Is what you see really the truth?

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.

With all due respect, are you sure what you're seeing in these videos, or reading on websites who's position is critical of international adoption is true? I'm a lot more likely to believe something I saw with my own eyes or heard from someone I know and trust, rather then a video that was created and edited by someone else, inorder to get you to agree with there position on a subject.

I know a several people personally who've volunteered in orphanages in very poor countries, as well as several people who've lived in these countries (neither had anything to do with adoptions). The stories I've heard of the conditions and things these children have been through are horifiic. While I know there are instances of corruption in these countries, I don't doubt for one minute that most of the children in orphanages truely do need homes. When we, as a wealthy country have many children in fostercare, why is it so hard to believe that poverty stricken countries wouldn't have far more?

LORI-

Don't worry, your comments didn't come across as offensive (at least not to me), and I appolgise if mine did. I do get what you're saying, but the point I was trying to make is that sometimes when people hear of some instances of corruption in international adoption they assume that it's the norm and that means the vast majority of children in IA were stolen or coerced away from their parents, and if not for people wishing to adopt internationally all of these children would have remained with their families, which often isn't the case. It's just frustrating when videos, or articles twist it so people are made to believe that the children in orphanages really don't need homes, and if IA were to end then there would be no more orphans in need of homes.

I understand that adopting some of the children doesn't give all of them homes, but many of the international agencies are able to make a major difference in the lives of those children who are not adopted, and for many families that are able to stay together- I know that that's what a large portion of our IA fees went to.

Is ManU winning the CL final? ;) Edit: Sure. I get to know a person before I hook up with them so they were friends before we started a relationship and they became girlfriends. LMAO come on Angela ;) BELLA: Do you masturbate then? Try denying it now lmao =P hahahaha Haha Bella it's ok, i get it ;) Finally we have a confession from the source of all this talk though haha

We all base our opinions on our personal experiences. I saw my daughter's orphanage and it broke my heart. It was cold, grey, too hot in the summer; freezing in the winter; no toys; no music; 1 caretaker to every 10 children; not enough food or medicine. Babies were locked into bamboo chairs for hours. Have you ever walked into a nursery full of babies and not heard a sound? Well these babies had gotten used to no one coming to hold them so they got the message and gave up.

We in the West have no freakin' clue about what real suffering is like. We have an obscene amount of food, money, clean water, rights and privileges and a bevy of indulgences.

Children all deserve to be safe and loved regardless of where they are born.

I've traveled extensively, but I also have a degree in International Relations with a concentration in Development. So I do feel I have some familiarity with this subject.

When I first graduated from university with a fresh degree in my hand, I was completely opposed to international adoption. That changed as my experience became less of the classroom and more of the real world. I realized the world was less straightforward and more nuanced than I had allowed myself to believe.

I still wouldn't personally adopt internationally, and I still think it's a thorny and difficult issue, but I have come to believe that for certain children in certain situations, it may be the best of limited options. It was not a child/children who changed my mind-- when I see street children, institutionalized children, starving children, etc. it makes me sympathetic, but it makes me want to solve the underlying problem, not pull a few children out of the mess and leave the rest.

It was actually adults who changed my mind. Adults who actually live in the places in question, not just drop by or dictate from afar. Adults who were just as intelligent and warm-hearted as I am... actually probably moreso than me on both counts. Adults who actually lived in the countries where I was just a visitor, and really knew about things I could only speculate on.

The thing they convinced me about wasn't international adoption per se... it was that as a comparatively wealthy white woman, it was just as arrogant, paternalistic, and entitled of me to claim I knew better than them what was best for their country, if I felt what was best was that they NOT adopt their children out internationally. It's no less ignorant to be prescriptive in opposing, as supporting.

The issue wasn't being for/against international adoption-- it was that I WAS STILL TELLING THEM WHAT TO DO because I was white and rich and the one with the privilege, instead of LISTENING to what they were telling me. I was still ignoring their truths because I assumed I knew better. The problem was my attitude, not what I specifically thought I knew.

People in the developing world are just as smart, just as kind, and just as capable of making good decisions. I believe that a Haitian, for example, knows far more than I do about what's best for Haiti. If the people and government of a country have decided that they will not allow children to be adopted internationally, I support that. If they have decided they will, I support that too.

I was convinced to be open to the possibility of international adoption as a reasonable option only as a side effect of realizing that my nationality and wealth didn't mean I know everything. That was a hard lesson to learn, but I am a FAR better person for having done so.

While I think there are many stolen children in foreign orphanages, there are also children there because their Mothers were forced to relinquish them, for many reasons- poverty, dictatorships, etc.

Do I wish to see children withering away in orphanages? Of course not. I wish to see people stop contributing to the problem. Adoption (domestic AND International) is a BUSINESS. Like all businesses, it's about supply and demand. When people stop buying the product, companies go out of business. Foreign governments will be forced to change their policies, and help families stay together. That wont happen if people keep buying the product.

The majority of IA's are not because people are humanitarians and "want to save a child"- they want a baby, and there just aren't enough here in the states. Don't kid yourself.

My- Arron has been to a lot of orphanages around the world. this is the 3rd time he (or most likely she) has "called me out".

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AkwYN...

Do you have a crush on me, or are you just a stalker. That's kinda hot.

He/she wrote, "people like "Can't stop Linny G" don't get to decide what is right for everyone. Period."

Thanks for giving me so much power, buddy. Musta hit a nerve. Junk work? I bet it doesn't.....