e-mail
I’m tempted to kick myself for making much of Mirah (aka Marsha) Riben’s latest spew of mediocre pap designed to turn Mothers Day into a drive-by slapping.
Please don’t misunderstand; I’m not regretting pointing out the poor quality of the prose, even though the simpy writing does speak for itself, or her agenda-encumbered POV that reduces any part of the big picture to the narrowest of misleading apertures. Nor am I having second thoughts about summing up the diatribe as ’steaming verbiage’ sans any golden balls of wisdom … in other words, poop.
Nope. I’m just annoyed that I gave her space.
I should have guessed it, but didn’t twig until today that she’s out there with the presto-weirdo anti-adoption fanatic song and dance because she’s flogging a book.
Oh, goodie.
Since her last one, Shedding The Dark Side of Adoption: blah, blah, something longwinded and sinister-sounding, or something like that, equated adoptive parents with the devil, I’m guessing this next one will be somewhere near as well balanced and informative.
Actually, I’m wondering if she turned to “The Statistics of Adoption” for info, since she’s quoted there for her own stats:
15% of ALL adoptions fail.
-Marsha Riben, in
Shedding blah, blah, blah, whatever
Wow. Who’d a thunk?
And if you think that stat is surprising (!) how about this from the same source:
50%-80% of ALL FOREIGN adoptions are terminated.
Gee. I did not know that. Could it be that’s because it’s complete rubbish?
(Please keep in mind that the use of caps in these quotes is not mine. Perhaps I should refer these folks to this article from ‘The Onion’ on the effective use of ‘extra slanty italics’.)
Moving right along with “statistics”, this is my favorite: “TWICE as many adopted killers are in the category of Adoptees Who Killed Their Adopters.”
Yes, you may now stop for a head scratching session, but it won’t clear anything up for you. Believe me. I’ve been puzzling over this for a good three minutes.
The fact that the line directly follows, “The number of Serial Killers who are adopted is disproportionate to the general population who are serial killers”, would be funny if the agenda behind the swill wasn’t as dead serious about putting an end to adoption as it is.
Let me list just a few more of these gems:
“5-15% of patient load in mental clinics is the average reported figure for adoptees under psychiatric care, although official (govt.) stats estimate only 2% of U.S. population are adoptees. (Theory: a child’s ignorance of his past causes “genealogical bewilderment” [and so is] prone to dysfunction.)
40% of adoptees end up in schools for disturbed children
40% of psychiatric internees surveyed were adoptees; adopted children have a higher rate of emotional and psychological problems than the general population of youngsters
45% of all 602’s (felonies committed by juveniles) are by adoptees.”
Oh, my!
What a load of refuse.
Oh! Oh! Here’s one that may actually may verge on true: “80% of 350 adolescent adoptees in a 7-year study had questioned their adopters and others about their pre-adoptive backgrounds”.
And the other 20%? Is there such a thing as an adolescent that doesn’t question parents? (That’s the word I prefer, by the way. Like adult adoptees resent being referred to as “adopted children”, those of us raising our children choose to be called parents, rather than “adopters”. It’s just so much friendlier, more respectful, and … well, accurate.) So, these kids that don’t ask would be …? What? Dead? Severely disabled? Had their natural curiousity removed? (Just another example of the ‘information’ provided.)
So, I’ve just given an anti-adoption nut another plug, and even let people know she’s out and about with the mouth these days because she’s trying to make a buck on a book … and apparently trying to set up some organization — yes, another one, saints preserve us … but my thought has been that maybe, just maybe, someone coming in contact with her new bound blather will question her motives, and her sources.
And perhaps she’ll get the idea that adoptive parents don’t take well to name calling. Satan’s helpers and raging racists, indeed! She should be nicer.
This whole discussion reminds me an expression I’m very fond of and personally believe in:
Eschew Obsfuscation
Espouse Elucidation
Something that ideally should apply to everyone no matter what “side” of an issue one feels they are on, or are being placed into by others without knowing their full view.
I chimed into this discussion, thinking (in error) that it was about a book review of a book I in fact read, and therefore commented on with direct quotes and my own impression. I find it offensive to be automatically placed into an “anti-adoption league” as someone who isn’t against all adoption. There is actually a spectrum of belief out here.
“I find it offensive to be automatically placed into an “anti-adoption league” as someone who isn’t [I meant IS] against all adoption.”
And it wasn’t a freudian slip. I’m not against all adoption, but see a place for it in some cases. I’m against unneccesary adoption, unnecessary family separations.
As I said, discussion at this point is useless.
