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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.