Orphan Fever: The Evangelical Movement's Adoption Obession

[SKL]

Though I did date a rather radical guy from India who must have heard about adoption for the purpose of conversion. He was of the opinion that it would be better for babies to die on garbage piles than to be adopted by non-Hindu families. (Yes, he actually said that.). Maybe this sentiment is the reason many Indian states do not allow adoptions by non-Hindus. Sad for the kids in orphanages, IMO, and of course the baby girls who are murdered . . . .

[LibraryLover]

nm

[Orthodox6]

When I first started homeschooling the group I belonged to would always give an expectant mother a wooden spoon as gift. By the time I was pregnant with my next, I had left that group far behind.

 

If I had not read other posts in this thread, and had read your post in isolation, I would have assumed that they were encouraging the pregnant woman to be "a milk and cookies mother" type (i.e. into baking). Having read other posts, though, I find this anecdote recounts abominable behaviour.

[SKL]

 

 

Did you read the article? Bc the article gave several examples of high profile churches pushing this.

 

I can't really judge or comment on the value of hinduism to hindus given the missionary minded adoption we are discussing in this very thread. LOL

"Several" / "pushing." First, I'm not sure we have the same definition of "pushing," and second, "several" does not a majority make. I get around, and I know zero Christians who push or have been pushed to adopt internationally. And I also know zero adoptive parents who did it to spread Christianity. I am not saying none exist, only that when talking about something that is not mainstream, one should avoid language that implies it's common (or common to a broad group). If you really believe that the average attendee at an evangelical church equates international adoption to evangelism, I think you're misinformed. Perhaps because of articles like that. It may be worth noting that some of the most popular countries for international adoption are much more Christian than the USA is.

[Coffeetime]

When I saw this article weeks ago my first thought was of an online person who clearly is an impartial and abusive adoptive parent, so I am glad to see you are finally discussing it.

 

The point is that christians are pushing adoption as a ministry to these kids, when in reality adoption should be about building a family. Not about outreach. Not about doing a favor for a poor kid in Africa. Not about a noble gesture or a rescue effort or sharing the gospel.

 

There is no way this is not a homeschool issue. It absolutely is.

 

Its not about spanking. This really was child trafficking.

 

 

This doesn't mean all christians who adopt should be suspect.

 

^^ This. This is what the book is about.

The reason Joyce highlighted the Campbell's and Allison's is because they WERE pushing adoption as a way to further the Kingdom. And they aren't alone in that. Some of the language coming from some of these groups is appalling. And it's having a negative effect on international adoption in general. To me, the author hasn't come across as anti-adoption nor is she disparaging all adoptive parents. But it is clear that there are major problems within the evangelical adoption movement.

[Coffeetime]

"Several" / "pushing." First, I'm not sure we have the same definition of "pushing," and second, "several" does not a majority make. I get around, and I know zero Christians who push or have been pushed to adopt internationally. And I also know zero adoptive parents who did it to spread Christianity. I am not saying none exist, only that when talking about something that is not mainstream, one should avoid language that implies it's common (or common to a broad group). If you really believe that the average attendee at an evangelical church equates international adoption to evangelism, I think you're misinformed. Perhaps because of articles like that. It may be worth noting that some of the most popular countries for international adoption are much more Christian than the USA is.

 

Rick Warren is quoted at a 2012 Adoption Summit as saying "When I say 'orphan care' it's adoption first, second and last." He then goes on to boast about how they're now halfway to their goal of having 1,000 families in their congregation adopt. It IS being pushed in evangelicalism.

[FaithManor]

 

Rick Warren is quoted at a 2012 Adoption Summit as saying "When I say 'orphan care' it's adoption first, second and last." He then goes on to boast about how they're now halfway to their goal of having 1,000 families in their congregation adopt. It IS being pushed in evangelicalism.

 

Rick Warren does not speak for all evangelicals, he doesn't even come close to speaking for a small number of evangelicals. People think he does because he has a mega church, but in reality, I know far MORE Christians that do NOT identify with Rick Warren and his agenda, than do.

 

It's like saying because one priest in one priest from one large parish preached that everyone should be adopting internationally, then all Catholic parishes push for international adoption. Not so. Just because one high profile preacher says so, that doesn't mean that anyone else is following it. We've not had a single sermon preached...not one single one...on the virtues of international adoption or anything related to it in the last three evangelical churches we've attended. church one - 350 average attendance per Sunday, church two - 920 average, and church three - 275 average.

 

I know a lot of people think R.W. is the face of evangelicalism, but he really isn't. He is kind of his own animal and MANY people do not follow his ideas.

 

Faith

[Paige]

Rick Warren is quoted at a 2012 Adoption Summit as saying "When I say 'orphan care' it's adoption first, second and last." He then goes on to boast about how they're now halfway to their goal of having 1,000 families in their congregation adopt. It IS being pushed in evangelicalism.

 

This may be splitting hairs, but whenever I hear people push adoption (Christians/Evangelicals/whatever) I never get the impression that it is about saving their souls because their country is heathen. Never. I have not ever heard anything at all related to that. What I hear is a push to give these children love and families. It's not because their country is bad, the local population is bad, or anything like that. It's the simple fact that the person speaking thinks children without families should be in families, and that Christians are called to love and care for orphans. I think everyone believes it would be best for the children if they had never come into care, assuming they aren't abused and starving out of care, and everyone believes that it would be best for children to be adopted domestically, but right now children are growing up without families and dying because for whatever reason their birth families and birth countries cannot or will not provide love and a family. Some people see "adoption first, second, and last," as evangelicalism and others see it as family building. I don't see how 1,000 families giving homes is a bad thing. Would it be better to have 1,000 kids without a family? Perhaps those kids would have been adopted by others, but perhaps not. I don't think the motives have anything to do with spreading Christianity to the kids or their communities.

 

I do see the troubling connection between supply and demand- that maybe if adoption was less profitable more parents would choose to parent, but that's more of a theory than any kind of fact and testing it would definitely cause harm in the short term. I wonder what the orphan stats are for countries like Romania that used to be a big sending country but has been closed for years? I wonder if the numbers of kids in care declined when international adoption stopped or if the children kept coming in?

 

FWIW, I'm not an adoptive parent or anything, but I have friends who have and who would be described as evangelicals.

[SKL]

I do see the troubling connection between supply and demand- that maybe if adoption was less profitable more parents would choose to parent, but that's more of a theory than any kind of fact and testing it would definitely cause harm in the short term. I wonder what the orphan stats are for countries like Romania that used to be a big sending country but has been closed for years? I wonder if the numbers of kids in care declined when international adoption stopped or if the children kept coming in?