Soblessed, go ahead and close your mind. I personally, have one username, one identity here. I’m not here to push any group/organization/individual’s agenda. You probably took what I said above wrong, thinking I’m someone against all adoption and therefore in the “anti-adoption league”.
Chromesthesia,
“I don’t think family preservation is a good idea in every situation”
The NCCPR doesn’t espouse that idea either:
“Contrary to the way advocates of placement prevention often are
stereotyped, we do not believe in ‘family preservation at all costs’ or that
‘every family can be saved.’ ” http://www.nccpr.org/index_files/page0005.html
Yes, these are stereotypes (like the words “anti-adoption/ist/ism” are used for anyone who makes a peep for needed changes in adoption.
“I think we need social workers and judges that look at cases from an
individual basis”
Good, but I’d add UNbiased social workers and judges.
“instead of squeezing square pegs into round holes which
seems to be done too many times.”
That can run *both* ways.
INTRODUCTION: HOW THE WAR AGAINST CHILD ABUSE BECAME A WAR AGAINST CHILDREN
http://www.nccpr.org/issues/1.html
I wrote: “I find it offensive to be automatically placed into an “anti-adoption league” as someone (myself) who isn’t against all adoption. There is actually a spectrum of belief out here.”
This was accurately stated in the first place. When I changed the wording I was thinking of the characterization of someone in an “anti-adoption league” as someone who IS against all adoption, which I’m not. If this was confusing, it wasn’t intentional.
“i have been sitting back reading this and other adoption material and i disgaree with your conclusions, soblessed.”
Chosenmom…I think it’s good that you are thinking about the issues. You, of course, have the right to agree or disagree. You are the one ultimately responsible for what you believe so, obviously, you should make up your own mind. I do the same, as does everyone here.
“first how do we know who is a friend or supporter of anyone in an online disucsison by basically anonynmous posters? as far as i can see afte rrading all the links it is snadra who has totally manipulated and twisted the facts to suit her own agenda. and naturally she has buddies like you to support and agree with her … or are you her in diguise? i mean really anyone can make accusations…maybe i’m an international spy. maybe you’re from outer space….”
I think you’re intentionally taking this to an extreme that distorts the original message. Sandra and I, contrary to your own assumption, are not “buddies”. She did not call me to come running in to support her; she doesn’t even know me. I read the blog, read the comments; knew some of Ms. Riben’s work from my own research and entered the fray of my own volition. There are several people here who share your point of view; are they your “buddies”? Ms. Riben is posting here under “truthinadoption” without making it clear that she is, in fact, the author of the work under discussion. Furthermore, she posts links to opportunities to buy her work. To me, this outlines an agenda far, far more clearly than what you are accusing Sandra of. Third, neither aliens from outer space nor international spies are the subject of this discussion. The author’s questionable actions, such as misrepresenting herself, ARE under discussion.
“accusations are accusations and facts are facts.”
I totally agree….and I don’t think Ms. Riben is sharing “the facts” honestly.
“the fact is that this sandra person doesn;t like what riben has to say. so be it. who cares?”
If you don’t care, why are you commenting? For that matter, why are there over 50 comments on this post? I think Sandra hit a nerve and I think a lot of people, yourself included, don’t like it.
“like paris hilton, ya’ll rich and think-yer famous folk need to get over yourselves”
Actually, you are making an assumption here (or is it an accusation?). If you were less interested in nailing me and more interested in dialogue, you would know that I am neither rich nor famous. Nor do I aspire to be either rich or famous.
“Soblessed, go ahead and close your mind.”
I don’t consider my mind closed. However, since it is my mind, I will use it, as God intends, to make decisions for my children, my family and myself. I have a responsibility to make good solid decisions based on the information, observations and research that I have on hand. This is what I have done, and will continue, to do.
“I personally, have one username, one identity here. I’m not here to push any group/organization/individual’s agenda. You probably took what I said above wrong, thinking I’m someone against all adoption and therefore in the “anti-adoption league”
I’m having a hard time taking your statement in any particular way as it is fairly confusing. However, I have re-read it several times and I think I understand what you are saying.
No, I don’t know you. I’m glad you’re an independent thinker. I’m glad you are not anti-adoption. I’m glad you’ve given thought to what you believe. As for someone being “anti-adoption” or “not anti-adoption”, I find that confusing to determine. There are many people who lobby to eliminate most aspects of adoption under the guise of “adoption reform”. Although I believe there are serious, ongoing, current problems with adoption, I believe we should fix what’s wrong and keep what’s right. And what’s right is the thousands and thousands of involved birthparents and thousands and thousands of content, well-adjusted adoptive families.
“Good, but I’d add UNbiased social workers and judges.”
