You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘adoption ethics’ category.

There is an article in the NY Times today:

New Policy Permits Asylum for Battered Women

So in a somewhat tragic turn of affairs, I did not know about this case, nor did I follow it as it was coming down the line for a decision. I used to follow these issues, closely. It’s kind of a mini-sign of how much my life has changed in the last 5-6 years that I had to read about this – and *not* known about the W administration’s stance on it – until I read the NYT.

Anyway, the article made me think about something that DB and I talk about all the time.

There are *so* *many* people who want to come to this country.

I mean, I am not pro-Bush by any stretch, but I can’t imagine that after reading her case, anyone in the Bush administration was untouched by this woman’s story. Her story is sickening. It is every woman’s nightmare in a country where everyone else turned a deaf ear and blind eye – and she, unlike countless other women, actually tried to get help…and was turned down. By everyone.

No, the reason this is a major departure from the Bush Administration – the reason that the Bush Administration denied classifying this woman as needing political asylum – is that it might open the floodgates, so to speak, of millions (yes, probably millions) of women in similar situations.

And now we’ve done it.

Hallelujah!

So I got to thinking: I’ve been trying to figure out how best to say this, and I haven’t really had the ability to frame this message in anything other than a straight-up “This is bad because…” or “This is good because…” in quite some time; I’ve been busy. But I have been very involved in adoption issues for a while, despite not having adopted (we seem to be on the long-ass time horizon for that one) and recently, I’ve gotten more involved. So here is my message:

Yes, there are people lining up to come into America.

Yes, there are people who came here, who *are* here, who maybe came to these shores not-so-legally.

But just because *they* want to come here, doesn’t mean that *everyone* wants to come here.

That is an important point. Think about it. I assume Tahiti (I know nothing about Tahiti) is a fabulous paradise place, but WHAT IF you don’t want to go to Tahiti? Should we just assume that because TAHITI *might be* great for you, you should move there? Immediately? Become a Tahitian?

No.

And if you ended up in Tahiti, and really, you were more of a snow-bunny-type, or something (go with me here, people), would you want to lose every aspect of your identity as an American in your move to Tahiti? If you *moved* to Tahiti, would you want documents saying that you were born a Tahitian, not an American?

Probably not.

And more than that, it would be a lie. You were born an American, on U.S. soil, whether you liked it here or not. And you moved to Tahiti, and became a naturalized Tahitian, because *that* is what happened.

That is the truth.

There are two adoption-related bills proposed in Congress. I believe – and I know others believe – that they more harm international adoption than they help. They are a threat to transparent, ethical adoption.

They assume that *every* kid wants to be a Tahitian. Or an American.

So to speak.

The first bill is the FACE Act, or HR 3110/S 1359. This act conveys citizenship to children adopted overseas retroactive to birth. It eliminates the visa process, so there is very little investigative clout to investigate whether a child referred for adoption is actually legally freed for adoption. By the time this investigation takes place, it is potentially already too late: the child is adopted, the legal child of American citizens, and there is considerable political will to approve such a petition – and this time, it is not for a visa, but for a passport.

Citizenship conferred retroactive to birth means that adoptees might not be able to seek dual citizenship when they are older. As infants or toddlers – they will relinquish the right to own land in their birth country.

Actually, that right will be relinquished for them. By this bill.

It is cutting off ties to birth culture and country which are meaningful, and important, and possibly the only thing the adoptee has in leaving his/her birth country.

(Remember: Tahiti. Leaving America for Tahiti. You are from Alaska. And now we’re saying that you can’t even go back and own property in Alaska when you are old enough to decide that for yourself.)

And really, the truth is that the FACE Act, if enacted, will slow down the process of adoption for prospective parents: I think I can speak to this in a very personal way. DB works for the federal government. To change pieces of paper around, and move staff around from one office to the other (moving people from one government body to the other, to meet the requirements of this law) (don’t ask me how I know this) – but to CHANGE PIECES OF PAPER, do you know how long it takes?

