Is saving a child from poverty adequate justification for adoption?

Question

No one debates the dire need to save children from the ravages of poverty. And many countries around the world suffer from poverty so profound that citizens of more fortunate countries are severely taxed to understand it.

So, if saving children from poverty is the REAL motivation: The money that would be spent raising ONE child in a manner consistent with the standard of living in a well-developed country could held dozens, if not hundreds, of poor children elevate their standard of living to adequate levels AND allow them to stay with their families.

Answer 1

Oy, I'm torn on how to answer this.

Rationally I know there will always be a need to adopt, and that PAPs and APs can't just dish out thousands of dollars to send overseas.

But - instead of thinking of a child as a "trophy" that you can save from another country and be "your own"... think of it as a child you want to love because it's a CHILD, not a charity case.

Which kind of, er, scratches out the first part of my response, but hopefully you get what I mean.

Answer 2

The US spends millions, probably billions of dollars to fight poverty in other countries.  That does not include the money collected by every agency and organization that has it's hand out "to feed the hungry".  My question is:  Can you pour enough money into this problem to make a difference to ALL?  It doesn't appear to be possible.

Is SAVING one child better than helping scores of others just a TINY BIT?

Thinking about this with the tables turned.......if I lived in a third world country and my children were starving and/or dying would I want to keep them with me so we could all starve/die together?  Or do I give them a chance?

Of course, it would be hard choice to make.   Would I be THANKFUL to another family who adopted my child/children and saved them from this suffering?  or would I be resentful?  

For ME, I would give my children a chance to survive.  I would be thankful to another family for loving them and raising my children as their own.  

Would I want to hear anyone else's opinion who didn't have a clue about my life or my inability to provide for my children?  Definitely NOT.

Answer 3

Absolutely not and unfortunately its the number one problem with IA adoptions.  Pap's only want to help if they get a "child" out of the deal "for keeps". Human rights are secondary in their demented minds. They could give a c**p about what is truly best for a child.  

A child should never be separated from the person that means the most to them and always will (their mother).  

I could never separate a mother and child over a little money. Its taking advantage of someone less fortunate. Too many Aps "delude" themselves into thinking they can replace or make up for interfering with nature.

The "I can provide a better life for the child" is what they tell themselves to sleep better at night as well as guilt teens out of their children..

I think its pathetic and criminal and VERY UNCHRISTIAN.

Answer 4

I'm not sure what you're getting at but there is an error of logic in your post. If people tried to justify adoption (no idea why they would ever do so) and claimed the reason you mention you have to consider the alternatives.

You have no reason to think that the parent does not make a cash donation (that is the norm) to the community/nation in question nor do you have any reason to think that revenue from adoption is not used to support children who are not adopted (that is also very common). But most importantly you miss the fact that if the parent is going to add a child to her family, popping one out biologically leaves the impoverished child right where she started solely so that the parents' vanity can be served. That seems very silly if poverty is really an issue.  

Answer 5

Dear Torrejon,

I do not think poverty is justification on its own. Poverty ALWAYS has the potential to be merely temporary, even in the worst situations. No one has the power to know what the future holds for certain. Even the worst possible scenarios sometimes have surprising endings.

I also share the opinion saying poverty as a reason to separate families is classist and materialistic. This kind of thinking is what has brought forth the idea of eugenics and genocide. That money or possessions is what makes a solid family or human being, for that matter, is a horrible idea to perpetuate and would certianly cause some severe human rights violations if this attitude were one which became public policy. (Look at Georgia Tann's attitude and how much damage she did to adoption!) Whenever people decide they are "better" than others based on finances, religion, skin color etc. These people are forgetting that we are all in this together and that it is the character of a person that is truly important, whilst at the same time, demonstrating their own true colors for all to see! There are tragedies throughout history, great and small, which resulted from this kind of thinking. The Holocaust, Slavery, The BSE, The Spanish Inquisition, Darfur, The Rape of Nanking, many ethinc and racial crimes, etc.)

There are many great people who grew up in abject poverty but managed to lead exemplary and notable lives. Some of these people even attribute their sucess to their experiences of being poor. Many of these same people also attribute their sucess to having strong family ties and sharing themselves with one another.

Here's a list of poor kids who made good:

http://www.chiprowe.com/articles/poorkid...

Several of our presidents had very humble beginnings, as have many of the world's gretest humanitarians, entertainers, writers, artists and philosophers. The list goes on.

