Orphanages & Diamonds: Socioeconomic Status & Adoption

This post is somewhat a continuation from an ongoing discussion that began with the original posts, "The choice to adopt is a luxury choice" and "Response to comments" and also extending from another related and more recent entry, "A reader asks me: Should we adopt?"

And yes, I know this is another dang long post. (It might help to print it out and use it for some light bathroom reading...ha.) But seriously, these issues are so complex and so potentially controversial that I felt it necessary to take the time to attempt to deal with them in detail. I spent a lot of time trying to think through this entry, and yet I still feel as though it is incomplete and in need of even more thought and editing...

Kudos to you if you actually read the whole thing!

Excerpted from a recent report, Families, Not Orphanages, by Better Care Network, which is affiliated with Unicef and USAID (italics are my own emphasis):

"Studies focusing on the reasons for institutional placements consistently reflect that poverty is the driving force behind their placement. For example, a study based on case studies of Sri Lanka, Bulgaria and Moldova found, 'that poverty is a major underlying cause of children being received into institutional care and that such reception into care is a costly, inappropriate and often harmful response to adverse economic circumstances.' Furthermore, the case studies show 'that resources committed to institutions can be more effectively used to combat poverty if provided to alternative, community-based support organizations for children and families.' (p. 7)

* * * Exposing ourselves to differing perspectives

I am first going to revisit and clarify a couple of statements made in the comments section of the original posts, "The choice to adopt is a luxury choice" and "Response to comments." I'm not trying to dig up controversy nor am I looking for a fight nor am I trying to single out any particular individual. I simply want to make sure that I respond to and do not neglect or ignore issues or concerns raised by readers.

A reader wrote in response to the original post ("The choice to adopt..."), "one has to wonder how healthy it is to keep reading [Yoon's Blur]." And yet she also wrote later, "I get frustrated by the implications...that if I don’t come to the exact same conclusions that I’m stopping my ears to someone’s process."

There is a contradiction in these two statements, is there not? Again, I'm not picking on her in particular, but I think there are other AP's and the like who do this very thing. They claim that they are "open" to hearing what adult adoptees have to say, but if an adult adoptee says something that rubs an AP the wrong way or that the AP perceives a certain way, the AP pulls away with reactions like "one has to wonder how healthy it is to keep reading."

The initial statement of "one has to wonder how healthy it is to keep reading" alarmed me such that I felt it necessary to respond by saying, ""I do humbly ask that before you write me off..." I was so surprised that an AP who had been following my blog for a while would have reacted so strongly to my "process," and I felt compelled to try to clarify myself.

When an AP makes a statement like "one has to wonder how healthy it is to keep reading," the AP definitely communicates quite the opposite of the proclamation that you are not "stopping [your] ear's to someone's process."

Again, I'm not trying to be combative or argumentative, and I'm not incriminating anyone (I'm not even certain that the reader to whom I'm referring visits this blog any longer). I'm simply using this as an example to demonstrate a practice, whether subconsciously or consciously, that I have encountered among adoptive parents--the practice of claiming and even believing you're "open" to listening to differing perspectives, and yet when you do encounter perspectives that challenge your own, you ultimately pull away, whether actively or passively, from those who expose you to those differing perspectives.

I address this practice, because I believe that it is detrimental in the long run to both the AP's and their adopted children. We may ultimately have to "agree to disagree" on certain topics or issues, which is inevitable and acceptable. But to react by closing oneself off to those views with which you disagree is counterproductive to understanding the adoption experience as a whole. One day your children will grow to be adults. And then what? What will you do if your adult child comes to similar conclusions or asks similar questions as I and other adult adoptees have and do?

The adoptee life is a process. My views have changed drastically, albeit slowly, over the years as I have matured and as I continue to do the hard work of trying to synthesize all the varying facets of adoption. But I also work very hard to keep my mind and heart open to these varying facets. The list of blogs featured on my blog under "More Blogs and Resources" features a range of adoptee experiences--some that would probably be considered more "adoptive parent friendly" and others that would probably feel "less friendly."

To prevent ending up in an echo chamber and to continue to recognize the complexity of the adoption experience, I think it is crucial to make sure we each make efforts to expose ourselves to experiences and perspectives that differ from our own.