MONTHS, people. MONTHS.

The process will take MONTHS to sort out.

The government is *not* *slick*.

Bill 2: The Families for Orphans Act (HR 3070; I don’t know what the bill number is in the Senate yet)

(I really should have thought more about which tropical island I used in this analogy. Is Tahiti a nice place? If it’s not, take this to mean: I meant that Tahiti was a glorious, paradise-like place. 365/24/7. OK?)

This bill *sounds* good. I’ll give it that. It really does *sound* phenomenal.

But it isn’t.

It stipulates that foreign countries can have American debt relief and foreign aid IF THEY ACQUIESCE to having an international adoption program.

(There is already significant aid that accompanies any international adoption program. Do we really need to provide incentives to sending countries?)

In fact, it mirrors another existing bill (PL-109-95) whose mandate *is* finding permanent placements for kids in need of them. PL 109-95 is required to provide yearly report to Congress on the state of USG children’s programs.

PL 109-95 is unfunded.

PL 109-95 does not explicitly delineate inter-country adoption as an option for kids in need of homes.

FFOA does.

And although FFOA proponents will say that this is *not* an adoption bill, really?

Since it mirrors the PL 109-95 so nicely, save for the requirement that countries open up for adoption?

It is.

And it should not be. America should not be the child welfare police of the world. In fact, what status do WE have in telling other countries how to treat their children?!?

We haven’t even ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child!

Who on EARTH would want to listen to us? And why should they?!?

And why can’t we work with other countries in formulating a culturally relevant, child welfare plan…a la PL 109-95?

So here, I leave you with this thought:

Tahiti may be fabulous, and you may never ever want to leave.

America may really suck, and you might want to get the hell out of Dodge to escape it.

But *you*, my friends, are old enough to speak up. Ditto the women seeking asylum trying to come into this country: old enough to make decisions about where to live, when to move, and how to do it (or at least old enough to verbalize the choice).

Young adoptees: not so much.

Don’t we owe it to them to not assume one country is *better* than the other? To assume that they are here, we are going to do the very best for them, and we are going to advocate, advocate, advocate to retain *all* of their rights? To say, “We are going to work our butts off to ensure that you are considered an American citizen the moment you touch American soil, but we are still going to celebrate your first heritage. Your first national allegiance. We want to celebrate the culture and the family from which you emerged”?

To ensure that their birth culture is appreciated and respected? Ie, acknowledge that America might have some challenges, but Tahiti has other challenges, too? Neither is one “better” or “worse”, necessarily, but different.

Yes, I thought so.

For more information, you can go to Ethica.

And if you agree with me, please, please speak up. Join the Facebook group (linked on the Ethica website). Write your congressional representatives. Share your concerns with them.

Talk to them about Tahiti.

Advertisements

I have 17 minutes to write, and the topic I’m going to try to cover is a lot bigger than that.

So I am getting more and more ballsy about commenting on people’s blogs, which I think is a Good Thing because then I am less like a stalker and more like a normal Internet geek, and I think the Internet geek label, while TOTALLY nerdy, is a healthier option. As long as I can maintain NORMAL social interactions (ha!) I figure it’s okay, right?

Right.

Anyway.

Today I commented on a blog post on a blog that I recently found – or, actually, someone “found” for me and suggested it – through a comment on a blog owned by a friend of the friend who “found” the new blog for me? Confusing? Yeah. So anyway, the post on the blog that my friend found was a fascinating, yeah, YOU! post about how Christians don’t have to vote for Republicans, and needless to say, I was giddy with excitement and, after clicking through her blog on some other topics, immediately linked that blog to my Reader. Which means that, voila, I became a total stalker. It’s that freakin’ easy.

(It is my new resolution to not stalk. If I have nothing to say, take the person off of Google Reader. I am telling all of you this so that you can ask me about it later, k? This morning I got the nerve up to comment on someone’s blog and I realized it became INVITED PEOPLE ONLY and because I haven’t commented, she has no clue who I am, but I WANT TO KNOW HOW SHE IS DOING! So moron me, huh? Note to self: COMMENT!)

