Can we talk about adoption?

[PronghornD]

50 minutes ago, pinball said:

Im confused here. What does her size and ethnicity have to do with this?

if by little, you mean age…like a *young* girl, maybe she didn’t have the appropriate words to express what she meant.

Well, I suppose nothing except that they were little classmates but not classmates in an every day sort of school. And no, I did not name anyone's ethnicity in the story. That is your interpretation. Every story pretty much has extraneous details. And of course the point is not that anyone was a bad child and that bad child had a particular size and ethnicity.  The point is that in these situations, which almost always happen even if you try to advocate for your kid, the kid's knowledge that they have actual, legal parents matters. You may want to focus more on my concluding remarks and less on the details of my real life example.

Edited January 19, 2023 by PronghornD

[Scarlett]

1 hour ago, plansrme said:

I would like to thank Correlano and SKL for their contributions to this thread, which has included some pretty nasty (subtle, but nasty) things about adoption and adoptive parents. The premise of this thread, that DNA matters above all else and that a DNA-free parent-child bond is inherently inferior, either for the child or the parent, is preposterous. If DNA is that important to you, please don't adopt. 

Wait.  As the thread starter I would like to say that is NOT the premise of the thread.  I opened the topic of anti adoption up for discussion based on some trends I was seeing on social media.  I do believe DNA matters.  Roots matter a lot to some people and less to others.  I never said dna is all that matters and certainly not that other bonds are inferior.  I had a lot of questions and it helped me shape my feelings on it all.  
 

Your post seems a little aggressive.  It is just a discussion.  I said up front it might be too touchy for some people.  I am sorry if it has bothered you,  

[pinball]

29 minutes ago, KSera said:

I took it to mean like a “little friend” at Chinese school. If I refer to my young child’s “little friend” it has nothing to do with their size but their age, and if someone refers to Chinese school or Hebrew school, I take it to mean where they go (usually outside regular school hours) to learn Chinese or Hebrew. 

Just FYI: when a “third party” answers a question that I directed to someone else, I think it’s odd to the point of suspicious. It makes me wonder why the third party needs to run interference for the person for the person I directed the question to.

[Scarlett]

48 minutes ago, TechWife said:

I’ve known adopted children nearly all my life.  They all have an identity. Adoption doesn’t remove personhood or the ability to relate to others as people. 

The big underlying question behind this movement is “What makes a family?”

 

Maybe.  I don’t really know what is behind it to be honest.  
 

And when I talk about identity maybe I am talking about roots?  Some people really want to know.  There are tons of people discovering the man who raised them is not their birth dad.  And many of these people while still valuing their father who raised them want to know who their birth father is.  

[Rosie_0801]

2 minutes ago, pinball said:

Just FYI: when a “third party” answers a question that I directed to someone else, I think it’s odd to the point of suspicious. It makes me wonder why the third party needs to run interference for the person for the person I directed the question to.

If you want to discuss the nature of conversation or anything else this thread isn't about, go make your own thread.

[Scarlett]

19 minutes ago, pinball said:

Just FYI: when a “third party” answers a question that I directed to someone else, I think it’s odd to the point of suspicious. It makes me wonder why the third party needs to run interference for the person for the person I directed the question to.

Maybe because you sometimes come across as trying to start stuff for no apparent reason.  

Scarlett  (answering for another person.)

Edited January 19, 2023 by Scarlett

[PronghornD]

I think it is important to acknowledge and even affirm the negative experiences of some of the more vocal adoptees. We tend to just dismiss them because of their anger and because we don't like their proposed solutions. However, I'll bet most of them truly have a valid reason to complain about what adoption brought them. They should be listened to, and we should seek to make improvements that will prevent the problems they experienced (or at least make them happen to fewer kids).

On the other hand, there are people out there who wish they were adopted too. A friend of mine (I will resist the temptation to stir the pot by mentioning her size and ethnicity) has looked with longing on the interactions she's seen between me and my child. With sadness and longing, she has said that she wished she had been adopted.

Edited January 20, 2023 by PronghornD

[freesia]

58 minutes ago, pinball said:

Just FYI: when a “third party” answers a question that I directed to someone else, I think it’s odd to the point of suspicious. It makes me wonder why the third party needs to run interference for the person for the person I directed the question to.

 Clearly you are trying to stir the pot and start a fight tonight. 🙄

[Wishes]

I haven't read all the replies so I apologize if this is been said. Some of the adoptees (maybe even many of them) that have been anti-adoption are in transracial families where their ethnic/ cultural ties were ignored, erased, or vilified. These adoptees are rightfully angry about this. Before adopting my children, my foster-adoption agency insisted that I watch some videos and read books from adult-adoptees from those situations. There was a twenty-or thirty-something burgeoning producer who wanted to document her search for her birthmother in China. She filmed her adoptive mother saying things like, "I just don't want you to meet her or not share you". The adoptive mom came off very self-absorbed. There are many stories of Chinese, Korean, African, and African-American children adopted by white families and subjected to live in all or nearly-all white towns in predominately white states. Many of these adoptees had difficult experiences and struggle with their identity. There is a gentleman at the foster/adoption agency I am with that believes African-American children should only be under the guardianship of non-African-American parents similar to Native American children.

