I've ended my participation in the difficult debate that was going on at What's Wrong With the World. Of course, debaters think their point of view is right, but I was surprised by the adamant inability for Lydia McGrew to see the "other side." I still don't know the source of her stubbornness. I have to say, though, that it is tied in with her own adoption. But, emotionalism has never helped anyone. The lives of whole villages and towns, both in the adopted child’s original country and in his newly acquired one, are at stake because people behave emotionally.
My final, exit, post at WRWTW is:
My position is that transnational adoptions are difficult for the children being adopted, and for the community which they are being adopted into.There's more, of course, regarding bullying in the schoolyard, disregarding the existential angst adopted children exhibit, whether two parents at any cost trump geographical and racial displacement. It is all there where I try to rebut McGrew's positions on these.
If people wish to alleviate the poverty of those children, I think they should start by seeing how they can help the children in their own countries.
I also think that people should investigate very carefully these adoptions situations. Who profits from them, where these children are really coming from. If there is really no other family member that can take care of them.
Finally, because of such a high demand for children from overseas, people wishing to adopt should realize that they may be changing the dynamics of those communities. That mothers and other family members who could take care of their children are tempted to put them up for adoption as an easier way out.