* * * The role of socioeconomic status & adoptive parents in the practice of adoption

The reader to whom I referred above also took issue with some of the statements I made in the original post, specifically the following:

“a practice in which those who live in luxury (relatively-speaking) get to take the children of those who live in poverty”

“we are so quick to take another mother's child and yet slow to help her keep her child. “

“since I live in luxury over here while you live in poverty over there, I should get to raise your child.”

To me, it's painting a subtle picture of adoptive parents as "takers" and birth parents as their victims. I acknowledge that direct abduction of children may be true in some cases. But in the vast majority, adoptive parents have taken children out of orphanages, not out of families.

I hope that folks realize that I'm not accusing adoptive parents of stealing children nor am I creating a narrative in which AP's are the evil villain and birth mothers are the clueless victim. (If you have not read the original post in its entirety, I encourage you to do so for the full context of the above statements.)

I would also hope, however, that folks would be willing to recognize that although many AP's have adopted children out of orphanages or foster care and have not directly removed children from their original families, there is still a role that AP's have played in the complex social system that supports the current practice of [international] adoption. I'm simply hoping and asking that AP's be willing to acknowledge this role that they have played, not as a guilt trip or a confession to wrong, but simply as a fact. Being able to acknowledge this fact is significant, because in order to do so it requires that one must also acknowledge the whole of the social and economic factors and circumstances that surround the current practices of IA.

But ultimately, with an issue as complex as adoption, I think it is often the case that some of us simply have to "agree to disagree," particularly because contrary to what some adoptive parents have communicated over time, I do think socioeconomic status plays a crucial role in the how & why of the adoption process (specifically that it is the rich who are adopting, or "taking," from the poor, that is, in the majority of IA cases). I do believe that many of the birth mothers have been victimized by the larger social and cultural structure and system, whether directly or indirectly, in these situations, along with their children.

I also believe that adoptive parents do play a role in the adoption industry, just as much as social workers & otherwise (As I've stated before, I am not incriminating particular individuals, but rather trying to provoke thought about each of our roles in the adoption system).

Again, the above reader's interpretation of my viewpoint is her own, and I can see how she might misinterpret what I mean. But those who know me personally and have followed my blog from its inception, know that I am not anti-adoption or anti-adoptive parents. Furthermore, when I refer to the "rich taking from the poor," I am not pushing some kind of conspiracy theory, folks. The rich taking from the poor has been going on for ages. This idea just gets touchy when we're no longer talking about simple material resources but when we're suddenly talking about human life (although it's an illusion to think that the two are mutually exclusive).

Again, I'm not implying that somehow we, the rich, are abducting children from the poor, or that those who adopt are evil villains. Rather, I am addressing a complex social system that in very practical and very real ways supports and promotes international adoption more so than it does family preservation. This isn't a subversive attempt to undermine adoptive parents or adoption, but instead it is a clear and honest acknowledgment of the facts. Just do a search for adoption agencies versus organizations that support unwed mothers and family preservation, and the results alone indicate the imbalance of resources and power. (Click here for some telling statistics of what $20,000 - an average estimate of fees & cost for an international adoption - can do toward family preservation...)

As I stated in the previous post, "A reader asks me: Should we adopt?": The truth is that where the money goes is where the people go, and where the people go is where the money goes. Wherever the funds are being funneled is where real, practical support will burgeon. So, if the bulk of the money is going to international adoption, well, that's where the practical support is going to remain. If the people are pouring their resources into international adoption, well, then, the cycle will keep on turning.

It's simply that I think these are truths that are obvious, and quite honestly it puzzles me when AP's resist these truths so ardently: the role of socioeconomic status and the part that AP's play in the adoption system. As Amanda (The Declassified Adoptee) stated, "We see what type of children are demanded and prefered by those looking to adopt, simply by looking at the adoption rates, practices, laws, and costs in all realms of adoption" & "The current state of adoption is a huge reaction to preventable problems. Do I want children to languish in orphanages? No. I want to prevent the need for them to be placed in orphanages in the first place."