Well, there you go. A point on which we both agree.
A colleague told me this had gotten WAY out of hand. Interesting that one of the posts from Lisa P. seems to have disappeared. And now the book review, “trash adoption and sell a book” is being recast as referring to an article writen by Riben but the quotes till come from Lori Carangelo. I’m very confused. And I think that’s the point.
But I get one point: international adoption: good — adoption reform: bad.
Now you are really going to get a kick out of this one. AdoptionBlogs Editor (Lisa P.) doesn’t look like she has two heads. I checked out her bio. But in her other life she is against human trafficking. No lie — check this out.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/149800/human_trafficking_what_it_is_and_why.html?post=true&#comment
Bring back Nancy Ashe, please!
I’d say both are good, but you’ve got to look at the whole picture to know what has to be reformed.
What really needs to be addressed is a larger issue, that like the ocean simply can’t be held in a small container.
How can you eliminate poverty in another country when people cannot even do that here?
How can the attitudes such as favouring girls over boys in some countries change so that girls are no longer abandoned or worse?
There are things about international adoption that can be linked to the scandals of the 50s and 60s, but then it just doesn’t fit because there are other things toconsider that these articles I’ve read haven’t addressed in a satisfactory way…
At least Sandra seems to do a good job of addressing the agonizing circumstances such as ones in Cambodia I can’t even think of.
“I’m very confused”
Margaret, I refer you to the editor’s post of 06/11/2007:
“I think people are getting a bit confused with the article that Riben wrote and the books that she’s written. In case you are confused, this blog is in response to an ARTICLE written by Riben and linked to directly in this blog.
For anyone who didn’t catch it, here is the link:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mirah_ri_070512_a_mothers__day_lette.htm
This is not a review of ANY of Riben’s books. Again, it is a response to her article printed in OpEdNews.com entitled: “A Mother’s Day Letter to Angelina Jolie”.
06/11/07 @ 16:49 “
I think it is quite clear that Sandra is writing a blog commenting on the ARTICLE “A Mother’s Day Letter to Angelina Jolie”. If her method of writing is confusing to you, that is a seperate issue from the blog being a book review.
“And now the book review, “trash adoption and sell a book” is being recast as referring to an article writen by Riben but the quotes till come from Lori Carangelo”
Your continued use of the words book review (after comments to the contrary) to describe Sandra’s blog make me wonder if your confusion is deliberate.
Now you are really going to get a kick out of this one. AdoptionBlogs Editor (Lisa P.) doesn’t look like she has two heads.”
Why would Lisa P. have two heads any more than me or you? She’s expressing an opinion. So are you. Does this mean YOU have two heads? For the record, I don’t think anyone who has posted on this blog has more than one head. To suggest otherwise seems like just being mean.
“I checked out her bio. But in her other life she is against human trafficking. No lie — check this out.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/149800/human_trafficking_what_it_is_and_why.html?post=true&#comment
Bring back Nancy Ashe, please!
06/12/07 @ 18:32 “
Uhm, yeah……and? Is there some mutual exclusivity between being an advocate for internationally adopted children and an opponent of human trafficking? Are you, in fact, EQUATING human trafficking and international adoption? Because, IMO, that is not only inflammatory, it is completely irresponsible and an example of the illogical and fanatical thinking that is dominating the anti-adoption movement.
“Are you, in fact, EQUATING human trafficking and international adoption? Because, IMO, that is not only inflammatory, it is completely irresponsible and an example of the illogical and fanatical thinking that is dominating the anti-adoption movement.”
Mirah Riben here. The following are from a reputable sources and speak for theselves. Any complaints or need to refute these *facts*, please take them to the sources, not to me.
* “Baby-Buying and Child Trafficking for Adoption in Cambodia.
Cambodian League for the Promotion and Defense of Human Rights (LICADHO) investigations of actual cases have revealed clear patterns and networks in the process of buying babies or young children for the purposes of adoption.
“LICADHO considers that there is enough evidence of serious improprieties within the adoption system to warrant grave concern and further investigation. Particularly, LICADHO advocates concerted action by both Cambodian and United States authorities to assess the extent of adoption-related abuses, mount prosecutions against individual perpetrators, identify the weaknesses of the adoption system and implement reforms to address them.”
http://www.licadho.org/reports.php?perm=31
* FACT: Adoptions from Cambodia were suspended by the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service in December 2001. U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Maura Harty re-ported in September 2006 that she was hopeful the Cambodian government would end the four-year suspension on U.S. adoptions from Cambodia.
* Adoption: danger of child trafficking, Geneva, Brussels – January 7, 2005.
