in the first few months of life), but the incidence does decrease with children adopted under the age of two.

There is a fine line in protecting the bm and allowing children to languish until "surety" sets in - I am talking about international adoptions, btw, not domestic. I keep hearing how "speedy" some countries are with their adoptions, but the reality for the majority of parents runs about a year from referral to placement. Seems like a long time to me when I read that it is a matter of days or a few weeks for some domestic adoptions (correct me if I am wrong)- I am t/a birth to placement not referral, btw. My son already has some "attachment" behaviors formed in the first year of his life - some very positive and some creating difficulties for him.

Romee

Soblessed,

The blogger Third Mom has some great posts about "what do we do in the meantime" while we wait for reform to happen.

http://thirdmom.blogspot.com/2007/04/third-mom-101.html

I am not so naive to think that "sending money" will fix everything. But I do feel that those who see adoption as one of the best possible fixes are missing one essential part of the big picture (even Sandra, who prides herself on seeing the big picture). Yes, adoption can be good, and help children have much better lives. But it's a band-aid, when what we should be doing is major surgery. Giving out band aids is fine, and I don't think we should stop doing it. But let's be real about the fact that this is just a band-aid, and often creates as many problems as it solves.

Ach. It's becoming clear to me that I'm not doing a good job of explaining where I'm coming from, so I'll try to do some harder thinking about how to communicate what I believe.

And a P.S. to those who feel the need to explain to me what Third World countries and other cultures are like -- save it. I've been there too. The part about loving this one baby girl came straight from the first family, because the agency involved was decent enough to interview them.

"Yes, adoption can be good, and help children have much better lives. But it's a band-aid, when what we should be doing is major surgery."

But, Heather, that's just my point. Adoption ISN'T always the best option. Charity/relief efforts AREN'T always the best option. Volunteer groups AREN'T always the bst option. IMO, the "best" solution to the problems overseas that "lead" to adoption is not ONE solution, but MANY different solutions, offering many different options to the billions of people facing the issues. Some of the answer may come in eliminating unethical/unnecessary adoptions, some of the answer may come from reforming what adoptions DO occur, some of the answer may come from empowering relief organizations. Some of the answer may come from solutions we haven't even considered yet.

Let me restate: I do NOT think adoption is the answer to all teh world's problems. I understand WHY some people have a problem with it. But I also think it is something that provides a lot of good in a lot of cases and to eradicate it without having a backup plan is causing more problems than solutions. And the ones who suffer are NOT you and me; the ones who suffer are far, far more innocent.

My hope, and my belief, is that we will all one day be able to come to a common table, shake hands, smile, sit and get down to the business of figuring out just HOW we will make lives better for all those who live in poverty and despair.

But, talk about sunshine and lollipops, people seem to think that if we just say "we're going to reform now" that that will make everything peachy.


Who on earth is saying that? I have never in my life heard a pro-reformer say it is easy. We're the ones working on it, we know it's hard.

All of us working on it know it's hard, Nicole.

By the way, by using the term "pro-reformer" you indicate that there are, conversely, "anti-reformers". Who would you say these people are? Would you limit that population to the greedy sleaze-bags who are trafficking and the scam artists who benefit from systems that do little to protect? Or would there be some of the exclusionary "if you're not with us, your against us" thing going on?

Just curious as to your POV.

Yes, there are certainly people who are anti-reform, who think that by and large adoption does not have any serious problems. Often these people are just so new to adoption, or not involved with adoption at all, that they don't know the issues. Sometimes, they learn the issues but prefer to turn away from reform, because after all the system works to give them what they want (a baby). Other times, they learn the issues but it's simply too painful to face the fact that their own adoption might not have been 100% ethical, and they resist reform as a way to self-protect. (This is sad, as there is no reason to feel guilty for adopting, even in cases that aren't 100% ethical, if the person went into it with a good heart and simply wasn't aware of what to look out for.) And finally, there are those scam artists and scummy lawyers and agencies that don't want adoption to change because it might hurt their profits or their agenda.

There are all kinds of people opposed to reform.

But that's not actually why I used the term. I used the term because it's how I define myself, "Pro-adoption-reform." As opposed to "anti-adoption."

There is also a whole group of people who have no stance on adoption reform, neither for nor against, because they simply don't know it's even an issue. I wouldn't call those people "anti-reform," but I wouldn't call them "pro-reform," either. People who aren't even aware a topic exists can't exactly take a stand on it, can they? So how does labeling myself "pro-reform" AT ALL imply that there are people who are anti-reform? (Again, there are people against reform, but my post did not speak to that issue at all... so why are you asking about it?)

Or would you try to pigeon-hole them that way?

Why are you setting up a dichotomous relationship here? Why are you even reading a dichotomous relationship possibility in my words? That's very odd.