Back to my point. If you are following me on this one, congratulations. Please keep going because it’s something I’ve been wondering about.

So this person also has adopted several children (I cannot figure out how many – several) through potentially international adoption and definitely foster-to-adopt, and some of her kids have RAD, which terrifies me to no end, but alas, knowing several people who are getting through it means that it is less scary to me, except that when I am not thinking about it my mind immediately reverts back to the images in my head of my teenage sex offender clients who also had RAD. (Note to self, again: anecdotal experience makes for TERRIBLE RESEARCH.) Basically, what I’m saying is, this person is a blogger I can learn a lot from, which is really why we follow blogs anyway, right? (or because we’re voyeurs. I can admit it. There is something alluring to learning about other people’s lives, right…it’s INTERESTING! But I will say that my Reader is filled with blogs from people who have something in common with me, although maybe they don’t know it.)

Anywhoo. I am getting to the point.

She wrote a post about adoption. It was an interesting, well-written post (much unlike this one). (The blog is linked above, but I don’t want to link to the post because I don’t want it to track back and I don’t know how to turn that off! Can we say INCOMPETENT much?)

So let’s talk about what it said, and what I said.

It said, very eloquently, “Ask God seriously if He wants you to adopt. Be honest. There are lots of children in the world who need you to adopt.”

And about a year ago, I would have been, like, “Oh, yeah!”

And now, Jaded Me says, “Oh, NO.”

So I wrote a comment. It says, “well, I think we need parents to complete ETHICAL adoptions. But not simply adoptions.” And I gave the Brandeis website, because it is really eye-opening and although I know for a fact that one of the statements on the website for VN is totally false, it is still generally well-supported and therefore a good starting point for learning about the world of international adoption.

But here is my question, or my thought. It’s taken me a while to get here because I just don’t know how to say this.

As a wannabe PAP, who has not had the stomach to move into the world of adoption and feel comfortable with it yet (ethical considerations, not parenting/financial/space ones), am I allowed to have opinions about adoption, or the ethics of adoption? Recently I’ve begun to think that if we adopt from ANYwhere we are fueling a world economy for orphans that simply shouldn’t exist. If we adopt from an ethical program, we are still contributing to a rising demand for children. One of my biggest problems is balancing the sheer volume of money (breathtaking) to adopt with the notion that, if given to a family who is relinquishing a child for purely economic reasons, could keep that family together. That is heartwrenching to me.

I hesitate to write this because I don’t want to sound like I am judging. I’m really not. I am grappling with this, and I know it’s not a new topic at all.

(I also have issues with Christians who see adoption as an answer to the problem of orphans. (The above-mentioned blogger is not someone like that at ALL. But there are others out there.) It’s not, and it’s frankly insulting. I kind of see kids as an inherently selfish pursuit, at least at the outset (not exactly the parenting part, though. Then it becomes selfless). But I feel like we get into a danger zone when we start to say that we’re “saving” kids.)

The issue I’m having now is that we haven’t adopted and we don’t even have a dossier ready. Someone from one of the Vietnam lists I’m on once told me I don’t know what the hell I’m talking about because I’ve never been in an orphanage (I think I’ve posted to that list a total of 4 times; this was in response to ONE of those posts); I hotly replied that actually, yes, yes, yes, I have, and I’ve played with the kids and hung out with the kids and seen the meals prepared for the foreigners (orphanage volunteers) and the meals prepared for the kids (different meals. No kidding). I’ve seen an orphanage in Cambodia, which actually was quite nice (although there was a lot of drama surrounding that trip, so perhaps that was the super nice orphanage for us. I’m not sure). So I *get* it.

But do I?