Also as quoted by Amanda, "Women in developing nations who place children for adoption abroad usually do so because they are disadvantaged by terrible poverty and/or by the stigma of illegitimacy." --Fisher, A. (2003). Still not quite as good as having your own? Toward a sociology of adoption. Annual Review of Sociology

Why is it so hard to acknowledge that adoptive parents are ultimately, the "takers," the benefactors in the case of adoption? They're certainly not the ones "giving away" in this situation. If you want to get technical, here are some general definitions of the word "take": lay hold of (something) with one's hands; reach for and hold; remove (someone or something) from a particular place; gain or acquire (possession or ownership of something); accept or receive (someone or something)...

Again, according to these definitions, is it not accurate to acknowledge that AP's are the "takers." I don't mean it in a negative, scandalous way, but simply at face value.

Is it so "controversial" because it perhaps puts a crack in the veneer that adoptive parents are the veritable saints because they have committed the ultimate act of charity? Why is it so hard to admit that adoptive parents have benefited from the compromised and disadvantaged situation of another mother? Have not adoptive parents received while another has lost? Why is this so offensive?

Now, for clarity's sake, again, I'm not saying that all AP's and social workers are therefore malicious, evil people who directly and knowingly "steal" children away from their biological families. C'mon, now, I'd have to be equally ignorant to generalize such a claim. (Again, I've said many, many times how much I respect & admire my own parents, while I'm the first to say that the social worker who has helped me over the past decade is a near saint!)

I'm not saying that AP's are wrong for having adopted. I am saying, though, that they are not exactly doing right when they choose to ignore the issues that I'm discussing here in this post and in previous posts. AP's need to be willing to burst their nice, neat adoption bubble for the sake of the children at the mercy of current adoption practices.

Look, I realize that good people with good intentions can work within a broken system--it happens every day. Just as Amanda acknowledged, "Some APs have very good intentions and ethical hearts; I am friends with several of them." But that does not mean they have not played a part, whether ignorantly or knowingly, in perpetuating that which is broken in the adoption system.

I did use some strong, albeit respectful, language in the original post, but I did so to provoke us to think about the very real role we ALL play, and to provoke thought about the assumptions made in American culture (every culture has flaws), particularly when it comes to adoption. ("I don't think the average person realizes how much we can tend to favor our American way of life to the point where we are unable to empathize with another group of people as to how important their way of life and belief systems are to them." The US & the Well Being of Children, at Declassified Adoptee)

Now, as I have tried to make clear previously, I am not saying that I therefore would have preferred to grow up in an orphanage or that we should just let the children currently in orphanages remain there. What I am saying is this: We can address one without letting go of the other. In other words, we can promote social and cultural change in the countries adopting out to decrease the number of children that end up in orphanages in the first place, while we continue to recognize that there are currently children in orphanages who need homes.

With that said, I believe socioeconomic status is an obvious contributing factor that results in children being relinquished for adoption and landing in orphanages, while I also believe that we all play a role. I think it is chosen ignorance--choosing to ignore the facts--to claim that socioeconomic status plays no role whatsoever in international adoption (and it's more complicated that doling out birth control to every woman). I also think it's chosen ignorance to deny the very obvious fact that it is the rich adopting the children of the poor--to say that the demand from couples in wealthy, Western countries has no effect or bearing on current adoption practices is to bury one's head in the sand, to stop one's ears to the truth.

Again, for the record, I know it is complicated. Social culture and economic status are not issues easily remedied--there are complex reasons as to why certain people end up in certain socioeconomic positions. Sometimes, it's personal choices. Sometimes, it's a neglectful, corrupt government. Sometimes, it's a long history of oppression. But most of the time, it's a combination of several factors.

[To make it clear, the term "socioeconomic status" indicates the inclusion of both social and economic factors in an individual's perceived status. For example, a drug dealer may have a high economic status, yet his or her occupation results in a compromised social status--hence overall socioeconomic status is influenced by both social and economic characteristics as determined within a particular culture.]

* * * A helpful analogy: Diamonds & clothing

I think a helpful, although not perfect, analogy can be found in the diamond or clothing industry. If I buy a diamond bracelet I am not directly responsible for the unethical and inhumane practices that were employed to obtain the diamonds.

If I buy clothing from a store that uses child labor and/or sweat shops to manufacture that clothing, again, I am not the one who is directly enslaving the children or workers in those sweat shops.

