Again inspired by an answer to another question I can't help but ask, if you have been to all these different countries and you have seen the deplorable conditions that children are kept in and have had orphans begging at your feet to take them home, are you basing your opinions on what you have seen?
I have not been to any other countries and seen what you have but I have watched lots of videos on how lots of these children are being stolen and placed into these orphanages until they can be adopted out of the country for thousands of dollars a piece.
My question is, has it ever occurred to you that maybe these children whom I have no doubt live under disgusting conditions, and do in fact need homes, have been strategically placed here directly in your path in an attempt to play on your sympathies and tug on your heart strings to coerce you into adopting one of them, from the very same people who stole them and want to profit off their flesh?
I am in no way making light of the conditions these children are forced to live under, I no doubt would feel the same need to help, but I am asking if you at the very least second guessed where all these children come from before you take them into your homes, or try to find homes for them? Do you not think that if they were stolen, the home they need most is the one they were stolen from?
2009-06-27T12:52:12Z
HEY AARON: I had no idea you specifically called me a name, I'm okay with it as I can be rather opinionated at times, but I do try to get thought provoking issues out there for everyone to share, and this seemed like a good one. no harm no foul, maybe you should stay. Thanks for your input either way.
2009-06-27T14:23:54Z
ANGELA: I'm asking so that everyone can try to come to some sort of understanding about the real issues. I tried hard not to be offensive and still get my point across, if I failed I appologize. Getting out a handful of kids doesn't really help the rest of the kids who need homes, and taking ones that have been stolen doesn't hepl at all. That's all I'm trying to get to.
almost human2009-06-27T12:47:34Z
Favorite Answer
Good question and how can you be sure?
Do you know why my family felt secure leaving my possible sister and me alone in the market? In the middle of winter?
Because the whole country knew that Holt took babies and sent them to what was supposedly a better life in other countries. That’s the only reason. HOLT’s PRESENCE is what made my abandonment an option. And do you know what would have happened if they weren’t there? I might have been malnourished for a while, I might have had a hard life for a very long time, it’s true. (I have met those that stayed in their country through periods of starvation and they are doing just fine now) But without that option, my parents would have had no choice but to keep me or find someone in Korea who would. Basically, HOLT’s PRESENCE was the catalyst for abandonment.
from dictionary.com:
cat⋅a⋅lyst
1. Chemistry. a substance that causes or accelerates a chemical reaction without itself being affected. 2. something that causes activity between two or more persons or forces without itself being affected. 3. a person or thing that precipitates an event or change: His imprisonment by the government served as the catalyst that helped transform social unrest into revolution. 4. a person whose talk, enthusiasm, or energy causes others to be more friendly, enthusiastic, or energetic.
It’s true I might have become malnourished and lead a hard life. But I would have known my parents, my country, my culture, my language, and somebody here would have loved me.
Holt took advantage of a nation during times of hardship and continued to do so long after the nation became an economic power. And their skill at perpetuating the "need" for their brand of "help" went on many decades after the country was able to not only help themselves but also send aid to other countries. Thus, Holt has become the model and gold standard of adoption operations throughout the world.
Developing countries on their knees to the IMF, war-torn countries, and countries with famine and natural disaster need AID, not removal of their most precious resource, its human potential. They allow their weakest to be adopted because they can't afford social services. But adoption allows governments to put social services on the back burner, so yes, OF COURSE those running the countries think it is a good solution.
The international adoption solution, however, ultimately weakens the integrity of that society: it weakens family structure while producing heartache, guilt and shame.
We want to believe what the adoption agencies tell us. We want to contribute to the world and we'd like to see ourselves as playing a part in that, especially if it's rewarding for us personally.
But helping families in struggling countries keep their children is emotionally better for the children, their families, and their countries. (the cost of one adoption could help many families overcome their temporary hardships) And then there are the women, not always young, who are given no viable choice but the first solution, the international adoption solution, when funding could go towards that instead of adoption fees.
It takes more than foreigners living in a country to see the truth. It takes more than government officials to tell this truth. It takes living in a country as an ethnic member of society to see and hear all the stories and pain which are international adoption's commonwealth legacy.