Someone here, I think, posted some links to extremely disturbing video on orphanages in Romania and other countries. Think kids wading through shin-deep sewage in the "bathrooms," being tied to their beds (which are full of body waste), being sexually molested, bedsores and broken bones untreated, slowly starving to death. And this is what was allowed to be videotaped. Education of these children is nonexistent. The thought that any of them can have a remotely hopeful future is nonexistent. ... Keep in mind that in the USA, where it's relatively easy (from a global perspective) to find the means to care for a baby, 2.5% of children are adopted. If a large % of unintended pregnancies didn't end in abortion (which is illegal in many countries), the adoption rate in the US would probably be much higher. When you compare this to a few hundred kids (or in some cases, a few thousand) in very poor countries, which is a very small % of their population of kids, is it really hard to believe that many parents decided not to parent? If so, then how do we explain the phenomenon of domestic infant adoption in the USA?

[SKL]

Even in the linked article, the link to the Christian adoption agency article shows the agency itself stating that not everyone is called to adopt. Maybe Rick Warren personally feels differently, but he's one guy. Did he adopt a bunch of kids? I don't know, but if he didn't, I don't see too many prospective adoptive parents looking to him for advice on the matter. The Bible verses often quoted about caring for the orphans do NOT actually say we should adopt. There are plenty of ways to do something for orphans without adopting them if adoption isn't the best way to build a particular family. Now as for the 1000 adopted babies in his church, how big is his church membership? And, how many of those babies came from places like Latin America, where they are likely to be raised Christian anyway?

[Coffeetime]

Rick Warren does not speak for all evangelicals, he doesn't even come close to speaking for a small number of evangelicals. People think he does because he has a mega church, but in reality, I know far MORE Christians that do NOT identify with Rick Warren and his agenda, than do.

 

It's like saying because one priest in one priest from one large parish preached that everyone should be adopting internationally, then all Catholic parishes push for international adoption. Not so. Just because one high profile preacher says so, that doesn't mean that anyone else is following it. We've not had a single sermon preached...not one single one...on the virtues of international adoption or anything related to it in the last three evangelical churches we've attended. church one - 350 average attendance per Sunday, church two - 920 average, and church three - 275 average.

 

I know a lot of people think R.W. is the face of evangelicalism, but he really isn't. He is kind of his own animal and MANY people do not follow his ideas.

 

Faith

 

Hmm. I don't think I said anything about Rick Warren speaking for all evangelicals.

My point was that there IS a well-documented, mainstream, evangelical movement pushing adoption. RW was speaking at an adoption summit, with other evangelical churches were in attendance. I don't understand denying that there IS a movement. I'm glad that in your personal experience you haven't seen it in your churches. I have.

 

This may be splitting hairs, but whenever I hear people push adoption (Christians/Evangelicals/whatever) I never get the impression that it is about saving their souls because their country is heathen. Never. I have not ever heard anything at all related to that. What I hear is a push to give these children love and families. It's not because their country is bad, the local population is bad, or anything like that. It's the simple fact that the person speaking thinks children without families should be in families, and that Christians are called to love and care for orphans. I think everyone believes it would be best for the children if they had never come into care, assuming they aren't abused and starving out of care, and everyone believes that it would be best for children to be adopted domestically, but right now children are growing up without families and dying because for whatever reason their birth families and birth countries cannot or will not provide love and a family. Some people see "adoption first, second, and last," as evangelicalism and others see it as family building. I don't see how 1,000 families giving homes is a bad thing. Would it be better to have 1,000 kids without a family? Perhaps those kids would have been adopted by others, but perhaps not. I don't think the motives have anything to do with spreading Christianity to the kids or their communities.

 

I do see the troubling connection between supply and demand- that maybe if adoption was less profitable more parents would choose to parent, but that's more of a theory than any kind of fact and testing it would definitely cause harm in the short term. I wonder what the orphan stats are for countries like Romania that used to be a big sending country but has been closed for years? I wonder if the numbers of kids in care declined when international adoption stopped or if the children kept coming in?

 

FWIW, I'm not an adoptive parent or anything, but I have friends who have and who would be described as evangelicals.

 

You are correct that the whole "saving their souls from eternal damnation" is more of a fringe movement. Absolutely.

 

Clearly, 1,000 children adopted is not a bad thing. The problem, IMHO is this whole numbers and goal setting thing evangelical churches like to do. (Saddleback is not alone in this) It feels dehumanizing- like these kids are just a new goal to reach. I also believe that it does contribute to an overall atmosphere of... classifying? (I can't really think of the right word)... church members, which can lead to feelings of pressure to be one of the adoptive parents. It just rubs me the wrong way. Maybe that's just me.

 

Interestingly, the supply and demand issue is covered in the book (I haven't finished the book yet, so I'm sure it will be talked about more). She talks about the Ukraine fairly extensively, and it seems as though they have been pretty successful since limiting overseas adoption at stemming trafficking- nearly all babies and young children are adopted nationally now. Sadly, that leaves mostly older children or children with health problems for overseas adoption. Americans aren't as interested in those children, unfortunately.

 

FWIW, I am very pro-adoption. I am not an adoptive parent, it just wasn't in the cards for me- but it is something that has been on my heart since I was very young. Adoptive parents have my eternal respect and love.

Having said that, I recently witnessed an international adoption situation that left me feeling uneasy about the Christian adoption movement. Then, I read the Mother Jones article, I read some of the backlash, I read Jen Hatmaker's blog post and Caleb David's post- so I decided to read the book. And so far she's made a lot of very, very important points. It's a very emotional, nuanced, problematic, issue and I don't think anyone has all the answers. But pretending like everything is peachy-keen and there are no problems, corruption etc. isn't going to be helpful. The ends can't always justify the means.

[beaners]

This may be splitting hairs, but whenever I hear people push adoption (Christians/Evangelicals/whatever) I never get the impression that it is about saving their souls because their country is heathen. Never. I have not ever heard anything at all related to that. What I hear is a push to give these children love and families. It's not because their country is bad, the local population is bad, or anything like that. It's the simple fact that the person speaking thinks children without families should be in families, and that Christians are called to love and care for orphans. I think everyone believes it would be best for the children if they had never come into care, assuming they aren't abused and starving out of care, and everyone believes that it would be best for children to be adopted domestically, but right now children are growing up without families and dying because for whatever reason their birth families and birth countries cannot or will not provide love and a family. Some people see "adoption first, second, and last," as evangelicalism and others see it as family building. I don't see how 1,000 families giving homes is a bad thing. Would it be better to have 1,000 kids without a family? Perhaps those kids would have been adopted by others, but perhaps not. I don't think the motives have anything to do with spreading Christianity to the kids or their communities.

 

 

I've also heard the idea of "saving the children" meaning remove them from awful conditions, not "salvation." In fact, the only time I've ever heard of adoption to convert children to Christianity has been in articles posted on this forum. I know people have said that a relative "saved" the children she adopted, but that's referring to the fact that they were malnourished and had lead-poisoning from the cribs they were kept in before they were adopted. I do believe that terrible, horrible things can happen during adoption, but I wonder if some people hear this type of "saved" occasionally and assume the speaker is referring to converting the children to Christianity.

