Adoption or Baby Brokering?
You've probably already heard the news. Singer Madonna is adopting a boy from Malawi. It has generated quite a bit of controversy, to the extent that human rights and child protection groups are investigating.
Madonna just donated $3 million to an orphans charity in Malawi during a visit to the country. She returned home, and within a week, she was granted temporary custody and the child was flown to the U.K. where Madonna lives. In doing this, the Malawi government waived a law that requires would-be parents to live in the country for a year while social welfare officers investigate their ability to care for a child.
It seems that $3 million can buy an awful lot.
I guess I'm a little confused by all this international adoption anyway. It seems to be the rage now (especially for celebrities) to go overseas to adopt children. Meanwhile, there are children right here in the United States who need homes. Why are we taking care of the rest of the world's children before we take care of our own?
I've heard several arguments.
First, most adoptive parents in the U.S. are white, and there are very few white children available for adoption. But when these parents are going overseas, mostly to China, Russia, and Guatemala, and adopting children there, they are still not getting white children. Why is it okay to raise an Asian child in a white household, but not a black child? Neither one of them are going to look like mom and dad, but both of them need the love equally.
Second, many of the children available for adoption in the U.S. have disabilities, or were born to drug-addicted mothers. But when we choose to have a biological child, we have no say it whether that child will have disabilities. Perhaps Greg and I just view this differently than other parents. When we were pregnant, we were offered all the tests in the world due to my "advanced maternal age" (that makes you feel good, huh?). We declined every one of them. Why? It didn't matter. Even if they found something wrong with the baby, it's not like we were going to abort it! If God chose us to raise a Downs baby, then by golly we were going to be the best darn Downs parents we could be! Yes, it is more challenging to raise a child with disabilities than a "normal" child, but they need the love equally.
Finally, people want baby-babies. Not children, and not teenagers. Certainly I can understand the desire to raise a child from infancy. But I think that the older children would be a perfect match for older adoptive parents. In the case of Madonna, she's 48. Beyond childbearing years for most women. Perhaps there is a reason for that. By the time an infant reaches adulthood, she'll be in her 70's! Folks in their upper 60's and 70's, as wonderful as they may be, just aren't designed to be keeping up with teenagers and college-aged kids on a daily basis. And that's if they are even still alive.
It's not that I am against international adoption. I'm not. I just struggle with seeing large volumes of money spent to obtain children from other countries, when there are kids right here who need homes too.
Madonna just donated $3 million to an orphans charity in Malawi during a visit to the country. She returned home, and within a week, she was granted temporary custody and the child was flown to the U.K. where Madonna lives. In doing this, the Malawi government waived a law that requires would-be parents to live in the country for a year while social welfare officers investigate their ability to care for a child.
It seems that $3 million can buy an awful lot.
I guess I'm a little confused by all this international adoption anyway. It seems to be the rage now (especially for celebrities) to go overseas to adopt children. Meanwhile, there are children right here in the United States who need homes. Why are we taking care of the rest of the world's children before we take care of our own?
I've heard several arguments.
First, most adoptive parents in the U.S. are white, and there are very few white children available for adoption. But when these parents are going overseas, mostly to China, Russia, and Guatemala, and adopting children there, they are still not getting white children. Why is it okay to raise an Asian child in a white household, but not a black child? Neither one of them are going to look like mom and dad, but both of them need the love equally.
Second, many of the children available for adoption in the U.S. have disabilities, or were born to drug-addicted mothers. But when we choose to have a biological child, we have no say it whether that child will have disabilities. Perhaps Greg and I just view this differently than other parents. When we were pregnant, we were offered all the tests in the world due to my "advanced maternal age" (that makes you feel good, huh?). We declined every one of them. Why? It didn't matter. Even if they found something wrong with the baby, it's not like we were going to abort it! If God chose us to raise a Downs baby, then by golly we were going to be the best darn Downs parents we could be! Yes, it is more challenging to raise a child with disabilities than a "normal" child, but they need the love equally.
Finally, people want baby-babies. Not children, and not teenagers. Certainly I can understand the desire to raise a child from infancy. But I think that the older children would be a perfect match for older adoptive parents. In the case of Madonna, she's 48. Beyond childbearing years for most women. Perhaps there is a reason for that. By the time an infant reaches adulthood, she'll be in her 70's! Folks in their upper 60's and 70's, as wonderful as they may be, just aren't designed to be keeping up with teenagers and college-aged kids on a daily basis. And that's if they are even still alive.
It's not that I am against international adoption. I'm not. I just struggle with seeing large volumes of money spent to obtain children from other countries, when there are kids right here who need homes too.
posted by Susan | 6:58 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home