And I can even tell myself, well, at least these shops are providing money for families that otherwise might starve to death. But such rationalizations do not nullify the fact that the practices employed to make the clothing involve unethical and inhumane working conditions. Even though the meager wages offered may keep a family from starving, I don't think any of us would accept working under such conditions! Just because someone is poor does not justify suboptimal and substandard conditions with the pretense that at least they're not starving to death--that is in fact, taking advantage of their desperation.

In both scenarios, I may not be directly responsible for the circumstances in which the diamonds or clothing were obtained or manufactured, but can I honestly say that my choice to purchase those items plays NO ROLE whatsoever in perpetuating those practices?

If I am to be honest with myself, I must recognize my role--although not direct-- that I have contributed to creating a demand for those specific products. I as one person may not be able to demolish such circumstances or practices alone, but I can still recognize my part and make a small difference by trying to educate others--just think, if everyone were willing to speak out or take a stand, change truly would happen. That's what the Civil Rights Movement was about--individuals took a stand together.

Now of course, it's always complicated. Different folks may choose different roles. Some may choose to buy diamonds but demand to see a "Kimberley report" every time to establish that the diamonds were obtained ethically & humanely. Of course, there are times that the report may be falsified & folks have to again realize their role & the repercussions involved.

Others may choose to never purchase clothes again from that particular store or may choose never to buy diamonds again. Some may start up their own organizations to promote reform and support. Or they may decide to work within existing organizations with the intention of fighting for changes to the current practices to abolish the inhumane & unethical practices.

* * * The assumptions: It's only poor, uneducated teens, and besides, what can I do anyway?

Furthermore, the assumption that it is only poor, uneducated adolescents who end up in situations of being unwed and pregnant is a gross misassumption. My own biological mother was in her early twenties when she became pregnant with me. Unforeseen circumstances rendered my biological father unable to provide for her and for me. Because of Korean social culture, she could not rely on her family nor could she obtain employment or support otherwise.

Also, my husband and I visited a home for unwed pregnant women during our first trip to Korea. There we met a woman, whom I'll call J. She was 30 years old--an intelligent and fully capable adult. In fact before becoming pregnant she had a full-time job and lived on her own. But in Korea, if you become pregnant and are not married, the persecution and ostracism either lead to you being fired or become so unbearable that you are forced out. Unlike in the States, common practice is that employers will not employ unwed pregnant women or single mothers, and often, even when seeking a job, personal information can be demanded, including reference letters from family members specifically, while employers can and often do ask, "Who is the father?"

In the situations of unwed mothers, family has often cast them out, while the father most often has fled and shirked responsibility. And be careful before assuming that these women took part in a one night stand. (Even if that were the case, ostracizing and shutting them out is still not justified--however, quite often a one night stand is not the case.) J, to whom I referred earlier had been in a long-term relationship with her boyfriend. He left her after she became pregnant.

I've also read autobiographical accounts of Korean women being turned away from clinics and hospitals while they were in the midst of labor! If this is not an indication of the social injustice and obstacles set against unwed pregnant women/single mothers and their children, then I don't know what is!

To ignore the role that social culture plays in the ability of an unwed pregnant woman or a single mom to provide for her child is questionable at the least and cruel at most. And even in the cases in which a young, poor, uneducated teen finds herself pregnant and abandoned by the father, this does not somehow mean she deserves to have her child taken away from her or that she deserves to have to give up her child for someone else to raise.

Who are we to assign such judgment to justify ourselves? And for those in particular claiming a Christian faith, it may help to recall John 8 in which the Pharisees dragged out a woman caught in adultery proclaiming she must be stoned, to which Jesus famously replied, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."

And for those who think it's impossible to make a difference? If folks had just shrugged their shoulders and said, "Well, what can I, just one person, do?" when segregation and oppression of the African-American community dominated the social culture of America, or apartheid ruled South Africa, nothing would have ever changed.

You may not be able to move to Korea, as some adult Korean adoptees have chosen to do, to work for social change through the legislature and local community. You may not be able to start up an organization that supports unwed mothers who want to raise their children. You may not be in a place in life that allows you to work within organizations that actively advocate for social and cultural transformation and infrastructure.