“We are concerned that European governments are influenced by the pressure of adoptive parents waiting to adopt a child, some of them for years. The authorities have to take a firm stand that children affected by the Tsunami are not suitable for adoption, at least not for the time being. Therefore, in view of the danger of child trafficking, Terre des hommes supports the efforts of the affected countries to ban adoption from the disaster areas.”
http://www.stopchildtrafficking.info/comments.php?id=44_0_1_0_C
Just a tiny sampling.
PS I realize that my article about Aneglina touched a real sore spot, inasmuch as Sandra adopted her “children from Serey Puth of AOA “orphanage,” a one time associate of Lauryn Galindo, who helped Jolie adopt her Cambodian son, Maddox. Galindo pleaded guilty to visa fraud and money laundering as part of a ring that paid poor Cambodian women as little as $100 or less for their children. The agency which handled hundreds of such adoptions charged fees of $10,000.” U.S. Official Praises Cambodia’s Progress on Adoptions. Asia-Pacific News, Sep 13, 2006.
WOW. I actually ate an entire bag of bagel chips reading through all the comments, this has to be some sort of record. Sandra I love your posts, I always do, thanks for tonights entertainment I enjoyed reading through all of it!!
Go ask adult adoptees if they consider matters pertaining to adoption entertaining. I think one difference between the perspective of adoptive parents of young children and that of birth parents whose surrendered children are now adults, is that we are exposed to the perpective of adult adopted persons. It’s not one to take lightly.
Julie:
Were they the garlic bagel chips, ’cause I just love those (as my hips will testify!). Anyway:
Mirah, in all sincerity, I really wonder why you use so many aliases. It’s just curious to me.
“The following are from a reputable sources and speak for theselves. Any complaints or need to refute these *facts*, please take them to the sources, not to me”.
This does not follow the rules of fair dialogue, Mirah. YOu are, in essence saying, here are the ONLY facts and so there! you can’t say anything about it”. That does not allow your readers to agree to disagree or to express their own POV.
Stats and quotes work both ways. We all can pull up quotes and statistics from reputable people and “prove” that we are right. The fact of the matter is, I have my own opinion of IA, formed by research in books and online, anecdotes from adoptees, adoptive families and birthfamilies, experiences I have participated in and the experiences of those close to me. These are the “research” I base my opinion on. I assume you gather your “research” the same way.
Yes, baby trafficking occurs in foreign countries. It’s unspeakably awful. Also legal, ethical, successful adoptions occur in foreign countries. These are good. IMO, the answer to the problems regarding baby trafficking is to put safeguards into place (such as DNA testing, required consent signatures from birthmother in seperate places at seperate times, “crackdowns” on unethical lawyers and agencies, etc.) while continuing to support the country through humanitarian relief efforts and, where necessary, adoptions.
What really gets my goat is when people push, push, push to stop IA, but have no comment and, in fact, often disappear from a discussion when asked what happens to the hundreds of thousands of children left in a country too poor to support them. Reducing or even (please, God) eliminating baby trafficking WHILE still helping abandoned children find homes, domestically and internationally, is a much more responsible answer, IMO, to the problems you mention, Mirah.
Adopting children seperated from their parents by a tsunami is a completely different issue. I mean, come on. We’re all capable of recognzing that children seperated from their parents by a tsumani or other natural disaster are not abandoned or necessarily even orpahned. Their family status is unknown. This makes them ineligible for adoption.
So, Sandra adopted her child(ren) from an agency that had a one time association with another agency that helped Angelina Jolie adopt her child and you surmise that this touches a sore spot with Sandra. There’s some inuendos in there, not a few assumptions, no solid facts….what is it you’re trying to say, Mirah?
Again, it would be an aid to dialogue if you would simply say what you mean.
I haven’t noticed much dialogue going on in this blog – a few people tried to offer serious commentary only to be whacked over the head with “facts”. Please, I know statistics – any of us can and do twist facts to suit our purposes – it is human nature (and yes, I believe all members of the triad are guilty of this at one time or another).
A couple of times I mentioned the importance of the children and no one (except Sandra) made any mention of it. Isn’t it about the children and what is best for them? I am sorry, but I am not about to ignore the plight of the children.
And I must agree about the tsunami – I see that as a very separate circumstance.
So, Sandra, please keep blogging – rational people please keep up the dialogue – people who only like to use frying pans to bash people, well – YOU TALK SO LOUDLY I CAN NO LONGER HERE YOUR MESSAGE!
Thanks,
Romee
Oops THAT IS HEAR YOUR MESSAGE – I am tired!