Adoption has been a part of society since pretty much the beginning, and I don't see that changing. I do think that adoptive parents, especially transracial adoptive parents need to make their children's community/identity needs a priority. I think adoption agencies need to be wary of Christian families who are trying to use adoption as a way of indoctrination/"taming" indigenous populations/POC. 

Adoption can be amazing and positive. I think more adoptive parents are agreeable to open adoptions. Some FOO are more functional than others. For on, you might just get some pictures while another you have ongoing contact. And adoptive parents fall on a spectrum too. Some are really good at prioritizing their children and others aren't.

[DawnM]

11 hours ago, pinball said:

This sounds like a lot of the trans culture in social media…

In what way?

[PronghornD]

1 hour ago, DawnM said:

In what way?

I think Pinball addressed that somewhere in the discussion above.

[LaughingCat]

1 hour ago, PronghornD said:

I think it is important to acknowledge and even affirm the negative experiences of some of the more vocal adoptees. We tend to just dismiss them because of their anger and because we don't like their proposed solutions. However, I'll bet most of them truly have a valid reason to complain about what adoption brought them. They should be listened to, and we should seek to make improvements that will prevent the problems they experienced (or at least make them happen to fewer kids).

On the other hand, there are people out there who wish they were adopted too. A friend of mine (I will resist the temptation to stir the pot by mentioning her size and ethnicity) has looked with longing on the interactions she's seen between me and my child. With sadness and longing, she has said that she wished she had been adopted.

I disagree that the negative experiences of vocal adoptees are mostly dismissed -- instead I think a lot of people's knowledge of adoption comes primarily from reading the negative experiences of vocal adoptees. 

IMO the vocal adoptees have become one of the accepted standard of adoptee emotions.  The readers(watchers?) don't dismiss the anger, instead they believe that most adoptees feel this way -- and after they believe that, then it is more often the positive experiences (such as my own experience) that are dismissed, ignored or invalidated. 

For example, I have been told many, many times that I am wrong in saying I don't have any adoption trauma or anger, because all adoptees have adoption trauma so I am just suppressing it.   I've been told (also multiple times) I just need to read other adoptees experience and then I'll apparently magically find my own anger (or if I say I have read such, then I just haven't read enough of them).  Not to mention a bunch of other things that I am just not recognizing in myself apparently.  🙄 

It's pretty much the only situation I can think of where my personal experience of a good outcome is dismissed or invalidated by the majority of people I've discussed it with. It's very strange actually.

Another weird thing about it -- a subset of people also take my telling my good experience as invalidating the feelings and negative experiences of the vocal adoptees.  I don't get that either - my having a good experience doesn't invalidate their bad experience. just like their bad experience doesn't invalidate my good experience.  It's all just another data point to consider.  

Note: not only am I adopted, but I adopted my kids from another country-- which is why I've had way too many conversations with people (sometimes complete strangers) about adoption.  

[PronghornD]

2 minutes ago, LaughingCat said:

I disagree that the negative experiences of vocal adoptees are mostly dismissed -- instead I think a lot of people's knowledge of adoption comes primarily from reading the negative experiences of vocal adoptees. 

IMO the vocal adoptees have become one of the accepted standard of adoptee emotions.  The readers(watchers?) don't dismiss the anger, instead they believe that most adoptees feel this way -- and after they believe that, then it is more often the positive experiences (such as my own experience) that are dismissed, ignored or invalidated. 

For example, I have been told many, many times that I am wrong in saying I don't have any adoption trauma or anger, because all adoptees have adoption trauma so I am just suppressing it.   I've been told (also multiple times) I just need to read other adoptees experience and then I'll apparently magically find my own anger (or if I say I have read such, then I just haven't read enough of them).  Not to mention a bunch of other things that I am just not recognizing in myself apparently.  🙄 

It's pretty much the only situation I can think of where my personal experience of a good outcome is dismissed or invalidated by the majority of people I've discussed it with. It's very strange actually.

Another weird thing about it -- a subset of people also take my telling my good experience as invalidating the feelings and negative experiences of the vocal adoptees.  I don't get that either - my having a good experience doesn't invalidate their bad experience. just like their bad experience doesn't invalidate my good experience.  It's all just another data point to consider.  

Note: not only am I adopted, but I adopted my kids from another country-- which is why I've had way too many conversations with people (sometimes complete strangers) about adoption.  

Thanks for your comment, especially since you are both an adopted person but also an adoptive mom. When I said "we" I was making a more limited comment. I literally meant we in this thread. Perhaps I am wrong, but it seemed like we didn't really give adoptees' anger much credence. The broader world may be quite different, though.

