Just what are "all the right reasons" for international adoption?

I recently read an article about a baby adopted from Lebanon.

The adoptive mother was trapped in Lebanon while trying to get the baby out of the country, which was made impossible due to the Israeli war on Lebanon in 2006.

The article goes on to acclaim the senators responsible for the humanitarian visa that allowed the child to leave the country, evacuated via U.S. Navy helicopters.

What the article doesn't mention is that these were the same senators who gave the green light to Israel to unleash its destruction on the country in the first place.

These were the senators who okayed the millions of dollars worth of illegal bunker buster bombs, and depleted uranium bombs, and white phosphorus bombs, and specialty bombs with special ways of killing people that were new to those who unfortunately were in their deadly path.

The article doesn't mention that the attacks on civilians left 1300+ dead, a third of which were children.

The article doesn't mention that these children also wanted to live normal lives; they do not exist for being the wrong "kind" of person in the eyes of those with the bombs.

The article doesn't mention that Americans were evacuated in terms of their "American-ness"; and that ironically the newly adopted child, were he to be in my place, would be considered last to go.

The article doesn't mention the economic conditions of the country, exacerbated by the First World imposition of neo-liberal policies, that create to a great degree the conditions under which a family might consider giving up a child.

The article doesn't mention that there is no government oversight of adoption in Lebanon, so anyone adopting is basically buying a child.

So for the "saving", the "rescuing", the "salvation" (read: the purchase) of one child, 400+ others died.

This is a horrendously sickening equation with no justification.

This is a disgusting, filthy, sordid, uncivilized way of viewing the world.

Did I mention selfish, narcissistic, and egocentric?

There are no right reasons. None. Just endless self-absorption, and the justification of what is basically a continuing missionary colonialism.

i will see that throughout the time of a few countries that are very standard for advertising toddlers to adoption like China and Russia. yet curiously they have never been to Brazil (i'm Brazilian) and considered the hundreds (in line with hazard tens of millions?) of homeless babies roaming the streets or visited the numerous orphanages there who warfare on a daily basis to maintain nutrition on the table! i'm purely a sprint unwell of persons right here who assume undesirable approximately adoption each and every of the time! i understand that there are an excellent sort of undesirable, unethical, and straightforward merciless adoptions obtainable and there desires to be greater information approximately that yet please stop assuming that is each and every of the comparable. that each and every person international adoption could do with an AP going to a distant places united states and paying $$$$ for babies because of the fact it does not. in line with hazard all those human beings want a visit to the real Brazil, no longer the vacationer sites!

The right reasons? All 3 of these MUST be in place:

1. The child has NO extended family.

2. The mother is NOT being forced to surrender that child due to poverty, social pressure, psychological coercion, being exiled from her family, the emotional coercion that comes directly from promises of "open adoption, lack of medical treatment or housing, etc.

3. The mother has had time to recover from birth first, WITH her child and without any pressure from adoption agencies.

4. The mother honestly does not love or want to keep her child.

5. The baby has been kidnapped or stolen (see link below)

= All the same reasons that apply in a "domestic adoption."

If you obtain a child from a situation where the mother is being financial coerced (poverty), then this is an unethical practice called reproductive exploitation. Her human rights are being violated. The only ethical thing to do would be to provide her with the resources she needs in order to keep her baby.

Adoption is a huge industry set up to supply children to people who want the experience of being a parent. International adoption, in many cases, is founded on exploitation of the poor. Even "orphans" in orphanages more than likely have loving family members who were forced to *temporarily* surrender them to the orphanage. The ethical thing to do would be to reunite the child with his/her extended or nuclear family and provide them with the support they require to stay together. NOT "poach" the child from his/her country of origin just because you have the money and social power to "purchase" that child and line the pockets of for-profit adoption agencies.

Before I started reading this site, I had a "unicorn farts and rainbows" outlook on all adoption, that it was a win-win-win situation. I honestly believed the media hype about IA and "rescuing" these children.

So, my thoughts went something like this:

"Unwanted children must be rescued from poverty and countries that can't afford and/or don't want these children."

"Their lives will be so much better in America, it's our responsibility to take them in if no one else is going to do right by them."

"Girls are "throw-aways" in that country so getting them to families who will raise them is the right thing to do. After all, if it wasn't for American families willing to rescue these girls, they'd die."

I've since learned better, and honestly believe that the parents, governments, and "cultures" should be held responsible for ALL of their children, and instead of adopting these children, PAP's should be fighting for policy and social changes.

The ONLY reason I can think of is because there is a child who needs a home and there is

a) No possibility of them staying with their immediate family

b) No possibility of them staying with extended family

c) No possibility of them being adopted or permanently fostered within their own community/country/culture

and EVERY effort has been made to achieve the above before the child is placed for international adoption.

Although it isn't what we are interested in doing (US excluded), I imagine the "right" reasons are to help or rescue (yes, I said rescue) a child from an orphanage or country/state care that has no family to claim them. There are abuses...but there are many kids in need too.

In Canada...adopting from the US is considered international yet we would LOVE to access the foster care system there but it's so difficult it's insane. We would do that because there are so many children in need of homes AND it is just as difficult to adopt from within Canada but between provinces. So, why not widen our horizons?

As for "wrong" reasons...I will stay moot on that. There are better speakers for those than me. And I do hope those who want to or have adopted internationally will shed some light on the dark part too.

I don't know what his/her right reasons are or were but for us the #1 right reason was that when we visited India for three years we realized there are literally millions of children living in orphanages with only a very small fraction of that number of families looking to adopt them. Our daughter is now almost 17 and doing wonderfully but when she came to us at 8 months old she was literally dying from being in the orphanage. 8 months old, covered head to toe in scabies (which I know is not life threatening) but she only weighed 10 lbs or 4.2 kg. Another month or two and she would have wasted away from neglect and lack of stimulation and been forgotten about. I, for one, was not going to let that happen to a child if I could do something about it. Others may have a different view on the subject but that was ours and I make no apologies for it.

Well, with some of these particular folks, all the "right reasons" appear to be the following:

"But...I want a baby NOW!"

"But...celebrities can do it!"

"But...I DESERRRRVE a bay-wee!"

I can't even imagine the "wrong" reasons.

P.S. - I am not speaking for everyone who has adopted internationally. But I was rather annoyed by the question you are referring to, particularly the bit about it taking too long to adopt a baby from the states. How sad for them. Pfft.

None.

I have three IA cousins who are all adults now and whilst they are happy, well adjusted adults who love their family if they could have chosen they had been raised in their countries of origin by either extended natural family or people of the same culture.

Well I can speak for myself we're planning on adopting internationally. I grew up in Latin America and I remember seeing all the kids begging in the streets at a really areally young age, or the young moms toting their Always sleeping babies-usually drugged- and begging for money at busy roads...the government foster programs are inexistant they're mainly orphanages and kids dont have the same opportunities than the rest...

So I always wanted to help a child from there or from a similar situation. For us is going to Latin America, because Im familiar with the culture and language to help the child adjust.

I think there's a lot of people against international adoption because they think people are taking the children out of their culture and life-and it's becoming a trend.

I think the good reasons are the same reasons as one adopts-a lot of people want to be able to become parents and help a child regardless of where he's coming from.

And internationally the luck that the child might face is quite hard ie girls from China, etc