Monday, September 28, 2009

Anti-Adoption on The Web

Anti-adoption sentiment on the web is the subject of a blog post I recently cam across:

...Most of what I read was from people adopted long ago when adoption was not spoken of, swept under the rug, when young single women were coerced or forced to give up their infants for adoption. I am always horrified when I read such stories, see movies, or hear of cases like these. I believe it was wrong but this is not the only adoption scenario out there, certainly today, more and more young women are keeping their babies....Everything I read was so black and white...I don't know what to say. I can't begin to tackle the tangled emotions and thoughts that are broiling in my head right now.
My reply:

I would like to share some thoughts on your observations and comments. First, all the horrors of coercive adoptions are NOT relegated to past history. Yes, fewer U.S. mothers need to resort to losing their children to adoption s single parenthood is more acceptable and birth control more accessible. All that means is MORE pressure than ever on the few expectant mothers who do CONSIDER that option. It also means that a great deal more focus is now on international markets where women are not just coerced, but babies are actually STOLEN (in China and India) or kidnapped at gunpoint (as in Guatemala) and then sold to orphanages who then sell them to U.S. adoption agencies.

There is a great deal that is UGLY, bad, wrong, illegal, immoral and definitely unethical about adoption TODAY.

Add to that, that the people who have been negatively affected by it in the past - adoptees - are now grown adults able to speak out. And mothers in the US who were coerced into silence for may decades are likewise finding their voices more and more.

So the pendulum is shifting. Since the 1940s, when US adoptions began to become a business and records were sealed, adopters were put on a pedestal and adoption was seen through rose-colored glasses as a win-win. "Unwanted" children were finding living homes.

But now we know the truth. The curtain has been drawn and we have seen the little man behind it. We all know the Emperor has no clothes. The truth is that adoption is not about finding homes for orphans and kids who really could benefit from it - like 129,000 kids in foster care who could be adopted...instead its a multi-billion dollar industry paid for by those claiming to be "desperate" for a child and willing to pay enough to support illicit baby brokers who traffic inhuman life.

This is despicable and anyone who is not ooutraged is not paying attention.

Does it reflect badly on those who are adopting? Unfortunately Yes. It points out that it adoption is not quite as altruistic as even they might have been led to believe. There really are not as many "orphans" "languishing" in orphans. the numbers have been grossly inflated because nearly 90% of children in orphanages worldwide are not orphans at all but have at least one living parents and or extended family who hope to reclaim them and have placed them in care temporarily, as was the case with both children adopted by Madonna.

Adoption is corrupt and those seeking to adopt need to make some hard choices: to be part of the problem or part of the solution.

Infertility is a terrible loss, as is losing a child to adoption - or to miscarriage or any other loss. But you don;t see people who have lost limbs or their sight acting all entitled to someone giving up theirs for them - or exploiting the poor. Well, actually organs are being exploited form the poor, but it ILLEGAL!!

Infertility is awful but no one owes anyone a child and no one has a "right" adopt. Adopting one child at a time is not solving world hunger or the AIDS epidemic or global poverty. It is creating a lot of backlash and increasing the image of the ugly American who comes into impoverished countries with their ethnocentricity and their dollars and thinks that giving one child more material advantages outweigh=s his basic need and RIGHT to his family and culture.

It is sad for those who adopted believing they were doing a good thing. But, as I said, they can chose to be part of the solution. many have:

Read blogs such as fleasbiting, and

The first is a U.S. couple, the second a couple from Australia each of whom adopted two Indian children and discovered they were stolen form their mothers. They did the RIGHT thing from the start in investigating heir doubts to uncover the through and then to help the child victims - and the families - deal with their situation.

Jennifer Hemsley stopped an adoption in the process in Guatemala when she suspected DNA tests were fraudulent.

ALL of these people have become advocates for eradicating the corruption in adoption. Each of us must chose what legacy we want to leave for our children and those who come after us. We can chose to hide from these ever increasing revelations of abuse, we can deny fiercely that OUR children were taken in any way but the most ethical...or we can face the reality and stand up and do something to stop the proliferation of child trafficking for adoption. It's your image you must face in the mirror each morning. Will it be something you are proud of? Will you be someone your children will be proud of?

I believe it was Robert Kennedy who said: "The greatest tragedy is for good men to see wrong and do nothing."

A position of adoption as a last resort, as is taken by the UN and many child advocacy NGOs around he world - or one of Family Preservation is less offensive than anti-adoption, just as pro-life is fare kinder than ant-abortion and pro-choice far more realistic than pro-abortion.

Every child has a RIGHT to remain in his family. Every family his the right to receive the support they need to remain intact. When that is not possible extended family are the next line of defense for children in need and only when there is not family whatsoever capable is state care required or a another family sought. That family should preferably be within the community of the original family for continuity of language, culture, and even possible visitation. International adoption must be a last resort.

This is not a negative position on adoption - it is a positive position, humane and ethical position for families in crisis.

Is it black and white? Are all adoption good or all adoptions bad, of course not. But enough are bad or questionable to cast a shadow of doubt on all. Unless you have met with both the mother and father of your child in person, who have been confirmed to be the mother and father by DNA tests or a birth you witnessed personally, then you don't know for sure.


Mei-Ling said...

The paragraph where you mention 90% of children being labelled as orphans when they're actually NOT is true.

But where you mention many of them do have another family member or living extended relatives who would rather come forth and reclaim the child...

In China, this is not necessarily the case. Maybe in Korea and Vietnam, but not in China.

AdoptAuthor said...

I was actually referring to nations outside of Asia primarily such as Africa where Madonna adopted two children who had family who hoped to reunify. In many parts of the world families use orphanages for temporary care or to obtain medical treatment they cannot otherwise access.

RussiaToday Apr 29, 2010 on Russian Adoption Freeze

Russi Today: America television Interview 4/16/10 Regarding the Return of Artyem, 7, to Russia alone

RT: Russia-America TV Interview 3/10

Korean Birthmothers Protest to End Adoption

Motherhood, Adoption, Surrender, & Loss

Who Am I?

Bitter Winds

Adoption and Truth Video

Adoption Truth

Birthparents Never Forget