[LaughingCat]

5 minutes ago, PronghornD said:

Thanks for your comment, especially since you are both an adopted person but also an adoptive mom. When I said "we" I was making a more limited comment. I literally meant we in this thread. Perhaps I am wrong, but it seemed like we didn't really give adoptees' anger much credence. The broader world may be quite different, though.

Sorry -- I did not pick up on the we being just us in this thread at all (as you could see in my response 🙂 )

It's true that this thread hasn't really focused on adoptee anger but perhaps that's also more to do with Scarlett's original question being more anti-adoption focused and less vocal adoptee focused--and FWIW I personally feel like this thread overall has been way more nuanced than most of the conversations I've had about adoption in the real world (where I have mostly devolved to a "pass the bean dip" type answer)

And I suppose it's also true that people bringing up adoption to me are a self selected group and are probably not indicative of the broader world either. 

 

[SKL]

5 hours ago, Scarlett said:

Maybe.  I don’t really know what is behind it to be honest.  
 

And when I talk about identity maybe I am talking about roots?  Some people really want to know.  There are tons of people discovering the man who raised them is not their birth dad.  And many of these people while still valuing their father who raised them want to know who their birth father is.  

Today's mainstream adoption community is all about our kids knowing their roots.

We are also all about our kids having the same rights and security as everyone else.

They are two different discussions.  Your OP was about people being anti-adoption, but the above quote seems to be about being anti-hiding-history-from-adoptees.

[SKL]

Another aspect of the "vocal anti-adoption adoptees" situation is: that is who adopted kids are most likely to find when they are playing around on the internet.  Then they are going to examine their lives through a negative filter.  Which is not necessarily terrible as a thought experiment, but since it tends to happen at an ages when kids are often struggling with many things already, it can exacerbate problems.

In the adoptive parent community, there are always advocates who encourage those "how adoption hurt me" pages/sites.  I've checked them out briefly.  I am sure those folks are truly hurting, and maybe these outlets are some sort of therapy for them, but I don't want my kids hanging out there.

It's true that anti-adoption folks seem to have a rosy idea of how life could have been without adoption.  Reality is ... (1) my kids were born in a country/community/family where they were destined for abuse, neglect, rejection, poverty, illiteracy, violent misogyny, possibly sex trafficking, and eventually parenthood in the same cycle.  (2) Adoption of children with brown skin is extremely rare in my kids' birth country.  Those inclined to adopt will adopt a white-skinned child from Europe, despite so many local children needing homes.  (3) It relatively unusual for people of color outside my kids' birth country to adopt kids from a very different biological or cultural background.  (4) Meaning that the realistic alternative to transracial international adoption is more state-run orphanages and street children.  This isn't fiction, it's real life.  And no, I'm not saying I am my children's savior, but I am also not a villain.  There's a reason my kids' birth moms chose international adoption over the local alternatives.

Folks raging irrationally against adoption surely have real issues, but there's a good possibility they inherited some of those issues from their biological parents.  Growing up with said biological parents (or close relatives) probably wouldn't have fixed that.

Another thing to ponder is who these anti-adoption adoptees are really angry at.  Excluding those who were forcibly removed from non-abusive moms (which we all agree is wrong and hopefully extremely rare now), the initial decisions that led to their adoption were made by their birth parent(s).  Could their present anger be masking a subconscious hurt/anger at the birth mom's decisions?  Maybe, rather than encourage them to hate the entire adoption community, someone should gently walk them through this thought process.  Does the prominence of online vent groups hinder that process?

And then people outside the adoption community feel the need to weigh in.  Last summer, a well-meaning member of our adoptive community arranged for a program to be developed for our transracially adopted teens.  The woman who created the program was not adopted but raised in a local ethnic community that is biologically similar to our kids.  The program ended up focusing on racism and especially the cluelessness of white parents.  Each teen was pressured to "share" their bad experiences.  While a minority of the teens seemed to like this, most of them were very upset by it.  Specifically, my kids were offended by non-adoptees telling them how they should feel about their adoptive families and their multicolor friends.

Nobody's life is perfect.  Looking around at my kids' friends and extended family, the storybook traditional monochrome family history is actually rare.  My kids' story is just one part of the mosaic.  In some ways, simpler than average; in other ways, more complex.  Like everyone else, we do our best to make it work.

[Carrie12345]

Personally, I’d like to see a whole lot more work done on the nuances of trauma, so we can all have a better vocabulary for discussing it.

As a sort of lame example, but one I think sort of ties in, I was an older child (16) of divorce. The specific circumstances in our situation, even at that time, we’re considered to be traumatic.  But, while I certainly struggled with some sadness and trying to reframe my world, I still to this day don’t consider it to be trauma on the level so many people have decided it “should” be.

That does not invalidate the trauma others have experienced in similar circumstances. But theirs doesn’t invalidate my peace with the situation, either. 