And don't forget Jesus. Many religions discourage too many material possessions. Monks and Nuns take vows of poverty to help keep them closer to God.

IMO, love is far more important than money in building character and creating a positive and productive human being.

An intact and loving family should never be purposely seperated for the sole reaon of poverty or under the guise of "charity". As another poster said, adoptions of this nature place an undue burden on the child and also has severe social ramifications on a larger scale. Someone else mentioned "donations" to the nation/orphanage/adoption center of the child's origin. This practice, is IMO not, in fact, a true donation. You get something in return.

Just to be clear, I feel the same way about the pencils, stickers, address labels, totebags etc. that many charities send to you as a "thank you" for a donation. (Please don't think for a second I am comparing a human being to an item. Just my feeling on the idea of true chairity does not include benefits for the doner aside from the knowedge that they have given help.) I would prefer that the money spent on those items be used towards the cause. To me, the biggest "thank you" is seeing a problem alieviated.

As to world hunger, this is something we all need to take part in solving. We as people need to become better at helping one another to solve this issue. Without compensation! Again, I believe true charity is anonymous and without expectaion of reciprocation. If we all worked together or gave just a little we could end the suffering of majority of the starving people in the world. Everyone has something they can give, even if it isn't money. Time, knowledge, emotional support are all necessary to achieve this goal. If any one is interested in knowing how, here are some suggestions:

Be aware:

http://www.worldhunger.org/

http://www.worldhungeryear.org/

Click to donate! Its free!: http://www.thehungersite.com/clickToGive...

http://freerice.com/index.php

Volunteer:

http://www.worldhungeryear.org/support/v...

http://www.endhungernetwork.org/voluntee...

http://www.actionagainsthunger.org/get-i...

More ways to help:

http://www.worldhunger.org/reduce.htm

http://www.netaid.org/act_now/hunger/

(These are just a few of the many organizations working on ways to solve this crisis. )

Interesting question and I obviously agree with your assessment! :)

Answer 6

If some one is interested in helping feeding them. I suggest Manna Worldwide. They do so much great.

But along the line of you question: We need to ask ourselves that every timee we buy our kids or ourselves something we don't really need.Every time we spent $50 in a stake dinner, we could have helped feed many children. Buying a pair of jeans for $100 could have clothed 100 kids.It's not limited to adoption, it's a lifestyle those of us in thriving countries a are plagued with.

But I think mostly, the part of someone that want to help, would rather make a HUGE difference in 1 child, something they can see and be involved in, than shell out money and hope it goes where they said it will go.

Would you give up basic healthcare for yourself to give milions of kids life saving vaccinations?

Would you forbid youself to splurge so that you can feed thousands of kids with the money saved?

Would you deprive your own children to feed many others?

Answer 7

"Saving" a child is not a good reason for adoption-- it would make a child in debt, in a sense, to his/her rescuers.  The best reason to adopt is to enrich the lives of both adopting parents and child, as they go through together as a Family.  It is seen that they both have much to give each other, not that the child alone was needy and had to be rescued.

Answer 8

If poverty is justification for adoption, that implies that only the rich are allowed to reproduce/parent.  Sounds like eugenics...frightening.

Answer 9

Saving a child should never be the motivation for adoption, whether it involves saving a child from poverty, war, abuse, foster care or poor parents.  No child should be forced to carry a burden of being indebted to their adoptive parents anymore than a child should feel indebted to their biological parents for simply being born.  

I think it's worth pointing out that the "savior" complex in adoptive parents can also extend to other areas of adoption, besides international adoption.  It's just not questioned if someone wants to "save" a child from foster care.  

But since we're talking about poverty in 3rd world countries, it is a very complex issue.  If simply throwing money at it would solve global poverty, it would have been done already by the billions and billions spent by First World nations, not the few thousands spent by adoptive parents.  It's naive and simplistic to think that cash alone will make all reasons for international adoption obsolete or even that the adoptive parents have the power to do so.  Looks great on a forum as a platform to bash IA parents, but it's hardly practical.  And you're operating on the assumption that 1) the money would go directly to people in need and 2) they would have something to buy with said money.  Those are two pretty big assumptions.

That said, I don't think that IA is the long-term solution to global poverty.  It's a band-aid, at best.  But for many countries, a necessary patch, one of many.  

