May I suggest that the UN Special Rapporteur is not necessarily the be-all and end-all of authority or virtue when it comes to adoption? That was Emma Nicholson’s job for a while, and she’s single-handedly responsible for the suffering of thousands of Romanian children. Nothing to be proud of there. Anti-adoption all the way around, she’s doing what she can to keep kids trapped in the circumstances of their birth, no matter how horrible. I strongly disagree with this POV and argue my view whenever presented with an agenda I see as dangerous to the world’s children.

Best,
Sandra

Distr. General 6 January 2003
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
Fifty-ninth session, Item 13 of the provisional agenda

RIGHTS OF THE CHILD

IV. OTHER ISSUES IN FOCUS, A. Adoption

“During the course of 2002, the Special Rapporteur received many complaints relating to allegedly fraudulent adoption practices. Where such practices have the effect that the child becomes the object of a commercial transaction, the Special Rapporteur… such cases fall within the “sale” element of his mandate. The Special Rapporteur was shocked to learn of the plethora of human rights abuses which appear to permeate the adoption systems of many countries…in many cases, the emphasis has changed from the desire to provide a needy child with a home, to that of providing a needy parent with a child. As a result, a whole industry has grown, generating millions of dollars of revenues each year, seeking babies for adoption… The problems surrounding many intercountry adoptions in which children are taken from poor families in undeveloped countries and given to parents in developed countries, have become quite well known, but the Special Rapporteur was alarmed to hear of certain practices within developed countries, including the use of fraud and coercion to persuade single mothers to give up their children.” (Emphasis added)

Do your homework and you might learn something meaningful.

KarenWB

Why then it is shocking that mothers who lose children to adoption feel the same? Because it is perceived by others as having been “for the best” she should not feel the loss? Why is some mothers less deserving of any compassion and understanding, but instead viewed as being “bitter” when they cry out in pain from their loss?

Could it because to acknowledge and accept the pain caused to a mother who loses a child to adoption would cause those who gain from her loss to feel less noble about having “rescued” her child and having allegedly done the mother favor? Does it fly in the face of the myths that mothers who relinquish make a “plan” and then should have no regrets? Or that they were all crack whores and didn’t want their kids to begin with so why complain now?

Who is really being judgmental and cruel here?

http://www.originsusa.org/

Yes, some mothers are angry at the lack of proper counseling they received, the coercion, the pressure to relinquish their infants to supply a demand. Others are angry that promises of openness turned out to be fraudulent or simply unkept. Others still, are angry that their children did not get “the better life” they were promised, but were abused physically or emotionally, or simply denied the same human rights as non-adopted citizens in regard to their own birth records and medical history.

So, too are many adoptive – and prospective adoptive parents – angry at being ripped off by a privatized exploitive adoption system. And, so too, are many adult adoptees angry at begin denied the truth of their identity, or having been made to feel abandoned and grateful for being “rescued” and ungrateful for their natural curiosity.

Adoption is not a win-win for all parties.

Mirah Riben, author

Also, it rankles me when adoption is compared to slavery. Do they even know what slavery was like? And how is it cultural genocide? Especially when there are some really bad things that need to be addressed that they are ignoring completely! GRAH! *exists in a state of perpetual indignation*