You know, I think there is no doubt that some children in some international orphanages have been stolen, and I think there's no doubt that there're many children in international orphanages who have not been stolen, who live in deplorable conditions, and who truly need a home that can't or won't be provided in their country. It's really an ethical paradox in my opinion, because if it's ethical to adopt the children truly in the most need of a home, it's going to be international adoption. But you're also going to find the most corruption in the most poverty stricken, needy places. For example, I think of Ethiopia, with some of the truly neediest AIDS orphans with truly no family and a country without the resources to take care of them there, but also some cases of parents taking their children to an orphanage thinking it's temporary or agreeing to adoption thinking it's temporary. Sometimes the orphanages adopt these children out, which of course is unethical, if they can, genuinely thinking it's the best for them. The may expect that biological parents may never come back since that is often the reality, or the situation may be so dire that the child may truly be in such a desperate situation that the child will die before the parents get back since the orphanage may not be much better off than biological family. So, it's just so complicated. Of course money in international adoption can be involved in corruption, and every adoptive parent should research exactly where their money is going, but I don't think it's as simplistic as saying remove money from the senario and more children will be better off. And, I do think it's possible to adopt ethically internationally, and adopting an infant from Guatemala for instance where the system is very well known to have a lot of baby traficing in it is not the way to do it. It's really simplistic and not true to paint all international programs with the same brush.
I live in India. Every day I see children who "play on my sympathies". Most are being raised by their families but it is sometimes hard to tell this since I see toddlers playing in the street with no one visibly looking after them. I live in a very large city, and I know these children are not safe. I know they are hungry. I know girl children are often neglected more than boys. I know the orphanages are full here. I know there have been huge abuses of children in adoption in India - particularly in the state in which I live.
I don't think any child should be stolen from their parents and placed for adoption. However, there are genuine orphans here, and also abandoned children who need homes. I think international adoption should be available to them.
I think Angela hit the nail on the head. There are a lot of media sources that are working very hard to cast international adoption in a bad light. The reader/viewer is seeing the finished product, after all the editing, and generally, an opposing opinion or viewpoint is not allowed. The finished product suggests that virtually every child that is in an orphanage or was adopted through international adoption must have been stolen or some sort of illegal activity took place. It does a disservice to the children that WERE actually trafficked.
I have to add, that I've never heard the logic that "if you can't help everyone, you should help no one" except here, as it applies to international adoption. It makes absolutely no sense to me. Yes, adoption only removes a few children from a terrible situation (and yes, having travelled to Africa twice, I'm pretty convinced that poverty is not an attempt to collectively pull the wool over the eyes of Westerners to gain sympathy), but those are a few less children that likely would have starved to death, or killed by violence, or recruited into a rampant sex trade or as a child soldier, or forced into an early marriage for "purity".
Ultimately, I think it's up to the country in question to decide what is best for its children. Some countries are unable and/or unwilling to care for all of the orphans. Sure, there are some programs that are in the works, but it takes an extraordinary lack of compassion to say that it's okay to allow children to live in these circumstances because their government should be taking care of them. Or because you can only help a few.
If a government creates and enforces a reasonable and ethical adoption process and believes that international adoption is necessary at the time, because the government cannot support all of the children that need support, then I think it's presumptuous of wealthy Westerners to roll in and tell them otherwise.
Would also like to point out that those Westerners aren't actually /living/ in those circumstance. Willing to bet they are eating more than a handful of rice cooked in contaminated water per day.
I've done (non-religious) missionary work in Mexico.There are a lot of dirt poor people in the slums popping out at least one kid a month.They cannot afford these children.They cannot feed them, bathe them..nothing.
So, they give up their rights and send the kid to a orphanage in hope that the kid will have a potentially nice life.The children ranged from newborn-11 at the time that I was there.There were 6 kids under 1 y/o.I met one of the children's mother whom visits her child almost everyday in the orphanage.
It's not a conspiracy theory.
That being said, I DO believe that there are illegal activities going on in some places.The black market is perfect for soulless individuals waiting to claim their next victims.I just think that people need to stop bi tching out the ones who want to choose intern. adoption because there are hundreds of kids who need homes.