I've never been in a situation where I had to choose between watching my children starve to death or reliquishing them to adoption by foreigners.  None of us on this forum have.  Which is why I'm reluctant about the "only orphans" stance on international adoption.  Are you suggesting that if a family is impoverished, they should be denied the same options that a non-impoverished family has?  Not to mention that if it's difficult to prove that a relinquished child wasn't trafficked, try proving who is a "true orphan" in a country without death certificates, or dental records, or medical examiners where there are mass graves in the jungle.  

Answer 10

I think the main motivation to adopt should be the desire to be a parent and the ability to love unconditionally.  The motivation to adopt from a poverty stricken country should not be to save a child from the ravages of poverty.

So my answer to this question is no.  I think you should save the whole family from poverty, not just the children.

As a person who was raised in a 3rd world country I can tell you that as a child, you cannot see the poverty, it is just your reality, so all you care about is that your family is taking care of you in whatever capacity they can.  

That being said, I also believe that poverty is not the only reason people in poor countries abandon their children, there are many complex and varied reasons and in my experience poverty is not the frontrunner.  Children may be parentless due to poverty (death of parent due to malnutrition or disease), but poor people do not just decide that they will give their children away because they want a few dollars.  I find that insulting because you could be referring to my mother who did not do that no matter how badly off we were.  She found a way to feed us and a way to a better life.  It was hard for her, she even had to leave us for a few years, but sent enough back to us to make sure we were looked after until she could return.

One way I see my situation in adopting from my country of origin is that I am parenting children that could have been me, but unlike me their mother/father never returned for them.  However, my reasons for adopting are more selfish, I wanted to be a parent.

I do want my kids to have a better life, but I know am getting a lot more out it than they are.  

Answer 11

It is the PARENTS responsibility to provide and protect their children.  If they cannot, they are making a good desicion to find someone (or some way) to provide for the children.

It is sad that many countries don't have social welfare like developed countries, but until that happens, things won't change for the children.

It is not the responsibility of anyone else to provide for poor families except for the government or leaders of that country to get it togehter and help those who need it.

It is nice, however, if people like to help through charities.  Try Kiva.org.  Someone showed this to me and I love it!

Answer 12

I'd really rather see only true orphans who have been unable to find an adoptive placement in their own country be placed for international adoption.

On the other hand, I've never lived in real poverty. I don't know what it's like to watch my children suffer and die from lack of basic needs, so I can definitely understand why a family would think children would be better off being raised in a wealthier country, sad as that is.

I also don't think it's as simple as just sending money. You can't just pour in the dollars and expect things to work out alright in countries with unstable governments, lack of available services, and poor infrastructure. (I have a degree in International Relations with a concentration in Development, so I'm not speaking without knowledge here.)

I'm NOT saying not to donate money. It helps, it really does, and a lot of charitable organizations are doing great work. But it doesn't mean that if enough cash accumulated, everything would work itself out, because the problems often run deeper.

I don't think international adoption should be seen as a solution to poverty, I think a child being placed (if placement is necessary) within the country is best if it's possible, and as I said, I would rather see those adopted be true orphans. Still, I do think we need to acknowledge that the problem of poverty is complex.

Answer 13

Dear Torrejon,

This is such a thought provoking question.

Most reasons for wanting to adopt become fairly lame after coming here.  You all are so awesome at getting your point across.

Now to the question at hand.  On paper it sounds like money would solve all the problems.  We have always contributed a significant amount of money to Africa and its just a drop in the bucket.  The issues are more complex.

Self sustaining practices have to be taught, education, medicine/hospitals etc, and then there is the war, violence, and corruption in those countries too.  There are so many layers to this issue.  I am no expert here either but we are now tied to Ethiopia forever.  These issues do weigh on my heart and I am searching for answers.

Another layer is how much involvement should one country have in supporting another?  Is it right to send the message that being westernized is better?  How about indigenous people, are we setting the example that city life is better?  In educating people, are we telling them that their cultural ways and taboos are wrong and ours are better?  Much of the help today comes thru churches and i know they share their "word of the Lord" with them, is that right?  Is it hypocritical to "save" another country, when injustices still occur here at home?  We are changing the very core of who they are a people by trying to help, is that right?  (not trying to be sarcastic.  These are the questions i ask myself.)

We wanted to provide a parentless child a home.  It was surprising to find that DD had a living parent.  I don't believe that poverty is a good enough reason to lose a child to adoption.  Until that problem is solved children are currently dying.  Thats the part that eats at me.

I have no "answers".  You make a really great point.  The complexities are astounding.  I wish I had the answer, truly.