|
|
| | |
| |
 |
| Summary: Should couples be banned from adopting children overseas? |
|
|
| |
Author:Tara Mounce ( United Kingdom )
England Schools Debating Team, 2001. Chair, Debates Selection Committee at Oxford Union Society. ESU British Debate Team, Tour of America, 2004. England Winner JS Mace 2005. |
Created: Wednesday, December 31, 1969
Last Modified: Monday, April 06, 2009
|
| |
With the on going media coverage of ill-treated of children in Chinese and Romanian orphanages and the increasing numbers of infertile couples in the developed world international adoption appears to solve two problems at once. However recently Romania has stopped all international adoptions amid claims of corruption and human trafficking. Similar stories have clouded adoptions from Guatemala. Despite these difficulties international adoptions by US citizens have tripled in the past 5 years and legislation has been passed to make it easier for these adopted children to obtain citizenship. While some children complain of a feeling of cultural dislocation, others are sent to Chinese-American summer camps and seem delighted with their new homes and dual identity. The long-term effects of such migrations are hard to predict but many opponents call for more efforts to be made to house children in their country of birth, with proper support for domestic orphanages and adoption schemes. |
 |
|
|
| International adoption removes children from the culture into which they were born. Often this causes a sense of dislocation as the child grows older because the do not feel fully a part of their adopted culture nor the culture of the country into which they were born. These feelings can be exacerbated by racial or ethnic distinctions. |
|
Whatever maybe lost culturally is more than made up for by the benefits of growing up in a secure and loving environment rather than an ‘institutional’ setting. Many parents go to great lengths to learn about the culture of their child’s birth country giving the child the advantage of learning about two cultures as it grows up. With the growth of multicultural societies in most countries many children having natural parents from different cultures. This means that mixed identities are increasingly common and do not have to be a source of alienation. |
 |
|
|
| The high fees that western families are willing to pay for international adoptions leads to a commodification of children. In the eyes of both their birth parents and their adoptive parents children become a financial investment rather than a blessing in their own right. This can also be place undue pressure upon a mother unsure about giving up her child. In Guatemala this has reached such great proportions that adoption of babies is thought to generate $40 million for the country each year. |
|
It is wrong to say that spending money on something immediately leads to its commodification. Often the process is so expensive because of the amount of bureaucracy that must be overcome, but many agencies are run on a not-for-profit basis. Many adults could not put a price on the value of having a family and this is why they are willing to pay so much, not just for adoption but other avenues for starting a family like IVF. In many countries they are saving children with a bleak future, such as the abandoned female babies of rural China. In these cases the parents have already abandoned their daughter and do not profit from any subsequent adoption. |
|
|
|
| International adoptions are exceptionally hard to regulate leading to accusations of human trafficking in many parts of the world. In some areas babies are stolen from mothers who had no intention of giving them up. In other areas children are promised an adoptive family but instead forced into the sex trade. By banning international adoption you reduce these risks. |
|
While there is always a danger that systems will be abused, pushing adoption underground will not improve the conditions under which it is carried out. If you restrict all the legal channels desperate would-be-parents are more likely to turn to the criminal gangs that currently disrupt the process. |
|
|
|
| A thriving international adoption market fails to encourage states to make adequate provisions for children taken into care. In many cases the worse the condition of a children’s home, the more sympathy and therefore adoptions will be attracted from first world countries. This is particularly problematic for children in foster or temporary care of the state or those, like disabled or HIV-positive children who have a lower chance of being offered an adoptive family. |
|
However many adoptees and their families are very concerned about the ‘left-behind children’. Often they fund raise in their own country to improve the orphanages they left behind. This serves to highlight the conditions in orphanages around the globe as well as raising funds for their improvement. There is no guarantee that governments would spend money on orphans without this pressure. |
|
|
|
| The ability to shop around the globe for the ‘perfect’ baby boy or girl reduces the number of families available for children needing adoption domestically. Often these children are older and may suffer from emotional, behaviour or physical difficulties. Wealthy families from the first world also have the ability to price local families out of the adoption market, reducing the chance of children receiving a home in their country of birth. |
|
It is wrong to assume that everyone who adopts abroad would adopt domestically if the international avenue was denied to them. The decision to take on a very troubled child is a difficult one and many people would simply not feel they had the appropriate skills. Others would be precluded by national rules on the age of adopting parents, being a gay couple or other similar restriction. In some cultures the lack of domestic adoptions is due to a cultural preference for natural families rather than an inability to compete in an ‘adoption market’. |
|
|
|
| Many families who adopt from abroad do so because it is quicker and because they do not have to pass all the tests set by domestic adoption agencies (or, indeed because they have taken the tests but been found unsuitable). This often leaves them unprepared for many of the difficulties associated with adoption. Often they have little or no knowledge of the culture of the country their child has come from and they have no support to help them adjust to the medical and behavioural problems that can arise from children with an unsettled early life. |
|
Fortunately, many agencies do offer support to parents after adoption, and if they don’t there are many self-help groups run by people who have successfully made it through the process before. Any difficulty in adjusting has to be weighed against the dangers of continued institutional care for the child. |
|
|
|
| | This house would ban international adoption
This house believes that adoption is best done domestically
This House believes international adoption is harmful
|
| View the full discussion |
Author | Post |
|---|
aladinonl
Member
|
Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 11:17 am |
|
First, i'd like to state out my standpoint. I think International adoption (IA) is good for humankind and therefore, shouldn't be banned. However, I strongly urge any parent who intends to adopt to choose the baby from Hague-signed country.