The problem is that perhaps I/we don’t really get it, because we don’t have a child from there. Or that we DO get it, because we aren’t blinded by desire and are simply looking at the facts of the situation: I/we don’t have the money on the line (yet) and we aren’t standing, faced with an incredible decision about ethics vs. the insane desire to parent (which I am experiencing now and will NEVER IN A MILLION YEARS question. Holy hell, this urge to parent is insane). But I’m not really talking about the conditions in orphanages, or the conditions of the children once they depart, and proponents of not talking about ethics say that THAT is what I’m missing: it’s about the children, they say. Kids should never suffer.

But do the ends (getting kids out of orphanages) justify the means (overlooking greed, corruption, and a ramped-up market economy for humans)?

Our friends walked away from an adoption in Vietnam prior to the first shutdown, when faced with an unethical prospect. I hope and pray that we’d have the strength to do the same, if necessary.

At the same time, I totally believe that there CAN be ethical adoptions, and I know there are kids who need homes – but then I begin to wonder: does that simply drive the unethical ones, too?

And do I have any right to have an opinion on these things?

And do people without money on the line really have a voice?

Or maybe I do. But I don’t.

I am so conflicted again.

A few weeks ago, Foreign Policy published a paper on international adoption. I believe you can read the full text of the article on Cindy LaJoy’s blog here. (She has a very thoughtful discussion on it afterward, as well.)  It was also posted in its entirety on AAR, against copyright protection. Alas. I think FP makes good money on its other articles that do not generate such vigorous discussion.

She asked some good questions on the Kyrgyzstan adoption yahoo! group. (Yes, I am a member of that group.) Unlike many of the other country-specific yahoo! groups, the Kyrg list is uncontrolled and anyone (agencies, anyone) has access to it. I haven’t talked about this much before, but as far as I can see, this has a huge impact on the character and tone of the list: on one hand, everyone can read the things that are published, so *no one* challenges, disputes, or offers any negative reports of agency or program practices on the list. This is not a good thing – people should have access to full information on an agency before signing on with it (simply look at Project Oz, Commonwealth Adoptions, or Mai-Ly LaTrace for google-able terms to see how rogue agencies can be).

On the other hand, people are REALLY CIVIL! Seriously! Everyone is so nice to each other! After spending so much time on the VN and Thai adopt lists, this is just so, so, so refreshing. I originally thought that it was because the people who adopt from Kyrg are just nicer people :), which may actually be the case, but I also think, to some extent, it is because it is a much more public forum – and the people on the list actually do meet each other face to face. Hey – I’ll take it. It made me really psyched to adopt from Kyrg – although that is *not* a good reason to pick a country, it *was*/*is* a good reason to stay – having a tight, supportive community is priceless (OK, at least, I think it is. APs? Correct me?).

I sound like I have actually adopted a child. How sad that I haven’t.

It is because I haven’t that I have these opinions – and because I have these opinions, we haven’t adopted. Yes, a catch-22. If anyone has a good solution, let me know. Even U.S. domestic open adoption isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.

When I first started calling agencies to ask about a Kyrg adoption, my very first concern was how on Earth they could possibly have so many very young babies available. Let’s be honest: the younger the baby, the less likely it is that the birth parent had the chance to change her mind, and the availability of MANY very young babies might potentially signal corrupt practices. Kyrg had the youngest babies in the world available – by the director’s own admission. So I asked if he was familiar with the cases of other country’s program meltdowns.

He said “no, we don’t operate there – so why should I?”

And that made me nervous. Because even if you DON’T operate there, you should know which structural components of the failed program caused it to fail. The MOU did not just crumple between the U.S. and Viet Nam. Specific, structural things created a situation where it could not succeed.

So when the FP article came out, with its charges that not all babies available for adoption are orphans and there are situations where adoption amounts to trafficking, I expected that people would get upset – but I hoped that people would investigate the claims themselves. I felt that the ensuing discussion on AAR (whose membership is very controlled) was productive. There were certainly those who did not support the article and questioned its claims – that is the prerogative of every reader, of course.

But I am now a little shocked at those on the Kyrg group who wholesale shut down the article as poor research, poor writing, and claimed not to finish reading it.