[Coffeetime]

The Bible verses often quoted about caring for the orphans do NOT actually say we should adopt. There are plenty of ways to do something for orphans without adopting them if adoption isn't the best way to build a particular family.

 

I think this is actually key to our understanding of orphan care. And I see a rise in agencies and organizations, including the One Child Campaign, who are trying to help people understand that adoption is sometimes the answer- especially for true orphans with abusive situations or no living parents or extended family, but it isn't the only answer. There are, unfortunately, many many children in orphanages who are only there because their parent/parents can't afford to feed them. Some of their families believe they are only there temporarily. Adoption fees are anywhere from $25,000 to $65,000. That's not a comfortable thought. Like I said before, none of this has an easy answer. But the conversation is important.

[SKL]

I just looked up the Saddleback church and it says they have 200,000 people who attend their weekend services. So let's say half of them are kids, and 1,000 of those are adopted - that's 1%, which is less than the national average. Hardly something to be horrified about. If you really think about it, you may be surrounded by adoptees. When I was working on my adoption, I came to realize that so many people in my life either were adopted or have adopted one or more kids. It's not something weird that you have to be "evangelized" to do. ... As for Ukraine, I know a couple families who have recently adopted from Ukraine, including one family who adopted 6 kids from there (4 special needs, 2 older kids). The adoptions have been successful with the exception of one Down Syndrome baby (that family's only adopted child), who has pretty severe RAD. She's now in the custody of her granny where she can get one-on-one TLC. If she'd been left in the orphanage, she probably would be dead by now. ... I agree that adoption isn't all sunshine and roses, but when you look at the stats, e.g., 10% of older adoptees have problems integrating, you should also look at the inverse, i.e., 90% were successful and those kids are worlds better off.

[violamama]

No one is pretending that everything is peachy keen. Pushing adoption in a church is not the opposite of wanting better for the children in tough situations in various countries. Why must it be seen as "in competition with"? Churches with large adoptive communities usually do not say every family must/should adopt, but that every family can find a way to support adoptive families or orphanages. They are dedicated to awareness of what is going on in the countries affected (including the US foster system).

 

As to the evangelical purpose: First, every family will give their children a world view. Evangelicals (and I'm fine if you connote that with a fairly extreme version of the word) have a view that is predicated on an absolute truth existing. As Penn Jillette says, wouldn't they be huge jerks if they really believe other views lead to terrible outcomes yet never said anything about it? Never thought of evangelizing their own children as one benefit/duty of parenting? Didn't look around them and try to "save" every person they might influence?

 

Again, you (and the author of the baby catchers) are assuming that the growth of adoption in Christian circles is something that cannot be based in real concern for the kids and the countries they come from. That just by wanting to "save" more children, the overall goal will automatically be selfish at heart (to serve their own sense of a good deed or a need to be heroes) and will actually damage the kids/countries. I find it so deeply insulting. And let's be honest: Christians have always outpaced other demographic groups in intl adoption.

 

If you are truly curious about what a family must do to adopt, try some of the courses at Adoption Learning Partners. Read more about where the fees actually go. Read something with an opposing viewpoint or a level-headed response to the criticisms of the "new" adoption push.

 

Her use of Ukraine as an example is a bit of a shock. The outcomes for "in-country" children are not necessarily better, and the way they are encouraging that is through money given directly to Ukrainian families who do adopt. In a system so broken by poverty and other social ills, you would say that they should stay there in exclusion of countries with larger populations and resources? Are you convinced there are enough stable families ready to adopt those kids? Do you jump on the no-one-should-deal-with RAD bandwagon but allow it to be inflicted on people from their community without a second thought? Why not allow/encourage both in-country and intl adoption? And it's not true there are no people wanting to adopt Ukrainian children with special needs. It happens quite often and yes, it's almost always Christians- since you're reading blogs I would encourage you to find some of the groups of blogs dedicated to int'l special needs adoptions.

 

My problem is with the premise that doing one kind of good means Christians must be blind to or worse not care about the potential dangers in a system, and that one kind of good should also be outlawed until we can all sit back and fix humanity. Good luck with that. How about we applaud the adoptive community and ALSO point people toward real changing work on the problems that cause a need for it. Another field, btw, dominated by faith-based organizations.

[Coffeetime]

No one is pretending that everything is peachy keen. Pushing adoption in a church is not the opposite of wanting better for the children in tough situations in various countries. Why must it be seen as "in competition with"? Churches with large adoptive communities usually do not say every family must/should adopt, but that every family can find a way to support adoptive families or orphanages. They are dedicated to awareness of what is going on in the countries affected (including the US foster system).

 

As to the evangelical purpose: First, every family will give their children a world view. Evangelicals (and I'm fine if you connote that with a fairly extreme version of the word) have a view that is predicated on an absolute truth existing. As Penn Jillette says, wouldn't they be huge jerks if they really believe other views lead to terrible outcomes yet never said anything about it? Never thought of evangelizing their own children as one benefit/duty of parenting? Didn't look around them and try to "save" every person they might influence?

 

Again, you (and the author of the baby catchers) are assuming that the growth of adoption in Christian circles is something that cannot be based in real concern for the kids and the countries they come from. That just by wanting to "save" more children, the overall goal will automatically be selfish at heart (to serve their own sense of a good deed or a need to be heroes) and will actually damage the kids/countries. I find it so deeply insulting. And let's be honest: Christians have always outpaced other demographic groups in intl adoption

Have you read the book? Have you listened at all to what I've said? That's a whole lot of assumption.

 

If you are truly curious about what a family must do to adopt, try some of the courses at Adoption Learning Partners. Read more about where the fees actually go. Read something with an opposing viewpoint or a level-headed response to the criticisms of the "new" adoption push.

Like I said before, I HAVE read both viewpoints. Then I decided to go directly to the source and read the book that everyone was talking about.

 

Her use of Ukraine as an example is a bit of a shock. The outcomes for "in-country" children are not necessarily better, and the way they are encouraging that is through money given directly to Ukrainian families who do adopt. Kind of like in America? In a system so broken by poverty and other social ills, you would say that they should stay there in exclusion of countries with larger populations and resources? Are you convinced there are enough stable families ready to adopt those kids? Do you jump on the no-one-should-deal-with RAD bandwagon but allow it to be inflicted on people from their community without a second thought? Why not allow/encourage both in-country and intl adoption? And it's not true there are no people wanting to adopt Ukrainian children with special needs. It happens quite often and yes, it's almost always Christians- since you're reading blogs I would encourage you to find some of the groups of blogs dedicated to int'l special needs adoptions.

You are really seriously twisting my words here.

My problem is with the premise that doing one kind of good means Christians must be blind to or worse not care about the potential dangers in a system, and that one kind of good should also be outlawed until we can all sit back and fix humanity. Good luck with that. No one, I mean NO ONE has said anything of the sort. How about we applaud the adoptive community and ALSO point people toward real changing work on the problems that cause a need for it. Another field, btw, dominated by faith-based organizations.