R
• In the past two years, LICADHO investigations have found direct, credible evidence of child trafficking by people associated with four orphanages which provide children for adoption to the US. In addition, LICADHO has received information alleging other improprieties, such as the preparation of fraudulent paperwork for ‘orphans’, by a number of other orphanages and adoption facilitators.
• Based on complaints by birth parents seeking the return of their children, LICADHO has investigated cases of alleged trafficking involving a total of at least 15 identified children. Of these children, 10 were eventually returned to their birth parent/s after LICADHO intervention to the authorities, 3 were reportedly adopted to the US, and the whereabouts of 2 are unknown. In addition to these cases, LICADHO has received information about a number of other alleged trafficking cases but was unable to identify the children involved and their biological families.
• LICADHO has interviewed several foreign adoptive parents, and is aware of others, who adopted older children on the basis of official paperwork stating that the children were abandoned or their parents were dead and they had no siblings. Subsequent to the adoption, the adopters were told by the children that they did indeed have surviving parents or siblings. In one recent case, an adoptive couple returned to Cambodia and, assisted by LICADHO and with minimal effort, located the birth family of their adopted children; it was confirmed that the children had been sold by one of their birth parents (without the other parent’s consent) to child traffickers and had ended up in the hands of an adoption facilitator.
• In recent months, LICADHO has interviewed many people acquainted with the adoption system – including government officials, non-government organization staff, and adoptive parents – and concluded that unscrupulous practices by orphanages and facilitators, and related bribery and fraudulent paperwork, are common knowledge in adoption circles. While few if any people are prepared to speak publicly on these issues, privately they acknowledge widespread problems. Detailed information such as amounts of bribes that need to be paid, and the names of corrupt officials and others who profit from the adoption business, is widely known.
It is appropriate and indeed essential that the US take a leading role in combating adoption-related child trafficking in Cambodia, given that the US is the largest market for Cambodian ‘orphans’. There has been a phenomenal increase in Cambodian children being adopted to the US in recent years.
It is essential that a line of defense against adoption-related trafficking continue to be enforced by the authorities of countries such as the US to which Cambodian children are adopted. The initiatives of the US Embassy in Phnom Penh, the DOS and the INS to combat adoption-related crimes should be supported.
There is a crucial need for the prosecution of unscrupulous adoption-related acts which constitute criminal offences under Cambodian law or the laws of the US and other receiving countries. Without the prosecution of perpetrators, there will be no deterrent to others who use similar methods.
Source: Cambodian League for the Promotion and Defense of Human
http://www.licadho.org/reports.php?perm=31Rights
You just don’t get it do you? You have lost any of us who might be willing to have a dialogue about the issues
Hope it works out for you – I completely skipped over the last post as I am weary of you (as are many others).
Ciao,
Romee
Sorry to see you go, Romee
Mirah,
Your recent comment points out that there is baby trafficking in foreign adoptions, specifically in this case, Cambodia.
Yes, I know that. Tragically, it occurs in many desperately poor countries where human life, especially of a specific gender, is horrifically under-valued.
You have stated that the US should step up and take a role in combating baby trafficking.
Yes, I know that too. I agree
You have stated that people who are proven to be intentionally involved in baby trafficking should be prosecuted.
Yes, I know that. I agree.
No where in your recent reply is there an attempt to address the serious issues raised in this blog.
Mirah,
WHY haven’t you addressed the issues brought up by myself and others in this comment section of now epic proportions.
To recap, a few of these points/questions include:
1. what happens to the children in countries where adoptions are ceased but the country is too poor to care for even a fraction of it’s poor, thereby leaving children to be sold, starved, beaten, kidnapped into gangs or forced into prostitution?
2. why can’t countries enact, with the help of the UN, safeguards to protect against human trafficking while continuing to offer homes, both domestically and internationally, to abandoned children?
3. why are you not-so-subtly accusing Sandra of collaborating unethically to adopt her children?
4. Why do you continue to throw statistics and “facts” instead of addressing/answering real issues?
5. Why do you not address safe guards CURRENTLY in place in countries like Guatemala, like DNA testing, multiple consent signatures and sworn statements?
I’m sorry, Mirah, but when you continue to obscure honest questions by throwing anything you can into the mix, it DOES seem to support Sandra’s claim that you intend to obscure the point for so long that most people give up in frustration.
SoBlessed et al,
I am a reporter. I report facts. I occassionaly draw some reasonable conclusions and express opinions based on those facts.
You ask a thoughtful question:
“why can’t countries enact, with the help of the UN, safeguards to protect against human trafficking while continuing to offer homes, both domestically and internationally, to abandoned children?”