Because there are people – real, live, people – on all three sides of this triad. There are adoptive parents who are caught in the Guatemala and VN adoption process who lose money, time, and for whom this adoption process causes considerable heartache.

There are birthparents who lose children to a sometimes-poorly controlled system. Who are sometimes illiterate and do not realize they are relinquishing their child for international adoption.

And there are children who do not choose to be moved from one country to another. Who lose a culture as they gain another. Who might lose the only thing they have at birth: their identity. Who are trusting us – their birthparents, adoptive parents, placing agencies, governments – because they do not have any power in this relationship.

I’ve said it once, and I will say it one more time. Adopted children do not come out of a vacuum. They do not appear out of thin air. They have biological parents, and if we had a system to ensure that all children available for adoption were there because their parents chose to place them, that is one thing.

But we do not have that system.

And therefore it is ESSENTIAL be sure that P/APs do everything in their power to complete an ethical adoption. To stay apprised of developing stories. To read things that we might not even want to read. That we might think are horse$hit. If you think an article is stupid, baseless, worthless, fine – read it, evaluate it, and store it in your brain in the category of “things I’ve heard, considered, and do not believe are worth my time” – but do not simply NOT read it.

I think we owe it to our children.

P.S. Yes, aware of possible lambasting. Keep it civil, please, although you are ENCOURAGED to disagree with me (civilly).

PPS. No, I don’t think reading that woman’s book is necessary, though. Readers of VVAI know what I am talking about. Perhaps her book is good, but her approach is not.

PPPS – Domestic open adoption? I read lots of birthmother blogs.

Now THAT is a great title, is it not?

Yesterday was a very productive day: Little got groomed (always a logistical challenge given my schedule), I got a haircut (a very rare event – no joke – I cut it short just about annually. I held back a little this time around because I’m in a wedding in a month and longer hair is easier to deal with), I got my orgo test back (I did well! Yay! Thanks, hrohor!), and…

We committed to a country (ok, that was a little while ago)

and…

I called an adoption agency!!!!!!!!!!!

This last point is Big News in the world of Rachel and DB. We officially started our process of being parents. Eeek! Scary! Hello, grown-up world. We’re very pleased to meet you! (Sorry we took so long to get here!)

Now, perhaps I screwed up the process, but hey, I am just congratulating myself about starting (when you have debated something so much, every little step is something to be celebrated). I called the agency we wanted to use first. Perhaps, given my minor obsession with topics that may or may not be topics of major concern to most adoptive parents, I should have started with an agency that I didn’t want to hire, so I could practice first. Oh well. (It is kind of scary. Like a job interview only kind of reversed but not exactly. Like a first date. OK, not really that, either. Something, though. Something definitely scary.)

Before I go into it, I have a question. Why is it that people get so excited about agencies spending a long time to talk to them? We are potential sources of a *lot* of money. Of course they should answer my questions! If someone could answer that for me I would be really thrilled.

OK, here we go:

Sample of conversation:

Dude: So do you want to adopt a boy or a girl?

Me: It doesn’t matter. We don’t care. (Clear throat and backtrack. I am passionate about adoption ethics but not the most PC person in the world, to my own chagrin.) I mean, we care, but we don’t believe in specifying.

Dude: Uh-huh. (Not an encouraging uh-huh, but an “uh-huh” that suggests confusion.)

Me: Yeah, see, we see this as a pregnancy, and we can’t choose our gender in pregnancy, so we don’t want to state a preference.

Dude: Well, we are not accepting applications for infant girls at this time.

Me: Well, I guess that’s one way of making THAT decision.

We also discussed Vietnam, methods of referral, baby houses, where babies come from (no, not THAT place), birthparents, and fetal alcohol syndrome. And FAS in Muslim countries, as in, is it likely to be seen often? (The true answer, according to my research: yes, of course it’s possible. His answer: it’s unlikely, cause of the tenets of Islam). So, some reflections/questions about our conversation….I didn’t end it feeling super warm and fuzzy, which is okay, but I thought perhaps there are some of those people out there that have adopted and can speak to some of my more neurotic questions:

1) I talked at length about the aspects of the Vietnam adoption system that concerned me most with respect to ethics (ie, the actual structure of the system that lends itself to fraud). He stated that he was not aware of the specifics surrounding the Vietnam shutdown since his agency does not have a program in Vietnam. I found that odd, given that I think it offers some salient tips for how to *avoid* fraud and corruption in other economically compromised settings. Is that fair to expect? (I am asking this in earnest.)