You are clearly not interested in listening to what I am saying, because that's EXACTLY what I and others are doing, so I'm going to just go ahead and step back. The only reason I posted is because I seem to be the only person who has actually picked up the book and read it. Assumptions are being made about what is in the book, so I thought I'd put in my 2 cents- having actually read it.

[violamama]

Coffeetime, I'm sorry- but we're right in the middle of this. I really did not mean to sound combative, but I am clearly frustrated.

 

I have not read the whole book, you're right. When it's available at the library or second hand I will get a copy. Her premise, the excerpts I've read, the interviews I've found... (I haven't jumped in with zero idea what she is saying) they do bother me. I honestly did not mean to dump that on you/this thread but I can see that I did just that.

 

I don't feel like arguing the points in red above, because I don't feel like it should be an argument and it seems neither do you.

 

Listen, FWIW we do believe in adoption, we are not infertile, we are a happy healthy realistic family, and we are on year seven. SEVEN. And we are longing now to bring home a daughter from China with "special needs"* that would have put her in a bad-to-worse situation for the rest of her life. My longing is to expand our family because we're just not done yet, and there is definitely the thought that there are kids in orphanages or foster care that need a home. I cannot change the government of China, but I can hope that seeing people love kids who some Chinese traditions might call unlovable will change that judgment. I think it IS changing it. There will still be moms hiding in the bushes waiting to be sure somebody picks up their baby in China. What they are asking the adoption community to change there is not within our purview as foreigners, but the answer is not to pretend the baby isn't still in need of a family and the family is likely to be overseas. I'm doing what I can do and what I've always wanted to do. Of course my being Christian has a bearing on it: it should have a bearing on every thing I do, just like any other human's world view will do to/for them. It saddens me to see adoption and Christian adoption in particular called into question. It excites me that this controversy might bring more people into the field of child welfare. In the interviews I read/watch of her and other new critics of Christian adoption, however, I see a call for putting on the brakes.

 

So that's what I was responding to...

 

* the Chinese definition of special needs is not what might pop to the mind of an average American: we're talking things that can be remedied with a surgery or two, things that don't necessarily have any long term limiting effect. I mention this because I don't want to portray my family as some heroic group scooping up a needy child. Unless you can imagine that without disdain, in which case my cape should be covered in sequins.

 

Here's what I have read: The Boston Globe article where I am enabling tragedy, The Daily Beast article where I am dominating the adoption "circuit and it's dark underbelly", and this excerpt on the NPR website, where if I begin to feel disappointed at not adopting particular children then my motives will again be questioned, and spur the need for her whole book. I also read this interview.

 

PS I can't help it, I will try to clarify again: I don't think the adoption push is wrong, nor do I think intl adoption is perfect. I would not want everyone to turn a blind eye, but I'm concerned that a bunch more undirected oversight from agencies already supposedly overseeing things will have the effect of the Hague Convention. It slowed things down in ways that were NOT intended, and some countries threw up their hands and closed their borders when they could not figure out how to enforce compliance. I'm sure you know all this. The criticism of Christians in general trying to adopt because of their beliefs seems mean-spirited and sensational. Tying the entire "evangelical" movement to some town that took on slaves from an orphanage in Liberia is a fallacy. Joyce may couch her criticisms in disclaimers that many Christians are well-meaning, but that falls flat. It concerns me.

[Coffeetime]

Coffeetime, I'm sorry- but we're right in the middle of this. I really did not mean to sound combative, but I am clearly frustrated.

 

I have not read the whole book, you're right. When it's available at the library or second hand I will get a copy. Her premise, the excerpts I've read, the interviews I've found... (I haven't jumped in with zero idea what she is saying) they do bother me. I honestly did not mean to dump that on you/this thread but I can see that I did just that.

 

I don't feel like arguing the points in red above, because I don't feel like it should be an argument and it seems neither do you.

 

Listen, FWIW we do believe in adoption, we are not infertile, we are a happy healthy realistic family, and we are on year seven. SEVEN. And we are longing now to bring home a daughter from China with "special needs"* that would have put her in a bad-to-worse situation for the rest of her life. My longing is to expand our family because we're just not done yet, and there is definitely the thought that there are kids in orphanages or foster care that need a home. I cannot change the government of China, but I can hope that seeing people love kids who some Chinese traditions might call unlovable will change that judgment. I think it IS changing it. There will still be moms hiding in the bushes waiting to be sure somebody picks up their baby in China. What they are asking the adoption community to change there is not within our purview as foreigners, but the answer is not to pretend the baby isn't still in need of a family and the family is likely to be overseas. I'm doing what I can do and what I've always wanted to do. Of course my being Christian has a bearing on it: it should have a bearing on every thing I do, just like any other human's world view will do to/for them. It saddens me to see adoption and Christian adoption in particular called into question. It excites me that this controversy might bring more people into the field of child welfare. In the interviews I read/watch of her and other new critics of Christian adoption, however, I see a call for putting on the brakes.

 

So that's what I was responding to...

 

* the Chinese definition of special needs is not what might pop to the mind of an average American: we're talking things that can be remedied with a surgery or two, things that don't necessarily have any long term limiting effect. I mention this because I don't want to portray my family as some heroic group scooping up a needy child. Unless you can imagine that without disdain, in which case my cape should be covered in sequins.

 

Here's what I have read: The Boston Globe article where I am enabling tragedy, The Daily Beast article where I am dominating the adoption "circuit and it's dark underbelly", and this excerpton the NPR website, where if I begin to feel disappointed at not adopting particular children then my motives will again be questioned, and spur the need for her whole book. I also read this interview.

 

PS I can't help it, I will try to clarify again: I don't think the adoption push is wrong, nor do I think intl adoption is perfect. I would not want everyone to turn a blind eye, but I'm concerned that a bunch more undirected oversight from agencies already supposedly overseeing things will have the effect of the Hague Convention. It slowed things down in ways that were NOT intended, and some countries threw up their hands and closed their borders when they could not figure out how to enforce compliance. I'm sure you know all this. The criticism of Christians in general trying to adopt because of their beliefs seems mean-spirited and sensational. Tying the entire "evangelical" movement to some town that took on slaves from an orphanage in Liberia is a fallacy. Joyce may couch her criticisms in disclaimers that many Christians are well-meaning, but that falls flat. It concerns me.

 

I appreciate that. Thank you.