But you know what you can do? You can be willing to educate yourself with the humility to acknowledge and embrace the complexities, no matter how unsettling or uncomfortable it makes you, of a system that is flawed and in need of reform. Furthermore, you can also work to educate others, whether in small or large ways.

I promise you, it makes a difference, because ultimately, one by one leads to many. And it can either be the many stacked and overcrowded in an orphanage, or it can be the many who finally get the chance to remain in the arms of the mother who gave them birth and never wanted to say good-bye in the first place.

Response to comments

The following is my response to comments left by a couple of readers after they read my post, "The choice to adopt is a luxury choice" (Yoon Seon). For context, you may want to read the original post & comments first. I realize this is a sensitive topic and one that needs to be handled respectfully and with consideration. I always strive to do so and also hope that others will strive to do the same. (I responded as a blog post simply because it was too long to post in the comment section--I tend to be pretty long-winded...*smilewink*).

* * *

First of all, I just want to say to Kristen & the Richerts, I appreciate your comments & your honesty. I always want my blog to be a place where people can share their emotions & reactions openly & honestly. So, thank you for taking the time to share your perspective. (Also, if you have not already, I would encourage you to read the original posts for further context from which I extracted the opening quotes...)

Second of all, I apologize if you felt personally attacked. That was not my intention! I really made every effort to indicate my intention when I began the post with:

"I by no means incriminate any single individual nor do I place any ill blame on my own parents--I do believe they are truly decent people with sincere and loving hearts, and I am grateful to call them my parents"

Again, I apologize that you felt that way, but please, before you write me off, I humbly ask you to reconsider my viewpoint, because as Jenni expressed, "I feel like I read a different post than either of you."

I do feel grossly misunderstood and vexed because it's as though you somehow gathered the exact opposite of all the points I was trying to make, and instead put your own words in my mouth--words that I have never uttered or implied.

Kristen, you stated that I am creating a narrative "that suggests that adoptive parents are 'taking' children away from birth parents, as opposed to parenting children who have been abandoned, which is usually the case."

Anyone who consistently reads my blog or knows me personally knows such is not my narrative nor my stance.

But for the record, I am not against adoption nor am I out to demonize or incriminate AP's or anyone else for that matter. I just simply believe that all human systems are broken & flawed, whether it's healthcare or the U.S. Welfare system or International adoption, etc., and hence can always be improved upon and ameliorated. This is not an attack but rather a sincere belief that we as humans can strive to grow and improve whether on a smaller personal scale or whether on a larger communal scale as a society or organization.

Adoption happens to be the "system" that is personally related to me, so I often offer up critiques and challenges for improvement, but it does not mean I am attacking AP's or anyone for that matter.

If anything, this post addresses the folly of the agencies & those who may bring children to orphanages in unscrupulous ways:

"the practice of oppression, falsification, deceit, omission, etc. involving the practices in which children are relinquished and obtained for adoption as well as the documentation of so many adoptees' histories and identities prior to being adopted."

(For the sake of full disclosure, so you understand my personal experience & context--since reuniting with my biological parents, I have discovered that my own adoption paperwork was falsified while information was also withheld from me. And my birth mother did not "abandon" me as was stated in my paperwork, and hence I was technically not a "legal orphan." Her sister is the one who took me to the orphanage and gave me up in secret without consulting my birth father, whom had every plan to raise me...and as I stated in the original post, "My own biological mother has stated that had she had the resources that are available today, she would have chosen to keep me."--this is all too common in Korean adoption...so, you see, indeed adoption is complicated...)

I did not "implicate" or "imply" responsibility on the part of adoptive parents whatsoever, but rather gave honor and respect to my own parents:

"I do believe they are truly decent people with sincere and loving hearts, and I am grateful to call them my parents" and "whom I love and don't want to imagine my life without"...

I know both of you have read my blog before. Although, I don't know how consistently or regularly you visit, but anyone who has followed my blog consistently or knows me personally, knows that I am not out to rage against adoptive parents or anyone for that matter. It's situations like this when I wish I could just pull up a chair with you & have a face-to-face conversation so that you'd be able to realize that I am not out to threaten or demonize anyone...

And honestly, Kristen, when you wrote to me, "but you seem to be presenting a narrative of adoptive parents 'taking' children from willing first parents"

AND

"...when we are subtly implicated by some as the cause of our child's tragic seperation from their birth family..." I feel completely misread.