[DawnM]

8 hours ago, LaughingCat said:

I disagree that the negative experiences of vocal adoptees are mostly dismissed -- instead I think a lot of people's knowledge of adoption comes primarily from reading the negative experiences of vocal adoptees. 

IMO the vocal adoptees have become one of the accepted standard of adoptee emotions.  The readers(watchers?) don't dismiss the anger, instead they believe that most adoptees feel this way -- and after they believe that, then it is more often the positive experiences (such as my own experience) that are dismissed, ignored or invalidated. 

For example, I have been told many, many times that I am wrong in saying I don't have any adoption trauma or anger, because all adoptees have adoption trauma so I am just suppressing it.   I've been told (also multiple times) I just need to read other adoptees experience and then I'll apparently magically find my own anger (or if I say I have read such, then I just haven't read enough of them).  Not to mention a bunch of other things that I am just not recognizing in myself apparently.  🙄 

It's pretty much the only situation I can think of where my personal experience of a good outcome is dismissed or invalidated by the majority of people I've discussed it with. It's very strange actually.

Another weird thing about it -- a subset of people also take my telling my good experience as invalidating the feelings and negative experiences of the vocal adoptees.  I don't get that either - my having a good experience doesn't invalidate their bad experience. just like their bad experience doesn't invalidate my good experience.  It's all just another data point to consider.  

Note: not only am I adopted, but I adopted my kids from another country-- which is why I've had way too many conversations with people (sometimes complete strangers) about adoption.  

I could have written your post.   I am an adoptee and I have adopted two, one from overseas (different race) and one from foster care.   I also have two bio children.

However, I dont' really get a lot of negative comments about adoption.   Most has been positive.   The only time I got bombarded with negative (and the comments you have heard) was when I accidentally joined a group called bastard nation......Whoo Boy those people are bitter and angry!

But what makes me angry is that my little guy was in SIX homes by the age of two!   He would still be bouncing around if he hadn't been adopted.   His birth parents are in and out of jail, on the streets, and between meth and mental illness, would never have gotten him back.

 

[BeachGal]

As someone who is part Native American who grew up on a reservation, where both NAs and whites coexist and are friends and have intermarried, those who have not lived on a reservation all too often do not fully understand how difficult life can be for some NA children. Ultimately it is the most vulnerable who suffer, usually children. And it is infuriating and heartbreaking to watch. I am still connected and have witnessed a lot of this over the years. Yes, I would prefer for NA children to maintain involvement with their culture, but their safety, basic needs and well being must be prioritized.

[Jaybee]

8 hours ago, SKL said:

Another aspect of the "vocal anti-adoption adoptees" situation is: that is who adopted kids are most likely to find when they are playing around on the internet.  Then they are going to examine their lives through a negative filter.  Which is not necessarily terrible as a thought experiment, but since it tends to happen at an ages when kids are often struggling with many things already, it can exacerbate problems.

In the adoptive parent community, there are always advocates who encourage those "how adoption hurt me" pages/sites.  I've checked them out briefly.  I am sure those folks are truly hurting, and maybe these outlets are some sort of therapy for them, but I don't want my kids hanging out there.

It's true that anti-adoption folks seem to have a rosy idea of how life could have been without adoption.  Reality is ... (1) my kids were born in a country/community/family where they were destined for abuse, neglect, rejection, poverty, illiteracy, violent misogyny, possibly sex trafficking, and eventually parenthood in the same cycle.  (2) Adoption of children with brown skin is extremely rare in my kids' birth country.  Those inclined to adopt will adopt a white-skinned child from Europe, despite so many local children needing homes.  (3) It relatively unusual for people of color outside my kids' birth country to adopt kids from a very different biological or cultural background.  (4) Meaning that the realistic alternative to transracial international adoption is more state-run orphanages and street children.  This isn't fiction, it's real life.  And no, I'm not saying I am my children's savior, but I am also not a villain.  There's a reason my kids' birth moms chose international adoption over the local alternatives.

Folks raging irrationally against adoption surely have real issues, but there's a good possibility they inherited some of those issues from their biological parents.  Growing up with said biological parents (or close relatives) probably wouldn't have fixed that.

Another thing to ponder is who these anti-adoption adoptees are really angry at.  Excluding those who were forcibly removed from non-abusive moms (which we all agree is wrong and hopefully extremely rare now), the initial decisions that led to their adoption were made by their birth parent(s).  Could their present anger be masking a subconscious hurt/anger at the birth mom's decisions?  Maybe, rather than encourage them to hate the entire adoption community, someone should gently walk them through this thought process.  Does the prominence of online vent groups hinder that process?

And then people outside the adoption community feel the need to weigh in.  Last summer, a well-meaning member of our adoptive community arranged for a program to be developed for our transracially adopted teens.  The woman who created the program was not adopted but raised in a local ethnic community that is biologically similar to our kids.  The program ended up focusing on racism and especially the cluelessness of white parents.  Each teen was pressured to "share" their bad experiences.  While a minority of the teens seemed to like this, most of them were very upset by it.  Specifically, my kids were offended by non-adoptees telling them how they should feel about their adoptive families and their multicolor friends.