 

I also appreciate that you are in the middle of it. It's completely normal that something that would just make me raise my eyebrows would create a deeply personal reaction for you. :grouphug:

 

To reiterate- I love adoption. I have adopted family members. And I think you should definitely have a cape covered in both glitter and sequins. :hurray:

[bethben]

We adopted a little girl from China 3 1/2 years ago. We didn't do it to "save her soul" because all we can do anyway is introduce her to Jesus. We can't force faith on anyone - even our children. There's always that chance that biological or adopted children will reject the faith they have been taught. It's the great gamble. We went into adoption because we knew we would always adopt from China, even before we had other children. We didn't do it to "save her" either, but that is what happened. She will never know how different her life would have been since she came here. In China, she would have never gotten hearing aids, eardrum repair surgery, further cleft palate repair, speech therapy, and possibly glasses. My Chinese friend said to me that people who have children with cleft lips and palates are considered dirty and unsanitary people. It's a shame on them. She told me American's are much more willing to have children who are not perfect.

 

Have we ever told her she should be grateful for us? No, and we will never do it because she is our daughter. Telling her at any point she should be grateful she was adopted somehow makes her less of a daughter and continues to put an orphan stigma on her. She became a daughter the minute she walked into my husband's arms - no longer an orphan without many opportunities. We've had to parent her a bit different than our other children. For example, when she was little, she would have these horrific temper tantrums. My instinct was to let her have them alone, but what she needed was reassurance that even then, she was loved, so I held her instead. Over and over - even when I really didn't want to. I'm the adult. I needed to act like one. When she learned to talk and used me to spit venom with her words from the years of not being treated fairly, I just told her "I love you" over and over. She'd scream, "I hate you!" I'd say, "I love you". The Pearl's would have probably suggested that no child should scream that to a parent and it needs to be spanked out of them. But what she needed was reassurance that no matter what she said or did, she would be loved completely. Listening to God about how to love an adopted child wins over wisdom from people who write books that no one who loves children should read.

 

Today, she is doing great and knows we love her, but also knows Jesus loves her. She has a faith that outshines most people I know - including me. There's only so much I did, but a lot of what God did. She is secure. She is loved and knows she's loved even when she does bad things. For us, adoption has worked out beautifully even with the very difficult start we had.

 

Beth

[Crimson Wife]

I have heard at least one sermon at my church pushing adoption, but it was not specifically promoting adopting internationally and it was more an anti-IVF sermon than anything else (I'm Catholic and the Church forbids IVF and many other reproductive technologies).

[SKL]

This is nice but your kid is 5. If you do not think you have challenges ahead then I do not know what to say.

 

I have a charming Aspie homegrown 16 yr old who screams I hate you now and then and I assure you the magical I love you is hardly a real solution. That sort of easy answer just perpetuates the myth that love will solve all the problems of attachment or what have you.

 

Its just not that simple and when your kid is 5 you dont really have enough experience to speak to a vast complex situation like the ones in the article.

 

I'm not sure what your point is. Parenting is hard. Lots of bio children have big problems, lots of adopted kids don't. What are you trying to convince us of? Because the above sounds like you are frustrated that some people think adoption isn't more bad than good. The thing is, people need to go into parenthood (bio or otherwise) prepared for it to be HARD. It sounds like the family in the linked article was not well enough prepared, and many suffered for it, including the adopted kids, the bio kids, the parents, and perhaps others. Education etc. could have helped this family, but that doesn't change the fact that some kids are going to be hard to raise. Non-newborn adopted kids do come with baggage (sorry if that's a loaded term). It's not the fault of the adoptive parents (nor of the kids). Sometimes it is so bad that even the best parent can't make it work well. But still, the majority of cases do work out, at least better than what the child would have dealt with in his previous situation. ... You suggest the person you're responding to, an adoptive parent, doesn't have enough experience. Please tell us what your experience with adoption is so that we can agree or disagree that that prior poster has no right to speak about international adoption. :/ Perhaps nobody on this board has enough experience to speak to that "vast complex situation" if you set the bar high enough.

[wonderchica]

In my evangelical church, there have been mentions of adopting overseas so children can come to America and hear about Jesus. When a friend from church adopted, there were several comments of "That's so wonderful! Now she will know about Jesus, she would never have heard about Him if she stayed over there". Even as a Christian, something about these comments rubs me a little wrong. No one's beating anyone over the head with it, but the undercurrent is there.

[LibraryLover]

Adoption is a messy business. And It is a business, even when the intentions are good and right. My family has grown through adoption, but I know someone had to suffer horribly so that I could be parent my/our child. I am assuming that If my dc's mother could have parented, been allowed to parent, I am guessing she would not have allowed her child to be adopted.

 

There are millions of orphans in the world. Often adoption makes sense. Some people cannot parent/really do not want to parent, but it's still messy. Poverty- and sexism- is why some of us were able to adopt. People do exploit that.

[Audrey]

You are clearly not interested in listening to what I am saying, because that's EXACTLY what I and others are doing, so I'm going to just go ahead and step back. The only reason I posted is because I seem to be the only person who has actually picked up the book and read it. Assumptions are being made about what is in the book, so I thought I'd put in my 2 cents- having actually read it.

 

 

Actually, I have read it, which I posted back on the first page of the thread.

 

I'm not engaging in this conversation because I really don't have anything at all nice to say about the this particular fundy movement. I'm not normally interested in adoption, per se. I picked up the book because I am interested in what Western charities are doing in impoverished countries.

 

As to the book... I think she tries to hit many angles of the picture. She doesn't try to push any particular agenda that I can determine, although some of her case studies are clearly studies on specific agendas within xtian adoption circles -- that IS clear in the title, after all. This article is just one small part of the book, and it is unfortunate that they cut it out of context. I think her conclusions are rather fair, even though I may have come to different conclusions myself. ;) I believe the final point is that foreign adoptions are vulnerable to an incredible amount of corruption and manipulation, and when people access it with disingenuous intentions, it is a cruelty.

[Paige]

In my evangelical church, there have been mentions of adopting overseas so children can come to America and hear about Jesus. When a friend from church adopted, there were several comments of "That's so wonderful! Now she will know about Jesus, she would never have heard about Him if she stayed over there". Even as a Christian, something about these comments rubs me a little wrong. No one's beating anyone over the head with it, but the undercurrent is there.

 

 

Wow. I have never heard any of that before. I had thought it was a myth but I will admit to being wrong. I think that is awful. As someone stated above, many, if not most, of the countries Americans adopt from are Christian countries. The Bible says it is easier for a poor man to find Him than a rich one. If we wanted to go down that road, we could say it may be harder for those adopted into a wealthy country to know Jesus than if they had been left in the orphanage. Adoption should 100% be about family and not proselytlization.

[LibraryLover]

I agree, Audrey. Americans, and other wealthy countries often adopt abroad because that is where the children are. When abortion became legal in the US, and the stigma of single motherhood diminished, the domestic market dried up. It sounds so cruel to say that; we know that many women were/are forced to relinquish wanted and loved infants.

 

I understand all- to- well the aching pain of wanting a child. Adoption is complicated.

[annandatje]

 

Wow. I have never heard any of that before. I had thought it was a myth but I will admit to being wrong. I think that is awful. As someone stated above, many, if not most, of the countries Americans adopt from are Christian countries. The Bible says it is easier for a poor man to find Him than a rich one. If we wanted to go down that road, we could say it may be harder for those adopted into a wealthy country to know Jesus than if they had been left in the orphanage. Adoption should 100% be about family and not proselytlization.