They are attempting to do just that. Unfortunately, the US — one the major receiving countries in world adoptions — has steadfastly put off singing the Hague Convention on the Rights of the Child and UNICEF CRC that would offer the most basic guidelines for international adoptions.
IMO, the reason is clear: There is no money in helping families stay together, just as there is no money in preventing world hunger, or creating world peace, or stopping a myriad of human rights atrocities such as torture and child soldiers.
It is a FACT, however, that there is money in trafficking and selling children for adoption because there is a demand. Chilren are a commodity – like drugs and diamonds – wanted in the West and easily stolen in the east and South America.
Adoption is estimated to be a $6.3 billion dollar a year industry worldwide according to International Advocates for Children, and $2-3 billion a year estimated in the US and growing every day.
It is a fact that I have never attacked any individual adoptive parent nor adoptive parents in general. I work with many adoptive parents who are as zealous as I am to put and end to corruption in adoption, domestically and internationally.
I expose atrocities of adoption practitioners – those who broker babies. I am fully cognizant that most who adopt and/or are planning to adopt are unaware that the child they are pining for may have been stolen. I am aware that many people adopt children because they truly believe that adoption rescues and saves them – and in many cases it does! However, the end does not justify, change or make noble the means. And turning a deaf ear ad a blind eye to the harm being done by adoption – because it is painful to hear – does nothing to help put and end to it.
I report the facts to educate people to little known truths so that they can they make informed choices and perhaps chose another avenue to save a child rather than risk delaing with one of the many unscrupulous baby brokers. With a long chain of events occurring from the time children are taken from their mothers, sold to baby brokers and in many cases orphanages that are likewise corrupt both overseas and here…and with the secretiveness of adoption and documents falsified…it is impossible to know if the child one is taking home has been obtained legally or not.
I do not wish to cause pain or guilt to anyone who may have unknowingly gotten involved in this underworld of deceit, kidnapping and baby selling.
They are, often, innocent victims, too. I write to draw attention to the problems and raise awareness to end the corruption and prevent future damage to all involved in the adoption process including adopters who are often ripped-off and scammed by unregulated baby brokers.
I did not start the conversation here. I did not ask to be called a writer of trash and worse by someone who has not read my two major works. I feel obligated, however, to set the record straight with the facts so that readers of this blog might be educated with the real facts, not name-calling and inane, baseless bashing.
Yes, they were the garlic chips, I love those!!
And to the reader who was upset that I found the whole thing entertaining. I honestly would have taken the situation more seriously had it not turned into a high school hallway squabble with the help of post after post of ‘look at me, no no I am right and shall force my opinion down your throat with fact after fact until you see it my way’ thinking. When there is an educated, respectful, and intelligent debate you bet I do take it seriously, while still having the ablility to enjoy a good debate. However, when it is simply an arguement with people bickering back and forth, and then personal attacks thrown at the author as well as the editor, well I don’t see that as much to take seriously.
Sandra is a great person who writes wonderfully. She has a wealth of knowledge and is able to share it in ways that keep people interested, informed, as well as entertained. Our editor is a great leader who has done a lot for us, our writing and our websites, personal attacks on her without anyone actually knowing her are simply absurd, same as it is for Sandra.
I still find this amusing. This is, no longer ‘matters pertaining to adoption,’ this is merely a difference of opinions and mudslinging to get the other side to change its views, which I find highly entertaining. I could show it to my adopted son, and I bet you hands down he would laugh his rear end off wondering how these grown people could be so serious, and petty over an article. I could show it to my adopted neighbor, who I can already see reading through shaking her head, wondering why one person would comment under so many names if they had a valid standpoint.
Either way, I am still going to chuckle over the entire thing.
Soblessed –
Thanks for your thoughtful replies. I just had to get away from the constant barrage of idiocy.
Apparently, only an “author” has true knowledge of the situation in international adoptions. Those of us who have lived and worked overseas haven’t a clue about what is “really” going on (we are just really that stupid).
BTW – one of my students spent last summer working in a Cambodian orphanage of which there are many (beautiful, country, btw – heartbreaking poverty, children with distended bellies or no limbs begging on the streets, but, they are so much better off, right?) Oh, wait, shouldn’t there now be no need of orphanages in Cambodia because the US no longer adopts from Cambodia? Isn’t that the premise – we stop the adoptions, children are no longer “sold”, orphanages stop being necessary…yadda, yadda, yadda…
I am happy to debate issues in adoption, but I won’t continue to listen to someone who refuses (under the guise of knowing more) to listen to me.
Gracias,
Romee
It is appropriate and indeed essential that the US take a leading role in combating adoption-related child trafficking in Cambodia, given that the US is the largest market for Cambodian ‘orphans’. There has been a phenomenal increase in Cambodian children being adopted to the US in recent years.