Nobody's life is perfect.  Looking around at my kids' friends and extended family, the storybook traditional monochrome family history is actually rare.  My kids' story is just one part of the mosaic.  In some ways, simpler than average; in other ways, more complex.  Like everyone else, we do our best to make it work.

Thank you for this, @SKL. I have wondered/thought about several of the aspects that you raise in this post, especially the 3rd and 5th paragraphs. Certainly not as a way to silence people's interpretations of their experiences, but as balancing points of view. Sadly, I don't know what my son feels, because he doesn't communicate feelings with us--never really has. Occasionally, I have heard from someone else something he shared with them, but not often. That leaves us guessing, which isn't the ideal way to communicate. 

When I do wonder what would have happened had adoption not been an option in his case and country, I am left with answers like you list. One day a few months ago, I was upset and sharing (too much) with a friend, one who is a sweet person but who is pretty clueless about adoption. She said, "It sounds like he needs to learn to be grateful!" I had an immediate gut-level reaction to that, and had to be careful in my response, because I know her and knew she just hadn't ever thought about it from a different perspective. I just said, "I don't expect him to be grateful. (And I went through some of the trauma issues.) I just want a relationship with him."

[Carrie12345]

4 minutes ago, BeachGal said:

As someone who is part Native American who grew up on a reservation, where both NAs and whites coexist and are friends and have intermarried, those who have not lived on a reservation all too often do not fully understand how difficult life can be for some NA children. Ultimately it is the most vulnerable who suffer, usually children. And it is infuriating and heartbreaking to watch. I am still connected and have witnessed a lot of this over the years. Yes, I would prefer for NA children to maintain involvement with their culture, but their safety, basic needs and well being must be prioritized.

It’s a difficult situation.

When the bottom line is that there’s a severe shortage of open placements of ANY culture (or over-removal. Whichever,) it’s hard to be picky.

[Murphy101]

On 1/18/2023 at 12:24 PM, Mrs Tiggywinkle Again said:

There are also a lot of donor conceived adults speaking out against donor conception as well.  Especially those raised by LGBTQ couples or single mothers.  I have even seen some people who are very adamant about social justice in most areas insist that if you’re not in a traditional male-female relationship and able to conceive with only your own genetic material, then you have no right to have a child.

Now I don’t believe that really anyone has a “right” to another person, but I am very uncomfortable with saying that only a male-female two parent household should have children.  A lot of this is on TikTok and the comments are wild—but people truly feel this way and are lobbying for legal changes. 

Good on them for speaking up. It must be incredibly hard for them to do that.  RCC has many reasons for being against IVF and donor reproduction, this among many of them. 

On 1/18/2023 at 12:39 PM, Corraleno said:

Why is that anyone else's business? Why should adoptees not have a choice whether to disclose that? Why should they be subjected to rude questions from clueless people about why "their parents didn't want them" or whether they've ever met their birth family, or whatever, just because they want to enroll in a school or apply for a driver's license or a passport or a marriage license or something?

Adoptees who want access to their original birth certificates should have access to them, but they should also have the right to a birth certificate that looks just like every other child's birth certificate, rather than be forced to disclose their personal history to random strangers against their will.

But people already have birth certificates that look different from each other. There’s people who have no one listed for the father for example. Or that the parents weren’t married. Whether they were a twin or not, that they were born to a non-citizen, how much they weighed, what time they were born… That’s not anymore someone’s business than that the people who raised them aren’t biological.

Maybe we should just remove everything except name of baby and date and stamp it with a SSN?🤷‍♀️

But also, how often are people showing their birth certificates? Passport, marriage license, and first drivers license is the only time we’ve had to literally show them to anyone. I know there’s other times but it’s not like my boss or classmates are ever likely to see it. 

[Murphy101]

2 hours ago, BeachGal said:

As someone who is part Native American who grew up on a reservation, where both NAs and whites coexist and are friends and have intermarried, those who have not lived on a reservation all too often do not fully understand how difficult life can be for some NA children. Ultimately it is the most vulnerable who suffer, usually children. And it is infuriating and heartbreaking to watch. I am still connected and have witnessed a lot of this over the years. Yes, I would prefer for NA children to maintain involvement with their culture, but their safety, basic needs and well being must be prioritized.

The problem with this is that one demographic (usually a cultural/ethnic outsider) is determining what defines safety, basic needs and wellbeing for an almost always poorer demographic that lacks the ability to refuse.

Rich people abuse their kids too. But they rarely lose them as fast, for as long or as permanently as those on lower incomes, such as NA for example.

I would like to make international adoption completely outlawed unless it’s a blood relative as a starting point.

[SKL]

2 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

I would like to make international adoption completely outlawed unless it’s a blood relative as a starting point.

Shouldn't we at least poll international / intercultural adoptees before we make such a major change?