 

 

What factors determine whether a country is Christian? A country where Christianity is the predominant religion among the religious?

[Shahrazad]

Someone upthread mentioned Bethany Adoption being respected and legit however, I recently read some very disturbing articles about some shady dealings by them and it was pretty disturbing. I read it quite a while ago so I will try to find the article again. That is why they are grouped in with the shady overseas agencies.

[Coffeetime]

Actually, I have read it, which I posted back on the first page of the thread.

 

I'm not engaging in this conversation because I really don't have anything at all nice to say about the this particular fundy movement. I'm not normally interested in adoption, per se. I picked up the book because I am interested in what Western charities are doing in impoverished countries.

 

As to the book... I think she tries to hit many angles of the picture. She doesn't try to push any particular agenda that I can determine, although some of her case studies are clearly studies on specific agendas within xtian adoption circles -- that IS clear in the title, after all. This article is just one small part of the book, and it is unfortunate that they cut it out of context. I think her conclusions are rather fair, even though I may have come to different conclusions myself. ;) I believe the final point is that foreign adoptions are vulnerable to an incredible amount of corruption and manipulation, and when people access it with disingenuous intentions, it is a cruelty.

 

 

Audrey- I missed your post on the first page. Thanks for jumping in. I have had the exact same reaction to the book- which is why I posted. I felt like a lot of people were making assumptions about what the author had written, what her "agenda" was etc. based on an article that, I felt, took the most sensational story from the book out of context.

[violamama]

I am adopting in part because there is, right now today, a need for homes for children. Nobody seems to be denying that.

 

I am not adopting because of some greedy need in myself and I am not adopting internationally because of some market "drying up". I resent that characterization. And a lot of the adoption training required involves learning about and caring for birth mothers. As I said, this is our third trip around the adoption prep ride, and each time we did classes and spoke to social workers specifically about that. A fringe does not define a "movement". These situations she studies do not actually define the current state of Christian adoption- Joyce herself seems to say that, am I right?

[LibraryLover]

I am adopting in part because there is, right now today, a need for homes for children. Nobody seems to be denying that.

 

I am not adopting because of some greedy need in myself and I am not adopting internationally because of some market "drying up". I resent that characterization. And a lot of the adoption training required involves learning about and caring for birth mothers. As I said, this is our third trip around the adoption prep ride, and each time we did classes and spoke to social workers specifically about that. A fringe does not define a "movement". These situations she studies do not actually define the current state of Christian adoption- Joyce herself seems to say that, am I right?

 I did adopt for a 'greedy' need. I wanted a child with my entire heart and soul. The ache was astonishing. It vanished the moment dc was placed in my arms . I often push to the back of my mind the pain that took mine away.

[Crimson Wife]

Somehow I missed that the article and book from which it was drawn was written by Kathryn Joyce. I read her previous book on the "Quiverfull" movement and found it sensationalistic, full of ad hominem attacks & gossip, and generally lacking a nuanced understanding of the topic. I'm certainly no fan of QF, but she lumped in legitimate criticism of the movement with a lot of gossip, guilt by association, and general dislike of conservative Christianity when it comes to gender roles & s*xual mores.

 

I guess she figured that attacking superfundamentalists sells, hence this new book.

[SKL]

I adopted internationally. I agree that adoption can be an amazing thing. I did adopt for a 'greedy' need. I wanted a child with my entire heart and soul. The ache was astonishing. It vanished the moment dc was placed in my arms . I often push to the back of my mind the pain that took mine away.

Nobody's denying the pain of the birth parents. However, the fact is that in every country, there will always be some birth parents who, for a variety of reasons, will not parent. The pain of the birth parent is not the fault of adoptive parents, assuming they are pursuing a legal adoption. I shed tears for my kids' birth moms on Mother's Day, but they were not tears of guilt. The tears were mixed with gladness that my daughters had someone there watching them sing at the Mother's Day church service. I believe that their birth moms are glad to know these girls are in a family where they are constantly shown how precious they are. That would not have been the case if they were not adopted, because the birth moms had reasons to choose not to parent. ... I have sometimes wondered if it would have been better to help the birth moms financially so they could happily raise their child. However, that's frankly unrealistic. For one thing, being a single mom in their birth country would mean not being able to pursue/maintain relationships desireable to the birth moms. For another, the mom and child would still be subjected to a lot of stigma. Money isn't the only reason birth moms choose not to parent, as can be seen in the USA. And third, there really is no way to make sure the money would go to help the mom and child. Even if it did, they wouldn't have access to good educational and healthcare resources without the birth mom as well as the child abandoning their roots. Even then, maybe not. ... FTR, I've always donated to kids' and women's charities in developing countries, including orphanages, slum schools, community development projects, work programs for single moms, etc. But I did want children, and adopting someone born in a hopeless situation seemed better to me than producing new humans as a single mom. If that makes some consider me greedy, I can live with that.

[SKL]

Somehow I missed that the article and book from which it was drawn was written by Kathryn Joyce. I read her previous book on the "Quiverfull" movement and found it sensationalistic, full of ad hominem attacks & gossip, and generally lacking a nuanced understanding of the topic. I'm certainly no fan of QF, but she lumped in legitimate criticism of the movement with a lot of gossip, guilt by association, and general dislike of conservative Christianity when it comes to gender roles & s*xual mores.

 

I guess she figured that attacking superfundamentalists sells, hence this new book.

I didn't read the book, but this is the impression I get from what I've read. The thing is, nobody sits and writes a book about social issues without some sort of agenda. And that means bias => selective reporting etc.

[LibraryLover]

Fwiw, I am not disagreeing with you, SKL , or with Violamama.

[Audrey]

Somehow I missed that the article and book from which it was drawn was written by Kathryn Joyce. I read her previous book on the "Quiverfull" movement and found it sensationalistic, full of ad hominem attacks & gossip, and generally lacking a nuanced understanding of the topic. I'm certainly no fan of QF, but she lumped in legitimate criticism of the movement with a lot of gossip, guilt by association, and general dislike of conservative Christianity when it comes to gender roles & s*xual mores.

 

I guess she figured that attacking superfundamentalists sells, hence this new book.

 

 

I think of her books as more of an effort to expose corrupt factions amongst "superfundamentalists" than anything else. These are generally secretive, but very damaging factions. I think it is good to throw the light upon such ilk, no matter their religious or non-religious status. No one, in my opinion, should be excused from criticism, and most especially not when their actions do, indeed, do real and lasting damage to other human beings.

