A quickie post cribbed from a blog comment because my back is still giving me Hades.
Why do articles about adoption corruption always start by introducing us to a happy family who may have or did benefit from the corruption? It’s impossible for most people to take adoption corruption seriously in the first place–if you doubt me, read the article comments. Seeing photos of smiling babies and then being told about corruption is just the article arguing against itself, and a none-too-subtle suggestion that nothing really need be done.
In fact, it seems to me that whenever *any* change to adoption is mentioned, people panic, sure that even good changes (open adoptions, open records, etc.) will result in fewer adoptions…by which they mean fewer children for families who want them. But adoption was supposed to be about families for children who need them.
Of course no child deserves to be starved (of food or love), but is a home in the US (or France) really the best solution for every hungry child? And why doesn’t the US (judging by our foreign policy, anyway) care about starving adults? Maybe because they’re not cute and we aren’t allowed to/don’t want to take them home?
International adoption is not philanthropy, and it never will be. It’s a purchase.