[Murphy101]

1 minute ago, SKL said:

Shouldn't we at least poll international / intercultural adoptees before we make such a major change?

No.

[SKL]

Just now, Murphy101 said:

No.

So you are in favor of people who are not affected by adoption making all the decisions about adoption.

We can agree to disagree.

[Murphy101]

Just now, SKL said:

So you are in favor of people who are not affected by adoption making all the decisions about adoption.

We can agree to disagree.

That’s a way to look at it I suppose.

It’s more that I can no longer see a moral or rational justification for permanently taking the children of another country.

The majority of the time, it’s a country, or demographic in that country, that is desperately struggling.  I’m all for helping those people. And just like in my own country, I think we can and should do better than to help by taking their children away from them.

I’m sure the adoptive parents love their children and feel they are giving them a better life. I’m sure most adopted children from other countries love their adoptive parents.  But that doesn’t change whether I can agree with international adoption from an ethical or logical position.

[SKL]

Just now, Murphy101 said:

That’s a way to look at it I suppose.

It’s more that I can no longer see a moral or rational justification for permanently taking the children of another country.

The majority of the time, it’s a country, or demographic in that country, that is desperately struggling.  I’m all for helping those people. And just like in my own country, I think we can and should do better than to help by taking their children away from them.

I’m sure the adoptive parents love their children and feel they are giving them a better life. I’m sure most adopted children from other countries love their adoptive parents.  But that doesn’t change whether I can agree with international adoption from an ethical or logical position.

You seem to assume that no pregnant woman in another country could possibly have a reason (other than simple finances) why raising a child isn't going to work for her.

The idea that US pregnant women are believed to have MORE reasons for choosing adoption than women in other countries never made sense to me.

I also think it's a discriminatory position against moms in other countries.

[Corraleno]

4 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

The majority of the time, it’s a country, or demographic in that country, that is desperately struggling.  I’m all for helping those people. And just like in my own country, I think we can and should do better than to help by taking their children away from them.

Children should be denied the chance to have a loving family, and should instead be left in poorly funded, poorly run orphanages where they will be emotionally, physically, and often sexually abused, and you think that's a better option for them?

My daughter would most vehemently disagree.

[Dmmetler]

28 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

Good on them for speaking up. It must be incredibly hard for them to do that.  RCC has many reasons for being against IVF and donor reproduction, this among many of them. 

But people already have birth certificates that look different from each other. There’s people who have no one listed for the father for example. Or that the parents weren’t married. Whether they were a twin or not, that they were born to a non-citizen, how much they weighed, what time they were born… That’s not anymore someone’s business than that the people who raised them aren’t biological.

Maybe we should just remove everything except name of baby and date and stamp it with a SSN?🤷‍♀️

But also, how often are people showing their birth certificates? Passport, marriage license, and first drivers license is the only time we’ve had to literally show them to anyone. I know there’s other times but it’s not like my boss or classmates are ever likely to see it. 

School enrollment is a big one. As a music teacher, I usually spent several days each school year enrolling new students, and that meant that we needed to see and make a copy of their birth certificate, and, for some kids, documentation of legal guardianship if names didn't match. In some schools, that may be a teacher's aide or even a volunteer. Ultimately, I don't need to know kids' parentage to teach them. I need to know what they specifically need. And even in the USA, minor kids are asked who they are and who they're traveling with. If the names, and especially if the kids don't physically resemble the parent, it can be very difficult for the family. International travel, even more so. If a child starts screaming and a parent who doesn't look like them has to carry them out of a store when they're struggling, a parent who doesn't look like the child is far more likely to have to justify this to authorities, and having a copy of the child's birth certificate is helpful. 

 

Really, for purposes of establishing ID, Name, birthdate, social security number, and, for minors, which adults are their legal decision makers at that point in time is all that's needed, but birth certificate gives a lot more (for example, in my area, which hospital a kid is born in is a pretty good metric for whether a family had health insurance and what kind of health insurance, and therefore, for family income). 

 

[BeachGal]

24 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

The problem with this is that one demographic (usually a cultural/ethnic outsider) is determining what defines safety, basic needs and wellbeing for an almost always poorer demographic that lacks the ability to refuse.

Rich people abuse their kids too. But they rarely lose them as fast, for as long or as permanently as those on lower incomes, such as NA for example.

I would like to make international adoption completely outlawed unless it’s a blood relative as a starting point.

Not true on my reservation. NAs also disagree with each other on these issues. Many NA and white people who live there have a lot of compassion for those who are struggling and want to make the reservation better for all. It is not as divisive as many are led to believe.

[SKL]

I looked at my kids' birth certificates.  They do have more info than I recalled.  I am not an expert, but maybe there is a historical reason why they need to document the hospital and attendant (which, for my kids, is "unknown."  Maybe someday I'll research that.

