Continued from here ...
where we've been looking at the idea that assuming fewer adoptable children means better conditions doesn't make a lot of sense ...

Does a reduction in the numbers of adoptable children reflect an improvement? Not necessarily, and perhaps even directly to the contrary. Does a reduction in the number of children adopted by Americans mean that more kids are living wonderful, happy and safe lives in their birth countries? I think we know the answer to this.

Americans adopted fewer children last year than the year before from Russia, Korea, Ukraine, India, Philippines, Poland, Thailand, Nigeria, Thailand, Kazakhstan and Mexico, to name the most obvious.

Hundreds of thousands of orphans of the Indian Ocean tsunami and the Kashmir earthquake, both disasters now years in the past, continue to suffer, all unadoptable.

Are we thinking that living conditions for children without families in the world has improved a lot between the end of 2005 and the beginning of 2007? Are the children all cared for, fed, housed, loved? Have we reached the stage where, "no one will be abandoned"?

Some countries have seen an increase in international adoptions ... Haiti, Ethiopia, Liberia and Vietnam, for example.

Does this mean that having these children adopted into loving families in America has damaged the countries or made the situation for Haitian or Ethiopian or Liberian or Vietnamese children worse?

According to Mo, Korea is changing rules, too, and will now require all children to be placed only domestically during the first five months. This will mean that internationally adopted kids will be that much older at placement.

Although I understand the motivation, I worry that moves like this will only result in more attachment issues and other life-long consequences.

Hoops, hoops and more hoops adding to the walls between countries, races, people, focusing on differences and increasing the likelihood that prospective adoptive parents will shrug and shuffle sadly into the sunset, hope pulled from them like a rug on sand while children languish and suffer and die without ever knowing a loving touch or the comfort of predictable meals.

Children as political currency ... adults making points, exerting authority, flexing mighty muscles and throwing their weight around ... just the small change that gets thrown to the back of the drawer while efforts go toward the bigger haul?

As someone who pays attention to the little money, it doesn't add up for me.