Again, I did not say or imply such conclusions in this post or in any of my other posts. If you've ever gathered that, then you are misinterpreting & misunderstanding me completely.

In fact, to reiterate yet again, I wrote:

"I by no means incriminate any single individual nor do I place any ill blame on my own parents--I do believe they are truly decent people with sincere and loving hearts, and I am grateful to call them my parents"

AND

"As I wrote, "Again, this is no reflection on my American parents whom I love and don't want to imagine my life without, but it conveys the reality of how convoluted these adoption situations remain."

I think you heard the exact opposite of the point I was making...I was emphasizing that I don't blame my parents - who are "adoptive" parents but rather that I love them & appreciate them. It does make me feel grossly misunderstood, as though you didn't actually read what I wrote.

Kristen also wrote, "To imply that it is adoption that continues child abandonment is a bit simplistic."

Did I write that? Did I "imply" that? Again, I'm sorry if that's what you interpreted, but I know that's not what I was saying. And I know that's not what I think. And honestly, I did not and have never said anything close to that. Again, most folks who consistently follow my blog know how often I acknowledge how complicated adoption is, while I acknowledged it clearly in this post, particularly when I stated:

"I understand that some of the prohibitions involve cultural stigmas and practices that must also be overcome..."

AND

"Look, I know it's complicated, believe me, I know"

I think these statements clearly address the fact that I recognize, to state just a few, the complexities of adoption, and that it is not so simple. And I have several posts (click here & here & here & here & here, for just a few) that acknowledge in greater detail the emotional & social complexities of adoption.

And just for clarity, people can affect change. There is actually a country where things used to be very similar to the staunch cultural stigmas & pressures that exist in Korea and otherwise, but social change & reform eventually allowed birth mothers to have more of a choice. What country? The United States of America. Back in the 1950's, America was not so unlike Korea when dealing with unwed pregnant women. If you don't believe me, read the book, "The Adoption Reader" that includes autobiographical accounts written by American birth mothers, some whom gave up their children in the 1950's.

And Richerts, as far as the classic, "would you have rather grown up in an orphanage?" I think anyone & everyone knows the answer to that. It's an obvious question with an obvious answer. And again in this post, I think it should be clear what I meant when I wrote:

"There needs to be more of a willingness to give our resources toward family preservation when such is possible."

Notice that I stated, "when such is possible." This statement acknowledges that I understand that there are situations when it is not possible

AND

"...my American parents whom I love and don't want to imagine my life without..." which in my mind communicates how grateful I am for my parents and how much I love them, and how much I am glad that I did not grow up in an orphanage. (In many ways, it's crazy that I should even have to clarify this, and that anyone would think that I, myself would have rather grown up in an orphanage or that I would want any other child to grow up in an orphanage...as I have expressed before in previous posts, my current stance is this: family preservation first, domestic adoption second, IA third, and orphanage or institution last...).

...So again, I really do think Richerts & Kristen you really somehow did not actually read what I wrote, whether by mistake or simply by skimming my post rather than reading it word for word...and you also did not consider my blog as a whole, which is a complex narrative that wrestles and struggles with trying to consider all the sides of the adoption experience...

As far as special needs, and in particular medical needs, there are some organizations that I am personally familiar with including "Smile Train" and the "Unity Medical Fund". These nonprofits provide medical treatment, such as free cleft lip & palate surgeries among other services, to families that otherwise would not have any hope of receiving such medical attention. River Kids is another organization that works specifically toward family & community preservation.

But again, as I indicated, I realize that it is complicated, and financial resources are not the only prohibitions to family preservation: "I understand that some of the prohibitions involve cultural stigmas and practices that must also be overcome..."

Again, Kristen & Richerts & all other readers, I welcome your comments & input. I simply ask that you show me the same patience and forbearance, the same open mind and heart that I strive to give to you by putting my heart on the line every time I share my thoughts and emotions through this blog. It's not easy for me to put my heart out there--it's vulnerable and frightening, but I choose to do so because I think in the long run it can be productive and fruitful not only for my own journey but also for that of readers.