As for when birth certificates have been needed, in my recollection - for health insurance, school registration, social security number, passports, visas, temps, driving licenses, and in my personal case, in order to be admitted to our state bar, and my own BC was needed for my kids' adoption processes.  I've heard of BC being needed for certain age-restricted sports leagues and for admission to certain universities.  There are probably more.

[Murphy101]

21 minutes ago, SKL said:

You seem to assume that no pregnant woman in another country could possibly have a reason (other than simple finances) why raising a child isn't going to work for her.

Not at all. I’m saying that her own country/culture/people should handle that.

21 minutes ago, SKL said:

The idea that US pregnant women are believed to have MORE reasons for choosing adoption than women in other countries never made sense to me.

um. I never said that at all.

 

[SKL]

2 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

Not at all. I’m saying that her own country/culture/people should handle that.

And for those that don't?

[Murphy101]

15 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

Children should be denied the chance to have a loving family, and should instead be left in poorly funded, poorly run orphanages where they will be emotionally, physically, and often sexually abused, and you think that's a better option for them?

My daughter would most vehemently disagree.

Nope. I think that situation should be changed. I think the country in question should change it and we should help change that by means other than taking children from that country.

I don’t think the answer to crappy horrible orphanages anywhere is to give them money via adoption.

I’m not going to shame someone for the past either. The question being asked is how to move forward. I think putting adoption funds into making family situations better in those countries would be better long term.

For me the question is not would a child have been better off left in the horrible abusive orphanage. The question is would the child’s FOO have been able to stay intact if such funds had been shifted to more directly benefit keeping families together? I think it very possible.  Historically, there’s plenty of evidence that many of those children were in fact wanted and loved by their FOO, who often felt they had no genuine options to keep their children.

[SKL]

26 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

For me the question is not would a child have been better off left in the horrible abusive orphanage. The question is would the child’s FOO have been able to stay intact if such funds had been shifted to more directly benefit keeping families together? I think it very possible.  Historically, there’s plenty of evidence that many of those children were in fact wanted and loved by their FOO, who often felt they had no genuine options to keep their children.

Socially there are so many problems with having a child out of wedlock in most countries.  The birth of the child itself is not tolerable to the extended family, with whom the bio mother lives.  The existence of the child prevents the mother and any siblings from having a normal life, holding a job, getting married, etc.

Even if we could prevent corruption and make sure money went to the families in need (a huge "if"), that would not fix the above.

And if governments start giving people money for having babies they can't afford to raise, that could have unintended negative effects.  But again ... realistically that money is not going to make it to the poor families.  It's going to end up in bureaucrats' pockets.

And again, in-country, almost nobody adopts babies of color.

I have been supporting nonprofits (including orphanages, family sponsorships, school scholarships etc.) in low-income countries for decades.  That is not a substitute for adoption when a bio mother decides that raising a child isn't going to work.

Edited January 20, 2023 by SKL

[Murphy101]

9 minutes ago, SKL said:

And for those that don't?

Are you suggesting there are cultures that promote parents that don’t want their children?

I mean, I guess I’m willing to believe that bc humans suck but generally, a countries/cultures know they need children to thrive.

When it doesn’t want children is when those children are part of an undesired subdemographic they want to stigmatize and ostracize and brutalize. In which case, I’m all for offering asylum and help to those families.  Temporary shelter to their children until they can be reunited with their families if separation can’t be avoided  

But generally, no, I don’t think the answer to a group facing such a hardship is to leave them in desperation and permanently take their children.

[Corraleno]

1 minute ago, Murphy101 said:

Nope. I think that situation should be changed. I think the country in question should change it and we should help change that by means other than taking children from that country.

I don’t think the answer to crappy horrible orphanages anywhere is to give them money via adoption.

I’m not going to shame someone for the past either. The question being asked is how to move forward. I think putting adoption funds into making family situations better in those countries would be better long term.

For me the question is not would a child have been better off left in the horrible abusive orphanage. The question is would the child’s FOO have been able to stay intact if such funds had been shifted to more directly benefit keeping families together? I think it very possible.  Historically, there’s plenty of evidence that many of those children were in fact wanted and loved by their FOO, who often felt they had no genuine options to keep their children.

This "solution" sounds noble on paper but is totally untenable in the real world. The minuscule amount of international adoption money that goes into poor countries can never even come close to fixing systemic issues of poverty, and you are ignoring the reality that many children in other countries are abandoned for reasons other than poverty, just as they are in the US.

Given the reality that orphanages exist in poor countries, insisting that those children continue to languish there, subjected to every variety of abuse, when there are families that want to give them loving homes, is indefensible IMO. Innocent children should not be sacrificed for some unrealistic ideal about how things should work in a perfect world. Their continued suffering will not fix anything.

[Storygirl]

There are arguments against international adoption that should be considered, of course.