 

As I mentioned upthread, I am not so interested in adoption per se, but rather global charity work. I have invested a great deal of my time into some global charities, some of which were fully legitimate, ethical and fiscally responsible and who did excellent work making lasting positive impacts on the people they served. Some others... did not. I am now extremely careful about where I throw my energies and resources. My interest in such matters has me reading just about anything that relates to global relief efforts of any kind, but I read with a very skeptical and cynical eye. I AM looking for the corruption angle and until I am sure it is not there, I won't give my energy to it.

 

In Joyce's book, she isn't just taking aim at the fundies who are adopting, though that is a central part of the book. She is exposing not just the adoptive families with disingenuous motives, but the agencies that manipulate the emotional fragility of adoptive families. With adoption, it seems that, for the most part, such strong desires to have a child often work against a family's senses of due diligence. They want the child so much that they will believe what they are told. How else, of course, would they know any more than what they get told? It is a cruel thing to lie about the children and leave the adoptive families believing their dreams are coming true, when in fact, they know very well that they've sent a family home with a nightmare. These are the kinds of things she is talking about AS WELL AS the sub-sect movement that tells its members to go out and "adopt a soul for Christ."

 

Although I have no sympathy for the disingenuous adopters, I have a great deal of sympathy for people who adopted a very difficult child based on lies by an agency who claims to be Christian. It is such a deep double betrayal. I am amazed that any families can overcome that, though I know some do. If I cared at all about the public face of the Christian faith, I would be doing whatever I could do dismantle organizations who use and abuse people's minds and faith in that way.

[SKL]

Exactly. Parenting is hard.

 

And someone offering up their 5 yr old and their "I love you" method as if they have all the answers to it is completely meaningless. In fact it is worse. Its laughable to those who have come to realize that saying I love you is no solution at all.

 

She didn't imply that she "has all the answers." If a parent who adopted internationally isn't allowed to have a comment on this topic, then IMO nobody should be allowed. We are all woefully unqualified unless we have raised multiple full-grown foreign-born adoptees with RAD. Unfortunately that doesn't stop people from writing articles like the one we are discussing, or making some of the comments you have made. You sound anti-adoption and you're entitled to your opinion. And the rest of us are entitled to express ours.

[HS Mom in NC]

I'm a Christian fundamentalist with 2 bio kids and 1 internationally adopted child from S. Korea (now 7.) I researched private domestic, fost-adopt, and half a dozen international adoption options for a year before we decided which route to take. That meant talking to medical staff who worked with adopted kids in all those categories, interviewing dozens of adoptive parents or couples who tired to adopt in all those categories, I read dozens of experiences of adult adoptees, interviewed a dozen adult adoptees, read dozens of agency websites, and books by attachment therapists specializing in adoptees.

 

1. Foreign countries vary dramatically in their criteria for adoptive parents and the care of children before they go home to their adoptive families. Most of it is disturbingly shoddy. Homestudies should be specifically asking about discipline, how the parents deal with stress, emotional issues in the parents covering abuse and infertility, the type of care they're willing to provide their children if issues arise, etc.

 

2. American adoption agencies vary dramatically in their criteria for adoptive parents. Most of it is disturbingly shoddy.Homestudies should be specifically asking about discipline, how the parents deal with stress, emotional issues in the parents covering abuse and infertility, the type of care they're willing to provide their children if issues arise, etc..

Even worse is the way some are designed to create problems. For example, one website encouraged prospective adoptive parents to make a list of characteristics of "the ideal child" that they wanted to adopt. (Their term not mine.)

 

3. Few adoption agencies were up front about the issues adopted children face. A good agency not only tells people all the potential problems up front, but provides information for recognizing behaviors, contacting specialists to deal with those behaviors, and provides any known documentation about issues already showing up with a child BEFORE the parents commit so the parents can take that information and talk to a specialist about what's required to deal with those issues.

 

Too many adoptive parents walk in voluntarily blind and believe anything the agency or foreign government tells them.

 

We need people who are realistic adopting. RAD isn't a secret and even babies adopted at birth can have it. Even children in the best foster care in the world before coming to the US can have it. The psychological effects of children in orphanages are well known. The increased possibility of dangerous behavior in children removed from parents who abuse or neglect them, some in utero and into early childhood, is well known. Prospective adoptive parents need to do their homework and reading Anne of Green Gables doesn't count. When you take responsibility for another human being you're obligated to hope for the best and prepare for the worst.

[Heather in Neverland]

Wow. Reading all of this makes me so grateful for the adoption agency we used with our ds. We received EXTENSIVE education on RAD (so much that it almost scared us out of adopting). Our process was thorough almost to an extreme. They were very adamant about wanting to know your reasons for adopting, etc. The interviews were many and intense. Every T was crossed and every I dotted. At no point was there even a hint of shady behavior.

 

While I have heard adoption AND orphan care promoted in churches before, it has NEVER been as a method for gaining converts. That is horrifying.

[Lindi]

@Hoppy: A sad and familiar story <hug> Groups like cbeinternational.com are finally coming out with resources and seminars for Christians who are not patriarchal. Hopefully, child rearing stuff will follow. I think one problem with the adoption thing is that so many unbelievers just consider it a new way Christians are building the "army of the Lord." Like quiverfull. Like when we make people projects in hopes of saving them instead of just loving them. And sadly, in some cases, I think it is true. Another big problem in the adoption thing is that the parents were not prepared - they all did it in a fervor. The evangelical church is fervor- driven. You know, when a pastor falls into ill repute, most people say s/he should sit back for a while, just be humble and not try to lead. Well, the entire evangelical church is in ill repute with the world, for various reason. I think the only way to get back any ability to be a help and witness to the world is to sit back, be humble about our mistakes, and demonstrate a quiet life of service.

[mom@shiloh]

My five youngest children were born in China, all with "special needs" (don't really like that term), all abandoned on the street, all joined our family before their 3rd birthday.

 

People have told me that it's great that we adopted our children so that now they can learn about God. It makes me cringe because it limits God. God can use whatever means He desires to bring His children to Himself. He doesn't NEED me. The fact that He might USE me is a mystery and a marvel that fills me with humility and joy.

[TravelingChris]

As a facebook post recently mentioned. my military brats have said more goodbyes by 18 than most adults do in their lifetimes. Why do I mention that? Because dh and I have been in the military (him) and with the military (me) for the last 26 years and have lived lots of places, attended lots of churches, and been in lots of homeschooling groups. I have been on this forum for 15 years and homeschooling for 18 years. Never have I heard of anyone mentioning adoption as a way to convert people (motive). None of the churches I have ever attended promoted international adoption, per se. One base chapel in Europe helped a orphanage with their trip to western Europe. One church urged people to open up their homes to foster kids either for a longer while or just as a temporary place because there was a great need for additional foster homes in that area. WHile I have heard of the Pearls, and reject them, I have no idea who Nancy Campbell is.