It is my understanding that the US stop Cambodian adoptions several years ago.
Absolutely correct, Romee. The US imposed a suspension on adoptions from Cambodia on the 21st of December in 2001. And you know what? There are still thousands of children orphaned either through parental death or abandonment filling Cambodian orphanages … even the orphanages Riben puts in quotes as if to convey some sinister message. There are more children every single day, and often the ones in the orphanages are the fortunate ones. At least they have a roof over their heads and food in their bellies … frequently at least partially due to support from adoptive parents who make a point of looking after the children that will never have a family.
I think I’ve finally made it through all the comments, and hopefully contacted you all via email. Posting responses to each here would have taken far too much space!
This discussion will continue for a very long time, and I will be an active participant while there’s breath in my body.
Julie:
I agree with you that these comments have degenerated. I agree that there is name-calling, bashing and inane arguements. I know there have been times I probably should have re-read or re-worded before hitting the send button (or re-re-read or re-re-worded…..) For my part in this, I apologize.
However, I agree with Sandra. While there is breath in my body, I am going to fight against the all or nothing mentality of ending adoption, either internationally or domestically. This idea that if adoption didn’t exist that the things that lead to so many adoptions wouldn’t exist. It is, IMO, completely erroneous.
Mirah,
Your post explains WHY you think adoptions should be halted in many foreign countries. Not WHAT happens when they are halted or how to safely and effectively avoid those consequences if adoption was banned.
You mention the ends not justifying the means. I agree. The elimination of baby trafficking (the end) DOES NOT justify the halt of adoptions (the means). Baby trafficking happens because people (both those abroad and those in the US) are corrupt. It doesn’t happen because people in the US provide homes for children who were abandoned long before they were ever even available for adoption due to a lack of support on the part of the government for its people. Your apparent reasoning is that adoption = baby trafficking. I think that correlation is false.
However, you have still ignored several of my questions…..namely WHAT HAPPENS TO THE ABANDONED CHILDREN OF THESE COUNTRIES WHEN ADOPTION CEASES TO BE AN OPTION. WHO FEEDS THEM? WHO CLOTHES THEM? WHO KEEPS THEM ALIVE?
You use a Machiavellian reference. I think it is the height of Machiavellian thinking to condemn hundreds of thousands of children to die from starvation, beatings, rape trauma and gang-related violence because you feel, erroneously IMO, that it will save OTHER children from being stolen and sold.
“I feel obligated, however, to set the record straight with the facts so that readers of this blog might be educated with the real facts, not name-calling and inane, baseless bashing:
Would name-calling and inane, baseless bashing include making the suggestion that Sandra is defensive about international adoption because her own adoptions were less than ethical? Come on, Mirah. We’ve all gotten angry, we’ve all said things that, on reflection, probably did not contribute greatly to the discussion. Put it aside, as I should, and answer the questions. I refer you to my post of 06/13/07 @ 00:34 for a full list of the questions I would like to no. A point-counter point format would be fine.
“Baby trafficking happens because people (both those abroad and those in the US) are corrupt.”
In part. Baby trafficking exists to fill a demand for infants. No demand, no business selling them.
The first part of the solution is admitting there is a problem. Facing it no matter how painful. Talking about it without shutting people down as being anti-adoption or whatever.
The next major part of the solution is getting the US to agree to the provisions Hague and help stop the corruption, it is far more complicated because it is hard to separate the honest, ethical, necessary adoptions from those which are not.
Sandra Soria, executive director of Peru’s nonprofit Institute for Infancy and the Family, for instance, said “it is impossible to know how many children are sold each year, for adoption, forced labor, or the sex trade.” Rick Vecchio, “Pregnant Teen’s Murder Shocks Peru.” Associated Press, March 13, 2006.
(No, it’s not so because I report it as an author, or because it was reported in the press. It is so because those who are charged with overseeing and attempting to regulate these situations say so – from non-profit watchdog agencies to the United Nations.)
Long term solutions are multi-faceted, and include reducing the pressure on women to delay child bearing and also to become mothers no matter what it takes.
Increasing efforts to treat and prevent infertility, in part through education and environmental clean-ups.
Fighting global poverty, and domestically eliminating pressures on younger, poorer women to relinquish. Perhaps encourage younger women to become mothers when their bodies are fertile and persue education and careers later!
Fine, great, but I have yet to see you address even ONCE what these children should do in the MEANTIME! You are completely silent on the needs of the children NOW – not years in the future when some of these plans might take place.