But, as a mother of children from two other countries, it's impossible to accept generalized ideas that it's best for all children to remain in their birth countries. Because it is 100% obvious that my particular kids would have had severe struggles in their home country, In addition to the things that SKL lists in her previous post, which also apply to my kids, there is no way that two of my children would have had opportunities to be educated, because of the extent of their learning disabilities. They would have been illiterate and on the streets. There is no way that I would wish that on them or think that it would be a better outcome than living here, in our family. Would I wish that their birth families could have taken care of them? Of course! But that is a dream. Their families made a tremendously hard decision to give their babies a future that they could not provide for them. It's heartrending.

But halting international adoptions is not going to change the cultural situations. The adoption funds would not be redirected to changing social things. There would BE NO adoption funds.

Edited January 20, 2023 by Storygirl

[Murphy101]

I guess it also comes down to rule of subsidiary for me.

Why adopt international when one’s own country almost certainly has children of similar need?

edited to be more clear since not everyone is American. 

I wanted to edit again but instead I’ll rephrase here.  Rule of subsidiary has nothing to do with who is more deserving or judging someone’s heart.  It’s about resource management.  I should put my emergency air mask on before I help someone else with their’s.  It has nothing to do with whether others deserve a mask or how thoughtful/kind anyone is about masks. It has to do with what is often the best way to help the most people and spread that help out efficiently.

Edited January 20, 2023 by Murphy101

[SKL]

1 minute ago, Murphy101 said:

I guess it also comes down to rule of subsidiary for me.

Why adopt international when one’s own country almost certainly has children of similar need?

edited to be more clear since not everyone is American. 

Adoptive parents considered all the pros and cons before starting their adoption journeys.  Our answers to your question may be complex (but they are nobody's business).

But in short ... why not?

[pinball]

4 minutes ago, SKL said:

Adoptive parents considered all the pros and cons before starting their adoption journeys.  Our answers to your question may be complex (but they are nobody's business).

But in short ... why not?

I would think the country/adoption organization would ask a similar question and that they do indeed deserve an answer.

[SKL]

Just now, pinball said:

I would think the country/adoption organization would ask a similar question and that they do indeed deserve an answer.

Certainly, and we certainly gave all that info to the appropriate people during our adoption processes.

[PronghornD]

12 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

I guess it also comes down to rule of subsidiary for me.

Why adopt international when one’s own country almost certainly has children of similar need?

edited to be more clear since not everyone is American. 

The reasons are very specific to each parent. Sometimes it is because of the other country's process. Sometimes because older parents aren't always appreciated in the U.S. like they are in other countries. Sometimes it is because of connections to the child's country of birth. I am all for change to help children in other countries. However, it would have happened too slowly to save my child from a life of severe emotional deprivation.

Edited January 20, 2023 by PronghornD

[SKL]

Just like we had our reasons for deciding to adopt instead of bring another life into the world.

[Jaybee]

Just now, Murphy101 said:

I guess it also comes down to rule of subsidiary for me.

Why adopt from another country when there’s almost certainly children of similar need for adoption here?

I typed out a long response, but decided that really isn't something I should feel obligated to explain. We did our due diligence in researching our options, which very much included considerations of what seemed best for potential adopted children under our circumstances (which is what I typed out at first, but don't feel I need to post on here).

1 minute ago, pinball said:

I would think the country/adoption organization would ask a similar question and that they do indeed deserve an answer.

We were quite thoroughly vetted.

[LaughingCat]

If we decide that no one can adopt from a poorer country -- isn't that also the stronger making decisions for the weaker?  Each country should decide for itself whether it allows international adoption, not us deciding for them.  

Also the number of international adoptions had dropped quite a bit anyway ETA: numbers from the US  --

2021 -- 1,785 international adoptions vs 54,200 adopted out of foster care 

2012 -- 8,655 international adoptions vs 52,000 adopted out of foster care

2000 -- 18,854 international adoptions  (didnt' find foster care #'s for 2000 --but that ~50k looks pretty much the same from year to year from 2012-2021 ) 

international #'s https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/Intercountry-Adoption/adopt_ref/adoption-statistics-esri.html?wcmmode=disabled 

foster #'s https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/report/trends-foster-care-adoption

ETA: also on another site it said there were 89 adoptions out of the US to another country in 2016

Edited January 20, 2023 by LaughingCat

[PronghornD]

Many of us adoptive parents have also provided financial support in various ways to children in the country we adopted from. That is very common, and some adoptive parents have even built organizations that have done amazing things for those children. It need not be an either/or situation.

[Sneezyone]

I don’t think one country should be deciding for another whether the exportation of children is a good idea but I do think the results (in terms of poor countries, themselves, choosing to halt/reform their processes and developing more internal placement systems) suggests all was not well/ethical. 

Edited January 20, 2023 by Sneezyone

[SKL]

Just now, PronghornD said:

Many of us adoptive parents have also provided financial support in various ways to children in the country we adopted from. That is very common, and some adoptive parents have even built organizations that have done amazing things for those children. It need not be an either/or situation.

Not only that, some of our children have / will go back and work to make a difference in their countries of origin, or other comparable countries.  US education and money will leverage their good intentions significantly.