"What does this mean? Are you saying adoption is not a wonderful, warm fuzzy, win-win that saves "unwanted kids?" I'm asked.
Well, first of all, it's not ME saying this, it's the United Nations...well, more exactly UNICEF the United Nations International Children's Fund - organization dedicated to working for global rights of chidlren. (But the, I have even read a blog of an adoptive mother trying to stop her child's school from Trick or Treating for UNICEF and met many adopters who strongly oppose the UN's efforts to support exploited nations like Guatemala because it limits their supply of babies to adopt!)
The Convention on the Rights of the Child, which guides UNICEF’s work, clearly states that every child has the right to know and be cared for by his or her own parents, whenever possible.
Recognising this, and the value and importance of families in children’s lives, UNICEF believes that families needing support to care for their children should receive it, and that alternative means of caring for a child should only be considered when, despite this assistance, a child’s family is unavailable, unable or unwilling to care for him or her.
For children who cannot be raised by their own families, an appropriate alternative family environment should be sought in preference to institutional care, which should be used only as a last resort and as a temporary measure. ..In each case, the best interests of the individual child must be the guiding principle in making a decision regarding adoption.
Over the past 30 years, the number of families from wealthy countries wanting to adopt children from other countries has grown substantially. At the same time, lack of regulation and oversight, particularly in the countries of origin, coupled with the potential for financial gain, has spurred the growth of an industry around adoption, where profit, rather than the best interests of children, takes centre stage. Abuses include the sale and abduction of children, coercion of parents, and bribery, as well as trafficking to individuals whose intentions are to exploit rather than care for children.
Yet saying that adoption should be a last resort is considered heresy!
Unless...that is, of course...if you want a child. Then it is perfectly acceptable today to openly discuss your lengthy experiences with fertility treatments in detail and to make it very clear, that finally, after dealing with the failure of your body and then the failure of modern medicine to "fix" your medical problems in regard to conception and pregnancy...then, and only then does one begin to consider.....options such as surrogacy.....and finally, regretfully....AS A LAST RESORT: Adoption.
That's OK to say. People are very open and verbal about that...but it's not cool to say that adoption should be a last resort for chidlren.
Many who write about fertility and adoption, such as Adoption History/infertility recognize this:
Adoption has been a last resort, a way to make families only after the normal, preferred, method of biogenectic reproduction has been tried and failed.
Those who work with infertile couples and prospective adopters such as Robin J. Roberts, LCSW, PhD recognize this fact very matter-of-factly:
Most couples do not begin planning their families with adoption. It's probably safe to say that even you began your family planning "the old fashioned way" and only wanted to consider adoption as a last resort. So here you are.
Well, DUH. Ya think? Especially when people today blog their entire "journey" from discovering their infertility through their final "choice" to adopt...
And do you think any human human being would CHOSE to be raised by people he was unrelated to? Wondering who their original parents and why they given up? Do you think that's anyone's first choice? Or should be?