 

A few years ago, I read another article about international adoptions and the problems that many areas are having. The problems with international adoptions are not limited to Christians, evangelical Christians, or fundamentalist Christians. By the way, evangelical does not necessarily equal fundamentalist and fundamentalist does not equate with abusive parent. We have a bigger problem here with meth parents than we do with anyone adopting kids and putting them in a dungeon or cage. Weekly I see on the news a few different stories about the devastation meth brings to children. That is a much, much bigger problem.

[SKL]

 

I have concerns regarding the adoption industry however! If you google about the adoption industry you find out how unregulated it has been in the past and how many MILLIONS of dollars it yields every year. That mixing of big money and babies is not a good thing.

 

Some people would say the same about homeschooling. ..... I am a member of the international adoption community. You don't have to educate me, because unlike the stereotype some are attempting to build, most of us did our research before we adopted and have continued to do it continuously ever since. Most of us are of sound mind and good ethics. Even if we didn't care a hoot for the law or our kids' birth moms' feelings, do you really think people mail off tens of thousands of dollars without any thought of whether the services they are paying for are legit? You think we want to get caught up in a scandal that involves "our" kids being held in limbo for years? And when our kids look for more information on their history, you think we want them to discover ugly truths that we willfully ignored? .... Have you ever been through a home study, one of the most stressful experiences of my life so far? .... Yes, adoption is an industry - so is everything that Americans consume in the process of bringing up children. This is after all a capitalist society. I see nothing wrong with people wanting to be paid for their work, just like I expect to. Though there is a lot of charity that supports adoption, especially adoption of the most at-risk children. And many adoption agencies (if not most) are active in international charities for kids who don't have the opportunity to be adopted. But yeah, in general they are providing a valuable service and should be paid. The fact that a minority of cases are unethical does not mean everything about the "industry" should be tainted. It means that the laws need to be tightened in specific jurisdictions to prevent those specific problems. ... People worry about the "pushing" of potentially damaging ideologies, and in the same thread we have people potentially harming needy orphans by discouraging people from pursuing adoptions.

[SKL]

 

Here's a blog. Some info is really old but there are new updates here as well.

 

http://www.adoptionb...ption-industry/

 

Oh, and I've seen birthmom-focused anti-adoption blogs. A movement by recent US birth moms who made a free and legal choice to relinquish their children and regretted it later, then went to elaborate ends to blame and defame others for it. People who want to believe that no mother would ever choose not to parent without being fooled or bullied into it by a 3rd party. That's just frankly ridiculous. It's not the real world. Surely there are various levels of birthmom regret and there are cases of coercion (usually by family of the birthmom/child). But there are also people who are unable to own their own choices after the fact.

[Lindi]

triple post.

[Lindi]

I didn't mean to imply in my post that no one did research and educated themselves. It seems likely though that some did not, though, if they thought love and discipline could immediately help any child traumatized by war and neglect. Some kids to respond well -- but too many, esp. of the older ones, are RADS. And while people do adopt RADS knowingly and i'm glad they do -- it tends to be a tough journey. Not one every parent is equipped to take. Although...sending back kids hurts me so. That can't be right. Would you send back your own if s/he started having mental problems? I guess maybe some people would. But Jesus wouldn't. I think it is wonderful that so many of you and others have adopted. Most people adopt out of love and if they don't know the answers about how to help their adoptive kids, they try to find them. But if people were encouraged too much they may have felt that if they were spiritual, they had to even if they didn't really feel equipped.

[Heather in Neverland]

 

Some people would say the same about homeschooling. ..... I am a member of the international adoption community. You don't have to educate me, because unlike the stereotype some are attempting to build, most of us did our research before we adopted and have continued to do it continuously ever since. Most of us are of sound mind and good ethics. Even if we didn't care a hoot for the law or our kids' birth moms' feelings, do you really think people mail off tens of thousands of dollars without any thought of whether the services they are paying for are legit? You think we want to get caught up in a scandal that involves "our" kids being held in limbo for years? And when our kids look for more information on their history, you think we want them to discover ugly truths that we willfully ignored? .... Have you ever been through a home study, one of the most stressful experiences of my life so far? .... Yes, adoption is an industry - so is everything that Americans consume in the process of bringing up children. This is after all a capitalist society. I see nothing wrong with people wanting to be paid for their work, just like I expect to. Though there is a lot of charity that supports adoption, especially adoption of the most at-risk children. And many adoption agencies (if not most) are active in international charities for kids who don't have the opportunity to be adopted. But yeah, in general they are providing a valuable service and should be paid. The fact that a minority of cases are unethical does not mean everything about the "industry" should be tainted. It means that the laws need to be tightened in specific jurisdictions to prevent those specific problems. ... People worry about the "pushing" of potentially damaging ideologies, and in the same thread we have people potentially harming needy orphans by discouraging people from pursuing adoptions.

 

 

 

Love love love this post. Thank you for saying what I could not put in words. I am so glad someone said it!!!

[SKL]

 

 

The issues brought up are real. the adoption scandals are real. The trafficking of kids under the guise of adoption is real.

 

If you want to poo poo things thing and pretend they don't exist that's fine but its not anti adoption to shed light in the corners.

"Real" but very selectively reported in the "recommended reading" you suggest. I took a quick look at the blog you linked. Did you notice how they came up with the "$5B" adoption industry? Did they take into account the economic crash and the countries that have shut down their programs in recent years? That is not a "real" number (though I don't claim to know what the "real" figure is). That's not responsible reporting IMO. ... I never denied problems exist, I just don't believe in throwing out the baby with the bathwater. You seem to be in denial that millions of children suffer and die because the adoption process is already so difficult, and that making it more difficult / more unpopular in general would directly harm children. There are reasonable, responsible, time-efficient procedures to minimize bad practices. There are responsible adoption agencies. Where's the press about the good side of things? When one person tried to say something positive about her adoption, you shut her down. I guess only the bad stuff is "real." I just hope your attitude doesn't spread too far, because a lot of kids need families. For "real."

[LibraryLover]

Recognizing problems doesn't mean one is anti-adoption. I am well aware of the anti-adoption agenda, and I don't agree with all they are saying. There are a tremendous number of children in need of families, and many of those children are legally available for adoption. The special needs program in China, for instance. There are children suffering in some orphanages in Eastern Europe (these stories are compelling). . There are special needs children who are aging out of their orphanages and being put in institutions. I believe that is nothing short of torture.

 

It is the goal of some programs to milk as much money as possible from adopting families. A good deal of the money doesn't go towards caring for these orphans, that's for sure. That makes it a business, and an ugly one. It's also ugly when people adopt a bunch of kids for all the wrong reasons and then abuse them because that is a ministry of their churches.

[Shahrazad]

I think that there is a movement of some mothers who made the choice and regretted it later and now blame adoption and feel adoption should not exist which is, frankly, stupid, however, there is also a real issue with organizations (like Bethany) manipulating and forcing mothers into giving up their children and not allowing them to back out when they have second thoughts (before it takes place) and that should not be trivialized. I found the article I mentioned upthread but I think I will make a s/o thread to avoid derailing this discussion.