Kristen, you wrote in reference to my blog posts, "one has to wonder how healthy it is to keep reading." I do humbly ask that before you write me off, that you bear with me patiently and with care as I try to work through the realities that I must face as an adoptee. It is overwhelming to try to process ALL the sides and viewpoints and complexities of adoption, but I want to take the time, which is really a lifelong period, to have a balanced perspective that takes into consideration all the various experiences and realities.

I realize this is a difficult subject that evokes intense emotion & reaction, even as I wrote:

"It took me a long time--and I still wrestle with it today--"

As we gain more knowledge & understanding along the way, we need not paint one another into a corner. This is a hard and complex journey, and I can't do it alone. Your own children will be adults like I am one day, and they may at some point need the support & patience to be able to work through similar issues & realities, similar realizations & conflicts, without feeling as though words are being put into their mouths or that what they're currently wrestling with is somehow unacceptable or wrong, but rather to be able to do so with honesty and openness.

We as adoptees need to feel as though those around us have the patience & willingness to bear with us as we face the realities of each of our situations, just as adoptive parents & social workers & others who work within the system desire to have (and yes, even though a system can be broken, I acknowledge that there are still many good people who try to work within that system...my parents included). It's just that we can never think that we have "arrived," whether we are parents or adoptees, because adoption is an evolving process. The minute we think we've got it all figured out is the minute we become stagnant and inadvertently close our minds and hearts to truth and change...

Again, I know adoption is complicated. If anyone knows, I know. Please, just bear with me and understand that I'm doing the best I can to try to synthesize all those inherent complexities.

Furthermore, unfortunately, unethical practices do still persist in IA--that's why ongoing discussion and change is always needed. We just can't ever grow complacent.

You're right that we can't do it all, but we shouldn't shut those out who are trying to honestly discuss the flaws of the system. Countries like Korea and Ethiopia still have not signed onto the Hague, and yet these are some of the most active adopting-out countries...

Also, I have never said that adoptive parents are responsible for severing biological families and if you have consistently read my blog, I have always honored & respected & expressed my love & gratitude for my own "adoptive" parents (I don't even like to call them my adoptive parents in the same way that I don't like calling my "birth" parents my birth parents, but that's a whole other topic...). I simply believe that the system is broken and that the current dynamic is not particularly conducive or supportive to family preservation, simply because so few resources and so little infrastructure are given to foster perserveration.

And again, I mean no disrespect, and I would hope that you would all know that by now...I work very hard to keep my blog a place where I and other can be vulnerable and where everyone can share their input and perspective. We may not always see eye to eye, but I hope that we will always work to be open and caring toward one another, because like you, it is maddening that so much division and misunderstanding exist within the discussion of adoption.

That's all I want--simply a healthy, honest, considerate discussion that hopefully in the long run will cultivate change both on the individual and systemic level.

Oh, and just one more thing, Kristen, my intention is never to "insult adoption," but simply to provide a healthy, constructive critique and to raise awareness, because it's still needed. You would be surprised at the level of ignorance and "savior mentalities, or whatever description du jour..." actually persists even today. It's fortunate that you seem to be surrounded by folks who don't think that way, but I and other fellow adoptees, continue to encounter our fair share of folks who are clueless (read, "The Boy in the Stroller" or you can watch, "First Person Plural" for just a couple of examples...). I'm glad that you don't have to encounter such reactions...I, on the other hand, have to learn to cope with and understand such viewpoints so that I can address them respectfully and yet with the hope that they can change...

Best to all of you.

"The choice to adopt is a luxury choice" (Yoon Seon)

For most adoptive parents, the choice to adopt is a luxury choice...No matter how you put it, adoptive parents have benefited from the lack of choice available to mothers in dire straits and desperate situations. Adoptive parents have taken advantage of the fact that someone else has not had the luxury to choose." Yoon Seon

“Adoption mostly happens because of lack of freedom of choice.” Mei-Ling

"If Christians wish to focus on adopting as a way to give back then they need to adopt the entire family - not just the child - no Christian should be purposely severing the biological link that God created...God told them to care for all humanity...not just the little ones..." Sandy, adoptive mom (click here for another related post by an adoptive parent blogger with a Christian background)

“...the current culture places a high value on material wealth that results in discounting the emotional costs to the birth mother and family that are often found to be faulty valuations” Tad W as quoted by Mei-Ling

(you can click on any of the names of those quoted, and the links will take you to the original posts)

* * *

[Note: When I blog about "adoption," I am most often referring to international adoption because that is my personal point of reference and experience.]