Do you know what happens when money is donated to many of these highly corrupt countries? Do you really think that UNICEF and the UN are free of the taint of corruption? Yep, lived in countries where they operate.
Changing a cultural mindset whereby children and women are seen as valuable assets, not property, takes YEARS. Look how long it took the US and we are supposedly progressive.
You can quote statistics and facts until you are blue in the face (education is rife with people who love to do that), but until you share with me the visits you’ve taken to third world countries where you held the orphans in your arms, the times you spent in the slums of Peru or elsewhere(they are not pretty – I’ve seen them), until you have a filthy, ragged mother who is 26 but looks 50 begging you for food with her emaciated infant dangling from her hips, until you have told me what the MILLIONS (not 15, not 100, not 1000 but MILLIONS)of abandoned and orphaned children are TO DO NOW (not down the road in UTOPIA where no one is corrupt), you have given me nothing and you have done nothing to ameliorate the exorable conditions that the majority of the children live in.
Finally, birth control? Have at it! Take on the Catholic Church in Guatemala. Explain to the machismo culture of South and Central America how important and valuable their woman and children are – in fact, while your at it, take on the Islamic world where the rape and honor killings of women is cultural.
Reform needs to happen in the context of humane, child centered actions that look to the future, but address the needs of NOW.
So far, your arguments have reminded me of the talking pundits I see so often now on MSNBC and CNN whereby ratings, money and selling a story are far more important than addressing what really matters.
Which to me, as always, comes back to the children. Thank you, btw, because just reading and thinking about your “stuff” has firmly solidified my position – I will never stop speaking for the children and working to be sure that all children have a chance at health and happiness, be that in their birth family or through adoption.
Romee
Romee,
What do you suggest?
Mirah:
Mothering no matter what it takes? Are you kidding me? What do you think my son’s bmom should have done? Kill someone for thier food? Steal it from anohter child or family? Take it from other members of her family? Pressure to force women to parent is JUST as disastrous as pressuring them to relinquish. If you don’t believe me, get up and go ask the children in our foster care system, ask the thousands of abused and neglected kids still with their families all across this country. Birth control in countries where the predominant religion has been Roman Catholicism for over 500 years? Telling men in countries DEDICATED to machisimo they start placing more valuing their women and children more? Telling women in the Western world when they can and can’t have babies or start/halt/end their careers? Are you nuts? What makes you think these would have the slightest hope of being effective, not to mention the extraordinary amount of time it would take to convince the world to implement these highly unlikely solutions.
Human relief efforts aren’t working NOW; there is WAY WAY more need than relief even now, exactly where do you think the money is coming from to support all those children abandoned after adoptions cease?
Mirah: you continue to point out over and over and over and over WHY you think adoptions should cease. You refuse to answer the hard questions about the children who fall through the gaping abysses in your agenda; refuse to look at the raw truth of the devastation the agenda you keep pushing will cause vulnerable women and children. You have been decietful and underhanded in representing yourself and your information. You have made groundless accusations. You look away and equivocate when asked to provide proven, responsible, POSSIBLE long-term solutions.
I guess the only question I HAVEN’T asked you is:
Given even just the above, why on earth would I support you in any way?
Hi there! The two-headed editor is back! Unfortunately, Nancy is otherwise engaged and completely unavailable. So sorry to be such a disappointment to those who, with a third-grade mentality, equate adoption with human trafficking.
Thank you, Margaret for plugging my article at Associated Content on Human Trafficking. And thank you, Mirah, for posting all of those facts and figures on the comments section of that article as well as the comments section here.
Epic proportions indeed!
Mirah, you give so much lip service to how things need to change but I never see a suggestion for how to change them. Do you understand that this is what people here are asking you for? How do we get the US to sign the Hague Convention on the Rights of the Child? Who do we pressure to do that? Congress? The UN representative? Who? Stop giving us the warm wind of regurgitated statistics and tell us something we can use.
BTW for anyone who is interested (or still reading) Heather Lowe, who writes for our Crisis Pregnancy Blog did a great review of one of Mirah’s books and even did a 4-part interview with her. You can find them here:
http://unplanned-pregnancy.adoptionblogs.com/index.php
Oh, how classic? Answer numerous questions with a question – NO ONE has evvvveeerrr done that before. What would I suggest?
LOL – how droll. You have been suggesting that international adoption is evil and racist, and when I ask you over and over again about the children you come back with,
“What do you suggest?”
That is it? Are you freaking kidding me?
ROTFL – thank you for answering all my questions in that one sentence.
You have no idea, but you KNOW international adoptions are an unnecessary evil? I am moving on – good Lord almighty!
Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha……..and so on!
Romee