2) I asked him about how they could have referrals of such young infants. He stated that they begin to receive referrals from hospitals; they did that because infants were being abandoned and failing to survive so this was the best way to save the lives of abandoned infants. I looked up the infant mortality rate of Kyrgyzstan, and indeed, it appears high (just below that of Bangladesh according to the WHO). But then I asked what happened if, say, the birthmother returned and wanted to parent her child – would she be required to repay the hospital bill? Would she be allowed to recover her child? He said he’d never heard of that happening (that the biological mother would return for her child).

See, call me a skeptic, and I know I haven’t been pregnant and I haven’t adopted and I am pretty much a neophyte at this whole thing, but pregnancy hormones are a pretty potent force, so I’ve heard. And I can imagine a post-partum woman doing very drastic things in the context of poverty, including relinquishing or abandoning her baby. Again, as I’ve said many times, we cannot have any idea what it is like to be in that situation. It is impossible for us to know.

SO…my second question – am I being TOO skeptical? Tell me. I can take it. Actually, I would love to know that my skepticism is too rampant.

3) I asked about Fetal Alcohol Syndrome; he said that the prevalence of FAS was minimal because Kyrgyzstan is a Muslim country. Except, see, there are lots of brands of Islam, and there are lots of ways to implement an Islamic lifestyle, and Kyrgyzstan is a former Soviet Republic, and the USSR certainly did not curtail imbibing. For sure, Russia still loves its booze (as evidenced by DB, who demonstrated his total inability to keep pace with the local culture of toasting when he was in Moscow on a business trip. He called me after said toasting session, clearly more than a little bit out of it. Yes, for sure, vodka use is not discouraged). So I don’t know. Not that we wouldn’t adopt from an area where FAS is a problem – I just want to know. Plus, really, let’s be honest. Some people who relinquish babies for adoption got pregnant unintentionally and out of wedlock and against the strict teachings of their culture*** (ie, one of the highest teenage pregnancy rates in this country is among evangelical Christians…). It is not unreasonable to think that, perhaps, premarital sex was not the only instruction to which they did not adhere (I put stars above but just to reiterate – PLEASE SEE COMMENT BELOW). And not everyone is Muslim in a Muslim country. At any rate, I view any explanation that is paired with a religious belief (particularly one that is quite diverse) with suspicion.

Reasonable? Too harsh?

In all honesty, I was so excited about this conversation because it represented some progress – we are going somewhere with this. YIPPEEEEEE!!

But I have to say, too, that I am so fearful of adopting a child whose biological/birth/first parents did not fully relinquish him/her (I guess him, since apparently when one does not choose the choice is made). I am so fearful that there was coercion in the process. I am so fearful that the parents of the child we adopt had no idea that *their* child, *our* child, was heading to America.

I am so fearful that I think I am beginning to prioritize (in my head) the rights of the birthparents over the rights of the child.

They are so intimately linked.

When I started to become so passionate about this topic, these issues were tightly bound in my mind. I do not believe that it is in the best interest of every child to move to the U.S. I know they are not necessarily celebrated in adoption circles, but I do agree with the intent (as I interpret it) of the UNICEF position on adoption – the priority should be to preserve the child’s first family, then to preserve his connection with his country and culture of origin, and then to consider international adoption third. Does that mean I am ‘anti-adoption’? No…well, I don’t think so. What it means is that I am very committed to adopting a child who is truly a good candidate for international adoption. I mean, we are moving this child across a (rather large) ocean. It’s a shock to the system. The benefits for that child (and don’t get me wrong – I’d like to think we’ll be good parents) should certainly outweigh the costs for that child.