FYI, Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption helps to ensure uninvolvement of human trafficking.
Now:
Quote:
International adoption removes children from the culture into which they were born.
Not talking abt children being abducted, how much can a child experience and benefit from his/her culture when he/she spends most of the time in an institutional setting and mostly in very poor country, where struggling for necessities pre-empts the life, or in another word, struggling is part of and blackens other aspects of the culture?
Quote:
Often this causes a sense of dislocation as the child grows older because the do not feel fully a part of their adopted culture nor the culture of the country into which they were born. These feelings can be exacerbated by racial or ethnic distinctions.
This is undeniable. However, statistically, most of the IA adopters are American parents. As in the U.S, a truly dynamic, intercultural, interracial society, people come from all corners of the world. And hence, wherever the child come from, it can find itself in the society because it’s not uniquely strange. And if it suffers from discrimination, if any, it is not alone.
It sounds unreasonable to say the discrimination is alleviated if the discriminatee is in a pack. But remember, the situation is changing as black or asian ethnic people are achieving success and gradually gaining status since they are now getting fair access to education. And this access of the adopted children is guaranteed by their parents. The fact is the parents won’t be granted the right to adopt if they can’t afford education for their kids.
On top of that, the kid’s future is more important than any other considerations. And IA option secures a better future for the kids.
Quote:
The high fees that western families are willing to pay for international adoptions leads to a commodification of children. In the eyes of both their birth parents and their adoptive parents children become a financial investment rather than a blessing in their own right. This can also be place undue pressure upon a mother unsure about giving up her child. In Guatemala this has reached such great proportions that adoption of babies is thought to generate $40 million for the country each year.
This is true. But the abandoned children are not the cause of the problem but the weak regulations of poor countries are. Rather, the kids are victims. And for humankind, those children can’t be forced to get a bleak future as a punishment for the crime that they never commit.
Quote:
International adoptions are exceptionally hard to regulate leading to accusations of human trafficking in many parts of the world. In some areas babies are stolen from mothers who had no intention of giving them up. In other areas children are promised an adoptive family but instead forced into the sex trade. By banning international adoption you reduce these risks.
Banning IA may or may not solve the problem, but leave the sympathetic kids in the poorly vulnerable countries while there are thousands of parents ready to give them homes. The poor babies, not stolen for IA, would be stolen for some reasons else such as slavery or sex. The ultimate solution is countries are encouraged to join Hague. IA Agencies are to set up to consult adoption process and educate parents so they won’t be deceived by human traffickers.
Quote:
Many families who adopt from abroad do so because it is quicker and because they do not have to pass all the tests set by domestic adoption agencies (or, indeed because they have taken the tests but been found unsuitable). This often leaves them unprepared for many of the difficulties associated with adoption. Often they have little or no knowledge of the culture of the country their child has come from and they have no support to help them adjust to the medical and behavioural problems that can arise from children with an unsettled early life.
The same solution is applied here: every country is encouraged to follow international regulation such as Hague.
Quote:
A thriving international adoption market fails to encourage states to make adequate provisions for children taken into care. In many cases the worse the condition of a children’s home, the more sympathy and therefore adoptions will be attracted from first world countries. This is particularly problematic for children in foster or temporary care of the state or those, like disabled or HIV-positive children who have a lower chance of being offered an adoptive family.
In certain aspects, choosing a child is parents’ choice. It’s nonsense to ask parents to adopt a HIV-positive baby as same as to ask parents to give birth to a HIV-positive baby. This will cause more pain than good.
|
amanita
Member
|
Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 07:25 pm |
|
| hmmmm i can see both sides to this topic and if anyone would like to debate i would be happy to
|
rocky0512
Member
|
Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 02:00 pm |
|
| Adoption laws in the US tend to be more rigorous and limited than international adoption laws.
|
|
| Login to leave a quick reply or View the full discussion |
|
|
|