I encourage you to read the entire blog entries from which I extracted the above quotes (if you click on the name of the one quoted, it will take you to the original posts).

If I am going to say anything, I think the above statements should provoke all of us who are connected to adoption to think more deeply about the complexities of the circumstances that result in the ongoing practice (industry) of modern adoption.

I by no means incriminate any single individual nor do I place any ill blame on my own parents--I do believe they are truly decent people with sincere and loving hearts, and I am grateful to call them my parents (not all adoptees can say such, however, and their voices and experiences provide valuable insight and truth regarding the realities of adoption).

The truth is that the practice of adoption as it exists today is not simply the happy, selfless act of charity that it is so often lauded to be. It is in it's current state, a practice in which those who live in luxury (relatively-speaking) get to take the children of those who live in poverty. Bare bones, no sugary coating, that's the facts, people. And when I say luxury, I not only mean material luxury, I also mean social and cultural luxury. The luxury of choice is indeed a sociocultural luxury that many in the world do not have.

It took me a long time--and I still wrestle with it today--to recognize the truth that the practice of adoption is indeed an industry from which many profit monetarily; and hence, this profit factor perpetuates the practice of oppression, falsification, deceit, omission, etc. involving the practices in which children are relinquished and obtained for adoption as well as the documentation of so many adoptees' histories and identities prior to being adopted. (If you have spent any amount of time reading adult adoptee blogs, particularly of those who are searching or have searched for their biological families, you know I'm not making this stuff up to prove a point. You know that it's true. Even in my own experience, these practices played a role.)

So often, to support the current practices of adoption, I hear people say that every child needs, deserves a family to love them. I, of course, don't disagree with this.

And yet there is a hypocrisy I sense in America when people repeat this over and over to me.

They say love is enough, and yet it really isn't, because there is a contingency, a qualification to what is meant by "love." As quoted above by Tad, our American culture seems to equate love with the practical ability to provide material things and "higher" education. In other words, money and education become synonymous with love, because American culture places a higher value on financial wealth and education over family preservation. The so-called "love" that so many claim to believe in is nothing more than a cover for saying that material wealth is the superior determining factor as to whether a mother (or family) is fit to care for her own child.

It is true that a mother needs financial resources to provide basic needs for her child. But if those resources are made available, and she has the love and the desire to preserve her family, why should she not be able to do so? Why should a lack of material wealth deem her as unworthy or unfit to do so? There are so many mothers, who if they had the resources, would choose to raise their own child. I understand that some of the prohibitions involve cultural stigmas and practices that must also be overcome, but culture doesn't change if people are not willing to pioneer the needed changes. And again, the luxury of choice remains relevant.

As Sandy is quoted above, we are so quick to take another mother's child and yet slow to help her keep her child. I believe we need not be so assuming to think that we know what is best for another mother's child. There needs to be more of a willingness to give our resources toward family preservation when such is possible.

And as Yoon Seon and Mei-Ling expressed, their is a lack of choice on the part of the original mothers. If circumstances are provided in which they actually have a real choice, and they so choose to relinquish their child, well, that's a whole other topic of discussion. But if they choose to relinquish their child because they think that their simple love is not enough nor worthy because they don't have material wealth, but rather a richer, more educated family is what will be better? Something is wrong with the value system--and when people say "love is enough," they don't really mean it. They mean my love is enough, and hers is not. They mean, since I live in luxury over here while you live in poverty over there, I should get to raise your child.

My own biological mother has stated that had she had the resources that are available today, she would have chosen to keep me. Who knows if she really would have chosen so. But after having to live for 30+ years with the emotional and social consequences of her choice to relinquish me, I don't believe she makes such a concession lightly. Again, this is no reflection on my American parents whom I love and don't want to imagine my life without, but it conveys the reality of how convoluted these adoption situations remain.

Look, I know it's complicated, believe me, I know.

But it's not so complicated that we cannot know the truth, and it's not so complicated that we cannot begin to do something about it.

* * *

[For a follow-up post in response to readers' comments, click here]