And then I thought about giving birth, and being told that I could not take my baby home because I owed too much in hospital fees and signing a piece of paper that I couldn’t read that said she would be placed for adoption overseas. And my empathy took over.

Now, please do not misunderstand what I’m saying. I do not believe there are any adoptive parents who are okay with coercion. But this conversation – I’m back to the one with the agency now – forced me to realize that there are ways to look at adoption, and there are ways to look at adoption.

*He* was speaking to *me* as a prospective adoptive parent who wanted him to assuage her fears about a birthmother suddenly reappearing and reclaiming the baby that she was about to formally, legally, adopt.

*I* was speaking to *him* as a prospective adoptive parent who wanted him to tell me that no, there is no coercion, all forms to relinquish the child are administered verbally in the local dialect in the local language, that the birthmother would show up and confirm for me herself (preferably with a translator hired directly by me) that she did, indeed, want her baby to live with Rachel and DB in Anytown, USA. Please.

Neither answer is even possible to guarantee. But, in fact, he was reassuring me that version 1 basically doesn’t happen. Even though it could, obviously. And my questions were around – how do you know? Why don’t you know?

I know my views on this are clouded – which I think is natural – by a strong desire to raise a child. I read people’s blogs with pictures of their children and I play with my friend’s babies and watch my friends’ tummies grow and I will be honest – the mommy gene that I thought was totally missing in me seems to be coming into its own. I don’t know whether to fear it or embrace it. I don’t want it to cloud my judgment about ethics and transparency. I don’t want to ever let it convince me that a dark-gray area is really a light-gray area to justify my child’s adoption.

I want to be able to look at my child and say, “I did everything I could to learn everything about your history. I did everything I could to be sure that our home was where you belonged.”

And before we proceed any further with this whole thing, I think I need to figure out whether I’m okay with the fact that any adoption agency is going to sound a whole lot like that first reframe (anxious PAP).

Thoughts? Please?

Oh, and I also called another agency, but didn’t get to speak to them yet. Perhaps then my views will change, although my thoughts on that agency (in general terms) are best left to another post. Far into the future.

.

.

.

.

.

***OK, BIG DISCLAIMER HERE*** I am in NO WAY saying that MOST babies who are available for adoption are there because their mother engaged in illicit sexual intercourse. I FULLY REALIZE that women get pregnant accidentally in marriage, that women get pregnant intentionally in marriage and subsequently decide to relinquish, that a woman can choose to relinquish a child for ANY reason, that pregnancy can be the product of sexual coercion. In fact, I do RESEARCH on gender disparities in sexual relationships. I do get it.

(I’d write this post from the perspective of my DH and I, but since he’s still overseas, it seemed odd. He agrees with this. We’ve talked about it ad nauseum. It’s something we are both very passionate about.)

PS Before anyone suggests domestic adoption, we have considered it fully and have decided that it is not a good fit for us at this time. I’ve written about it before and for a number of reasons, international adoption is probably a better fit for us right now, although we are planning to adopt more than one child and are looking forward to considering domestic adoption in the future.

FYI

This blog represents my personal views of a wide variety of topics. Aside from my connection through marriage, I am absolutely in no way affiliated with, informed by, or directed by the FBI, and, as such, the FBI bears no responsibility or affiliation with this blog.

Because I am not affiliated with the FBI, all information in this blog is second-hand information, and is therefore subject to inaccuracies. (Of course, I would never publish something that I believed to be a lie; however, there is always a chance that I will inadvertently misrepresent something.)

Finally, despite what you might expect given my husband's occupation, I am what most people would call a "(flaming, or insert other word) liberal". I gleefully mock the policies and practices of the USG that I consider worthy of mocking. In doing so, I am exercising a fundamental Constitutional freedom. Of course, you are always welcome to disagree (and exercise your Constitutional rights).

I welcome comments and emails.

Thanks!

Archives

StatCounter

counter